UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES-FOUNDATION

COLLEGE OF LAW
Lahug, Cebu City
______________________

JURISDICTION
Prepared by: Atty. Mat Eric M. Medalle

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is defined as the authority by which courts

take cognizance of and decide cases, the legal right by which
judges exercise their authority. 1

Judicial Power

Basis: Article VIII Section 1

“The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme

Court and in such other courts as may be established by law.”

Concept of Expanded Judicial Review

“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 grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
any branch or instrumentality of the Government.”

The first part of Section 1 of Article VIII represents the

traditional concept of judicial power, involving the settlement of
conflicting rights as conferred by law.

1
Black’s Law Dictionary, 991.

Page | 1
 The second part of the authority represents a broadening
of judicial power to enable the courts of justice to review what
was before forbidden territory, to wit, the discretion of the
political departments of the government.2

In Daza v. Singson3, the High Court elucidated:

“The issue presented to the Supreme Court is

justiciable rather than political where it involves the
legality and not the wisdom of the act complained of,
or the manner of filling the Commission on
Appointments as prescribed by the Constitution.
Even if the question were political in nature, it would
still come within the Court’s power of review under
the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon it by Article
VIII, Sec. 1 of the Constitution, which includes the
authority to determine whether grave abuse of
discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction
has been committed by any branch or
instrumentality of the government.”

In one case a petition to annul the Senate Concurrence to

the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement, the court of
last resort speaking through Justice Panganiban:

“In seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine

Senate, on the ground that it contravenes the
Constitution, the petition no doubt raises a
justiciable controversy. Where an action of the
legislative branch is seriously alleged to have
infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the
right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the
dispute. The question thus interposed is judicial
rather political. The duty to adjudicate remains to

2
Philippine Political Law by Isagani Cruz, p. 470.
3
180 SCRA 18.

Page | 2
 assure that the supremacy of the Constitution is
upheld.”4

Under B.P. Blg. 129 otherwise known as Judiciary

Reorganization Law, the different lower courts are the following:

1. Court of Appeals
2. Regional Trial Courts
3. Metropolitan Trial Courts
4. Municipal Trial Courts
5. Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

Powers of the Supreme Court

Under Article 8 Section 5 paragraph (1) the Supreme

Court has 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.”

RULE 65

Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus

Section 1. Petition for certiorari. — When any tribunal, board or

officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted
without or in excess its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and
there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may
file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with
certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or
modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer,
and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may
require.
4
Tañada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18.

Page | 3
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the
judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all
pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a
sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the
third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. (1a)

Section 2. Petition for prohibition. — When the proceedings of

any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether
exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are
without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved
thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging
the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
commanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings
in the action or matter specified therein, or otherwise granting
such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a certified true

copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies
of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto,
and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in
the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. (2a)

Section 3. Petition for mandamus. — When any tribunal,

corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the
performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a
duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully
excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office
to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the
person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the
proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that
judgment be rendered commanding the respondent,
immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court,
to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the

Page | 4
petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner
by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent.

The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-

forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3,
Rule 46. (3a)

Section 4. When and where petition filed. — The petition shall

be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the
judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for
reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion
is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted
from notice of the denial of said motion.

The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates

to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation,
board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising
jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme
Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or
not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the
Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it
involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, unless
otherwise provided by law or these Rules, the petition shall be
filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.

No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except

for compelling reason and in no case exceeding fifteen (15)
days. (4a) (Bar Matter No. 803, 21 July 1998; A.M. No. 00-2-03-
SC)

Section 5. Respondents and costs in certain cases. — When the

petition filed relates to the acts or omissions of a judge, court,
quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or
person, the petitioner shall join, as private respondent or
respondents with such public respondent or respondents, the
person or persons interested in sustaining the proceedings in
the court; and it shall be the duty of such private respondents
to appear and defend, both in his or their own behalf and in

Page | 5
behalf of the public respondent or respondents affected by the
proceedings, and the costs awarded in such proceedings in
favor of the petitioner shall be against the private respondents
only, and not against the judge, court, quasi-judicial agency,
tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person impleaded as
public respondent or respondents.

