A constitutional question is ripe for adjudication when the
IV. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
A. 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 on the part of
any branch or instrumentality of the Government (Art. VIII,
Sec. 1(2)).
Judicial power is vested in:
1. One Supreme Court; and
2.Such lower courts as may be established by law
(Art. VIII, Sec.1).
Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe and
apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but may not
deprive the SC of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in
Sec. 5, Art. VIII (Art. VIII, Sec. 2).
No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction
of the SC as provided in the Constitution without its advice
and concurrence (Art. VI, Sec. 30).
The power to control the execution of its decision is an
essential aspect of jurisdiction. It cannot be the subject of
substantial subtraction for our Constitution vests the
entirety of judicial power in one Supreme Court and in such
lower courts as may be established by law (Echegaray v.
The Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 132601, January 19,
1999).
B. Judicial review
It is the power of the courts to test the validity of
executive and legislative acts in light of their conformity
with the Constitution. This is not an assertion of superiority
by the courts over the other departments, but merely an
expression of the supremacy of the Constitution (Angara v.
Electoral Commission, No. 45081, July 15, 1936).
Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy
When the Judiciary allocates constitutional
boundaries, it neither asserts superiority nor nullifies an act
of the Legislature. It only asserts the solemn and sacred
obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine
conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to
establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights
which that instrument secures and guarantees to them
(Laurel, Angara v. Electoral Commission, No. 45081, July
15, 1936).
1.Requisites (APEN)
a. Actual case or controversy – a conflict of legal
rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims
susceptible of judicial determination;
governmental act being challenged has had a direct adverse
effect on the individual challenging it.
It is also necessary that there be a law that gives rise to
some specific rights of persons or property, under which
adverse claims are made. (Santiago, Jr. v. Bautista, L-
25024, March 30, 1970)
b. Proper party must raise the constitutional
question (locus standi) — one who has sustained
or is in imminent danger of sustaining an injury as
a result of the act complained of (direct injury test)
(Ex Parte Levitt, 303 U.S. 633)
Jurisprudence defines interest as "material interest, an
interest in issue and to be affected by the decree, as
distinguished from mere interest in the question involved,
or a mere incidental interest. By real interest is meant a
present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere
expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or
consequential interest." (Stefan Tito Miñoza v. Hon. Cesar
Tomas Lopez, etc., et al., G.R. No. 170914, April 13, 2011).
Elements of standing:
a. The petitioner must have suffered injury in fact which
can be legal, economic, or environmental;
b. The injury must be traceable to the governmental act
challenged; and
c. The injury must be redressable by the remedy being
sought by petitioner (Telecommunications and
Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines Inc. v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 132922, April 21, 1998).
Note: In recent years, the SC has been following a liberal
approach on standing in high profile issues:
In Dumlao v. COMELEC (G.R. No. L-52245 January 22,
1980), while holding that the suit presented merely a
hypothetical case and that it was not properly a taxpayer’s
suit because the petitioners were not against the holding of
elections with consequent expenditure of public funds, the
Court nevertheless ruled on the substantive issues raised
because of “paramount public interest” due to the proximity
of the election date and the need to clear the air of
confusing doubts.
In Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. (G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993),
the SC affirmed the standing of minors, represented by their
parents, to challenge the validity of logging concessions on
