ARTICLE VIII

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

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.

Draft of Federalism  proposing 4 Supreme Courts

1st Paragraph
1987 Constitution
1. It provides only one Supreme Court
2. The Constitution itself mandates the creation of one Supreme Court. It is not a creation of a legislature; it
is the creation of the Constitution. Therefore, being a creation of the Constitution, it cannot be removed, or
amended. The Legislature cannot disenfranchise the Supreme Court to provide for another one.
3. The other courts below Supreme Court are re-established by law.

2nd Paragraph
The Constitutional provision defines what is judicial power.

Judicial power includes (2nd paragraph of Section 1) means that there may be other types of judicial power.
One of those that constitutes judicial power. Also, it mentions duty therefore the courts cannot avoid
performing this duty. It is not merely a power. It is a duty of the courts defined in the constitutional
provision.

In the definition of judicial power, there are two parts:

1. Traditional judicial power – since 1935, 1973 and now in the 1987, there is another sentence,
which is a new power given by the 1987 constitution to the judiciary. So the first would be the duty
of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies and rights that are demandable and enforceable.

To determine whether or not there is a great discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the part of any branch or instrumentalities of the government.

2. Judicial review (Section 5, 2nd Paragraph a & b) – There is a paper made by Jean Largo of the
University of San Carlos. She characterized the Judiciary as no longer the weakest branch and least
dangerous branch of government. Before probably the 2nd sentence of Section 1, the Judiciary is said
to be the weakest and the executive is said to be the strongest. It is not also correct characterization
of the Judiciary probably people are saying it is the weakest because it is passive. It is not proactive.
It is not go about what is going to be done. Being Judiciary is there to decide on conflicts that are
brought to it. You have to bring the conflict to the judiciary before the Judiciary can decide on this
thing.

Jean Largo: He said its power or duty compared to those its counterparts in the United States and
other countries are Supreme Court can deter the most powerful in the world, because Largo
explained our Supreme Court is ARMED with three judicial prerogatives:
1. Traditional power - to settle actual controversies that are enforceable and demandable. Locate
at 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph of Section 1 of Art. 8
2. Judicial review – the authority to determine whether the acts of other branches are in
accordance with the Constitution. Found at Section 5, 2nd paragraph a & b.

1
 3. Expanded Extraordinary Certiorari Jurisdiction – to strike down grave abuse of discretion of
any branch or instrumentality of the government. Found at 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph of
Section 1.

 Our Supreme Court is the only one in the world that has been expressly granted the third expanded
extraordinary certiorari jurisdiction.
 Notably, our constitution describes it as duty, not just a power. It has to be exercised when
circumstances fall for it.

Judicial power as defined in 2nd paragraph of Section 1, as decided in the case of Lopez vs Roxas, As we
have said, the 1987 Constitution expanded the definition of judicial power to include the power to determine
whether or not if there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction of any branch
or instrumentality of the government.

Bernas himself in one of his columns said the special burden of the Court is to exercise great political
powers while still acting like a Court or if we prefer to exercise judicial powers over wide domain while
remaining realistic and alert as to the political significance to what it is doing.

In 2nd sentence of 2nd paragraph of Section 1 mentioned grave abuse of discretion. It means such capricious
and whimsical exercise of judgement as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be
patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal perform a duty enjoined by
law as well as the power is exercised in arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion of hostility.

Cenon vs Civil Service

Echagaray vs DOJ Secretary GR No. 132601

Echagaray was sentenced to die through lethal injection at the time when death penalty was allowed in the
country. His execution was stated by the Supreme Court. The decision on the Echagaray case became final
and executory.

At the time he was supposed to be executed, there was a move in Congress to do away with the death
penalty, so there was a petition by lawyers of Echagaray before the Supreme Court stating the postponement
of the execution because of the pending bill in Congress of the possibility that the dath penalty may be
removed. The Supreme Court performed the execution but eventually committed the sentence to Echaragay.

Now, the Supreme Court in stating the execution of Echagaray said that the exercise of judicial power was
beyong the mere promulgation of final decisions. The power to control the execution of its decision is an
essential aspect of jurisdiction. The most important part of litigation, whether civil or criminal, is the process
of evaluation of decisions where the supervening events may change the circumstances of the parties and
compel courts to intervene and adjust the rights of the litigants to prevent unfairness.

What power is given to courts?

