High Court upholds Memorandum Circular 58

Decisions, orders or resolutions by the secretary of the Department of Justice are not open to appeal, and petitions to review them may not be filed before the Office of the President, according to a Supreme Court ruling.

The Supreme Court, in a 16-page decision written by Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta, upheld Memorandum Circular 58, which provides that appeals or petitions for review on the acts of the secretary of Justice will only be allowed on cases involving offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua, which carries a maximum penalty of 40 years imprisonment and an accessory penalty of a lifetime ban from holding public office.

“Memorandum Circular No. 58 was promulgated by the Office of the President, and it is settled that the acts of the secretaries of such departments, performed and promulgated in the regular course of business are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive,” the court ruled.

The Office of the President promulgated Memorandum Circular 58 on June 30, 1993.

Appellate court affirmed

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of the petition for review filed by Judge Adoracion Angeles, the petitioner who assailed the dismissal of her petition for review by the Office of the
President. She filed the petition after the Justice department dismissed the charges that she filed against a certain Michael Vistan for violation of Republic Act 7610, penalizing child abuse, and Presidential Decree 1829, penalizing obstruction of apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders.

In her petition, Angeles argued that Memorandum Circular 58 was invalid because it diminishes the power of control of the President by bestowing almost unfettered power on the Secretary of Justice, a subordinate officer.

But the Court junked her argument, saying that the President’s act to delegate authority to the secretary of Justice by virtue of Memorandum Circular 58 was well within the purview of the doctrine of qualified political agency.

That doctrine states: “All executive administrative organizations are adjuncts of the Executive department; the heads of various executive departments are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive; and, except in cases where the Chief Executive is required by the Constitution or law to act in person or the exigencies of the situation demand that he act personally, the multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and through the executive departments, and the acts of the secretaries of such departments, performed and promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive.”

According to the Court, “It would be unreasonable to impose upon the President the task of reviewing all preliminary investigations decided by the Secretary of Justice.”

The ruling added: “To do so will unduly hamper the other important duties of the President by having to scrutinize each and every decision of the secretary of Justice notwithstanding the latter’s expertise in said matter.”

The Supreme Court also affirmed the appellate court’s ruling that the failure to arrest Vistan makes him a fugitive and was not obstruction of justice.

The High Tribunal also pointed out that the Court of Appeals did not make a mistake in upholding the dismissal by the provincial prosecutor and the secretary of Justice of the petitioner’s complaint for violation of Republic Act 7610 against Vistan. –WILLIAM B. DEPASUPIL REPORTER, Manila Times