THE SUPREME COURT GROUP REPORT

Constitutional Law I
Atty. Victor Tulalian
Group 2
References: Philippine Political Law by Cruz ,Textbook on the
Philippine Constitution by De Leon, 1987 Constitution and Rules of
Court

 The barangay chiefs exercised judicial authority before the
arrival of the Spaniards in 1521.
 During early years of Spanish period, Miguel Lopez de
Legaspi exercised judicial powers
 The Royal Audencia was established. Also exercised
administrative functions. Composed of a President, 4
justices and a Fiscal.
 Audencia Territorial de Manila replaced the Royal
Audencia. The President was replaced by a Chief Justice.
 The Audencia was suspended by Gen. Wesley Merrit when
the Americans took over the PHL
 Maj. Gen. Otis re-established the Audencia. Provided for 6
Filipino members of the Audencia.
 Act No. 136 abolished the Audencia and established the
present Supreme Court. Cayetano Arellano became the
first CJ.
 1987 Constitution = present state of the SC

To maintain the independence of the judiciary,
the following safeguards have been embodied in
the Constitution:
1. The Supreme Court is a constitutional body. It cannot be
abolished nor may its membership or the manner of its
meetings be changed by mere legislation. ( 1987
Constitution Art. VIII sec. 4 [1] )
2. The members of the SC may not be removed except by
impeachment. ( Art. IX Sec. 2)
3. The SC may not be deprived of its minimum original and
appellate jurisdiction as prescribed in Art. VIII, Sec. %, of
the Constitution. ( Art. VIII Sec. 2)
4. The appellate jurisdiction of the SC may not be increased
by law without its advice and concurrence. (Art. VI sec.
30)

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.
( Art VIII sec. 9)
6. The SC now has administrative supervision over all
courts and their personnel. (Art. VIII sec. 6)
7. The SC has exclusive power to discipline judges of
lower courts. (Art. VIII sec. 11)
8. The members of the SC and all lower courts have
security of tenure, which cannot be determined by a
law reorganizing the judiciary.
9. They shall not be designated to any agency
performing quasi-judicial or administrative
functions. (Art. VIII sec. 12)

10. The salaries of judges may not be reduced during
their continuance in office. ( Art. VIII sec. 10)
11. The judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy (Art. VIII
sec. 3)
12. The SC may initiate rules of court. (Art. VIII sec. 5
[5])
13. Only the SC may order the temporary detail of
judges. (Art. VIII sec. 5 [3])
14. The SC can appoint all officials and employees of the
judiciary. (Art. VIII sec. 5 [6])

Judicial Power
Section 1. 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.

SECTION 1.
Judicial Power – is the power to apply the laws to contests or disputes
concerning legally recognized right or duties between the State and
private persons, or between individual litigants in cases properly
brought before the judicial tribunals.
Scope of judicial power
1. Adjudicatory power
(a.) to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable; and
(b.) to determine whether 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.
2. Power of judicial review
(a.) to pass upon the validity or constitutionality of the laws of the
State and the acts of the other departments of the government;
(b.) to interpret them;
(c.) to render binding judjement.
3. Incidental powers. – It likewise includes the incidental powers
necessary to the effective discharge of the judicial functions such
as the power to punish persons adjudged in contempt.

Giving of advisory opinions not a
judicial function
1. A function of elective officials
 The judiciary is entrusted by the Constitution with the
function of deciding actual cases and controversies.
 It cannot be required by law to exercise any power or to
perform any duty not pertaining to, or connected with,
the administration of judicial functions.
 It is not its function to give advisory opinions.
 It is a function of elective officials.

judicial function
2. Doctrine of separation of powers
 This doctrine calls for the other departments being left
alone to discharge their duties as they see fit.
 The President and Congress are not bound to seek the
advice of the Judiciary as to what to do or not to do.
 It is a prerequisite that something had been
accomplished or performed by either of them before a
court may enter into the picture.
 It may pass on the validity of what was done but only
when properly challenged in an appropriate legal
proceeding.

judicial function
3. Pendency of many actual cases
 With so many cases pending in courts wherein there is
an actual and antagonistic assertion between the
parties, it would not serve public interest at all if on
hypothetical questions or matters their time and
attention would still have to be devoted.

Organization of Courts
1. Regular courts. – The Philippine judicial system consists of a
hierarchy of courts resembling a pyramid with the Supreme Court
at the apex.
a.) Court of Appeals (now with 69 Justices headed by a Presiding
Justice) which operates in 23 divisions each comprising three (3)
members. The court sits en banc only to exercise administrative,
ceremonial, or other non-adjudicatory functions;
b.) Regional Trial Court presided by 720 Regional Trial Judges in each
thirteen (13) regions of the country; and
c.) Metropolitan Trial Court in each Metropolitan area established by
law; a Municipal Trial Court in every city not forming part of a
metropolitan area in each of the municipalities not comprised within a
metropolitan area and a municipal circuit; and a Municipal Circuit
Trial Court in each area defined as municipal circuit comprising one
or more cities and/or more municipalities grouped together according
to law.

