Anda di halaman 1dari 21


They shall not be designated to any agency

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT performing quasi-judicial or administrative
functions(Sec. 12, Art. VIII)
I. Judicial Department 10. The salaries of judges may not be reduced
during their continuance in office(Sec. 10,
A. Composition Art. VIII)
- The Supreme Court and all lower courts 11. The judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy
make up the Judicial Department of our (Sec. 3, Art. VIII)
government 12. Only the Supreme Court may order the
temporary detail of judges(Par. 3, Sec. 5,
B. Independence of Judiciary Art. VIII)
- To maintain the independence of the 13. The Supreme Court can appoint all officials
judiciary, the following safeguards have and employees of the judiciary(Par. 6, Sec.
been embodied in the Constitution: 5, Art. VIII)
1. The SC is a constitutional body. It cannot be
abolished nor may its membership or the
manner of its meetings be changed by
mere legislation(Sec. 2, Art. VIII)
2. The members of the SC may not be
removed except by impeachment (Sec. 2,
Art. XI)
3. The SC may not be deprived of its original
and appellate jurisdiction as prescribed in
Sec. 5, Art. VIII of the Constitution(Sec. 2,
Art. VIII)
4. The appellate jurisdiction of the SC may not
be increased by law without its advice and
concurrence(Sec. 30, Art. VI)
5. Appointees to the judiciary are now
nominated by the JBC and no longer
subject to confirmation by Commission on II. Judicial Power
Appointments(Sec. 9, Art. VIII)
6. The SC now has administrative supervision A. Where it is vested
over all lower courts and their - Judicial Power shall be vested in one
personnel(Sec. 6, Art. VIII) Supreme Court and in such lower
7. The SC has exclusive power to discipline courts as may be established by law.
judges of lower courts(Sec. 6, Art. VIII)
8. The members of the Supreme Court and all B. Definition
lower courts have security of tenure, which - Provision: Par. 2 of Sec. 1 of Art. VIII of
cannot be undermined by a law the 1987 Constitution
reorganizing the judiciary(Sec. 11, Art. VIII)
Section 1. The Judicial Power shall be
vested in one Supreme Court and in D. Limits
such lower courts as may be 1. By the principle of separation of powers,
established by law.
courts may neither attempt to assume nor
be compelled to perform non-judicial
Judicial Power includes the duty of the
Courts of Justice to settle actual functions.
controversies involving rights which - Example: Manila Electric Co. vs Pasay
are legally demandable and Transportation Co., (1932)
enforceable, and to determine whether A court may not be required to act as
or not there has been a great abuse of board of arbitrators
discretion amounting to lack or excess - Example: Noblejas vs Tehankee
of jurisdiction on the part of any A court may not be charged with
branch or instrumentality of the
administrative functions except when
reasonably incidental to the fulfillment
- The right to determine actual of official duties.
controversies arising between adverse
litigants, duly instituted in courts of 2. It is not the function of the judiciary to give
proper jurisdiction (Muskrat vs US, 219 advisory opinion
US 346, (1911)) - An advisory opinion is an opinion
- The authority to settle justiciable issued by a court that does not have the
controversies or disputes involving effect of resolving a specific legal case,
rights that are enforceable and but merely advises on the
demandable before the courts of constitutionality or interpretation of a
justice or the redress of wrongs for law.
violation of such rights (Lopez vs Roxas,
17 SCRA 756, 761 (1966)) - If the courts will concern itself with the
making of advisory opinions, there will
C. Scope be loss of judicial prestige. There may
- Judicial power is the measure of the be less than full respect for court
allowable scope of judicial action. decisions.

- Example: Echegaray vs Sec. of Justice,

1999 Declaratory Judgment Advisory
An accused who has been convicted Opinions
still possesses collateral rights and Involves real parties Response to a legal
these rights can be claimed in with real conflicting issue posed in the
appropriate courts. The suspension of interests abstract in advance of
death sentence is an exercise of judicial any actual case in
power. It is not the usurpation of the
which it may be
presidential power of reprieve though
the effect is the same – the temporary
suspension of the death convict.
Judgment is a final one Binds no one
forever binding on the
parties Section 2. The Congress shall have the
A judicial act Not a judicial act power to define, prescribe, and
apportion the jurisdiction of the
3. The broadened concept of judicial power is various courts but may not deprive the
not meant to do away with the political Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over
questions doctrine itself. The concept must cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
sometimes yield to separation of powers,
No law shall be passed reorganizing the
to the doctrine on political questions or to
Judiciary when it under-mines the
the enrolled bill rule.
security of tenure of its Members.

