CHAPTER 2

PHILIPPINE HISTORY AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM

A HYBRID SYSTEM

The Philippine legal system today is a mixture of civil law and

common law regimes. This was the inevitable outcome of the successive
colonization of the country by Spain and the United States. The civil and
common law systems were introduced in Asia largely through
coloniza tion. 1

Common law was introduced in British colonies, and it applies

today in territories such as India, Malaysia and Singapore. The French
and the Dutch spread civil law to territories like Indochina and
Indonesia. The most fundamental difference between the two systems is
that while civil law jurisdictions have comprehensi ve written codes,
which are designed to cover every area of law, common law systems are
based on judge-made law, which is developed on a case-by-case basis. 2
Legislation is the main source of law in both civilian and common law
jurisdictions. However, while in <jvil
systems jurisprudenc e plays a
secondary role to codes (codes govern the law primarily in the area of
private law) and statutes (which predominate in public law matters), in
common law jurisdictions case law was historically- and theoretically
-the backbone of the system. 3

'The following is a brief treatment o f the d evelopment of law in thl:' Philippines. For :i mort'
comprehensive account, see P ACIFICO A. A CA 0I N, M ES l'll.O: THE STORY Or THE P1tll ll' l'lM.
L~.G AL SYSTEM (201] ).
1
Margaret Fordham, Comparaliuc Legal Trnditio11;; - l11trod11ci11g Ilic Comrmm um• 111 Ci11i/
Lawyers i11 Asia, I A SIAN JOURNA i. 01' COMPARATI VE LAW, Art. 11, a t I (2006), av<1ibbk· Jt
http://www.bepre ss.com/asjcl/vol 1/issl/art 11 .
1
/d.at 2.
 12 I L EGAL M ETHOD ESS
ENTIAL S 3.0

, l ' m of the Ph il ip pi ne
Th e leg a l sy sc s is a mi x tu re of Isl am
. . ic law
111d1genous sy ste ms, 5F, <ani"h civil law .:i nd Am e n.c.:i ,
, •
•
n co m m on law .4 The
enco un ters b c t we en tl1 e ind ige no us po pu lat io • •
ns , M us lim m1ss1onan• .

an d Spams . d An
11 an
tra d 1·t·ion s. Tl1e Muc1
.., 11n
Philippines lay be tw ee n
tra de rs were settled in
increasin g nu mb er of pr
this time, Manila became
n,e Philippines wa s oc cu pi ed by
States and Japan. While
inspired, if no t im po se d,
use of Muslim an d in di ge
sh ow s a ten de nc y to
customary law s tha t ma
Muslim pe rso na l law s
au ton om ou s reg ion s we
pr ed om ina ntl y M us lim
these areas in M ind an ao 9
various situations un de r
·
, e
-ri ca . es
n co loni ze rs le d to th e fu sio '
. . n of the se legal
·
inf lue nce w as me v1 tab le . .
co ns 1d en ng tha t the
the tra de ro ut es fro m
Bo rn eo to Ch in a. Man
Su lu in the 13 1" ce nt y
ur y. By th e 1520s an
ea ch ers we re a rri vi ng in
th e Ph ili pp in es an d by
a M us lim pr in cip ali ty .5
Sp ain , En gl an d, th e Un
it pr es en tly ha s a fo rm ited
of go ve rn m en t th at was
by th e Un ite d St ate s,
it do es no t pr ev en t the
no us law s. Th e leg al hi
sto ry of th e Ph ili pp ine s
ac kn ow led ge an d ac
ce pt th e ex ist en ce of
y ha ve co nt ro lli ng fo rce
in ce rta in sit ua tio ns ."
ha ve be en re co gn ize d
sin ce 19777 an d later,
re sa nc tio ne d un de r
th e Co ns tit ut io n in
are as . 8 An Au to no m ou
s Re gi on no w ex ist s in
. In di ge no us law s m ay
als o be ap pl ied un de r
the In di ge no us Pe op le'
s Ri gh ts Ac t. 10

• M.B. Ho oke r, Tlrc Spn11 isli

-A111cricn11 Legal World : Tire
OF SouTH -EAST ASIA 214 Plrilip11i11 es, in A CO NC ISE
(]978) . LEGAL H.ISTOR '
' CESAR AD IIJ MAJUL
, T HE CO NT 1·· ,
' :Ml OR A RY MU SLIM
S1.r nlsu An tho ny Rei d M OV EM EN T IN TH E
. Tl, , I ·I · . PH ILl l'PI N F.S 15-16 19" ")
' t ~ nnuzat,011 of ( (),..J '
M ODl:RN SoUTHt :AST So1 1tl1t!(IS / As ia, i11 C t·IAl{TlNC TH
A SIA 14-38 (1999) E SHAl'E OF EA1'·L,
' Mi cha el 0 . Ma stu ra Lr
' I' , -· d . I Pl 11 1· :
rcs 1 cnl De cree 'No8"108 rn 1s 111111tl1 t:P l1ilippi11cs ,28 LA w&
I' Ali Tl lal r 3 ( 197 7) F . . Soc 'vR Ev . (1994).
·
· '
)OUl<NA I ,c , M ..cxn l l111pcd i111c 11t · tc ti . · \·or a- cn. hq uc of the ap pli ca tio n of thi s law , ~ A ~h in
•C 01 ~ J " 1 l'I'11rn tw11 n. ·
nf lsl11111ic F11111ily Law i11 •
U~I.IM MIN Ol!I TY A
ON S I., Art. X, § 16- l·l·A IH S 93- 115 (20 07) tl,e P/11/i•ppi·m.,,' 27·· l
21. .
• Rep ubl ic Ac t No 6734 .
10 (19 8
Republic- Ac t N~ . 9
app lied : 837 1 199),7 as_am end ed by Rc pu hli c Ac t No . 905
( )- fhe foll ow in~ arc ins 4 (2001) .
tan ces wh en ind ige no b<'
us bw 5 111" )
Sec . 14 . SupJ'orl for A
~trc ngt h . 11 I0110 1110.11 .
d s l<t!g 1011 s. • The Sta te
Co nsf t en t'
an su ppo rt ti sh a ll con tin ue to
I u ion as the y 1t' a uto no mo u s
ma , reg ions cre n tcd un de l
<' nco ura ,,e otl· , IC r Iw
Y req uir
and the oC ord 'ier ll Cs/lP s n 0 I . Ie dor need . Th e S ta te s hal l likc w1 s<.>
•
tna y be c
1 era
tu ll S<! th , rm.e u ed or ou ts ide Mu sli m Mi n d ana o
.
om pah ble wit !. cth m a nd con ten t of th('1r
01 . wa
1 f yi. of 1ite
·. .
as
e un da mc nta l ri g hts .
de fin ed 111 tl,e
 PHILIPPINE HISTOR Y AND TIIE Ll:OAL SYSTEM 113

Constitulion of tlw Republic of the Philippines and

other
intcrna tionnll y recogn ized hum an rights.
Sec. 15. Justice Sy~tcm, Cn11J1icl Resolutio11 lnstil11tio11s 1111d Peace
Buildi11g
Pn•,-csscs. The ICCs/11's shall have the right tu use their
own
C{)mm only ncccpted justice systems, conflict resolution institut
ions,
f)('aCC bu ilding processes o r mechanisms and other customary
laws
and practices within their respective communities and as
may be
compa tible wiU, the national legal system and with interna
tionally
recogn ized hurn;in rights.
Sec. 7. Riglrls In A11ccstral Domains. - The rights of owners
hip and
possession of ICCs/TPs to their ancestral domains shall be recogn
ized
and protected. Such rights shilll include ...
h. Rig/rt to Resolve Co11j1ict. -Right to resolve
land conflicts in accordance with customary
laws of the area where the land is located, and
only in defaul t thereof shall the complaints be
submitted to amicable setUement and to the
Courts of Justice whene ver necessary.
Sec. 62. Resolution of Conflicts. - In cases of conflic ting
interes t,
where there are advers e claims within the ancest ral domai
ns as
deline ated in the survey plan, and which cannot be resolv
ed, the
NCIP shall hear and decide , after notice to the proper parties
, the
disput es arising from the deline ation of such ancest ral domai
ns:
Provi ded, That if the disput e is betwe en and/or among ICCs/l
Ps
regard ing the traditi onal bound aries of their respec tive ancest
ral
domai ns, custom ary proces s shall be follow ed. The NCIP
shall
promu lgate the necess ary rules and regula tions to carry
out its
ad judica tory functio ns: Provid ed, furthe r, That in any decisi
on,
order, award or ruling of the NCIP on any ancest ral
domai n
disput e or on any matter pertain ing to the applic
ation,
implem entatio n, enforc ement and interp retatio n of this
Act may
be broug ht for Petitio n for Review to the Court of Appea
ls within
fifteen (15) days from receip t of a copy thereo f.
Sec. 63. Applicable Laws. - Custom ary laws, traditio ns and practic
es of
the ICCs/lPs of the land where the conflict arises shall be applie
d first
with respec t to proper ty rights, claims and owner ships, heredi
tary
succession and settlem ent of land disput es. Any doubt or ambigu
ity
in the application of laws shall be resolve d in favor of the ICCs/l
Ps.
Sec. 65. Primacy of Customary Laws and Practices.- When
disput es
involve ICCs/IPs, custom ary laws and practices shall be
used 10
resolve the disput e.
Sec. 66. /11risdictio11 of the NCIP. - The NCIP, throug h its
rq;iona l
offices, shall have jurisdi ction over all claims and disput es
involving
rights of ICCs/lPs; Provid ed, howev e r, That no surh Jisput
e sh.,11 b,•
brough t to the NCIP unless the parties have exhaus ted all
remcdil's
provid ed under their custom ary laws. For this purpos e, a ccrtific
.1tion
 14 I LEGAL METHOD E SSENTI ALS 3.0

Spain arrived in the Philippine s in 1521, establishe d a .

. . . ' co1on1al
g overnmen t in 1565' and adm1msle
.
red the islands for more tha h
. n t ree
centuries Generally the Spanish version of Roman law replaced
· .' . .
indigenou s regmlattons but to avert native resistance, the colmany .
' on1al
governme nt permitted indigenou s peoples to retain their laws as Ion
as they did not conflict with Spanish traditions .' 1 g
Spain introduced a dis pute resolution system. At the base of
the system was a gobernadorcillo or village leader who could mediate
and resolve conflicts on the local level without resorting to more formal
proceedin gs. He had jurisdictio n over civil cases and petty criminal
disputes over land boundarie s and ownership . Appeals were taken to
the Spanish a/ca/des mayores. The alcaldes mayores also presided over all
initial criminal cases and civil suits involving substantia l sums. Their
decisions could, in turn, be appealed to the Audiencia Territorial de
Manila, the Supreme Court of Manila. 12
The United States took control of the Philippin es in the
aftermath of the Spanish-A merican War. In defeat, Spain ceded the
Philippin es and other colonies to the United States under the
Treaty of Paris signed in Decembe r of 1898. It was at this time that
the colonial administr ation promoted a gradual shift towards

shall be issued by the Council of Elders/Leade rs who participated in

the attempt to settle the dispute that the same h as not been resolved,
which certification shall be a condition precedent to the filing of a
petition with the NClP.
11
Amy Rossabi, The Colonial Roots of Criminal Procedure in the Philippi11c?s, 11 CoLUM. J. Asi,u-..:
L. 175 (1997).
The A u d iencrn
12 " · " was
composed of one chief 1·ustice, two presidents of chambt?rs (CJ·vii and
· · I b ·
cnmtna ranches), eight associate justices, additional justices for vacancies and an attO rnC"v· '
general and 0ther officials." The Audiencia rev iewed all crimin a l cast's, whether appe.1Jcd or
not, a nd all civil cases that were appealed . Presiding over the AudiC'ncia, the Governor-
Ge,~e_ral had the final say in all cases on appeal, a combination of the ext>cutive . a~d
1ud1aal branches of the government. As the Spa nish system of justice in thl' Ph1h~p f r
i::
be came more d ommanl, · 5 panish officials separated
the Audiencia into two br.inch c.s' 0n<' ,"
· ·1 · - . 11
c1v1 cases and U1e other for criminal cases. Each branch had separatt' jus1tces
P -· d
headed b~. •
Th I st .· t•s an1ono
re::.t ent. e a body was the Council of the Indies in Spain. Howev.:r, dispu '· · ,,:s
Filipinos rarely reached th ·• c ·1, as the colonbl ,,ovcrnml!nt . 1·15su adr the 0 •111·' r
c ounc1 tncd to'
f rom
was t'tng their
· lune
· 0 110
and money on what the Spanish generally thoug h 1 to bt' rn•
disag reements. /cl. a t 179- 180.
 PHILIPPINE HISTO RY ANO THE L EGAL SYSTE
M 115

com mon law, whil e perm ittin g certa in aspe cts

of Rom an law and
indi geno us trad ition s to cont inue . 13

TI1e Ame rican s initially perm itted the Span ish cour
t system to
rema in esse ntial ly unto uche d: Filipino justices
of the peace pres ided
over the local cour ts but the high est cour t of appe
als was the United
States Supr eme Cou rt inste ad of the Span ish
Council of the Indies.
Late r, the Phil ippin e Com miss ion pass ed "The
Judi ciary Act" 14 whic h
abol ished the Audiencia and the cour ts of first insta
nce. It estab lishe d the
Supr eme Cou rt, Cou rts of First Instance, Mun icipa
l Cour ts, and Cou rts
of the Justice of the Peace, abro gatin g all Span ish
cour ts. It is said that
the mos t impo rtan t sing le impo rtati on of the
Ame rican s was the
intro duct ion of a judicial syste m mod eled
in all its essential
characteristics on the judicial syste m of the Unit ed
States. 15
But whil e the struc ture of the Ame rican judiciary
was in place,
the impo rtati on of Ame rican law in the Phili ppin es
did not go smo othly
because "the pow erfu l nationalistic mov eme nt
in the Phili ppin es
emb race d the reten tion of Span ish law as an instr
ume nt of protest."
There was no over haul but a "gra dual decay" of the
Span ish civil law. 16
The Supr eme Cou rt of the Phili ppin es initially resp
ected the
civil law tradi tion intro duce d by Spain. Early decis
ions of the Supr eme
Cour t held that neith er the English com mon
law nor American
juris prud ence was in force in the Philippines. Late
r the Cou rt held that
American juris prud ence meri ted "pro foun d resp
ect and vene ratio n"

13
Id. at 185-186. It is possib le that Spani sh influe
nce on the legal system was eased out
becau se the Spain never really contro lled the
Philip pines as a colon y. Geog raphy and the
small size of the Spani sh comm unity in the Philip
pines "radic ally restric ted the exten sion of
Spani sh power ." See H ENRY KAMEN, EMPIRE: How
SPAIN BECAM E A WORLD POWER, 1492-176..1
197-238 (2002).
14
Act No. 136 (1911 ).
" M.B. Hooker, Tlie Spariisl,-America11 Legal World
: Tire Pl1ilippi11es, i11 A CONCISE LEGAL
HISTOl{YOrSouTH-EAST AslA 214, 227-228 (1978)
.
" Jose Trias Mong e, Legal Methodology i11 Some Mixed
/11risd ictio11s, 78 TUL. L. Rev_- _333 (2003 )-
By the 1930s, the Philip pine Supre me Court
was citing Amer ican autho rities, which
contin ues with less frequ en cy today . Philip pine
law neve rthe less was found ed on a solid
layer of civil law. The reform of the Philip
Comm ission produ ce d a code of civil extrac tion,
pine Civil Code carrie d out by th 1947 e
where princi ples derive d from Phihp pmc
Jurispr udence join others establ ished in the
civil cod es of Germ any, F r<1ncc, Italy,
Switzerla d A
n , rgenh•na, and Mexic . o.
16 I LEGAL M ETHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0

f "transcen dental importan ce." The Co

and that its influence was O . . . . . urt
tl t what was happenin g m the Ph1hppm es was the
then conclude d ia d fA I A .
. f Ph'l' 1 pine common law compose o ng o- . mencan and
crea hon o a 1 P . l 17 UI ·
. . . _, and local complem entary aws. hmately, the
Spamsh pnnc1p1es . d ..
.
Supreme Cour,t m interpretin g laws and rendermg .
ec1s1ons, "relies
upon tl1e th eon•es and precedent s of Anglo-Am e ncan cases, subject to
the limited exception of those instances where the remnants of the
Spanish written Jaw present well-defin ed civil law theories and of the
few cases where such precedents are inconsist ent with local customs
and institutions." 1~
The Americans attempted to train the Filipinos to govern
themselves, working to create a version of the American political
structure in Asia. 19 Filipinos elected delegates to a conventio n that
drafted a constitution approved by the United States President , which
went into effect in 1935.20 It was designed to prepare the country for an
independent Republic of the Philippine s in ten years time. The 1935
Constitution continued in effect for 37 years until former President
Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law on Septembe r 21, 1972.

