1. “The notification of citations, decrees, sentences, and other judicial acts must be made through the public postal service or by some other very secure method”. (CIC 1509)
2. The Libellus is presented to tribunal, naming tribunal, parties, reason for petitioning and grounds. Libellus, also called petition, is the statement requesting a determination concerning the validity of the marriage. (CIC. 1502) (DC 114-117)
3. The Petitioner must choose the grounds upon which he is alleging his marriage is invalid.  Tribunal personnel cannot force a party to challenge his own marriage on a ground that was selected by the tribunal personnel. The other spouse or the Promoter of Justice are the only petitioners that could propose that a particular ground for invalidity be investigated, against the will of one spouse. (See page 97-100, Studies on the Instruction Dignitaas Connubii Proceedings of the Study Day Held at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, Rome, January 19, 2006)
4. The petition libellus must be signed by the Petitioner or the procurator.  A Petitioner has the option (but is not required) to mandate another person (called a procurator) to speak on his behalf for much of the case.  See paragraph 17, Rota Sentence coram Burke, Nov. 15, 1990).
5. Before the judge accepts the case or pursues litigation, in accord with canon 1676 canon 1675 Motu Proprio , the respondent can clearly inform the judge that the marriage has not irreparably failed, and that conjugal living can be restored. Further, the respondent can ask the bishop to issue a singular precept in accord withcanon 49, wherein the bishop orders the Petitioner to join the Respondent in employing the means of using a reputable person for mediation. Canon 1446 §2recommends the use of mediation, and respondent can request a particular named mediator that is known for his experience helping couples improve their marriage (counselor, etc.).
6. If the petitioner requests the streamlined process introduced by Pope Francis that is scheduled to go in effect on 8 December 2015, “The brief process cannot be used if the respondent remains silent, does not sign the petition or declare his consent” (Quoting Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts as reported here, letter here). Pope Francis’ changes did not introduce “lack of faith” as a new ground for nullity. One reason for streamlined process in Title V, Art. 14 is “the defect of faith which can generate simulation of consent or error that determines the will.” Simulation is canon 1101. Error is canon 1099.
7. The Judge considers whether to accept reject libellus (CIC 1505) (DC 119-125)
8. The Judge’s acceptance or rejection of libellus is set by decree
9. The respondent is notified by summons (also called citation). The other party to the case, the respondent, is cited, so that he or she may participate in the case. (CIC 1507, 1508) (DC 126-128).
10. Competency is determined. The location of tribunal can be any of four places: a) where the marriage took place; b) where respondent lives; c) where petitioner lives (if the respondent lives in same country and the respondend approves); or d) where most of the witnesses live (if the respondent has been heard) (CIC 1673) (DC 10) If respodent lives in a different diocese than the petitioner the respondend’s judicial vicar must be participating in communication. Judicial vicar = top tribunal judge. . As of December 8, 2015 (see Motu Proprio), the Judicial Vicar of the Respondent no longer is involved in choosing the diocese that will decide the case. A Respondent could clearly ask the tribunal of the Petitioner to move the case where the Respondent prefers, but this is not part of the law anymore.

Know the Facts Alleged to Prove Invalidity (2.2.1)

The respondent, early on, has a right to know the charge against the marriage–and what facts and proofs are being proposed to the tribunal as the basis for the claim of invalidity. The notification/citation to the respondent must include a copy of the petitioner’s petition/libellus (CIC 1508 §2, DC Art. 127 §3, Motu Proprio Mitis Iudex  c. 1676 § 1 ). The petitioner’s petition/libellus must include the petitioner’s statements providing the facts and proofs in a general way that he or she is planning to use to prove the case (DC Art. 116 º3, CIC 1504 º2). Read Excerpts from “The Code of Canon Law Annotated” from University of Navarra, canon 1504)

If respondent does not receive these statements from Petitioner, Respondent could insist on receiving them. See Sample Letter.

