In AM No. 10-1-13-SC, Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated January 11, 2010 of Acting Director Aleu A. Amante, PIAB-C, Office of the Ombudsman, March 2, 2010, the Philippine Supreme Court reiterated he following basic doctrines:
1. The Court held that under the ruling in In re Wenceslao Laureta and Alzua v. Arnalot, a criminal complaint for violation of sec. 3(e) of RA 3019, based on the legal correctness of the official acts of Justices of the Supreme Court, cannot prosper and should not be entertained. This is not to say that Members of the Court are absolutely immune from suit during their term, for they are not. The Constitution provides that the appropriate recourse against them is to seek their removal from office if they are guilty of culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. Only after removal can they be criminally proceeded against for their transgressions. While in office and thereafter, and for their official acts do not constitute impeachable offenses, recourses against them and their liabilities therefor, are as defined in the above rulings.
2. The Court also found that the Lozanos also brazenly misquoted and misused applicable constitutional provisions to justify their case against the retired Justices. Citing sec. 4(3), Art. VIII of the Constitution, the Court stressed that cases or matters heard by a division can be decided or resolved with the concurrence of at least three members of a division.
3. “In our view, the complainants’ errors do not belong to the genre of plain and simple errors that lawyers commit in the practice of their profession. Their plain disregard, misuse, and misrepresentation of constitutional provisions constitute serious misconduct that reflects on their fitness for continued membership in the Philippine Bar,” the Court said.