In 1986, Ferdinand Marcos fled to Hawaii after attemptin g to

steal an election that was intended to provide him with a new mandate
to helm the Philippines. His opponent in that election, Corazon Aquino,
assumed _the presidency and establishe d a revolutio nary governme nt.
She abolished the National Legislatur e and replaced most of the
memb~rs of the Supreme Court. The reorganiz ed Supreme Court
recognized the Ag · . . 0
umo governme nt as de 7ure later referrm to
Aquino's government as "
a revo1uhonary
.
governme, nt." 2 1 o

11
ld. at 348-349.
•• 1n re Application of Max Shoo for . .
•• See STANLEY KARNOW
1 0 P admiss ion to practice law, Nove mber 29, 1920.
ltl s
ee Jose V. Abueva , PlN . .u1{. IMAG E·. AMn , E
'{!CA S Ml'IRE IN T H E PH!LIPl'INES (1969).
I' ' 11 11/J/1111c ldeolog
· ,. I N •
OLJl JCS OF T l-I E P111u1•1•1N . • }
8
IC:; n,,c ntw11nl Devc/op111e11t, in GOVERN M E-NT ,\N D
11
See Dante 13. Ga tmayt ES ', 42 -4 3 (Raul P. de Gu zm an & Mila A . Reforma e d s., 1988).
p - an, // s All t/ic H ,. p
Dcmocra,.-:v' 15
Ac. RIM L.. & PoL'Y J . . .. .
( ag1.. op11/ar Upns111i,:s nnd P/11/1pp111e
'- · 1 2006) Aq · d '
uecause of the mann , - · umu ecidcd lo discard the 1973 Cons titution 1·" rn.irt
~r I 1
was ado I d
new ad ministra tion. If A . P e · Her decision a lso had practical conseque nces f or h•·r
appointed under its prov· ~uino retained the 1973 Constitution a ll officials e kctt' d oJr
incl d
u e members of Mar •sions
,
would h
ave been e ntitled to keep thl·ir
'
offices. Th l'::it'
. woul
cos KCIL party ti . .
tat CnJoycd a majority in the Na t1una I A:,St:.- ~n1bl)'
 PHILIPPINE HISTORY AND THE LEGAL S YSTEM 117

Aquin o appoin ted a fifty-p erson comm1ss1on to write a new

constit ution. Aquin o's closest advise rs selecte d its memb ers - mostly
lav,ryers close to the presid ential camp. The Comm ission includ ed two
of the leader s of Aquin o's campa ign team, four members close to the
Presid ent's family , and ten memb ers of the 1971 Consti tution al
Conve ntion . She rese rved four slots for Marcos' New Societ y Movem ent
and one for the pro-M arcos sect, the Iglesia ni Cristo. The final mix of
former memb ers of Congr ess, Supre me Court justice s, repres entativ es
of the Cathol ic Churc h, and the busine ss comm unity guaran teed that
the Comm ission would produ ce a docum ent that adhere d closely to the
pre-ma rtial law institu tional framew ork.U

The Comm ission reflect ed the coaliti on that broug ht Aquin o

to power -civil- societ y actors worki ng beside the famili ar memb ers
of traditi onal politic al societ y. Nearly half of its memb ers report ed
ha ving partic ipated in mass action s in areas such as land reform
,
ethnic conflic ts, and gende r issues . Now charge d with the drafti ng
of a new consti tution , the Comm ission was eager to preve nt
"anoth er Marco s." Their reform s includ ed term limits and
constr aints on presid ential power to make it more difficu lt to declar
e
martia l law.23 The Const itution al Comm ission conve ned on June 2,
1986 with memb ers from variou s fields posses sing diverg ent
ideolo gical beliefs . In a matte r of month s, it held public hearin gs,
region al consu ltation s, and spent two month s on floor debate s. The
Comm ission finish ed a draft by Octob er 15 and the plebis cite for
the consti tution 's ratific ation was later held in Febru ary 1987.24

and who could have stood in the way of her legislati ve program , and judges
with lenur~
who cou ld have blocked the confisca tion of the ill-gotte n wealth of Marcos
and his cronit'S
and who could have protecte d the Marcos' subordi nates accused of commit
ting crimes. Set'
Carl Ii. Lande and Richard Hooley, Aqui110 Takes Chargt•, 64 FOREIGN Al'FAIRS
1087 ( 1986). Set'
also Dante B. Gatmay tan, TI,e /11clicial Rt•11iew of Co11stit11tio11al A111t'11d111rnls:
Tl,c /11s11ra11c,·
~ U?ory ;,, Post-Marcos Pl,i/ippincs, 1:1 PHII.IPl'I N E LAW ANO SoCIETY R EV IEW 74, 77-79
(2011).
(l ~ utzel, Survival of a11 Imperfect Democracy i 11 th1· Pl1ilippi11es, 6 DEMOCR
ATIZ ATION 198, 210
).

; ,~--Eato n, Restoration or Tra11 sformatio11 ? "Trnpos " versus NGOs i11 the Dcmuera
1 1 tizt1 tio11 of tl,c
,, ~ f'Pi 11es_, 62 JOURNA L 0 1' AslAN STUDIES 469,476 (2003).
· M. Villegas
As1AN SuRv · , 9The Pl,ilippint?s i11 1986: Democra tic Rl!constructio11 i11 the Post-Marcos Era, 27
EY 1 4, 202 (1987). The Constit ution was overwh · ··
elmingl y rallticd althoug h
schola rs re I 1 . . . . .
gu ar Y cla im that the ca mpa ign for the rattftc-al lon ccnter~d more on .
Presiden t
 18 I L c GAL Mcrno o EssE NTIALS 3.0

MUS LIM AUTO NOM Y

. c)f the Auto nom ous Regio n s was meant to
The crea t 10n .
omy in the
mand s of Musl. ims for mea ningf ul auton
.
accom mo d ate ti ,e de . .
~ ( ti eir affairs. .A snrnl ar reme dy 1s avail able for th e
o .
govem anLe 1
.11 R •on where simil ar senti men ts for auton omy . exist but
Cord I era eg1 .
regio n in that
previous attem pts to ratify the creat ion of an auton omou s
region failed. 25
ning
The conflict in Mind anao is deep ly roote d in histo ry, begin
of whom
with the displacement of millions of indig enou s peop les many
acem ent was
used to domi nate Mindanao, Sulu, and Palaw an. The displ
American
complemented by a legal regim e impo sed by Span ish and
rights of
colonizers that did not recog nize priva te owne rship
imple ment ed
indig enous communities. This regim e conti nues to be
26
even after the Philip pines becam e indep ende nt in 1946.
t
Law-sanctioned land- grabb ing was augm ented by resettlemen
perio d and
progr ams that began durin g the Ame rican colon ial
incen tives for
continued until the 1960s wher e lands were distr ibute d as
nees, and a
military careers, for land refor m progr ams, for rebel retur
organized
host of other reasons. Musl im resen tmen t turne d into
dozen s of
resistance after it was disco vered that the milit ary had killed
ion of Sabah,
Muslim trainees who were being prepa red for an invas
National
Malaysia. 27 Musl ims began to take up arms and the Moro
Ferdi nand
Liberation Front was form ed to estab lish a Musl im state.
he impo sed
Marcos cited this move ment as one of the reaso ns why
martial law in 1972.28
treaty
In 1976, the Philip pine gove rnme nt enter ed into a peace
os never
wi th the MNLF called the Tripo li Agre emen t. Marc
d out two
imple ment ed the Agre emen t. Whil e Marc os carve

1 Tf ·
Aquino 's popul ·1 th an on the merits of the draft charte r. Sec Caroli na G. Hema nd ~•z, '
Pl . . . an Y
111111p111 r:~ 111 1987· Cha/le .r ~
2, s O d 'JJ . ngl.'s 01 1 et1e111ocratizatiu11, 28 ASIAN SURVEY 229-24 1 (1988).
er r 1 0 v . Comm iss ion ri · ..
"' Aslrid 5 1 . . . on ! ections , C. R. N o. 93054, Decem.ber 4, 1990. . 1·. I1. >II (<>r" Pt'J<'
. um1nez, 7111s Land is O L I D()11111111 and 1/,; t,,111 1u 1 '
,wd D .
t'llt'1UJJllll'll / Ill
llr ant : Moro A11rt:st ml
.
the 501111 , Pl11r1 111 I
\n..,\ IR'>., 77, ,
iun PP es, 27:2 SAIS REVIEW OF INT ERNAT ION A L
78-9 (2007).
n Id. a t 79-80.
~ Id.
 PHILIPPIN E HISTORY ANO THE L EGAL SYSTEM 119

autonom ous regions in Mindana o, he never relinquis hed political

control over these regions to the Muslims .29 Nur Misuari, leader of the
MNLF, denounc ed Marcos' actions and fighting resumed . It has been
suggeste d that the Marcos governm ent entered into the agreeme nt onJy
to stave off political pressure particula rly from the Middle East, and to
relieve itself of the economi c strain brought on by war. 30

The 1987 Constitu tion contains broad provisio ns on Muslim

political autonom y. These provision s, however , are subject to a charter
to be drafted by Congres s and approval through a plebiscite. Initially,
only four (Muslim dominat ed) province s opted to join the Autonom ous
Region for Muslim Mindana o (ARMM). In the meantim e, a split had
occurred among the leaders of the MNLF. In 1984, the split became
formal as the Moro Islamic Liberatio n Front broke away. The MILF took
on a more uncompr omising position and abandon ed the more secular
approach adopted by the MNLF.

The governm ent of the Philippin es succeede d in crafting the

Final Peace Agreeme nt with the MNLF in 1996. The agreeme nt created
transitional bodies such as the Southern Philippin es Council for Peace
and Develop ment (SPCPD) to oversee economi c develop ment in
Mindanao and the Special Zone for Peace and Develop ment (SZOPAD).
Both bodies ran into popular and congress ional oppositi on and lacked
support from the central governm ent. Again, autonom y became illusory
under the agreeme nt. So the ARMM continue d to be the governm ent's
main response to Muslim grievanc es but it had little support from
Manila. Congress amended its charter without consultin g the ARMM or
Muslim leadershi p. ARMM remained largely depende nt on grants from
Manila that were irregular in amount and timing that reinforce d
Muslim dependen cy. 31

Since 2001, Malaysia officially facilitate d the Governm ent of

~he Republic of the Philippin es-MILF talks, which began with a three-
item agenda: 1) security, 2) rehabilit ation, and 3) ancestra l doma in.

,. Id. at 81.

: i;~q~es Bertrand, Peace a11d Co11flicl i11 /1,c 5011//,en, Philip11i11e:;: WJ,y th,· ·1991., />can• Agr,·c111t'11I
i, l 'u gi_Ie, 73:] P ACll·IC A.HA!KS 37, 39 (2000).
m1nez
' 511 /J'U note 26 at 82-83.
 20 I LEG,\L M E1.'i0D
•
ESSEN Tl/ll.S 3.0

. agree ments were st-·gned on the first. two item s, but ancestral
lntenm und and rema ins unre solv ed. Ancestral
:i ·11 proved thorny gro · .
L omai . M
domain demands me1u d ~, territory to cons titut e a oro hom eland
'
sufficient contra l over e conomic _reso urce s on that
.
land , and a structure
. . .
of governance cons1_.s-ten t with Moro cultu re (wit h mm1 mal interferen ce
from Manila).32
To prevent the collapse of talks with the MIL
F, a new
framework was adopted: A GRP-MILF peac e agre
eme nt wou ld govern
the enabling law for the Moro hom elan d, prev entin
g Con gres s from
emasculating Moro gains from nego tiatio ns. ARM
M enla rgem ent and
the creation of a genuine Moro auto nom y coul d
theo retic ally happen
without opposition from Cong ress or local anti-
Mor o grou ps. 33 The
framework produced a docu men t calle d the
Mem oran dum of
Agreement-Ancestral Dom ain (MOA-AD). Unfo
rtun ately , local
governments challenged the cons titut iona lity of
the MOA -AD and
prevailed in the Supreme Court. 34

On March 27, 2014, the Gov ernm ent of the Phil ippi
nes and the
MILF signed the Comprehensive Agre eme nt on the
Ban gsam oro (CAB ),
which ended decades of hostilities. 35 The CAB was
supp osed to be the
basis for the Bangsamoro Basic Law that will
then gove rn the
Bangsamoro.36 The Bangsamoro Basic Law , how ever
, was not enacted
during the 16th Congress.

