CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 HAND OUT
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
SAFEGUARDS IN THE CONSTITUTION
1. The Supreme Court is a constitutional body. It cannot
be abolished nor may its membership or the manner of
its meetings be changed by mere legislation. (Sec.
4(1), Art. VIII);
2. The members of the Supreme Court may not be
removed except by impeachment. (Sec. 2, Art. XI);
3. The Supreme Court may not be deprived of its
minimum original and appellate jurisdiction as
prescribed in Art. VIII, Section 5, Constitution. (Sec. 2,
Art. VIII);
4. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme court may
not be increased by law without its advice and
concurrence. (Sec. 30, Art. VI);
5. Appointees to the judiciary are now nominated by
the Judicial and Bar Council and no longer subject to
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
(Sec. 9, Art. VIII);
6. The Supreme Court now has administrative
supervision over all lower courts and their personnel.
(Sec. 6, Art. VIII);
7. The Supreme Court has exclusive power to
discipline judges of lower courts. (Sec. 11, Art. VIII);
8. The members of the Supreme Court and all lower
courts have security of tenure, which cannot be
undermined by law reorganizing the judiciary.
(Supra);
9. They shall not be designated to any agency
performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.
(Sec. 12, Art. VIII);
10. The salaries of judges may not be reduced during
their continuance in office. (Sec. 10, Art. VIII);
11. The judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. (Sec. 3,
Art. VIII);
12. The Supreme Court alone may initiate rules of
court. (Sec. 5(5), Art. VIII);
13. Only the Supreme Court may order the temporary
detail of judges. (Sec. 5(3), Art. VIII);
14. the Supreme Court can appoint all officials and
employees of the judiciary. (Sec. 5(6), Art. VIII).
Judicial Power
TRADITIONAL MEANING:
 “The judicial power is vested not only in the
Supreme Court but in such lower courts as
may be established by law.” (Sec. 1, par. 1,
Art. VIII)
 This involves settling conflicting rights as
conferred by law.
 “Lower Courts” refers to all other courts below
the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is
the only constitutional court, all the lower
courts being of statutory creation.
 As the Constitution speaks only of “one”
Supreme Court, it is not competent for the
legislature to create even a temporary
Supreme Court.
EXPANDED MEANING:
“Judicial powers include the duty of the courts of
justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which
are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
any branch or instrumentality of the government.” (Sec. 1,
par. 2, Art. VIII)
JUDICIAL PRIVILEGE (DELIBERATIVE PROCESS
PRIVILEGE)
Judicial Privilege (Deliberative Process Privilege or DPP)
 The privilege against disclosure of information or
communications that formed the process of judicial
decisions.
 This applies to confidential matters, which refer to
information not yet publicized by the Court like (1)
raffle of cases, (2) actions taken in each case in the
Court’s agenda, and (3) deliberations of the
Members in court sessions on case matters pending
before it.
 This privilege, however, is not exclusive to the
Judiciary and it extends to the other branches of
government due to our adherence to the principle of
separation of powers. (In Re: Production of Court
Records and Documents and the Attendance of
Court Officials and Employees as Witnesses under
the Subpoenas of Feb. 10, 2012 and the Various
Letters of Impeachment Prosecution Panel dated
January 19 and 25, 2012, February 14, 2012)
Purpose of Judicial Privilege
 To prevent the ‘chilling’ of deliberative
communications. It insulates the Judiciary from an
improper intrusion into the functions of the judicial
branch and shields judges, justices, and court
officials and employees from public scrutiny or the
pressure of public opinion that would impair their
ability to render impartial decisions. (Ibid.)
Requisites for a document to be protected by DPP
It must be shown that the document is both:
 Pre-decisional – If they were made in the attempt to
reach a final decision; and
 Deliberative – If it reflects the give-and-take of the
consultative process such as the disclosure of the
information would discourage open discussion within
the agency.
NOTE: Court records which are pre-decisional and deliberative
in nature are thus protected and cannot be the subject of
subpoena if judicial privilege is to be preserved. (Ibid.)
NOTE: In a case where the House Impeachment Panel, through
letters, asked for the examination of records and the issuance of
certified true copies of the rollos and the Agenda and Minutes of
Deliberations of specific SC-decided cases and at the same
time, requested for the attendance of court officials including
judges, justices, and employees as witnesses under subpoenas,
it was held that Members of the Court may not be compelled to
testify in the impeachment proceedings against the Chief Justice
or other Members of the Court about information acquired in the
GROUP 2
KALINGA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 HAND OUT
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
performance of their official adjudicatory functions and duties;
otherwise, their disclosure of confidential matters learned in their
official capacity violates judicial privilege as it pertains to the
exercise of the constitutional mandate of adjudication. (Ibid.)
