You are on page 1of 11

judicial power

section 1 duty, when all elements present, no discretion to exercise power or not actual controversies, can not pose mere involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, can not go to court without claim being anchored on some right created by law (constitution, statutory provision, inherent claim)

correlate with section 2, how does congress influence courts rights which courts... congress will define, prescribe, apportion jurisdiction of courts, what cases decided by waht courts, law ang mu.fix

jurisdiction, meaning? authority to hear and decide case controversy, courts have power to resolve, traditional idea of judicial power

section 5, certain cases that congress can not add/remove from certain courts without its approval and concurrence

paragraph 1, "original" jurisdiction, comes to court at first instance

two kinds of original jurisdiction, comes to you at first instance, you are only court to decide taht concurrent jurisdiction, comes to you at first instance, but there are also other courts that can decide that

ambassadors (local or foreign (qualify if you can sue diplomatic offcials from foreign countries)). . req in consti review determinig constitutionality judicial power. reach is limited to courrts but in consti. apellate jusrisdicion. grave abuse of discretion what is grave abuse of discretion how does it differ from the grave abuse of discretion from rules of court. other public ministers if na ra'i urgency paragraph 2. controversy. now. actual case. decided by some other lower court law can not be passed na to reduce appelate juris of sc without advise and concurrence of court irreducible juris of sc. not necessarily constitutionality. not only lower couerts but actions pud on any branch or instrumentality of government how has the court exercised expanded certiorari juris pros and cons with vesting courts with this how cases are decided. rule 65 higher court to look at decisions of lower court done wih grave abuse of dicretion. expanded concept. abuse of discre before automatic review sa asc.

grave abuse of discretion product of martial law what is grave abuse of discre. declared unconstitutional electoral tribunal martial law traditional aspect of courts settling actual contriversies change. patent disregard of law virtual refusal to apply law. declog.pp vs mateo appeal judgement of lower court convicting to penalty of rec perp to death intermediate review by ca as subordinate court before elevating to sc. arbitrary what it is really. appelate sa omb. whimsical. courts to determine boi vs garcia bnpp any branch or instrumentality bureau of investments. capricious. legis . decongest (many more years) section 5. exec. goccs. paragraph 2? nothing precludes requirement of going to lower court before bringong matter up to sc fabian vs diserto passed law not asking for sc advise.

whther exer traditional or exp power cases to be decided en banc no lower than three ang mu concurr sso maj sa div 3 is 3 section 4 (2). indirect confimity sa pp counter-majoritarian courts. mining exec said ok ra. overriding will of those elected? panganiban. if elected. isssues of eceonomic policies judicial restriant like boi vs garcia.before higher courts can review abuse of discretion. juris by lower courts now. unless showing na grave abuse req of how courts may decide. semblance of will of pp not elected. judicial activism (strictest judicial policies) policies dealing with economic implication. granted. form required? . sc no transfer of plant issues of policies. case comes to court dealing with issue on lib. (3) how will they decide. cj. extended to branch and instrumentalitites boi. foeign comp invest 16 b p is phils to be allowed to extract minerals. can not transfer investors pulled out investments bataan labugal. can be done with restraint. liberty and prosperity liberty.

dissent. certification of cj.sec 13. 14 reachesd in consultationdelib of all members. decisions change state law on which decision is based and facts clearly and distinctly in decision three reasons. req na if mu. aprise parties of the reason of the court for deciding that way want other party to know for assailing decision on appeal or motion for recon section 15 . why. write separate opinion.

provision. priority measures of his/her administration judicial structure section 1. constitutionally created . comes from congress. outline to cong. appoints ambass.recommend wwhat to be passed as law. if so given what kind of power? needed to carry out declared national policy power over foreign affairs ratify treaties. president senate concurs bureau of immig. consuls power to deport aliens power over leg moral in character speak at openning of each reg session sense sona. judicial power shall be vested in one SC and in such lower courts as may be established by law sc. ministers. reexamined or consider as strength of government cite facts. reason of position powers of president emergency power delegated to pres. feature in constitution would you liked changed. deporatation president can admit aliens in exer of such power.

need to pass law sc.happen og sa sc kai 15 ra ka members counter arguement od dissenting opinion cj. art 7 qualifications of sc justices to be appointed . 7 but only one sc. practically useless dao ang sec 15. di dao mu. 14 associate justices constitution allows sc to be divided into divisions of 3. ban on midnight appointments not extend to judiciary sense of urgency (but not legal basis) prohibition in article 7 ra intent of frameers. 5. constitutionally created? no constitutionally mandated. filled 90 days from occurence thereof de castro vs jbc. until mka.appoint og cj arrangement nga na sa article 7. deci of court itself improper na file motion to appeal en banc. sc. decisions of div.sandiganbayan. weakest only exception. how to reconcile this with fact nga na'i division remaisn and functions as one body sc. composed of chief justice. not appelate within sc itself vacancy. purposes ra of administration senior justice acts as cj. na full memebrs at all times what is prevented is mass midnight appointment.

probity and independence insulated form politics (apponted by pres. integrity. for sc justices and judges of lower courts salaries. section 10 fetaures in constitution that ensure judicial independence . before. courtroom application of some legal knowledge advicer od several multinational companies. not confirmed by comission on apointments) constitutional requirement. cayetano vs monsod.natural born cit 40 years of age engaed in 15 yrs or more as judge or engaged in practice of law law professor. lawyer. di dao practice of law no atty-client relationship but no sc decision pa section 7 (3) competence. dean. legal advicer wanted to be appointed somewhere dissent of cruz opinions of authorities of legal ethics teaching.

abolition of office man. judges during theri continuance in office. right to hold office. occupant is removed sc. no. wa'i good behavior. removal from office. their salary shall not be decreased issue on taxes. kai na mn sa consti contriversy when there is judicial reorganization section 2. 70 can law be passed to change age of retirement. kai no removal . so not violation of security of tenure. gaMAI na lng mu. but if reorganize. judges.fixed by law. mandatory retirement for justices. no law shall be passed reorganizing the judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its members example. can not be removed during good behavior until they reach 70 or become incapacitated can they be removed? yes. gov. 20 rtcs in cebu city but high filing fees. reorganize security of tenure. decreasing salaries priviledges guarantee of security of tenure unresoveld issue sa wordings sa consti shall.file of case reduce number of rtc. office is there. salary of justices.

so reorganization.wa ang occupant violated sec of tenure. abolish office. can argue na no but word use is not violates man. comes within prohibition . but undermines. unconstitutional "undermines" reorganize. need not directly violate.