See VIDEO “Annulment Defendants Need to Know” with Bai Macfarlane and Irene discussing the required elements of petition/ libellus.

See excerpts from Roman Rota judge, Msg. Cormac Burke on requirements for libellus.

What does NOT qualify as a libellus is a petitioner’s answers to a questionnaire, where he simply explains the difficulties that occurred in the marriage and its breakup. [See Rotal Jurisprudence Decree of Nov. 15, 1990 (section 22 a-b). English version: Studia canonica, 25 (1991), pp. 509-517; Also, Ludicke, Klaus, and Ronny Jenkins. Dignitas Connubii: Norms and Commentary. Washington D.C.: Canon Law Society of America, 2009. – “it is not permitted to require the petitioner to include with the petition answers to a lengthy series of questions regarding the pre-matrimonial and matrimonial period. The petition should not be seen as a vehicle for an early instruction of the cause” (p. 209)]

The introductory libellus is to be attached to the citation. Prior to December 8, 2015, the tribunal for grave reasons could decide, with a decree indicating reasons, that the libellus is not to be communicated to the respondent party, until after the party has given his judicial deposition.

“The libellus which introduces litigation is to be attached to the citation unless for grave causes the judge determines that the libellus must not be made known to the party before that party makes a deposition in the trial”( can. 1508, ¤ 2).  This option was abrogated by Motu Proprio Mitis Iudex  c. 1676 § 1.

The purpose of the libellus is to establish the basis of a claim that the marriage is null. The respondent has a right to reply to this libellus to refute any information that they consider inaccurate.

Right to an Advocate to Assist  (2.2.2)

The responded has a right to have an advocate assisting.  A party can ask about experience upholding marriage against accusations of invalidity before mandating an advocate.

• Read about Advocates and Procurators in Dignitas Connubii: Norms And Commentary or See 2.6 Mb PDF  Respondents should have “a choice — i.e., between no advocate, a Tribunal advocate, or one otherwise selected by them” (section 17 Rota Case LINK).
• D.C.Art. 46 – § 1. The collegial tribunal is to be presided over by the Judicial Vicar or Adjunct Judicial Vicar or, if this cannot be done, by a cleric from the college designated by either one of them (cf. can. 1426, § 2).
  • § 2. It pertains to the praeses of the college:
  • 6- to provide for the ministry of a procurator or advocate in accordance with artt. 101, §§ 1, 3; 102; 105, § 3; 106, § 2; 109; 144, § 2);
• D.C. Art. 101 – § 1. Without prejudice to the right of the parties to defend themselves personally, the tribunal is bound by the obligation to provide that each spouse is able to defend his rights with the help of a competent person, most especially when it concerns causes of a special difficulty.
  § 2. If in the judgment of the praeses the ministry of a procurator or advocate is necessary and the party has not so provided within a prescribed time limit, the praeses is to name them, as the case requires, but they remain in function only as long as the party has not named others.
  § 3. If gratuitous legal assistance has been granted, it pertains to the tribunal praeses himself to name the procurator or advocate.
  § 4. In any case, the appointment of a procurator or advocate by decree is to be communicated to the parties and the defender of the bond.
• D.C. Art. 112 – § 1. It pertains to the Bishop Moderator to publish an index or directory in which there are listed the advocates admitted before his tribunal and the procurators who usually represent parties there.
  § 2. The advocates inscribed in the directory are bound, by a mandate of the Judicial Vicar, to provide gratuitous legal assistance to those to whom the tribunal has granted this benefit (cf. art. 307).
• D.C. Art. 113 – § 1. At every tribunal there is to be an office or a person available so that anyone can freely and quickly obtain advice about the possibility of, and procedure for, the introduction of their cause of nullity of marriage, if such should be the case.
  § 2. If this office should happen to be carried out by the ministers of the tribunal, they cannot have the part of judge or defender of the bond in the cause.
  § 3. In each tribunal, to the extent possible, there are to be stable advocates designated, receiving their salary from the tribunal itself, who can carry out the function described in § 1, and who are to exercise the function of advocate or procurator for the parties who prefer to choose them (cf. can. 1490).

