The judiciary is an indispensable department of every democratic government.

The courts
of justice are the defender of the rights and liberties of the people. The life blood of every
libertarian regime is found in the vitality of its judicial system.

Timid and corrupt judges will destroy the strength of popular government whereas, a free
and fearless judiciary will give it strength, endurance, and stability. There is no doubt that
the success of the Republic will depend upon the effectiveness of the courts in upholding
the majesty of justice and the principle that our is a government of laws and not of men.

I. JUDICIAL POWER, TRADITIONAL

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.

 The judicial power shall be vested not only in the, or in one, Supreme Court but
in such lower courts as may be established by law.
 “Lower courts” here is used to be understood as referring 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 to sit in special cases.

The Collegiate Courts

1. Supreme Court
2. Court of Appeals

| 1A – ASPA, ASHLEY VOCAE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 / 2022-2023
 3. Sandiganbayan
4. Court of Tax Appeals

The Lower Courts

1. Court of Appeals
2. Sandiganbayan
3. Court of Tax Appeals
4. Regional Trial Courts
5. Metropolitan Trial Courts
6. Municipal Trial Courts in Cities
7. Municipal Trial Courts
8. Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
9. Shari’a District Courts
10. Shari’a Circuit Courts

Appellate courts are positioned above the trial courts to review their work and to correct
any errors that may have occurred. Appellate courts are usually collegiate bodies,
consisting of several judges instead of the single judge who typically presides over a trial
court.

Independence of the Judiciary. To maintain the independence of the judiciary, the

following safeguards have been embodied 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.
2. The members of the Supreme Court may not be removed except by
impeachment.
3. The Supreme Court may not be deprived of its minimum original and appellate
jurisdiction as prescribed in Article VIII, Section 5.
4. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may not be increased by law
without its advice and concurrence.
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.
6. The Supreme Court now has administrative supervision over all lower courts
and their personnel.
7. The Supreme Court has exclusive power to discipline judges of lower courts.
8. The members of the Supreme Court and all lower courts have security of tenure,
which cannot be undermined by a law reorganizing the judiciary.
9. They shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or
administrative functions.
10. The salaries of judges may not be reduced during their continuance in office.
11. The judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy.
12. The Supreme Court alone may initiate rules of court.
13. Only the Supreme Court may order the temporary detail of judges.
14. The Supreme Court can appoint all officials and employee of the judiciary.

Traditional Definition of Judicial Power. The courts of justice are authorized not only to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.

 It involves the settlement of conflicting rights as conferred by law.

Broadening of Judicial Power. To determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government.

 This is to enable the courts of justice to review what was before forbidden
territory, to wit, the discretion of the political departments of the government.

| 1A – ASPA, ASHLEY VOCAE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 / 2022-2023
New Definition of Judicial Power. It vests in the judiciary the power to review even the
political decisions of the executive and the legislature and to declare their acts invalid for
lack or excess of jurisdiction because tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

 Assertive and Activist Supreme Court. It is likely to venture boldly into the
realm of political questions and claim the right to resolve them according to its
own lights even at the risk of antagonizing the other departments.
 Timorous Judiciary. It will probably cling to the conventions and in the interest
of harmony, or perhaps its own convenience and security, choose not to rush in
where angels fear to tread.

II. EXPANDED JUDICIAL POWER

The 1987 Constitution expanded the concept of judicial power by granting the courts the
power to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
government.

 This expanded jurisdiction has been used by practitioners as a tool to

indiscriminately appeal cases to the Supreme Court.
 There is sufficient legal basis for the high court to limit its power of judicial
review. The Constitution does not provide that the SC must review all cases
involving “grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality
of the government.” On the contrary, it provides that this power is also lodged
“in such lower courts as may be established by law.”
 Ideally, the SC itself should exercise restraint in choosing cases. It is called the
Supreme Court precisely because it was envisioned to take cognizance only of
cases that are of extraordinary or exceptional importance to the country and its
people.
 Cases that are mainly policy-determining or menial should be left either to the
proper branches of government or the lower courts.

III. REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL INQUIRY

 ACTUAL CASE

Section 1. (1) 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.

 This involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims

susceptible of judicial resolution.
 The case must not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other similar
considerations not cognizable by a court of justice.
 A controversy must be one that is appropriate for judicial determination.
 The controversy must be definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of
parties having adverse legal interests.

For example, a request for advisory opinion cannot come under the category of an actual
case or controversy because the issue raised does not involve any conflict in law.