Courts are given judicial power and nothing more. Hence, by the principle of separation of powers,
courts may neither attempt to assume nor be compelled to perform non-judicial functions. Thus, a Court may
not be required to act as board of arbitrator as in the case of Manila Electric vs Pasay Transportation
Company nor it may be charged with administrative functions except when reasonably incidental in the
fulfilment of judicial duties. Neither it is the function of the judiciary to give advisory or opinions. Corollary
to the principle of judicial independence is that it is the Courts alone that can exercise judicial functions.

Are the Courts alone that can exercise judicial functions?

Answer: True

Is it subject to exemptions?

2
Answer: Yes

Two exceptions to the principle that it is the Courts alone who can exercise judicial power:
1. The power given to the Comelec and the electoral tribunals to be the sole judge of all election
contests.
2. The power of impeachment given to Congress.

Does the Legislature have a role in the judicial process?

Yes, although the judicial power is vested in the Judiciary, the proper exercise of such power requires prior
legislative actions. SO even before the Courts can function, the legislature must come in to define the courts
itself. It has to establish the Courts except the Supreme Court, it has to legislate what are the authorities of
these courts and what are their jurisdictions and who are the persons who are supposed to be within the
jurisdiction. These things must be settled first before the court can perform their functions.

What are these functions?

1. They must define the legislative such enforceable and demandable rights and prescribing remedies
from violation of such rights.
2. They must determine the court’s jurisdiction to given and heard controversies and disputes arising
from legal rights because when there is no applicable law the Courts cannot exercise judicial power.

SECTION 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of
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.

General rule: The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of
various courts.

Does Congress have judicial power?

Yes, because under Section 2, the Congress has to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of various
courts. Exception to this power of Legislature is they may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction
under or as defined in section 5 of article 8.

Therefore, Section 2 prescribes the power of Congress over the Judicial system. The Congress has the power
to create new courts and apportion jurisdiction among various courts.

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.

What is meant by Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy?

It means the 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.

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 divisions of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy
shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.
(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

3
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.
(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.

1st Paragraph
15 Justices in the Supreme Court – Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justice

Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof and Section 15 of Article 7

Corona case: The appointment of Corona

2nd Paragraph 2
En banc – all of them together

15 members of the Supreme Court

Sometimes not all of them are there in issues that are discussed or decided on. Any number except below 8,
it must be 8 and above. 8 is the majority of the Court. 50 percent plus 1 is 8. These cases must be decided by
the concurrence of the majority of the members

10 participated in the deliberation of a particular issue. The majority of the 10 members must concur on the
issue of the case in order to have a binding decisions. So here, 6 must decide, this will be the majority.

How may the Supreme Court decide cases?

Answer: Cases are decided by the Supreme Court en banc.

Whenever the Supreme Court decides a case en banc, it means the case is decided by a majority who parted
in the discussion and voted there on.

3rd Paragraph

How may cases be heard by division be decided?

Division of 3 – everybody must concur
Division of 5 – 3 must concur
Division of 7 – 4 must concur
6 who participated in the division of 7 – 3 must concur but deadblock already.

But what if in the division did not obtain the required number needed?
Answer: It will be decided en banc. It will go through Supreme Court en banc for a decision 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.

Ang Bagong Bayani case (first case): The Supreme Court laid down a doctrine that means political parties
cannot participate in the party-list system, it is only the marginalized.

4
Banat case (second case): The same issue was taken up the Supreme Court. The contention that a
constitution and the party-list law did not provide that only marginalized parties may participate in the party-
list system may discuss because there was already a doctrine that was established in Bagong Bayani case,
they have to reverse it in a majority, which is 8 or at least 5 if there are only 8. But it would seem that the
Supreme Court in the Banat case was not able to reverse the doctrine laid down in Ang Bagong Bayani.

1935 Philippine Constitution – 11 Justices

1973 Philippine Constitution – 15 Justices
Both 1987 and 1973, Constitution, the Supreme Court may seat en banc or in division.

Divisions are not separate or distinct courts.

 Actions considered in any divisions considered in any divisions rendered therein are in effect by the
same tribunal.
 The decisions or resolutions by a division are not inferior to an en banc decision. Take the case of
People vs Dy.

A case decided by a division of 3 may be appealed to the Supreme Court en banc?

No, because the case decided by a division is very much like a case decided en banc.