Possible Response to Citation (2.2.3)

Respondent notifies judge of intention to participate (with 15 day deadline after summons or citation) (DC 129, canon 1676 § 1 Motu Proprio ), and can request session for joinder of the issue. (CIC 1677 §2). The purpose of the session for the joinder of the issue is to establish the formulation of the doubt. As of Dec. 8, 2015, there is no more option of requesting a session for the joinder of the issue. Read Excerpts from

Possible Statements

1. I acknowledge receipt of your citation dated mm/dd/yy.
2. I request to see the list of advocates published by the Bishop (Dignitas Connubii Art 112).
3. I request my copy of the petitioner’s libellus that was not provided, and I look forward to reading the facts and proofs in a general way that the petitioner is using to make the case. (DC Art. 127 §3, CIC 1508 §2, DC Art. 116 º3, CIC 1504 º2).
4. I have no response at this time, other than that I shall be defending the validity of our marriage.
5. I shall await the decree setting forth the formulation of the doubt determining specifically by which ground or grounds the validity of our marriage is being challenged (DC 135 § 3).
6.  I understand that I have 10 days to reply to the formulation of the doubt (DC 135 § 4).
7. I might offer any proofs of my position after reviewing the formulation of the doubt, since the formulation of the doubt is to delimit those things which are to be investigated. I shall not provide answers to questionnaire until the final decree of the formulation of the doubt is issued because proofs must not be collected until after that decree (DC Art. 160).
8. I understand that “The burden of proof lies on the one making an assertion (can. 1526, § 1)” (DC Art. 156 – § 1).
9. I am awaiting a meeting with my advocate prior to admitting any proofs to the tribunal.
10. I am awaiting the names of the witness proposed by the Petitioner so I can consider whether to request the exclusion of a witness for just cause (CIC 1554, 1555)
11. When the Petitioner receives a negative decision, that our marriage has not been proven invalid, I ask the Tribunal to advise Petitioner of his moral obligation to restore common conjugal life as no legitimate moral cause for separation exists (D.C. Art. 252; CIC 1689, Motu Proprio c. 1691 § 1; CIC 1151-1155).
12. If the Petitioner receives positive decision, that our marriage is invalid, I ask that the Petitioner be advised of Petitioner’s moral and civil obligations toward me and our children. If a party broke off an engagement and refused to marry ones’ fiancee, Catholic canon 1062 §2 shows that an action to repair damages could be warranted. Therefore, it seems reasonable that a party that caused a marital break-up, or caused a marriage to be invalid, should also be responsible to repair damages.