12
Id. a t 83.
i, Id. at 85.
" See Provin ce of North C t b
Panel on Ances tral o a ato v Govl:'r f
D - · nmen t O the Re publi c of the Philip pim•s Peal'i'
Protractrd Civil War in Momadm, G.R, No. 183591, Octob
er 14 2008 See al~o Pelt'r Kreuzer,
0 1. 111 n11ao: Cn11 Ci ·1 S . '
' .
· C HANGE IN THE PHILIPPJN ES _
313 335
v~ oc,ety Help Cut the Gordia11 K11ot.?, i11 T IIE Pt) uno-
th
on e human and social costs f th
31
K · 1· ( uko Kas uya & N athan G ilbert Quim po eds.,
ns ine Angeli Sabill o B
0 e confli ct · M . 20\0)
2014 ht . . m mda nao.
. , a11gsn111oro Pence p
" , tp.//ne wsmfo .inqui rer ne / s·
act rg11cd, P1-tll.lPPlN E DAILY INQU lt-: Et-:, M<1rrh 2,~,
A transi tion . . . t 58956 8/ban osam
0 nee enacte d b C comm 1ss1on will . b . 0 • oro-p eace- pact-s igne dltixz z2xCa tY z 1~1
1• ·
. Y ongress, the I su m1t .
a draft 0 f h
' t e 13angs a moro Basic Law to Cong r<'SS-
lern1o ry of th 13

I
a w will be sub· t d
Wnr, M AN ILAe Bangsa moro in e 1 . · Jee e to a pll:'bi scite in areas ide ntified as ClJf<'
. ar Y 20 15 G I
ULLETIN, Ma h . en a yn D. Kabil ing & Edd K. Usm a n, Nn Mon'
contra sting view s o re 28, 2014 h
/Jli il" · . n
ipp111es ,n 201 2· "£rel:ent de velo pme nts with ' ttp://w ww.m b.eom .ph/n o- m ore-w ar/. 1-· 0 r !
. asygoi 110 Do N ti M
<.V -
.
Of/1111g" p , ·
ie ILF, SL~ Ren11 to C ruz de Cas tro. Tl11. l
C
r<'~•dl'll t Ot!live rs, 53:1 A SIAN SuRV t Y Hl9- l 16 r
'
 PHILIPPINE HISTORY AND THE L EGAL SYS1EM i 21

THE PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT IN HISTORY

The pre-Marcos Supreme Court was one of the world's most

independent, important, and prestigious supreme courts. Authorities at
various times in the pre-martial law period said that the Court had "the
respect and confidence of the Philippine people" and was "one of the
cohesive elements in the nation state that is being developed in the
Philippines." It was "a special repository of the Filipino's faith in
legitimacy and legality" and "the most important legitimizing
institution in the Philippines." 37

By the time the Marcos regime ended, the Supreme Court was
regarded by many Filipinos as totally subservient to the President, and
partial, narrow, and timid in its jurisprudenc e, at least where the
interests of the Marcos regime were concemed.38 The Supreme Court
resolved all major legal challenges to the Marcos regime in favor of Mr.
Marcos.39 Even the Supreme Court acknowledge d the "many judicial
problems spawned by extended authoritarian rule which effectively
eroded judicial independenc e and self-respect" that will require time
and effort to repair.40

In February 1986, a revolutionary government under Corazon

Aquino assumed power. President Aquino promulgated a Provisional
Constitution which abrogated the 1973 Constitution but retained the Bill
of Rights and power of judicial review. She appointed a commission to

(2013) and John T. Side), The Philippi11es in 2013: Ois11ppoi11l111c11I, Dissrace, Disaster, 54:l A SIAN
SURVEY 64-70 (2014).
C. Neal Tate & Stacia L. H aynie, A11l/iorilaria11is111 aml Iii.: Fu11clio11s of Cvurts: A Time Series
l7

Aualysis of 1/ie Philippi11e S11('re111e Cv11rl, 1961-1987, 27:4 LAW & Soc'v REV. 707-708 ( l 993). An
outline of the history o f the Supreme Court from the Spanish coloni zation tu the rrl'sent m.,y
be found in Tm: PHILIPPIN E JUDICIARY FOUNDATION, I NC., TH F. l llSTORY OF THl SU l'l{\iME Cou,n
3-158 (2011).
311
C. Neal Tate & Stacia L. H aynie, Tiu: Pl1ilippi11c S11pm11e Court 1111dcr Autlroritarillll all£/
Democratic Rule: Tiu: Pcrceptio11 of the Justices, 22:3 A SI AN P1<0 l'II.E 209-224 Ounc 1994 )-
~ Slacia L Haynie, P11raclisc Lost: Politicis11tio11 of tl1l' Pl1ilippi111• S11pn:i1u· Co11rt 111 I/rt' Po, I Marcos
ra, 22:4 AslAN STUDIES R EVIEW, 459, 461 (1998).
"' Animas v • Minister of N ational Defense, G. R. No. L-51747, Decclllbl•r 29, 1986 ·
 22 I L EGAL ME n◄OD ESS ENTIALS 3.0

d raft a new cons I l ' t ·t ,tion which was ratifie d by the peopl e in a pl.ebis .
7 41 Cite
held on February 2, 198 .
The Philippine Const itution was pa tterne d a fter the United
'tuh' O n It distrib utes powe r amon g three branch es (th
States' Consh ·
. . lative .
and J·udicial) that are co-eq ual and indep e
execuh ve, 1eg1s ' end ent It
. . .
t t to stress that in respo nse to the exper ience under the .
1s 1mpor an . . .
•me the Const itution streng thene d the JUd1c1ary to prevent
Marcos reg1 ,
its subservience to the other branc hes of gover nmen t. After the ouster
of
Marcos, the Supreme Court 's first task was to "reco ver the prestig
e it
had lost and restore public confid ence in its indep enden ce." 42 The
1987
Constitution facilitated this task .
The Constitution provid es safeg uards to ensur e that judicial
indepe ndence is protected and maint ained:

The Constitution expres sly prohib its Cong ress from

depriving the Supre me Court of its jurisd iction , as
enume rated in Section 5, Articl e VII of the
Constitution, or from passin g a law that under mines
the security of tenure of the memb ers of the judici ary.
The Constitution also mand ates that the judici ary
shall enjoy fiscal auton omy, and grants the Supre me
Court administrative super vision over all courts and
judicial personnel. Jurisp ruden ce has chara cteriz ed
administrative superv ision as exclus ive, notin g that
only the Supre me Court can overs ee the judge s and
court personnel's compl iance with all laws, rules and
~egulations. No other branc h of gover nmen t may
intrud. e into this power · h out runnm
. g afoul of the
, wit
doctrine of separa tion of power s.
The Co ft ·
. ns 1 uhon protec ts as well the salari es of the
Justices and J·ud . .. .
ges 6 Y proh1b 1ting any decre ase m

" See Floren tino P. Felician o Tl , A . . .

Judicial Review and Decisio, , M' k_,c ppl,cat,o 11 of Law: Some Recurring .
1\ spt'cl s of the !'nm•;;, t)f
111 8, 37 AM ) J ,
a
, 2 Andres R. Narvas a, The }11diciar . .
. . URI S. 17, 18-19 (1992). ,
C ONC Hl:SS, AND TH E J UD ICIARY (19;- A Seif-Assess111e11
t, i11 TII E POSl'-EDSA V1CE- PltESJD FNU ,
eds., 1998). G-l 992 ) 153, 154 Uose V. Abuev c1 & Emcrli nd..i I{. Ronian
 PHILIPPINE HISTORY ANO THE L EGAL S YSTEM 123

their salary during their continuance in office, and

ensures their security of tenure by providing that
"Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower
courts shall hold office during good behavior until
they reach the age of seventy years or become
incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office."
With these guarantees, justices and judges can
administer justice undeterred by any fear of reprisals
brought on by their judicial action. They can act
inspired solely by their knowledge of the law and by
the dictates of their conscience, free from the
corrupting influence of base or unworthy motives. 43

It is easier now for the Supreme Court to declare a law

unconstitutional because only a majority vote of those who deliberate
on the issues of the case is needed for such declaration. 44 The previous
constitutions required a vote of two-thirds of all the members of the
Court,45 or 10 votes46 before the Supreme Court could declare a law
unconstitutional. Under the present system, five of the fifteen Justices
may declare a law unconstitutional if only eight Justices (a majority)
took part in the deliberations of the issues in a case.47

The 1987 Constitution also introduced the Judicial and Bar

Council. Prospective members of the bench are now selected by the
48

u Re: COA Opinion on Computation of Appraised Value of Properties Purchased by Supremt' Court
Justices, A.M. No. 11-7-10-SC, July 31, 2012.
" CONST., Art. VIII, § 4 (2). See also Irene R. Cortes, The Supremt' Court and tht' Political
Departments, 67 PH IL. L.J. 293, 295 (1993).
" CONST. (1 935), Art. VUI, § 10.
6
' CONST. (1973), Art. X, § 2.

" See Pacifico A. Agabin, Judicial Review of Economic PoliciJ 1111der the 1987 Co11stit11til111, 72 P HI L.
L. ). 176, 189 (1997).
" CONST., Art. vm, §§ 8-9 provide:
Section 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the
supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chid JusticC' as ex
offi cio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative• of the
Congress as ex offi cio Members, a representative of the In tegrated
Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and
a repre~cnt ative of the private sector.
(2) The regular members of the Cou ncil shall be appointed by the
President for a term of four ye,1rs with the consen t of the Comm ission
 n-1O0 ESSENTIALS 3.0
24 j LEGAL M E

. d • ated to the President for appointm ent. In theory th·

Counol an nonim, .. , is
. I· pointment process from politics because the appointee
insulates t ,e ap . . f .
•re confirmati on by the Comm1ss1 on o Appointm ents ofs
no longer requ1
Congress.49

THE BRANCHES OF GOVERN MENT AND THE JUDICIA L POWER

Under the 1987 Constituti on of the Philippin es, the judicial

pO\•\ler is vested in one Supreme Court and such lower courts as may be
established by law.50
Under the Constituti on, the Philippin es is a democrati c and
republican state; sovereignt y resides in the people and all governme nt
authority emanates from them. It has a president ial type of governme nt
that distributes power among three co-equal branches: the Executive,
the Legislative, and the Judicial departme nts. The distributio n of
powers is a fundamen tal maxim of constituti onal law and essential to

on Appointments. Of the Members first appointed, the representati ve

of the Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the professor of law
for three years, the re tired Justice for two years, and the
representative of the private sector for one year.
(3) The Cl~rk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex officio of
the CouncLI and shall keep a record of its proceedings.
(4) The regular Members of the Council shall receive such
=
emoluments as may L - d e termme • d b y the Supreme Court.
The
Supreme Court shall provide in its annual budget the appropriatio ns
for the Council.
(5) The Council shall h
. ave the prmc1pal· .
function of recommend ing
appointees to the Jud · · 1t may exerase .
. h iciary. such other functions and
d u Li es as t e Su
. preme court m ay assign to it.
Section 9. The Membe O f h
courts shall b . rs t e Supreme Court and judges of lower
no,n · e appointed by the President from a list of at least three
inees prepared b I . .
vacancy Such . Y t 1e Judtcial and Bar Council for every
foor thl' . low , appointments need no confirma tio n .
t!r courts, the p . .d . .
withi 11 ninety d f resi e nt sha ll issu e the appomtme nts
,. The Judicial and Bar C ays_ rom the submission of the lis t.
B kk . ounc1I, howe ve I1 b
r, as ecn the subject of criticism. See Ja n Willen'
sYaSTl:M
· er, Pvl,tii:s ,1 11d th ,
83-11] (1997) f
,
< 1111 ,epe11rlmcc ,r tJ
U; IC /11cliciary ,1111/ /lie Bar in T H E P~IILll'PINE JUS·I·1ci::
G . . or anecJotal ac . . ,
atma> tan & Cielu Ma nu . co~nts on the w eaknesses of th<' )BC. Si·t• also D;intc 8.
tlw Pl111/" 1 . g , Avertr11g On,. . ·1
l P111e S11prc111<' Court .,~
11 " 0 8 ·2008) 6·!' '~ 1 y: A Revi,riv Cl/ No111i1ratio11s n,1d A1 1po11. 1I 111e11h· IL•
"' CON
~T., Art. Vilt, § l. ' · A SIAN )OUHNAL OF COMPAIUl'IV E LAW 1 · I'-' (1L)ll). -
 PHILIPPINE HISTORY ANO THE LEGAL SYSTEM \ 25

the separation of the three branches of government; separation, which,

though incomplete, is one of the chief characteristic s of our
Constitution. In accordance with this principle, the Supreme Court is
independent of executive or legislative control as the Executive and the
Congress are of the Judiciary. 51
The 1987 Constitution provides that "[t]he legislative power
shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines," 52 "[t]he executive
power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines," 53 and "[t]he
judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower
courts as may be established by law." 54 These provisions establish a
separation of powers by actual division and confer plenary legislative,
executive and judicial powers subject only to limitations provided in the
Constitution.55 This means that each of the three great government
branches has exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in concerns falling
within its own constitutionally allocated sphere.56

The principle of separation of powers may be violated when

one branch of government interferes imperrnissibl y with the other's
performance of its constitutiona lly assigned function or when one
branch assumes a function that is more entrusted to another. In other
words, there is a violation of the principle when there is impermissib le
(a) interference with and/or (b) assumption of another branch's
functions. 57

The executive power is vested in the President of the

Philippines. The President is assisted by cabinet secretaries in about
nineteen line departments . The presidential power of control over the

" Radiowealth, Inc. v. Agregado, C.R. No. L-3066, May 22, 1950.
11
CONST., Art. YI, § 1 .
13
CONST., Art. VII, § 1.
14
CONST., Art. VIII, § 1 .
"h Mareas v. Manglapus,
G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989. The Supreme Court in that cast>
cld th at while the 1987 Constitution imposes limitations on the exerci~ of specific powers
of
,. the President, 1·t mamtams
· · intact
· · trad11lonally
.. · · · t h e scope o f
what ts considered as within
executive power. " Th e powers f h . . . to L~.. hnutl' d
o t e President, said the Court, cannot be said . .
only
. to the s 'f
peci 1c powers enumerated in the Constitution. In other words, CXl'Cutive power
18 rnore
than th ,
., R c sum o f spec1f1c
..
powers so enumerated.
" B"rublic of the Philippines v. Bayao, G.R. No. 179492, June 5, 2013.
e gica v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013.
 u ETHOD E <;SE NTIALS 3 .0
26 I L EG AL ,v, ·

exec utiv e employ ees

. b "'nch of gov ernm ent ex tend s to a ll
executive rn
The cons titut iona l vesture
from Cabinet Secretary to the lowl iest cler k.
of this pow er in the Pres iden t is se~f
-execut~ng and. d~e s not require
cise be hm1 ted, muc h less
statu tory impleme nt ation , nor may its exer
one Chi ef Exec utiv e who
v,,ith draw n, by the legis latur e. The re is only
ch, and all othe r executive
directs and cont rols the enti re exec utiv e bran
ctiv es and orde rs. This is
officials mus t impl eme nt in goo d faith his dire
renc e in carr ying out the
necessar y to prov ide orde r, effic ienc y and cohe 58
bran ch.
plan s, policies and prog ram s of the exec utiv e
al Con gres s of the
The legislative pow er is ves ted in a bica mer
four Sen ator s elec ted at
Phili ppin es. The Sena te is com pose d of twe nty-
try, whi le the Hou se of
larg e by qualified regi stere d vote rs of the coun
than two hun dred fifty
Represe ntati ves is com pose d of not mor e
app orti one d amo ng the
mem bers elected from legis lativ e distr icts
ila area . 59 In addi tion , the
provinces, cities, and the Met ropo litan Man
repr esen tativ es elected
Philippines has adop ted a part y-lis t syst em with
onal , and sect oral part ies
thro ugh a part y-lis t of regi stere d nati onal , regi
or orga niza tion s.
mak e laws and
Only Con gres s, with its legi slati ve pow er, can
with all his vast pow ers,
alter or repeal them. The Chie f Exec utiv e,
he cann ot exer cise the
cann ot susp end the oper atio n of a statu te and
60

te. 61 The Pres iden t cann ot

grea ter pow er to ame nd or to revo ke a statu
esse ntia lly cons titut es a
inva lidat e a Torr ens Title beca use that act
whi ch is the pow er and
judicial function, or an exercise of jurisdiction -
e a cause.62
auth ority to hear or try and deci de or dete rmin
, judi cial pow er
Und er Article VUI, Sect ion 1 of the Constitu tion
the duty of the cour ts of
~s v~sted in the cour ts. Judi cial pow er incl udes
Ju stice to settle actu al cont rove rsies
invo lvin g righ ts that are lega lly

Com missi on on Audi t, G.K No. 1-t.'l.tSl,

"' Natio nal Electrification Adm inis tratio n v.
Febru ary 15, 2002. d I
~ The Cons titutio n provi de5 ti 1il I C ong ress sha ll be comp osed of not more tha n two hun - rt'~
.f ., 1 11!/ 1aw. The Cons tituti on did 1101 precl ude Cung ress lrtlCI\
f 1 ty mem bers 1m/t'ss olherwi5t . fil.\<.t
• . . I '> ' ·
ip b .· I iorrnl l'nl .iw. · "
mcrca s111g i ts mem bersh
. · Y pass mg il aw, o the r tha n a gcne r,11 r~~a pport
Mar1dn o v Comm ission El .
w Ph 'I' .· . on · ectwn s, C .R . No. 11857 7, Marc h 7, 1995.
I ippm c NatJon al Bank v 13'1 I kS 29, 1908.
•• Ad 0 If0 C . · 1 u O awmill lnc., C. R. L-24177-85, Ju1w
v. o urt of First Ins t,m cc 1>f za mbal es, C. R. No. L-30650 July 3 1, 1970.
,.1 T . . ,
uason v. Regis ter of Deed s,. C ·R· N o. 70484, Jan uary 29, 1988.
 PHILIPPINE HISTORY AND m e L E0AL Svsro,4 127

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. It is an antidote to and a safety net against whimsical,
despotic and oppressive exercise of governmental power.63

Not all decisions of the Supreme Court, however, are decided

by all fifteen members. The Court may sit in divisions of three, five, or
seven members. Presently, the Court sits in three divisions that are
made up of five Justices each. Only in certain cases does the Supreme
Court sit en bane. The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court states that the
Court en bane shall act on the following matters and cases:

1. cases in which the constitutionality or validity

of any treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, executive order, presidential
decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question;

2. criminal cases in which the appealed decision

imposes the death penalty or reclusion perpetua;
3. cases raising novel questions of law;
4. cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers, and consuls;

5. cases involving decisions, resolutions, and

orders of the Civil Service Commission, the
Commission on Elections, and the Commission
on Audit;

6. cases where the penalty recommended or

imposed is the dismissal of a judge, the
disbarment of a lawyer, the suspension of any
of them for a period of more than one year, or a
fine exceeding forty thousand pesos;

"' Macabago v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 152 163, Novembl'r 18, 2002.
 28 j LEGAL M ETHOD E S SENTIALS 3 .0

7. cases covered by the preceding paragraph and

involving the reinstate ment in the judiciary of
a dismissed judge, the reins tatement of a
lawyer in the roll of attorneys, or the lifting of a
judge's su spension or a lawyer's suspension
from the practice of law;

8. cases involving th e discipline of a Member

of the Court, or a Pres iding Justice, or any
Associate Justice of the collegial appellate
court;

9. cases where a doctrine or principle laid down

by the Court en bane or by a division may be
modified or reversed;

10. cases involving conflicting decisions of two or

more divisions;

11. cases where three votes in a division cannot be

obtained;

12. division cases where the subject matter has a

huge financial impact on businesses or affects
the welfare of a community;

13. subject to Section 11 (b) of Rule 2 of A.M. No.