Unless otherwise specifically directed by the court where the

petition is pending, the public respondents shall not appear in
or file an answer or comment to the petition or any pleading
therein. If the case is elevated to a higher court by either party,
the public respondents shall be included therein as nominal
parties. However, unless otherwise specifically directed by the
court, they shall not appear or participate in the proceedings
therein. (5a)

Section 6. Order to comment. — If the petition is sufficient in

form and substance to justify such process, the court shall
issue an order requiring the respondent or respondents to
comment on the petition within ten (10) days from receipt of a
copy thereof. Such order shall be served on the respondents in
such manner as the court may direct together with a copy of
the petition and any annexes thereto.

In petitions for certiorari before the Supreme Court and the

Court of Appeals, the provisions of section 2, Rule 56, shall be
observed. Before giving due course thereto, the court may
require the respondents to file their comment to, and not a
motion to dismiss, the petition. Thereafter, the court may
require the filing of a reply and such other responsive or other
pleadings as it may deem necessary and proper. (6a)

Section 7. Expediting proceedings; injunctive relief. — The court

in which the petition is filed may issue orders expediting the
proceedings, and it may also grant a temporary restraining
order or a writ of preliminary injunction for the preservation of
the rights of the parties pending such proceedings. The petition
shall not interrupt the course of the principal case unless a

Page | 6
temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction
has been issued against the public respondent from further
proceeding in the case. (7a)

Section 8. Proceedings after comment is filed. — After the

comment or other pleadings required by the court are filed, or
the time for the filing thereof has expired, the court may hear
the case or require the parties to submit memoranda. If after
such hearing or submission of memoranda or the expiration of
the period for the filing thereof the court finds that the
allegations of the petition are true, it shall render judgment for
the relief prayed for or to which the petitioner is entitled.

The court, however, may dismiss the petition if it finds the

same to be patently without merit, prosecuted manifestly for
delay, or that the questions raised therein are too
unsubstantial to require consideration. (8a)

Section 9. Service and enforcement of order or judgment. — A

certified copy of the judgment rendered in accordance with the
last preceding section shall be served upon the court, quasi-
judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person
concerned in such manner as the court may direct, and
disobedience thereto shall be punished as contempt. An
execution may issue for any damages or costs awarded in
accordance with section 1 of Rule 39. (9a)

Requisites for the exercise of Judicial Power:

(BELGICA v. OCHOA, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013)

(a) there must be an actual case or controversy;

(b) the person challenging the act must have the locus standi
(legal standing);
(c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the
earliest opportunity ; and
(d) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the
case.

Page | 7
• Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
- The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court
and in such lower courts as may be established by law. It
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."

(FRANCISCO v. HRET, G.R. No. 160261,

November 10, 2003)

ESSENTIAL REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL POWER:

1.) Actual case or controversy is one that involves a conflict of

legal rights. The case must be ripe and not moot and academic.
There must be a justiciable controversy.

• Justiciable controversy – a definite and concrete dispute

touching legal relations of the parties having adverse legal
interests which may be resolved by court.

• Exception to the mootness rule:

- There is a grave violation of the Constitution;

- There is a paramount public interest involved;
- The issues raised requires formulation of controlling
principles to guide the bench, the bar and the public.
- The case is capable of repetition yet evading review.

2.) Locus standi or legal standing or has been defined as a

personal and substantial interest in the case such that the
party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of
the governmental act that is being challenged.

Page | 8
- When suing as a CITIZEN, the interest of the petitioner
assailing the constitutionality of a statute must be direct and
personal. He must be able to show, not only that the law or any
government act is invalid, but also that he sustained or is in
imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of
its enforcement.
- When suing as a TAXPAYER, he is allowed to sue where
there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed, or that
public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or
that there is a wastage of public funds through the enforcement
of an invalid or unconstitutional law.
- When suing as a LEGISLATOR, he is allowed to sue to
question the validity of any official action which he claims
infringes his prerogatives as a legislator.