1. Formulation of the doubt is to be set by decree, and it must specify the grounds for invalidity to be investigated (within 25 days after citation – allowing 15 days for respondent’s reply plus 10 days for formulation). The decree must be sent to the parties, unless they already agreed to the terms. One can object to the formulation of the doubt; within 10 days after it was decreed the judge must answer the objection. [DC Art 135 ( citing CIC 1677 §2, replaced by Motu Proprio c. 1676 §§ 1-2 ), DC 160 (citing CIC 1529)]
2. Instruction of the cause is to be set by decree, indicating that the case shall proceed. (CIC 1677 §4, DC 137; Motu Proprio c. 1676 §§ 2-3 )
3. Collection of Proofs. (DC 155-216). Proofs and witnesses are utilized by the tribunal to help the judge(s) come to a conclusion about validity of the marriage. (cc. 1526-1529, 1547-1573) Proofs are not to be kept secret from the parties unless a grave reason is shown (DC 157).
4. Judicial Examinations are to be in person, and questions are not to be seen in advance. A respondent’s advocate has the right to be present when the petitioner and witnesses are giving testimony so that the respondent’s advocate could pose question for the witnesses. The respondent can, in advance, provide to the judge questions to ask petitioner and witnesses(DC 164). If a tribunal doesn’t follow these norms, they are supposed to do all they can to prevent fraud and collusion. (CIC 1564-1566, DC 159, 161, 169-171)
5. Questions are limited to the particular ground for nullity being investigated. For example, if the Petitioner is alleging that the Petitioner suffered a psychic anomaly incapacitating him from marital consent (c. 1095 §2), the life-story of the Respondent is irrelevant. “The questions are to be brief, adapted to the capacity of the person being questioned, not involving several matters at the same time, not confusing, not tricky, not suggesting a response, avoiding any offensiveness, and pertinent to the cause in question” (DC 169, CIC 1564)
6. Case Should be Done in 12 Months plus 6 Months If a respondent wants a first instance tribunal to issue a decision, one can cite Digntas Connubii Art. 72, and Canon 1453: “… judges and tribunals are to take care that all cases are completed as soon as possible and that in a tribunal of first instance they are not prolonged beyond a year and in a tribunal of second instance beyond six months.” After getting no action from tribunal, a party could write to the Signatura asking for assistance, citing Pastor Bonus, Art. 124, “The Signatura also has the responsibility: 1. to exercise vigilance over the correct administration of justice, and, if need be, to censure advocates and procurators.” Letters to the Signatura can be forward to Holy See by Papal Nuncio in Washington D.C.
7. Expert Witness, Psychological Expert The expert often has a role in the canonical process, but it is simply as that of one witness more.
8. He is generally held to be a ‘qualified witness’ or a ‘technical witness’ (cf. c. Colagiovanni, May 17, 1994, nn. 19; 22), in the sense that his expert opinion, applied to the facts of the case, can at times be useful or even necessary to enable the judges reach a decision. In the Code of Canon Law, the role of the “peritus” or expert is dealt with in c. 1680 within the chapter “De probationibus.” Hence, his intervention, when considered necessary in the case, is after the rest of the proofs have been collected. His opinion will then be based on the facts established in the Acts; and – if the judge considers this useful – on a personal session with the party or parties. (Cf. c. Funghini, July 18, 1990). Mons. Stankiewicz, the present Dean of the Rota, puts it quite clearly in one of his sentences: “in the canonical process the experts are not co-judges, advisers, helpers or consultors of the judge, because they simply represent one element more – the “peritia” – among the means of proof” (c. Stankiewicz, April 28, 1994).
9. So, if there is need for an expert, that will arise at or just after the Instruction stage of the subsequent process (CIC 1680, DC 203-213; Motu Proprio c. 1678 § 3). Parties should most always have the right to read the report of the psychological expert and read the transcript of the judicial examination of the expert. See Justice and Transparency in Matrimonial Decisions by Msgr. Cormac Burke, Judge of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota 1985-1998.   Angelicum (Rome) vol. 89-1 (2012), pp. 223-244. Cormac Burke, Judge of the Roman Rota, 1986-1999)  See also paragraph 11, 12, 22 in sentence Cormac-Burke Sentence of April 29, 1993 , and paragraph 15 in sentence Cormac-Burke Sentence of Nov 25, 1993
10. If Tribunal restricts a Respondent from reading a psychologist expert witness report, the Respondent can raise an exception. See Sample Letter.

