ARTICLE VIII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

− Holds neither purse or sword

− An indispensable department of every democratic government
− The bastion of the rights and liberties of the people

INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY

− 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
− The members of the Supreme Court may not be removed except by
impeachment
− The Supreme Court may not be deprived of its minimum original and appellate
jurisdiction as prescribed by ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 5 of the Constitution
− The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may not be increased by law
without its advice and concurrence
− Appointees to the judiciary are now nominated by the Judicial and Bar council
and no longer subject to confirmation by the Commission of Appointment (sec.
9)
− The Supreme Court now has administrative supervision over all courts and
their personnel (sec. 6)
− The Supreme Court has exclusive power to discipline judges of lower courts
(sec. 11)
− The members of the Supreme Court and all lower courts have security of
tenure, which cannot be undermined by a law reorganizing the judiciarty
− They shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or
administrative functions (sec. 12)
− The salaries of judges may not be reduced during their continuance in office
(sec. 10)
− The judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy (sec. 3)
− The Supreme Court alone may initiate rules of court
− Only the supreme Court may order the temporary detail of judges (sec 5)
− The Supreme Court can appoint all officials and employees of the judiciary

JUDICIAL POWER

− Sec. 1, Article VIII

“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 demand-able 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.”

− The Supreme Court is the ONLY constitutional court, all lower courts being
statutory creation
− Lower courts are referred to all other courts below the Supreme Court:
 COURT OF APPEALS
 REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
 METROPOILITAN TRIAL COURT
 MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
 MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS
− NOT INCLUDED
 COURT OF TAX APPEALS
 SANDIGANBAYAN
 SHARIA COURTS
 − The Constitution speaks only ONE Supreme Court, not competent for the
legislature to create temporary Supreme Court to sit in special cases

− Represents the traditional concept of conflicting rights as conferred by law.

“Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such
lower courts as may be established by law.”

− Represents a broadening of judicial power to enable the courts of justice to

review what was before forbidden territory, to wit, the discretion of the political
departments of the government.

“Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demand-able 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.”

− The new provisions vests in the judiciary, and particularly the Supreme Court
− The power to review even the political decisions of the executive and the
excess of jurisdiction because tainted with “grave abuse of discretion”
− GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, elastic phrase that can expand or contract
according to the disposition of the Judiciary
− POLITICAL DOCTRINE, expanded the power of judicial review
− Judicial power may be exercised :
 In the existence of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of
the government
 Where there are serious allegations that a law has infringed the
Constitution
 Becomes the duty of the Court to look into such allegations and
when warranted, uphold the supremacy of the Constitution

− Includes the power to set aside acts of government, even if not tainted with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
− Judicial power includes the power of the courts “to alter, modify or set aside
their decisions before they become final and unalterable
− Covers the continuing authority of the Supreme Court to enforce its final
decisions because the execution of its decision is but an integral part of its
adjudicative function
− May issue a writ of continuing mandamus to ensue compliance with its
decision

JURISDICTION

− Section 2, Article VIII

“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. “

− JURISDICTION, defined as the authority by which courts take cognizance of

and decide cases, the legal right by which judges exercise their authority
− JURISDICTION OVER CASES, prescribed by the Congress subject to
constitutional limitations
− The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be increased by law, may
not be done except upon the advice and with the concurrence of the Supreme
Court
− No law may be passed depriving it of the power to review a life sentence
(comes under its minimum appellate jurisdiction which may not be educed)
APPOINTMENTS

− Section 9, Article VIII

“Section 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of the lower courts
shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared
by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no
confirmation.

For the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointments within ninety days
from the submission of the list. “

− Intended to de-politicize, ensure the choice of competent judges and fill

existing vacancies as soon as possible so as not to unduly disrupt judicial
proceedings
− Reason for requiring at least three nominees for vacancy is to give the
President enough leeway in the exercise of his discretion when he makes his
appointment
− The appointment would be in effect made by the Judicial and Bar Council, the
President performing only the mechanical act of formalizing the commission if
the nominee were limited to only one

QUALIFICATIONS

− Section 7, Article VIII

“Section 7. (1) No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme Court or any
lower collegiate court unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. A
Member of the Supreme Court must be at least forty years of age, and must have
been for fifteen years or more, a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice
of law in the Philippines.

