JUDICIARY DEPARTMENT ART 8 (b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment,
or toll, or any penalty imposed in rela on thereto.
Sec on 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme
Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
Vargas v. Rilloraza
There was an old law whereby it was provided that in the trial of
cases, the so called collabora on cases, those who supposedly
collaborated with the Japanese forces in the Philippines. The
Jus ces of the Supreme Court who were holding office during
the Japanese regime would have to recuse or inhibit themselves
and they shall be replaced by Jus ces coming from the CA or RTC
to be appointed by the president as ad hoc members of the
Supreme Court to try collabora on cases.
Supreme Court struck down as void a provision of the People’s
Court Act, Sec on 20, crea ng a special supreme court to try
collabora on cases. The president was given the power to
appoint ad hoc members of the Supreme Court coming from the
Court of Appeals and RTC. It would appear that there would be
two Supreme Courts. Regular Supreme Court, trying regular
cases and Ad Hoc Supreme Court, trying collabora on cases.
The only Cons tu onal Court is the Supreme Court and the
lower courts are merely statutory courts
Statutory – there are mere crea ons of legisla ons as may be
enacted by Congress.
Other courts:
1. Court of Appeals
2. Sandiganbayan
3. Court of Tax Appeals
4. Regional Trial Courts
5. Metropolitan Trial Courts
6. Municipal Trial Courts in Ci es
7. Municipal Courts
8. Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
9. Sharia’ Courts
Hierarchy of Courts
Supreme Court – the highest law of the land
Sec on 1. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of jus ce
to se le actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discre on amoun ng to lack or
excess of jurisdic on on the part of any branch or instrumentality
of the Government.
Sec on 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe,
and appor on the jurisdic on of the various courts but may not
deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdic on over cases
enumerated in Sec on 5 hereof.
Limita ons of Congress to define, prescribe and appor on the
jurisdic on
1) It may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdic on over
cases enumerated in Sec on 5
Sec on 5 (1) Exercise original jurisdic on over cases affec ng
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over
pe ons for cer orari, prohibi on, mandamus, quo warranto,
and habeas corpus.
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or
cer orari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final
judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(a) All cases in which the cons tu onality or validity of any
treaty, interna onal or execu ve agreement, law, presiden al
(c) All cases in which the jurisdic on 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 ques on of law is involved.
(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other sta ons 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 jus ce.
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protec on and enforcement
of cons tu onal rights, pleading, prac ce, and procedure in all
courts, the admission to the prac ce of law, the integrated bar,
and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall
provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposi on of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same
grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substan ve
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial
bodies shall remain effec ve unless disapproved by the Supreme
Court.
(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in
accordance with the Civil Service Law.
2) Sec 30 Art 6. No law shall be passed increasing the appellate
jurisdic on of the Supreme Court as provided in this Cons tu on
without its advice and concurrence.
The appellate jurisdic on of the Supreme Court may be
increased, but such should be done with the prior concurrence
of the Supreme Court. Without which, any such increase is
considered invalid.
Fabian v. Desierto
The Supreme Court struck down as uncons tu onal the
provision under Sec 27 of RA 6770, the Ombudsman Act, which
provides decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman and
administra ve cases may be appealed further in the Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court struck down such par cular remedy
because it has an effect of increasing the appellate jurisdic on of
the Supreme Court, and such was done without the prior
consent of the Supreme Court.
The rule as of now is decisions coming from the Office of the
Ombudsman may be brought to the Supreme Court if it pertains
to criminal cases.
Composi on
There are 15 jus ces of the Supreme Court
1 Chief Jus ce
14 Associate Jus ces
Qualifica ons
Sec on 7
Qualifica ons for Jus ces of the Supreme Court
1. Natural-born Filipinos
2. At least 40 years old
3. Must be a judge of the lower court or must be engaged in the
prac ce of law for 15 years or more
Cayetano v. Monsod
Prac ce of law is not limited to appearance in court or li ga on.
Any ac vity involving the applica on of law already cons tutes
prac ce of law.
A y. Galeon doesn’t agree with that ruling. He’d rather agree to
the dissen ng opinion by Jus ce Cruz. “I have the uncomfortable
feeling that one does not even have to be a lawyer to be
engaged in the prac ce of law as long as his ac vi es involve the
applica on of some law, however peripherally. The stock broker
decree, proclama on, order, instruc on, ordinance, or regula on
is in ques on.
defini on as they deal with or give advice on ma ers that are
likely "to become involved in li ga on."
Take Note. As regards to the Jus ces in the Supreme Court, the
one who prescribes their qualifica ons is none other than the
Cons tu on itself. Whereas, as regards to the judges of lower
2. The minimum qualifica on is that a judge should be a ci zen
of the Philippines and should be a member of the Philippine Bar
(Hence, they need not be natural-born Filipinos unlike the SC
Jus ces)
3. Engaged in the prac ce of law for 5 years (MTC)
4. Engaged in the prac ce of law for 10 years (RTC)
Qualifica ons for Judges of Collegiate Courts (CA, CTA)
1. Natural-born Filipinos (Congress may want to provide for
addi onal qualifica ons
Qualifica ons for both Jus ces and Judges
A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven
competence, integrity, probity, and independence.