E. Grave Abuse of Discretion III. Jurisdiction

- It must be grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of A. Definition
jurisdiction. - Jurisdiction is the power and authority
of the court to hear, try and decide a
- There is a grave abuse of discretion
case(De La Cruz vs CA, 2006).
1. An act done contrary to the Constitution,
- Refers to jurisdiction over case
the law, or jurisprudence
2. It is executed whimsically, capriciously, [jurisdiction over the subject matter]
arbitrarily out of malice, ill will or personal
bias (Infotech vs COMELEC, 2004) B. Scope
1. Power to determine
- Rule 65 of the Rules of Court embodies 2. Power to enforce its determination
the Grave Abuse Clause 3. Power to control the execution of its

C. Role of Legislature in Judicial Process

- Although judicial power is vested in the
judiciary, the proper exercise of such
power requires prior legislative action:

1. Defining such enforceable and

demandable rights and prescribing
remedies for violation of such rights; and
2. Determining the court with jurisdiction to
hear and decide controversies or disputes
arising from legal rights.
- Since judicial power involves the SECTION 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy
application of law to actual fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the
controversies, its exercise presupposes Judiciary may not be reduced by the
the existence of an applicable law. So, legislature below the amount
unless there is an applicable law, courts appropriated for the previous year and,
are without power to settle after approval, shall be automatically
and regularly released.
- Fiscal autonomy means freedom from
D. Role of Congress outside control. As envisioned in the
- Power: First Part of Par. 1, Sec. 2, Art. Constitution, fiscal autonomy enjoyed
VIII of the 1987 Constitution by the Judiciary… contemplates a
guarantee of full flexibility to allocate
- Limitations: and utilize their resources with the
1. Last part of Par. 1, Sec. 2, Art. VIII of the wisdom and dispatch that their needs,
1987 Constitution require.
2. Par. 2, Sec. 2, Art. VIII of the 1987
Constitution - Fiscal autonomy recognizes the power
3. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme and authority to:
Court may not be increased by law except a. Levy, assess and collect fees
upon its advice and concurrence(Sec. 30, b. Fix rates of compensation not exceeding
Art. VI, 1987 Consitution). the highest rates authorized by law for
compensation, and
c. Pay plans of the government and allocate
or disburse such sums as may be provided
by law or prescribed by them in the course
of the discharge of their functions.
- The imposition of restrictions and
constraints on the manner the
[Supreme Court] allocate and utilize
the funds appropriated for their
operations is anathema to fiscal
autonomy and violative of the express
mandate of the Constitution and of the
independence and separation of
powers. (Bengzon v. Drilon)
- Reason: Fiscal autonomy is granted to
the SC to strengthen its autonomy. The
provision is intended to remove courts
from the mercy and caprice, not to say
vindictiveness, of the legislature when
it considers the general appropriations
SECTION 4. (1) The Supreme Court B. Cases that must be heard en banc:
shall be composed of a Chief Justice 1. All cases involving the constitutionality of a
and fourteen Associate Justices. It may treaty, international or executive agreement, or
sit en banc or in its discretion, in law.
divisions of three, five, or seven
2. All cases which under the Rules of Court are
Members. Any vacancy shall be filled
within ninety days from the occurrence required to be heard en banc
thereof. 3. All cases involving the constitutionality,
application, or operation of presidential decrees,
(2) All cases involving the proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances,
constitutionality of a treaty,
and other regulations
international or executive agreement,
or law, which shall be heard by the 4. Cases heard by a division when the required
Supreme Court en banc, and all other majority in the division is not obtained;
cases which under the Rules of Court 5. Cases where the Supreme Court modifies or
are required to be heard en banc, reverses a doctrine or principle of law previously
including those involving the
laid down either en banc or in division.
constitutionality, application, or
operation of presidential decrees, 6. Administrative cases involving the discipline or
proclamations, orders, instructions, dismissal of judges of lower courts (Section 11)
ordinances, and other regulations, [Dismissal of judges, Disbarment of a lawyer,
shall be decided with the concurrence suspension of either for more than 1 year or a fine
of a majority of the Members who
exceeding 10,000 pesos (People v. Gacott)]
actually took part in the deliberations
on the issues in the case and voted 7. Election contests for President or Vice-
thereon. President.
8. Appeals from Sandiganbayan or Constitutional
IV. Supreme Court

C. Number of Votes Needed to Decide a Case

A. Composition: 15 Justices
Heard En Banc:
- 1 Chief Justice
- When the Supreme Court sits en banc
- 14 Associate Justices
cases are decided by the concurrence
of “majority if the members who
- By so fixing the number of members of
actually took part in the deliberations
the SC at [fifteen], it seems logical to
on the issues in the cases and voted
infer that no statute may validly
thereon.” Thus, since a quorum of the
increase or decrease it.
Supreme Court is eight, the votes of at
least five are needed and are enough,
- Collegiate Court. The primary purpose
even if it is a question of
of a collegiate court is precisely to
constitutionality. (Those who did not
provide for the most exhaustive
take part in the deliberation do not
deliberation before a conclusion is
have the right to vote)

- ASM: In reality, when the decision says

that a particular Justice “did not take
part”, it does not necessarily mean that SECTION 4. (3) Cases or matters
he was not there during the heard by a division shall be
deliberations. decided or resolved with the
concurrence of a majority of the
- Q: How many justices are needed to Members who actually took part
constitute a quorum when the Court in the deliberations on the issues
sits en banc and there are only fourteen in the case and voted thereon,
justices in office? and in no case without the
concurrence of at least three of
- A: In People v. Ebio, 2004, since it was a such Members. When the
capital criminal cases, the Court said required number is not obtained,
that there should be eight. the case shall be decided en banc:
Provided, that no doctrine or
D. Procedure if opinion is equally divided: principle of law laid down by the
- When the Court en banc is equally court in a decision rendered en
divided in opinion, or the necessary banc or in division may be
majority cannot be had, the case shall modified or reversed except by the
again be deliberated on, and if after court sitting en banc.
such deliberation no decision is Actions considered in any of the divisions
reached, the original action and decisions rendered therein are, in effect by
commenced in the court shall be the same Tribunal. Decisions or resolutions of a
dismissed; in appealed cases, the division of the court are not inferior to an en banc
judgment or order appealed from shall decision. (People v. Dy, 2003)
stand affirmed; and on all incidental
matters, the petition or motion shall be - Decisions of a division, not appealable
denied.(Rule 56, Section 7, Rules of to en banc.
Court) Decisions or resolutions of a division of the
court, when concurred in by majority of its
members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in a case and voted
thereon is a decision or resolution of the Supreme
Court. (Firestone Ceramics v. CA, 2000)
- Where the required number cannot be
obtained in a division of three in
deciding a case.
Where the required number of votes is not
obtained, there is no decision. The only way to
dispose of the case then is to refer it to the Court
en banc. (Section 4(3))

