Statutes of the Syro-Malabar Major Archiepiscopal Ordinary Tribunal

The major archiepiscopal tribunal is a collegiate tribunal, erected in accordance with c.1063 of CCEO on 1 September 1994, to exercise the ministry of justice within the territory of the Syro-Malabar Church. It serves especially as a tribunal of appeals from metropolitan tribunals, though it is competent also to adjudicate cases in the first instance according to the norm of law. It is subject not only to the vigilance of the supreme tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, Rome, which watches over the exercise of justice in the Catholic Church all over the world in the name of the Roman Pontiff, but also to the immediate vigilance of the general moderator of the administration of justice of the Syro-Malabar Church in accordance with c.1062 of CCEO and the norms of the statutes of the superior tribunal of the Syro-Malabar Church.


TRIBUNAL MINISTERS

The Ordinary Tribunal has a President, one Vice-President, and ten judges. There are four defenders of bond, two promoters of Justice and one notary. There are also advocates accredited to the Major Archiepiscopal Tribunal. All the judges and defenders of bond of the Major Archiepiscopal Ordinary Tribunal have the degree of doctorate in Canon Law. Most of the tribunal members have other ecclesiastical offices.

 

TRIBUNAL MINISTERS- 2019 July

I. PRESIDENT
(Judicial Vicar)


1. Dr. Thomas Adoppillil

II. VICE-PRESIDENTS
(Adj. Judicial Vicar)

2. Dr. Joseph Varanath

III.JUDGES:

3. Dr. Joseph Pathiyamoola MCBS
4. Dr. Varghese Palathingal
5. Dr. John Kochupurackal CST
6. Dr. Joseph Thoompunkal
7. Dr. Berchmans Kodackal
8. Dr. James Thalachelloor
9. Dr. Vincent Chittilappilly
10. Dr. Mathew Changankary
11. Dr. Thomas Thengumpally
12. Dr. Joseph Mukaleparambil

IV. DEFENDERS OF BOND

1. Dr. Mani Kuthodiputhenpurayil CST
2. Dr. Joseph Velinjalil
3. Dr. John Chennakuzhy
4. Dr. Sebastian Muttamthottil MCBS

NOTARIES:

1. Sr. Subha MSJ
(Notary & Office Secretary)

Address of the Tribunal

MOUNT ST. THOMAS, P.B.NO.3110, Kakkanad P.O. Kochi 682 030, KERALA, INDIA
Telephone : 0091- 484-2424768, 2424780, 6461269, Fax : 0091- 484-2422727, E mail : mattribunal@gmail.com

The Major Archiepiscopal Tribunal was erected on September 1, 1994 as per the prescription of CCEO canon 1063§1. This tribunal is the appellate tribunal in second and further grades, with judges serving in rotation, for cases already decided in the lower tribunals of the Syro-Malabar Church within its proper territory. It is governed by the statutes.

This tribunal is also competent to judge in first and further grades, with judges serving in rotation, the cases:

1. of exarchs and delegates of the patriarch who are not bishops
2. of physical or juridic persons immediately subject to the patriarch
3. of institutes of consecrated life of pontifical right
4. of superiors of institutes of consecrated life of pontifical right who do not have a superior within the same institute who possesses judicial power;
5. reserved to this tribunal by particular law


TRIBUNAL ACTIVITIES

The great majority of the cases dealt with by the Ordinary Tribunal are marriage nullity cases. From September 1, 1994 till December 31, 2013 this tribunal handled marriage 2087 nullity cases.

Major topics of the recent issue of the periodical are: An Ecclesiology of Communion from the Eastern and Ecumenical Perspectives, Prospects for the New Evangelization of Syro-Malabar Major Archiepiscopal Church, Eparchial Bishop/Local Hierarch and the Religious, Marriages of Unbaptized Persons: Misapprehensions and the Right approach of the Church, Sharing Spiritual Activities and Resources between the Catholic Church and the Non-Catholic Churches, The Office of the Protosyncellus, Canonical Basis of Statutes and Constitutions according to CCEO and CIC, and Particular Law of the Syro-Malabar Church: An Evaluation of the Present Stage.

