JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
REVIEWER
I. INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY
To maintain the independence of the judiciary, the ff
safeguards have been embodied in the Constitution:
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.
2. The members of the SC may not be removed
except by impeachment.
3. The SC may not be deprived of its minimum
original and appellate jurisdiction as prescribed in
Art. 8, Sec 5, of the Constitution.
4. The appellate jurisdiction of the SC may not be
increased by law without its advice and
concurrence.
5. Appointees to the judiciary are now nominated
by the Judicial and Bar Council and no longer
subject to confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments.
6. The SC now has administrative supervision over all
lower courts and their personnel.
7. The SC has exclusive power to discipline judges of
lower courts.
8. The members of the SC and all lower courts have
security of tenure, which cannot be undermined
by a law reorganizing the judiciary.
9. They shall not be designated to any agency
performing quasi-judicial or administrative
functions.
10. The salaries of judges may not be reduced during
their continuance in office.
11. The judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy.
12. The SC alone may initiate rules of court.
13. Only the SC may order the temporary details of
judges.
14. The SC can appoint all officials and employees of
the judiciary.
II. JUDICIAL POWER
“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.” (Art 8, Sec 1)
- Judicial power shall be vested not only I the SC
but in such lower courts as may be established by
law.
- SC is the only constitutional court, all lower courts
being of statutory creation.
- Judicial department of our government:
1. SC
2. CTA
3. Sandiganbayan
4. Sharia courts
- Under the new definition of judicial power, the
courts of justice are authorized not only “to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable” but also
“to determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government.”
- “To settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable”
is the traditional concept of judicial power.
- “To determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government” represents a
broadening of judicial power to enable the courts
of justice to review what was before forbidden
territory, to wit, the discretion of the political
departments of the government.
IBP V ZAMORA
- When the grant of power is qualified, conditional
or subject to limitations, the issue of whether the
prescribed qualifications or conditions or
limitations have been met or the limitations
respected is justiciable – the problem being one
of validity, not its wisdom.
DAZA V SINGSON
- The issue presented is justiciable rather than
political if it involves the legality and not the
wisdom of the act complained of.
- Even if the nature is political in nature, it would still
come within the Court’s power of review under
the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon it by Art
8, sec1 of the Constitution.
ATONG PAGLAUM INC V COMELEC
- The duty of the court includes the power to set
aside acts of government, even if not tainted with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.
MMDA V CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY
- Judicial power includes the power of the court “to
alter, modify, or set aside their decisions before
they became final and unalterable.”
- It covers as well the continuing authority of the SC
to enforce its final decisions because the
execution if its decisions is but an integral part of
its adjacent function.
III. JURISDICTION
“The Congress shall have the power to define,
prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various
courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its
jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.”
(Art 8, Sec 2(1))
- Jurisdiction – authority by which courts take
cognizance of and decide cases, the legal right
by which judges exercise their authority.
- Jurisdiction spoken of in Sec 2 are those cases
prescribed by the Congress subject to
constitutional limitations.
- Although the appellate jurisdiction of the SC may
be increased by law, this may not be done now
except upon advice and with the concurrence of
the SC itself.
- No law may be passed depriving it of the power
to review a life sentence.
IV. APPOINTMENTS
“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 preferred by the Judicial and
Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need
no confirmation.
For the lower courts, the President shall issue the
appointment within ninety days from the submission of the
list.” (Art 8, Sec 9)
QUALIFICATIONS
“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.” (Art 8, Sec 7(1))
A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of
proven competence, integrity, probity, and
independence. (Art 8, Sec 7(3))
- Qualifications may not be reduced or increased
by the Congress through ordinary legislation.
- In cases of judges of the lower courts, Congress is
permitted to add to the constitutional
qualifications, the same being only minimum
requirements.
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. (Art 8, Sec 7(2))
- Natural-born citizen is not required for courts lower
than collegiate courts.
JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL
- The council that will screen such appointments
and not the Commission, which is a highly political
body likely to be influenced by considerations
other than the merits of the candidate for judicial
office.
- It is not infrequent in the past when persons
without credentials except their political
affiliations and loyalty were able to infiltrate and
emasculate the judiciary.