- Divisions are not separate and distinct - “Cases” v. “Matters”

A careful reading of the above
constitutional provision reveals the intention of
the framers to draw a distinction between cases
on one hand and, and matters on the other hand,
such that cases are ‘decided’ while matters,
including motions, are ‘resolved’. Otherwise put,
the word “decided” must refer to ‘cases; while the
word ‘resolved’ must refer to ‘matters’.

- Where the required number cannot be

obtained in a division of three in
motion for reconsideration.
If a case has already been decided by the
division and the losing party files a motion for
reconsideration, the failure of the division to
resolve the motion because of a tie in the voting
does not leave the case undecided. Quite plainly, if
the voting results in a tie, the motion for
reconsideration is lost. The assailed decision is not
reconsidered and must therefore be deemed
affirmed. (Fortich v. Corona, 1999)
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall (5) Promulgate rules concerning the
have the following powers: protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice,
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over and procedure in all courts, the
cases affecting ambassadors, other admission to the practice of law, the
public ministers and consuls, and over integrated bar, and legal assistance to
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, the under-privileged. Such rules shall
mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas provide a simplified and inexpensive
corpus. procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or the same grade, and shall not diminish,
affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law increase, or modify substantive rights.
or the Rules of Court may provide, final Rules of procedure of special courts and
judgments and orders of lower courts in: quasi-judicial bodies shall remain
(a) All cases in which the effective unless disapproved by the
constitutionality or validity of any Supreme Court.
treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, presidential decree, (6) Appoint all officials and employees of
proclamation, order, instruction, the Judiciary in accordance with the
ordinance, or regulation is in question. Civil Service Law.
(b) All cases involving the legality
V. Powers of the Supreme Court
of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll,
or any penalty imposed in relation
thereto. A. General Power
(c) All cases in which the - Sec. 1, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution
jurisdiction of any lower court is in
B. Specific Powers
(d) All criminal cases in which the
penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or - Specific Powers of the Supreme Court
higher. under Article VIII:
(e) All cases in which only an error 1. Original Jurisdiction
or question of law is involved. 2. Appellate Jurisdiction
3. Temporary Assignment of Judges
(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower
courts to other stations as public 4. Change of Venue or Place of Trial
interest may require. Such temporary 5. Rule-Making Power
assignment shall not exceed six months 6. Appointment of Court Personnel
without the consent of the judge 7. Administrative Supervision of Courts
8. Dismissal/ Removal Powers
(4) Order a change of venue or place of
trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice. - (Section 5(1) and (2) refer to the
irreducible jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court while Section 5 (3-6) and Section
6 provide of auxiliary administrative
- Other Powers of SC: cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts.
1. Jurisdiction over proclamation of Martial law or (Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 167)
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus; (Sec. 18, Thus, while it is true that the issuance of a
Art. VII) writ of prohibition under Rule 65 is within the
2. Jurisdiction over Presidential and Vice- jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, a petitioner
Presidential election contests; (Sec. 4, Art. VII) cannot seek relief from the Supreme Court where
3. Jurisdiction over decision, order, or ruling of the the issuance of such writ is also within the
Constitutional Commissions. (Sec. 7, Art. IX) competence of the Regional Trial Court or the
4. Supervision over JBC (Sec. 8(1), Art. VIII) Court of Appeals.
5. Power to Punish Contempt A direct recourse of the Supreme Court’s
original jurisdiction to issue writs should be
allowed only when there are special and important
C. Original Jurisdiction (Sec. 5(1)) reasons therefore, clearly and specifically set out
- The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over: in the petition. (Mangahas v. Paredes, 2007)
1. Cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls. Q: What cases may be filed originally in the
- Note that under international law, Supreme Court?
diplomats and even consuls to a lesser A: Only petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
extent, are not subject to jurisdiction of mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus,
the courts of the receiving State, save disciplinary proceedings against members of the
in certain cases, as when immunity is judiciary and attorneys, and affecting
waived either expressly or impliedly. In ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls
such instances, the Supreme Court can may be filed originally in the Supreme Court. (Rule
and probably should take cognizance 56, Section 1, Rules of Court)
of the litigation in view of possible
international repercussions D. Appellate Jurisdiction (Sec. 5(2))
- The Supreme Court has the power to review,
2. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or
quo warranto, and habeas corpus. certiorari as the law or the Rules of Court may
- The petitions for certiorari, mandamus, provide, final judgments and orders of lower
prohibition, and quo warranto are courts in:
special civil actions. The questions
raised in the first three petitions are a. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity
questions of jurisdiction or grave abuse of any treaty, international or executive
of discretion and, in fourth, the title of agreement, law, presidential decree,
the respondent. The petition for proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or
habeas corpus is a special proceeding. regulation is in question.
b. All cases involving the legality of any tax,
- Principle of Judicial Hierarchy impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty
Under a judicial policy recognizing imposed in relation thereto.
hierarchy of courts, a higher court will not c. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower
entertain direct resort to it unless the redress court is in issue.
d. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed may waive the right of appeal. In the case of the
is reclusion perpetua or higher. sentence of reclusion perpetua or life
e. All cases in which only an error or question of imprisonment, however, although the Supreme
law is involved. Court has jurisdiction to review them, the review
is not mandatory. Therefore review in this later
- Irreducible. cases may be waived and appeal may be
This appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme withdrawn. (People v. Rocha and Ramos, G.R. No.
Court is irreducible and may not be withdrawn 173797, August 31, 2007)
from it by Congress.
In Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 2002, it was
- Final Judgments of lower courts. held that the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
It should be noted that the appeals allowed Court over decisions and final orders of the
in this section are from final judgments and Sandiganbayan is limited to questions of law. A
decrees only of “lower courts” or judicial question of law exists when the doubt or
tribunals. Administrative controversy concerns the correct application of
decisions are not included. law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or
when the issue does not call for an examination of
- The lower courts have competence to the probative value of the evidence presented, the
decide constitutional questions. truth or falsehood of facts being admitted.
Section 5(2)(a)