the basis of the concept of intergenerational responsibility
for and right to a balanced and healthful ecology guaranteed
by Article II, Sec. 16.
In Kilosbayan v. Guingona, Jr. (G.R. No. 113375, May 5,
1994), the SC affirmed the right of petitioners to challenge
the validity of the lotto contract of the Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes on the argument that the case was of
transcendental importance. This ruling was reversed,
however, in Kilosbayan v. Morato (G.R. No. 113375, May
5, 1994), on the ground that the petitioner had no
substantial interest in the contract being challenged.
For a taxpayer’s suit, the following must concur:
a. Public funds are disbursed by a political subdivision or
instrumentality; and
b. A law is violated or some irregularity is committed,
and that the petitioner is directly affected by the alleged
ultra vires act (Anti-Graft League of the Philippines v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97787, August 1, 1996).
Summary of rules on the liberal approach on locus standi:
a. For taxpayers, there must be claim of illegal
disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure is
unconstitutional.
b. For voters, there must be showing of obvious interest in
the validity of the election law in question.
c. For concerned citizens, there must be showing that the
issues raised are of transcendental importance which
must be settled.
d. For legislators, there must be a claim that the official
action complained of infringes their prerogatives as
legislators.
e. Government of the Philippines is a proper party to
question the validity of its own laws ((Nachura, Outline
Reviewer in Political Law, 2009 ed., p. 22).
c .Constitutional question must be raised at the
earliest opportunity
General Rule: It must be raised in the pleadings.
Exceptions:
a. Criminal cases – At any time at the discretion of the
court;
b. Civil cases – at any stage of the proceedings if
necessary for the determination of the case itself;
c. Every case (except where there is estoppel) – at any
stage if it involves the jurisdiction of the court (People
v. Vera, G.R. No. L-45685, November 16, 1937)
d. Determination of constitutionality of the statute
must be necessary to a final determination of the
case (Ibid.).
To doubt is to sustain. The constitutionality of a law will be
sustained if the issue can be determined without having to
decide its validity (Mirasol v. CA, G.R. No. 128448, Feb. 1,
2001).
Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction
Capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. The abuse
of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a
duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of
law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and
despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility (Intestate
Estate of Carmen de Luna v. IAC, G.R. No. 72424,
February 13, 1989).
Justiciable question
A definite and concrete dispute touching on the legal
relations of parties having adverse legal interests which
may be resolved by a court of law through the application
of a law (Cutaran v. DENR, G.R. No. 134958, January 31,
2001).
Justiciability requirements:
a. That there be an actual controversy between or among
the parties to the dispute;
b. That the interests of the parties be adverse;
c. That the matter in controversy be capable of being
adjudicated by judicial power; and
d. That the determination of the controversy will result in
practical relief to the complainant. (Nachura, J.,
Separate Opinion, De Castro v. JBC, Supra.)
2.Political question doctrine
Those questions 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 legislature or executive branches of
government (Tañada v. Cuenco, No. L-10520, February 28,
1957).
3.Moot questions
An action is considered “moot” when it no longer
presents a justiciable controversy because the issues
involved have become academic or dead, as when
subsequent events have overtaken the petition and the Court
has nothing left to resolve (Gonzales v. Narvasa, G. R. No.
140835, August 14, 2000).
General rule: Courts will not decide moot and academic
issues.
Exceptions:
a. There is grave violation of the Constitution;
b. There is an exceptional character of the situation and
paramount public is involved;
c. The constitutional issues raised require formulation of
controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar and
the public; and