 PROPER PARTY

It is the one who has sustained or is in the immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a
result of the act complained of. However, unless such potential injury is established, the
complainant cannot have the legal personality to raise the constitutional question.

| 1A – ASPA, ASHLEY VOCAE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 / 2022-2023
  RAISED AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY

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 not considered at the trial, it cannot be considered on appeal.

 LIS MOTA

Lis mota is a Latin term meaning the cause or motivation of a legal action or lawsuit. The
literal translation is "litigation moved".

 It means that the Court will not pass upon a question of unconstitutionality,
although properly presented, if the case can be disposed of on some other
ground, such as the application of the statute or the general law. The petitioner
must be able to show that the case cannot be legally resolved unless the
constitutional question raised is determined.
 This requirement is based on the rule that every law has in its favor the
presumption of constitutionality; to justify its nullification, there must be a clear
and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, and not one that is doubtful,
speculative, or argumentative.
 Courts will not resolve the issue raised if the case can be disposed of on some
other grounds.
 It is a well-settled maxim of adjudication that an issue assailing the
constitutionality of a governmental act should be avoided whenever possible.
 It is a well-established rule that a court should not pass upon a constitutional
question and decide a law to be unconstitutional or invalid, unless such question
is raised by the parties and that when it is raised, if the record also presents
some other ground upon which the court may rest its judgment, that course will
be adopted and the constitutional question will be left for consideration until a
case arises in which a decision upon such question will be unavoidable.

 EXEMPTIONS

Subject to the following 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 constitutional question may be
raised at any stage if it involves the jurisdiction of the court.

The general rule is that the issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings, even on appeal, and is not lost by waiver or by estoppel.

 A party is only estopped from raising the issue when it does so in an unjustly
belated manner.

IV. POWER TO DEFINE JURISDICTION OF COURTS

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.

No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of
tenure of its Members.

 It is defined as the authority by which courts take cognizance of and decide

cases, the legal right by which judges exercise their authority.

| 1A – ASPA, ASHLEY VOCAE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 / 2022-2023
  The jurisdiction in this provision is the jurisdiction over cases, to be prescribed
by the Congress subject to the constitutional limitations.
 No law may be passed depriving it of the power to review a life sentence, for
example, as this comes under its minimum appellate jurisdiction, which may not
be reduced.

V. FISCAL AUTONOMY OF THE SUPREME COURT

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.

 This is freedom from outside control.

 The fiscal autonomy enjoyed by the judiciary, the civil service commission,
commission on audit, commission on elections, and office of the ombudsman
contemplates a guarantee of full flexibility to allocate and utilize their resources
with the wisdom and dispatch that their need require.
 It recognizes the power and authority to levy, assess and collect fees, fix rates of
compensation not exceeding the highest rates authorized by law for
compensation and pay plans of the government.
 The judiciary, the constitutional commission, and the ombudsman must have the
independence and flexibility needed in the discharge of their constitutional
duties.
 The imposition of restrictions and constraints on the manner the independent
constitutional offices allocate and utilize the funds appropriated for their
operations is offensive to fiscal autonomy and violative not only of the express
mandate of the Constitution but also the Supreme Court.

VI. THE SUPREME COURT

The Court states that supervision is the power to oversight, or the authority to see that
subordinate officers perform their duties. It ensures that the laws and the rules governing
the conduct of a government entity are observed and complied with.

 Supervising officials to see to it that rules are followed, if the rules are not
observed they may order the work done or redone, but only to conform to such
rules.

 COMPOSITION

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.

 Chief Justice (1)

 Associate Justices (14)
 Sit en banc (division of 3, 5, or 7 members)

Take Note:

Although Article VII, Section 15 prohibits the president from making appointments, the
court held that the prohibition only comes once every six years hence, 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. Article VII, Section 15 does not
apply to all other appointments in the Judiciary.

 EN BANC

| 1A – ASPA, ASHLEY VOCAE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 / 2022-2023
Section 4. (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.

 This refers to a case heard before all the judges of the court, before the entire
bench rather than a panel selected from them.
 The internal rules of the Supreme Court also provide that all decisions and
actions in Court en banc cases shall be made upon the concurrence of the
majority of the Members of the Court who took part in the deliberations.

En Banc cases:

1. Constitutionality of a treaty
2. International or executive agreement or law
3. Cases under the rules of court
 Including those that involves the constitutionality, application, operation of
presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances

1. The 1935 Constitution – called for a vote of 2/3 of the Supreme Court
2. The 1973 Constitution – fixed the flat number of 10
3. The 1987 Constitution – the concurrence of a majority of the members who took
part in the deliberations
 Five members of the Court can declare any measures unconstitutional
because the number is a majority of the quorum of 8 out of 15 members of
the Court.

