ARTICLE VIII.

Judicial Department

Section 1. Judicial Power and Judicial Function

The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

Definition and scope

 Judicial power is “the right to determine actual controversies arising between adverse litigants, duly
instituted in courts of proper jurisdiction” (Muskrat v. US)
 It is “the authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving rights that are enforceable and
demandable before the courts of justice or redress if wrongs for violation of such rights” (Lopez v. Roxas)
 Courts are given “judicial power,” nothing more. Hence, by the principle of separation of powers, courts
may neither attempt to assume not be compelled to perform non-judicial functions. (Bernas primer)
 Judicial power is vested in:
o 1 SC
o Such lower courts as may be established by law

Limits of Judicial Power

1. Political questions
 Those questions which: (1) under the Consti, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign
capacity; or (2) in regard of which full discretion authority has been delegated to the legislative or
executive branch of the gov’t
 Political questions are not w/in the province of the judiciary, except to the extent that power to
deal w/ such questions has been conferred upon the courts by express constitutional or statutory
provisions (Tañada v. Cuenco)
2. Separation of powers
 The SC and its members should not and cannot be required to exercise any power or to perform
any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or connected w/ the administering of judicial
functions (Manila Electric Co. v. Pasay Transpo Co.)
3. It is not the function of the judiciary to give advisory opinions
 The function of the courts is to determine controversies between litigants. They do not give
advisory opinions (Director of Prisons v. Ang Cho Kio)
 Advisory opinion must not be confused w/ declaratory relief (Director of Prisons v. Ang Cho Kio)

Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction (GADALEJ)

 Capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
 The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual
refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is
exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility (Sinon v. CSC)
 There is grave abuse of discretion when:
o An act is done contrary to the Consti, the law or jurisprudence
o When it is executed whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily out of malice (Bernas Green Book)
 On this basis the SC can even check acts of Congress and of the Pres, but w/ great hesitation. The principle
must sometimes yield to separation of powers or the doctrine of “political questions” or to the “enrolled
bill” rule (Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance) In fact, it is difficult to see a clear pattern of the times when the SC
will check a co-equal dept or not.

Advisory opinions distinguished from declaratory relief

Advisory Opinions
 It is not the function of the judiciary to give advisory opinions. The giving of such opinions is not the
exercise of the judicial function. (Bernas Green Book)
Declaratory Relief
 An action by any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose rights
are affected by a statute, ordinance, EO or regulation to determine any question of construction or validity
arising under the instrument, EO or regulation or statute and for a determination of his rights or duties
thereunder. (Bernas Green Book)
 A petition for declaratory relief must be predicated on the ff requisites:
o There must be a justiciable controversy
o The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse
o The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy
o The issue involved must be ripe for judicial determination (Delumen v. Republic)
 The SC does not entertain original petitions for declaratory relief (Bernas Green Book)

Declaratory Relief Advisory Opinion

Definition
Involves real parties w/ real A response to a legal issue posed in
conflicting legal interest the abstract advance of any actual
case in which it may be presented
Effectivity
A final judgment and is forever Binds no one
binding on the parties
Nature
Judicial Act Not a judicial act

Justiciable Controversy
 A definite and concrete dispute touching on the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests,
which may be resolved by a court of law through the application of a law (Cutaran v. DENR)

Justiciability Requirements
 That there be an actual controversy between or among the parties to the dispute
 That the interests of the parties be adverse
 That the matter in controversy be capable of being adjudicated by judicial power
 That the determination of the controversy will result in practical relief to the complainant (J. Nachura’s
opinion in De Castro v. JBC)

Section 2. Power of Legislature to Apportion Jurisdiction

The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of various courts but may not
deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.

No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its Members.

