|
REPORT OF THE ORDINARY TRIBUNAL IN THE YEAR 2011
1. Seminar for the Tribunal Personnel
As the apex tribunal in the Syro Malabar Church, it has the right and the duty to give necessary guidelines in matters of ecclesiastical jurisprudence to the ministers working in various metropolitan and eparchial tribunals. With this purpose in mind, this tribunal arranges every year seminar for the ministers working in ecclesiastical tribunals, irrespective of the three Sui Iuris Churches in India. Accordingly, it organized a seminar on Thursday and Friday, December 1 and 2, 2011. There were 85 participants. The seminar was inaugurated by Mar Mathew Moolakatt, the General Moderator for the Administration of Justice. Mar Bosco Puthur, the Bishop of the Curia, made a benedictory talk. Adv. Lilly James, Pleader of the Government of Kerala, gave classes on the Major Issues in Civil Law in confrontation with the activities of the Church. Rev. Dr. Mathew Kochupurackal, the President of the Major Archiepiscopal Tribunal, explained in detail the procedure in declaring the nullity of marriages in the light of the instruction Dignitas Connubii. Mar George Alencherry, the Major Archbishop, gave the concluding message.
2. Visitation of The Metropolitan and Eparchial Tribunals
As part of implementing the prescription of the particular law of the Syro Malabar Church given in Appendix One of the Statutes of the Superior Tribunal in no. 5, the President/Vice Presidents of the Major Archiepiscopal Ordinary Tribunal with the mandate of the General Moderator visited all the Metropolitan and Eparchial tribunals of the Syro Malabar Church situated in Kerala.
Since such a visit was for the first time in the history of our Church, priority was given to adopt means to foster communion between the eparchial tribunals, and between the lower tribunals and the major archiepiscopal tribunal. The visit has helped to foster unity and uniformity of action among the various tribunals. It also has occasioned to recognize the great service the tribunal ministers render in our eparchies.
The visitors spent a few hours in the tribunal, meeting the tribunal personnel, interacting with them and examining the registers and dossiers. Information has been collected from the tribunals through a questionnaire of the following 40 points and a résumé of the information was presented to the synod of bishops held in August 2011.
- Number of Judges?
- Number of Defenders?
- Number of Notaries?
- Number of Advocates?
- Service of Religious Sisters?
- Service of Lay Persons?
- How many ministers with doctorate in Canon Law?
- Number of cases introduced in 2010?
- Number of cases closed in 2010?
- Number of cases pending in 2010?
- Procedure before admitting a case?
- Do you happen to reject cases? If so what is the main reason?
- Percentage of increase in the number of cases during the last five years
- The top three grounds on which the nullity is alleged?
- Average number of cases super rato et non consummato per year?
- Do you have cases other than marriage cases?
- Work load of the tribunal personnel? Whether they have other important offices?
- Is there anybody who is a full timer in office?
- How many priests with degree in Canon Law in the eparchy?
- How many from among them work in the tribunal?
- How is tribunal library?
- Participation of tribunal personnel in canonical seminars?
- How is the cooperation of parties?
- How is the cooperation of authorities?
- How is the cooperation of parish priests?
- How is the cooperation of others concerned?
- Collaboration with other tribunals?
- Office facilities?
- Availability and cooperation of experts (psychiatrists, psychologists, etc.)?
- Financial situation of the tribunal?
- Remuneration
- to tribunal personnel?
- Civil cases: Whether all who obtain decrees of nullity from Eccl. tribunals also get civil dissolution of the bond? Major problems with regard to civil effects of marriage?
- Time Table of the tribunal office?
- Proposals to the Eparchial Bishop and the department of Family Apostolate in the eparchies in order to better the situation
- Suggestions to the Major Archiepiscopal Ordinary Tribunal
- Suggestions to the concerned Metropolitan Tribunal of the second instance
- Suggestions to the concerned Eparchial tribunals of the first instance
- Suggestions to the General Moderator of Justice in the Syro Malabar Church
- Other relevant matters, if any
3. Activity Of The Tribunal In Second Instance
| 1 |
Causes pending at the beginning of the year |
7 |
| 2 |
Causes introduced this year |
241 |
| 3 |
Decrees of ratification (total number) |
212 |
| 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): |
-- |
| CCEO c. 818,1° (Lack of sufficient use of reason): |
01 |
| CCEO c. 818,2° (Grave lack of discretion) |
29 |
| CCEO c. 818,3° (Inability to assume): |
42 |
| CCEO c. 820§2 (Error of quality): |
44 |
| CCEO c. 821 (Fraud) |
21 |
| CCEO cc. 820§2, 821 (Fraudulent error) |
07 |
| CCEO c. 824§2 (Simulation total) |
15 |
| CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against fidelity) |
25 |
| CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against children) |
18 |
| CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against good of the spouses) |
36 |
| CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against indissolubility) |
15 |
| CCEO c. 825 (Force or grave fear) |
21 |
| CCEO c. 826 (Condition): |
09 |
| 5 |
Sentences given (after an ordinary examination): |
23 |
| a) In favour of nullity ("constat de nullitate", at least on one ground ) |
17 |
| b) In favour of the bond ("non constat de nullitate": on every ground alleged) |
06 |
| 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 |
06 |
| CCEO c. 818,3º (Inability to assume) |
01 |
-- |
| CCEO c. 820§2 (Error of quality) |
06 |
01 |
| CCEO c. 824§2 (Total simulation) |
03 |
02 |
| CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against fidelity): |
01 |
02 |
| CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against good of spouses): |
03 |
01 |
| CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against indissolubility) |
-- |
01 |
| CCEO c. 821 (Fraud) |
-- |
01 |
| CCEO c. 825 (Force or grave fear) |
02 |
-- |
| |
| 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 |
01 |
4. Activity Of The Tribunal In Third & Subsequent Instances
| 1 |
Causes pending at the beginning of the year |
01 |
| 2 |
Causes introduced this year |
21 |
| 3 |
Decrees of ratification (total number) |
18 |
| 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) |
04 |
| CCEO c. 818,3° (Inability to assume) |
03 |
| CCEO c. 820§2 (Error of quality) |
04 |
| CCEO c. 824§2 (Total simulation) |
01 |
| CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against good of the spouses) |
04 |
| CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against fidelity) |
03 |
| CCEO c. 825 (Force or grave fear) |
01 |
| |
| 5 |
Sentences given (after an ordinary examination) |
03 |
| a) In favour of nullity ("constat de nullitate", at least on one ground) |
03 |
| b) In favour of the bond ("non constat de nullitate": on every ground alleged) |
-- |
| 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 |
01 |
| CCEO c. 824§2 (Intention against good of the spouses) |
02 |
-- |
| 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 |
01 |
5. Activities Of The Lower Tribunals In The Year 2010
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 eparchy of the metropolitan of Kottayam. The eparchies of Belthangady and Thuckaly have single judge tribunals. The cases of the eparchy of Ramanathapuram are handled by the eparchial tribunal of Palakkad and the cases of the eparchy of Mandya by the eparchial tribunal of Mananthavady. The eparchial tribunal of Bhadravati is under constitution.
The activities of the eparchial and metropolitan tribunals during the year 2010 are briefly given in the following tables:
|
