Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • The Judiciary (For DLSLPOLIGOV - O2A)

    Uploaded by

    Gayle Amul
    10 views32 pages
    from Morada and Encarnacion-Tadem. 2006. Philippine Politics and Governance: An Introduction.

    Original Title

    The Judiciary (for DLSLPOLIGOV_O2A)

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    from Morada and Encarnacion-Tadem. 2006. Philippine Politics and Governance: An Introduction.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    10 views32 pages

    The Judiciary (For DLSLPOLIGOV - O2A)

    Uploaded by

    Gayle Amul
    from Morada and Encarnacion-Tadem. 2006. Philippine Politics and Governance: An Introduction.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 32
    Ine Mio ofthe Poo Philippine Plc ond Governance: An Intoduction| ‘BEE The Philippine Judiciary from the Pr. to the Pre-Martial Law Periods Spanish Conflict resolution during the pre-Spanish period The early ancestors of the Filipinos had their own unique way of setting disputes. Judicial authority was vested in the datu or village chieftain, wha acted as judge in both civil claims and criminal cases. He punished criminal} and laid down laws that must be observed acting alone or in consultation wa an expert in custom law, If any of the litigants felt herself or himself aggriewed an arbiter was unanimously named from another village or barangay. If the controversy involved two chieftains and they wished to avoid tribal war, they” also appointed arbiters to decide the case. The same procedure was followed if the controversy was between persons residing in different barangays, Thome cchosen as arbiters came from the ranks of old men well versed in custom kaw and tradition and who were known as fair and just men.’ Once a “case” was filed (in the sense that it was presented before the datu or the elders), thee techniques were usually employed to resolve the dispute: mediation aml Conciliation, atbitration, and adjudication. The most common method was Conciliation because practically all cases could be settled through the paymems of fines. Generally, the panties themselves determine the fine and mode of Payment, but if they could not agree, arbitration was resorted to," During the trials, arguments based on customary law were presented. If evidence was still necessary, the parties called their respective witnesses who swore to tell the tuth “by the crocodile, the sun, the moon, and many other things." A public trial Followed. The decision normally went to the party that Produced more witnesses. If the result was inconclusive, the litigants were required to submit to a tial by ordeal, for example, retrieving an object froma Pot of boiling water: the one that did so with the least injury or stayed in the water the longest time was the winning party." The decision of the datu or elders was rendered in the presence of the barangay members and was executed without delay. Ifthe losing party resisted, the datu or judge assisted the winning party in enforcing it. The proceeds of the judgment were then divided amoog the successful litigant, the witnesses, and the datu or elders.!* ‘The barangays of the precolonial times enforced both written and unwrites laws, Moreover, from the accounts of many historians, it seems thatthe early judicen system before the coming of the Spaniards was participatory in the sense that the ‘witnesses and even the judges had personal stakes in the outcome of the case = the plaintiff won and got paid, he needed to share the winnings with his witnesses and those who acted as judges. But what if he lost? Did this mean that the jud- and the witnesses of the defendant got nothing? The accounts are silent on t Dut itis possible that the plaintiff would also be required to pay something ! hope 14: the Judiiny a :: dragging the innocent defendant into the rigors of a public trial. Thus, even as early as this period, the proto-Flipinos already had a concept of damages, which. need not be exactly the amount suffered by the injured party. However, it should also be added that the observations of historians were limited in that they lid not see the processes utilized by communities in more remote areas. These may differ from those accounted for in history books since, generally, the early inhabitants of the istands were far from homogeneous. Spanish period ‘The instiutionalization or the attempt to have a nationally recognized judicial system Legan when the Spaniards came to the islands and claimed them for the Spanish Crown. Initially, the Spanish governor-general had absolute judicial as ‘well as executive and legislative powers. On May 5, 1583, the Spanish colonizers established the Royal Audiencia, dubbed as the predecessor of the present-day Supreme