“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.
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.
The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the
Secretary ex officio of the Council and shall keep a record
of its proceedings.
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.
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.” (Art 8, Sec 8)
Composition
1. Ex officio Chairman:
a. Chief Justice
2. Ex-officio members:
a. Sec of Justice
b. Representative of Congress
3. Regular members:
a. Representative of the IBP
b. Professor of Law
c. Retired member of SC
d. Representative of private sector
4. Secretary de officio:
a. Clerk of the SC
Term
- Regular members shall be appointed by the
President for a four-year term with the consent of
the COA.
- Nomination of the council, the judge does not
need confirmation by the COA.
- Judges may not be appointed in an acting or
temporary capacity as this would undermine the
independence of the judiciary, temporary
appointments being essentially revocable at will.
And to prevent impairment of this same goal and
discontinue a notorious practice before.
“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 function.” (Art 8,
Sec 12)
V. 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.” (Art 8, Sec 3)
BENGZON V DRILON
- Fiscal autonomy means freedom from outside
control.
- Fiscal autonomy contemplates a guarantee of full
flexibility to allocate and utilize their resources with
the wisdom and dispatch that their needs require.
- Power and authority to levy, assess and collect
fees, fix rates of compensation not exceeding the
highest rates authorized by law for compensation
and pay plans of the government and allocate
and disburse such sums as may be provided by
law or prescribed by them in the course of the
discharge of their functions.
- Any law which provides for an exemption from
said fees would be constitutionally infirm for it
impairs the Court’s guaranteed fiscal autonomy
and erodes its independence.
VI. COMPOSITION OF THE SUPREME COURT
“The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice
and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its
discretion, in division of three, five, or seven Members. Any
vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the
occurrence thereof.” (Art 8, Sec 4(1))
- The number of members of the full Court and of
the divisions is fixed by the Constitution and may
not be changed by statute.
DE CASTRO V JBC
- President may provide for appointments in the
Judiciary even within two months immediately
before the next presidential election and up to
the end of his term.
- Prohibition against the President and the Acting
President making appointments within two months
before the next presidential elections and up to
the end of the President’s or Acting President’s
term does not refer to the Members of the SC and
does not apply as well to all other appointments in
the Judiciary.
EN BANC CASES
“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.” (Art 8, Sec 4(2))
- Now, as few as five members of the Court can
declare any of the measures unconstitutional, this
number being a majority of the quorum of eight of
the fifteen-member Court.
KIDA V SENATE OF THE PHILIPINES
- Regardless of how close the voting is, so long as
there is a concurrence of the majority of members
of the en banc who actually took part in the
deliberations of the case, a decision garnering
only 8 votes out of 15 members is still a decision of
the SC en banc and must be respected as such.
DIVISION CASES
“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.” (Art 8, Sec
4(3))
- There are now three divisions of the SC with five
members each.
- Where the necessary vote cannot be had in
division, the case shall be referred to the Court en
banc and decided in accordance with its own
rules.
- Same action shall be taken where a doctrine or
principle of law laid down by the court en banc or
in division is sought to be modified or reversed, as
a contrary rule would lead to confusion in our
jurisprudence, with the divisions contradicting
each other or even changing rulings laid down by
the full court.
FORTICH V CORONA
- The word “decided” refers to “cases,” while the
word “resolved” refers to “matters.”
VII. POWER OF JUDICIAL INQUIRY
- No constitutional question will be heard and
decided by them unless there is compliance with
what are known as the requisites of judicial inquiry.
Requisites:
1. There must be an actual case or controversy
2. The question of constitutionality must be raised by
the proper party
3. The constitutional question must be raised at the
earliest possible opportunity
4. The decision of the constitutional question must
be necessary to the determination of the case
itself
1. ACTUAL CASE
- Involves conflict of legal rights, an assertion of
opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial
resolution.
- Case must not be moot and academic or based
on extra-legal or other similar considerations not
cognizable by a court of justice.
- There must be a contrariety of legal rights that
can be interpreted and enforced on the basis of
existing law and jurisprudence.
- Controversy - one that is appropriate for judicial
determination
- Must be real and substantial controversy
admitting of specific relief through a
decree that is conclusive in character.
