ARTICLE 8 JUDICIARY

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.

Definition of Judicial power in sec1 is the traditional power to settle controversies.

The rest of Sec1 and to determine whether or not…- expanded extraordinary certiorari
jurisdiction of the SC. New provision in the 1987 Consti.

Dean Carlos Largo says that the Phil SC is the most powerful in the world. He characterized the
Philippine Judiciary as no longer the weakest and least dangerous plans of the government.
If its powers and duties are compared with those of its counterparts in The US and other
countries, our SC can be termed as the most powerful in the world.
It has 3 prerogatives:
1. Traditional Power (also in 1935 and 1973) to settle actual controversies that are legally
demandable and enforceable.
2. Power of Judicial review(also in 1935 and 1973). It is the authority to determine whether
the acts of the other branches of the government are in accord with the Constitution.
3. New: expanded extraordinary certiorari jurisdiction of the SC which is the power 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.
The SC is criticized as overreaching its Powers. In most countries SC is granted only the First,
the traditional but not the 2nd and 3rd.

The US constitution did not expressly grant the SC the power of Judicial Review even up to
now.

But in the case of Barburry vs Madison in 1803 the Us SC ruled that such power inherently
belongs to the US Judiciary. Since then,US Courts have … avoided statutes that violate the
constitution.
Our SC is the only one in the world that expressly granted the 3rd to strike down grave abuse of
discretion notably our constitution describes it as a duty not just a power.

Largo stressed that the Constitution did not define grave abuse of discretion but the SC has
limited its application only to acts done in an arbitrary capricious or whimsical manner by a
reason of passion or personal hostility so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of
positive duty or virtual refusal … at all.
Yet in actual practice grave abuse of jurisdiction has been used by the High court to decide
cases that at times to approximate this limitation.
For example, SC …the truth Commission in 2010
LAGMAN VS OCHOA
The preemptor and preemptoree devoid the investment decision transferring a petro-chemical
plant from Bataan to Batangas.GARCIA VS BOI 1990
These are decisions of SC which were criticized as overreaching. They overreach their power.

What is judicial power? 2nd paragraph

Lopez vs Roxas. SCRA SC Reports Annotated-it is a publication of SC Decisions annotated for
that matter since 1960. Before that, SC cases were reported in the Phil. Reports.

What is judicial power? Defined in the 2nd paragraph of Sec1. It is the authority to settle
justiciable controversies or disputes involving rights that are enforceable and demandable for
the Courts of Justice or the redress of … for violations of such rights.
Lopez vs Roxas. X

The 1987 constitution expanded the definition of judicial power to include the power 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 instrumentalities of the government.

Abuse of Power. Sinon vs Civil Service

The Abuse of Power referred to Sec1 must be grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction. It is also defined in the book of Bernasin the said case.

When can be Judicial power be exercised?

Only if 1. Real parties come to court. 2. For the settlement of an actual controversy 3. In a
manner that binds parties by the petition of existing laws

Power to control executions of decisions

Exception: 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 beyond 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.

Political questions Doctrine

Political questions are 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 legislative or executive branch of the government. So that if it is the prerogative of the
executive or legislative that the other departments cannot meddle in its execution, that is the
political questions doctrine.

The expanded definition of judicial power under Sec1 does not do away with the political
questions doctrine at most it is a … of the Marcos supreme court on shying away in viewing
abuse of discretion by the chief executive and using the political questions doctrine as an
excuse. The expanded definition of judicial power in the 1987 Constitution does not codified
the doctrine of political questions
The definition has for its purpose to emphasize that when grave abuse of discretion is
committed even by the highest executive authority, the judiciary should not hide behind the
political questions doctrine.

Powers given to Court.

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
likewise in the case of (hindi ko talaga maintindihan haha) all cited in the book of
Bernas.
Neither it is the function of the judiciary to give advice or opinions. Corollary to the principle of
judicial independence is that it is the Courts alone that can exercise judicial functions.

Difference of Declaratory Judgment and advisory opinion. Discussed in the book of Bernas
read!!

The senate petition before the SC. On whether the senate concurrence is necessary to
abrogate a treaty or an executive agreement is not a petition for a declaratory judgement. So it
was considered by the SC as seeking for an advisory opinion and the Court does not entertain
actions asking for advisory opinions there must be a real controversy to be decided by SC.