Organization of Courts
2. Special courts.
a.) The court of Tax of Appeals (with three judges headed by a
Presiding Judge) was created under Republic Act. No. 1125,
as amended, which has exclusive appellate jurisdiction to
review on appeal decisions of the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue involving internal revenue taxes and decisions of the
Commissioner of Customs involving customs duties.
b.) The Sandiganbayan (now with 15 justices headed by
presiding Justice) which operates in five (5) divisions each
comprising three (3) members, was created by Presidential
Decree No. 1606 pursuant to the mandate of the 1973
Constitution. It shall continue to function and exercise provided
by a subsequent law.

Quasi-judicial agencies
 Administrative bodies under the executive branch
performing quasi-judicial functions, like the National
Labor Relations Commissions, the Employees
Compensation Commission, the Securities and
Exchange Commission, etc., and the independent
Constitutional Commissions do not form part of the
integrated judicial system.

Requisites of Judicial Inquiry
1. There must be an actual case or controversy;
2. The question of constitutionality must be raised by
the property 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.

Actual Case
• Involves a conflict or legal rights, an assertion of opposite
legal claims susceptible of judicial adjudication.
• Must be moot or 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 cab be
interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing law and
jurisprudence
• A controversy must be one that is appropriate for judicial
determination
• The controversy must be definite and concrete, touching
the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests.
• It must be real and substantial controversy admitting of
specific relief through a decree that is conclusive in
character.

Proper Party
 One who has sustained or is in immediate danger of
sustaining an injury as a result of act complained of.
 Until and unless such actual or potential injury is
established, the complainant cannot have the legal
personality to raise the constitutional question.
 Locus standi - means the right to bring an action, to be
heard in court, or to address the Court on a matter
before it. Locus standi is the ability of a party to
demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and
harm from the law or action challenged to support that
party’s participation in the case.

Earliest Opportunity
 General Rule: if not raised in the pleadings, it considered
at the trial, and if not considered at the trial, it cannot be
considered on appeal.
 This general rule however, is subject to the following
exceptions:
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.

Necessity of Deciding
Constitutional Question
 “to doubt is to sustain”:
a law is supposed to have been carefully studied and
determined to be constitutional before it was finally
enacted;
 presence of other basis:
its constitutionality cannot be touched and the case will
be decided on other available grounds

Effects of a Declaration of
Unconstitutionality
There are two views on the effects of a declaration of
constitutionality of a statute:
 Orthodox view
 An unconstitutional act is not a law
 It confers no rights
 It imposes no duties
 It affords no protection
 It creates no office
 In legal contemplation, inoperative, as if it had not been passed
 It therefore stricken from the statute books and considered never to
have existed at all.
 A total nullity

Effects of a Declaration of
Unconstitutionality
 Modern view
 Less stringent
 The court in passing upon the question of
constitutionality does not annul or repeal the statute if
it finds it in conflict with the Constitution.
 It simply refuses to recognize it and determines the
rights of the parties just as if such statute had no
existence.

Partial Unconstitutionality
 Will be valid only if two conditions concur:
1. that the legislature is willing to retain the valid
portions even if the rest of the statute is declared
illegal.
2. That the valid portions can stand independently as a
separate statute.
 The legislative willingness to retain the valid
portions may be expressed in what is known as the
Separability Clause.

Power of Judicial Review
Case :
Philippine Savings Bank, et. al. vs.
Senate Impeachment Court
G.R. No. 200238
November 20, 2012

Facts
 Philippine Savings Bank (PS Bank) and its President,
Pascual M. Garcia III, filed before the Supreme Court an
original civil action for certiorari and prohibition with
application for temporary restraining order and/or writ of
preliminary injunction.
 The TRO was sought to stop the Senate, sitting as
impeachment court, from further implementing
the Subpoena Ad Testificandum et Duces Tecum, dated
February 6, 2012, that it issued against the Branch Manager
of PS Bank, Katipunan Branch.
 The subpoena assailed by petitioners covers the foreign
currency denominated accounts allegedly owned by the
impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona of the Philippine
Supreme Court.

Issue
 Whether or not the Impeachment Court acted
arbitrarily when it issued the assailed subpoena to
obtain information concerning the subject foreign
currency deposits notwithstanding the confidentiality
of such deposits under RA 6426 has been overtaken by
events.