d. The case is capable of repetition yet evasive review
(David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3,
2006).
e.
4.Operative fact doctrine
Under this doctrine, the law is recognized as
unconstitutional but the effects of the unconstitutional law,
prior to its declaration of nullity, may be left undisturbed as
a matter of equity and fair play. In fact, the invocation of
the operative fact doctrine is an admission that the law is
unconstitutional (Hacienda Luisita Inc. v. Presidential
Agrarian Reform Council, et al, G.R. No. 171101,
November 22, 2011).
C. Safeguards of judicial independence
1.SC is a constitutional body and may not be abolished by
law;
2.Members are only removable by impeachment;
3.SC may not be deprived of its minimum and appellate
jurisdiction; appellate jurisdiction may not be increased
without its advice or concurrence;
4.SC has administrative supervision over all inferior courts
and personnel;
5.SC has exclusive power to discipline judges/justices of
inferior courts;
6.Members of judiciary enjoy security of tenure (Art. VIII,
Sec. 2 (2));
7.Members of judiciary may not be designated to any
agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative
functions;
8.Salaries of judges may not be reduced; judiciary enjoys
fiscal autonomy (Art. VIII, Sec.3).
9.SC alone may initiate the promulgation of the Rules of
Court;
10.SC alone may order temporary detail of judges; and
11.SC can appoint all officials and employees of the
Judiciary (Nachura, Reviewer in Political Law, 2009 ed.,
pp. 310-311).
1.Judicial and Bar Council
a. Composition (Art. VIII, Sec. 8(1)):
Ex-officio chairman
Supreme Court Chief Justice
Ex-officio members
a. Secretary of Justice
b. Representative of Congress
Regular members
a. Representative of the IBP;
b. Professor of Law;
c. Retired member of SC; and
d. Representative of private sector
Secretary de officio
e. Clerk of the Supreme Court (Art. VIII, Sec. 8(3))
In the case of Francisco Chavez v. Judicial and Bar
Council, G.R. No. 202242, April 16, 2013, the Supreme
Court ruled that the JBC is composed only of seven
members – with Congress allowed only one representative.
Appointment (Art. VIII, Sec. 2)
Regular members shall be appointed by the President for a
four-year term with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments.
b. Powers
a. Recommend appointees to the Judiciary;
b. Recommend appointees to the Office of the Ombudsman
and his 5 deputies;
c. May exercise such other functions as may be assigned by
the Supreme Court (Art. VIII, Sec. 8).
The duty of the JBC to submit a list of nominees before the
start of the President’s mandatory 90-day period to appoint
is ministerial, but its selection of the candidates whose
names will be in the list to be submitted to the President lies
within the discretion of the JBC (De Castro v. JBC, G. R.
No. 191002, March 17, 2010).
2.Fiscal autonomy (Art. VIII, Sec. 10)
The SALARY of the Chief Justice and of the Associate
Justices of the SC, and of judges of lower court shall be
fixed by law. During their continuance in office, their salary
shall not be decreased.
The change of phraseology of said provision from “shall not
be diminished” to “shall not be decreased” thereby
manifests the intent of the framers to subject the salaries of
justices and judges to a general tax law applicable to all
income owners. (Nitafan v. CIR, L-78780, July 23, 1987)
D.Qualifications of members of the Judiciary (Art. VIII,
Sec. 7)
1. Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme
Court:
a. Natural-born citizen;
b. At least 40 years old;
c. 15 years or more as a judge of a lower court or has
been engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines
for the same period; and
d. A person of proven competence, integrity, probity and
independence.
2. Presiding Justice and Associate Justices of the Court of
Appeals:
Same qualifications as those provided for Justices of the
Supreme Court (Sec. 7, B.P. 129);
3. Regional Trial Court Judges (Sec. 15, B.P. 129):
a. Citizen of the Philippines;
b. At least 35 years old; and
c. Has been engaged for at least 10 years in the practice
of law in the Philippines or has held public office in the
Philippines requiring admission to the practice of law
as an indispensable requisite; and
 d. A person of proven competence, integrity, probity and voted thereon, provided there is quorum (Art. VIII, Sec.
independence. 4(2), Sec. 4(3), Sec. 11).