Courts alone can exercise judicial functions corollary to the principle of judicial dependency, the
claim that it is the courts alone that can exercise judicial functions.

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.

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.

Bakit naman makikialam ang Congress sa Judicial process? Because the judicial process
cannot be started without a law that is enacted by the legislature. So that the Congress will
have to define enforceable and demandable rights and prescribing remedies from violation of
such rights AND to determine the court’s jurisdiction to give and hear 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.

Sec2 describes the power of Congress over the judicial system because the Congress has the
power to create new courts and to apportion jurisdiction over various courts; however in the
exercise of its power, congress may not impair the independence of the judiciary.

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 the 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.

It is already in the body of Sec3

SECTION 4. (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and
fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or at 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 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.

The composition of the SC may not be changed by ordinary legislation. Lower courts can be
changed by ordinary legislation.

Guaranty of security of tenure- guarantee not just against actual removal but also of
uninterrupted continuity of tenure. In 1935 Constitution , there were 11 justices, 1973 and
1987 consti- 15;
1935 and 1973- the SC may sit en banc in 2divisions and 1987-SC is free to create divisions of
3/5/7 divisions. Divisions are not separate and distinct courts, they are still the same SC only
divided into divisions. So that actions considered in any divisions and decisions rendered
therein are in effect by the same sc. decisions or resolutions of the division of the sc are not
inferior on an en banc decision
People vs Dy

Quorum
8justices are required to constitute a quorum when the court sits en banc

Under sec4, vacancy shall be filled within 90dsys from the occurrence thereof.
Arturo and De castro vs jbc and pgma- this is a case that was filed precisely to question the
appointment of GMA of Chief Justice R. Corona. The prohibition for the President not to make
appointments within 60days before the end of his term under sec15 art7 does not apply to the
Judiciary. (Sc decisions) READ THE CASE

The provision of art8 sec4 no.1. Requiring vacancies in the SC to be filled up within 90days
must be followed.

What are the cases that the Sc must be decided en banc?

1. All cases involving the constitutionality treaty international agreement or law sec4
2. All cases under the rules of courts are required to be heard en banc such as petition
for certiorari for a decision on comelec en banc rule 64 in relation to rule 65
3. Sec4. All cases involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential
decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances and other regulations
4. Cases heard by a division where they required majority in a division is not obtained
5. Cases where SC modifies or reverses a doctrine or principle of law previously laid
down either on banc or in a division.
6. Administrative cases involving the discipline or dismissal of judges of lower courts or
to otherwise discipline one sec7 and sec11
7. Election contest for pres and vice president under sec4 art7

How cases are decided en banc.

When SC sits en banc, cases are decided by a concurrence of a majority of the members who
actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
Emphasize this.

15members of SC. 8 is a quorum- required to hear a case and come up with a decision. A
case is decided by concurrence of the majority of those who actually took part in the
deliberations.
Majority of the 8 (5)must have taken part in The deliberations and voted thereon. Cases before
decided by SC are deliberated upon by the members of the SC.

In 1935: requires 2/3 vote of ALL MEMBERS to declare a treaty and law unconstitutional.

1973: requires a vote of 10 of all members to declare a treaty and law unconstitutional a vote
of 8 of all members in all other cases

How cases are decided by a division?

Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with a concurrence of
the majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues and
voted thereon. And in no case, without the concurrence of at least 3members.

Sc may divide into 3/5/7 members so that in a division of 5 when a concurrence of 3 is not
obtained the case shall be decided en banc.

Cases vs matters
Cases are decided while matters are
resolved. Matters-motion for reconsideration

Decided refers to cases and resolved refers to matters.

Fortich vs Corona (GR 131457) READ

It says that when a required number of votes in a case in a division is not obtained, there is no
decision. The only way to dispose of the case is to refer it to a court en banc. If a case is already
decided by a division, and a losing party files a motion for reconsideration, the failure of the
division to solve the motion because of the tie in the voting does not leave the case undecided.
It is considered lost. If the motion is not approved, it will not go to SC, it is considered lost(?)

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 temporary 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

Sec5(2) basis of the power of judicial review. (A and B only) (C-E is for other cases)

There are classifications of the powers of SC. Powers of SC are provided in sec 5 and 6 which
may be classified in 1. Irreducible powers (powers of sc that can only be reduced or modified by
constitutional amendments. They are the cases under sec5 par 1 and 2) and 2. Auxiliary
administrative powers (sec5 par3-6 and sec6)

Power of judicial review.

