Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 85 views

    TUMEY vs. Ohio, Tanada vs. Paec Impartial Court Tribunal

    Uploaded by

    fonz cabrillos
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Philippine Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) Commissioners could not impartially determine the safety of the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant-1 (PNPP-1) due to a lack of objectivity. Specifically, several Commissioners had previously served in senior roles at the PAEC where they helped distribute pamphlets declaring nuclear power plants as safe. This prejudgment of PNPP-1's safety, as evidenced by the official pamphlets, meant the Commissioners could not sit in judgment without displaying a grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack of jurisdiction. The Court therefore held the Commissioners were disqualified from ruling on the plant's safety.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    TUMEY vs. Ohio, Tanada vs. Paec Impartial Court Tribunal

    Uploaded by

    fonz cabrillos
    85 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Philippine Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) Commissioners could not impartially determine the safety of the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant-1 (PNPP-1) due to a lack of objectivity. Specifically, several Commissioners had previously served in senior roles at the PAEC where they helped distribute pamphlets declaring nuclear power plants as safe. This prejudgment of PNPP-1's safety, as evidenced by the official pamphlets, meant the Commissioners could not sit in judgment without displaying a grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack of jurisdiction. The Court therefore held the Commissioners were disqualified from ruling on the plant's safety.

    Original Title

    TUMEY Vs. Ohio, Tanada Vs. Paec Impartial Court tribunal

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the Philippine Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) Commissioners could not impartially determine the safety of the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant-1 (PNPP-1) due to a lack of objectivity. Specifically, several Commissioners had previously served in senior roles at the PAEC where they helped distribute pamphlets declaring nuclear power plants as safe. This prejudgment of PNPP-1's safety, as evidenced by the official pamphlets, meant the Commissioners could not sit in judgment without displaying a grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack of jurisdiction. The Court therefore held the Commissioners were disqualified from ruling on the plant's safety.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    85 views2 pages

    TUMEY vs. Ohio, Tanada vs. Paec Impartial Court Tribunal

    Uploaded by

    fonz cabrillos
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Philippine Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) Commissioners could not impartially determine the safety of the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant-1 (PNPP-1) due to a lack of objectivity. Specifically, several Commissioners had previously served in senior roles at the PAEC where they helped distribute pamphlets declaring nuclear power plants as safe. This prejudgment of PNPP-1's safety, as evidenced by the official pamphlets, meant the Commissioners could not sit in judgment without displaying a grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack of jurisdiction. The Court therefore held the Commissioners were disqualified from ruling on the plant's safety.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Tumey v. Ohio - 273 U.S. 510, 47 S. Ct.

    437 (1927)

    RULE:

    All questions of judicial qualification may not involve constitutional validity. Thus matters of kinship,
    personal bias, state policy, remoteness of interest, would seem generally to be matters merely of
    legislative discretion. But it certainly violates the Fourteenth Amendment and deprives a defendant in a
    criminal case of due process of law, to subject his liberty or property to the judgment of a court the
    judge of which has a direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest in reaching a conclusion against him
    in his case.

    FACTS:

    Plaintiff Tumey was arrested and brought before Mayor Pugh, of the Village of North College Hill,
    charged with unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor. He moved for his dismissal because of the
    disqualification of the Mayor to try him, under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Mayor denied the
    motion, proceeded to the trial, and convicted plaintiff. The conviction was reversed by the Court of
    Common Pleas of Hamilton County. On appeal by the State, the Court of Appeals of the first appellate
    district of Ohio affirmed the judgment of the Mayor. The State Supreme Court denied plaintiff’s petition.
    In this current petition for certiorari, plaintiff contended that he was denied due process of law when he
    was convicted of violating the state's Prohibition Act because the mayor who convicted him had a direct,
    pecuniary interest in his conviction. Specifically, the mayor could only be paid for his services as a judge
    if he convicted those who were brought before him, and the mayor had an interest in generating
    revenue for his village by convicting and fining those before him.

    ISSUE:

    Under the circumstances, were the plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment rights violated?

    ANSWER:

    Yes.

    CONCLUSION:

    The Court held that the plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment rights and due process rights were violated
    when his liberty or property was subjected to the judgment of a court the judge of which had a direct,
    personal, substantial, and pecuniary interest in reaching a conclusion against him in his case. According
    to the court, plaintiff had a due process right to be tried by an impartial judge
    Tanada v. Philippine Atomic Energy Commission [GR 70632, 11 February 1986]; also Nuclear Free
    Philippines

    Coalition v. Napocor [ GR L-68474]

    Resolution En Banc, Plana (J) : 5 concur, 2 took no part

    Facts: The Official Philippine Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) pamphlet, entitled “The Philippine
    Nuclear Power

    Plant-1″ was published in 1985 when Commissioners Manuel Eugenio, Quirino Navarro, and Alejandro
    Ver Albano had already been appointed to their present positions. Other pamphlets entitled “Nuclear
    Power – Safe, Clean, Economical, and Available,” and “Nuclear Power Plant and Environmental Safety”
    were issued earlier, but the majority of the Commissioners even then were already occupying positions
    of responsibility in the PAEC.

    Commissioner Eugenio was Acting Chief of the PAEC Department on Nuclear Technology and
    Engineering from June, 1980 to July, 1984; Commissioner Navarro was PAEC Chief Science Research
    Specialist from May, 1980 to September, 1984; and Commissioner Albano was PAEC Deputy
    Commissioner from March, 1980 to September, 1984. These pamphlets continued to be distributed by
    PAEC as late as March 1985. Their official distribution continued after the filing of National Power
    Corporation (Napocor)’s motion for conversion on 27 June 1984 and even after PAEC had issued its
    order dated 26 February 1985 formally admitting the said motion for conversion.

    In GR 70632, the competence of the PAEC Commissioners to pass judgment on the safety of the
    Philippine Nuclear Power Plant-1 (PNPP-1) was questioned; (2) the validity of Napocor’s
    motion/application for the conversion of its construction permit into an operating license for PNPP-1
    was assailed, and (3) PAEC Commissioners were charged with bias and prejudgment.

    Issue: Whether the PAEC Commissioner may sit in judgment in determining the safety of PNPP-1.

    Held: The PAEC Commissioners would be acting with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
    jurisdiction were they to sit in judgment upon the safety of the plant, absent the requisite objectivity
    that must characterize such an important inquiry because they already have prejudged the safety of
    PNPP-1. The PAEC Commissioners cannot escape responsibility from the official pamphlets, which clearly
    indicate the prejudgment that PNPP-1 is safe. The official distribution of the pamphlets continued when
    the Commissioners had already been appointed to their present positions and even after PAEC had
    issued its order dated 26 February 1985 formally admitting Napocor’s motion for conversion.

    You might also like