A QUICK GUIDE TO ORAL ARGUMENTS; HISTORY AND LEGAL BASIS First of - TopicsExpress

A QUICK GUIDE TO ORAL ARGUMENTS; HISTORY AND LEGAL BASIS First of three parts By: Jay B. Rempillo and Anna Katrina M. Martinez Deriving its lineage from a borrowed tradition, the practice of hearing cases on “Oral Argument” before the Supreme Court is an important though largely unappreciated and misunderstood process. The practice of hearing oral argument is taken from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), which hears arguments starting the first Monday in October—typically two one-hour arguments a day—on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays in two-week intervals until late April (with breaks in between).1 Rule 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States provides that “(u)nless it orders otherwise, the Court sits to hear arguments from 10 a.m. until noon and from 1 p.m. until 3 p.m.” Oral argument is governed by Rule 28.2 Unlike the SCOTUS, there is no clear-cut definition yet of “Oral Argument” in Philippine law books. The Philippine Legal Encyclopedia defines “Oral” and “Argument” separately: “Oral” as “by speech or word of mouth, as contrasted with writing,” and “Argument” as “a reason advanced to prove a point or to persuade a person.” The closest definition, however, is that found in Black’s Law Dictionary which defines “Oral Argument” as “statements that are given orally by an attorney, either in defense of a client or to rebut the opposing party’s statements.” Retired Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, in one of his books aptly titled Battles in the Supreme Court, wrote: “Oral arguments, which are rare, are usually held only in cases involving difficult and complicated questions.” The former Chief Justice said that the Court delineates the issues; and the lawyers for each side, who are expected to come extensively prepared, dwell on these issues within the allotted time. However, members of the Court may, and usually do, ask questions on any topic, issue or matter. Hence, the allotted time is usually extended. The lawyers are usually required to follow up and close their cases with the filing of written memoranda after the oral arguments. Under the Revised Rules of Court, when allowed at its own instance or upon motion of a party, the Court may hear the parties in oral argument on the merits of a case, or on any material incident in connection therewith. The argument, however, shall be limited to such matters as the Court may specify in its order or resolution. And unless authorized by the court, only one counsel may argue for a party. The duration allowed for each party, the sequence of the argumentation, and all other related matters shall be as directed by the court. Likewise, motions shall not be set for hearing and, unless the court otherwise directs, no hearing or oral argument shall be allowed in support thereof. In the first two cases in 2013 to be heard on oral argument, the Court gave counsels for each side different time periods to present their arguments. The difference, however, could be attributed to the circumstances of each case. In Jose Jesus M. Disini, et al. v. The Secretary of Justice, et al. and companion cases, G.R. No. 203335 and companion cases, the Court considered fifteen separate petitions challenging the same statute, Republic Act No. 10175 (An Act Defining Cybercrime, Providing For The Prevention, Investigation, Suppression And The Imposition Of Penalties Therefor And For Other Purposes) and allowed only five counsels to argue specific issues previously defined by the Court, allotting ten minutes to each counsel, exclusive of interpellation by the Court. In Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205728, the Court gave the counsel only twenty minutes to present arguments, exclusive of interpellation by the Court. In both cases, the Court gave the Solicitor General, as counsel for the government, the same amount of time provided to the petitioners to present argument. Rule 10, Section 3 of The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court further states that “The Court may hear any case on oral argument upon defined issues. The petitioner shall argue first, followed by the respondent and the amicus curiae, if any. Rebuttal arguments may be allowed by the Chief Justice or the Chairperson. If necessary, the Court may invite amicus curiae.” An amicus curiae, literally “friend of the court”, is a person recognized by the Court as an expert on a particular point of law that the Court may choose to invite to provide additional perspectives to the Court. In 2004, the Court invited three amici curiae to its oral arguments on three petitions (G. R. Nos. 161434, 161634, and 161824) that sought the disqualification of respondent movie actor Ronald Allan Kelley Poe, popularly known as Fernando Poe, Jr., from the presidential race on the ground that he was not a natural-born Filipino citizen. The Court eventually ruled that Poe was a natural-born Filipino citizen. Section 4 of the same Rule states that: “Oral arguments shall be recorded by at least two stenographers, alternately taking stenographic notes of the proceedings. The stenographers shall transcribe their notes and submit the consolidated transcripts to the Clerk of Court or the Division Clerk of Court within twenty-four hours from the termination of the oral arguments. The Clerk of Court or the Division Clerk of Court shall review the transcripts of stenographic notes, using the tape or electronic recording of the hearing for verification purposes.” Oral arguments in the Philippine Supreme Court are held at the En Banc Session Hall located on the second floor of the SC Main Building along Padre Faura Street, Ermita, Manila and the Session Hall of the SC Baguio Building during its Summer Sessions. They are open to the public but seating is limited and on a first-come, first-seated basis. Starting in 2013, the Public Information Office has uploaded the complete audio recording of the oral arguments to the Supreme Court webpage to allow the public a more complete understanding of the questions posed and answers given during each case. For the complete audio recording of the oral argument in the Cybercrime case, click sc.judiciary.gov.ph/features/oral_arguments/cybercrime/; for a complete audio recording of the oral argument in the “Team Patay/Team Buhay” case, click sc.judiciary.gov.ph/features/teampataybuhay/. (The next installment will focus on experiences of those who have been involved in oral arguments before the SC; the last installment will focus on how the oral arguments contribute to the adjudication process.) 1 (From: “Visitor’s Guide to Oral Argument”, supremecourt.gov/visiting/visitorsguidetooralargument.aspx; last accessed March 18, 2013, 11:50 PM) 2 (See supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2010RulesoftheCourt.pdf; last accessed March 19, 2013, 12:35 am)