Soliven V Makasiar Case Digest free essay sample

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition to review the decision of the RTC of Manila. The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court regarding G. R Nos. 82585, 82827 and 83979; wherefore, the petitioner’s were lump together considering these cases were same in character. In these consolidated cases, 3 principal issues were raised: 1) whether or not petitioners were denied due process when information for libel were filed against them although the finding of the existence of prima facie case was still under review by the Secretary of Justice and, subsequently, by the President; 2) whether or not the constitutional rights of petitioner Beltran were violated when respondent RTC judge issued a warrant for his arrest without personally examining the complainant and the witnesses to determine probable cause; 3) whether or not the President of the Philippines, under the Constitution, may initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners through filing of a complainant-affidavit. The following subsequent events informs about the first issue that rendered moot and academic: On March 30, 1988, the Secretary of Justice denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration and upheld the resolution of the Undersecretary of Justice sustaining the City Fiscals finding of a prima facie case against petitioners; Also another motion for consideration filed by petitioner Beltran was denied on April 7, 1988; On appeal, the President, through the Executive Secretary, affirmed the resolution affirmed the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice on May 2, 1988; And on May 16, 1988, The Executive Secretary denied the motion for reconsideration. We will write a custom essay sample on Soliven V Makasiar Case Digest or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page The second issue calls for an interpretation of the constitutional provision on the issuance of arrest warrant. The third issue argues on the presidential privilege of immunity from any suit. Petitioner’s Contention: Petitioners’ contention is that they have been denied the administrative remedies available under the law has lost factual support. Petitioner Beltran’s contention is that he could not be held liable for libel because of the privileged character of the publication. Petitioner Beltran also claim that to allow libel case to proceed would produce a chilling effect (fear) on press freedom. Issue: Whether or not freedom of speech was abridged. Ruling: Libel is not protected by the free speech clause, and some provocative statements which if taken literally will appear disrespectful and cause shame on behalf of public figures specially the President rendering them irritated, bothered, and could cause hindrance and distraction to their job. Finding no grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the public respondents, the Court resolved to dismiss the petitions in G. R. Nos. 82585, 82827, and 83979. Hence, the writs for certiorari and prohibition prayed for cannot be issued.