Power of Congress over the Judicial System

 Although judicial power is vested in the judiciary, the proper exercise of such power requires prior
legislative action:
o Defining such enforceable and demandable rights and prescribing remedies for violations of such
rights
o Determining the court w/ jurisdiction to hear and decide controversies or disputes arising from
legal rights (Bernas Green Book)
 Since judicial power involves the application of law to actual controversies, its exercise presupposes the
existence of an applicable law. Unless there is an applicable law, courts are w/o power to settle
controversies.
 Congress has the power to create new courts and to apportion jurisdiction among various courts.
 However, in the exercise of this power Congress may not impair the independence of the judiciary. For this
purpose, the Consti has given to the SC certain powers which Congress may not take away.
 Moreover, any reorganization of the judicial system should be done in a manner which does not impair
security of tenure.
  Implicit in the conferment of power on Congress to create courts and to determine their jurisdiction is the
denial of the same power to other depts. (Bernas primer)

Jurisdiction
 Power and authority of a court to hear, try and decide a case (Zamora v. CA)
 Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but
may not deprive the SC of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in ART VIII, Sec 5
 No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the SC as provided in the Consti w/o its
advice and concurrence (ART VI, Sec 30)
 The power to control execution of its decision is an essential aspect of jurisdiction. It cannot be the subject
of substantial subtraction for our Consti vests the entirety of judicial power in 1 SC and in such lower
courts as may be established by law (Echegaray v. SOJ)

Section 3. Fiscal Autonomy

The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature
below the amount appropriated for the previous year and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly
released.

Fiscal autonomy
 The basic aim of granting fiscal autonomy to the judiciary is to assure its independence (Bernas Green
Book)

Section 4. Compositions and Sessions

(1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc
or in its discretion, in divisions of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety
days from the occurrence thereof.

(2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, which
shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are
required to be heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of
presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be
decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on
the issues in the case and voted thereon.

(3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the
Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no
case, without the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the required number is not
obtained, the case shall be decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the
court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting
en banc.

Composition of the Supreme Court

 1 Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices
 The Court is free to create divisions of 3/5/7. The purpose of allowing up to 5 divisions w/in 1 Court is to
enable the Court to dispose of cases more speedily.
 Actions considered in any of these divisions and decisions rendered therein are, in effect, by the same
Tribunal. Decisions or resolutions of a division of the court are not inferior to an en banc decision. (People
v. Dy)
 Quorum – 8 justices

Filling-in vacancy in the Supreme Court

Referral to en banc
 The ff cases must be heard en banc:
o All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, int’l/executive agreement, or law
 o All cases which under the ROC may be required to be heard en banc
o All cases involving the constitutionality, application or operation of PDs, proclamations, orders,
instructions, ordinances, and other regulations
o Cases heard by a division when the required majority in the division is not obtained
o Cases where the SC modifies or reverses a doctrine or principle of law previously laid down either
en banc or in division
o Administrative cases involving the discipline/dismissal of judges of lower courts (Section 11)
o Election contests for Pres./VP
 When the SC sits en banc, cases are decided by the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually
took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, provided there is a quorum
 Decisions/resolutions of a division of the court, when concurred in by a majority of its members who
actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in a case and voted thereon is a decision/resolution of
the SC itself. The SC sitting en banc is not an appellate court vis-a-vis its Divisions, and it exercises no
appellate jurisdiction over the latter. (Bernas primer)

Division Cases
 Other cases or matters may be heard either in division or en banc as the ROC may provide (Bernas
commentary)
 Cases v. Matters
o Cases – decided
 Controversies brought to the Court for the first time
 Where the required number of votes is not obtained, there is no decision
 The only way to dispose of the case is then is to refer it to the Court en banc (Fortich v.
Corona)
o Matters – resolved
 The rule on cases does not apply to matters

Section 5. Powers of the SC

The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and
over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.

(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may
provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:

(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is
in question.

(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in
relation thereto.

(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.

(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.

(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require. Such temporary
assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge concerned.

(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice,
and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance
 to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or
modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain
effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.