 DIVISION

Section 4. (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.

 If 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.
 The same action shall be taken where a doctrine or principle of law laid down
by the court en banc or in division is sought to be modified or reversed

 QUALIFICATION OF JUSTICES

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.

 It is required by the new Constitution that every member of the judiciary “be a
person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence. This is
intended to improve the quality of the judiciary by admitting only the deserving
persons who can dispense justice wisely and impartially.

Requisites:

1. Natural born citizen of the Philippines

2. 40 years of age

| 1A – ASPA, ASHLEY VOCAE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 / 2022-2023
 3. Must have been a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law
for 15 years or more

 These qualifications having been enumerated in an exclusive manner may not

be reduced or increased by the Congress through ordinary legislation.
 A statute requiring that the members shall hold a doctorate degree in law would
still be unconstitutional.

Section 7. (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.

 In the case of the judges of lower courts, it is expressly permitted for the
Congress to add to the constitutional qualifications, the same being only
minimum requirements.
 It is competent for the legislature to provide for age or practice qualifications for
such judges in addition to the citizenship and professional qualification.
 Under this provision, natural born citizenship is not required for judges of courts
lower than collegiate courts.

Section 7. (3) A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence,

integrity, probity, and independence.

 APPOINTMENT TO THE OFFICE

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.

 It is intended to de-politicize the courts of justices, ensure the choice of

competent judges, and fill existing vacancies as soon as possible so as not to
unduly disrupt judicial proceedings.
 The reason for requiring three nominees for every vacancy is to give the
President enough leeway in the exercise of his discretion when he makes his
appointment.
 If the nominee were limited to only one, the appointment would in effect be
made by the JBC with the President performing only the mechanical act of
formalizing the commission.

Once appointed upon nomination of the council, the judge does not need confirmation by
the Commission on Appointments. This is one instance where the appointment of the
President may not be checked by the Commission.

 It should be noted that in appointing the CJ or the presiding justice of any of the
lower collegiate courts, the President is not bound by the seniority rule.
 In fact, a complete outsider to the judiciary may be chosen as its head provided
only that he possesses the necessary qualifications.

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 as this would

undermine the independence of the judiciary, temporary appointments being
essentially revocable at will.

 SALARIES

| 1A – ASPA, ASHLEY VOCAE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 / 2022-2023
Section 10. 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 their continuance in
office, their salary shall not be decreased.

 The prohibition against diminution of the salaries of judges during their

continuance in office is one of the guarantees to their independence.
 Without this provision, it would be possible for the Congress to exert pressure
on the members of the judiciary by threatening their financial security through
reduction of their salaries.
 In Nitafan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the SC held that the salaries of
judges, like those of other government functionaries, should also be subject to
income tax.
 The prohibition is against the decrease, not increase of the salaries of judges.

 TERM OF OFFICE

Section 11. The 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. The Supreme Court en banc shall
have the power to discipline judges of lower courts or order their dismissal by a vote of a
majority of the Members who took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and
voted thereon.

 No fixed term
 Retirement at the age of 70
 They serve until they die, resign, or retire or are impeach and removed from
office

This provision intended to bolster the independence of judges and guarantees them
security of tenure until they reach the retirement age of seventy.

 Before that they cannot be removed except for cause, which includes inability to
discharge duties of their office.
 The retirement age of judges was originally reduced to 65 years, to avoid the
problem of aged judges and to give way for fresh blood in the judiciary through
the appointment of younger replacements as old judges retire.

 DISQUALIFICATIONS

 REMOVAL FROM OFFICE

The members of the judiciary may be removed only after charges have been filed and
proved against them in a proper administrative proceeding conducted or ordered by the
Supreme Court.

 The power to remove judges have been transferred from the chief executive to
the Supreme Court which may now exercise it with the concurrence of a
majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations and voted
on the case.

VII. POWERS OF THE SUPREME COURT

 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

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

| 1A – ASPA, ASHLEY VOCAE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 / 2022-2023
(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.