Ruling
 On November 5, 2012, and during the pendency of this petition, petitioners
filed a Motion with Leave of Court to Withdraw the Petition averring that
subsequent events have overtaken the petition and that, with the termination
of the impeachment proceedings against former Chief Justice Corona, they are
no longer faced with the dilemma of either violating Republic Act No. 6426 (RA
6426) or being held in contempt of court for refusing to disclose the details of
the subject foreign currency deposits.
 It is well-settled that courts will not determine questions that have become
moot and academic because there is no longer any justiciable controversy to
speak of.
 The judgment will not serve any useful purpose or have any practical legal
effect because, in the nature of things, it cannot be enforced.4 In Gancho-on v.
Secretary of Labor and Employment,5 the Court ruled:
 It is a rule of universal application that courts of justice constituted to pass upon
substantial rights will not consider questions in which no actual interests are
involved; they decline jurisdiction of moot cases. And where the issue has
become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, so that a
declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. There is no actual
substantial relief to which petitioners would be entitled and which would be
negated by the dismissal of the petition.

Ruling
 On the basis of the foregoing, the Court finds it
appropriate to abstain from passing upon the merits of
this case where legal relief is no longer needed nor
called for.
 WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for having
become moot and academic and the temporary
restraining order issued by the Court on February 9,
2012 is LIFTED.

Composition of the Supreme Court
Section 4. (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed
of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices.
It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in division
of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy
shall be filled within ninety days from the
occurrence thereof.

Composition of the Supreme Court
 The new Constitution retained the membership of the
SC of fifteen (15) members including the Chief Justice
to cope with the continuing increase in the number of
cases brought about by a growing population.
 Sitting procedure :
 The SC may sit and hear cases en banc or in divisions of
three, five or seven members.

En Banc Cases
Sec. 4 (2) All cases involving the constitutionality of
a treaty, international or executive agreement, or
law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en
banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of
Court are required to be heard en banc, including
those involving the constitutionality, application,
or operation of presidential decrees,
proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances,
and other regulations, shall be decided with the
concurrence of a majority of the Members who
actually took part in the deliberations on the
issues in the case and voted thereon.

Division Cases
Sec. 5 (3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall
be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a
majority of the Members who actually took part
in the deliberations on the issues in the case and
voted thereon, and in no case without the
concurrence of at least three of such Members.
When the required number is not obtained, the
case shall be decided en banc: Provided, that no
doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court
in a decision rendered en banc or in division may
be modified or reversed except by the court
sitting en banc.

Appointments
Section 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and
judges of the lower courts shall be appointed by
the President from a list of at least three
nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar
Council for every vacancy. Such appointments
need no confirmation.
For the lower courts, the President shall issue the
appointments within ninety days from the
submission of the list.

Appointment of members of the SC
and judges of lower courts
1. Non-political process of selection and
appointment
 The appointing power is vested alone in
the President

2. List of at least three nominees
 The President shall appoint from a list of at least 3
nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for
every vacancy.
 The President cannot appoint anybody outside of the
list but he can ask for additional nominees.
 Such appointments need no confirmation from the
Commission on Appointments
 The President shall issue the appointments of judges
of lower courts within 90 days from the submission of
the list.

3. Judicial and Bar Council ( to be discussed later by
another reporter)
4. Exclusive authority to recommend appointees to
judiciary
 In the past, appointments to the judiciary were
claimed to have been influenced by political and other
extraneous reasons.
 It is expected that giving to the JBC, in place of the
Commission on Appointments, the exclusive authority
to nominate justices and judges will further isolate
judiciary from political intrusions.

Qualifications
Sec. 7 (3) A Member of the Judiciary
must be a person of proven
competence, integrity, probity, and
independence.

Specific qualifications for collegiate
courts
Section 7. (1) No person shall be appointed Member
of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate
court unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines. A Member of the Supreme Court must
be at least forty years of age, and must have been
for fifteen years or more, a judge of a lower court
or engaged in the practice of law in the
Philippines.

Qualifications of judges for lower
courts
Sec. 7 (2) The Congress shall prescribe the
qualifications of judges of lower courts, but no
person may be appointed judge thereof unless he
is a citizen of the Philippines and a member of the
Philippine Bar.

Jurisdiction
Section 2. 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.
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary
when it undermines the security of tenure of its
Members.