10-4-20-SC,64 other division cases that, in the
opinion of at least three Members of the
Division who are voting and present, are
appropriate for transfer to the Court en bane;

14. cases that the Court en bane deems of sufficient

importance to merit its attention; and

tt·<l in
hich wt?rt' alIo r
. . f ·ts judicial
,.. This Resolution embo dies the Inte rnal Rules of the Supre me Court, w
.
. m a I operations
20IO. It gove rns th c mte o f t h e C ourt a n d SUI·de ~- the exen:1sc
· . o • •-iructurt!S,
C l's operat1no ~
an d administra tive functions. It covers many topics su ch as t h e our . the Justio.:S,
f fffn I g cases to
p ron·durcs for receiving pleadings and appea ls, the manner O ra g other~.
. . . .. , . I . . ' - and ,w"'e nda ,unon
rulcS for the Jus tices' 111h1b1t10n, the Court s sessions, warmi,;s,

\
 PHILIPPINE HISTORY ANO m e L EGAL S YSTEM 129

15. all matters involvin g policy decision s in the

administ rative supervis ion of all courts and
their personne l.<.s

Althoug h the Constitu tion gives the Supreme Court the

discretio n to sit either en bane or in division s of three, five, or seven
Member s, the divisions are not consider ed separate and distinct courts.
The Constitu tion does not establish a hierarch y of courts within the
Supreme Court. The Court remains a un it even w he n it works in
divisions. The actions taken and the decision s rendered by any of the
divisions are those of the Court itself, because the division s are not
distinct courts but division s of one and the same Court. The only thing
that the Constitu tion allows the bane to do in this regard is to reverse a
doctrine or principle of law laid down by the Court en bane or in
division.66
The Supreme Court sitting en bane is not an appellate court for
decisions of divisions , and it exercises no appellate jurisd iction over the
latter. No division of the Court is inferior to the Court en bane, and sits
veritably as the Court en bane itself. The only constrain t is that any
doctrine or principle of law laid down by the Court, either rendered en
bane or in division, may be overturn ed or reversed only by the Court
sitting en bane. 67
It is possible for the Court's Division s to render conflicti ng
rulings and, in such cases, the Supreme Court en bane breaks the
impasse and resolves the issues.68

"' See David Lu v. Paterno Lu Ym, Sr., C .R. No. 153690, February 15, 201 I. The enumer<1tion
is a combinatio n of Supreme Court Circular No. 2-89 (February 7, 1989), as .1mended by £11
Banc Resolution of November 18, 1993, and the amplificati ons introduced by Resolution
of
January 18, 2000 in A.M. No. 99-12-08-S C with respect to adminis trative cases and matters.
"" Land Bank of the Philippines v. Suntay, C.R. No. 188376, December 14, 2011 .
•, Visayas Geotherma l Power Company v. Commissio ne r of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.
197525, June 4, 2014.
'" Cabuay, Jr. v. Malvar, C.R. No. 123780, September 24, 2002. Tot• Internal Rules o( the
Supreme Court provide that the Court £11 Ba11c shall .ict on "cas(-s
involving conflicting decisions of two or more divis ions." Sec Kcppd Cebu Shipyard, Inc. v.
180880-81, 180896-97, Septembe r 18, 201 2 ·
P'.oneer Insurance and Surety C orp., C .R. Nos.
Similar problems arise with decisions of the various Divisions of the Court of AppcillS. Tlw
Supreme Court has admonishe d the Court o( Appeals "to take the a ppropriate i.k'rs,
 OD E SSENTIALS 3 .0
30 I LEGAL METH

For convenience, Article VIII of the Cons titution on the Judicial

Power is reproduced here.

ARTICLE VIJJ

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

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.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to
define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the
various courts but may not deprive the Supreme
Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in
Section 5 hereof.

including the adophon or amen d ment o f the rules, to see to it tha t cases or petitions ·· a n s"· "'
u•,-,
from the sa me question e· d d ec1s1on,
· · or d er, or resolution are consolida ted to s t1.>er ~•lt:•a r of
contra ry or opposing decisions of the diffe rent CA Divisions and ensure tha t incidents oi
surn
M lar nature
. will no t be re p 1·icated ." See Celesti al Nickel Mining Explora tion • c orp. v·
S acroasia Corp., G.R. No. 169080, 172936, 176226 & 176319 Decembe r 19, 2007· The
. udpreml e Court reiterated the need for courts to be "cons tantly, vigila nt in exte nding their
JU 10at •gaze
aga· d ' . to cases rela ted 1O t11 e ma tte rs submitted for their resolution" as to " em,-urr
c ms Cl 1.0a 1 confusion 'and Iany I seeming
JU . conflict in the judiciary's d cc1·s1·ons." (Pr}'Ct:'
orp. v . 1ina Banking c orp., G · R· No. 172302, February 18, 201 4).
 PHILIPP INE HISTOR Y AND THE L EG AL SYSTEM I 31

No law shall be passe d reorg am zmg the Judi cia ry

w hen it under mines the securi ty of tenure of its
Memb ers.

Sectio n 3. The Judic iary shall enjoy fiscal auton omy.

Appr opriat ions for the Judici ary may not be reduc ed
by the legisl ature below the amou nt appro priate d for
the previo us year and, after appro val, shall be
autom atically and regula rly releas ed.

Sectio n 4. (1) The Supre me Cour t shall be

comp osed of a Chief Justic e and fourte en Assoc iate
Ju stices . It may sit en bane or in its discre tion, in
divisi on of three, five, or seven Memb ers. Any
vacan cy shall be filled withi n ninet y days from the
occur rence thereo f.

(2) All cases invol ving the const itutio nality of a

treaty , intern ation al or execu tive agree ment, or
law, which shall be heard by the Supre me Cour t en
bane, and all other cases which unde r the Rules of
Court are requi red to be heard en bane, inclu ding
those invol ving the const itutio nality , applic ation,
or opera tion of presid ential decre es, procl amati ons,
order s, instru ctions , ordin ances , and other
regul ations , shall be decid ed with the concu rrenc e
of a major ity of the Mem bers who actua lly took
part in the delib eratio ns on the issues in the case
and voted there on .

(3) Cases or matte rs heard by a divis ion shall be

decid ed or resolv ed with the concu rrenc e of a
major ity of the M e mber s who actua lly took part in
the delib eratio ns on the issue s in the case and
vote d there on, and in no case witho ut the
concu rrenc e of a t least three of s uch Mem bers.
When the re quire d numb er is not obtai ned, the
case shall be decid e d en ban e: Provi ded, that no
doctr in e or princ iple of law laid down by the
court in a decis ion rende red e11 bane or in divisi on
32 I L EGAL MEHIOO ESSEN TIALS 3 .0

m ay be mod ified or reve rsed exce pt by

the cou rt
sitti ng en /Ja11c .

Sect ion 5. The Sup rem e Cou rt shal l

hav e the
follo wing pow ers:

('I) Exercise orig inal juris dict ion ove r

case s affe cting
amb assa dors , othe r pub lic min ister s and cons
uls, and
over petit ions for cert iora ri, proh ibiti on, man
dam us,
quo warr anto , and habe as corp us.

(2) Review, revi se, reve rse, mod ify, or

affir m on
appe al or certi orar i, as the law or the Rule
s of Cou rt
may prov ide, final judg men ts and orde rs
of low er
cour ts in:

(a) All case s in whi ch the cons titut iona lity

or vali dity of any trea ty, inte rnat iona l or
exec utiv e agre eme nt, law, pres iden tial
decr ee, proc lam atio n, orde r, inst ruct ion,
ordi nanc e, or regu latio n is in ques tion .

(b) All case s invo lvin g the lega lity of any

tax, imp ost, asse ssm ent, or toll, or any
pena lty imp osed in rela tion ther eto.

(c) All case s in whi ch the juris dict ion of any

low er cou rt is in issu e.

(d) All crim inal case s in whi ch the pen alty

imp osed is reclusion perpetua or high er.

(e) All case s in whi ch only an erro r or

ques tion of law is invo lved .

(3) Ass ign te mpo rari ly judg es of low er cou

rts to othe r
stati ons as pub lic inte rest may requ
ire. Suc h
tem pora ry assi gnm ent shal l not exce ed
six mon ths
with out the con sent of the judge con cerned
.
 PHILIPPINE HISTORY ANO THE L""GAL S
cc YSTEM 133

(4) Order a change of venue or pJace of trial to avoid a

miscarriage of justice.

(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and

enforcement of constitutionaJ rights, pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to
the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal
assistance to tJ1e under-privileged. 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.

Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have

administrative supervision over all courts and the
personnel thereof.

Section 7. (1) No person shall be appointed Member

of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court
unless he is a/ atural-born citizen of the Philippines.
A Member of the Supreme Court must be at least
£rty years of age, and must have been for )ifteen
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 m ember of the Philippine Bar.

(3) A Member of the Judiciary mus t be a person of

proven compe ten ce, integrity, probity, and
independ en ce.
34 J L EGAL METHOD E SSE NTI
ALS 3.0

Section 8. (1) A Judicial

an d Ba r Co un cil is he reb
created un de r the su pe rv y
ision of the Su pr em e Co
co mposed of the Ch ief Jus ur t
tice as ex off ici o ~h air ma
the Secretary of Jus tice, an n,
d a rep res en tat ive of the
Congress as ex officio Me
mb ers , a rep res en tat ive
the lnteg rated Bar, a pr of
ofe sso r of law , a ret ire
Me mb er of the Su pre me Co d
urt , an d a rep res en tat ive
of the private sec tor .

(2) The reg ula r me mb ers

of the Co un cil sh all be
ap po int ed by the Pr es ide
nt for a ter m of fo ur ye
wi th the co ns en t of ars
the Co mm iss io n on
Ap po int me nts . Of the M em
be rs fir st ap po in ted , the
rep res en tat ive of the In teg
rat ed Ba r sh all se rv e for
four ye ars , the pr of es so r
of law fo r thr ee ye ar s,
ret ire d Ju sti ce for tw o ye the
ars , an d the re pr es en tat
of the pri va te sec tor for on iv e
e ye ar .
(3) Th e Cl erk of the Su
pr em e Co ur t sh all be
Se cre tar y ex officio of the the
Co un cil an d sh all ke ep
rec ord of its pro ce ed ing s. a

(4) Th e reg ula r M em be

rs of the Co un cil sh
receive su ch em olu me nts all
as ma y be de ter mi ne d
the Su pre me Co urt . Th by
e Su pr em e Co ur t sh
pro vid e in its an nu al bu dg a ll
et the ap pr op ria tio ns fo
the Co un cil. r

(S) Th e Co un cil sh all ha ve

rec om me nd in the pr incip al fu nc tio n of
. g a pp om ·
exercise su ch th tee s to the Ju di cia ry . It
f m ay
0
e r un cti. on s an d du tie
Su pr em e Co ur t m ay ass ig s as the
n to it.
Secti on 9 Th e M b
. ·
Jud ge s of the I e m e rs o f the Su pre m e C ou rt a nd
ti . ow e r co ur ts sh all b e a
1 e Pr es ide pp oi nte d by
nt fr .
o m
pre pa red by the J ct· . a 11st of a t lea st thr ee n o mi ne es
vaca nc y. Su ch a u 1ci a l a nd Ba r C ou nc il fo r ev e ry
.
pp oin tm e nt s ne ed no co
nfirm a tio n .
 PHILIP PINE HISTO RY AND TH E L EGAL SY
STEM I 35

For the lowe r cour ts, the Pres iden t shal l issu
e th e
appo intm ents with in nine ty days from
the
subm issio n of the list.

Sect ion 10. The sala ry of the Chie f Justi ce and

of
the Asso ciate Justi ces of the Sup rem e Cou rt, and
of
judg es of lowe r cour ts, shal l be fixed by
law.
Dur ing their cont inua nce in offic e, their sala ry
shal l
not be decr ease d.

Section 11. The Mem bers of the Supr eme Cou

rt and
judg es of lowe r cour ts shall hold office duri ng
good
beha vior until they reac h the age of seve nty year
s or
beco me inca paci tated to disc harg e the duti es of
their
office. The Supr eme Cou rt en bane shall have
the
pow er to disci pline judg es of lowe r cour ts, or
orde r
their dism issal by a vote of a majo rity of the Mem
bers
who actu ally took part in the delib erati ons on
the
issue s in the case and vote d there on.

Section 12. The Mem bers of the Supr eme Cou rt and
of
othe r cour ts estab lishe d by law shall not
be
desi gnat ed to any agen cy perf orm ing quasi-jw.dicia
l or
adm inist rativ e func tions .

Sect ion 13. The conc lusio ns of the Supr eme Cou
rt in
any case subm itted to it for deci sion en bane
or in
divis ion shal l be reac hed in cons ultat ion befo
re the
case is assig ned to a Mem ber for the writ ing
of the
opin ion of the Cou rt. A certi ficat ion to this
effect
sign ed by the Chie f Justi ce shall be issue d and
a copy
there of attac hed to the reco rd of the case and serv
ed
upon the parti es. Any Mem bers who took no part,
or
disse nted , or abst aine d from a deci sion or reso
lutio n,
mus t state the reas on there for. The sam e requ irem
ents
shall be obse rved by all lowe r colle giate cour ts.
3 6 j LEGAL M ETHOD ESSENTIALS 3 .0

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 d enied without stating the legal basis therefor.

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
pleading, 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 d elay.