(2) The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts, but
no person may be appointed judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines
and a member of the Philippine Bar.

(3) A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity,

probity, and independence.”

− Sec. 7, par. 3, intended to improve the quality of the judiciary by admitting

thereto only deserving persons who can dispense justice wisely and
impartially
− Qualifications as per sec. 7 may not be reduced or increased by the Congress
through ordinary legislation
− Sec. 7, par 2, expressly permitted for the Congress to add constitutional
qualifications, the same being only minimum requirements (age or practice
qualifications)
− Natural born citizenship is not required for lower courts than collegiate courts

THE JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL

− Section 8, Article

“Section 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision
of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the
Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members,
a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the
Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.

(2) The regular members of the Council shall be appointed by the President for a
term of four years with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Of the
Members first appointed, the representative of the Integrated Bar shall serve for
 four years, the professor of law for three years, the retired Justice for two years,
and the representative of the private sector for one year.

(3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex officio of the Council
and shall keep a record of its proceedings.

(4) The regular Members of the Council shall receive such emoluments as may be
determined by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall provide in its annual
budget the appropriations for the Council.

(5) The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to
the Judiciary. It may exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme
Court may assign to it. “

− Innovation of the 1987 Constitution

− JBC takes the place of the Commission of Appointments in the matter of
judicial appointments
− Screens such appointments not the Commission
− Highly political body likely influenced by considerations other than merits of
the candidate for judicial office
− PURPOSE: to avoid infiltration and emasculation of the Judiciary (persons
without credentials except political affiliation and loyalty)
− Congress may only have one representative in the JBC
(2 representative or 1 of each House, 1/2 vote)
− Original regualr appointees, staggered terms of 4, 3, 2 and 1 year (rotational
scheme similar to the Senate and Constitutional Commissions)
− New appointees serve full term of of 4 years

REASONS OF INDEPENDENCE OF THE JBC NOT EFFECTIVE

 Regular members, Secretary of Justice is under the Presidents constitutional power

of control
 The representative from the Congress usually belongs to the party in power
 Appointive members, no limit on the number of terms may serve which means tends
to defer to the “suggestions” of the President for reappointment
 Chief Justice, not under the influence of the President however, he can simply order
the rest of the body to nominate whomever he wants to appoint thus making judicial
appointments his unlimited prerogative

− Judge appointed by the JBC does not need confirmation by the Commission
on Appointments
− Instance wherein appointments made by the President may not be checked
by the Commission
− The President is not bound by the seniority rule in appointing the Chief of
Justice or presiding justice of any lower collegiate court, or any judge pf the
matter
− An outsider to the judiciary may be chosen as its head provided only that he
possesses the necessary qualifications

Section 12, Article VIII

“Section 12. The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established
by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or
administrative functions. “

− Judges may not be appointed in an acting or temporary capacity, undermines

the independence of the judiciary wherein temporary appointments are
revocable at will
− To prevent impairment and discontinue a notorious practice before
FISCAL AUTONOMY

− Section 3, Article VIII

“Section 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the
Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for
the previous year and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly
released. “

− Power of appropriation is limited

− Intended to strengthen the independence of the Judiciary
− To remove the courts from the mercy and caprice, vindictiveness of the
legislature when it considers the general appropriation bill
− Entitles to levy, assess and collect fees

COMPOSITION OF THE SUPREME COURT

− Section 4, Article VIII

“Section 4. (1) 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”
− The nmber of members of the full Court and the divisions are fixed in the
Constitution may not be changed by statute (sec. 4)

− Commonwealth Constitution- 11 members

− 1973 Constituitom- 15 max members which cannot be reduced or increased
by mere legislation
− Was retained to 15 members to enable the Court to cope more effectively with
its mounting backlog of cases
− May now meet not only en banc but in two, three, or five divisions and any
vacancy in the Court must be filled within ninety days from its occurrence.