Power to apportion jurisdiction of
various courts vested in Congress
 The power to define, prescribe and apportion the
jurisdiction of the various courts is vested by the
Constitution in Congress.
 There are 3 limitations to the exercise of this power:
1. The Congress cannot diminish or otherwise impair the
original and appellate jurisdiction of the SC over cases
enumerated in Section 5.
2. No law shall be passed reorganizing the judiciary
when it undermines security of tenure
3. No law shall be passed increasing the appellate
jurisdiction of the SC without its advice and
concurrence

Jurisdiction of Courts
Jurisdiction of courts. – is the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and
decide a case. It may be:
1. General.- when it is empowered to decide all disputes which may come
before it except those assigned to other courts.
2. Limited.- when it has authority to hear and determine only a few
specified cases.
3. Original. – when it can try and decide a case presented for the first time.
4. Appellate. – when it can take a case already heard and decided by a
lower court removed by the latter by appeal.
5. Exclusive.- when it can try and decide a case which cannot be presented
before any other court.
6. Concurrent.- when any one of two or more courts may take cognizance
of a case.
7. Criminal.- that which exists for the punishment of crime.
8. Civil.- that which exists when the subject matter is not of a criminal
nature.

Tenure of Judges
Section 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 incapacitated to discharge the
duties of their office. The Supreme Court en
banc shall have the power to discipline judges of
lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of
a majority of the Members who actually took part
in the deliberations on the issues in the case and
voted thereon.

Tenure of office of members of the
judiciary
1. Importance of security of tenure
 They shall hold office during good behavior until
they reach the age of seventy or become incapacitated,
physically or mentally, to discharge the duties of their
office
 Security of tenure dependent on good behavior has
long been considered as an indispensable guarantee to
keep judicial independence.

Tenure of office of members of the
judiciary
2. Termination of right to hold office
 The Constitution provides for the impeachment of
members of the SC.
 As for judges of lower courts, Congress has the power
to prescribe the procedure and the cause for their
removal.
 Congress may also validly provide for the process of
determining the incapacity of a judge to discharge the
duties of his office.

Meaning of good behavior
 Good behavior
 conduct authorized by law.
 With reference to the members of the SC, it implies that
they have not committed any of the offenses which are
grounds for impeachment.
 As regards to judges of lower courts, the determination
by the SC as to whether there has been a deviation or not
from the requirement of good behavior is conclusive
since it alone has the power to order their dismissal.

Disciplining or dismissal of judges
of lower courts
 The present Constitution gives to the SC the power to
discipline judges of lower courts, including justices of
the CA and the Sandiganbayan.
 By a vote of majority of the members who actually took
part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and
voted thereon, in can order their dismissal.

Fiscal Autonomy
Section 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy.
Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be
reduced by the legislature below the amount
appropriated for the previous year and, after
approval, shall be automatically and regularly
released.

Fiscal Autonomy
 The appropriations for the judiciary may not be
reduced as provided by Sec. 3 but they may be
increased.
 The prohibition against reduction by Congress of the
appropriations for the judiciary below the amounts
appropriated for the previous year assures, at least,
that the minimal funding requirements of the
judiciary will be met.
 After approval, the appropriations shall be
automatically and regularly released, thus making it
financially independent, without having to plead to
the President or budget officials for their release.

Salaries of Judges
Section 10. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and of
judges of lower courts, shall be fixed by law.
During their continuance in office, their salary
shall not be decreased.

Compensation of the members of
the judiciary
1. Prohibition against reduction
 The salary of the members of the SC and
judges of lower courts shall be fixed by law.
 Until Congress shall provide otherwise, the
initial annual salary of the CJ is P 240K and
each Associate Justice, P 204K

Compensation of the members of
the judiciary
2. Purpose of the prohibition
 The purpose is not to benefit the judges but to attract
good and competent men to the bench and to promote
their independence of action and judgment.

To be reported by Marc & Jason

Original Jurisdiction
 Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the
following powers:
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,
and over petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
and habeas corpus.

Original jurisdiction of SC over
cases affecting ambassadors, etc.
 The words “ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls” include all possible diplomatic agents which any
foreign power may accredit to another state.
 The original jurisdiction conferred is concurrent with that
of the RTC whose decisions may be appealed to the SC.
 Under international law, diplomats and even consuls to a
lesser extent, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the
courts of the receiving State, save in certain cases, as when
immunity is waived either expressly or impliedly.
 In such instances, the SC can and probably should take
cognizance of the litigation in view of possible
international repercussions.

Original jurisdiction of SC over
petitions for certiorari, etc.
 The SC exercises original jurisdiction over
petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas
corpus.
 It has original and exclusive jurisdiction over
petitions for the issue of writ of certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus against the CA.

