Evolution of the Philippine Supreme Court

The “gods of Padre Faura” as the denizens of the Supreme Court are often
referred to. Not because they are vested with divine and supernatural powers but
more so as an oblique reference to the enormous powers the institution to which
they belong wields over the lives, property and liberty of those who deign invoke
its authority. As the final arbiter of all disputes and controversies, the Supreme
Court gives the final pronouncement, with no further appeal, which even the
most powerful individuals and institutions of the land dare not defy. While
theoretically in a constitutional set-up like ours the three branches of
government, i.e. the executive, legislative and Supreme Court are theoretically co-
equal institutions that maintain a balance of power and prevent each one from
gaining a disproportionate concentration of power that may result in a
dictatorship, in practical terms, the Supreme Court is said to be the weakest
among the three. This maybe because, unlike an elected president who appoints
practically all functionaries in the bureaucracy and wields power over the military
as commander in chief, while the legislative branch, with equally elective
members, controls the purse string, the members of the judiciary are not only
appointed but can act only on matters laid down before its doors for resolution. In
other words, it cannot act motu propio or on its own accord in performing its
mandate and authority unless first invoked and initiated by a party or parties.
With the passing of centuries, the Supreme Court has evolved and taken shape,
not only in terms of structure and composition but also on the extent of its
authority. The Supreme Court is the progeny of the tribunal established by Act
No. 136 of the Philippine Commission on June 11, 1901. But even before this, the
pre-Hispanic indigenous natives of the Islands had a rudimentary form of legal
and justice system derived from customs, usages. Then during the Spanish
colonial period the Royal Audencia was established by the King of Spain which
exercised not exclusively as a judicial body but also legislative, executive,
advisory, and administrative functions as well.
On June 11, 1901, the Second Philippine Commission passed Act No. 136 entitled
“An Act Providing for the Organization of Courts in the Philippine Islands” formally
establishing the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands and creating Courts of
First Instance and Justices of the Peace Courts throughout the land. Under the
Act, the Supreme Court was headed by a Chief Justice with six Judges. Five
members of the Court could form a quorum, and the concurrence of at least four
members was necessary to pronounce a judgment. The decisions of the early
court was a blend of both the Anglo-American and Spanish systems.
The 1935 Philippine Constitution saw the adoption of the principle of separation
of powers by actual division of powers of the government—executive, legislative,
and judiciary. The three branches of government exercised powers patterned
after their counterparts in the United States republican system. The judicial
power was vested by the 1935 Constitution “in one Supreme Court and in such
inferior courts as may be established by law.”
The shift from the 1935 to the 1973 Constitution augured a seismic shift in
functioning of the Supreme Court when in 1972, Marcos declared Martial Law
through Proclamation No. 1081. Many legal issues of grave consequence to the
nation were brought before it, including the legality of the ratification of a new
Constitution, the assumption of the totality of government authority by President
Marcos, the power to review the factual basis for a declaration of Martial Law by
the Chief Executive. Be that as it may, many critics questioned the independence
of the judiciary which operated under the shadows of the dictatorship. It was at
this time that the SC membership was increased from 11 to 15, with the Chief
Justice and 14 members.
Unlike in the previous constitutions, the Supreme Court Under the 1987
Constitution is granted an expanded jurisdiction in that judicial power includes
not only the “duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable” but also “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.” This latter provision dilutes the effectivity of the “political question”
doctrine which places specific questions best submitted to the political wisdom of
the people beyond the review of the courts. The Supreme Court has both original
and appellate jurisdiction.
The present SC also has the exclusive power to 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.