 Under the international law, diplomats, and even consuls to a lesser extent, are
not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the receiving state, except in
certain cases where the immunity is waived either expressly or impliedly.
 The petitions for certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, and quo warranto are
special civil actions. The first three petitions are questions of jurisdiction or
grave abuse of discretion. The petition for habeas corpus is a special
proceeding.
 The jurisdiction in these matters is also conferred on the Court of Appeals and
the regional trial courts.

a. Petition for Certiorari

When any 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, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,
a person aggrieved may file this petition.

b. 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, a person aggrieved may file this
petition.

c. 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 to which such other is entitled, the aggrieved person may file this petition.

d. Petition for Quo Warranto

This is an action for usurpation of office or against a public officer who does or
suffers an act which, 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 legally incorporated.

Note: Except otherwise provided by law, the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all
cases of illegal confinement or 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.

 APPELLATE AND REVIEW JURISDICTION

Appellate jurisdiction in which a superior court has power to correct legal errors made in
a lower court.

 A court martial is an example of an administrative body which is not covered

by the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided for by the
Constitution.
 Courts 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.
 Unlike the courts of law, they are not a portion of the judiciary. Not belonging
to the judicial branch of the government, it follows that court martials must

| 1A – ASPA, ASHLEY VOCAE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 / 2022-2023
 pertain to the executive department, they are instrumentalities of the executive
power.

Section 5. (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 law. 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 dependent upon the
discretion or policy of the lawmaking body.
 In the cases enumerated in the above provision, an aggrieved 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.

 ORDER CHANGE OF VENUE

Section 5. (4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

 The Supreme Court has the inherent authority to transfer a criminal case from a
court of first instance to a circuit criminal court.

 ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES

Section 5. (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.

 Under the 1935 Constitution, no judge appointed for a particular district could
be designated or transferred to another district without the approval of the
Supreme Court.
 The present rule supports the independence of the judiciary in so far as it vests
the power to temporarily assign judges of inferior courts directly in the Supreme
Court and no longer in the executive authorities.
 This will minimize the harmful transfer of judges at will to suit motivations of
the chief executive.

 APPOINTMENT OF OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES IN THE

JUDICIARY

Section 5. (6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the
Civil Service Law.

 This empowered the Supreme Court to appoint only its own officials and
employees. The power extends to all the officials and employees of the judiciary
itself, which is thus further removed from the influence of the political
departments, especially the President.

 RULE MAKING POWER

| 1A – ASPA, ASHLEY VOCAE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 / 2022-2023
Section 5. (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 underprivileged. 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 Supreme Court to promulgate rules on

additional subject, legal assistance to the underprivileged.
 The provision also erases all doubts expressed before about the constitutionality
of the integrated bar, which includes the right not to join any association.
 The court was granted the power to disapprove rules of procedure of special
courts and quasi-judicial bodies.
 The power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is no longer
shared by this Court with Congress, more so with the Executive.

Writ of Amparo / Amparo Rule

 The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose
right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private
individual or entity.
 This is both preventive and curative. Preventive because it seeks to stop the
exemption from punishment in committing offenses that violates a person’s
right to live and be free. It is curative when it facilitates subsequent punishment
of perpetrators through an investigation and action.
 Thus, it either prevents a threat from becoming an actual violation against a
person or cures the violation of a person’s right through investigation and
punishment.
 The difference between these two writs is that habeas corpus is designed to
enforce the right to freedom of the person, whereas amparo is designed to
protect those other fundamental human rights enshrined in the Constitution but
not covered by the writ of habeas corpus.”
 The role of the court in a writ of Amparo proceeding is to determine whether an
enforced disappearance has taken place; to determine who is responsible or
accountable; and to define and impose the appropriate remedies to address the
disappearance.

Writ of Kalikasan

 Aimed to provide a stronger protection of environmental rights in order to

accord an effective and speedy remedy where the constitutional right to a
healthful and balance ecology is violated and address any possible large-scale
ecological threats.
 A legal remedy under Philippine law that provides protection of one's
constitutional right to a healthy environment, as outlined in Section 16, Article
II of the Philippine Constitution

Writ of Habeas Data

 It is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty, or

security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.
 It is an independent and summary remedy designed to protect the image,
privacy, honor of an individual and to provide a forum to enforce one’s right to
the truth and to informational privacy.
 It requires concrete allegations of unjustified or unlawful violation of the right
to privacy related to the right to life, liberty or security.

| 1A – ASPA, ASHLEY VOCAE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 / 2022-2023
  It is defined as a procedure designed to safeguard individual freedom from
abuse in the information age particularly to protect an individual’s right to
informational privacy.

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.