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 Judici ary.
 PHILIP PINE HISTOR Y ANO THE LEGAL SYSTE
M j 37

THE JUDICIAL HIERARCHY

69
TI1e Phili ppin e judic iary consi sts of four levels.
of the
In the hiera rchy of court s, the first level is comp rised
creat ed in each
Metr opoli tan Trial Cour ts (MeTCs), whic h are
l Trial Cour ts in
metr opoli tan area estab lishe d by law; the Mun icipa
part of the
Cities (MTCCs), in every city whic h does not form
s) estab lishe d in
metr opoli tan area; the Mun icipa l Trial Cour ts (MTC
icipa l Circu it Trial
each of the other cities or muni cipal ities; and the Mun
such cities and/ or
Courts (MCTCs), creat ed in each circu it comp risin g
municipalities as grou ped by law.
level
Shari ' a Circu it Cour ts (SCC) are also amon g the first
ns and prov inces
courts. Shari ' a Cour ts are estab lishe d in Islamic regio
(Pres ident ial
to inter pret and apply the Code of Musl im Perso nal Laws
to the Shar i'a
Decree No. 1083). Thei r decis ions may be appe aled
District Court. 70
Cour ts
The secon d level consists of the Regional Trial
ppine s. Each
established in each of the thirte en regio ns in the Phili
Regi onal Trial
Regional Trial Cour t is comp osed of sever al branc hes.
the parti es of
Courts act as trial court s and may receive evide nce from
decis ions of the
the case. They also exercise appe llate jurisd iction over
ctive territ orial
MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs, and MCTCs in their respe
a Distr ict Cour ts
jurisdictions. Also at the same level are the Shar i'
llate Cour t.
(SOC). Their decisions may be appe aled to the Shar i' a Appe

M E COURT ANNUA L R EPORT 2006 54-

"' See SUPREME COUl<T PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE, SUPRE
nual% 20repo rts/SC _Annu a1_06 .pdf.
55 (2006), availab le at http:// sc.judi ciary.g ov.ph/ pio/an
Court s remain in questi on. D.;•spi te the
"' Both the effecti veness and legitim acy of the Shari' a
pines, the Shari' a Court system faces
presen ce of about 5 millio n Musli ms in the Philip
2,290 judicia l positio ns author ized in the
sh~rtfaJJs in both staffin g and fundin g. Of the
ns in Shari' a Courts . A stu'dy in 2010
Philippines, only 56 (or 2.5%) are slotted for positio
curren tly vacant , and eighte en of the
showed that all five of the district court judges hips arc
the Sha ri'a Court s is a trickle cumpare..i
circuit court judgeships arc vacant . ·n,e caseflo w in
filed in the lower PhilippinC' courts
to that of the civil courts . In 2008, 333,597 new cases were
only 263 origin a ted in the Shari' a
(tncluding Shari'a District and Circui t Courts ). Of these,
prior ye;ir activt' cases in the Shari'a
Courts . At the end of 2008, the docke t of curren t and . .
system w as 404 cases, a fragm ent of the 642,649 pcndm g c,1scs for all lowl' r courts combi ned.
Se
t' Justin Holbro ok, Legal Hyl,ridity i11
t/Je P/Jilippi11es: L1•s.,;-0m i11 L·gnl P/11,11/ism n11d l/11: 511/11
.
A,c/upt'lago, l8 TuL. J. lNr' L & COMI'. L. 403, 427 (2010)
 38 \ LE GAL THOD ESSENT
ME IALS 3.0

Al th e third \ev
e\ is th e C o ur
_ '- t of A pp eals ,
powers, 1l1n_.. ; ,s and du ti
cu0t , es th ro u gh tw w h ic h exercise
s \ts
. l en ty -t hr ee di
members eac 1. T\'le CA 's 18 th , vi si on s of thre.
19th , an d 20 th . . .
Court o f APP. eals Visay as lo ca te . D1v1s1ons co m e
d m C eb u C it . . pr is e th
d rd Divisio ' y; w hi le th e e
an 23 ns m ake up C
ou rt . 21 st 22nd
Cagayan de O ro of A pp ea ls M . '
m d an ao , si tu at ,
City. The C ou rt l . ed in
elevated to it fr of A p p ea si s as s1 . d
om th e RTCs gn e to re vi ew
as w el l as qu as i- ju di ci cases
the Civil Servic al ag en ci es su
e C om m is si on ch as
Natio nal Labor , S ec ur it ie s an
Relations C om d E xc ha ng e
Commission,
m is si on , an d
Authority . th e L an d Reg
istration
The C ou rt of A
pp ea ls al so re
as decisions of vi ew s d ea th p
the Office of en al ty ca se s as
th e O m b u d sm well
disciplinary ca an in ad m in
ses. The C ou rt is tr at iv e
sit en bane only of A pp ea ls is
for the pu rp os a co ll eg ia te co
e of ex er ci si ng ur t an d may
or other no n- ad m in is tr at iv
ad ju di ca to ry fu e, ceremonial,
court, it genera nc ti on s. B ei ng
lly re so lv es ca es se nt ia ll y an
ses on ly o n th appellate
certain instance e b as is of re co
s, it m ay also rd s, bu t in
evidence. try ca se s, co nd
uc t he ar in gs ,
an d receive
The P hi li pp in
e Ju di ci al S ys
courts: the S an te m al so in cl
di ga nb ay an an u d es tw o sp
d th e C ou rt of ecial
T ax A pp ea ls .
. The S an di ga nb
offi ay an is an an
. ce. rs -i n cl u d m · g th e' ti -g ra ft co u rt
th at tr ie s publ
cn mmal cases u co -a cc us e d ic
invol · p n·v at e p er so
vm g f d n s- ch ar g e d 'th
co rr espo nd in g gr a t an co rr w 1
. civil u p t pr ac ti ce s,
Sand 1gan ba ya n cases for t h e as w e l\ as
. · re co ve ry of
· is co m po se ci vi l li ab il it y. Th
Ass oCiate Justic d of a P re si d in e
es w h O ·t · g Ju st ic e an d fo
t he Court of A st m f' · · • ur te en
S p l · iv e d1v1s1ons
of th re e Ju st ic
uprem e Court. pe a s, it s de ci.si.on s es ea ch . Li'k' e
m ay b e di re ct
ly ap pe al ed
to the
T he C ou
an d f' . . rt .of Ta A .
iv e Assoc ia
lhrce ·1 t· te Ju sli x p p ea 1s ts co m p o se d of
ceS , . a P re si di ng Ju st · ,
30, 20 04 iches. ea ch . Re ub l' an d m ay sit e11 ban e or in tw . . • .icef
U&
P ic A ct N o. 9282, o d1 v1s1on s 0
A pp ea ls'. lt ash el ev al l'd ll . w h ich to o k ef
. 'le st fe ct on M ,m,h
ca ses invo\vinas exclu sive ·u ·at us of th e CT A
to th a t of th e
. 1 ri se11.ct1o.
n to re vi ew o Ctm rl. l' f
fet s, or oth g di sp uted n ap p ea l <.kt:ts . • . . 11· 1
.. , asse<•s1•,
er c 11a · " .-1cn ts, ' f •. io ns
an t;1ng un d t' r rg cs, t ) ~ \ . , , re u n d s of m le rn
~ en<, . a\ re v en u e tn,xt:,,-:,,
th e NatHH)<1\ li es m r0\at1on th ereto, o r
.

· l l ,. I .
n e, n a Rev en o ther n1 ilt.ll, r~-
ue C o d e ur
T ar .n•t· <an d
 PHILIPPINE HISTORY ANO TH E L EGAL SYSTEM j 39

Customs Code. It also exercises original jurisdiction over all criminal

offenses arising from violations of the Tax or Tariff Codes and other
Jaws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of
Customs.
The Shari'a Appellate Court created under the Autonomous
Reg ion in Muslim Mindanao Organic Law (Republic Act No. 6734)
has the power to exercise original jurisdiction over petitions for
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus, and other auxiliary
writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, and to
exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases tried in the
Shari' a District Courts as established by law (Section 5). Its decisions
are final and executory. But the Shari'a Appellate Court has yet to be
organized 71 with the appointment of a Presiding Justice and two
Associate Justices. Thus, until such time that the Shari'a Appellate
Court shall have been organized, appeals or petitions from final
orders or decisions of the Shari' a District Courts filed with the Court
of Appeals shall be referred to a Special Division to be organized in
any of the Court of Appeals stations preferably composed of Muslim
Court of Appeals Justices. For cases where only errors or questions
of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme
Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court pursuant to Article VIII, Section 5 of the Constitution
and Section 2 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. 72

At the fourth tier is the Supreme Court. It is composed of a

Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices who sit en bane or in
divisions of three, five, or seven. It has the power to settle actual
controversies involving rights that 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.

" V·11
, lagracia v. Fifth (5'") Shari'a District Court, C .R. No. 188832, April 23, 20H .
71
lomawis v. Balindong, G.R. No. 182434, March 5, 2010.
 40 I L EGAL METHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0

The Supreme Court is considered "the court of last

. resort"73
since 110 more appeal can be made from a Judgment or decision
. C our t . A d uect 0
merits rendered by t h 1s · · ·
mvocahon of the Su n the
. . . prerne
Court's jurisdiction 1s allowed only when ~~ere are special and
important reasons, that are clearly and specifically set out in th
petition. Practicality, an increasingly overcrowded docket, and the nee~
to prioritize matters within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, justify the
"principle of hierarchy of courts" . The principle requires that recourse
must first be made to the lower-rank court exercising concurrent
jurisdiction with a higher court. 74

Following the hierarchy of courts is necessary in order to

prevent inordinate demands upon the Supreme Court's time and
attention, which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive
jurisdiction. It prevents over-crowding of the Court's docket. 75 In one
case, the Court gave two reasons for following the hierarchy: (a) it
would be an imposition upon the precious time of the Court; and (b) it
would cause delay, whether intended or not, in the adjudication of
cases. This is because the case may be remanded or referred to a lower
court as the proper forum under the rules of procedure, or because
these courts are better equipped to resolve the issues because they
require the determination of facts.76

As a general rule, litigants should not immediately invoke the

Supreme Court's jurisdiction after a setback in litigation. Rule 65 of the
Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a petition for certiorari may be
filed when "there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law." The "plain" and "adequate

n . . . . d Collante~
Kabigtmg v. Actmg Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-15548, Octobe r 30, 1962 an
v . Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 169604, March 6, 2007.
:: Bagabuyo v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 176970, Decembe r 8, 2008 - shoti!d not
Cally v. Navarro, G.R. No. 167239, May 5, 2010. The Supreme Court cannot a nd . v Miro,
be bu rd ened with the task of d ealing with causes in the first ins tance. s.-c Garcia ·
C.R. No. 167409, March 20, 2009. . , ,f rrn,
7• Cl b 1t 0 f
,am er of Real Esta te and Builders Associa tion Inc. v. The Secretary O f Agrarian , ,ce o
CR '
· · No. l83409, June 18, 20!0. TI,e Supreme Court enforce::., th e observa• . crtiJlent
th e hiera rd1Y of courts in order to free itse lf from
unnecessa ry, fri volous, a nd_ ,rnfjal tasl<-S
cases, 3nd lhus afford time for it lo deal with the more fundamental a nd more e::.se:Overt)' of
th at th e Constitution has assigned to it. See Saint
Ma ry Crusade to A)kv1£1te
Bre thren Foundation, Inc. v. Riel, G.R. No. 176508, Janua ry 12, 2015.
 PHILIPPINE HISTORY AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM j 41

remedy" is a motion for reconsider ation. Normally, a party should file a

motion for reconsideration in the court where he or she lost before the
filing of a special civil action for certiorari. Such rule gives the lower
court the opportuni ty to correct itself.77 This rule, however, may be
dispensed with if the petition raises an issue of "significan t national
interest" 78 or "paramou nt importance and constitutio nal signifi cance" 79
or there are "exceptional and compelling circumstances that justify the
Supreme Court's exercise of jurisdiction. 80 In such cases, the Court
recognizes an exception because "it was dictated by pu blic welfare and
the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest
of justice, or the orders complaine d of were found to be patent nullities,
or the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropri ate remedy." 81

The peculiar, unique, and unusual character of the facts and

circumstances of a case may allow the flexi~le application of these
established legal principles to achieve fair and speedy dispensati on of
justice.82 A strict application of the rule is not necessary when the cases
brought before appellate courts do not involve factual but legal
questions. 83

n National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms, Inc. v . Ilagan, G.R. No. 190795,
July 6, 2011.
78
Ocampo v. Abando, C.R. No. 176830, February 11, 2014. Although the Supreme Court has
concurrent jurisdiction with the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals to issue writs
of catiorari, the parties do not have the absolute and unrestrained freedom of choice of the
court to which an application will be directed. Direct resort to the Supreme Court is allowed
only if there are special, important and compelling reasons clearly and specifically spelled
~~;~n the petition. See Macapagal v. People of the Philippines, C.R. No. 193217, February 26,

"' Lim v. Executive Secretary C.R. No. 151445 April 11 2002

,o El ' ' ' .
,, Nma v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, C .R. No. 155996, June 27, 2012.
J atJonal Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms, Inc. v. Ilagan, C .R. No. 190795,
I
~ Y6, 2~11. Errors of judgment, as distinguis hed from errors of jurisdiction, are not within
e province of a special ci v1·1 ac1·10n for cer1·10ran,· w h 1c
' h 1·s con f'med to issues
· · · ct 1chon
· ·
0 o f iuns
wLr ·grave abuse of discret,·o n. G ra ve a b use f ct· · " I · ·
.
111ms1cal ex o 1scret1on means sue, capr1C1ous an d
· f•
that the . ercise O Judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, and it must bc;> shown
l6CJ7s? i•screhon was exercised arbitrarily or despotically." St·,· Lirio v. Cenovia, C.R. No.
12 ' ovember 23, 20 J1.
Spouses Ch
., Sa b ua v. Ang, C .R. No. 156164, September 4, 2009.
rsa av. Vda. De Te, C.R. No. 175910, July 30, 2009.
421 L EGAL M ETHOD E s sE N l'IALS 3.0

Supreme Court ide ntified the following exce p t'ions to

TI1e
following the hie rnrchy:
Firs t, a direct resort to the Supre me Court is allowed wh
there a re genuine issues o f constituti onali ty that must be addressed :~
the most immediat e lime.

Second, when the issues involved are of transcende ntal importance..84

Third, cases of fi rst impressio n warrant a direct resort to this court.

Fourth, when the constituti o nal issues raised are better

d ecided by this court.

Fifth, the tim e element presented in the case cannot be ignored.

