GR L 4670; (May, 1951) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4670 May 30, 1951
NICANOR MARONILLA-SEVA, petitioner, vs. LORENZO B. ANDRADA, FERDINAND MARCOS and MANUEL CONCORDIA, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioner, Nicanor Maronilla-Seva, as trial judge advocate, filed a petition for certiorari against the respondents. The petition challenged the act of respondent Major Lorenzo B. Andrada, a member of a general court-martial trying three army lieutenants for offenses committed in relation to their office. Major Andrada allowed the other respondents, Ferdinand Marcos and Manuel Concordia, to appear as counsel for the accused over the petitioner’s objection. The objection was based on Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution , which allegedly prohibits Marcos and Concordia from appearing as such counsel. Respondent Major Andrada raised a preliminary objection that the petition suffered from a defect of parties because it was filed against him alone and not against all members of the general court-martial.
ISSUE
Whether the general court-martial, through respondent Major Andrada, acted in excess of its jurisdiction or without authority in allowing Congressmen Ferdinand Marcos and Manuel Concordia to appear as counsel for the accused before the court-martial.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari. The Court held that the objection regarding the defect of parties was well-taken, but to save time, it considered the other members of the general court-martial as included respondents to decide the case on its merits. Applying its prior ruling in the consolidated cases of Ferdinand Marcos and Manuel Concordia vs. Chief of Staff and General Court-Martial Armed Forces of the Philippines (G.R. Nos. L-4663, L-4671), the Court held that Congressmen Ferdinand Marcos and Manuel Concordia were disqualified or prohibited by the Constitution from acting as counsels for the accused before a court-martial, which is a tribunal or court, for crimes committed in relation to the accused’s office. Consequently, the respondent court-martial acted in excess of its jurisdiction or without authority in allowing them to appear as counsel. The act complained of was set aside. No costs were awarded.