1. Publication of Acts is to be set by decree. The parties and their advocates are invited to inspect the acts. The purpose is to permit both parties and their advocates to be informed regarding all that has taken place in the trial, and see that with which they may not yet be acquainted. If there is legitimate concern that some serious danger would evolve from this inspection, the judge may decide that a certain act is not to be shared with the parties. The judge must not, however, jeopardize the right of defense. (CIC 1598, DC 229)
2. The Respondent has the right to review the testimony — the entire testimony in the case and not just a summary as some tribunals try to do: testimony cannot be withheld from a party except to avoid “a most grave danger” (c. 1598. 1) without violating a party’s right of defense, which would render the Court’s judgment irremediably null (c. 1620. 7). If a tribunal judge tries to restrict the party from taking notes, the party can write to the judge the following: “I promise in accord with D.C. Art 232 to only use the knowledge I gain through the inspection of the acts for my legitimate defense in the canonical forum. I am aware I am bound by confidentiality. Nevertheless, I can find no provision in canon law that prevents me from taking whatever notes I need for my own defense, when reading the Acts. Any attempt in that direction would violate my right of defense.” Any party who chooses to disobeys a tribunal’s instruction to take no notes, will need to be calm and serene, as well as firm, when taking their notes, and will need to be calm in any subsequent action. (See supporting Rotal Jursprudence about required contractictory between parties).  If a Tribunal restricts a Respondent from keeping Respondent’s own notes, the Respondent can raise an exception. See Sample Letter.
3. It is absolutely forbidden that any information given to the judge by the parties or the advocates, or by any other persons, be excluded from the acts of the case (CIC Can. 1604 §1, D.C. Art. 241). The testimony and report from the tribunal’s expert witness psychologist is an item in the acts of the case. The response/observations of the defender of the bond are items in the acts of the case. A tribunal does not satisfy its obligation to ensure the respondent’s right of defense when the tribunal keeps secret from the respondent certain acts while only providing copy of said act to respondent’s advocate (see supporting Rotal Jurisprudence “Secrets Kept from Party, Shown Advocate).
4. If a judge decides to exclude from the acts altogether certain documents provided to the tribunal by the petitioner, the respondent can ask the judge to change his mind. If documents are excluded from the acts altogether, the judges can’t used them when making their decision. The Judge does have authority over the admission of evidence and can exclude evidence that he considers to be superfluous or illicit. A party who wants the evidence included, though, may request that the Judge reverse his decision and admit it. If he rejects this request, the party may have recourse to the College of Judges–if the case is not being judged by a sole clerical judge. (CIC can. 1527, 1533, and D.C. Art.157, § §1 and 3; 158, §1 and 221)
5. Oath of Confidentiality: The law says the Tribunal can ask a party to promise that they will sue the knowledge gained through this inspection of the acts only for their legitimate defense in the canonical forum (D.C. art 232).
6. Value of Proofs A party’s statements alone (provided during the collection of the proof) can’t can be considered facts upon which the judges base their decision unless the statements regardless of whether statements are corroborated by other witnesses. After December of 2015, it is up to the discretion of the judge to evaluate a parties’ statements and consider other proofs supporting or weakening them. Corroboration is no longer required. (D.C. Art. 180, CIC Can. 1536 §2, 1572, 1573, 1679, Motu Proprio canon 1678).
7. After the publication of the Acts, is when the respondent really gets to defend the marriage (in theory and in law). When the Acts are published the respondent (or the advocate instead) reads the testimony of all witnesses (unless some of it is withheld by the judge for serious reason (CIC 1598 §1, DC 230). Thereafter, the parties have their turn to complete the proofs by adding more to support their position, after reading the other side’s position. If the Acts are not made available, a case can be voided because the right of defense has been denied (DC 231, CIC 1620, n.7; 1622, n.5)
8. Parties declare nothing to add, the judge determines an appropriate time for the advocates to make pleadings for the case, time for proposing proofs expires, or judge declares proofs sufficiently instructed. (DC 237, CIC 1599)
9. The defender of the bond (a court officer) intervenes to propose in favor of the marriage bond, after carefully reviewing the case (DC 243, CIC 1432, 1603 §3).
10. Conclusion of the Cause is set by decree, stating that all things pertaining to the production of proofs have been completed (CIC 1599, DC 237)
11. Preparation of Defense The respondent or his advocate can submit to tribunal an “argument” or “brief” including defenses and observations. (DC 242, 245) Spouses have a right to read and respond to the observations of the defender of the bond (DC 243) and the other party’s advocate (DC 242). This right is understood as the right to interpret the evidence before the Judge. It completes the active participation of the parties with respect to the evidence: the presentation of evidence (in the instruction of the cause), the inspection of the evidence (at the time of the publication of the acts), and the interpretation of the evidence (during the discussion of the cause). A sentence could be declared null due to a denial of the right of defense if, during the process, a party requested a copy of the arguments and was never permitted to see or respond to them. Note: “The defender can never act in favor of the nullity of marriage; if in a special case he has nothing that can be reasonably proposed or argued in favor of the bond, the defender can remit himself to the justice of the court.” (DC 56 §5).
12. Request notice of Petitioner’s Obligations if Negative Decision As part of Respondent’s “argument” and “observations,” the Respondent can request that when the Petitioner receives a negative decision, that is marriage has not been proven invalid, the Tribunal should advise Petitioner of his/her moral obligation to restore common conjugal life as no legitimate moral cause for separation exists (D.C. Art. 252, 1983 CIC c. 1151-1155;with Mitis Iudex c. 1691 § 1).
13. Request notice of Parties’ Obligations if Positive Decision
    • In accord with the local civil laws (Cite State law on civil annulment based on mental problems or fraud), I ask the tribunal to instruct the party who caused the marriage to be invalid that party must correct the record in the civil forum and change our civil divorce to a civil annulment, based on the applicable civil law for annulling a civil marriage. If party does not correct the civil record, it appears that I was the cause of the break-up of our putative marriage, and my good name is damaged.
    • In accord with Mitis Iudex c. 1691 §1, 1983 CIC c. 1689, the party that caused the invalidity of our marriage needs to be instructed of party’s obligations toward me (both civil and moral) and be instructed to repair the harm caused to me by party’s consenting to marriage while sustaining a mental illness [or fraud] (which, by the way, was kept hidden from me at the time of consent). Party should financially support me for the rest of our lives to repair the damage party caused. I could have entered a valid marriage with someone that did not suffer an incapacitating mental illness [or commit fraud, etc.]
    • In accord with Dignitas Connubii  251, 1983 CIC can. 1684 §1, and Mitis Iudex can. 1682, the party responsible for the invalidity of our marriage should be instructed that he is prohibited from marrying because he is suffering from the mental condition that the tribunal psychiatrists diagnosed by adding a permanent vetitum to the sentence [or party is a serious liar who should be prevented from entering another putative marriage, etc.]