• Exception to the rule:

- Although the person suing has no legal standing, the case
can still be reviewed if it shows

(1) Issues paramount of public interest; or,

(2) Issues of transcendental importance.

3.) Case be filed at the earliest opportunity

4.) The issue of constitutionality is the very lis mota of the

case.
• Lis mota – the cause of the suit or action.

DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL SUPREMACY

- When the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional

boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other
departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of
the legislature, but 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.

Page | 9
• Further, the Court held that - the Constitution has
provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to
secure coordination in the workings of the various departments
of the government. x x x The judiciary in turn, with the
Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively checks the other
departments in the exercise of its power to determine the law,
and hence to declare executive and legislative acts void if
violative of the Constitution.

(Vinuya v. Executive Secretary,

G.R. No. 162230 April 28, 2010)

Speaking through Justice Del Castillo

The Treaty of Peace with Japan, insofar as it barred future

claims such as those asserted by plaintiffs in these actions,
exchanged full compensation of plaintiffs for a future peace.
History has vindicated the wisdom of that bargain. And while
full compensation for plaintiffs' hardships, in the purely
economic sense, has been denied these former prisoners and
countless other survivors of the war, the immeasurable bounty
of life for themselves and their posterity in a free society and in
a more peaceful world services the debt.1

There is a broad range of vitally important areas that must

be regularly decided by the Executive Department without
either challenge or interference by the Judiciary. One such area
involves the delicate arena of foreign relations. It would be
strange indeed if the courts and the executive spoke with
different voices in the realm of foreign policy. Precisely because
of the nature of the questions presented, and the lapse of more
than 60 years since the conduct complained of, we make no
attempt to lay down general guidelines covering other situations
not involved here, and confine the opinion only to the very
questions necessary to reach a decision on this matter.

WHAT IS A POLITICAL QUESTION?

Page | 10
 • Citing Tanada vs. Cuenco: “political questions refer
to 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”.

Certain types of cases often have been found to present

political questions. One such category involves questions of
foreign relations. It is well-established that "[t]he conduct of the
foreign relations of our government is committed by the
Constitution to the executive and legislative--'the political'--
departments of the government, and the propriety of what may
be done in the exercise of this political power is not subject to
judicial inquiry or decision." The US Supreme Court has further
cautioned that decisions relating to foreign policy are delicate,
complex, and involve large elements of prophecy. They are and
should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the
people whose welfare they advance or imperil. They are
decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither
aptitude, facilities nor responsibility.

The Law on Jurisdiction

B.P. Blg 129 otherwise known as the The
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980

Section 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts,

Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in
criminal cases. – Except in cases falling within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the
Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city

or municipal ordinances committed within their respective
territorial jurisdiction; and

Page | 11
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses
punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years
irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other
imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil
liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon,
irrespective of kind, nature, value, or amount thereof: Provided,
however, That in offenses involving damage to property
through criminal negligence they shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction thereof. (as amended by R.A. No. 7691)

Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts,

Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in
civil cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts,
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate

proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of
provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the
personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not
exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro
Manila where such personal property, estate, or amount of the
demand does not exceed Two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00) exclusive of interest damages of whatever kind,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of
which must be specifically alleged: Provided, That where there
are several claims or causes of action between the same or
different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount
of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the
causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action
arose out of the same or different transactions;

(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry

and unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the
defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and
the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding
the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved
only to determine the issue of possession.