Power of the sc to review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm an appeal or certiorari, final
judgments and orders of lower courts in all cases in which the constitutionality …… sec2

Requisites for the exercise of judicial review

1. There must be an actual case calling for the exercise of judicial power
2. The constitutional question must be ripe for adjudication as when the governmental act
challenge has a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it
3. The party must have the requisite ‘standing’ to challenge the act as when he has
personal and substantial interest in the case such that he will sustain a direct injury as a
result of its enforcement.
4. The case must be raised in its earliest opportunity
5. The issue of constitutionality is unavoidable(?)

The power of judicial review is merely an aspect of judicial power. So which one is more
encompassing or bigger? Judicial power.

Locus standi- a person has standing to challenge the validity of a governmental act only if he
has a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained or will sustain
direct injury as a result of its enforcement as in the case of people vs vera, macasiano vs
nha

Requisites of locus standi

A citizen will be allowed to raise a constitutional question only if he can show the ff: 1. That he
has reasonably suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal
conduct of government 2. The injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action 3. The injury is
likely to be redressed by a favorable action. Telecom vs broadcast.

In recent years, the SC has been following a liberal approach on the issue of standing in high
profile cases. What are the requirements before tax payers, voters, concerned citizens and
legislators can be accorded to sue. This rule came from Prof David vs PGma.
Where the court summarized the requirements:
1. The cases involved constitutional issues
2. For taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or the
tax measure is unconstitutional
3. For voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of election law
in question
4. For concerned citizens, there must be showing that the issues raised are of
transcendental importance that must be settled early
5. For legislators, there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes upon
their prerogatives as legislators

The meaning of transcendental importance.

While the court may have shown in recent decisions certain toughening in its attitude
concerning questions of legal standing, it has nonetheless always made an exception where
the transcendental importance of the issues has been established that notwithstanding the
petitioner's failure to show a direct injury.

Determinants of transcendental importance

CREBA VS ERC
1. The character of the funds or other assets involved in the case
2. The presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition by
the public respondent
3. The lack of any other party with a more direct and specific questions being raised

IBP VS ZAMORA
arose during the time of ERAP.
Pres Estrada called on the marines to assist the maintenance of order and petitioner has no
standing to challenge the action bec it’s the IBP that sued. The Court went on to entertain the
case when the issues raised are of paramount important to the public The court may brush
aside technicalities of a procedure as it now appears whenever the court agrees that the matter
before it is of transcendental importance it will entertain a suit even if its strict locus standi does
not obtained.

PASCUAL VS SEC OF PUBLIC WORKS read

Taxpayer suit- The action being challenged must be the exercise of the pending or taxing power
of Congress and the petitioner must show that he is a real party of interest meaning, he will
sustain injury as a result of the enforcement of the questioned statutes.

REQUISITES FOR TAXPAYER STANDING TO SUE

a taxpayer has standing to sue in cases involved in the expenditure of public funds if it can be
shown that 1. He has sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by
taxation and that he will sustain a direct injury as a result of the enforcement questioned.

IBP VS ZAMORA(exec sec of ERAP)

There was a conflagration and there was a violent rally in front of Malacañang and the president
called in the marines to quell this lawless violence.
Afp-external threats
Pnp-internal threats
Issue: locus standi. Standing of IBP as petitioner.
SC: We are going cognizance of the case bec of its transcendental importance.

DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT. Already discussed daw

POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF INFERIOR COURTS

Inferior courts may exercise the power of judicial review since the power of judicial review flows
from judicial power which inferior courts possess. The power of judicial review is the power
exclusive to the SC. This conclusion may be inferred by the constitution which confers in the SC
appellate jurisdiction over judgments and decrease of inferior courts of all cases in which the
constitutionality or validity of any treaty international or executive agreement, law, etc. is in
question. Which means its constitutionality has been filed in the lower courts. So it’s already a
petition for review that is already filed in the lower courts.
THE POLITICAL QUESTIONS IS ANOTHER LIMITATION ON THE POWER OF JUDICIAL
REVIEW
It is an established rule that courts have no jurisdiction to press upon political questions.
The CA may review cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua.

While the construction requires a mandatory review of the SC of the cases where the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or death, it does not proscribe intermediate
review by the CA. Meaning, it is not a rule that when those penalties are imposed and SC
automatically reviews this, it does not prevent that case to be reviewed by the CA. There is no
prohibition to that effect.