Specific Powers of the SC

 Judicial powers – Section 5(1) and 5(2)
 Auxiliary administrative power – Section 5(3) to 5(6)

Judicial Review
 It is the SC’s power to declare a law, treaty, int’l or executive agreement, PD, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance, or regulation unconstitutional (Bernas primer)
 It is the power of the courts to test the validity of executive and legislative acts in light of their conformity
w/ the Consti. This is not an assertion of superiority by the courts over the other depts, but merely an
expression of the supremacy of the Consti (Angara v. Electoral Commission)

Functions of Judicial Review

 Checking – invalidating a law or executive act that is found to be contrary to the Consti
 Legitimating – upholding the validity of the law that results from a mere dismissal of a case challenging the
validity of the law
 Symbolic – to educate the bench and bar as to the controlling principles and concepts on matters of grave
public importance for the guidance of and restraint upon the future (Salonga v. Cruz Paño)

Inferior courts may exercise judicial review

 ART VIII, Sec 5(2) of the Consti prescribes the constitutional appellate jurisdiction of the SC, and
implicitly recognizes the authority of lower courts to decide questions involving the constitutionality of
laws, treaties, etc. (Nachura)
 Furthermore, BP 129 grants RTCs the authority to rule on the conformity of laws and treaties w/ the Consti.
However, in all actions assailing the validity of a statute, treaty, PD, order or proclamation notice to the
SolGen is mandatory under Rule 64, Sec 3 of the ROC. The purpose of this mandatory notice is to enable
the SolGen to decide W/N his intervention in the action is necessary. To deny the SolGen such notice
would be tantamount to depriving him of his day in court (Mirasol v. CA)

Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy

 When the Judiciary allocates constitutional boundaries, it neither asserts superiority nor nullifies an act of
the Legislature. It only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Consti to determine
conflicting claims of authority under the Consti and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the
rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them (Angara v. Electoral Commission)

Requisites of Judicial Review

1. Actual case or controversy
 A conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial
determination
 A constitutional question is ripe for adjudication when the gov’tal act being challenge has had a
direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it
 It is also necessary that there be a law that gives rise to some specific rights of persons or property,
under which adverse claims are made (Santiago, Jr. v. Bautista)
 There can be no justiciable controversy involving the constitutionality of a proposed bill
o The SC can exercise its power of judicial review only after a law is enacted, not before
(In the Matter of: Save the Supreme Court)
 A request for an advisory opinion is NOT an actual case or controversy. But an action for
declaratory relief is proper for judicial determination (Nachura)
 Moot Questions
 o An action is considered “moot” when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy
because the issues involved have become academic or dead, as when subsequent events
have overtaken the petition of the SC has nothing left to resolve (Gonzales v. Narvasa)
o GR: Courts will not decide moot and academic issues
o Exceptions:
 There is a grave violation of the Consti
 There is an exceptional character of the situation and paramount public interest
is involved
 The constitutional issues raised require formulation of controlling principles to
guide the bench, the bar and the public
 The case is capable of repetition yet evasive review (David v. Arroyo)
2. Proper party must raise the constitutional question (locus standi/legal standing)
 One who has sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the act
complained of (direct injury test) (Ex Parte Levitt)
 Jurisprudence defines interest as “material interest in issue and to be affected by the decree, as
distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. By real
interest is meant a present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future,
contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest.” (Miñoza v. Lopez)
 Elements of Standing:
o The petitioner must have personally suffered some actual or threatened injury which can
be legal, economic, or environmental
o The injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action
o The injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action (Telecommunications v.
COMELEC)
 For a taxpayer’s suit, the ff must concur:
o Public funds are disbursed by a political subdivision or instrumentality
o A law is violated or some irregularity is committed, and that the petitioner is directly
affected by the alleged ultra vires act (Anti-Graft League of the PH v. CA)
 Summary of Rules on the Liberal Approach on Locus Standi:
o Taxpayers – there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the tax
measure is unconstitutional
o Voters – there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in
question
o Concerned citizens – there must be showing that the issues raised are of transcendental
importance which must be settled
o Legislators – there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes their
prerogatives as legislators
o Gov’t of the PH – a proper party to question the validity of its own laws (Nachura)
3. Constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportunity
 GR: It must be raised in the pleadings (Matibag v. Benipayo)
 Exceptions:
o Criminal cases – at any time at the discretion of the court
o Civil cases – at any stage of the proceedings if necessary for the determination of the case
itself
o In every case (except when there is estoppel) – at any stage if it involves the jurisdiction
of the court (People v. Vera)
4. Determination of constitutionality of the statute must be necessary to a final determination of the
case (lismota)
 The constitutional issue must be the lismota of the case (Zandueta v. dela Costa)
 To doubt is to sustain. The presumption is based on the Doctrine of Separation of Powers. This
means that the measure had first been carefully studied by the Legislative and Executive depts and
found to be in accord w/ the Consti before it was finally approved and enacted. The
constitutionality of a law will be sustained if the issue can be determined w/o having to decide its
validity (Mirasol v. CA)
Political questions
 Those questions which: (1) under the Consti, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity; or
(2) in regard of which full discretion authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of
the gov’t
 Political questions are not w/in the province of the judiciary, except to the extent that power to deal w/ such
questions has been conferred upon the courts by express constitutional or statutory provisions (Tañada v.
Cuenco)
 Kinds of political questions:
o Textual – where there “is found a textually demonstrable commitment of the issue to a political
department”
o Functional – where there is “a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for
resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind
clearly for non-judicial discretion”
o Prudential – where there is “the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution
without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate braches of government; or an unusual need
for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of
embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.”
(Bernas commentary)