Court."" However, the introduction of the Royal Audiencia did not completely take away the judicial authority of the governorgeneral, who was still a part of the first Royal Audiencia and acted as its president. The other members ofthe Audiencia were the three oidores auditors) fiscal (prosecuting, attorney), aided by a counselor at law and a clerk of court, some attorneys, a chaplain, an agent of the treasury, a Spanish porter, a sacristan, a majordomo, four Indo porters, a lawyer and an attorney for the poor, a warden of the court and under him, a lieutenant, a servant, and a constable. A regent was later added in 1776 next to the governor-general, and the number of oidores and Sscals were increased to four and two, respectively." The Audiencia had authority to try cases of appeals from gobernadores, aalcalde mayores, and other magistrates of the provinces. It also had jurisdiction ‘overall criminal cases arising within five leagues from the city of Manila. These appeals were to be tried by revista or review before the tribunal. Cases of first instance (vista) were not to be tried in the tribunal except those that the ‘government was a party and some criminal cases. The Audiencia's judgment ‘as usually final in ordinary suits and in criminal cases. However, those cases Savolving the government and civil suits exceeding a certain value were -ppealable to the Council of Indies."* In 1589 the Royal Audiencia was abolished sand its power was reverted back to the governor-general. It was restored i 11598 via cedula promulgated by King Philip II on November 26, 1595, and was ‘sctivated on May 8, 1598.” ‘The Audiencia’s functions and structure underwent substantial modifications 1815 when a chief justice replaced its president and the number of justices ‘eas increased. It then came to be known as the Audiencia Territorial de Manila “with two branches, civil and criminal, later renamed sala de lo civil and sala de ‘se criminal, respectively. A royal decree issued on July 4, 1861, converted the Philippine Plc and Governance An Iniodecton Audiencia to a purely judicial body, but ts decisions were appealable to ‘Supreme Court of Spain sitting in Madrid." On February 26, 1886, a ‘Audiencia was organized in Cebu, followed by an Audiencia for criminal in Vigan. ‘The arrival of the Spaniards resulted in major renovations in the structure as well as in other governmental institutions of the country. Spaniards consolidated governmental authority and! centralized it for better of the archipelago. They introduced the Audiencia that is believed by many be the precursor of the Supreme Court. However, this may not be an description. For one thing, the Audiencia prior to 1861 exercised admini and executive functions. It was not an independent judicial body since concept of separation of powers was still unknown to the Spaniards were under a monarchy, hence all powers of government stemmed from monarch. This was also true for the lower judicial authorities that were other than the local executive officials. The Audiencia was also not Supreme in the sense that its decisions were still appealable to the Consejo de and, ultimately, to the Spanish monarch. But, pethaps, the idea that it was the early progenitor of the present-day Supreme Court could be attributed to the fact that the Audiencia, like the Supreme Court, was a collegial body composed of individuals with fixed tenure and the first centralized body identified with the function of resolving disputes. Like the Supreme Court, the Audiencia also had its formal rules and structures, Malolos Congress. ‘Amidst the confusion and chaos that accompanied a newly established revolutionary government that had fought and won over a colonial power and being besieged by a new one, the framers of the Malolos Constitution still managed to provide for the creation of civil courts. In fact, the organization of the said courts has been considered as one of the major accomplishments of the young republic.” The constitution called for the establishment of a Corte Suprema de Justicia, of Supreme Court of Justice, to exercise appellate jurisdiction over such tribunals as may be created by law. As the highest court, the Corte Suprema de Justicia had jurisdiction over the entire territory of the republic and resided in the capital. The tribunal was split into a sala de gobierno and three salas de justicia denominated as the de lo civil, de lo criminal, and de guerrra marina. Comprising the sala de gobierno were the presidente del tribunal or the chief justice, the presidentes de sala, and the procurator general, while the first two salas de justicia were to have a (presidente and four magistrados each. The sala de lo civil would be concerned ‘with appeals in civil cases, and the de lo criminal, with criminal