Section 9, par. 2

For the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointments within ninety days
from the submission of the list. “

Conflicts between Art. VII Section 15 and Art. VIII section 4, the prohibitions
on appointments comes into effect only once every six years

− Art. VII Section 15 states that the President is neither required to make
appointments nor allowed to do so

“Section 15. Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and
up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make
appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when
continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public
safety”

− Art. VIII Section 4 and 9 statest that the President is required to fill the
vacancies in the courts within the time frames provided therein unless
prohibited by Art. 15, Section 15,

“Section 4. (1) 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”
 Section 9, par. 2

“...For the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointments within ninety
days from the submission of the list. “

− However was reversed by the Court, where it was declared that the
President may provide for appointments in the judiciary even within
“two months immediately before the next presidential election and up to
the end of his term”, likewise Art. VII Section 15 DOES NOT APPLY TO
ALL OTHER OPPOITMENTS IN THE JUDICIARY”

EN BANC CASES

− Section 4,par. 2, Article VIII

“(2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive

agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all
other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc,
including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of
presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other
regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members
who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted
thereon.”

− Includes the treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential

decree, proclamation, order, instructions, ordinance, and other regulations
− whereas in the old rules only “treaty or law” are covered as well as the “treaty,
executive agreement or law”
− TREATY- an international agreement concluded between states in written
form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single
instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular
designation (Bayan Muna vs. Romulo)

− International Agreements may be in the form :

 Treaties that require legislative concurrence after the executive ratification

 Executive agreements that are similar to treaties with exception that do

not require legislative concurrence and usually less formal and deal with a
narrower range of subject matters than treaties

− Section 4,par. 3, Article VIII

“(3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the
concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case without
the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the required number is
not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or
principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division
may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc.”

− 1935 Constitution requires 2/3 votes of the Supreme Court

− 1973 Constitution requires fixed flat number of ten votes
− 1987 Constitution, a few as five members of the Court can declare any of the
measures mentioned above unconstitutional, Majority of the quorum of eight
of the fifteen member of the Court
− So long as there is concurrence of the majority of the members of the en banc
who actually took part in the deliberations of the case, a decision garnering
only 8 votes out of 15 members is still a decision of the Supreme Court en
banc and must be respected (Datu Michael Abas Kida vs. Senate of the
Philippines)
DIVISION CASES

− Section 4,par. 3, Article VIII

“(3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the
concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case without
the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the required number is
not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or
principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division
may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc.”

− Where the necessary vote cannot be had in division, the case shall be
referred to the Court en banc and decided in accordance with its own rules
− Same action will e taken where a doctrine or principle of law laid down y the
court en banc or in division is sought to be modified or reversed, as a contrary
rule would lead to confusion in our jurisprudence, with the divisions
contradicting each other or even changing rulings laid down y the full court
− RULE OF REDDENDO SINGULA SINGULIS
 referring each to each
 referring to each phrase or expression to its corresponding object
 when a list of words has a modifying phase at the end, the phrase
refers only to the last
− DECIDED must refer to CASES
− RESOLVED must refer to MATTERS
− There are now three divisions of the Supreme Court consisting of five
members each

REQUISITES OF A JUDICIAL INQUIRY

− Courts are passive instruments that can only act when their jurisdiction is
invoked
− Questions politicalin nature will not be entertained
− No constitutional question will be heard and decided unless there is
compliance with the REQUISITES OF A JUDICIAL INQUIRY:

 THERE MUST BE ACTUAL CONTROVERSY

 An actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal rights, an

assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial question
 Must not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other
similar considerations not cognizable by a court of justice
 Must be a contrariety of legal rights that can be interpreted and
enforced on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence

 CONTROVERSY, must be one that is appropriate for judicial

determination
 Justiciable controversy is distinguished from a difference or dispute
of a hypothetical or abstract character or from one that is academic
or moot
 Must be definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties
having adverse legal interests
 Must be real and substantial controversy admitting or specific relief
through a decree that is conclusive in character, as distinguished
from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical
state of facts

COURTS WILL DECIDE CASES, OTHERWISE MOOT AND ACADEMIC IF:

 There is grave violation of the Constitution

  The exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public
interest is involved
 When the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of
controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar and the public
 The case is capable of repetition yet evading review:

FOR A CASE TO DODGE DISMISSAL FOR MOOTNESS AND UNDER THE

CAPABLE OF REPETITION YET EVADING REVIEW, EXCEPTIONS:

1. The duration of the challenged action must be too short to be fully litigated prior to its
cessation or expiration

2. There must be reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be
subjected to the same action again

 THE QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY MUST BE RAISED BY THE PROPER

PARTY

 A proper party in one who has sustained or is in immediate danger

of sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of
 The complainant cannot have the legal personality to raise the
constitutional question unless there is actual or potential injury
established
 LOCUS STANDI, a personal and substantial interest in a case such
that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of
the government act that is being challenged
 TAXPAYER, considered proper personality or standing to raise a
constitutional issue when it is established that public funds from
taxation have been disbursed in alleged contravention of the law or
the Constitution

 THE CONSTITUITONAL QUESTION MUST BE RAISED AT THE EARLIEST
POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY

 Must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity

 Cannot be considered at the trial hence cannot be considered on
appeal if not raised in the pleadings

EXCEPTIONS:

 In criminal cases, the constitutional question can be raised at any

time in the discretion of the court
 In civil cases, the constitutional question can be raised at any stage
if it is necessary to the determination of the case itself
 In every case, except where there is estoppel, the constitutional
question may be raised at any stage if it involves the jurisdiction of
the court

 THE DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION MUST BE NECESSARY

TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE CASE ITSELF

 Doctrine of separation of powers- which enjoins upon each

department a proper respect for the acts of other departments
which also the reason why courts avoid decisions of a constitutional
question
 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
 “To doubt is to sustain” courts indulge in the presumption of
constitutionality
  The joint act of the legislative and executive authorities, a law is
supposed to have been carefully studied and determined to be
constitutional before it was finally enacted
 As long as there is some other basis that can be used by the courts
for its decision, the constitutionality of the challenged law will not be
touched and the case will be decided on other available grounds
 “the Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although
properly presented by the record if the case can be disposed of on
some other ground such as the application of a statute or general
law” Laurel vs Garcia
 “For reasons of public policy, the constitutionality of a law cannot be
collaterally attacked” Spouses Mirasol vs CA
 Seven pillars of limitations of the power of judicial review US
Supreme Court Justice Brandeis in Ashwander vs. TVA

EFFECTS OF A DECLARATION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY

− TWO VIEWS:
− ORTHODOX VIEW
 an unconstitutional act is not a law
 It confers no rights
 It imposes no duties
 It affords no protection
 It creates no office
 It is in legal contemplation, inoperative, as if it had not been passed
 Stricken from the statute books and not considered never to have
existed at all
 Parties and persons involved are bound by the declaration of
unconstitutionality therefore no one may invoke it nor may courts be
permitted to apply it in subsequent cases
 Total nullity

− MODERN VIEW
 Less stringent
 The court in passing upon the question of constitutionality does not
annul or repeal the statute if it finds it conflicting with the
Constitution
 Simply refuses to recognize it and determines the rights of the
parties judt as if such statutehad no existence
 Court may give its reasons for ignoring or disregarding the law
however the decision affects the parties only and there is no
judgement against the statute
 Opinion or reasons of the court may operate as a precedent for the
determination of similar cases, but does not strike the statute from
the statute books
 Does not repeal, supersede, revoke, or annul the statute
 Parties of the suit are concluded by judgement but no one else is
bound

− ORTHODOX VIEW has been applied by the Supreme Court

− However, in subsequent cases, realistic approach was eroding the general
doctrine and that the actual existence of a statute prior to its declaration of
unconstitutionality was an operative fact that might result consequences which
could not be ignored

DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT

− Only applies as a matter of equity and fair play

− Nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing that the statute
prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operatie fact and may have
consequences which cannot always be ignored
 − The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration
− Applicable when declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue
burden on those who have relied on the invalid law
− Applied to a criminal case when the declaration of unconstitutionality would
put the accused to double jeopardy or would put in limbo the acts done by a
municipality in reliance upon a law creating it

PARTIAL UNCONSTITUTIONALITY

− Partial unconstitutionality will be valid only if two conditions occur:

 That the legislature is willing to retain the valid portions even if the rest
of the statute is declared illegal
 That the valid portions can stand independently as a separate statute
− SEPARABILITY CLAUSE: to retain the valid portion of a statute
− Any section or provision of this Act is declared invalid or unconstitutional, the
remainder of the Act shall not be affected by such declaration
− If the valid portion is so far independent of the invalid portion, it will presume
that the legislature would have enacted it by itself if it had supposed that it
could constitutionally do so