Effect of unconstitutionality
 When a law is declared unconstitutional, it is either:
o Void (traditional view)
 If, on its face, it does not enjoy any presumption of validity because it is patently
offensive to the Consti
 Produces no effect, creates no office, and imposes no duty (Igot v. COMELEC)
o Voidable
 If, on its face, it enjoys the presumption of constitutionality
 The law becomes inoperative only upon the judicial declaration of its invalidity; the
declaration produces no retroactive effect (Serrano de Agbayani v. PNB)
 Operative Fact Doctrine
o Under this doctrine, the law is recognized as unconstitutional but the effects of the
unconstitutional law, prior to its declaration of nullity, may be left undisturbed as a matter of
equity and fair play. (Hacienda Luisita v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council)
o In keeping with the demands of equity, the Court can apply the operative fact doctrine to acts and
consequences that resulted from the reliance not only on a law or executive act which is quasi-
legislative in nature but also on decisions or orders of the executive branch which were later
nullified
 Requisites before a law can be declared partially unconstitutional
o The legislature must be willing to retain valid portion – separability clause
o The valid portion can stand independently as law (Cruz)

Automatic review
 While the Fundamental Law requires a mandatory review by the Supreme Court of cases where the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death, nowhere, however, has it proscribed an
intermediate review.
 Allowing an intermediate review by the Court of Appeals before the case is elevated to the Supreme Court
on automatic review is a procedural matter within the rule-making prerogative of the Supreme Court than
the law-making power of Congress. (People v. Mateo)

Change of venue
 The courts “can by appropriate means do all things necessary to preserve and maintain every quality
needful to make the judiciary an effective institution of gov’t”
 One of these incidental and inherent powers of courts is that of transferring the trial of cases from one court
to another of equal rank in a neighboring site, whenever the imperative of securing a fair and impartial trial,
or of preventing a miscarriage of justice, so demands.
  The SC possesses inherent power and jurisdiction to decree that the trial and disposition of a case pending
in a CFI be transferred to another whenever:
o The interest of justice and truth so demand serious and weighty reasons to believe that a trial by
the court that originally had jurisdiction over the case would not result in a fair and impartial trial
lead to a miscarriage of justice. (People v. Gutierrez)

Power to promulgate rules

 The SC has the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional
rights (writs of amparo, habeas data, kalikasan), pleading (Judicial Affidavit Rule), practice (CPR), and
procedure in all courts (ROC), the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance
to the underprivileged.
o Writ of amparo – protective remedy aimed at providing judicial relief consisting of the appropriate
remedial measures and directives that may be crafted by the court, in order to address specific
violations or threats of violation of the constitutional rights to life, liberty, or security.
o Writ of habeas data – remedy available to any person whose right to privacy is violated or
threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee or of a private
individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding
the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.
o Writ of kalikasan – writ of continuing mandamus, which is issued in an environmental case
directing any agency or instrumentality of the government or officer thereof to perform an act or
series of acts decreed by final judgment which shall remain effective until judgment is fully
satisfied.
 The power to amend the rules of procedure is constitutionally vested in the SC
 1987 Consti took away the power of Congress to repeal, alter or supplement rules concerning pleading,
practice and procedure (Baguio Market Vendors v. Judge Cortes)
 Limitations on rule-making power
o Provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for speedy disposition of cases
o Uniform for all courts in the same grade
o Shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights

Supervision over the Judiciary

 Exclusive authority to discipline employees of the judiciary lies with the SC
 The Consti provides that the SC is given exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and judicial
personnel (Ampong v. CSC)

Section 6. Administrative supervision of inferior courts

The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.