Sixth, the filed petition reviews the act of a constituti onal organ
s uch as the Commiss ion on Electio ns .
Seventh, there was n o oth er plain, speedy, and adequate
remed y in the ordinary course of law that could free them from the
injurious effects of responde nts' acts in violation of their right to
freedom of expressio n.
Eighth, the petition includes questions that are "dictated by
p ublic w elfare and the ad vancemen t of public p o licy, or demanded by
the b roader interest of justice, or the orders complain ed of were found
to be patent nullities, or the appeal was considere d as clearly an
inapprop riate remedy."ss
th
It is not necessary that all of these exception s must occur at e
116
same time to justify a direct resort to the Supreme Court.
The judicial hierarchy also establishe s rules for courts tha t are
th
on the same level. Th7 ,,..doctrine o f jud icial stability s tates that e
. .on m ay no t be interfered
. . d 1ch
. d gn1ent o f a co urt o f com petent JUns
JU

. . ·t o rd!nanr•'='
.. The Sup rem e Court he ld tha t a case re quires immedia te n', solution if ci Y . -e for
. . . . , ' d as a test , d ~
adversely a ffect th e prope rty 1nte resls of a ll pay mg cons lltuL•nts ,111d ~ r, e . ,rt:in,-e
. . ( t c-ndentJ I 1rnp•
the g1.11dan Lx> of o ther local goven1ment units . Su d , a case 1s o rans c " 6 ,,uti,;f:i .
. ' I d · f I · h y o f cour t ·
s. S
• · · fcrrN, Jr . .
a n d warra n l:ti a re Ia xat1on o, t 1c octnnc o uerarc «

G .R. No . 210551, June 30, 201 5 . 15

" The D iocese o f Uncolod v. CO MELEC, C .R. No. 205728, Janua ry 2 1, 20 ·
5
,.,, Th e Diocl.'Sk o f Uarnlo d v. COM EL EC, C .R. No. 205728, Ja nuary 2 1, 20l -
 PHILIPPINE HISTORY AND THE LEOAL SYST EM i 43

w ilh by any court of concurr ent ju risdictio n. This is because a court that
acquire s jurisdic tion over a case and renders judgme nt therein has
jurisdic tion over the same, to the exclusi on of all other coordin ate
courts. This include s jurisdic tion for its executi on and over all its
inciden ts, and the power to control, in furthera nce of justice, the
conduc t of ministe rial officers acting in connect ion with this judgme nt. 87
The doctrine is enforce d to prevent unseem ly, expensi ve, and
dangero us conflicts of jurisdic tion and processesllll and it engend ers the
orderly adminis tration of justice.89

THE SEPARATION OF POWERS

The principl e of separati on of powers ordains that each of the

three branche s of governm ent has exclusiv e cogniza nce of and is
suprem e in matters falling within its own constitu tionally allocate d
sp here. The principl e means that legislati on belongs to Congre ss,
execution to the Executive, and settlem ent of legal controv ersies to the
Judiciary. Each branch is prevent ed from invadin g the domain of the
others.90 The powers of governm ent are divided to avoid concent ration
of these powers in any one branch. This would prevent any single
branch from "lording its power over the other branche s or the
citizenry ." 91

lmbedd ed in this doctrine is the principle of non-delegation of

powers which states that "what has been delegate d, cannot be
delegated ." This doctrine is based on the principl e that such delegat ed
power constitu tes not only a right but a duty to be perform ed by the

"' First Ga~ Power Corpor,ih on v . R~public n{ the Philippi1w:-., C..lt N1,. INHol . ~,q.
,t,•mllt!r ::.
20 13.
'" Pacific Ac1: Finance l.lJ. v. Y,.111.1!,\ii>;iw,1, C.R. Nn. 175:\9:'>, r\pri l l 1, 20 1::.
•• Sl',· Cabili v. Ualimlung. A.M. Nu. RTI -Hl-2125, Sl•ptemlw r 1,. 2lll I.
, . Th,• :,,;,n.ite l:llut: Ribbon Cum millet: v. Pimentd Jr., C .R. N11. l.lh7hll, ]1tl) 211, 200:l.
'' K,·: COA Opinion on the Cum p11t,1tiun of lhC' Appr:iis,•d V.1l11t: 11! ill<.' l'nil'ertl,•s
1'111\.:h::ts,·d
by the R<!tircd Chid/A,,s od:.1h: J11:-.tice ~ of the Suprrnw L',1mt, A.M. N<>
11 7- 10-SC. Jul y 31.
2012.
44 l LEGAL M ETHOD ESSEN TIAL S 3.0

delegate thro ugh the instr ume ntality of his

own judg men t and not
thro ugh the inte rven ing min d of ano th e r. 92
The Sup rem e Cou rt represen ts one of the
thre e divi sion s of
pow er in our gove rnm ent. It can only exer
cise judi cial pow er. The
Sup rem e Cou rt shou ld not and cann ot be
requ ired to exer cise any
pow er or to perf orm any trus t or to assu me
any duty not pert aini ng to
or connected with the adm inisterin g of judi cial
func tion s. 93
The judi ciary is task ed with adm inis terin
g justi ce, settling
justiciable cont rove rsies or disp utes invo
lvin g enfo rcea ble and
dem anda ble righ ts, and affo rdin g redr ess of
wro ngs for the viol atio n of
said righ ts.94 It mus t be allo wed to deci de case
s inde pen den tly, free of
outs ide influ ence or pres sure . An inde pen den
t judi ciar y is esse ntia l to
the mai nten ance of dem ocra cy, as well as of
peac e and orde r in society.
Maintai ning the dign ity of cour ts and enfo rcin
g the duty of citiz ens to
respect them are nece ssar y adju ncts to the adm
inis trati on of justice. 95
The judi ciar y is not a repo sito ry of rem edie
s fo r all p oliti cal
or soci al ills. The Con stitu tion has allo
cate d the pow ers of
gove rnm ent to thre e dist inct and sepa rate
com part men ts: "Th e
jud icial inte rpre tatio n has tend ed to the
pres erva tion of the
inde pend ence of the thre e, and a zeal ous rega
rd of the prer oga tives
of each , kno win g full well that one is not the
gua rdia n of the othe rs
a~d that, for official wro ng-d oing , each may
be bro ugh t to acco unt,
eith er by imp each men t, trial or by the ball ot
box ." 96
. The judi ciary does not settle poli cy
issu es, whi ch is the
province of the legis lativ e and exec utiv e bran
ches of gov ernm ent. 97 The

., This princ iple ad mi ts of n u m , , . .

Powe r t 0 vano - . . c rou
us specia li zed adm ·s exce
.
ption s, on e o f w h teh is the d elega tion of lt>gisl . '
Asso,-~,; at· · . • . ati v<
T
ion v. eves s t
mi ra ti ve agen cies. St'c Bure a u of C u s to ,,
, , Ma ·1 El . . ' C .R. N o . 181704, Dece mbe ' . m ,s £mol
r oyt>1.: ~
ni a ectn c Comp an y v Pas r 6, 201 1.
Nove mber 25, 19 _ . '
32 · ay Trans po rt atio n Com pa ny, lnc., G.R.
N<' - L-37t- 7~.
.,. Lopez v. Roxas , G .R. No L-25716
.., l11 rr: Publi shed Alleg cj Tl ' July 28, 1966.
Hurle d by Att y L d u eats aga m s t Me mbe rs of the C ou rt in ttw
. l!onar l'lu nde r Law C.i S<'
,. Vera v. Avelino C R N DI' Vera' A·M· No . .
0l -12-0 3-SC, Ju ly 29, 2002 .
.,, Electrom at Ma~t1f . t. o . L-543, Au gus t 3
1, 1946.
27, 2011 . ac u nng and R . d .
ccor tn g Corp orati on v. Lag u nzad , G .R. No.
172699, Jlil y
 PHILIPPINE HISTORY /\ND THE L EG AL SYSTEM
145

Cou r t can only d ecl.Jre w ha t the law is, and not what the law should be.
Under our system of gove rnment, policy iss ues are within the domain
of the politica l b ranch es of the government, and of the people
the mselves as the repository of all State power.9R

C0urts d o not create law . The courts interpret the law but do
not enact th em ; otherw ise they would violate the principle of separation
of powers. The sole func tion of our courts is to apply or interpret the
laws, part-icularly where gaps exist or where ambiguities becloud issues,
but i t vvill not arrogate unto itself the task of legislating.99

The judiciary interpre ts the laws and, if consistent with the

Constitution, applies them. Members of the judiciary, as citizens or as
judges, may regard a certain law as harsh, unwise or morally wrong,
and may recommend to the authority or department concerned its
amendment, modification, or repeal; still, as long as said law is in force,
they must apply it and give it effect as decreed by the law-making
body. 100 The fundamental duty of courts is to apply the law as they find
it, not as they would like it to be. Courts are thus precluded from
construction or interpretation of statutes, unless application is
impossible or inadequate without it. 101 "The delicate task of ascertaining
the significance that attaches to a constitutional statutory provision, an
executive order, a procedural norm or a municipal ordinance is
committed to the judiciary." 102

CHECKS AND BALANCES

The three branches of government are separate and
independent-they work within their own spheres-but the
Constitution has also created a syste m of checks and balances tha t
allows one branch to restrain abuse by another. The principle of
separation of powers: (1) allows t h e "blen d 111
" g" of some of. the
00
executive, legisla tive, or judicial pow ers in one body; (2) d oes t

"" Valmont<.> v. Belmonte, C.R. N o. 74930, February 13, 1989.

"" Pagpalain Haulers, Inc. v. Traja no, C .R. No. 133215, July 15, 1999·
ioo See People v. Vcneracion, C.R. N os. 11 9987-88, October 12, 1995.888 Oct lber 29, 1%8.
101
Resins, lnc. v . Auditor General o( the Philippines, G. R. No. L-l 7 ' t
1112
Barrera v. Barrera, C .R. N o. L-31589, July 3 1, 1970.
 46 \ LEG/\L METH ES SE NTIALS 3.0
OD

nrnent f rotn t·n qu ir in g in to th e affairs of

prevent one branch of gover the
. . th e ba lan ce of po w er; bu t (3) en
other bran ch es to m ain tain . . su re s th at
t on matte rs w 1·th ·n th e ex cl us iv e 1u . . .
there 1.s n o en croachm cn I nsd1ction of
tl,,,
•~
other branch es .HD

The Philippin . ' ad he rence to th e pr in ci pl e o f ch k

balances was discus es Electo ral Comm1s . . 104 ec s and
se d in _Angara v. swn. From that
decision we find the
following:
1l1e Constitution
ha s prov1'de d for an el ab or at e
syste m of checks an d balances to se cu re co or . .
in the workings of dm at io n
the va rio us de pa rt f h
overnroent. For exam m e~ ts o t e
ple, th e Ch ie f Ex ec
!u r Constitution is ut iv e un de r
so far m ad e a ch
legislative power th e~k o~ th e
at this as se nt is re
enactment of laws. qw ~e d m th e
This, ho w ev er , is
further check that su bj ec t to th e
a bill m ay be co
notwithstanding th m e a la w
e refusal of th e
approve it, by a vote Pr es id en t to
of tw o- th ird s or th
the case may be, re e- fo ur th s, as
of the N at io na l
President has also th A ss em bl y. Th e
e rig ht to co nv en e
in special session w th e A ss em bl y
he ne ve r he ch oo se
hand, the National s. O n th e ot he r
Assembly op er at es
the Executive in the as a ch ec k on
sense th at its co ns
Commission on A en t th ro ug h its
pp oi nt m en ts is ne
appointment of certa ce ss ar y in th e
in officers; an d th
of a majority of all e co ncu rren ce
its m em be rs is es
conclusion of treat se nt ia l to th e
ies. Fu rt he rm or e,
determine w ha t co in its po w er to
ur ts ot he r th an the
shall be established Su pr eme C ou rt
, to de fin e th ei r ju
appropriate funds ri sd ic tio n an d to
for th ei r su pp or t,
Asse mbly co ntrols th e N at io na l
the judicial de pa rt
extent. The Assembl m en t to a ce rt ai n
y also exercises th
of_ tryin g impe achm e ju di cial po w er
with the Su en ts . A nd th e ju di
ci ar y in tu m ,
preme c ou rt as
th e final ar bi te
r,

"'' Macalint al v Co m
· . .
m1 ss1on on , I'
'"' C.R. No . 4508 1, Jul y 15, 1936. El~c
m1 15, C .R. No
. 157013, Ju ly 10, 2003.
 1
PMILIPPINE HISTORY AND THE LEGAL S YSTEM 147

effectively checks the other departmen ts in the

exercise of its power to determine the law, and hence
to declare executive and legislative acts void if
violative of the Constitution.
In Alejandrina v. Quczon, 105 the Court explained that:
It is peculiarly the duty of the judiciary to say what
the law is, to enforce the Constitution, and to decide
whether the proper constitutional sphere of a
departmen t has been transcende d. The courts must
determine the validity of legislative enactment s as
well as the legality of all private and official acts. To
this extent, do the courts restrain the other
departmen ts.

In the exercise of judicial review, the Executive has no

authority to set aside and overrule a decision of the Supreme
Court. 106

Congress checks the other branches of governme nt

primarily through its law-makin g powers. Congress can create
administra tive agencies, define their powers and duties, and fix the
terms of officers and their compensa tion. It can also create courts,
define their jurisdictio n, and reorganize the Judiciary so long as it
does not undermin e the security of tenure of its members. The
power of Congress does not end with the finished task of legislation .
Connected with its principal power to legislate is the auxiliary
power to ensure that the laws it enacts are faithfully executed .107

The Senate's treaty-concurring power is one form of check

"indispens able toward our nation's pursuit of political maturity and
growth." 108 The confirma ti on of some of the President' s appointee s
by the Commissi on on Appointm ents "contemp lates a syste m of

111
' C.R. No. 22041, September 11 , 1924.
It,;Be
ngzon v. Drilon, C.R. No. 103524, April 15, 1992.
'"' Maca rmtal v. Commission on Elections, C.R.
No. 1570 13, July 10, 200J.
'°' Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v. Exl.'Cutive Secretary, C.R. No. 1)8570, Odobt!r JO, 2000.
 48 I L EGAL M ETHOD E SSENTIALS 3 .0

ch ecks and b alances be tween the executive a n d legislative branches

of government." 109

Judicial rev iew is intend ed to keep the administrative

agency within its jurisdiction a nd to prote ct substantial rights of
parties affected by its decisions. "It is part of the system of checks
and balances which restricts the separation of powers and forestalls
arbitrary and unjust adjudications." 110 The role of the judiciary in
mapping the metes and bounds of powers of the different branches
of government was redefined in the 1987 Constitution, which
expanded the jurisdiction of the Court to include the determination
of "gra ve abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government." m The expansion was made because of the
dissatisfaction with the practice of the Court in frequently invoking
the "political question" doctrine during the period of martial law to
dodge its duty. 112

Impeachment is another check that has become a popular

remedy in the Philippines. It was used successfully against Joseph
Estrada, although he was ultimately removed from office by massive
protests. Former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez and Chief
Justice Renato Corona were also impeached and subsequently
removed from office. Gutierrez, however, resigned rather than face
trial in the Senate.

Threats of impeachment against members of the Supreme

Court are often used as a response to a number of its decisions.
When President Benigno Aquino Ill's Truth Commission was struck

u>i M ana lo v . Sistoza, G .R. No. 107369, Augus t 11, 1999.