1. The Pronouncement of judgment is decided by a definitive judgment (CIC 1607, DC 246), distributed to the parties, along with the means of appealing the sentence. (cc. 1611-1618)
2. The respondent should insist on receiving his own copy of the Definitive Sentence of the Court once judgment is rendered, since the judgment cannot take effect unless it is published to the parties (c. 1614), and c. 1615 specifies, “Publication or communication of the sentence can be done either by giving a copy of the sentence to the parties or their procurators or by sending them a copy according to the norm of can. 1509.” A tribunal could lead a party to believe that it is upon receipt of their letter (Dispositive Sentence, which almost always is the summary of the Sentence and not the complete Definitive sentence,) is when the 15 day clock to appeal starts ticking. This IS NOT SO. The time limits for lodging an appeal (to the Rota e.g.) does not start until the parties or their procurators receive a copy of the Definitive sentence (Canon 1634.2,) and that the sentence has no force before publication even if the dispositive part was made known to the parties with the permission of the judge. (Canon 1614). The dispositive part of the sentence is only a summary of the final outcome of the decision. Providing the summary of the final outcome to the parties is not following the law. Retired Professor of Canon Law at Catholic U says parties have the right “to have their sentence pronounced publicly.” See sample letter that Respondent can send to Tribunal to ask for one’s own copy of the sentence.
3. The required elements of the full Definitive Sentence are specified in Canon Law and reiterated in Dignitas Connubii Article. 246 – 258:
   • is to be mutually agreed upon by three judges and written by one, the ponens, OR as of Dec. 8, 2015 can also be decided by a sole judge that is a cleric (Mitis Iudex c. 1673 §§ 3 & 4)
   • if one of the three disagrees with the other two, he can insist that his opinion be sent to appeal tribunal
   • must respond to each proposed ground for nullity, one-by-one
   • must show and explain the justification for the response to each ground
   • explanation must include relevant facts and law for each ground
   • if one party is so mentally disturbed that he could not and cannot marry, the sentence must state this by prohibiting party from entering marriage (Dignitas Connubii 251″a vetitum is to be added to the sentence”; 1983 CIC can. 1684; §1, Mitis Iudex can. 1682).
   • must include instruction on who is going to pay for tribunal fees.
   • must warn the parties of their moral and civil obligations toward each other and children (D.C.Art. 252. CIC 1983 canon 1689, Mitis Iudex  c. 1691 § 1)
   • must specify names of judge, petitioner, respondent, procurator (if applicable), address of parties, defender of the bond, and promoter of justice (if applicable)
   • must summarize the facts
   • must restate the formulation of the doubt
   • must show place, date, month and year and signature of three judges
   • must include instructions for appealing, and information about the automatic appeal if is positive sentence (Mitis Iudex eliminated this required appeal)
   • must be clear in explaining reasons in law and fact so that their reasoning is described
   • must be given to the parties as soon as possible