Administrative supervision of lower inferior courts

 Supervision over all lower courts and their personnel – independence of judiciary
o Includes the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote if a
majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberation on the issues in the case and
voted thereon.
 No other branch of government may intrude into this power, without running afoul by the doctrine of
separation of powers.
o The Ombudsman cannot justify its investigation of petitioner on the powers granted to it by the
Constitution, for such a justification not only runs counter to the specific mandate of the
Constitution granting supervisory powers to the Supreme Court over all courts and their personnel,
but likewise undermines the independence of the judiciary.
o The Ombudsman should first refer the matter to the Court for determination of whether said
certificates reflected the true status of his pending case load, as the Court has the necessary records
to make such a determination.
o The Ombudsman cannot compel this Court, as one of the three branches of government, to submit
its records, or to allow its personnel to testify on this matter (Maceda v. Vasquez)
Section 7. Qualifications of Members of Judiciary
(1) No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court unless he is a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines. A Member of the Supreme Court must be at least forty years of age,
and must have been for fifteen years or more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in
the Philippines.

(2) The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts, but no person may be appointed
judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines and a member of the Philippine Bar.

(3) A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.

Qualifications of a Member of the SC

 Natural-born citizen of the PH
 At least 40 years of age
 For at least 15 years must have been a judge in a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the PH
 A person of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence
o Competence – the ability to do something successfully or efficiently
o Integrity – the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness
o Probity – the quality of having strong moral principles; honesty and decency

Qualifications of a Member of a lower collegiate court

 Natural-born citizen of the PH
 A member of the PH Bar
 Possessing the other qualifications prescribed by Congress
 A person of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence

Qualifications of judges of non-collegiate lower courts

 Citizen of the PH
 A member of the PH Bar
 Possessing the other qualifications prescribed by Congress
 A person of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence

May the Congress alter the qualifications of Members of the Judiciary? NO

How may the right of a judge to hold his position be contested? Through a quo warranto proceeding

Section 8. Judicial and Bar Council

(1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the
Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex
officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the
Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.

(2) The regular Members of the Council shall be appointed by the President for a term of four years with the
consent of the Commission on Appointments. Of the Members first appointed, the representative of the
Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the professor of law for three years, the retired Justice for two
years, and the representative of the private sector for one year.

(3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex officio of the Council and shall keep a record of
its proceedings.

(4) The regular Members of the Council shall receive such emoluments as may be determined by the Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court shall provide in its annual budget the appropriations for the Council.
 (5) The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary. It may exercise
such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it.

Composition
 Ex-officio members: Chief Justice, as Chairman; the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of Congress.
 Regular members: A representative of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, a professor of law, a retired
justice of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.
 Secretary ex-officio: The Clerk of the Supreme Court.

Functions of the JBC

 Principal function: to recommend appointees to the judiciary
 It may, however, exercise such functions as the SC may assign to it
 The JBC screens individuals aiming to lead the office of the Ombudsman, Deputy Ombudsman, Special
Prosecutor, and the offices of the Chairperson and Regular Members of the Legal Education Board
 NOTE: The duty of the JBC to submit a list of nominees before the start of the President’s mandatory 90-
day period to appoint is ministerial, but its selection of the candidates whose names will be in the list to be
submitted to the President lies within the discretion of the JBC. (De Castro v. JBC)

Section 9. Appointment of Justices and Judges

The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at
least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no
confirmation.

For the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointments within ninety days from the submission of the list.

Procedure for Appointment

1. Appointed by Pres. from among a list of at least 3 nominees prepared by the JBC for every vacancy
2. Any vacancy in the SC shall be filled w/in 90 days from occurrence thereof
3. For lower courts, Pres. shall issue the appointment 90 days from submission of the list

Section 10. Diminution of Salary

The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and of judges of lower courts
shall be fixed by law. During their continuance in office, their salary shall not be decreased.