suits. The tribunal en pleno constitutes a sala de justicia with exclusive jurisdiction to (hope 14: Th udiiary —e sy cases against the president and other high officials of the republic." The cotire archipelago was further divided for purposes of jurisdiction into eegiones, partidos, and terminos municipales. In each municipality would st one or more jueces municipales, in each district, one fuzgado de primera exstancia, and in each region, an audiencia. Six audiencias were to preside = the capital of the republic, Vigan, Nueva Caceres, Iloilo, Cebu, and Zamboanga, and exercise jurisdiction over the territories of the cours assigned so them ‘The brains of the revolution, Apolinario Mabini, believed that while there sould be a trio of political power, the legislature should dominate the other wo. According to Mabini Society then, should have a soul: authority. The authority should have a brain to guide and direct it: the legislative power. A will that works and makes it work: the executive, A conscience to try and punish the bad the judicial power. “These powers should be independent inthe sense that one should not encroach, ‘upon the attributes of the other. But the last two should be made subservient to the fist, just as will and conscience re subordinated to reason. The executive and the judiciary cannot separate themselves from the laws dictated by the legislature, any more than a citizen can violate them." Clearly, the revolutionaries were heavily influenced by Spanish law and practice in establishing the judiciary that would have served as the third branch, of the republic. As early as then, the Filipinos understood the need to have a separate branch for the resolution of disputes and which could serve asa check. to the executive and legislative branches, However, such a system was not fully realized as the exigencies of the war with the Spanish forces, then with the ‘American army, prevented the practical and realistic implementation of the revolutionaries’ concept of an independent Filipino judiciary. Americon period During the decades of American rule, the evolution of the country’s judicial ‘astitutions, systems of law, and legal orientation was inevitably shaped by the continuing struggle of the Filipinos for autonomy and independence and the colonial power's politics of accommodation." They were also the product of Hispanized Roman law and Anglo-American common law, as they met and fused in response to indigenous needs and conditions. From the time the Philippines was ceded by Spain to the US in 1898 until the Spooner Amendment was adopted by the US Congress in 1901, the Philippines was governed by the war powers of the American president.” (On August 14, 1898, General Merit issued a proclamation as military governor. He appointed a provost-marshall-governor for Manila and deputy provost 21 Foran, tat, Ta agin Pi Se eit Foa, acy ‘then nn Pres ns ‘ne 2006 ‘Fan, hay tha Papi aan 202 Bode. Piippine Polis nd Governance: nrodction a BET oem n sana sary ate ate ae marshalls for the outlying districts. They were tasked to arrest military as ‘well as civil offenders. By virtue ofthis proclamation, the criminal jurisdiction of the Audiencia and other Spanish courts in Manila was suspended. On September 24, 1898, General Orders 18 was issued, expanding the jurisdiction of the military courts, thus placing the civil courts in a state of suspension, ‘The order vested the military commissions and the provest courts with general jurisdiction to ty all crimes and offenses committed by the inhabitants and not triable by court martial. Capital offenses were brought before the military commission while the provosts’ courts took charge of the noncapital ones. Inferior provost courts were also created, first in Manila, then in Cavite. But as early as May 29, 1899, the Americans initiated the civiianization of the courts with the issuance of General Orders 20, which reestablished the Audiencia Territorial in Manila as the Supreme Court of the Philippines, with Cayetano Arellano as its president or chief justice.» On June 5, General Orders 21 was issued, reestablishing the courts of frst instance of the province of Manila and the justice of the peace cours. However, crimes and offenses committed by civilians who were prejudicial to the military administration remained under military jurisdiction. The governor, however, had the discretion to transfer these cases over to the civil Couns.” On June 19, 1899, the office of, the Spanish procurador was abolished and new standards for the admission and practice of law were set. This was by virtue of General Orders 29. On April 23, 1990, the Philippine military governor-general issued General Orders 58 amending the provisions of the Spanish criminal code of procedure. The code introduced