XPN: If the intent only is for them to identify or certify the
genuineness of documents within their control that are not
confidential and privileged, their presence in the Impeachment
Court may be permitted.
WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE
 This privilege, incidentally, belongs to the Judiciary and
is for the SC (as the representative and entity speaking
for the Judiciary), and not for the individual justice,
judge, or court official or employees to waive. Thus,
every proposed waiver must be referred to the SC for
its consideration and approval.
PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL RESTRAINT
 Theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges
to limit the exercise of their own power.
 In terms of legislative acts, it means that every
intendment of the law must be adjudged by the courts
in favor of its constitutionality, invalidity being a
measure of last resort. Therefore, in construing the
provisions of a statute, courts must first ascertain
whether an interpretation is possible to sidestep the
question of constitutionality. (Estrada v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19,
2001)
Jurisdiction
Constitutional Provision:
 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. No law shall be passed
reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the
security of tenure of its Members. (Sec. 2, Art. VIII)
NATURE OF JURISDICTION:
 Jurisdiction is defined as the authority by which the
courts take cognizance of and decide cases, the legal
right by which the judges exercise the authority.
(Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 991)
LIMITATIONS IN CONGRESS’ POWER TO PRESCRIBE
JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT:
 The SC shall have the power to exercise original
jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and
habeas corpus. (Sec. 5, par. 1, Art. VIII)
 The SC shall have the power to review, revise,
reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as
the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final
judgments and orders of lower courts in:
1. All cases in which the constitutionality or
validity of any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, presidential
decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.
2. All cases involving the legality of any tax,
impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty
imposed in relation thereto.
3. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any
lower court is in issue.
4. All criminal cases in which the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
5. All cases in which only an error or question
of law is involved. (Sec. 5, par. 1, Art. VIII)
 No law shall be passed increasing the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this
Constitution without its advice and concurrence. (Sec.
30, Art. VI).
Appointments
QUALIFICATIONS:
 A Member of the Judiciary must be a person
of proven competence, integrity, probity, and
independence. (Sec. 7(3), Art. VIII)
a. Justices of the Supreme Court:
- Qualification:
1. Natural-Born Filipino Citizen;
2. At least 40 years old;
3. Have been for 15 years or more, a
judge or engaged in the practice of
law in the Philippines. (Sec. 7(1),
Art. VIII).
b. Justices of Lower Collegiate Courts:
 Qualification: No person shall be appointed
Member of any lower collegiate court unless he is a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines. (Sec. 7(1),
Art. VIII).
c. Judges of Lower Courts:
 Qualification: The Congress shall prescribe the
qualifications of judges of lower courts, but no
person may be appointed judge thereof unless he
is a citizen of the Philippines and a member of the
Philippine Bar. (Sec. 7(2), Art. VIII)
JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (JBC):
A. Composition of the JBC:
 Ex-Officio Members: Chief Justice (Chairman);
Secretary of justice, and Representative of
Congress.
 Regular Members: Representative of the
Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired
Member of the Supreme Court, and a
representative of the private sector. (Sec. 8(1),
Art. VIII)
 Secretary Ex-Officio: The Clerk of the Supreme
GROUP 2
KALINGA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 HAND OUT
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Court. (Sec. 8(3), Art. VIII).
B. Appointment/Term:
 The regular members of the Council shall be
appointed by the President for a term of four
years with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments. Of the Members first appointed,
the representative of the Integrated Bar shall
serve for four years, the professor of law for
three years, the retired Justice for two years,
and the representative of the private sector for
one year. (Sec. 8(2), Art. VIII)
C. Function of the JBC:
 The Council shall have the principal function of
recommending appointees to the judiciary. It
may exercise such other functions and duties
as the Supreme Court may assign to it. (Sec.
8(5), Art. VIII)
D. Appointment from List of Nominees:
 The Members of the Supreme Court and
judges of lower courts shall be appointed by
the President from a list of at least three
nominees preferred by the Judicial and Bar
Council for every vacancy. Such appointments
need no confirmation.
Fiscal Autonomy
Constitutional Provision:
 The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy.
Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be
reduced by the legislature below the amount
appropriated for the previous year and, after
approval, shall be automatically and regularly
released. (Sec. 3, Art. VIII)
 In Bengzon v. Drilon (G.R. No. 103524, April 15,
1992), the SC explained that fiscal autonomy
contemplates a guarantee of full flexibility to
allocate and utilize resources with the wisdom and
dispatch that the needs require.
 It recognizes the power and authority to deny,
assess and collect fees, fix rates of compensation
not exceeding the highest rates authorized by law
for compensation and pay plans of the government
and allocate and disburse such sums as may be
provided by law or prescribed by it in the course of
the discharge of its functions.
Composition of the Supreme Court
 The Supreme Court shall be composed of a
Chief Justice and fourteen Associate
Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion,
in division of three, five, or seven Members.
Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days
from the occurrence thereof. (Sec. 4(1), Art.
VII)
 During the period covered by Sec. 15, Art.
VII, the SC held that “The President is
neither required to make appointments to
the courts nor allowed to do so, and and
Secs. 4(1) and 9 of Art. VIII simply means
that the President is required to fill
vacancies in the courts within the time
frames provided therein unless prohibited
by Sec. 15, Art.
VII. It is noteworthy that the prohibition on
appointments comes into effect only once
every 6 years.” (In Re: Appointment of Mateo
A. Valenzuela and Placido Vallarte, AM no.
98-5-01-SC, November 9, 1998)
 The ruling in In Re: Appointment of
Valenzuela and Vallarte has been reversed
by the SC in the case of De Castro vs. JBC.
EN BANC AND DIVISION CASES:
 All cases involving the constitutionality of a
treaty, international or executive
agreement, or law, which shall be heard by
the Supreme Court en banc, and all other
cases which under the Rules of Court are
required to be heard en banc, including
those involving the constitutionality,
application, or operation of presidential
decrees, proclamations, orders,
instructions, ordinances, and other
regulations, shall be decided with the
concurrence of a majority of the Members
who actually took part in the deliberations
on the issues in the case and voted
thereon. (Sec. 4(2), Art. VIII)
 Cases or matters heard by a division shall be
decided or resolved with the concurrence of a
majority of the Members who actually took
part in the deliberations on the issues in the
case and voted thereon, and in no case
without the concurrence of at least three of
such Members.
 When the required number is not obtained, the
case shall be decided en banc: Provided, that
no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the
Power of Judicial Inquiry
court in a decision rendered en banc or in
division may be modified or reversed except by
the court sitting en banc. (Sec. 4(3), Art. VIII)
CONSTITUTIONAL BASES OF THE POWER
GROUP 2
KALINGA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 HAND OUT
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
OF JUDICIAL INQUIRY:
- 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. (Sec. 1, Art. VIII)
- All cases involving the constitutionality of
a treaty, international or executive agreement,
or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme
Court en banc, and all other cases which under
the Rules of Court are required to be heard en
banc, including those involving the
constitutionality, application, or operation of
presidential decrees, proclamations, orders,
instructions, ordinances, and other regulations,
shall be decided with the concurrence of a
majority of the Members who actually took part
in the deliberations on the issues in the case
and voted thereon. (Sec. 4(2), Art. VIII)
Requisites of Judicial Inquiry
1. There must be an actual case or controversy;
2. The question of constitutionality must be raised
by the proper party;
3. The constitutional question must be raised at
the earliest possible opportunity; and
4. The decision of the constitutional question must
be necessary to the determination of the case
itself. (Dumalo vs. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392)
A. ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY
MEANING OF CONTROVERSY:
 It involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of
opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial
resolution. (Cruz, p. 491)
 The case must not be moot or academic or based
on extra-legal or other similar considerations not
cognizable by a court of justice.
PRINCIPLE OF MOOTNESS:
 A case becomes moot when its purpose has
become stale. It is unnecessary to indulge in
academic discussion of a case presenting a moot
question as a judgment thereon cannot have any
practical legal effect or, in the nature of things,
cannot be enforced. (Garcillano vs. House of
Representatives, Supra)
EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS PRINCIPLE:
1. There is a grave violation of Constitution;
2. The exceptional character of the situation and the
paramount public interest is involved;
3. When the constitutional issue raised requires
formulation of the controlling principles to guide the
bench, the bar, and the public; and
4. The case is capable of repetition yet evading review.
(David vs. Arroyo, GR no. 171396, May 3, 2006; Garcillano vs.