4. Metropolitan, Municipal and Municipal Circuit Trial DIVISION CASES

Court Judges (Sec. 26, B.P. 129): Other cases or matters may be heard either in
a. Citizen of the Philippines; division or en banc as the Rules of Court may provide
b. At least 30 years old; (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the
c. Has been engaged for at least 5 years in the practice of Philippines, A Commentary, 2008 ed., p. 964).
law in the Philippines or has held public office in the
Philippines requiring admission to the practice of law Division cases decided or resolved with the concurrence of
as an indispensable requisite; and a majority of the members who actually took part in the
d. A person of proven competence, integrity, probity and deliberations on the issues and voted thereon, but in no case
independence. without the concurrence of at least 3 such members
e. When the required number is not obtained, the case shall be
Procedure for appointment (Art. VIII, Sec.9): decided en banc (Art. VIII, Sec. 4(3)).
1.Appointed by President from among a list of at least
three (3) nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council Cases are those decided and are referred to SC en banc for
for every vacancy. decision whenever required number of vote is not obtained;
2.Any vacancy in the SC shall be filled within 90 days Matters are those resolved and no referral is necessary
from occurrence thereof (Section 4 (1), Article VIII). (Fortich v. Corona, G.R. No. 131457, August 19, 1999).
3.For lower courts, President shall issue the appointment
90 days from submission of the list.
2.Procedural rule-making
promulgates rules concerning: protection and enforcement
Tenure of justices and judges
of constitutional rights; pleading, practice and procedures in
1. Supreme Court — hold office until they reach 70
all courts; admissions to the practice of law; Integrated Bar
years of age or become incapacitated to discharge their
of the Philippines; and legal assistance to the
duties (Art. VIII, Sec. 11). May be removed only
underprivileged (Art. VIII, Sec. 5 (5))
through impeachment (Art . XI, Sec. 2)
2.Lower Courts — hold office during good behavior
Limitations on rule making power (Ibid.):
until they reach 70 years of age or become
a. Provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for
incapacitated to discharge their duties (Art. VIII, Sec.
speedy disposition of cases;
11).
b. Uniform for all courts in the same grade; and
c. Shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive
D. Workings of the Supreme Court rights
1.En banc and division cases
3.Administrative supervision over lower courts
1. All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty,
international or executive agreement, or law (Art. VIII,
a. Administrative supervision over all courts and the
Sec. 4(2);
personnel thereof (Art. VIII, Sec.6).
2. Cases involving the constitutionality, applications, or
b. It is well settled that the jurisdiction to try a case is to
operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders,
be determined by the law in force at the time of the
instructions, ordinances, and other regulations (Ibid.);
institution of the action, not at the time of the
3. Cases heard by a division when the required majority in
commission of the offense. Consonant with this
the division is not obtained (Sec. 4(3));
principle, the time of commission is not material to
4. Cases where the SC modifies or reverses a doctrines or
determining which court has jurisdiction.  It stands to
principle of law previously laid down either en banc or in
reason that administrative jurisdiction over petitioner
division (Ibid.);
belongs to the Supreme Court, the action having been
5. Administrative cases where the vote is for the dismissal
instituted by the CSC at the time when petitioner was
of a judge of a lower court of otherwise to discipline such
already a judicial employee (Ampong v. CSC, G.R.
a one (Art. VIII, Sec. 11); and
No. 167916, August 26, 2008).
6. Election contests for President and Vice-President (Art.
VII, Sec. 4).
Under Bar Matter No. 209, administrative cases which
are to be heard by SC en banc includes only:
When the SC sits en banc, cases are decided by the
i. Administrative judges;
concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually
ii. Disbarment of lawyers;
took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and
 iii. Suspension of more than 1 year; or
iv. Fine exceeding Php10,000 (People v. Gacott, G.R.
No. 110930, July 13, 1995)

The Ombudsman may not initiate or investigate a

criminal or administrative complaint before his office
against a judge; he must first indorse the case to SC for
appropriate action (Fuentes v. Office of the
Ombudsman-Mindanao, G.R. No. 124925, October 23,
2001).
4.Original and appellate jurisdiction

1. Exercise original jurisdiction

a. Over cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls (Art. VIII, Sec. 5(1));
b. Over petitions for Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus,
Quo warranto, and Habeas Corpus (Ibid.); and
c. Review of the factual basis for the declaration of
martial law or suspension of the privilege of writ of
habeas corpus (Art. VIII, Sec. 18).

2. Exercise appellate jurisdiction

a. Over final judgments and orders of lower courts in 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; and
e. All cases in which only a question of law is involved
(Art. VIII, Section 5 (2)).