- Request for advisory opinion cannot come under
the category of an actual case or controversy
since the issue raised does not involve any conflict
in law that has assumed the proportions of a full-
blown dispute.
- Case is deemed an actual controversy where the
purpose is to solicit from the court a declaratory
judgment involving the interpretation of the rights
and duties of a person under the provisions of a
deed, will, contract, or other written instrument or
a statute or ordinance.
PIMENTEL V AGUIRRE
- When an act of the legislative department is
seriously alleged to have infringed the
Constitution, settling the controversy becomes the
duty of this Court.
- By the mere enactment of the questioned law or
the approval of the challenged action, the
dispute is said to have ripened into a judicial
controversy even without any other overt act.
- Even a singular violation of the Constitution and/or
the law is enough to awaken judicial duty.
PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO V GRPPPAD
- That the law or an act in question is not yet
effective does not negate ripeness.
- When an act of the President, who in our
constitutional scheme is a coequal of Congress, is
seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution
and the laws, settling the dispute becomes the
duty and the responsibility of the courts.
PACU V SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
- Mere apprehension that the Sec of Education
might, under the law, withdraw the permit of one
of the petitioners does not constitute a justiciable
controversy.
MADRIAGA V CHINA BANKING CORP
- When there is no more live subject of controversy,
the Court ceases to have a reason to render any
ruling or make any pronouncement. Courts
generally decline jurisdiction on the grounds of
mootness.
JAVIER V COMELEC
- The SC is not only the highest arbiter but also the
conscience of the government.
- There are times when although the dispute has
disappeared, it nevertheless cries out to be
resolved.
- Justice demands that we act then, not only for
the vindication of the outraged right, though
gone, but also for the guidance of and as a
restrain upon the future.
DAVIDV ARROYO
- Moot and academic principle is not a magic
formula that can automatically dissuade the
courts in resolving a case.
EXCEPTIONS TO MOOTNESS
1. There is a grave violation of the Constitution
2. The exceptional character of the situation
and the paramount public interest is involved
3. When the constitutional issue raised requires
formulation of controlling principle to guide
the bench, the bar, and the public
4. The case is capable of repetition yet evading
preview
GARCILLANO V HOR
- Transcendental and paramount importance not
only to the public but also to the bench and the
bar, and should be resolved for the guidance of
all
2. PROPER PARTY
- One who has sustained or is in immediate danger
of sustaining an injury as a result of the act
complained of.
- Unless and unless such actual or potential injury is
established, the complainant cannot have the
legal personality to raise the constitutional
question.
- LOCUS STANDI – personal and substantial interest
in a case such that the party has sustained or will
sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental
act that is being challenged.
- Being a mere procedural technicality,
the requirement of locus standi may be
waived by the Court in the exercise of its
discretion.
TAXPAYERS AS PROPER PARTY
- It is now permissible for an ordinary for an ordinary
taxpayer/s to raise the question of the validity of
an appropriation law.
- The transcendental importance to the public of
these cases demands that they be settled
promptly and definitely, brushing aside, if we must,
technicalities of procedure.
- Taxpayers must make a claim of illegal
disbursement of public funds or that a tax
measure is unconstitutional, or deflected to an
illegal purpose, or that there is a wastage of
public funds through the enforcement of an
invalid or unconstitutional.
- Requisites for a taxpayer’s suit to prosper:
1. Public funds derived from taxation are
disbursed by a political subdivision or
instrumentality, and in doing so, law violated
or some irregularity is committed
2. Petitioner is directly affected by the alleged
act.
- Taxpayer is considered to have the proper
personality or standing to raise a constitutional
issue when it is established that public funds from
taxation have been disbursed in alleged
contravention of the law or the Constitution.
LEGISLATORS AS PROPER PARTY
- Legislators have been acknowledged as proper
parties in suits involving claims that the official
action complained of infringes upon their
prerogatives as such.
- Any act of the Executive that injures the institution
of Congress causes a derivative but nonetheless
substantial injury that can be questioned by
legislators.
- An organization of taxpayers and citizens was
held to be a proper party to question the
constitutionality of a law providing for special
retirement benefits for members of the legislature.
TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE/S RAISED
REQUISITES OF TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE
1. Character of the funds (that it is public) o other
assets involved in the case
2. Presence of a clear case of disregard of a
constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public
respondent agency or instrumentality of the
government
3. Lack of any party with a more direct and specific
interest in raising the questions being raised.
KILOSBAYAN INC V GUINGONA
- Kilosbayan was acknowledge as a proper party in
a suit questioning the eligibility of an appointee to
the SC on the ground of his alleged lack of
constitutional qualification natural-citizenship.
- The Court allowed its petition, considering that it
involved “an issue of utmost and far-reaching
 constitutional importance, namely, the
qualification of a person to be appointed as a
member of the SC.
ANAK MINDANAO PARTY LIST V EXEC SEC
- People’s or non-governmental organizations may
not ventilate “generalized grievances” against
Executive Orders.
CONCERNED CITIZEN AS A PARTY
- There must be a showing that the issues raised by
them are of transcendental importance which
must be settled early.
- When the issue concerns a public right, it is
sufficient that the petitioner is a citizen and has an
interest in the execution of the laws.
ORDINARY CITIZEN MAY BE CONSIDERED AS CLOTHED WITH
LOCUS STANDI AND WOULD SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF
PERSONAL INTEREST WHEN:
1. When the proceeding involves the assertion of
public right
2. When the right to information is invoked
3. When freedom of expression, which has been
considered as “an issue of overarching
significance to our society,” is involved
CITIZEN CAN RAISE A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION ONLY
WHEN:
1. He can show that he has personally suffered some
actual or threatened injury because of the
allegedly illegal conduct of the government
2. The injury is fairly traceable to the challenged
action
3. A favorable action will likely redress the injury.
3. EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY
- Constitutional questions must be raised at the
earliest possible opportunity, such that if it is not
raised in the pleadings, it cannot be considered
at the trial, and, if not considered at the trial, it
cannot be considered on appeal.
EXCEPTION:
1. In criminal cases, the constitutional question
can be raised at any time in the discretion of
the court.
2. In civil cases, the constitutional question can
be raised at any stage if it is necessary to the
determination of the case itself.
3. In every case, except where there is estoppel,
the constitutional question may be raised at
any stage if it involves the jurisdiction of the
court.
4. NECESSITY OF DECIDING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
ZANDUETA V DE LA COSTA
- A person cannot question the validity of a law
under which he had previously accepted
benefits.
GENERAL V URRO
- If the petitioner fails to establish his cause of
action for quo warranto, a discussion of the
constitutionality of the appointments of the
respondents is rendered completely unnecessary.
EFFECTS OF DECLARATION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY
TWO VIEWS:
1. Orthodox View
2. Modern View
ORTHODOX VIEW
- Unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no
rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection;
has no legal effect; it creates no office; it is in
legal contemplation, inoperative, as if it had not
been passed.
- Considered never to have existed ever.
MODERN VIEW
- Court in passing the constitutionality does not
annul or repeal the statute if it finds it in conflict
with the Constitution
- Refuses to recognize and determines the rights of
the parties just as if such statute had no existence.
- Opinion or reason of the court may operate as a
precedent for the determination of other similar
cases, but it does not strike the statute from the
statute books; it does not repeal, supersede,
revoke, or annul the statute.
DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT
- Nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by
recognizing that the existence of a statute prior to
a determination of unconstitutionality is an
operative fact and may have consequences
which cannot always be ignored.
- Applicable when a declaration of
unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden
on those who have relied on the invalid law.
- Applied to a criminal case when:
1. Declaration of unconstitutionality would put
the accused in double jeopardy;
2. Would put in limbo the acts done by a
municipality in reliance upon a law creating
it.
- Only applies as a matter of equity and fair play.
LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES V COMELEC
- Under the operative fact 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.
- Invocation of the doctrine of operative fact is an
admission that the law is unconstitutional.
- The doctrine affects or modifies only the effects of
the unconstitutional law, not the unconstitutional
law itself.
PARTIAL UNCONSTITUTIONALITY
- Courts hesitate to declare a law totally
unconstitutional and, as long as it is possible, will
salvage the valid portions thereof in order to give
effect to the legislative will.