House of Representatives, Supra)
B. PROPER PARTY
DIRECT INQUIRY TEST:
 In People v. Vera, it was held that a person who
impugns the validity of a statute must have "a
personal and substantial interest in the case such
that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as
a result." The "direct injury test" in public suits is
similar to the "real party in interest" rule for private
suits under Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure.
LOCUS STANDI:
 The doctrine of locus standi or the right of
appearance in court requires a litigant to have a
material interest in the outcome of a case. In
private suits, locus standi requires a litigant to be a
"real party in interest," which is defined as "the
party who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the
avails of the suit.
WITH LOCUS STANDI:
A. GOVERNMENT
 The government is the proper party to question the
constitutionality of the Proclamation Act because,
more than anyone else, it should be concerned
over the validity of its own laws. (People v. Vera, 65
Phil. 56
B. CITIZENS
 A citizen can raise a constitutional question only
when:
1. He can show that he has personally
suffered some actual or threatened injury
because of the allegedly illegal conduct of
the government.
2. The inquiry is fairly traceable to the
challenged action
3. A favorable action will likely redress the
injury.
 On the other hand, a party suing as a taxpayer
must specifically show that he has a sufficient
interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of
money raised by taxation and that he will sustain a
direct inquiry as a result of the enforcement of the
questioned statue. (Francisco v. Fernando, G.R.
No. 166501, November 16, 2006, 507 SCRA 173)
C. FACIAL CHALLENGE
 When a penal state statute encroaches upon the
freedom of speech, a facial challenge grounded on
the void-for-vagueness doctrine is acceptable. The
inapplicability of the doctrine mist be carefully
delineated. As Justice Antonio T. Carpio explained
in his dissent, “We must view these statements of
GROUP 2
KALINGA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 HAND OUT
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
the Court on the inapplicability of the over breadth
and vagueness doctrines to penal statutes as
appropriate only insofar as these doctrines are
used to mount facial challenges to penal statutes
not involving free speech.”
D. TAXPAYERS
C. EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY
 Taxpayers may raise the question of the validity of
an appropriate law; there must be a claim of illegal
disbursement of public funds or that the tax
members is unconstitutional; or deflected to an
illegal purpose or that there is a wastage of public
funds through the enforcement of an invalid or
unconstitutional law. The court retains discretion
whether or not to allow a taxpayer’s suit.
 A person suing as a taxpayer must show that the
act complained of directly involves the illegal
disbursement of public funds derived from
taxation. He must also prove that he has sufficient
interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of
money raised taxation and that he will sustain a
direct injury because of the enforcement of the
questioned statute or contract. (Mamba vs. Lara,
GR no. 165109, December 14, 2009)
Two Requisites for a Taxpayer’s suit to
prosper:
 Public funds derived from taxation are disbursed by
a political subdivision or instrumentality and in
doing so, a law is violated or some irregularity is
committed; and
 The petitioner is directly affected by the alleged act.
(Mamba vs. Lara, Supra)
E. LEGISLATORS
 In the case of suits initiated by the legislators
themselves, this court has recognized their
standing to question the validity of any official
action that they claim infringes the
prerogatives, powers, and privileges vested
by the Constitution in their office.
 There must be a claim that the official action
complained if infringes upon their
prerogatives as legislators.
 An act of the executive that injures the
institution of Congress causes a derivative
but nonetheless substantial injury that can be
questioned by legislators.
F. PEOPLE’S ORGANIZATIONS/NON-
GOVERNEMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
 People’s organization may be considered as
proper parties if the matter involves an issue
of utmost and far-reaching constitutional
importance, namely, the qualification- nay,
the citizenship-of a person to be appointed a
member of the Supreme Court.
G. VOTERS
 For voters to be acknowledged as proper
parties, there must be a showing of obvious
interest in the validity of the lection law in
question.
H. LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT
 A local government unit can seek relief in
order to protect or vindicate an interest of its
own, and of the other LGUs.
I. INTERVENORS
 Intervenors may be given legal standing upon
showing of facts that satisfy the requirements
of the law authorizing intervention, such as a
legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in
the success of either of the parties.
WHEN IS THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE A
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION?
General Rule:
 The rule is that the constitutional question must be
raised at the earliest possible opportunity, such that
if it is not raised in the pleadings, it cannot be
considered at the trial, and if it not considered in
the trial, it cannot be considered on appeal.