The following cases that must be heard by the Supreme Court en banc.
1. All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement or law.
2. All cases which under the Rules of Court may be require to be heard en banc
3. All cases involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees,
proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations.
4. Cases heard by a division when the required majority in the division is not obtained
5. Cases where the Supreme Court modifies or reverses a doctrine or principle of law previously laid
down either en banc or in a division. Then it must be heard en banc.
6. Administrative cases where the vote is for dismissal of a judge of a lower court or otherwise to
discipline such a one. Section 11.
7. Election contests for President or Vice President (Section 4, Article 7) – Supreme Court is the
electoral tribunal under the 1987 Constitution. When the Supreme Court sits as an electoral tribunal,
it must sit en banc.

There is a distinction between cases and matter.

 Cases are decided while matters are resolved.
 Cases are the main case while matters refer to the incidents in the case, e.g. motion for
reconsideration, time to file, motion for inhibition. They are merely resolved
 The word decided refers to cases.
 The word resolved refers to matters.

When the required number of votes in a case before a division is not obtained, there is no decision. Like in a
division of 3, if there are only 2, then it is not obtained. So it will be forwarded to the Court en banc for its
decision. On the other hand, if the case has already been decided by a division and the losing party files a
motion for reconsideration. The failure of the division to resolve the motion for reconsideration because of a
tie in the voting does not relieve the case undecided, it is considered lost. The assailed decision is not
reconsidered and must therefore deemed affirmed so this differentiates a case from a murder. If you file a
case before a division and the required vote is not obtained, then that case will be referred to the Supreme
Court en banc for decision.

If a case has been decided by a division and the losing party merely file a motion for reconsideration which
is a matter, not the case, matter before the division. If there is a tie or for one reason or another, the required

5
votes are not obtained, it is lost. The case is lost. The losing party stays to be the losing party. It is not
brought to the Supreme Court en banc for a decision anymore.

Fortich vs Corona (GR 131457)

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.
(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.
(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.
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
(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.
(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.

Exercise original jurisdiction – the case can be filed directly to the Supreme Court

The power of judicial review stands from 2nd paragraph, subparagraph a & b – the power of the Supreme
Court to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari to any decisions of any lower
courts.

What are the three powers of the Supreme Court?

1. Traditional power - to settle disputes; Basis: Section 1, Paragraph 2, 1st sentence
2. Power of Judicial review - Basis: Section 5, Paragraph 2, 1a and 1b.
3. Expanded Extraordinary Certiorari Jurisdiction - Basis: 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph of Section 1
of Article 8.

Other powers of the Supreme Court may be divided into two: Section 5 and Section 6: the
administrative power of the Supreme Court

The powers of the Supreme Court may be classified into:

1. The irreducible jurisdiction – irreducible jurisdiction over cases under Section 5 paragraph 1 and 2. It
cannot be reduced by legislation.
2. The auxiliary administrative powers – found in Section 5, paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6 and Section 6.

Requisites for the exercise of judicial review:

1. There must be an actual case calling for the exercise of judicial power.

6
 2. The constitutional question must be ripe for adjudication.
3. The party must have the requisite ‘standing’ to challenge the act as when he has a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that he will sustain a direct injury as a result of its enforcement.

A person who has a standing (locus standi) to challenge the validity of the governmental act only if
he has personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained or will sustain direct
injury as a result of its enforcement held in the case of People vs Vera, Bagaciano vs Ledes cited by
Bernas.
4. The case must be raised at the earliest opportunity.
5. The issue of constitutionality is unavoidable.

Which is more encompassing, judicial power or judicial review?

The power of judicial review is merely an aspect of judicial power. It is only part of the judicial power and it
can be found in Sec 5, Par 2 a & b. Judicial Power can be found in the three sources of power – Traditional,
Judicial review and Expanded extraordinary certiorari jurisdiction.

Assert in the intercommunication of the Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines vs Comelec, a citizen will be
allowed to raise a constitutional question only if he can show the following:
(1) that he has personally suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of alleged illegal conduct of
government
(2) the injury is very traceable to the challenged action
(3) the injury can be lightly regressed by a favourable action

In recent years has been following a liberal approach on the issue on ‘standing’ in high profile cases. In
David vs Arroyo case, the Court summarized the requirements before tax payers, voters, concerned citizens
can be accorded standing to sue and they are the cases involving constitutional issues. For tax payers,
another requirement. For voters, another requirement for concerned citizens another requirement.

While the Court may have shown in recent decision a certain toughening in its attitude concerned the
question of legal standing, it has, nonetheless always make an exception where the transcendental
importance of the issues has been established that standing the petitioner’s failure to show a direct injury.

When does a case becomes to the Supreme Court a transcendental importance?