Appellate Jurisdiction
Sec. 5 (2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal
or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final
judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in
question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment,
or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

Exclusive appellate jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court
 The exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the SC refers to
cases of great public interests or of serious moment to
individual rights.
 The only power which Congress may exercise with
respect to this jurisdiction as thus provided is to
determine whether the elevation of cases from the
lower courts should be done through appeal or
certiorari.

the Supreme Court
1. By appeal
 The appellate court reviews all the findings of law and of fact
of a lower court as in special proceedings
2. By certiorari
 The appellate or superior court can review only questions or
errors of law decided or committed by a lower court

the Supreme Court
 A question of law is that which involves no
examination of the probative value of the evidence
presented by the parties or any of them in the lower
court.
 A question of fact cannot be reviewed by the SC on
certiorari on the theory that the lower court which
“heard the case, observed the demeanor of the
witnesses or otherwise acquired acquiantance with the
issues and incidents thereof” is in a better position to
pass upon the question.

Temporary Assignment of Judges
Sec. 5 (3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts
to other stations as public interest may require.
Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six
months without the consent of the judge
concerned.

Assignment of judges of lower
courts to other stations
 Temporary assignments of judges of lower courts may
be made only by the SC.
 This additional constitutional power further enhances
the independence of the judiciary by eliminating
possible political influence in such assignments.
 It is also consistent with the transfer of the
administrative supervision of the judicial machinery to
the SC.

Assignment of judges of lower
courts to other stations
1. The requirement that the temporary assignment of a
judge to another station for a period longer than six
months must be with his consent accomodates the
demand for such detail when required by the exigencies
of the service while at the same time protecting the right
of a judge to permanency at a station.
2. If the transfer is a permanent one, it can only be effected
with the consent of the judge concerned and by the
extension of a new appointment by the President.
 The reason is that a judge enjoys security of tenure and such
transfer is tantamount to removal from office and an
appointment to a new office.

Change of Venue or Place of Trial
Sec. 5 (4) Order a change of venue or place
of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

Change of venue or place of trial
 The SC can order a change of venue or place of trial
whenever the imperative of securing a fair and
impartial trial or of preventing a miscarriage of justice
so demands.
 Rather than make the SC rely upon the general grant
of judicial power, the present Constitution expressly
invests the SC with specific prerogative to transfer the
place of hearing in the interest of truth and justice.

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

Rule making power of the SC
 The SC is vested by the Constitution with full
legislative authority to promulgate rules concerning
the protection and enforcement of constitutional
rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts,
the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar
and legal assistance to the underprivileged.
 The rules promulgated are called are called the “Rules
of Court”
 Such rules have the force and effect of law.
 Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial
bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the
SC.

Protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights
 The Constitution accords great importance to the full
employment by the people of their constitutional
rights that even the SC is enjoined to promulgate
rules of procedure concerning their protection and
enforcement in cases pending before the courts.
 These rights are mostly found in Article III.

Pleading
 It is the act of presenting one’s claim, answer or
arguments in defense or prosecution of an action.
 The term is often used to refer to any paper filed in
court in connection with a case before it.
 Pleadings are written allegations made by parties to a
case for the prupose of presenting the issues to be
tried.

Practice of Law
 It is the doing or performing of services in a court of
justice, in any matter pending therein.
 It includes legal advice and counsel and the
preparation of legal instruments and contracts
although such matter may not be pending in court.

Procedure
 It refers to the method by which substantive rights
may be enforced in courts of justice.
 The rules on court procedure promulgated by the SC
are now embodied in the Revise Rules of Court of the
Philippines.

Admission to the practice of law or
to the Bar
 A person is said to be admitted to the Bar or is a
member of the Bar when he is authorized by the SC to
practice law in the Philippines.
 He is authorized if he has the necessary legal, moral
and educational qualifications and the preparation or
training in law and has passed the required
examination.

Integrated Bar
 It means the official national unification of the entire
lawyer population of the Philippines in a single
organization.
 This requires membership and financial support of every
attorney as conditions sine qua non to the practice of law
and the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of
the SC.
 The term “Bar” refers to the collectivity of all persons
whose names appear in the Roll of Attorneys of the SC.
 The general purposes of an integrated bar are:
1. To elevate standards of the legal profession
2. To improve administration of justice
3. To enable the bar to discharge its public responsibility more
effectively

Legal assistance to the
underprivileged
 Poor and uninformed litigants are entitled to legal
assistance from the government in defending or
enforcing their rights to redress the imbalance
between the parties in civil and criminal cases.

Limitations on the rule-making
power of the SC
 They are the following:
1. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases
2. They shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade
3. They shall not diminish, increase, or modify
substantive rights
* Congress has the power to repeal, alter or amend the
rules promulgated by the SC.