   If the first instance tribunal will not give the respondent his copy of definitive sentence, respondent can seek the assistance of the appellate tribunal. See sample letter.

4. Advise First Instance Tribunal of Intention to Appeal. If a party is aggrieved by the decision given by the first instance Tribunal, and wants to appeal, the party must take two steps
   • First) within 15 days of receiving one’s own copy of the definitive sentence, the party must advise the Tribunal of one’s intention to appeal. See sample letter.
   • Second) One month after the Tribunal received the notice of the intention to appeal, the aggrieved party must submit to the Tribunal of appeal the appeal itself.
5. Appeal to Tribunal of Second Instance As of December 8, 2015, if the tribunal decides the marriage is invalid, and neither party appeals, the decision goes into effect. The Respondent has a fifteen days to notify the tribunal of his intent to appeal the decision; the appellate tribunal is also called the second instancetribunal (1983 CIC c. 1630; Motu Proprio c. 1679-1680). If the first instance decides that the marriage invalid, it automatically goes to second instance. The acts (records) of the case, and first instance sentences, are sent to an appellate tribunal for confirmation of the sentence, or it may admit the case for a new trial if it is unable to confirm the first sentence (DC 263-264, CIC 1682).  There are two stages to appealing: 1st) introducing the appeal by announcing one’s intent to due so within 15 days of receiving the full definitive sentence, and 2nd) pursuing an appeal in which one makes an argument based in law, supporting one’s appeal. See canon 1630 and 1633.
6. Appeal to the Roman Rota After a first instance judgment, anyone can appeal to the Rota for the hearing in second instance. A simple indication in writing (“I appeal to the Rota for the second instance hearing of this case”) to the first instance tribunal is sufficient. Thereafter, one must pursue appeal showing reasons to the appeal tribunal. Because of the changes made in the Motu Proprio (Mitis Iudex Can. 1680 § 1), the tribunal of appeal has the discretionary power to reject an appeal simply because they accuse the appellant of appealing solely to cause delay. “[I]f the appeal clearly appears merely dilatory, the collegiate tribunal confirms the sentence of the prior instance by decree.” Upon request, the Tribunal is obliged to forward the case to the Rota. The petitioner has the right to know when this has been done. In such cases, the appellant can ask for gratuitous legal representation at the Rota and this is automatically granted – without charge. (CIC 1444, DC 302-308, read CLSA newsletter “cases are processed without cost to the parties“) Also see line item above “Roman Rota Request.”
   