POWERS OF THE SUPREME COURT

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

− Section 5,par. 1, Article VIII

Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers
and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and
habeas corpus

− The Supreme Court takes cognizance of the litigation in view of possible

international repercussions
− The petitions for certiorari, mandamus, prohibition and quo warranto are
special civil actions
− The questions raised (certiorari, mandamus, prohibition) are questions of
jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion while for the quo warranto is for the
title of the respondent
− The petition for habeas corpus is a special proceeding
− Proper cases also confer to the CA and RTCs, however the nature and
importance of the issue raised may warrant direct resort to the SC
− The SC has more or less consistently maintained its possession of original
jurisdiction over petitions (certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto,
habeas corpus) which it shares with lower courts, however the SC does not
give to parties “the complete liberty or discretion to file their petition in any of
these courts
− The SC cannot disregard the DOCTRINE OF HIERARCHY OF COURTS in
the judicial system by seeking relief directly from this Court despite the fact
the same is available in the lower tribunals in the exercise of their original
concurrent jurisdiction

JUDICIAL COURTESY
− based on the hierarchy of courts and applies only to lower courts in instances
where even there is no writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining
order issued by a higher court
− it would be proper for a lower court to suspend its proceedings for practical
and ethical considerations
− Applies where there is a strong probability that the issues before the higher
court would be rendered moot and moribund as a result of the continuation of
the proceedings in the lower court or court of origin
 − The principle cannot be applied to the President who represents a co-equal
branch of government and it will disregard the principle of separation of
powers if ever suggested

PRINCIPLE OF HIERARCHY OF COURTS

− Recourse must be first made to the lower-ranked court exercising jurisdiction
with a higher court
− Direct invocation of the original jurisdiction of the SC shall be allowed only
when there are “special and important reasons therefor, clearly and especially
set out in the petition

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

− when the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions has acted
without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy ad adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law. A person aggrieved thereby may file the petition in the
proper court alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgement be
rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings, the law requires of such
tribunal board or officer and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice
may require.

PETITION FOR PROHIBITION

− When the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board or person, whether
exercising functions judicial or ministerial, are without or in excess of its or his
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal or any
other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a
person aggrieved may file a verified petition in the proper court alleging the
facts with certainty and praying that the judgement be rendered commanding
the defendant to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter
specified therein or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and
justice may require

PETITION FOR MANDAMUS

− When any tribunal, corporation, board or person unlawfully neglects the
performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting
from an office, trust or station or unlawfully excludes another from the use and
enjoyment of a right or office o which such other is entitled and there is no
other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the
person aggrieved thereby may file a petition in the proper court alleging the
facts with certainty and praying that judgement be rendered commanding the
defendant, immediately or at the some other specified time, to do the act
required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner by reason of the
wrongful acts of the respondent

QUO WARRANTO
− An action for usurpation of office or against a public officer who does or
suffers an act with by the provision of law, constitutes a ground for the
forfeiture of his office or against an association which acts as a corporation
within the Philippines without being illegally incorporated or without lawful
authority to so act

HABEAS CORPUS
− Shall extend to all cases of illegal confinement of detention by which any
person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person
is withheld from the person entitled thereto
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

− Section 5,par. 2, Article VIII

(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or
the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.

(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any
penalty imposed in relation thereto.

(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.

(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.

(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

− The right to appeal is not embraced in due process of laws

− 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
− Appeal is a general rule a matter of statutory right entirely dependent upon the
discretion or policy of the lawmaking body
− The congress may validly provide the decisions of lower courts shall be final
and no longer appealable to the SC
− This rule, however is not absolute
− An aggrieved party party may, on appeal or certiorari, question the judgments
and decrees of a lower court before the Supreme Court, which may review,
revise, reverse, modify or affirm the same
− This appellate jurisdiction of the SC is irreducible and may not be withdrawn
from it by the Congress
− The appeals allowed in this section are from the final judgments and decrees
only of “lower courts” or judicial tribunals.
− Administrative decisions are not included
− Review of these decisions by the courts of justice, including even the
Supreme Court, is not guaranteed by this provision
− Legislature determines whether or not appeals from such administrative
decisions may be allowed
− Appeal cannot be taken as a matter of right without its permission
− Questions of law, however it has been held that courts of justice scrutinize
the same as decided by administrative agencies however appeals on such
questions are not covered by Article VIII, Section 5 (2) and not applicable to
administrative agencies (e.g. Court Martial)
− “Court” in general used in our Constitution as provided in Article VIII sec. 2 ,
does not include or refer a Court-Martial or Military Courts