In Creva vs Energy Regulatory Commission, the Court sent out the following instructive guide as
determinants whether a matter is a transcendental importance. This is also in the case of David vs. Arroyo.

What are the determinants on whether a matter is a transcendental importance?

Enumerate the character of the funds, assets or other assets involved in the case, etc.

IBP vs Zamora:
President Estrada called on the Marines to assist in the maintenance of order. It was questioned by the IBP.
The Supreme Court said, that the petitioner, IBP has no standing to challenge the action, however the Court
went on to entertain he case. When the issue raised is of paramount importance to the public, meaning
transcendental importance, the Court mya set aside the technicality of the procedures. Now, as it appears
that whenever the Court agrees that the matter before it is of transcendental importance, it will entertain a
suit even if a strict locus standi (standing in court) does not obtain.

When may a taxpayer’s suit be filed?

Read in Pascual vs Secretary of Public works

How about cases involving expenditure of public funds, when may a taxpayer have a standing to sue
in cases involving expenditure of public funds?
1. That he has sufficient interest in preventing illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation

7
 2. That he will sustain direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the questions taken

What is the doctrine of operative fact?

The doctrine of operative fact came in to play in PDAF cases. The PDAF cases, money was already
dispersed. In fact, the dispersed fund has already been spent and implemented.
Example, there is a bridge already constructed, then the DAP was declared unconstitutional, so what are you
going to do with the money? Sell the bridge to return the money to the government? There is what is called a
doctrine of operative fact.

The Supreme Court rejected the view that an unconstitutional act, like the unconstitutionality of the DAP,
confers no rights, imposes no duties and affords no protection whatsoever. Instead, the Court has adopted
the view that before an act is declared unconstitutional, it is an operative fact that can be the source of rights
and duties. Therefore, there is already an acquired right for that bridge that was constructed using the DAP
funds even the DAP funds was declared unconstitutional.

It is said that in 2nd sentence 2nd paragraph of section 1 which is the extraordinary expanded certiorari power
of the Supreme Court that the doctrine of political questions has already been abandoned.

What is a political question?

Political questions are those which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign
capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive
branch of the government.

The expanded definition of judicial power in the 1987 Constitution, meaning the extraordinary certiorari
power, has not nullified the doctrine of political questions. So there is still a doctrine of political question

Has the extraordinary certiorari power of the Supreme Court done away with political question
doctrine?
Answer: No. Before there was an accusation, talk, criticism that during the Marcosian era the Supreme
Court if the issue involves something that is ticklish and it would put the Supreme Court or its members in
bad light then they would go to so called political question’s doctrine, they say the court has no jurisdiction
because that is a political question, meaning the executive or the legislature it is their discretion to perform
that act and if it is within their full discretion, under the constitution, Courts cannot have jurisdiction.

Despite of the absence of a provision in the 1987 Constitution to the effect that the rules issued by the
Supreme Court may be repealed, altered or supplemented by Congress which was provided under previous
Constitution. The Congress still has the power over such rules. Therefore, Congress may still repeal, alter
and supplement rules issued by the Supreme Court because the Congress has plenary legislative power.

SECTION 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel
thereof.

Maceda vs Vasquez
In the case of Maceda vs Vasquez, the Ombudsman cannot investigate irregularities in the performance of a
judge independently of any administrative action taken by the Supreme Court, because according to the
Supreme Court under its power in Section 6 of Article 8, they have administrative supervision over lower
courts. The power of administrative supervision of the Supreme Court includes, according to Section 11, the
power to disciple judges of lower courts or order their dismissal. The exclusivity of this power is jealously
guarded by the Supreme Court.

Judge Caoibes vs Ombudsman GR. No. 132177

8
The Ombudsman cannot determine for itself or by itself whether a criminal complaint against a judge or
court employee involves an administrative matter. The Ombudsman is duty bound to have all cases against
judges and court personnel filed before it, referred to the Supreme Court for determination as to whether an
administrative aspect is involved therein.

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

The qualifications of the Justices are enumerated in the book of Bernas

Collegiate Courts – are those lower in the Supreme Courts; Court of Tax Appeals, Court of Appeals,
Sandiganbayan

However, Justices of the Supreme Court and lower collegiate courts must be natural born citizens of the
Philippines, then also the qualifications of the judges in single courts.

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.
(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.

What is Judicial and Bar Council and its composition?

(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.

How are they appointed?

(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.
(3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex officio of the Council and shall keep a record
of its proceedings.