Page | 12
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which
involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest
therein where the assessed value of the property or interest
therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00)
or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value
does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses and costs: Provided, That value of such property shall
be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots. (as
amended by R.A. No. 7691)

Section 34. Delegated jurisdiction in cadastral and land

registration cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may be assigned by
the Supreme Court to hear and determine cadastral or land
registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or
opposition, or contested lots the where the value of which does
not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), such
value to be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by
agreement of the respective claimants if there are more than
one, or from the corresponding tax declaration of the real
property. Their decisions in these cases shall be appealable in
the same manner as decisions of the Regional Trial Courts. (as
amended by R.A. No. 7691)

Section 35. Special jurisdiction in certain cases. – In the

absence of all the Regional Trial Judges in a province or city,
any Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal
Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide petitions for a writ of
habeas corpus or applications for bail in criminal cases in the
province or city where the absent Regional Trial Judges sit.

R.A. 7691, March 25, 1994

Page | 13
Section 1. Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise
known as the "Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980", is hereby
amended to read as follows:

"Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts

shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction.

"(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is

incapable of pecuniary estimation;

"(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession
of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed
value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000,00) or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such
value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except actions
for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or
buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;

"(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where

the demand or claim exceeds One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila, where such demand or claim
exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00);

"(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where

the gross value of the estate exceeds One hundred thousand
pesos (P100,000.00) or, in probate matters in Metro Manila,
where such gross value exceeds Two Hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00);

"(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and

marital relations;

"(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any

court, tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction of any
court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial functions;

Page | 14
"(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within
the exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court and of the Court of Agrarian Relations as now
provided by law; and

"(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of

interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and costs or the value of the property in controversy
exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in
such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand exclusive
of the abovementioned items exceeds Two Hundred thousand
pesos (P200,000.00)."

Section 2. Section 32 of the same law is hereby amended to

read as follows:

"Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal

Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal
Cases. – Except in cases falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan,
the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

"(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or

municipal ordinances committed within their respective
territorial jurisdiction; and

"(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable

with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of
the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory
or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such
offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature,
value or amount thereof: Provided, however, That in offenses
involving damage to property through criminal negligence, they
shall have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof."

Page | 15
Section 3. Section 33 of the same law is hereby amended to
read as follows:

"Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal

Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. –
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

"(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and

probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant
of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the
personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not
exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro
Manila where such personal property, estate, or amount of the
demand does not exceed Two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00), exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of
which must be specifically alleged: Provided, That interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses,
and costs shall be included in the determination of the filing
fees: Provided, further, That where there are several claims or
causes of actions between the same or different parties,
embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand
shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action,
irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the
same or different transactions;

"(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry

and unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the
defendant raises the questions of ownership in his pleadings
and the question of possession cannot be resolved without
deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be
resolved only to determine the issue of possession; and

"(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which

involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest
therein where the assessed value of the property or interest
therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00)

Page | 16
or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value
does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses and costs: Provided, That in cases of land not
declared for taxation purposes, the value of such property shall
be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots."

Section 4. Section 34 of the same law is hereby amended to

read as follows:

"Sec. 34. Delegated Jurisdiction in Cadastral and Land

Registration Cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may be assigned by
the Supreme Court to hear and determine cadastral or land
registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or
opposition, or contested lots where the value of which does not
exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), such value
to be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by
agreement of the respective claimants if there are more than
one, or from the corresponding tax declaration of the real
property. Their decisions in these cases shall be appealable in
the same manner as decisions of the Regional Trial Courts."

Section 5. After five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act, the
jurisdictional amounts mentioned in Sec. 19(3), (4), and (8);
and Sec. 33(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by this
Act, shall be adjusted to Two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00). Five (5) years thereafter, such jurisdictional
amounts shall be adjusted further to Three hundred thousand
pesos (P300,000.00): Provided, however, That in the case of
Metro Manila, the abovementioned jurisdictional amounts shall
be adjusted after five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act to
Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00).

(Notes pertaining to Criminal Law Jurisdiction will follow

before we tackle Civil Law Jurisdiction and Jurisdictions
of Quasi-Judicial Bodies and Administrative Agencies)

Page | 17