- Declaration of partial unconstitutionality will be
valid if:
1. Legislature is willing to retain the valid portions
even if the rest of the statute is declared
illegal;
 2. The valid portions can stand independently
as a separate statute.
- Legislative willingness to retain the valid portions
may be expressed in separability clause.
- “If for any reason any section or provision
of this Act is declared invalid or
unconstitutional, the remainder of the
Act shall not be affected by such
declaration.”
- Note: Even without the separability
clause, if the valid portion is independent
of the invalid portion, it may be fair to
presume that the legislature would have
enacted it by itself if it had supposed that
it could constitutionally do so.
VIII. POWERS OF THE SUPREME COURT
1. Original jurisdiction
2. Appellate jurisdiction
3. Temporary assignment of judges
4. Change of venue or place of trial
5. Rule-making power
6. Appointment of court personnel
7. Administrative supervision of courts
1. Original Jurisdiction
Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, and habeas corpus. (Art 8, Sec 5(1))
- Diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction of the
court of receiving state unless when immunity is
waived either expressly or impliedly.
- SC maintained that though its possession of
original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and
habeas corpus, which it shares with the LC, does
not give parties “the complete liberty or discretion
to file their petition in any of these courts. In the
absence of special reasons, they cannot
disregard the doctrine of hierarchy of courts in our
judicial system by seeking relief directly from this
court despite the fact that the same is available in
the lower tribunals in the exercise of their original
concurrent jurisdiction.
- Note: direct invocation of the original jurisdiction
to the SC shall be allowed only when there are
“special and important reasons therefor, clearly
and especially set out in the petition” as for
instance “where the court believes that resolving
the issue of constitutionality of a law or regulation
at the first instance is of paramount importance
and immediately affects the social, economic,
and moral well-being of the people.
PRINCIPLE OF “JUDICIAL COURTESY”
- Applies where there is a “strong probability that
the issues before the higher court would be
rendered moot and moribund as a result of the
continuation of the proceedings in the LC or court
of origin.
PRINCIPLE OF HIERARCHY OF COURTS
- Requires that recourse must be first made to the
lower-ranked court exercising concurrent
jurisdiction with a higher court.
PETITIONER ORGANIZATONS V EXEC SEC
- Where the issues raised are of paramount
importance to the public, the court has the
discretion to brush aside technicalities of
procedure.
2. APPELLATE JURISDICTION
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. (Art 8, Sec 5(2))
Right to appeal not embraced in due process
- As long as the parties have been given the
opportunity to be heard in the lower court, they
cannot demand the right to appeal if the
legislature sees fit to withhold it. (not absolute)
- Appellate jurisdiction of the SC is irreducible may
not be withdrawn from it by the Congress.
- Appeals allowed in Section 5 are from the final
judgments and decrees only of LCs or judicial
tribunals and not administrative decisions.
- Review of these decisions by the court of justice,
including the SC, is not guaranteed by this
provision.
- On question of facts, it is entirely up to the
legislature to determine whether or not appeals
from such administrative decisions may be
allowed; without its permission, appeal cannot be
taken as a matter of right.
- On question of law, courts of justice possess an
underlying and inherent power to scrutinize the
same as decided by administrative agencies. But
appeals on such questions are not covered in Sec
5(2), Art 8, which is not applicable to
administrative agencies.
- As the SC is guaranteed appellate jurisdiction
where the case involves “only an error or question
of law,” it is permissible for the Congress to provide
that mixed questions of law and fact shall be
decided finally by a lower court.
- Appealed cases involving mixed questions of law
and fact are now under the jurisdiction of CA.
Competence of lower courts to decide constitutional
questions
- LC can decide constitutional questions but is still
subject to review by the SC.
- RTCs have the authority and jurisdiction to
consider the constitutionality of the statutes, EOs,
PDs and other issuances.
BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO V CAMACHO
- CTA’s jurisdiction is to resolve tax disputes in
general, however, this does not included cases
where the constitutionality of a law or rule is
challenged.
3. TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES
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. (Art8, Sec 5(3))
- Will minimize if not altogether eliminate the
pernicious practice of the rigodon de jueces, or
the transfer of judges at will to suit the motivations
of the chief executive.