- Review of Death Penalty. E. Judicial Review

Section 5 requires a mandatory review by - Section 5(2), (a) and (b) explicitly
the Supreme Court of cases where the penalty grants judicial review in the Supreme
imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, Court.
or death. However, the Constitution has not
proscribed an intermediate review. To ensure 1. Definition
utmost circumspection before the penalty of Judicial review is the power of the courts
death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is to test the validity of governmental acts in light of
imposed, the Rule now is that such cases must be their conformity to a higher norm (e.g. the
reviewed by the Court of Appeals before they are constitution.)
elevated to the Supreme Court. (People v. Mateo,
G.R. No. 147678-87. July 7, 2004; People v. Lagua, The power of judicial review is the Supreme
G.R. No. 170565, January 31, 2006) Court’s power to declare a law, treaty,
international or executive agreement, presidential
Note, however, that the rule for the review decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
of decisions of lower courts imposing death or ordinance, or regulation unconstitutional. Judicial
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment are not Review is an aspect of Judicial Power.
the same. In case the sentence is death, there is
automatic review by the Court of Appeals and Judicial Review in Philippine Constitution.
ultimately by the Supreme Court. This is Unlike the US Constitution470 which does
mandatory and neither the accused nor the courts not provide for the exercise of judicial review by
their Supreme Court, the Philippine Constitution - Auxiliary Rules
expressly recognizes judicial review in Section 5(2) c. The constitutional question must be
(a) and (b) of Article VIII of the Constitution. raised at the earliest possible
d. The decision of the constitutional
2. Principle of Constitutional Supremacy question must be necessary to the
Judicial review is not an assertion of determination of the case itself.
superiority by the courts over the other
departments, but merely an expression of the F. Political Questions
supremacy of the Constitution. Constitutional 1. Justiciable vs. Political Question
supremacy produced judicial review, which in turn The distinction between justiciable and
led to the accepted role of the Court as “the political questions can perhaps best be illustrated
ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.” by the suspension or expulsion of a member of
Congress, which must be based upon the ground
3. Functions of Judicial Review of “disorderly behavior” and concurred in by at
a. Checking – invalidating a law or executive least 2/3 of all his colleagues. The determination of
act that is found to be contrary to the what constitutes disorderly behavior is a political
Constitution question and therefore not cognizable by the
b. Legitimating – upholding the validity of the court; but the disciplinary measure may
law. nonetheless be disauthorized if it was supported
Rule on the Double Negative – Uses the by less than the required vote. The latter issue,
term “not unconstitutional”; the court dealing as it does with a procedural rule the
cannot declare a law constitutional interpretation of which calls only for mathematical
because it already enjoys a presumption of computation, is a justiciable question.
constitutionality 2. Definition
c. Symbolic – to educate the bench and the Political questions are those questions
bar as the controlling principles and which under the Constitution are:
concepts on matters of great public 1. To be decided by the people in their sovereign
importance capacity, or
2. In regard to which full discretionary authority
4. Who may Exercise has been delegated to the legislative or executive
1. Supreme Court branch of the government. (Tanada v. Cuenco,
2. Inferior Courts 1965)
- Political questions connotes “questions of
5. Requisites of Judicial Inquiry/ Judicial policy.” It is concerned with issues dependent
Review upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular
- Essential Requisites measure.
a. There must be an actual case or
controversy; The question involved 3. Guidelines for determining whether a
must be ripe for adjudication. question is political
b. The question of constitutionality must - Textual Kind
be raised by the proper party
1. A textually demonstrable constitutional who may not be expected to be impartial in the
commitment of the issue to a political decision of particular cases.
- Functional Kind - Permanent Transfer.
2. Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable Since transfer imports removal from one
standards for resolving it; office and since a judge enjoys security of tenure,
3. Impossibility of deciding a case without an initial it cannot be effected without the consent of the
determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial judge concerned.
discretion; (Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186 (1962))
- Prudential Type
4. Impossibility of a court’s undertaking H. Change of Venue or Place of Trial
independent resolution without expressing lack of - Sec. 5(4), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution
the respect due coordinate branches of the
government; - This power is deemed to be an
5. An unusual need for unquestioning adherence incidental and inherent power of the
to a political decision already made; Court. (People vs Gutierrez, 36 SCRA 172
6. Potentiality of embarrassment from (1970))
multifarious pronouncements by various
departments. (Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186
(1962) I. Rule Making Power
1. Power to Promulgate Rules
G. Temporary Assignment of Judges - The Supreme Court has the power to
- Sec. 5(3), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution promulgate rules concerning:
1. The protection and enforcement of
- Rationale of the Provision. constitutional rights;
The present rule bolsters the 2. Pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts;
independence of the judiciary in so far as it vests 3. The admission to the practice of law,
the power to temporarily assign judges of inferior 4. The Integrated Bar;
courts directly in the Supreme Court and no longer 5. Legal assistance to the underprivileged.
in the executive authorities and conditions the (Sec. 5(5), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)
validity of any such assignment in excess of six
months upon the consent of the transferred 2. Limits on SC’s Rule Making Power
judge. This will minimize if not altogether 1. Such rules shall provide a simplified and
eliminate the pernicious practice of the rigodon de inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition
jeuces, or the transfer of judges at will to suit the of cases.
motivations of the chief executive. 2. They shall be uniform for all courts of the same
- Purpose of Transfer. 3. They shall not diminish, increase, and modify
Temporary assignments may be justified to substantive rights.
arrange for judges with clogged dockets to be
assisted by their less busy colleagues, or to - Rules of procedure of special courts