Appointment of Court Personnel
Sec. 5 (6) Appoint all officials and
employees of the Judiciary in accordance
with the Civil Service Law.

Appointment of officials and
employees
 The SC has the power to appoint all officials and
employees of the judiciary in accordance with the Civil
Service Law.
 This authority further enhances its independence as
envisioned by the Constitution.
 It shall be recalled that Congress may, by law, vests in
courts, authority to appoint “other officers lower in
rank” in the judiciary.

Administrative Supervision of
Courts
 Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have
administrative supervision over all courts and the
personnel thereof.

Administrative supervision over
lower courts
 The SC exercises administrative supervision over all
courts from the CA down to the lower courts and
personnel thereof.

Periods of Decision
Section 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the
effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or
resolved within twenty-four months from date of
submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless
reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for
all lower collegiate courts, and three months for
all other lower courts.
(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for
decision or resolution upon the filing of the last
pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the
Rules of Court or by the court itself.

Periods of Decision
Sec. 15 (3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding
period, a certification to this effect signed by the Chief
Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued
and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case
or matter, and served upon the parties. The
certification shall state why a decision or resolution
has not been rendered or issued within said period.
(4) Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory
period, the court, without prejudice to such
responsibility as may have been incurred in
consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case
or matter submitted thereto for determination,
without further delay.

Maximum periods for rendition of
decisions
 By constitutional mandate, the various courts must decide or
resolve a case or matter submitted thereto within the following
periods from the date of submission:
1. Supreme Court – within 24 months
2. The CA and other collegiate appellate courts – within 12 months
unless reduced by the SC
3. Lower courts – within 3 months unless reduced by the SC
 A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution
from the date the last pleading, brief, or memorandum is filed.
 Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a
certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice or the
presiding judge must be issued a copy of which is required to
be attached to the record of the case or matter, and served
upon the parties.

Time limitations mandatory
 The time limitations established are mandatory.
 They are intended to ease up the clogging of court
dockets and to implement the right of party litigants
to speedy justice under the familiar aphorism that
“justice delayed is justice denied”
 Violation of Section 15 (1) by the SC will constitute
culpable violation of the Constitution, a ground for
impeachment of the members of the SC.

Consultations of the Court
Section 13. The conclusions of the Supreme Court in
any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in
division shall be reached in consultation before
the case is assigned to a Member for the writing of
the opinion of the Court. A certification to this
effect signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued
and a copy thereof attached to the record of the
case and served upon the parties. Any Member
who took no part, or dissented, or abstained from
a decision or resolution, must state the reason
therefor. The same requirements shall be observed
by all lower collegiate courts.

Procedure in rendering decisions
 Sec. 13 prescribes the manner by which the conclusions of
the SC and all lower collegiate courts in any case submitted
to them for decision shall be arrived at.
 A certification of compliance that the case has been
assigned to a member for the writing of the opinion of the
court, signed by the CJ or Presiding Justice or Presiding
Judge must be issued and a copy thereof attached to the
records of the case and served upon the parties.
 The purpose is to avoid the practice of assigning a case to a
justice for study and decision by him alone, the remaining
justices affixing their signatures to the decision merely as
formal routine.

Requirement in case of non-
participation, dissent or abstention
 Any member of the SC or a lower collegiate court who took
part, or dissented or abstained from a decision shall state
the reasons for his non-participation, dissent or abstention.
 This requirement as to dissenting opinions is a recognition
of the value of such opinions.
 The dissenting opinion does not express the law on the
subject, if well reasoned and supported by cogent
considerations, it may influence the SC, and even become
the majority opinion, in the decision of future and
analogous cases.
 “A dissent in a court of last resort is an appeal x x x to the
intelligence of a future day, when a later decision may
possibly correct the error into which the dissenting judge
believes the court to have been betrayed.”

Judicial and Bar Council
Section 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created
under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of
the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of
Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex
officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a
professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court,
and a representative of the private sector.
(2) The regular members of the Council shall be appointed by
the President for a term of four years with the consent of
the Commission on Appointments. Of the Members first
appointed, the representative of the Integrated Bar shall
serve for four years, the professor of law for three years, the
retired Justice for two years, and the representative of the
private sector for one year.

Sec. 8 (3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the
Secretary ex officio of the Council and shall keep a
record of its proceedings.
(4) The regular Members of the Council shall receive
such emoluments as may be determined by the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall provide in its
annual budget the appropriations for the Council.
(5) The Council shall have the principal function of
recommending appointees to the Judiciary. It may
exercise such other functions and duties as the
Supreme Court may assign to it.