110
Mercad o v. Boa rd o f Elec tio n Supe rvisors, G .R. N o. 109713, A pril 6, 1995. .
a b use o f d 1'scre llon
111 Crave
· connotes jud gme nt exercised in a capnc1 . •o u s a n,:I \\•hims1cal
m anner th a t is ta nta m ount to lack of jurisdiction . To be con s idered "grave," discretion m u SI
be exercise
· d· m · a d espotic manne st
r by reason o f passion or p e rsona l h ostility, a nd inu s t be . ·to'
Patl'nt and gross as lo a m o unt to a n e vas io n of positive duty or to a vir 1
· t u a I refu~t1 .
perform th e d t · · 1 11
. u Y cnioined by o r to act a t a ll in conte mpla tio n o f la w . J.{am oi;. v. BT'I fan Y
Sav ing s Ba n k, Inc., C .R. No. 203186, Dece mbe r 4, 201 3. J
'" Sl'e Maca linta l v. Commissio n on Elections, G .R. N o . 15701 3, July lO, 2(JOJ (Punn, ·
concurrin g and dissenting).
 PHILIPPIN E HISTORY ANO THE L EGAL SYSTEM j 49

down as unconstit utional in Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth

Commiss ion of 2010,m administr ation allies in Congress immediat ely
considere d the filing of impeachm ent charges against the Chief
Justice. 114 When the Supreme Court promulga ted De Castro v . Judicial
and Bar Coimcil, m Nueva Ecija Represen tative Eduardo Nona to
Joson said he would start a campaign in Congress to impeach the
nine Supreme Court Justices who voted to allow President Gloria
Macapag al-Arroyo to name the next Chief Justice despite an election
season ban on appointm ents. 116

Several members of Congress and some "comfort

w omen" - women abducted to become sex slaves of Japanese
soldiers During World War II 117 - filed an impeachm ent case
against Associate Justice Mariano del Castiilo "as a warning to the
justices against tolerating dishonest y and injustices in the system" 118
after the Supreme Court exonerate d him 119 from charges that he
plagiarize d swaths of the Court's majority opinion in Vinuya v.
Executive Secretary. I20

Again, House Represen tatives revealed plans to impeach

members of the Court when the Supreme Court cleared the way for
the impeachm ent of the ·Ombuds man in Gutierrez v. The House of
Representa tives Committee on Justice, 121 after it was discovere d that

11
J G.R. No. 192935, December 7, 2010. The Court denied a motion for reconsideratio n on July 2011.
'" Joyce Pangco Paiiares & Rey E. Requejo, Aq11i110: House Allies Plan to lmp,mch Chief fw:tict·,
MANILA STANDARD, December 9, 2010, http://www. manilastand ardtoday.com /
insideNews.h tm?f=2010/d ecember/9/n ewsl.isx&d;2 010/decembe r/9.
115
G.R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010. Abandoning precedent, the Supreme Court ruled th.it
President Gloria Macapagal-A rroyo was not prevented by the constitution,11 bar against
"midnight appointment s" in filling a vacancy two months before a Presidential e lection.
11 6
Gil C. Cabacungan Jr., Lawmaker Starts Move to Impeach 9 SC /11stici:s, PHILIPPINE DAIi Y
IN QUIRER, March 21, 2010.
117
Suzanne M. Sable, Pride, Prej111iice, a111i Japan 's U11ifii:d Stntt!, 11 U. D.C. L. R EV. 7 1, 78 (2008).
,,. Lira Dalangin-Fe rnandez, 11 Salons File Jmpi:ac/1 Rap 1,s SC Juslicl', 1'1-111.. ll'l'I NE DAIL'
INQUIR ER, December 14, 2010, http://newsi nfo.inquircr. nel/breaking news/na tion/View/
201012 l 4-308934/11 -solons-filc-im peach-rn
p-vs-SC-justi ce.
'" In lhe Matter of the Charges of Pl.igiarisrn, etc., Against Associate· Justice MMi,ullJ C. dl:'I
Castillo, A .M . No. 10-7-17-SC, October 12, 2010.
"" C.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010.
,2,G R
· • No. 193459, February 15, 2011.
 50 I L EGAL M ETHOD E SSE NTIALS 3.0

v.,hen the Court initially stopped the proceedings through a Status

Quo An te Order issued on September 14, 2010, members of the Court
122
had not even read the Ombudsman's petition.

The League of Cities sa id it would file an impeachment case

against the seven Justices who voted in favor of the new cities12J
when the Court issued its latest ruling in League of Cities of the
Philippines v. Commission 011 Elections, 124 which exempted these new
cities from the income requirements under the Local Government
Code.

These reactions culminated in the impeachment case against

Chief Justice Renato Corona in December of 2011. 125 He was
removed as Chief Justice after the Senate found him guilty of failing
to declare all of his assets as required by law, making him the first
public official to be removed by impeachment.126

, 21
25
Rodolfo C. Farinas SC Jus/ . H
h . '
v· .
ices ave wlated P11b/1c Trust - Fari,ias, NEWSBREAK, Febru:1ry
' 2011
Status Q ' Allp.//www.newsbreak
. ·Ph/2011/02/25/ sc-1ushces-have-violated-public-trust/.
· • The
uo Ille O rde r itself general d th .
Lead , ,,. , . e reals of impeachment against the Jus tices. S<'t: H1111s,.·
, mn 1ens to Impeach I 115 1-
er , 1 .•
m Ju ancho M '.ces over Merci, fHE PH!LIPl'IN E STAR, December 11, 2010.
1
a 1usay, Eva V1sp d p
Ciiyhood RIii" eras, an aolo Romero, SC Justices Who Flip-j1oppnl 1111
'"S 1o be /1 ·/ f ·1·
http://www ph ·t t . llpenc ,e, ' II E Ptt!Lll'PINE STAR, Ma rch 16, 201L
. ' s ar.com/Art,cle as ? I" I 11
'" G.R. No l 7695l J · px · ar ,c e c =666624&publicationSubCategory Id~.
"' . · , unc 28. 2011.
1here were two failed attem ts at . . . ..
Jo~ph E. Estrada fl ,d . p impeaching Supreme Court Jus tices. Former Pres1d<'nt
1
e an impeachme t · · · h ·
Justices fo r their all •. d . n case aga ins t C hief Jus tice Hilario Dav ide ,md ot e i
. cge role 111 unseati , h 1111 " - • . ··1• I
against Chief Justic, D .d ng as Preside nt 111 2001. Anothe r case was t1 ~,
c a v, c on the all , d · I
was subsequently d d ege mis use of the Judicia ry Developme nt Fund, bu
ecIare uncons titut" 1L 0(
Repre:,enta t-ives, G. R. No iona "Y the Supre me Court. S,:e r ra nciscu v . House
,,, Cathy C y . 160261, November 10 2003
. , · amus.in & Christian V . Es , . ' . _· • . _ .
voti, I HILll"PI NE D A IL g uc rra, Cw //y. Coro11a i\ccepls I at,: Ajla ~l'llail' , 211 -- J
y I NQUU<~R Ma 30 ?Q .
corona-accepts-fa te-aft ' Y , - 12, http://lwwsinfo.inq ui rcr.net/2032 17/gu11ty-
e r-sena te%E2%80%99s-20-:3-vote .
 PHILIPPIN E HISTORY AND IH E L EG AL SYST EM 151

ADJUDI CATION AND THE IDENTIF ICATION OF RULES

MUNICI PAL LAW

When a court exercises its judicial function , it identifie s the

rules that apply to the cases before it. Every case implicat es laws
that can address the issues raised before the courts. The laws may be
the Constitu tion, statutes enacted by Congres s (designa ted as
Presiden tial Decrees during the Marcos Regime, and Republic Acts
thereafte r), 127 administ rative orders issued by departm ent secretari es
pursuan t to statutes, local governm ent ordinanc es, or issuance s by
the Presiden t pursuan t to his or her ordinanc e power.

The Constitu tion is superior to a statute. It is the

fundame ntal and organic law of the land to which every statute
must conform and harmoni ze. 128 Legislati ve enactme nts must not be
repugna nt to the Constitu tion and if a law happens to infringe upon
or violate the fundame ntal law, courts of justice may step in to
nullify its effective ness. 129 Statutes and treaties may be invalida ted if
they are in conflict with the Constitu tion. 130

"The Constitu tion is the basic and paramou nt law to which

all other laws must conform and to which all persons, includin g the
highest official of this land, must defer." The three branche s of
131

governm ent must discharg e their function s within the limits of

authority conferre d by the Constitu tion, thus: Congres s is generall y

p .d
_ resi ent Corazon Aquino issued Proclamati on No. 3, March 25, 1986, es t,lblishing tht•
,21

· b ·
1-rC'edom Conshtuhon · · which authorized her to promulgate laws until the mem ers ot
Congress shall have been elected. In the exercise of her legisla tive powers, Aquino
promulgated the Family Code (Execu tive Order No. 209 [19871) and the Adnl.inis trntive
:;de of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292) among many othl'rs. Although designated ,1s
,:i.·xecu_hve Orders," these are in fact laws that can only be amend1:d o r rept•ali.:'d hy s tat utes.
,1-, ~-qui~o v . Comm ission on Elections, C.R. No.
120265, Septe mber 18, 1995.
' lCJ 1tonio, Jr. v. Commissio n on Audit, C.R. No . 147392, March 12, 2004.
5ecrcta ry 0 f J ·
11 1 Be _. ustice v . Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, ]ilnuary 18, 2000.
ngzon v. Drilon, C .R. No. 103524, April 15, 1992.
52 1LEGAL METHOD E SSENTIAL S 3.0

limited to the enactment of laws; the executive branch to the

enforcement of laws; and the judiciary to their interpretatio n and
application to cases and controversie s. Courts have the duty of
seeing to it tha t the officers in each branch of government do not go
bevond their constitutiona lly allocated boundaries and that the
entire government itself or any of its branches does not violate the
basic liberties of the people.

The rules that apply to any given case may also come from
the executive branch of government . While the making of laws is a
non-delegab le activity that corresponds exclusively to Congress, the
latter may delegate authority to promulgate rules and regulations to
implement a law and effect policies. This is allowed because the
legislature often finds it impracticabl e (if not impossible) to
anticipate and provide for the multifarious and complex situ.ations
that may be met in carrying the law into effect. 132 The rule-making
power of a public administrati ve body is a delegated legislative
pow er, which cannot be used to abridge the authority given it by
Congress or the Constitution , or to enlarge its power beyond the
scope intended. Constitution al and statutory provisions control
what rules and regulations may be promulgate d by such a body, as
well as with respect to what fields are subject to regulation by it. It
may not make rules and regulations that are inconsistent with the
provisions of the Constitution or a statute, particularly the statute it
is administerin g or that created it, or which are in derogation of, or
defeat, the purpose of a statute.133 Rules of administrati ve bodies
mu st be in harmony with the provisions of the Constitution . They
cannot amend or extend the Constitution . rn

rn Free T{'lephonc Workers Union v. Ministe r of Labor and Emf~loymi:>nt C .R. No. L-58l&t.
October 30, 1981. '
'" United BF Homeo wner . ,5 A - · • - 99'-J
. :ssociahon v. Bl· Homes, Inc., C.R. No. 124873, July 1-l, 1 ·
Regulallons p.romu lga ted b Y a d mm1st · · • • d 1·n
, . rJlivc agi:>ncies arc s ubordinate to l{'gisk1t1tm anl
t-a~s of conflict the reg I r - .
u a tun w, 11 not preva il ove r the l.:tw. Scl' Commissione r of Intern.
11
, . . '
Rcv~ nuc v. B1colandi D C .
,,. 0 il rug orporalton, C .R. No. 148083 Jul)' 21 2006.
epa rtment o f Ag rd · R f ' ' A.I1
d • .. . nan t' Orm v. Sutton, C.R. No. 162070 Octob<?r 19, 2005.Thc?I'
a mm1sl.rative agency also wield 6 . . . , ,
have ti quas1-1ud1nal or administrativ<.' adjudicatory powt'r. · · t 11
,
,e pow.. r to hear and d •t ·
a, I , . e ermme ques tions of fact to which the legisla tive pohl')' i s
l PY, anu to deatle in acco rd ance with . • I( in
the s tandards l,1id down by the law its<.·
 PHILIPPINE HISTORY ANO THE LEGAL SYSTEM 153

Acts of the executiv e branch must also conform to the

Constitu tion. The Presiden t is granted an "Ordina nce Power" under
Chapter 2, Book Ill of Executiv e Order No. 292 (Admini strative
Code of 1987). The Code authoriz es the Presiden t to issue any of the
followin g:

Sec. 2. Execu tive Orders. - Acts of the Presiden t

providin g for rules of a general or permane nt
characte r m impleme ntation or executio n of
constitu tional or statutory powers shall be
promulg ated in executiv e orders.

Sec. 3. Administrative Orders. Acts of the

Presiden t which relate to particula r aspect of
governm ental operatio ns in pursuan ce of his duties
as adminis trative head shall be promulg ated in
adminis trative orders.

Sec. 4. Proclamations. - Acts of the Presiden t fixing

a date or declarin g a status or conditio n of public
moment or interest, upon the existence of which
the operatio n of a specific law or regulatio n is
made to depend, shall be promulg ated in
proclam ations which shall have the force of an
executiv e order.

Sec. 5. Memorandum Orders. - Acts of the President on

matters of administrative detail or of subordinate or
temporary interest which only concern a particular
officer or office of the Government shall be embodied
in memoran dum orders.

enforcing and administeri ng the same la w . The administrat ive body exercises its lluas i•
judicial power when it performs, in a jud icial ma nuer, an act which is essentially of ,in
executive or administrat ive nature, where the power to act in such manner is incidl•ntJI to or
reasonably necessary for the performanc e of the executive or administrat ive duty entrusted
tu it. In carrying out their quasi-judic ial functions, the administrat ive oHiccrs or bodies .in:-
required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of foct s, hold hearings, weigh evide_ncc
a nd draw conclusions frum them as basis for their official action, and exerciSt' discrt•tion Ill a
judicial nature. See Smart Communic ations, Inc. v. Pilipino Telephone Corporatio n, C.R. No.
151 908, August
12, 2003.
54 \ LEGAL METHOD ESS ENTIALS 3.0

6 Me111ora11d11 111 Cirw t

Sec. · nr s. - Ac ts of th e
. l
I
!

p . de nt on m att re la tin g to m te rn a
res1 . er s
ad m ini str ati on , w l11c
. l th e Pr es id en t
de sir es to
1
br in g to th e att en tio f th e
n of all or so ~e
de pa rtm en ts, agencie . b ea us or of hc es f h o
s, ur o t e
Go ve rn m ent, fo r in fo r
rm at io n or co m p ia nc h ll
be em bo di ed in m em or e, s a
an du m ci rc ul ar s.

Sec. 7. Ge11 eral or Sp

ecial Orders. - Ac ts
co mm an ds of th e Pr an d
es id en t in hi s ca pa
Co mm an de r-i n- Ch ief ci ty as
of th e Ar m ed Fo rc es
Ph ili pp in es sh all be of th e
iss ue d as ge ne ra l or
sp ec ia l
or de rs .