 

Title : Eastern Legal Thought
Volume : 1
Language : English
Price : 200
Title : Eastern Legal Thought
Volume : 2
Language : English
Price : 200


REPORT OF THE ORDINARY TRIBUNAL IN THE YEAR 2013

Activity Of The Tribunal In Second Instance

CAUSES OF MATRIMONIAL NULLITY HANDLED AFTER AN ORDINARY PROCESS IN FIRST INSTANCE

1 Causes pending at the beginning of the year 29
2 Causes introduced this year 313
3 Decrees of ratification (total number) 279
4 Grounds of nullity considered in the decrees (If a decision considered several grounds of nullity, these are to be indicated separately; thus the total number of decisions under 4 may be greater than that under 3)
 
CCEO c. 801 (Impotence): 01
CCEO c. 818,1° (Lack of sufficient use of reason): --
CCEO c. 818,2° (Grave lack of discretion) 32
CCEO c. 818,3° (Inability to assume): 25
CCEO c. 820§2 (Error of quality): 88
CCEO c. 821 (Fraud)

47

CCEO cc. 820§2, 821 (Fraudulent error)

--

CCEO c. 824§2 (Simulation total) 13
CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against fidelity)

26

CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against children) 06
CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against good of the spouses)

20

CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against indissolubility) 06
CCEO c. 825 (Force or grave fear)

44

CCEO c. 826 (Condition): 02
5 Sentences given (after an ordinary examination): 29
a) In favour of nullity ("constat de nullitate", at least on one ground )

16

b) In favour of the bond ("non constat de nullitate": on every ground alleged)

13

6 Grounds of nullity considered in the sentences sentences (if a sentence considered several grounds of nullity, these are to be indicated separately; thus the number of decisions under of 6 may be greater than the sum of 5a and 5b)
AFFIRMATIVE (constat de nullitate)
NEGATIVE (non constat de nullitate)
CCEO c. 818,2 (Grave lack of discretion)
04
02
CCEO c. 818,3º (Inability to assume)
01
01
CCEO c. 820§2 (Error of quality)
04
02
CCEO c. 824§2 (Total simulation)
04
02
CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against fidelity):
--
02
CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against good of spouses):
03
01
CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against indissolubility)
--
--
CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against children):
--
--
CCEO c. 821 (Fraud)
01
--
CCEO c. 825 (Force or grave fear)
04
02
CCEO c. 826     (Condition)
--
01
 
7 Causes abandoned  
a) Through renunciation (due to the death of the respondent): Nil
b) Through abatement (Peremptio) Nil
8 Causes pending at the end of the year 34

 

Activity Of The Tribunal In Third & Subsequent Instances

CAUSES OF MATRIMONIAL NULLITY HANDLED AFTER A PROCESS IN SECOND INSTANCE

1 Causes pending at the beginning of the year 02
2 Causes introduced this year 32
3 Decrees of ratification (total number) 19
4 Grounds of nullity considered in the decrees: (If a decision considered several grounds of nullity, these are to be indicated separately; thus the total number of decisions under 4 may be greater than that under 3)
 
CCEO c. 818,2° (Grave lack of discretion) 02
CCEO c. 818,3° (Inability to assume) --
CCEO c. 820§2 (Error of quality) 09
CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against good of the spouses) 01
CCEO c. 825 (Force or grave fear) 03
CCEO c. 824§2 (Total simulation) 03
CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against children) 03
   
5 Sentences given (after an ordinary examination) 10
a) In favour of nullity ("constat de nullitate", at least on one ground) 09
b) In favour of the bond ("non constat de nullitate": on every ground alleged)

01

6 Grounds of nullity considered in the sentences sentences (if a sentence considered several grounds of nullity, these are to be indicated separately; thus the number of decisions under of 6 may be greater than the sum of 5a and 5b)
AFFIRMATIVE (constat de nullitate)
NEGATIVE (non constat de nullitate)
CCEO c. 818,2° (Grave lack of discretion)
02
--
CCEO c. 818,3º (Inability to assume)
01
--
CCEO c. 820§2 (Error of quality):
04
--
CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against good of the spouses)
01
--
CCEO c. 825     (Force or grave fear)
01
--
7 Causes abandoned  
a) Through renunciation (due to the death of the respondent): Nil
b) Through abatement (Peremptio) Nil
8 Decrees of Nullity of Sentence: Nil
9 Causes pending at the end of the year 05