 The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) primary task is to
recommend appointees to the Judiciary and the Office
of the Ombudsman for the President’s perusal. The
council aims to enhance the quality of the search,
screening, and selection process, as well as insulate the
process from undue influence of any kind.
 An important function of the JBC is the creation of a
list of nominees for the position of Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court.

Why was the JBC created?
 The idea of creating a JBC was introduced by former Chief Justice Roberto
Concepcion during the debates of the 1986 Constitutional Commission in
order to depoliticize the process of appointments.
 On July 14, 1986, Chief Justice Concepcion said that the JBC is “an innovation
made in response to the public clamor in favor of eliminating politics in the
appointment of judges.”
 He was also of the position that the creation of such a body was necessary
because “neither the President alone nor the Commission on Appointments
would have the time and the means necessary to study the background of every
one of the candidates for appointment to the various courts in the Philippines.”
 He stressed that the search for acceptable candidates would be particularly
difficult given the constitutional amendment stating that no one would be
qualified for judicial positions unless he or she “has a proven high sense of
morality and probity”—an amendment adopted that same morning, July 14.
 He said investigative agencies at the President’s disposal, such as the National
Bureau of Investigation, lack qualifications “to pass upon questions of morality,
integrity and competence of lawyers.”

Why was the JBC created?
 The same day, Commissioners Jose C. Colayco and Ricardo J. Romulo
defended the creation of the JBC, stating that it aims to strengthen the
independence of the judicial branch of government by preventing the
President from whimsically or arbitrarily choosing members of the
courts.
 According to Mr. Colayco, “the creation of this Council would ensure
more the appointment of judges and justices who will be chosen for
their confidence and their moral qualifications, rather than to favor or
to give something in return for their help in electing the President.”
 Mr. Romulo in the meantime said: “[W]e can have any form of
government we like and we are safe, provided we have an independent
and competent Judiciary… And if we are trying to bolster the
independence of the Supreme Court it is because in the end it is the
Judiciary that will protect all of us. We are not trying to create an
independent republic out of the Judiciary, only an autonomous region.”
 Thus, the 1987 Constitution, by virtue of Sec. 8 (1), provided for the
creation of the JBC.

Who are the members of the JBC?
 The Constitution provides for the composition of the JBC to
include the following:
1. Representatives of the three branches of government as ex-officio
members (i.e., the Chief Justice, the Secretary of Justice, and a
member from the Legislature); {{1}}
2. A representative of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines;
3. A professor of law;
4. A retired member of the Supreme Court;
5. A representative from the private sector.
 Members from the government are automatically members of
the JBC by virtue of their office. The other four members,
however, are appointed by the President and would have to go
through the process of being confirmed by the Commission on
Appointments.

How are candidates nominated
 A vacancy opens
 The Constitution provides that a vacancy for the positions of Chief
Justice, Associate Justice, Ombudsman, Deputy Ombudsman, and
judges of other courts must be filled within 90 days (by virtue of Article
VIII, Sec. 4 of the Constitution and Rule 1, Sec. 1 of the Rules of the
JBC). As soon as a vacancy opens in the Supreme Court and the Office
of the Ombudsman, the position is “ipso facto” open to applications.
 The JBC convenes
 The JBC convenes and prescribes specific dates for deadlines for the
filing of nominations and the form in which applications should be
submitted. They then send out a call for applicants or
recommendations.
 It must be noted that since the ratification of the 1987 Constitution,
every Chief Justice left office by virtue of retirement at the age of 70
years old. In such cases wherein the retirement of a Chief Justice is
anticipated, the JBC convenes months in advance to anticipate the
upcoming retirement of Justices and submits its list before the date of
retirement.

 Applications/Recommendations filed
 Applicants may file applications themselves or be
recommended by other persons.
 Applications must be filed personally or by registered
mail sent to the Secretariat of the Council.
 A recommended applicant must manifest acceptance
either in the recommendation paper itself or in a
separate document.
 His or her acceptance must be filed before the deadline
set by the Council.

 A list of applicants is published
 A long list of candidates shall be published in a Philippine
newspaper of general circulation and in a newspaper of local
circulation in the province or city where the vacancy is
located.
 Copies of the list shall likewise be posted on three
conspicuous places in the said area. Copies thereof shall be
furnished to major nongovernmental organizations in the city
or municipality where such vacancy is located, including the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and its corresponding local
chapter.
 The long list shall contain an invitation to the public to
inform the Council, within ten days, of any complaint or
derogatory information against the applicants. The Council
may choose to direct a discreet background check on the
applicant or require the nominee to comment in writing or
during the interview.

