The Supreme CourtConstitutional Law IAtty. Victor Tulalian

Group 2

References: Philippine Political Law by Cruz ,Textbook on the Philippine Constitution by De Leon, 1987 Constitution and Rules of

Court

Brief HistoryTo be reported by Marc

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

Independence of the JudiciaryTo be reported by Arnold

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 PowerTo be reported by Arnold

Judicial PowerSection 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 function1. 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.

Giving of advisory opinions not a judicial function2. 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.

Giving of advisory opinions not a judicial function3. 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 Courts1. 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 Courts2. 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 agenciesAdministrative 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.

Power of Judicial ReviewTo be reported by Lanie

Requisites of Judicial Inquiry1.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 PartyOne 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 OpportunityGeneral 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 UnconstitutionalityModern view

Less stringentThe 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 UnconstitutionalityWill 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 ReviewCase :

Philippine Savings Bank, et. al. vs. Senate Impeachment Court

G.R. No. 200238November 20, 2012

FactsPhilippine 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.

IssueWhether 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.

RulingOn 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 CourtTo be reported by Enrico

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 CourtThe 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 CasesSec. 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 CasesSec. 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.

AppointmentsTo be reported by Enrico

AppointmentsSection 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 courts1. Non-political process of selection

and appointment The appointing power is vested

alone in the President

Appointment of members of the SC and judges of lower courts2. 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.

Appointment of members of the SC and judges of lower courts3. 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 courtsSection 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 courtsSec. 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.

JurisdictionTo be reported by Jezza

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 CongressThe 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 CourtsJurisdiction 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 JudgesTo be reported by Enrico

Tenure of JudgesSection 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 judiciary1. 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 judiciary2. 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 behaviorGood 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 courtsThe 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 AutonomyTo be reported by Sherwin

Fiscal AutonomySection 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 AutonomyThe 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 JudgesTo be reported by Sherwin

Salaries of JudgesSection 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 judiciary1. 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 judiciary2. 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.

Powers of the Supreme CourtTo be reported by Marc & Jason

Original JurisdictionSection 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 JurisdictionSec. 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 CourtThe 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.

Exclusive appellate jurisdiction of 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

Exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme CourtA 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 JudgesSec. 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 stationsTemporary 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 stations1. 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 trialThe 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 PowerSec. 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 SCThe 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.

PleadingIt 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 LawIt 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.

ProcedureIt 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 BarA 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 BarIt 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 profession2. To improve administration of justice3. To enable the bar to discharge its public responsibility

more effectively

Legal assistance to the underprivilegedPoor 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 SCThey 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 employeesThe 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 courtsThe SC exercises administrative supervision

over all courts from the CA down to the lower courts and personnel thereof.

Periods of DecisionTo be reported by Jezza

Periods of DecisionSection 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 decisionsBy 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 months2. The CA and other collegiate appellate courts – within 12 months

unless reduced by the SC3. 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 mandatoryThe 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 CourtSection 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 decisionsSec. 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 abstentionAny 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 CouncilTo be reported by Francis

Judicial and Bar CouncilSection 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.

Judicial and Bar CouncilSec. 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.

Judicial and Bar CouncilThe 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 nominatedA 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.

How are candidates nominatedApplications/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.

How are candidates nominatedA 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.

How are candidates nominatedApplicants 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 

How are candidates nominatedPublic 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.

How are candidates nominatedThe 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.

How are candidates nominatedThe 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 nomineesThose with pending criminal or regular

administrative cases;Those with pending criminal cases in foreign

courts or tribunals; andThose 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.

Judicial and Bar CouncilCase :

Francisco I. Chavez vs. Judicial and Bar Council, et. al.

G.R. No. 202242July 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.

IssueWhether 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.

RulingYes. 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.

RulingIt 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.

RulingNotwithstanding 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 EndThank you very much