Salaries
 The change of phraseology of said provision from “shall not be diminished” to “shall not be decreased”
thereby manifests the intent of the framers to subject the salaries of justices and judges to a general tax law
applicable to all income owners (Nitafan v. CIR)
 Is the salary of justices and judges subject to income tax? YES

Section 11. Security of Tenure

The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior until they
reached the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The Supreme Court
en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of
the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.

Security of Tenure
 Essential to an independent judiciary
 Since members of the SC are removable only by impeachment, they can be said to have failed to satisfy the
requirement of “good behavior” only if they are guilty of the offenses which are constitutional grounds for
impeachment. (Bernas Commentary)
 The SC alone can determine what “good behavior” is.
Disciplinary cases which are required to be heard by SC en banc
 When the penalty to be imposed is:
o Dismissal of a judge
o Disbarment of a lawyer
o Suspension of either for more than 1 year
o A fine exceeding P10,000.00 (People v. Gacott, Jr.)

Section 12. Non-judicial assignments

The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency
performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.

Prohibition from non-judicial assignments

 The provision makes explicit an application of the principle of separation of powers
 The functions involved the regulation and control over the conduct and affairs of individuals for their own
welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better carry out the policy of the legislature

Section 13. Decision-making process

The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in division shall be
reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a Member for the writing of the opinion of the Court. A
certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the
case and served upon the parties. Any Member who took no part, or dissented, or abstained from a decision or
resolution must state the reason therefor. The same requirements shall be observed by all lower collegiate courts.

Decision-making process of the SC

 The certification will not identify the Justice writing the opinion.
 The purpose is to ensure the implementation of the constitutional requirement that the decisions of the
Supreme Court, and lower collegiate courts are reached after consultation with the members of the Court
sitting en banc or in division before the case is assigned to a member thereof for decision-writing.
 The required explanation to be given by individual Justices for their non-participation or abstention is to
encourage participation.
 There is presumption of the regular performance of duty of the Court.
 The lack of certification only serves as evidence of failure to observe the requirement and may hold the
official responsible of omission to account therefor.

Section 14. Contents of decision

No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on
which it is based.

No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied
without stating the legal basis therefor.

Contents of court decisions

 Final determination made by a court of the substantive issues brought for resolution
 Happens after the case is given due course
 Does not apply to a resolution refusing due course
 Does not preclude the validity of memorandum decisions
 Rule on contents of decision is applicable to all courts:
o Failure of a lower court judge to follow would subject him/her to disciplinary action
o Failure of a SC justice would subject him/her to impeachment
o Does not apply to military courts
Petitions for review and MR
 Rule does not require a statement of facts and accompanying reasoning
 Requires merely a legal basis for denying due course (coming from US Supreme Court practices)
 The need to state the legal basis arises from the fact that a denial of review or reconsideration, unlike
minute resolutions resolving incidental matters, affects the subject matter of the case

Section 15. Decision-making period

(1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-
four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court,
twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.

(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pending,
brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself.

(3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice or
the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case or
matter, and served upon the parties. The certification shall state why a decision or resolution has not been
rendered or issued within said period.

(4) Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the court, without prejudice to such
responsibility as may have been incurred in consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case or matter
submitted thereto for determination, without further delay.

Decision-making period of the SC

 The respective periods are mandatory and failure to comply can subject a SC justice to impeachment for
culpable violation of the Consti
 Lower court judge may be subject to disciplinary action
 The application of the required period is prospective (to those filed after the effectivity of the Consti)
 To facilitate determination whether the prescribed period has been complied with, the third paragraph
requires certification to that effect from the CJ or from the preciding judge
 Failure to decide a case within the reglamentary period does not decide the case either way
 A heavy case load and a poor health may partially excuse such lapses, but only for judges concerned
request reasonable extensions
 When there is delay and no decision or resolution is made within the period, there is no automatic
affirmance of the appealed decision

Section 16. Report to President and to Congress

The Supreme Court shall, within thirty days from the opening of each regular session of the Congress, submit to the
President and the Congress an annual report on the operations and activities of the Judiciary

(Self-explanatory)