provide for the replacement of the regular judge and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain
effective unless disapproved by the 5. Rules Concerning the protection and
Supreme Court. enforcement of constitutional rights;
Rules Concerning pleading, practice and
3. Nature and Function of Rule Making procedure in courts
- For a more independent judiciary. - Power to Make Rules; Writ of Amparo.
The authority to promulgate rules The Rules on the Writ of Amparo is
concerning pleading, practice and admission to promulgated by the Court based on its power to
the practice of law is a traditional power of the promulgate rules for the protection and
Supreme Court. The grant of this authority, enforcement of constitutional rights. In light of
coupled with its authority to integrate the Bar, to the prevalence of extra-legal killing and enforced
have administrative supervision over all courts, in disappearances, the Supreme Court resolved to
effect places in the hands of Supreme Court the exercise for the first time its power to promulgate
totality of the administration of justice and thus rules to protect our people’s constitutional rights.
makes for a more independent judiciary.
- Writ of Habeas Data.
- Enhances the capacity to render The writ of habeas data is a remedy
justice. available to any person whose right to privacy in
It also enhances the Court’s capacity to life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by
render justice, especially since, as the Supreme an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
Court has had occasion to say, it includes the employee, or of a private individual or entity
inherent authority to suspend rules when the engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of
requirement of justice demand. data or information regarding the person, family,
Moreover, since it is to the Supreme Court home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.
that rule making authority has been given, rules (Section 1, The Rule on the Habeas Data)
promulgated by special courts and quasi-judicial
bodies are effective unless disapproved by the
Supreme Court. 6. Admission to the Practice of Law
- Rule on Conduct of Officials.
Section 90 of the Local Government Code
4. Test to Determine whether the rules which prohibits lawyers who are members of a
diminish, increase or modify substantive local legislative body to practice law is not an
rights infringement on the power of the Court to provide
1. If the rule takes away a vested right, it is a for rules for the practice of law. The law must be
substantive matter. seen not as a rule on practice of law but as a rule
2. If the rule creates a right, it may be a substantive on the conduct of officials intended to prevent
matter. conflict of interest. (Javellana v. DILG, 1992)
3. If it operates as a means of implementing an
existing right, then the rule deals merely with - Bar Flunkers Act.
procedure. (Fabian v. Disierto) After the Supreme Court has declared
candidates for the bar as having flunked the
examinations, Congress may not pass a law
lowering the passing mark and declaring the same 6. Encourage and foster legal education;
candidates as having passed. This would amount 7. Promote a continuing program of legal
to not just amending the rules but reversing the research in substantive and adjective law,
Court’s application of an existing rule. (In re and make reports and recommendations
Cunanan , 94 phil 534 (1954)) thereon; and
8. Enable the Bar to discharge its public
- Nullification of Bar Results. responsibility effectively (In re Integration
In 2003, the Court nullified the results of of the Bar of the Philippines)
the exams on Commercial Law when it was
discovered that the Bar questions had been d. In re: Atty. Marcial Edillon.
leaked. (Bar matter No. 1222, 2004) In this case, Atty. Edillon objects to the
requirement of membership in the integrated
bar as a pre-condition to the practice of law.
7. Integration of the Bar This gave the Court the opportunity to
a. Bar - refers to the collectivity of all persons ventilate some basic notions underlying bar
whose names appear in the Roll of integration.
Attorneys. 1. The practice of law is a privilege that is
b. Integration of the Philippine Bar - means subject to reasonable regulation by the
the official unification of the entire lawyer State;
population of the Philippines. This requires 2. Bar integration is mandated by the
membership and financial support (in Constitution;
reasonable amount) of every attorney as 3. The lawyer is not being compelled to join
conditions sine qua non to the practice of the association. Passing the bar
law and the retention of his name in the examination already made him a member
Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court. (In of the bar. The only compulsion to which he
re Integration of the Bar of the Philippines) is subjected is the payment of annual dues,
c. Purpose of an integrated Bar, in general and this is justified by the need for
are: elevating the quality of legal profession;
1. Assist in the administration of justice; 4. The Constitution vests in the SC plenary
2. Foster and maintain, on the part of its powers regarding admission to the bar.
members, high ideals of integrity, learning,
professional competence, public service e. Letter of Atty Arevalo, 2005. Payment of
and conduct; dues is a necessary consequence of
3. Safeguard the professional interests of membership in the Integrated Bar of the
its members; Philippines, of which no one is exempt. This
4. Cultivate among its members a spirit of means that the compulsory nature of
cordiality and brotherhood; payment of dues subsists as long as one’s
5. Provide a forum for the discussion of law, membership in the IBP remains regardless
jurisprudence, law reform, pleading, of the lack of practice of, or the type of
practice, and procedure, and the relation practice, the member is engaged in.
of the Bar to the Bench and to the public,
and public relation relating thereto;
8. Congress and the Rules of Court authority must be exercised “in accordance with
- Bernas Primer: the Civil Service Law.”
Rules issued by the Supreme Court may be Note that Section 5(6) empowers the
repealed, altered, or supplemented by Congress Supreme Court not only to appoint its own
because Congress has plenary legislative power. officials and employees but of the Judiciary itself.
The silence of the Constitution on the subject can It should also be recalled that courts may
only be interpreted as meaning that there is no be given authority by Congress “to appoint
intention to diminish that plenary power. In fact, officers lower in rank.” (Sec. 16, Art. VII, 1987
RA 8974 which requires full payment before the Constitution)
sate may exercise proprietary rights, contrary to
Rule 67 which requires a deposit, was recognized SECTION 6. The Supreme Court shall
have administrative supervision over
by Court in Republic v. Gingoyon, 2005. (An earlier
all courts and the personnel thereof.
obiter dictum in Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice, 1999,
said that Congress has no power to amend Rules.
This was repeated by Puno and Carpio in dissent in
Administrative Supervision of Courts
Republic v. Gingoyon)