   “The US tribunal will send a stipend of $750-$850 to the Rota. No other fees or monies for cases submitted under this agreement are requested or required. Any solicitation made by anyone for additional sums for any case for any reason should not be honored. Such unauthorized requests should be referred to the Rota immediately.” (pages 631-632. Cogan, Patrick, ed. Canon Law Digest: Officially Published Documents Affecting the Code of Canon Law, 1991-1995. ISBN: 1-932208-18-6. Washington DC: Canon Law Society of America, 2009)

   “Instead of the usual practice of waiting for the parties to search out and engage their own Rotal lawyer it was agreed that the Diocese would send over a set fee with the case and then the Dean would immediately appoint a Rotal Advocate.” (from U.S. Rota Judge, 1986 – 2012, Msgr. Kenneth E. Boccafola, speech 2013)

   Rights of appellants have changed with the Motu Proprio that went into effect in December 2015

   • Nowadays, NO “3rd instance tie-breaker is required when US tribunal decides negative and Rota rule affirmative”. The rotal affirmative sentence overturns the US tribunal’s negative sentence.
   • “After the sentence declaring the nullity of the marriage has become effective, the parties whose marriage has been declared null can contract a new marriage […]” (CIC 1983, can. 1682, § 1) — UNLESS “[t]he party who considers himself or herself aggrieved, as well as the promoter of justice and the defender of the bond […] introduce a complaint of nullity of the judgment or appeal against the sentence, according to cann. 1619-1640” (CIC 1983, can. 1680, § 1).
   • “The Roman Rota judges, […] IN THIRD OR FURTHER INSTANCE, cases which the Roman Rota or any other tribunals have already adjudicated unless the matter is a res iudicata” (CIC 1983, can. 1444, § 1, n. 2). 
7. Proposing Observations to Appeal Tribunal The appeal tribunal (called second instance could be the Roman Rota) is to send letter to parties advising them that the party’s observations are welcome and can be proposed to the tribunal of appeal. The Motu Proprio shows the judges obligation to decide “after having heard the parties” (Motu Proprio c. 1680 §2 and 1690). The Roman Rota might call these observations “animadversions” which means comments or remarks, esp. critical ones (DC 264-265). If the Respondent believes his rights of defense were denied, he can make a Complaint of Nullity of Sentence, wherein he describes the problems during the case (DC 274 §3). The Rota will study whether the entire first instance decision should be thrown out. Show that your complaints are not contrived (see 1996 Address to Rota ¶4). If the Rota decides that the first instance decision is null, the Petitioner has the option to resubmit a Petition and hope the first instance handles the case correctly the second time. If the Rota does not decide the whole first instance case was null, they have three options: See commentary on Rota’s Norms, Article 58
8. Receiving copy of Decision from Roman Rota When the Tribunal of the Roman Rota issues its decision, the parties should receive a full copy of the decree or sentence (written in Latin). There is a difference between a decree and a sentence (READ MORE). Normally the Roman Rota will send a copy of decree/sentence to the 1st instance tribunal who will forward it to the parties. The 1st instance tribunal can provide English translation too (though this practice is not universal). The norm at play here is art. 101 of the Norms of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota (unofficial translation): “An authentic copy of every decision will be integrally communicated to the Promoter of Justice and the Defender of the Bond, if they have intervened in the trial, to the parties themselves through the competent Curia and to their procurators; the same Curia is to present to the Tribunal of the Rota verification that the communication or execution has been completed.” [Exemplar authenticum cuiuslibet decisionis integre notificabitur Promotori iustitiae et vinculi Defensori, si iudicio interfuerint, ipsis partibus per Curiam competentem nec non earundem procuratoribus; de peracta notificatione aut exsecutione eadem Curia testimonium Rotae Tribunali exhibeat. – AAS, 86 (1994), p. 536. PDF on Vatinca.va]