- Temporary assignments may be justified to
arrange for judges with clogged dockets to be
assisted by their less busy colleagues, or to provide
for the replacement of the regular judge who
may not be expected to be impartial in the
decision of particular cases.
4. CHANGE OF VENUE OR PLACE OF TRIAL
Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a
miscarriage of justice. (Art 8, Sec 5(4))
PEOPLE V GUTIERREZ
- SC ordered the transfer on the basis of what is
considered its inherent authority, rejecting the
argument that venue in criminal cases was
jurisdictional.
- May also be exercised in civil cases where it can
be tried elsewhere by order of the SC to prevent
miscarriage of justice.
5. RULE-MAKING POWER
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
under-privileged. 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. (Art 8, Sec 5(5))
Limitations on the rule-making power of the SC:
1. The rules must be uniform for all courts of the same
grade.
2. The rules must not diminish, increase or modify
substantive rights.
ECHEGARAY V SEC OF JUSTICE
- Rule-making power of the Court was expanded.
- The Court was:
1. For the first time, given power to promulgate
rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights
2. Granted for the first time the power to
disapprove rules of procedure of special
courts and quasi-judicial bodies.
- New constitution took away the power of
Congress to repeal, alter, or supplement rules
concerning pleading, practice and procedure.
6. APPOINTMENT OF COURT PERSONNEL
Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in
accordance with the Civil Service Law. (Art 8, Sec 5 (6))
- Appointments made by the SC are, like all similar
appointments made by the other departments,
required to be in accordance with the Civil
Service Law.
7. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF COURTS
The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision
over all courts and the personnel thereof. (Art 8, Sec 6)
MACEDA V VASQUEZ
- Ombudsman cannot dictate to, and bind the
Court, to its findings that a case before it does or
does not have administrative implications.
- To do so is to deprive the court of the exercise of
its administrative prerogatives and to arrogate
unto itself a power not constitutionally sanctioned.
FUENTES V OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO
- No other entity has competence to review a
judicial order or decision – whether final and
executory or not – and pronounce it erroneous so
as to lay the basis for a criminal and administrative
complaint for rendering an unjust judgment or
order. The prerogative belongs to the court alone.
AMPONG V CSC
- Only the SC can oversee the judges’ and court
personnel’s compliance with all laws, rules and
regulation.
- Administrative jurisdiction over a court employee
belongs to the SC, regardless of whether the
offense was committed before or after
employment in the judiciary.
CSC V ANDAL
- In case of violation of the CS Law by a court
personnel, the standard procedure is for the CSC
to bring its complaint against a judicial employee
before the OCA of the SC.
GARCIA V MIRO
- Ombudsman can take cognizance of criminal
cases, or purely criminal aspect of cases, against
judges especially when the administrative aspect
thereof had been duly endorsed or referred to the
SC for adjudication.
PEOPLE V SESBRENO
- Power to administrative supervision includes the
authority to discipline a lawyer, as he “occupies
what may be termed a quasi-judicial office since
he is in fact an officer of the court, and like the
court itself, an instrument or agency to advance
the ends of justice.”
IX. SALARIES OF MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY
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 the continuance in office, their
salary shall not be decreased. (Art 8, Sec 10)
NITAFAN V COM OF BIR
- Salaries of judges should also be subject to
income tax.
X. TENURE OF JUDGES
The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of the
lower court shall hold office during good behavior until
they reach 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
majority of the Members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted in
thereon. (Art 8, Sec 11)
Judges may hold office until:
1. They reach the retirement age (70 yrs old)
2. Become incapacitated to discharge the duties of
their office
- Members of the judiciary may be removed only
after charges have been filed and proved against
them in a proper administrative proceeding
conducted or ordered by the SC.
Security of Tenure is not a personal privilege of any
particular judge; the right of a judge to his full tenure is not
dependent alone upon his good conduct, but also upon
the contingency that the legislature may, for the public
good, in establishing the courts, from time to time consider
his office unnecessary and abolish it.
Tenure of office presupposes the existence of the office.
Removal from the office v Abolition of the office
- Removal from the office implies that the office
exists’ nothing remained of the office after its
abolition.