Court Martial
− are agencies of executive character and one of the authorities for the ordering
of courts martial has been held to be attached to the constitutional functions of
the President as Commander-in-Chief, independently of legislation and not a
portion of the judiciary,
− Court Martial must pertain to the executive department and are in fact simply
instrumentalities of the executive power, provided by the Congress for the
President as Commander-in-Chief, to aid him in properly commanding the
army and navy and enforcing discipline therein and utilized under his orders
or those of his authorized representatives
− A court-martial case is a criminal case and the General Court Martial is
a court akin to any other court or is a court within the strictest sense of
the word and acts as a criminal court
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

− Section 5,par. 3, Article VIII

(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest
may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the
consent of the judge concerned.

− No judge appointed for a particular district could be designated or

transferred to another district without the approval of the Supreme
Court
− Consent of the judge is not required
− The transfer is ordered by the Secretary of Justice as long as it was
approved by the SC, not extended beyond 3 months and a certification
of the necessity of such transfer
− The present rule bolsters the independence of the judiciary, vests the
power to temporarily assign judges of inferior courts directly in the SC
not by the executive authorities, and conditions the validity of any such
assignment in excess of 6 months upon the consent of the transferred
judge
− Minimizes, if not, eliminate the pernicious practice of the rigodon de
jueces (transfer of judges at will and suit the motivations of the chief
executive)
− Temporary assignments are justified to arrange for the judges with
clogged dockets to be assisted by their less busy colleagues or provide
for the replacement of the regular judge who maybe unexpectedly
impartial in decision of particular cases

CHANGE OF VENUE OR PLACE OF TRIAL

− Section 5,par. 4, Article VIII

(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

− The SC may order a transfer or change of venue of cases (criminal and

civil cases) if there is such danger, intimidation, hostility or even fear
from the witnesses if held in regular court venue or there is suspected
prejudice or partisanship of judges to prevent a miscarriage of justice
− SC has inherit authority to order transfer of venue and exercise express
conferment of the power by the above constitutional provision

RULE-MAKING POWER

− Section 5,par. 5, Article VIII

(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional

rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice
of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the 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.

− The new constitution authorizes the SC to promulgate rules on an additional

subject, to wit, legal assistance to the underprivileged, in line with the social
justice policy
 − Erases all doubts expressed before about the constitutionality of the
integrated bar, particularly in light of the right of association, which includes
the right not to join any association
− The SC is authorized to promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights (AMPARO RULE, October 24, 2007)
− For a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases
− As a remedy against worsening problem of delay in the administration of
justice

Article III,Section 16.

“All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all
judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.”

AMPARO RULE
− An exercise of the Court’s expanded power to promulgate rules to protect the
people’s constitutional rights, (martial law regime)

LIMITATIONS ON THE RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT

 The rules must be uniform for all courts of the same grade
 The rules must not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights

APPOINTMENT OF COURT PERSONNEL

− Section 5,par. 6, Article VIII

(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil
Service Law.

− Empowered the SC to appoint only its own officials and employees

− Extends to all the officials and employees of the judiciary itself however
removed from the influence of the political departments, especially the
President
− Appointments made by the SC are similar appointments made by other
departments required to be in accordance with the Civil Service Law

ADMINISTRATVE SUPERVISION OF COURTS

− Section 6, Article VIII

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

− The power of administrative supervision was once in the Dept. Of Justice

(matters of judges, payment of salaries, grant of vacation and sick leaves,
appointment or transfer of personnel, purchase equipment and the like)
however this impaired the independence of judges who tend to defer to the
pressure and suggestions of the executive department in exchange for
favorable action on their requests and administrative problems
− The Constitutional Convention of 1971 decided to transfer the power of
administrative supervision over all courts and their personnel to the SC