The Pr es id en t's or di na
nc e po we r is lim ite d
issuances . He ca nn ot iss to th e fo re go in g
ue de cr ee s sim ila r to
Pr es ide nt Marcos un de th os e iss ue d by Fo rm
r Pr es id en tia l Pr oc la er
presidential de cre es we m at io n No . 1081. Thos
re in th e na tu re of la e
force of sta tu tes be ca us ws , w ith th e bi nd in
e th ey we re iss ue d by g
ex ercise of hi s leg isl ati th e Pr es id en t in the
ve po we r du rin g th e
un de r the 1973 Co ns pe rio d of M ar tia l La
tit ut io n.135 In Banda w
concluded th at Exec v. Ermita,136 th e Co ur
utive Or de r No . 37 t
institute necessary re fo 8, wh ic h pu rp or te d to
rm s in go ve rn m en t in
upgrade _efficiency in or de r to im pr ov e an
th e de liv er y of pu bl ic d
th e_functio se rv ic es by re de fin in g
ns of th e Na tio na l Pr in
to its own incom e a d tin g Of fic e an d lim iti
t t ng its fu nd ing
f
to co mp ete with th n o ra ns or m 1t · m
· to a se
lf- re lia nt ag e ncy able
e ·
of Pr es ide nt Arro pn va te se cto r, wa s we ll wi th in th e pr er og ·
yo un d er h er co nt in a tive
power to reo rg anize he ui ng d ele ga te d leg isl .
r ow n office. a ti vt:

As th e Su pr em e C
re ple te wi th d . , · l .
en
. ou rt 1as po in te d ou t, ju ris pr ud e nc 1.
pr ocla ma tio s1on s inv al"1d t' e s
.
ns, 1ett er s of in a m g la w s, de c re es ,
st ·t· ex ec ut iv e o rd er :.,.
------ ru e io n s an d o th e r ex
ec ut iv e iss u an ce~.
1

,,. Da v id v . M .:ica pag a l-A

"

C .R. Nu . 166620 Ap rro yo C R N

· ·120 . . . o. 17 139
n , 2010. 6, Ma y J 2N \L
' VV\ ) .
 PHILIPPINE HISTORY ANO THE L EGAL SYSTEM I 55

incons istent with the Constitution . In /11 tlte Matter of the Petition for
Issu an ce of Writ of Habeas Corpus of Camilo L. Sabio, it cited:

In Pelaez v. Auditor General, the Court considered

repea led Section 68 of the Revised Administrative
Code of 1917 authorizing the Executive to change
the sea t of the government of any subdivision of
local governments, upon the approval of the 1935
Cons titution. Section 68 was adjudged
incompatible and inconsistent with the
Constitutional grant of limi ted executive
supervision over local governments. In Islamic
Dn 'walt Council of the Philippines, Inc. , v. Office of
the Executive Secretary, the Court declared
Executive Order No. 46, entitled "Authorizing the
Office on Muslim Affairs to Undertake Philippine
Halal Certification," void for encroaching on the
religious freedom of Muslims. In The Province of
Batangas v. Romulo, the Court declared some
provisions of the General Appropriations Acts of
1999, 2000 and 2001 unconstitutional for violating
the Constitutional precept on local autonomy.
And in Opie v. Torres, the Court likewise declared
unconstitutional Administrative Order No. 308,
en ti tied "Adoption of a National Computerized
Identification Reference System," for being violative
of the right to privacy protected by the
Cons ti tu tion. 137

"' ln the Ma lter o f the Pe tition for Iss uance of Writ o f H abeas Corpus of C.1111ilo L. Sabio,
C.R No. 174340, O ctober 17, 2006.
56 l LE GAL METHOO ES S ENTl~ LS 3.0

. .
Th e fo llow in g is an exa1np le o f an Ex ec utiv e O rd er :

MALACANAN PALAC
E

MANILA

BY THE PRESIDENT
OF TH E PH IL IP PI N ES

EXECUTIVE ORDER
N O. 30

TRANSFERRING TH
E LA N D
REGISTRATION AU
THORITY (LRA) FR
THE DEPARTMENT OM
OF EN VI RO NM EN
AND NATURAL RESO T
URCES (D EN R) TO
THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE (DOJ),
REPEALING FOR TH
E P~
EXECUTIVE ORDER
NO . 690, SERIES
2007
Th is is th e title of the
I
WHEREAS, th e La nd Ex ec ut iv e O rd er.
Re gi str at io n A ut ho rit Th is O rd er ex pressly
(LRA) w as tra ns fe rre y
d to th e D ep ar en re pe al s a pr io r
En vi ro nm en t an d Na t of
tu ra l Re so ur ce s (DE or de r.
pu rs ua nt to Executiv
e O rd er N o. 690, da
Dece m be r 28, 2007; te d

"W he re as
WH EREAS, the go ve
pu rsu e a m rn m en t is co m m itted
to
cl ause s" usually
.
bu reau cracy orbe resp onsiv e an d effi . co nt ai n the
rou in d .
g y . a op tin g ho m og enc1ou
p g of functio na lly
ent ra tio na le for
agencies; rela ted y , s
is su in g the
g9 sEm 1m en t
or de r.
 --
PHILIP PINE HISTO RY AND THE L EGAL SYSTE
M j S]

WHE REA S, with due rega rd to the quas i-

judic ial func tions being perfo rmed by the
LRA in land regis tratio n cases , and give n the
present man date, orga nizat iona l capa bility ,
expe rtise and expe rienc e of the LRA and its
Registries of Deed s throu ghou t the coun try, it
is more appr opria te that the LRA and its
Registries of Deed s cont inue to perfo rm its
land regis tratio n func tions unde r the
Depa rtme nt of Justi ce (DOJ);

WHEREAS, Secti on 31, Chap ter 10, Title III,

Book III of Exec utive Orde r No. 292, serie s of
1987, other wise know n as the "Adm inist rativ e
Code of 1987 ", prov ides that the Presi dent,
subject to the polic y in the Exec utive Office
and in orde r to achie ve simp licity , econ omy
and efficiency, shall have cont inuin g auth ority
to reorg anize the admi nistr ative struc ture of
the Office of the Presi dent.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BEN IGNO S.

AQUINO lli, Pres iden t of the Repu blic of the
Philippines, by virtu e of the powe rs veste d in
me by the Cons tituti on and exist ing laws , do
hereby order :

SECTION 1. Transferring LRA from DENR to

the DO/. - The LRA is here by trans ferre d
from the DENR to the DOJ in orde r to ensu re
a more effective and effic ient exec ution of
laws relative to land regis tratio n.

SECTION 2. Repealing Clause. - All exec utive -----

order
. s, inc
· Iu d mg
• Exec utive Orde r No. 690,
~enes of 2007, rules and regu latio n and othe r
issuance
---
This Ord er
expressly repea ls
Exec utive Ord er
7
'
s or parts there of that are incon siste nt No. 690 and
impl iedly repe als
I
inco nsist ent
orde rs.
581 L EGAL M ElHOO ESSENflALS 3.0

. .
with the prov1s1ons o f tl11·5 Executive Order
. . '

are hereby either revoked or modified

accordingly.

SECTION 3. Effcctivity. - This Executive- - - - Like statutesI

Order shall take effect immediately upon Executive Orders
publication in the Official Gazette or in a may require
ne,vspaper of general circulation. publication to
become effective.
DONE in the City of Manila, this 14th day of
March, in the year of Our Lord, Two
Thousand and Eleven.

(Sgd.) BENIGNO S. AQUINO ID

By the President:

(Sgd.) PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR.

Executive Secretary

I
 PHILIP PINE HISTO RY ANO THE L EGAL SYSTE
M j 59

The follo wing is an exam ple of a Pres iden tial Proc

lama tion:

MAL ACA NAN PAL ACE

MAN ILA

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHIL IPPI NES

PRO CLA MAT ION NO. 303

DEC LAR ING A STATE OF NAT ION AL

CALAMITY

WHEREAS, the deva stati ng rains and flood

s
caus ed by, typh oon "Sen dong " (inte rnati onal
code nam e: Was hi) have brou ght deat h,
destr uctio n, and incal culab le dam age to the lives
and prop ertie s of Filipinos;

WHEREAS, due to the seve re grav ity of the

dam age, parti cular ly in Regi ons VII, IX, X, XI, and
the CARAGA, the gove rnme nt is spea rhea ding the
entire natio n's effor ts to unde rtake imm edia
te
rescue, recovery, relief and reha bilita tion;

WHEREAS, a decl arati on of a state of natio nal

calamity will haste n the rescu e, relie f and
rehabilitation efforts of the gove rnme nt and the
private sector, inclu ding any inter natio nal
hum anita rian assistance, and will effectivel
y
control the prices of basic good s and com mod ities
for the affected areas·,

WHEREAS, this decl arati on also nece ssita tes that

th
e mechanism s for inte rnati onal hum anita
assistance rian
· 1eme
are imp .
nted purs uant to Republic
Act No. 10121 ; and
60 I LEG AL M ETHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0

WHEREAS, such declara tion will furthe r afford

the local govern ment units ample latitud e to
utili ze their calamity fund for the rescue, relief and
rehabilitation of their constit uents.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BENIGNO S. AQUI NO III,

Preside nt of the Republic of the Philipp ines, by
virtue of the power s vested in me by law, hereby
declare a state of nationa l calamity.

All depart ments and other govern ment agenci es

concerned are hereby directe d to implem ent and
execute medical assistance, relief and rehabi litation
work in accordance with existin g operat ional plans
and directives and orders issued in connec tion
with the occurrence of calamities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereun to set my

hand and caused the seal of the Repub lic of the
Philippines to be affixed.

DONE in the City of Manila, this 20 th day of

December, in the year of Our Lord, Two Thous and
and Eleven .

(Sgd.) BENIGNO S. AQUI NO Ill

By the President:

(Sgd .) PAQUITO N. OCHO A, JR.

Executive Secreta ry
 PHILIPP INE HISTOR Y ANO THE L EGAL S YSTEM 161

LOCA L O RDIN ANCE S

The powe r of local gover nmen t units to legisl ate and enact
ordin ances and resolu tions is merel y a deleg ated po we r comin
g from
Congr ess. 138 Local gover nmen t units canno t undo the acts of Congr
ess,
from which they have deriv ed their powe r in the first place, and
negat e,
by mere ordin ance, the mand ate of the statut e.139 Local gover nmen
ts act
only as agents of the nation al legisl ature and their acts must reflec
t and
confom1 to the will of their princi pal. An ordin ance, to be valid:
1) must
not contra vene the Constitutio n or any statut e; 2) must not be unfa
ir or
oppre ssive; 3) must not be partia l or discrim inator y; 4) must
not
prohibit but m ay regula te trade; 5) must not be unrea sonab le;
and 6)
must be gener al and consis tent with public policy .140

The Supre me Court has held that the right of the owne r to fix a
price at which his prope rty shall be sold or used is an inhere nt attrib
ute
of the prope rty itself and, as such, within the protec tion of the
due
proce ss clause . A lawfu l busin ess or callin g may not, under the guise
of
regula tion, be unrea sonab ly interf ered with even by the exerci
se of
police power . A police measu re for the regula tion of the condu
ct,
control and opera tion of a busin ess shoul d not encro ach upon
the
legitim ate and lawfu l exercise by the citizen s of their prope rty rights 141
.
The gener al rule is that where part of a statut e is void, while
anoth er p art is valid, the valid portio n, if suscep tible to being separ
ated
from the invali d, may stand and be enforc ed. 142

u• Lina v. Sanggu niang Panlala wigai, of Laguna , C .R.

No. 129093, August 30, 2001.
'"" Ma g taias
. v. Pryce Propert
ies Corp., C.R. No. 111097, July 20, 1994.
"" Solicitor Genera l v . Metrop olitan Manila Author ity, C.R. No.
102782, Decem ~r 11, 1991.
Su alsc United States v. Abenda n, C.R. No. 7830, Janua
ry 24, 1913 (An ''ordina n("(' is valid,
~nle_ss _it contrav enes the fundam ental law of the Philipp ine
1 lslanJs, or an Act of the
hihppm e Legisla ture, or unless it is agains t public policy, o r is
unreasonable, oppress ive,
parllal, d iscrimin a ting, or in derogat ion of commo n right.")
· v. c ourt of First
"' Bal acuJt
Instanc e of Agusan Del Norte and !Jutuan City, G. R. No. L-38429
30 ,
Junt' , l988. See also City of Manila v. Laguio, C.R. No. 118127,
April 12, 2005 ior a n
~xample of a n uncons titution al ordinan ct!
u 1 h •mand S S I .
0 .
v. 1. nolasti ca's Colll'ge , C .R. No. 161107, March 12, 2013.
 62 I L EGAL M ETHOD E SSENTIALS 3.0

INTERNATIONAL LAW
In its Declaration of Principles and State Policies, the
Constitution "adopts the generally accepted principles of international
law as part of the law of the land, and adher~s to t~e policy _o f ace, p: 1

equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and am1_ty, with all nations. By

the doctrine of incorpora tion, the country 1s bound by generally
accepted principles of international Jaw, which are considered to be
automatically part of our own laws.143 Under this doctrine, such
principles are deemed incorporated in the law of every civilized state as
a condition and consequence of its membership in the society of nations.
The state is automatically obligated to comply with these principles in
its relations with other states. 144
The principle of pacta sunt servanda demands the performance
in good faith of treaty obligations on the part of the states that enter into
the agreement. Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties, and
obligations under the treaty must be performed by them in good faith.
Treaties have the force and effect of law in this jurisdiction.145

In the resolution of legal disputes, courts also apply the

sources of international law as listed under Article 38 of the Statute of
the International Court of Justice (ICJ). These are: (1) international
conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly
recognized by the contesting states; (2) international custom, as
evidence of a general practice accepted as law; (3) the general principles
of law_ recognized by civilized nations; and (4) subject to the provisions
of A_r~icle 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly
qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the
determination of rules of law.146

In Republic 0! the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, 147 the Supreme

Court held th at the EDSA Revolution that too k place on February 1986

0
' Tanad a V An . GR
,., ., · gara, · • Nu. I 18295, M.iy 2. 1997.
W y ht v. l<arang, G .R. No. 74135 M a . . . .
C R No 76607 r h ' Y 28, 199 2, c ,11111, Uni ted S tates of Ame ricn v Gu111tt1,
,, · · ' ·c rua,) ' 26, 1990. ' ·
' Srt' De utsche Bank A,, M . .1. D h
0
18n55U, August 19, o .im a ran c v · Co mm1ss1 · . ·on1:r o f lnkn,d) R,• vcnue, C,.k
- , N' o.
2013 _

I
'"' lla)•an Muna v . Rom ulu C R
,., CH N HJ4 7 , .,, . No. 1596 18, February I 'lOJ 1
· · o. 68, July 21. 2003 ' .. ·

I
 PHILIPPINE HISTORY AND THE lEOAL S YS TEM
163

leading to the removal of President Ferdinand Marcos from office

produced a revolutionary government that was not bound by any
constitutional or legal limitations "except treaty obligations that the
revolutionary government, as the de j11rc government in the Philippines,
assumed under international law."

Illustration

Identifying the laws that apply can be a difficult task. The

Court in Pandi v. Court of Appea[s 148 applied as many as four different
laws in determining the validity of three appointments to the Provincial
Health Office of Lanao del Sur either by the Provincial Governor or the
Secretary of Health of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao.
On the basis of the time period of the respective appointments, the
Court applied the Organic Act of 1989, the 1991 Local Government
Code, the Local Government Code of the Autonomous Region of
Muslim Mindanao, and the Organic Act of 2001 in ruling on the validity
of two appointment s and the invalidity of one. The Court reasoned as
follows on ruling on the validity or invalidity of the of?cers'
appointments:

On this date [during the effectivity of the Organic Act

of 1989] the provincial health officer of Lanao del Sur
was still a national government official paid entirely
from national funds. The provincial health officer was
still appointed by the national Secretary of Health to a
region and not to a province. The Secretary of Health
exercised supervision and control over the provincial
health officer. The Secretary of Health was also the
official authorized by law to assign the provincial
health officer to any province within the region.

The Court continued that at a subsequent date,

[t]he provincial health officer of Lanao del Sur became

a provincial government official only after the

'" C.R. No. 116850, April ll , 2002.

64 I LEGAL METHOD E SSENTIALS 3.0

. .
effectw1ty o f the ARMM Loca l Cod e, whic h was
enacte d bY the Regional Asse mbly on Janu ary 25,
1994 and approved by the Regional Gov erno r on
March 3, 1994 _ Prior to the ARMM Local Cod e but
after the issuance of Executive Ord er No. 133,
the
Regional Governor appo inted the prov incia l heal
th
officer while the Regional Secretary of Hea lth coul
d
assign the provincial heal th officer to any prov ince
within the ARMM. The Provincial Gov erno r had
no
power to appoint or even desi gnat e the Officer-in
-
Charge of the provincial heal th office ...
[Subsequently] [t]he ARMM Local Cod e vest s in the
Provincial Governor the pow er to "exercise gene
ral
supervision and control over all prog rams , projects,
services, and activities of the provincial gove rnm ent."
Upon the effectivity of the ARM M Local Cod e,
the
power of supervision and control over the prov incia
l
health officer passed from the Regional Secr etary
to
the Provincial Governor. From then on the Prov incia
l
Governor began to exercise the adm inist rativ
e
authority to designate an Officer-in -Cha rge in
the
provincial health office pend ing the appo intm ent of
a
permanent provincial heal th officer.