(Matibag vs. Benipayo, 667 SCRA 150)
Exceptions:
1. In criminal cases, the constitutional question can be
raised at any time in the discretion of the court;
2. In civil cases, the constitutional question can be
raised at any stage if it is necessary to the
determination of the case itself;
3. In every case, except where there is estoppel, the
D. NECESSITY OF DECIDING CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION
constitutional question may be raised at any stage
if it involves the jurisdiction of the court. (Cosco
Phils. Shipping vs. Kemper Insurance, GR no.
179488, April 23, 2012)
Note:
 Every law has in its favor the presumption of
validity. Unless and until a specific provision of the
law is declared invalid and unconstitutional, the
same is valid and binding for all intents and
purposes. (SEC vs. Interport Resources Corp., GR
no. 135808, October 6, 2008)
SEVEN PILLARS OF LIMITATIONS OF THE POWER OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW:
1. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of
legislation in a friendly, non-adversary proceeding,
declining because to decide such questions "is
legitimate only in the last resort, and as a necessity in
the determination of real, earnest and vital controversy
between individuals. It never was the thought tht, by
means of a friendly suit, a party beaten in the
legislature could transfer to the courts an inquiry as to
the constitutionality of the legislative act.";
2. The Court will not "anticipate question of constitutional
law in advance of the necessity of deciding it." "It is not
the habit of the Court to decide questions of a
constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a
decision of the case;
3. The Court will not formulate a rule of constitutional law
broader than is required by the precise facts to which it
is to be applied.";
GROUP 2
KALINGA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 HAND OUT
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
4. The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question
although properly presented by the record, if there is
also present some other ground upon which the case
may be disposed of. This rule has found most varied
application. Thus, if a case can be decided on either of
two grounds, one involving a constitutional question,
the other a question of statutory construction or
general law, the Court will decide only the latter.
Appeals from the highest court of a state challenging
its decision of a question under the Federal
Constitution are frequently dismissed because the
judgment can be sustained on an independent state
ground;
5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute
upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is
injured by its operation. Among the many applications
of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of the
right of challenge to one who lacks a personal or
property right. Thus, the challenge by a public official
interested only in the performance of his official duty
will not be entertained. In Fairchild v. Hughes, 258
U.S. 126, the Court affirmed the dismissal of a suit
brought by a citizen who sought to have the
Nineteenth Amendment declared unconstitutional. In
Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, the challenge
of the federal Maternity Act was not entertained
although made by the Commonwealth on behalf of all
its citizens;
6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a
statute at the instance of one who has availed himself
of its benefits;
7. "When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn
in question, and even if a serious doubt of
constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that
this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of
the statute is fairly possible by which the question may
be avoided.'(Demetria vs. Alba, GR no. 71977,
February 27, 1987).
EFFECTS OF A DECLARATION OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY:
Orthodox View:
- An unconstitutional act is not a law; itt confers no rights; it
imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no
office; it is inoperative, as if it had not been passed. It is
therefore stricken from the statute books and considered
never to have existed at all. Not only the parties but all
persons are bound by the declaration of the
unconstitutionality, which means that no one may thereafter
invoke it nor may the courts be permitted to apply it in
subsequent cases. It is a total nullity. (Norton vs. Shelby
County, 118 US. 425)
- The Court may give its reasons for ignoring or
disregarding the law, but the decision affects the
parties only and there is no judgment against the
statute.
- The opinion or reasons of the court may operate
as a precedent for the determination of other
similar cases, but it does not strike the statute
books; it does not repeal, supersede, revoke, or
annul the statute. The parties to the suit are
concluded by the judgment, but no one else is
bound. (Shepard vs. Barren, 194 US. 553)
PARTIAL UNCONSTITUTIONALITY:
 A declaration of partial unconstitutionality will be
valid only if 2 conditions concur; (1) That the
legislature is willing to retain the valid portions
even if the rest of the statute is declared illegal,
and (2) That the valid portions can stand
independently as a separate statute.
 The legislative willingness to retain the valid
portions may be expressed in the “Separability
Clause”.
 This usually provides that “if for any reason any
section or provision of this Act is declared invalid
or unconstitutional, the remainder of the Act shall
not be affected by such declaration.”
 But even without such a separability clause, it has
been held that if the valid portion is so far
independent of the invalid portion, it may be fair to
presume that the legislature would have enacted it
by itself if it had supposed that it could
constitutionally do so.