- Nachura (2006): - Strengthens Independence.

Section 6 provides that the Supreme Court
Congress cannot amend the Rules of Court.
“The 1987 Constitution took away the power of shall have administrative supervision by the
Supreme Court over all lower courts and the
Congress to repeal, alter or supplement rules
personnel thereof. It is a significant innovation
concerning pleading and procedure. In fine, the
power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice towards strengthening the independence of the
judiciary. Before 1973
and procedure is no longer shared by this Court
Constitution, there was no constitutional
with Congress, more so with the Executive.”
provision on the subject and administrative
Echagaray v. Secretary of Justice (1999)
supervision over the lower courts and their
- ASM: personnel was exercised by the Secretary of
Justice. The previous set-up impaired the
Follow Bernas’ view. Article XVIII, Section
independence of judges who tended to defer to
10 provides: “The provisions of the existing Rules
of Court, judiciary acts, and procedural laws not the pressures and suggestions of the executive
department in exchange for favorable action on
inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain
operative unless amended or repealed by the their requests and administrative problems.
Supreme Court or the Congress”
- Exclusive Supervision.
Sec. 6, Art. VIII exclusively vests in the
Supreme Court administrative supervision over all
J. Appointment of Court Personnel
courts and court personnel, from the Presiding
The authority of the Supreme Court to
appoint its own official and employees is another Justice of the Court of Appeals down to the lowest
municipal trial court clerk. By virtue of this power,
measure intended to safeguard the independence
of the Judiciary. However, the Court’s appointing it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the
judges’ and court personnel’s compliance with all
laws, and take proper administrative action
against them if they commit any violation thereof.
SECTION 7. (1) No person shall be
No other branch of government may intrude into appointed Member of the Supreme
this power, without running afoul to the doctrine Court or any lower collegiate court
of separation of powers. (Maceda v. Vasquez) unless he is a natural-born citizen of
the Philippines. A Member of the
- Ombudsman and SC’s Power of Supreme Court must be at least forty
years of age, and must have been for
Supervision. fifteen years or more a judge of a lower
The Ombudsman may not initiate or court or engaged in the practice of law
investigate a criminal or administrative complaint in the Philippines.
before his office against a judge; the Ombudsman
must first indorse the case to the Supreme Court (2) The Congress shall prescribe the
qualifications of judges of lower courts,
for appropriate action. (Fuentes v. Office of but no person may be appointed judge
Ombudsman, 2001) thereof unless he is a citizen of the
Philippines and a member of the
- Administrative Proceeding, Philippine Bar.
(3) A Member of the Judiciary must be
Administrative proceedings before the
a person of proven competence,
Supreme Court are confidential in nature in order integrity, probity, and independence.
to protect the respondent therein who may turn
out to be innocent of the charges. (Godinez v.
Congress may not alter the qualifications of
Alano, 1999)
Members of the Supreme Court and the
According to Bernas, the power of
constitutional qualifications of other members of
administrative supervision of the Supreme Court,
the Judiciary. But Congress may alter the statutory
includes the power [sitting en banc] to discipline
qualifications of judges and justices of lower
judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal.

It behooves every prospective appointee

to the Judiciary to apprise the appointing
authority of every matter bearing on his fitness for
judicial office, including such circumstances as
may reflect on his integrity and probity. Thus the
fact that a prospective judge failed to disclose that
he had been administratively charged and
Qualifications of a Member of the Supreme Court:
dismissed from the service for grave misconduct
1. Must be a natural born citizen of the
by a former President of the Philippines was used
against him. It did not matter that he had resigned
2. Must at least be 40 years of age
from office and that the administrative case
3. Must have been for 15 years or more a judge of
against him had become moot and academic.
a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in
the Philippines; and
Similary, before one who is offered an
4. A person of proven competence, integrity,
appointment to the Supreme Court can accept it,
probity, and independence.
he must correct the entry in his birth certificate
that he is an alien.

“A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of

proven competence, integrity, probity, and
- Competence.
In determining the competence of the
applicant or recommendee for appointment, the
Judicial and Bar Council shall consider his
educational preparation, experience,
performance and other accomplishments of the
applicant. (Rule 3 Section 1 of JBC Rules)

- Integrity.
The Judicial and Bar Council shall take every
possible step to verify the applicant’s record of
and reputation for honesty, integrity,
incorruptibility, irreproachable conduct and
fidelity to sound moral and ethical standards. (Rule
4, Section 1 of JBC Rules)

- Probity and Independence.

Any evidence relevant to the candidate’s
probity and independence such as, but not limited
to, decision he has rendered if he is an incumbent
member of the judiciary or reflective of the
soundness of his judgment, courage, rectitude,
cold neutrality and strength of character shall be
considered. (Rule 5 Section of JBC Rules)


Composition (Art. VIII, Sec. 8[1])
Ex-officio members
1. Chief Justice as ex-officio Chairman other functions and duties as the SC may assign to
2. Secretary of Justice it.
3. One representative of Congress - (Former
practices of giving ½ vote or (more recently) PROCEDURE OF APPOINTMENT (Article VIII Sec 9)
1 full vote each for the Chairmen of the The JBC shall submit a list of three
House and Senate Committees on Justice is nominees for every vacancy to the
invalid.) President. (art. VIII, sec. 9)
The framers intended the JBC to be composed of
7 members only. Intent is for each co-equal
branch of gov’t to have one rep. There is no  Any vacancy in the Supreme Court shall be
dichotomy between Senate and HOR when filed within ninety (90) days from the
Congress interacts with other branches. But the occurrence thereof. (art. VIII, sec. 4[1])
SC not in a position to say who should sit. [Chavez  For lower courts, the President shall issue
v. JBC, (2012)] the appointment within ninety (90) days
from the submission by the JBC of such list.
Regular members (art. VIII, sec. 9)
4. Representative of the Integrated Bar Note: If the President is not satisfied with the
5. Professor of Law names in the list, he may ask for another list. But
6. Retired member of the SC once the appointment is issued by the President
7. Representative of private sector and accepted by the nominee, it needs no further
Regular members [Art. VIII, Sec. 8(2)] - The regular confirmation.
members shall be appointed by the President Only those nominated by the JBC in a list officially
with the consent of the Commission on transmitted to the President may be appointed by
Appointments. The term of the regular members the latter as justice or judge in the judiciary.
is 4 years. [Villanueva v. JBC, (2015)]
But the term of those initially appointed shall be Constitution DO NOT authorizes the President to
staggered in the following way so as to create designate a non-member of the Supreme Court
continuity in the council: temporarily to sit as Justice of the Supreme Court.
1. IBP representative - 4 years [Vargas v. Villoraza (1948)]
2. Law professor - 3 years The prohibition against midnight appointments
3. Retired justice - 2 years does not apply to the judiciary. [De Castro v. JBC,
4. Private sector - 1 year (2010)]
They shall receive emoluments as may be
determined by the Supreme Court. The Supreme
VIII, Sec 10)
Court shall provide in its annual budget the
appropriations for the council [Art. VIII, Sec. 8(4)] It is intended as a protection for the independence
of the judiciary.
Secretary ex-officio (art. VIII, sec. 8[3]): Clerk of
Court of the SC, who shall keep a record of its However, salaries of the members of the Judiciary
proceedings; not a member of the JBC. are taxable. [Nitafan, et al. v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue (19870]
Primary function [Art. VIII, Sec. 8(5): Recommend
appointees to the judiciary, May exercise such
Sec. 11)
“The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of
lower courts shall hold office during good behavior
until they reach the age of seventy years or become Requirement for Disciplinary Actions
incapacitated to discharge the duties of their
Disciplinary Action Decision
Decision Dismissal of Decision en banc (by a
Member of the Supreme Court failed to satisfy the judges, Disbarment of vote of a majority of
requirement of “good behavior” only if they are a lawyer, suspension the members who
guilty of the offenses which are constitutional of either for more actually took part in
grounds for impeachment. than 1 year or a fine the deliberations on
exceeding 10,000 the issues in the case
These offenses are: [Art. XI, Sec. 2] pesos (People v. and voted thereon)
1. Culpable violation of the Constitution
Other disciplinary Decision of a division is
2. Treason actions sufficient (People v.
3. Bribery Gacott)
4. Graft and corruption Note: Power to discipline judges of inferior courts
5. Other high crimes or to order their dismissal is exclusive. It may not
6. Betrayal of public trust be vested in any other body. Nor may Congress
The power to determine incapacity is part of the pass a law that judges of lower courts are
overall administrative power which the Supreme removable by impeachment.
Court has over its members and over all members
of the Judiciary.
OFFICES (Art. VIII, Sec. 12)
Abolition of office, in order to be valid, must not
“The Members of the Supreme Court and of other
be used as a ploy for circumventing the guarantee
courts established by law shall not be designated to
of security of tenure. “Nothing is better settled in
any agency performing quasi-judicial or
our law than that the abolition of office within the
administrative functions.”
competence of a legitimate body if done in good
faith suffers from no infirmity.” [De La Llana v. The provision merely makes explicit an application
Alba (1982)] of the principle of separation of powers.