Judicial and Bar Council
- Has regular members and ex-officio members.
- Before one may be appointed either in the Supreme Court or a
Judge of a lower court, one must first be screened by the JBC.
Ex officio members
Ex officio chairman – Chief Jus ce of the Supreme Court
Other ex officio members:
1. Secretary of Jus ce
2. A representa ve of Congress
Chavez v. JBC GR 402242
There was an issue as to representa on in the JBC coming from
Congress, because in the past there were two representa ves,
one from each house. The Supreme Court ruled that there shall
only be one representa ve coming from Congress. From the
clear provision of Sec 8 par 1 Art 8, it states that there shall only
be “a representa ve” of Congress in its singular form.
Regular members
1. Representa ve from the IBP (should serve office for 4 years)
2. Professor of law (3 years)
3. Re red Jus ce of the SC (2 years)
4. A representa ve of the private sector appointed by the
President (1 year – with confirma on of the Commission on
Appointments)
Sec on 8. (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 representa ve of the Integrated Bar shall
serve for four years, the professor of law for three years, the
re red Jus ce for two years, and the representa ve of the
private sector for one year.
and the insurance adjuster and the realtor could come under the
courts, their qualifica ons may be set forth or prescribed by the
Congress.
Qualifica ons for Judges of the Lower Courts (RTC, MTC, MTCC)
1. Congress is given the power to provide for their qualifica ons
subject to the minimum qualifica ons in Sec on 7
Sec on 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 confirma on.
For the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointments
within ninety days from the submission of the list.
JBC has to prepare a list of at least 5 nominees for every vacant
posi on a er interviewing and screening the applicants. The
President then will have to make, within 90 days a er
submission of thereof, appointments.
Aguinaldo v. Aquino
ISSUE: Whether or not the President could appoint jus ces or
judges to fill up three separate vacant posi ons in three separate
branches/divisions of the Sandiganbayan from one and the same
list.
FACTS: In the Sandiganbayan, there were three vacant posi ons
pertaining to three different divisions. Pursuant to the 1987
Cons tu on, JBC screened and then submi ed the lists to the
President. Aquino appointed jus ces to the three vacant
posi ons in three different division, all from one and the same
list.
HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that there is nothing in the
cons tu on that provides that the president should appoint
jus ces coming from different lists prepared by the JBC. It is
enough that the person appointed was screened by JBC and his
name was included in the list prepared by the JBC.
Prohibi on from Quasi-Judicial or Administra ve Func ons
Sec on 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 administra ve func ons.
There is a provision prohibi ng the members of the Judiciary
from being designated to perform quasi-judicial and
administra ve func ons. This is consistent with the principle of
separa on of powers. If one is appointed as a jus ce in the
Supreme Court or a judge in the collegiate courts or a judge in
the lower courts, they are expected perform judicial func ons
and he cannot be designated to perform quasi-judicial and
administra ve func ons.
Quasi-judicial is defined as an ac on by an administra ve agency
which ascertains certain facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence,
make conclusions from the facts as a basis for their official
ac on, and exercises discre on of a judicial nature.

Sec on 8 provides for the staggering of terms in the
appointment of the regular members of the JBC. But they may
be reappointed and the moment that anyone of they will be
reappointed then the term of office will then be for the complete
period of 4 years.
Take Note. From the provision of sec on 8, we can tell that JBC is
not actually devoid of any poli cal influence. This is why it makes
us wonder if there is really independence in the judiciary
department. Why? The Chief Jus ce may be Chairman of the JBC
but it is the President who appoints the Chief Jus ce. We also
have the Department of Jus ce Secretary who is also appointed
by the President and a representa ve of Congress who is most
likely affiliated with the President. The regular members are all
appointed by the President and may be reappointed. If only to
see to it that there is an independence in the selec on, Sec on 8
must be amended since the members may be made subservient
to the President.
Macalintal v. Presiden al Electoral Tribunal
Macalintal ques oned the composi on of the PET. He contended
that the PET exercises quasi-judicial power, and thus, its
members violate Sec on 12, Art. VIII of the 1987 Cons tu on.
According to him, by ac ng as members of the PET, it would
appear that the members of the SC were performing a quasi-
judicial func on. Hence, it should be declared as
uncons tu onal.
In like ma er, that provision to the end where there must be
three jus ces in the SC who shall seat in the SET or HRET should
also be declared a nullity because it is repugnant to sec on 12.
Supreme Court disagreed. It ruled that common logic would tell
you that it is not uncons tu onal since it is provided for in the
cons tu on.