 

5.Activities of the Lower Tribunals in the Year 2018

There are seventeen eparchies in four metropolitan provinces and one archeparchy within the proper territory of the Syro Malabar Church. All the four metropolitan provinces have metropolitan tribunals and they function as the tribunals of appeal in the second instance as per c. 1064§1. The metropolitan tribunal of Kottayam judges cases only of the Archeparchy of the metropolitan of Kottayam. The eparchies of Belthangady, Thuckaly and Bhadravathi have single judge tribunals. The cases of the eparchy of Ramanathapuram are handled by the eparchial tribunal of Palakkad.

The activities of the eparchial and metropolitan tribunals during the year 2018 are briefly given in the following tables:   : 

/* */

 

Cases Processed by the Tribunals of the First Instance during the Year 2018

 

Tribunals

 

Cases for Process

 

Cases Disposed

 

Sl. No.

 

Eparchial and Metropolitan Tribunals
(First Instance)

Cases Pending

Cases Introduced

Total

Affirmative Sentences

Negative Sentences

Total Sentences

Cases Abandoned

Penal Cases

Ratum et non-consum

Total

Cases Pending

1

Belthangady

09

21

30

21

-

21

-

-

-

-

09

2

Bhadravathi

04

-

04

02

-

02

-

-

-

-

02

3

Changanacherry

56

108

164

123

07

130

02

-

-

02

32

4

Ernakulam-Ang.

37

81

118

93

-

93

09

-

-

09

16

5

Idukki

12

28

40

21

-

21

-

-

-

-

19

6

Irinjalakkuda

110

66

176

87

04

91

11

-

04

15

70

7

Kanjirappally

26

26

52

35

-

35

-

-

-

-

17

8

Kothamangalam

40

41

81

32

01

33

-

-

01

01

47

9

Kottayam

03

25

28

27

-

27

-

-

-

-

01

10

Mananthavady

06

50

56

41

-

41

05

-

-

05

10

11

Mandya

01

12

13

06

-

06

02

-

-

02

05

12

Palai

42

67

109

68

05

73

03

-

-

03

33

13

Palakkad

22

27

49

20

-

20

03

-

-

03

26

14

Ramanathapuram

06

07

13

03

-

03

03

-

-

03

07

15

Tellicherry

35

106

141

72

01

73

20

-

-

20

48

16

Thamarassery

24

37

61

40

-

40

-

-

-

-

21

17

Thuckalay

03

03

06

03

-

03

01

-

-

01

02

18

Trichur

70

93

163

80

02

82

07

-

-

07

74

 

 

Total

 

500

 

791

 

1291

 

771

 

20

 

791

 

63

 

-

 

05

 

68

 

432

 

Tribunal records show that there has been a definite hike in the number of cases in most of the tribunals. This hike may be due to the increased general awareness among the people of the new provisions in the motu proprio which make the nullity procedure of marriage cases more simple, easy and quick.

 

Cases Processed by the Tribunals of the Second Instance during the Year 2018

 

Tribunals

 

Cases for Process

 

Cases Disposed

 

Sl. No.

Metropolitan Tribunals
(Second Instance)

Cases Pending

Cases Introduced

Total

Decrees of Ratification

Affirmative Sentences

Negative Sentences

Cases Abandoned

Total

Cases Pending

1

Changanacherry

03

08

11

-

07

02

02

11

00

2

Ernakulam-Ang.

-

01

01

01

-

-

-

01

00

3

Tellicherry

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

00

00

4

Trichur

02

01

03

-

-

-

-

-

03

 

 

Total

 

05

 

10

 

15

 

01

 

07

 

02

 

02

 

12

 

03

 

Back to Top

Never miss an update from Syro-Malabar Church