 Applicants are screened by the JBC
 Applicants and recommendees shall be screened based
on set qualifications from the 1987 Constitution (a
member of the Judiciary must be a citizen of the
Philippines, a member of the Philippine Bar, and a
person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and
independence) as well as by office-specific qualifications
set by the rules of the JBC

 Public interviews are held
 The JBC will prepare a short list of candidates they wish to
interview.
 The Council, en banc or any authorized set of members of the
Council, shall interview the candidates to “observe their
personality, demeanor, deportment, and physical condition;
assess their ability to express themselves, especially in the
language of the law in court trials/proceedings and in their
decisions or rulings; test their mastery of the law and legal
principles; inquire into their philosophies, values, etc.;
determine their probity and independence of mind; and
evaluate their readiness and commitment to assume and
fulfill the duties and responsibilities of judgeship.”
 Only the members of the JBC may ask questions during the
interview.

 The JBC votes on the list of nominees
 A list of candidates that passed the screening process is
submitted to the members of the JBC for their final
voting and approval.
 The JBC shall again meet in executive session for the
final deliberation.
 A majority of the members must approve of a candidate
in order for his or her name to be included in the final
list of nominees that will be submitted to the President.
 A list of nominees usually consists of five to six names.

 The President appoints someone from the list
 The President may appoint anyone included in the list of
the JBC with no need of confirmation by Congress.

Reasons for disqualification of
nominees
 Those with pending criminal or regular administrative
cases;
 Those with pending criminal cases in foreign courts or
tribunals; and
 Those who have been convicted in any criminal case;
or in an administrative case, where the penalty
imposed is at least a fine of more than P10,000, unless
he has been granted judicial clemency.
 Members of the Judiciary facing administrative
complaints under informal preliminary investigation
by the Court Administrator.

 Case :
Francisco I. Chavez vs. Judicial and Bar
Council, et. al.
G.R. No. 202242
July 17, 2012

Facts
 In 1994, instead of having only seven members, an eighth member was added to the JBC
as two representatives from Congress began sitting in the JBC – one from the House of
Representatives and one from the Senate, with each having one-half (1/2) of a vote.
 Then, the JBC En Banc, in separate meetings held in 2000 and 2001, decided to allow the
representatives from the Senate and the House of Representatives one full vote each.
 At present, Senator Francis Joseph G. Escudero and Congressman Niel C. Tupas, Jr.
(respondents) simultaneously sit in the JBC as representatives of the legislature. It is this
practice that petitioner has questioned in this petition.
 Respondents argued that the crux of the controversy is the phrase “a representative of
Congress.” It is their theory that the two houses, the Senate and the House of
Representatives, are permanent and mandatory components of “Congress,” such that the
absence of either divests the term of its substantive meaning as expressed under the
Constitution. Bicameralism, as the system of choice by the Framers, requires that both
houses exercise their respective powers in the performance of its mandated duty which is
to legislate.
 Thus, when Section 8(1), Article VIII of the Constitution speaks of “a representative from
Congress,” it should mean one representative each from both Houses which comprise the
entire Congress.
 Respondents further argue that petitioner has no “real interest” in questioning the
constitutionality of the JBC’s current composition. The respondents also question
petitioner’s belated filing of the petition.

Issue
 Whether or not the current practice of the JBC to
perform its functions with eight (8) members, two (2)
of whom are members of Congress, runs counter to the
letter and spirit of the 1987 Constitution.

Ruling
 Yes. The word “Congress” used in Article VIII, Section
8(1) of the Constitution is used in its generic sense.
 No particular allusion whatsoever is made on whether
the Senate or the House of Representatives is being
referred to, but that, in either case, only a singular
representative may be allowed to sit in the JBC.
 The seven-member composition of the JBC serves a
practical purpose, that is, to provide a solution should
there be a stalemate in voting.

Ruling
 It is evident that the definition of “Congress” as a bicameral
body refers to its primary function in government – to
legislate.
 In the passage of laws, the Constitution is explicit in the
distinction of the role of each house in the process. The
same holds true in Congress’ non-legislative powers. An
inter-play between the two houses is necessary in the
realization of these powers causing a vivid dichotomy that
the Court cannot simply discount.
 This, however, cannot be said in the case of JBC
representation because no liaison between the two houses
exists in the workings of the JBC.
 Hence, the term “Congress” must be taken to mean the
entire legislative department. The Constitution mandates
that the JBC be composed of seven (7) members only.

Ruling
 Notwithstanding its finding of unconstitutionality in
the current composition of the JBC, all its prior official
actions are nonetheless valid.
 Under the doctrine of operative facts, actions previous
to the declaration of unconstitutionality are legally
recognized. They are not nullified.

THE SUPREME COURT GROUP REPORT

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to THE SUPREME COURT GROUP REPORT (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

THE SUPREME COURT GROUP REPORT