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it
undermines the security of tenure of its Members. (Art 8,
Sec 2(2))
XI. PROHIBITION AGAINST DESIGNATION TO QUASI-JUDICIAL
OR ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
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 function. (Art 8,
Sec 12)
XII. CONSULTATIONS OF THE COURT
The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case
submitted to it for the decision en banc or in division shall
be reached in consultation before the case the case
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 court. (Art 8, Sec 13)
- As a collegiate court, SC is required to reach its
conclusions after an exchange of ideas and full
deliberation among its members.
- Primary purpose of a collegiate court is precisely
to provide for the most exhaustive deliberation
before a conclusion is reached.
- Once agreement is arrived at by the required
majority, a member is assigned as the ponente of
the court.
- Other members may choose to write separate
concurring opinions which is required from any
dissenting justice, who shall state the reasons for
his dissent.
- Such dissent may be useful in future
considerations of the same question and may
even be the basis of a new doctrine or ruling that
will overturn the existing precedent.
- Requirement for consultation is now applicable
also to the CA, Sandiganbayan, and CTA.
- Certification is intended as an added guarranty
that the consultation requirement will be
complied with by the court.
XIII. DECISIONS OF THE COURT
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. (Art 8, Sec 14)
- Only applicable to decisions; mere orders are not
covered since they dispose only incidents of the
case. (exception: order of dismissal)
Doctrine of RES JURIDICATA
- A final judgment or decree on the merits by a
court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the
rights of the parties or their private in all late suits
on all points and matters determined in the former
suit.
PRINCIPLE OF CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT
- When a right of fact has been judicially tried and
determined by a court of competent jurisdiction,
or when an opportunity for such trial has been
given, the judgment of the court, as long as it
remains unreversed, should be conclusive upon
the parties.
- Bars the re-litigation in a second case of a fact or
question already settled in a previous case.
LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE
- Where an appellate court has made a ruling on a
question on appeal and thereafter remands the
case to the lower court for further proceedings;
the question settled by the appellate court
becomes the law of the case at the lower court
and in any subsequent appeal.
DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS ET NON QUIETA MOVERE
- To adhere to precedents, and not to unsettle
things which are established.
- When this court has once laid down a principle of
law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will
adhere to that principle, and apply it to all future
cases, where the facts are substantially the same.
PRINCIPLE OF STARE DECISIS
- Enjoins adherence to judicial precedents.
- Requires courts in a country to follow the rule
established in a decision of its SC.
 - Once a question of law has been examined and XV. ANNUAL REPORT
decided, it should be deemed settled and closed The Supreme Court shall, within thirty days from the
to further argument. opening of each regular session of the Congress, submit to
the President and the Congress an annual report on the
DOCTRINE OF FINALITY OF JUDGMENT OR IMMUTABILITY OF operations and activities of the Judiciary. (Art 8, Sec 16)
JUDGMENT
- Annual report required can be the basis of
- Once a judgment has become final and appropriate legislation and government policies
executory, it may no longer be modified in any intended to improve the administration of justice
respect, even if the modification is meant to and strengthen the independence of the
correct an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, judiciary.
and regardless of whether the modification is
attempted to be made by the court rendering it
or by the highest court of the land.
- Two-fold purpose:
1. To avoid delay in the administration of justice,
and thus, procedurally, to make orderly the
discharge of judicial business;
2. To put an end to judicial controversies, at the
risk of occasional errors, which is precisely why
courts exists.
- Exceptions to the rule on the immutability of final
judgments are:
1. Correction of clerical errors;
2. Nunc pro yunc entries which cause no
prejudice to any party;
3. Void judgments; and
4. Whenever circumstances transpire after the
finality of the decision that render its
execution unjust and inequitable.

XIV. PERIODS FOR DECISION

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.
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.
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.
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.
(Art 8, Sec 15)

- If a judge is unable to comply with the period for

deciding cases or matters, he can ask for an
extension.
- The period shall start form the filing of the last
pleading, brief or memorandum required by the
Rules of Court or by the court itself.
- If the period exceeded, an explanation must be
made by either the Chief Justice or the presiding
judge in a certification to be served upon the
parties.