DISCIPLINARY POWERS (Art. VIII, Sec. 11) The SC and its members should not and cannot be
required to exercise any power or to perform any
“The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power
trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or
of discipline judges of lower courts, or order their
connected w/ the administering of judicial
dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members
functions. (Meralco v. Pasay Transportation Co.,
who actually took part in the deliberations on the
issues in the case and voted thereon.”
A judge in the CFI shall not be detailed with the
Department of Justice to perform administrative
Disciplinary Actions functions as this contravenes the doctrine of
separation of powers. [Garcia vs Macaraig, (1972)]
1. Removal
2. Suspension PROCESS OF DECISION MAKING (Art. VIII, Sec. 13)
3. Fine
“The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case Decision – the final determination made by a court
submitted to it for decision en banc or in division of the substantive issues brought for resolution
shall be reached in consultation before the case is
A decision need not be a complete recital of the
assigned to a Member for the writing of the opinion
evidence presented. So long as the factual and
of the Court.”
legal basis are clearly and distinctly set forth
This provision obliges all Justices of the Supreme supporting the conclusions drawn therefrom, the
Court to study every case to be decided en banc or decision arrived at is valid.
by the division to which they belong.
However, it is imperative that the decision not
“A certification as regards consultation and simply be limited to the dispositive portion but
assignment signed by the Chief Justice shall be must state the nature of the case, summarize the
issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of facts with reference to the record, and contain a
the case and served upon the parties.” statement of applicable laws and jurisprudence
and the tribunal’s statement and conclusions on
The lack of certification at the end of the decision
the case.
would only serve as evidence of failure to observe
certification requirement and may be basis for Jurisprudence on Sufficient Compliance:
holding the official responsible for the omission to
There is no prohibition against court’s adoption of
account therefore. Such absence of certification
the narration of facts made in the brief instead of
would not have the effect of invalidating the
rewriting them in its own words. (Hernandez v.
decision. [Consing v. Court of Appeals (1989)]
CA, 228 SCRA 429)
The certification by the Chief Justice that he has
The rule remains that the constitutional mandate
assigned the case to a Justice for writing the
saying that “no decision shall be rendered by any
opinion will not expose such Justice to pressure
court without expressing therein clearly and
since the certification will not identify the Justice.
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is
Minute resolutions need not be signed by the based,” does not preclude the validity of
members of the Court who took part in the “memorandum decision” which adopt by
deliberations of a case nor do they require the reference the findings of fact and conclusions of
certification of the Chief Justice. (Borromeo v. CA, law contained in the decisions of inferior tribunals.
1990) This rule has been justified on the grounds of
expediency, practicality, convenience and docket
“Any Members who took no part, or dissented, or
status of our courts [Solid Homes v. Laserna,
abstained from a decision or resolution must state
the reason therefor. The same requirements shall be
observed by all lower collegiate courts.” The rule on contents of decision is applicable to all
courts. Failure of a judge to follow it would subject
The reason for the required explanation is to
him to disciplinary action and failure of a member
encourage participation and at the same time is a
of Supreme Court would subject him to
recognition of the fact that dissenting opinions
impeachment. Other commissions (i.e. military
sometimes eventually become the majority
commission or COMELEC), not being a court, does
not come under the provision.

The rule does not require a statement of facts and case or matter submitted thereto for
an accompanying reasoning out of the applicable determination, without further delay.” [Art. VIII,
law but merely a statement of the “legal basis” for Sec. 15(4)]
denying due course.
Failure to decide the case within the reglamentary
The need to state the legal basis arises from the period does not decide the case either way.
fact that a denial of review or reconsideration
Rules found on paragraph (3) and (4) also apply to
affects the subject matter of the merits of the
cases filed before the ratification of this
Constitution if the applicable period lapses after
the ratification.

PERIOD FOR MAKING DECISIONS (Art. VIII, Sec. The Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to
15) decide cases and matters ending before them
within the period fixed by law. Failure to do so is
“Justice delayed is justice denied.” considered gross inefficiency and warrants
1. Supreme Court – 24 months administrative sanctions.
2. Lower Collegiate Courts – 12 months unless
reduced by SC
3. Lower Courts and Sandiganbayan – 3
months unless reduced by SC
“A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for
decision or resolution upon the filing of the last
pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the
Rules of Court or by the court itself.” [Art. VIII, Sec
Decision within the maximum period is
mandatory. Failure to comply can subject a
Supreme Court Justice to impeachment for
culpable violation of the Constitution and a lower
court judge to disciplinary action. This provision is,
however, prospective in application.
“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.” [Art. VIII, Sec 15(3)]
“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