 In the case of Flores vs. COMELEC (184 SCRA
484), Sec. 9 of RA 6679 was declared
unconstitutional while the rest of the statute was
upheld.
Powers of the Supreme Court
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:
- The SC shall have the power to exercise original
jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. (Sec.
5(1), Art. VIII)
APPELLATE JURISDICTION:

Modern View:
- The court in passing upon the question of
constitutionality does not or repeal the statute if it
finds it in conflict with the Constitution. It refuses to
recognize it and determines the rights of the
parties just as if such statute had no existence.
GROUP 2
KALINGA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 HAND OUT
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
The SC shall have the power to review, revise, reverse, modify, or
affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may
provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
1. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any
treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.
2. All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation
thereto.
3. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in
issue.
4. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua or higher.
5. All cases in which only an error or question of law is
involved. (Sec. 5(2), Art. VIII)
Right to Appeal is not embraced in Due Process:
 As long as the parties have been given the opportunity
to be heard in the lower court, they cannot demand the
right to appeal if the legislature sees fit to withhold it.
Appeal is, as a general rule, a matter of statutory right
entirely dependent upon the discretion or policy of the
lawmaking body. (Cruz, p. 540)
Competence of the Supreme Courts to decide
Constitutional Questions:
 The RTC have the authority and jurisdiction to
consider the constitutionality of statutes, executive
orders, presidential decrees and other ossuances. The
Constitution vests that power not only in the Supreme
Court but in all Regional Trial Courts. (Planters
Products, Inc. vs. Fertiphil, GR no. 166006, March 14,
2008)
TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES:
 The SC shall have the power to assign temporarily
judges of lower courts to other stations as public
interest may require. Such temporary assignments
shall not exceed six months without the consent of the
judge concerned. (Sec. 5(3), Art. VIII)
CHANGE OF VENUE OR PLACE OF TRIAL:
 The SC shall have the power to order a change of
venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
(Sec. 5(4), Art. VIII).
RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT:
 The SC shall have the power to promulgate rules
concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure
in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the
integrated bar, and legal assistance to the 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. (Sec. 5(5), Art.
VIII)
Limitations on the Rule-Making power:
1. The rule shall provide a simplified and inexpensive
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases;
2. The rules shall be uniform for courts of the same
grade; and
3. The rules shall not diminish, increase, or modify
substantive rights. (Sec. 5(5), Art. VIII, 1987
Constitution)
APPOINTMENT OF COURT PERSONNEL:
 The SC shall have the power to appoint all officials
and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the
Civil Service Law. (Sec. 5(6), Art. VIII)
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF COURTS
 The Supreme Court shall have administrative
supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.
(Sec. 6, Art. VIII)
TENURE OF THE JUDGES
Constitutional Provision:
 The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of the
lower court shall hold office during good behavior until
they reach the age of seventy years or become
incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The
Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to
discipline judges of lower courts, or order their
dismissal by a vote of majority of the Members who
actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in
the case and voted in thereon. (Sec. 11, Art. VIII)
CONSULTATION
Constitutional Provision
 The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case
submitted to it for the decision en banc or in division
shall be reached in consultation before the case
assigned to a Member for the writing of the opinion of
the Court. A certification to this effect signed by the
Chief Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof
attached to the record of the case and served upon the
parties. Any Member who took no part, or dissented, or
abstained from a decision or resolution must state the
reason therefor. The same requirements shall be
observed by all lower collegiate court. (Sec. 13, Art.
VIII)
SALARIES OF MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY
SALARIES OF MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY:
 The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate
Justices of the Supreme Court, and of judges of lower
courts shall be fixed by law. During the continuance in
office, their salary shall not be decreased. (Sec. 10,
Art. VIII)
GROUP 2
KALINGA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 HAND OUT
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
DECISION OF THE COURT

Constitutional Provision:
 No decision shall be rendered by any court without
expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and
the law on which it is based.
 No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a
decision of the court shall be refused due course or
denied without stating the legal basis therefor. (Sec.
14, Art. VIII)

PERIODS FOR DECISION

Constitutional Provision:
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 delay. (Sec. 15, Art. VIII)
ANNUAL REPORT

ANNUAL REPORT:
 The Supreme Court shall, within thirty days from the
opening of each regular session of the Congress,
submit to the President and the Congress an annual
report on the operations and activities of the Judiciary.
(Sec. 16, Art. V).

GROUP 2
KALINGA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW