ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 5!

! ! ! !

Political Questions! -Political questions are "questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government."! -The Constitution does not accept everything that is said in Baker v. Carr.! -The judiciary should not hide behind the political questions doctrine.! Cases for Political Questions! Daza v. Singson! -Raul Daza of the Liberal Party was replaced by Luis Singson of Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino in the Commission of Appointments due to the reorganization of the latter's political party in the House of Representatives. Petitioner contends his replacement is unconstitutional under Art. VI, Sec. 18.! -The issue is justiciable rather than political, and involves the legality and not the wisdom of the act complained of.! -House of Representatives may change the composition of the COA to reect at any time the changes that may transpire in the political alignments of its membership.!

Santiago v. Guingona! -After the election of Senate President (Marcelo Fernan), the dispute for the position of minority leader between Sen. Francisco Tatad and Sen. Teosto Guingona arose. Petitioner contends that Tatad, the losing Senate President nominee, should be the minority leader instead of Guingona who was elected by seven Lakas-NUCD-UMDP members. Moreover, such usurpation of power by Guingona was said to be unconstitutional under Art. VI, Sec. 16(1).! -There is nothing in the Constitution that states the process of electing a minority leader, hence there is no constitutional violation.!

! ! ! !

Effect of Declaration of Unconstitutionality! -Before an act is declared unconstitutional it is an "operative fact" which can be the source of rights and duties.! -While declaration of unconstitutionality made by the SC constitutes a precedent binding on all, a similar decision of an inferior court binds only the parties in the case.! Cases for Rule-making Power! Bustos v. Lucero! -Petitioner contends that Sec. 11 of the Rules of Court infringes on Art. VIII, Sec. 13 of the Constitution as it makes possible the curtailment of the right of an accused in a preliminary investigation.! -Contested provision of the Rules of Court is an adjective or procedural law, not a substantive law. Moreover, preliminary investigation is not an essential part of due process of law, hence the curtailment of the right of an accused in a preliminary investigation is not repugnant to the Constitution.! ! In re: Cunanan! -Due to the varying difculties of the bar examination through the years, the Supreme Court decided to admit bar candidates who obtained a certain percentage in the exam depending on the year they took the same. Unsuccessful candidates who obtained an average of a few percentage lower than those admitted agitated in Congress. The passing general average was lowered by law to 70 percent from 1946.! -The disputed law is not a legislation; it is a judgment.! -The authority and responsibility over the admission, suspension, disbarment, and reinstatement of attorneys and their supervision remain vested in the SC.! -It is the primary and inherent prerogative of the SC to admit those who are qualied to practice law.!

Javellana v. DILG! -Atty. Erwin Javellana was elected City Council of Bago City, Negros Occidental. City Engineer Ernesto Divinagracia led Adminsitrative Case No. C-10-90 against Javellana for engaging in the practice of law

while being an incumbent member of the city council without securing authority from the Regional Director of DLG.! -Javellana prays that DLG Circular Nos. 80-38 and 90-81, and Section 90 of the New LGC be declared null and void for going against Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5) of the Constitution.! -DLG circulars and the LGC provision are not contrary to the Constitution. Neither trenches upon the SC's power and authority to prescribe rules on the practice of law. They simply prescribe rules of conduct for public ofcials.!

! !

Cases for Review of Death Penalty! People v. Mateo! -SC assumed direct appellate review of criminal cases in which the penalty is death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment (Art. VIII, Sec. 5(2(d))).! -The Constitution requires mandatory review by the SC, but does not proscribe intermediate review.! -The SC now deems it wise and compelling to provide in these cases a review by the CA before the case is elevated to the SC.! -SC has the power to amend rules of procedure.!

! ! ! !

Bar Integration! -Integration of the Philippine Bar means the ofcial unication of the entire lawyer population of the country. This requires membership and nancial support.! Cases for Bar Integration! In re: Petition to Disqualify Atty. De Vera! -The petition was led by Attys. Garcia, Velez, and Ravanera to disqualify De Vera from being elected Governor of Eastern Mindanao in the 16th IBP Regional Governors' elections. De Vera argues that the SC has no jurisdiction over the controversy because the elections is governed by the IBP By-Laws which are exclusively regulated and administered by the IBP.! -The Constitution vests the supervision of the IBP to the SC. Moreover, the IBP By-Laws recognizes the SC's power of supervision over the IBP.!

! ! !

ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 6! Supervision of Courts! Maceda v. Vasquez! -Napoleon Abiera alleged that Bonifacio Sanz Maceda falsied his Certicate of Service. The former led a petition against the latter for the offense at the Ofce of the Ombudsman. Maceda contends that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the case. The jurisdiction is rather vested in the SC which has the power of control and supervision over lower courts.! -Art. VIII, Sec. 6 exclusively vests in the SC the administrative supervision over all lower courts and court personnel. Thus, the Ombudsman should rst refer the matter to the SC.!

! !

People v. Gacott, Jr.! -Judge Eustaquio Gacott, Jr. led a motion for reconsideration alleging that only the full court, and not a division thereof (Second Division), can administratively punish him.! -It was not intended that all administrative disciplinary cases be heard and decided by the court en banc.! -Only when the penalty imposed does not exceed suspension of more than one year or a ne of 10,000 pesos, or both that the administrative matter may be decided in division.! Judge Caoibes, Jr. v. Ombudsman! -The case involves two members of judiciary who were entangled in a ght over a piece of furniture.! -The Ombudsman cannot determine for itself and by itself whether a criminal complaint against a judge, or court employee, involves an administrative matter. It should refer all cases against judges and court personnel to the SC.! -Only the SC can oversee the judges' and court personnel's compliance with all laws, and take administrative action against them if they commit any violation thereof.!

ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 7!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

In re: JBC v. Judge Quitain! -Judge Quitain failed to disclose that he was administratively charged and dismissed from the service for grave misconduct by the President. His dismissal from the service is a clear proof of his lack of the required qualications.! Kilosbayan v. Ermita! -Upon retirement of Associate Justice Callejo from the SC, the Executive Secretary declared the appointment of Gregory Ong to ll the vacancy. Petitioners claim that Ong is a Chinese citizen, hence should be disqualied from assuming the position of Associate Justice.! -Although Ong was appointed from among the list of nominees screened by the JBC, he is nonetheless a naturalized Filipino based on his birth certicate.! ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 8! In re: Inquiry into the 1989 Elections of the IBP! -The provision providing for one member of the JBC to be from the IBP attracted so many lawyers to the position of IBP president to the point of excessive politization. The elections was later nullied by the SC.! ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 9 AND 10! Salary of Justices and Judges! Nitafan v. Commission of Internal Revenue! -Petitioners seek to prohibit the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Financial ofcer of the SC from making any deduction of withholding taxes from their salaries. According to the petitioners any tax withheld from their salaries constitutes a decrease which is contrary to Art. VIII, Sec. 10.! -The Constitutional Commission deleted the express grant of exemption from taxes. The salaries of Justices and Judges are properly subject to the general income tax law. This is in accordance with the principle of uniformity of taxation and the principle of equal protection of the law.!

! ! !

ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 11! Security of Tenure! Vargas v. Rilloraza! -Section 14 of the People's Court Act sates that any Justice who held any position under the Philippine Executive Commission or the Philippine Republic may not vote in any case falling under Section 13. It also states that in the instance when the SC members fall short of members to constitute a quorum, the President may designate Judges of First Instance, Judges-at-Large of First Instance, or Cadastral Judges as Justices of SC.! -The provision is repugnant to the constitution because it infringes on the security of tenure of SC Justices and place constitutionally unqualied lower court judges in their stead. It is violative of the organic law.! -A mere designation does not satisfy the constitutional requirement of appointment.!

De La Llana v. Alba! -Petitioners allege that BP Blg. 129 entitled "An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary, Appropriating Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes" ignores and disregards the security of tenure provision of the Constitution because the said act abolishes certain ofces.! -In accordance with the need for major reform in the judicial system to make the disposal of cases more efcient, reallocate jurisdiction, and revise procedures.! -The abolition of an ofce within the competence of a legitimate body if done in good faith suffers from no inrmity. It is a well-known rule that valid abolition of ofces is neither removal nor separation of the incumbents.!

! ! ! ! !

ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 12!

! ! !

In re: Judge Manzano! -Judge Manzano was designated member of the Ilocos Norte Provincial Committee on Justice. The Court nds such designation contrary to Art. VIII, Sec. 12 because the committee performs administrative functions.! ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 13! Certication! -The lack of certication would only serve as evidence of failure to observe certication requirements and may be basis for holding the ofcial responsible for the omission. The absence of certication would not invalidate the decision.