A prior determination by the CA on particularly the factual issues would minimize the possibility
of an error of judgement. If CA affirmed a penalty of death, RP or LI , it could then refrain from
entering judgment and elevate the entire course of the case for its final disposition.

CONGRESS MAY STILL REPEAL, ALTER OR SUPPLEMENT RULES ISSUED BY THE SC

despite the absence of the provision in the 1987 Constitution, to the effect that rules issued by
the SC may be repealed, altered or supplemented by Congress which was provided by the
previous constitution. The Congress still has the power over such rules. Congress has
plenary legislative power. The silence of the Constitution on the subject can only be
interpreted as meaning that there is no intention to diminish that plenary power.

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

Administrative supervision of all courts include the power to discipline the judges as held in
Maceda vs Vasquez

The Ombudsman cannot investigate irregularities in the performance of a judge independently

of any administrative actions taken by the SC. The Ombudsman has jurisdiction over cases
involving public officers. The confusion lies with the fact that judges are considered public
officers but the SC under the Constitution said that it is SC that can discipline judges not the
ombudsman. Now we consider the power of the ombudsman over judges as public officers as
the general rule. Exception is when the power of sc to supervise administrative supervision on
all courts comes in as an exception. It includes a power to discipline judges of the lower courts
and order their dismissal. The exclusivity of this power jealousy is guarded by the Sc.

DETERMINATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE ASPECT:

The Ombudsman as held in Judge Capibes vs Ombudsman cannot determine for itself or by
itself whether the 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.

Qualifications on those applying for Assoc Justices or Chief Justice of the SC: last year JBC
came up with new rules.

JBC 2020 Revised Rules, for the position of Assoc Justice or CJ of SC, the council shall
consider applicants only if they have at least 2 and a half years remaining to serve as an Assoc
Justice or CJ if they have serve as assoc justice/presiding justice of an Appellate court like CA,
court administrator, chairperson of a constitutional commission, solicitor general, or
department secretary.
OR They have at least 5yrs remaining to serve as an assoc justice/cj if they have not served
any of the positions mentioned/if they are private practitioners. This is true for … to prevent
what is happening now and it can happen again wherein some of the previous CJ, stayed for
only months …

Collegiate Courts – are those lower in the Supreme Courts; Court of Tax Appeals, Court of
Appeals, Sandiganbayan
Justices of the Supreme Court and lower collegiate courts must be natural born citizens of the
Philippines, they also have 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 the 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.

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.

Only last 2012 that the problem of the appointment of members of JBC coming from the
congress was resolved in the case of Chavez vs JBC.

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

Where the court declared unconstitutional in the JBC setup in which a member of the house
has separate seats and votes in deliberation. 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. The term Congress must be taken to mean the entire legislative
department. There was a time when the constructional provision was interpreted in many ways
since the start of 1987 Constitution where JBC was born. There was a time when one from the
senate and one from the House of Representatives would serve first and other serve later on.

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 behaviour 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.

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.

There is no constitutional provision or commission that require to define good behaviour for judges
and justices lower than justices of the supreme court.

Disciplinary cases must be aligned on court or en banc. However, the court rule in a case contrary
to the language of the text that a decision en banc is needed only when the penalty to be imposed is
dismissal of a judge, disbarment of a lawyer either for more than one year or a fine exceeding ten
thousand pesos.
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.

Read: Procedure in Judging (Artemio Panganiban, July 19, 2015)

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.
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.

In the case of Tayamura vs. IAC, that requirement refers only to decisions not resolutions.
Decision is a judgement rendered by the court on its merits resolving the issues etc. A resolution is
a decision made by the court on interlocutory matters administrative, procedural etc.
A military tribunal is that the court of record within the meaning of Section 14. When the
proceedings therein terminate with a simple guilty or not guilty verdict, it does not violate the
constitutional provision that a decision of the court shall clearly and distinctly state the fact of the
law that it is based, that it is a military procedure after the trial in a military court, the tribunal will
only say guilty or say not guilty. They don’t have to justify it.

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.

A Sandiganbayan is a collegiate court because there are three members, regular members. But it
doesn’t follow the time frame within which cases are decide by another collegiate court similar to
Sandiganbayan, which is court of appeals. The court of appeals can also decide, 12 months.

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.