by the Americans paved the way for the adversarial method of tril, which did away with the Spanish method that was inquisitorial in nature and hence arbitrary by American legal standards. ‘The present-day Supreme Court acknowledges its formal birth on June 11, 1901. By virtue of Act 136, or the Judiciary Law, the Taft Commission vested judicial power in one Supreme Court. This legislation is perhaps the most important issuance during the period in relation to the judiciary. The law created provincial Courts of First Instance, Justice of the Peace Courts, and other courts to be created by future laws. The new Supreme Court was composed of one chief justice and six associate justices who must be citizens of the US or the Philippine Islands, thirty years of age or over, and had for at least five years been in active law practice or held public offce requiring the law degree, They ‘were appointed by the Commission and held office at its pleasure. The US Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review, reverse, modify, or affirm the final judgments and decrees of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands in all actions and proceedings in which the Constitution or any statute, treaty, title, right or privilege of the US was involved, or in which the value involved exceeded US$ 25,000. The first chief justice was a Filipino, Cayetano Arellano. However, tani! 1935, the Supreme Court was dominated by prominent American lawyers Chopter 14: The Jury ——— 2. eee 6 6s et William Howard Taft, head of the Philippine Commission, was a Republican and a firm believer in the role of the Supreme Court in upholding private property. As an American jurist, he understood very well the need for an active court that Would curb the excesses and abuses of the other branches of government. He was known as a champion of property rights, a critic of social democracy, and a believer in the role of the Supreme Court as guardian of the rights of property through the instrument of judicial review.” This political and legal ideology of Taft shaped his policies regarding the structure and composition of the Philippine Supreme Court. He did not trust the Filipinos to be capable of handling the awesome power of judicia. review. He once wrote that judicial review *is the basis of all civil rights and liberty, and no Filipino judiciary could have any adequate conception of what practical civil liberty is."® Taft also believed that “the administration of justice through the native judges in Manila stinks to heaven.” He complained that with a few notable exceptions, there is not a single Filipino lawyer who could be trusted to resist the temptation of a bribe were he raised to the bench."* Taft's low regard for the Filipino jurist and his fear of whata native could do if given the opportunity to wield the mighty sword of judicial review prompted him to reorganize the Supreme Court by reducing its membership from nine to seven and reducing the number of Filipinos to a minority of three. This was a reversal of the ratio existing during the time of Generals Otis and MacArthur when there were six Filipinos against three Americans in the Court ‘The Philippine Bill of 1902 provided that the power of judicial review during the colonial era was lodged not only in the American-dominated Philippine Supreme Court but also in the US Federal Supreme Court. Of course, these two courts used judicial review to protect American interests. is was highlighted in the case of the 14 Diamond Rings. This case held that the protection in the US Constitution could not be automatically applied to its colonies. It also held that the Philippines, although not a foreign country, was placed outside the provisions of the US Constitution in respect of national taxation. This meant that the agricultural products of the US were assured of protection from competition by Philippine products. Ac the same time, the US Congress could adjust tariff laws in the Philippines to allow the preferential entry of American goods. And this is what exactly happened when lobbyists from the beet sugar, tobacco, and other agricultural industries pressured the US Congress to maintain a high tariff rate for Philippine products while American goods entered the Philippines virtually duty-free. The decision also became a good reason to deny US citizenship to Filipinos." However, eventually, the areas of civil and political rights previously denied the Philippines were expanded to other areas (e.g, trial by jury). eres een ee ‘pe Rasch to aneteae Fae 1901-1879 (008) SaSat nate over xoxo 2g Pete U0 195 U8 oor an Or 0S (ion esis Phin Pais and Governance: Introduction a 35 Raat. 2 P30, Chavo neo Foes "7 Bacon. ata 5 Pn ‘8 us ve Lng Su Fa, 10 Generally, the American-

    You might also like