9
What are the functions of the Judicial and Bar Council?
The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary. It may exercise
such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it.

Chavez vs JBC (July 17, 2012) GR No. 202242

This case resolved the question of how many members of the JBC must come from Congress. The Supreme
Court said that there must be only one because the Court ruled the use of singular letter a preceding
representative of Congress, in Section 8, is clear.

SECTION 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the
President from a list of at least three nominees 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.

How the Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall be appointed?
They are 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.

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.

 Under the 1935 Constitution, the Supreme Court held that a tax on the salary of members of the
Judiciary was a prohibited diminution. SO there was no tax on the salaries of the members of the
Supreme Court.

Under the 1973 Constitution of Article 15 that no salary or any form of emoluments shall be exempt from
income tax although it is a general provision in the said constitution it is deemed to be applicable to
members of the Judiciary – the Supreme Court and judges of the inferior court. Although it is not clear from
the text of the 1987 Constitution that clear intent of the constitutional commission was to make subject the
salaries of the judges and justices to income tax, held in the case of Nitafan vs Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, cited by Bernas.

SECTION 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during
good behavior until they reached 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.

It is not true that Judges and Justices of the Supreme Court shall hold office until to 70 years old.

Limitation or Requirements to hold office:

1. They must be of good behaviour
2. Even if they are in good behaviour and they reach 70 years old then they will retire
3. Even if they are in good behaviour but later become incapacitated to discharge the duties, then they
may be removed from their office.

10
 The Supreme Court en banc shall the power to discipline judges of lower courts or order their dismissal
by a vote of the majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberation of the issues of the case
and voted thereon.

The members of the Supreme Court fail to satisfy the requirement of good behaviour only if they are
guilty of the offenses which are constitutional grounds for impeachment.

Good behaviour – it is up to the time when they are judged guilty of the offenses which constitutes the
grounds for impeachment.

How about the Judges of lower courts?

It is the Supreme Court alone which can determine when judges have failed to satisfy the requirement of
good behaviour or when they are incapacitated to discharge the functions of their office. Basis: Section 6 of
Article 8.

When is good behaviour of the members of the Supreme Court?

Until impeachment

SECTION 12. The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall not be
designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.

This is the case of Judge Manzano of Ilocos Norte when he was appointed to the Ilocos Norte Provincial
Committee of Justice which was invalidated by the Supreme 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.

A case is already decided before the Supreme Court; The Supreme Court shall consult discuss the case en
banc with the participation of everybody or those who may be present. Then they will vote on it when there
is already a voting and that is the opinion of the majority. Then the majority will choose among themselves
who will write the decision.

Research on the commentary written by former Artemio Panganiban July 19, 2015, Philippine Inquirer.
How a case is handled by the Supreme Court.

As held in the case of Consing vs Court of Appeals (1989)

What is the certification requirement of Section 13?
After a case has been discussed by the members of the Supreme Court en banc and there is already a
decision and the ponente is already decided from among the majority there is a certification issued by the
Chief of Justice that such a move or procedure was followed by the Supreme Court. The purpose is to ensure
the implementation of the constitutional requirement that a decision of the Supreme Court, lower collegiate
courts and such as Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals and Sandiganbayan has reached after
consultation of the members of the court sitting en banc or in a division before a case is assigned to a
member thereof for decision writing.

SECTION 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.

11
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course
or denied without stating the legal basis therefor.

1st paragraph is different from 2nd paragraph.

1st paragraph is concerned with a decision of the case brought to Supreme Court or any courts for that
matter. In a decision, it must express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law it states
2nd paragraph it is a petition for review or motion for reconsideration, it shall state the legal basis of its
denial or for the 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
pending, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself.
(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.

When may a case file before a Court?

Supreme Court: Must be decided within 24 months
Lower Collegiate Courts: Within 12 months
Lower Court: 3 months from the date of submission

When a case or matter is deemed submitted for a decision?

Upon the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum requirement of the rules of Court.
24 months, 12 months or 3 months from the date of submission

The Sandiganbayan is a lower collegiate court; It may decide cases brought before it within three months
since it is considered a trial court.

In Section 18, Article 7, the Supreme Court must promulgate its decision within thirty days from the time of
the filing to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of proclamation of the Martial law and the suspension
of the writ of habeas corpus.

SECTION 16. The Supreme Court shall, within thirty days from the opening of each regular session
of the Congress, submit to the President and the Congress an annual report on the operations and
activities of the Judiciary.

12