The limitations on the rule-making power of the Supreme Court are the following:

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

 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OVER JUDGES AND JUSTICES

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

 This provision is one of the most significant innovations in the 1973

Constitution that have been retained in the new Charter.
 The previous set up placed the power of administrative supervision over courts
in the Department of Justice and this impaired the independence of judges who
tended to defer to the pressures and suggestions of the executive department in
exchange for favorable action on their requests. With that the Constitutional
Convention of 1971 decided to transfer the power of administrative supervision
over all courts and their personnel to the Supreme Court.
 By virtue of its constitutional power of administrative supervision over all
courts and court personnel, from the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals
down to the lowest municipal trial court clerk, it is only the Supreme Court that
can oversee the judges’ and court personnel’s compliance with all laws.

 DISCIPLINARY POWER OVER JUDGES AND JUSTICES

Section 11. The 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. The Supreme Court en banc shall have
the power to discipline judges of lower courts or order their dismissal by a vote of a
majority of the Members who took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and
voted thereon.

 No other entity or official of the Government, not the prosecution or

investigation service of any other branch has competence to review a judicial
order or decision.
 The Supreme Court is entitled to regulate the foreign travels of judges of lower
courts and court personnel, which may be held accountable for their
misconduct, regardless of whether or not their actions are work-related.

VIII. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL

The JBC has the authority to set the standards or criteria in choosing its nominees for
every vacancy in the judiciary, subject only to the minimum qualifications required by the
Constitution and law for every position.

 As the constitutional body granted with the power of searching for, screening,
and selecting applicants relative to recommending appointees to the Judiciary,
the JBC has the authority to determine how best to perform such constitutional
mandate.

| 1A – ASPA, ASHLEY VOCAE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 / 2022-2023
  The JBC issues various policies setting forth the guidelines to be observed in the
evaluation of applicants and formulates rules and guidelines to ensure that the
rules are updated to respond to existing circumstances.
 Its discretion is freed from legislative, executive, or judicial intervention to
ensure that the JBC is shielded from any outside pressure and improper
influence.

An innovation in the 1987 Constitution is the Judicial and Bar Council, which takes the
place of the Commission on Appointments in the matter of judicial appointments.

 It is the council that will screen such appointments and not the Commission,
which is a highly political body likely to be influenced by consideration other
than the merits of the candidate for judicial office.

The Constitution places the JBC under the supervision of the Supreme Court, which has
been recognized as authorized to see to it that the JBC complies with its own rules and
procedures.

 When the policies of the JBC are being attacked, through the Supreme Court’s
supervisory authority over the JBC, it has the duty to inquire about the matter
and ensure that the JBC complies with its own rules.

 COMPOSITION

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.

 JBC created under the supervision of the Supreme Court

Members:

1. Chief Justice = ex officio chairman

2. Secretary of Justice = ex officio members
3. Representative from the Congress = ex officio members
4. Representative of the Integrated Bar
5. Professor of law
6. Retired member of the SC
7. Representative from private sector

 REGULAR MEMBERS

1. Representative of the Integrated Bar

2. Professor of law
3. Retired member of the SC
4. Representative from private sector

 EX OFFICIO MEMBERS

Section 8. (3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex officio of the
Council and shall keep a record of its proceedings.

1. Secretary of Justice = ex officio members

2. Representative from the Congress (senate and house of representatives) = ex
officio members

 APPOINTMENT TO OFFICE

| 1A – ASPA, ASHLEY VOCAE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 / 2022-2023
  TERM

Section 8. (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.

 Appointed by the President

 A term of four years
 With the consent of the Commission on Appointments

Members appointed term of service:

1. The representative of the Integrated Bar = four years

2. Professor of law = three years
3. Retired justice = two years
4. Representative from the private sector = one year

 POWERS AND DUTIES

Section 8. (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.

To conclude:

The supposed guaranties of to the independence of the JBC are not really that effective.
The reasons are because:

1. Among its regular members, the Secretary of Justice is under the President’s
constitutional power of control.
2. The representative from the Congress usually belongs to the party in power, of
which the President is the actual or titular head.
3. As for the appointive members, there is no limit on the number of terms they
may serve which means that they will tend to defer to the suggestions of the
President in hopes of being rewarded with a re-appointment.

The president can simply order the rest of the body to nominate whomever he wants to
appoint, making judicial appointments his unlimited privileged.

IX. DECISIONS AND RESOLUTIONS

SECTION 13. The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for
decision en banc or in division shall be reached in consultation before the case is 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 courts.

| 1A – ASPA, ASHLEY VOCAE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 / 2022-2023
  As a collegiate court, the Supreme Court is required to reach its conclusions
after an exchange of ideas and full deliberation among its members.
 The primary purpose of collegiate court is precisely to provide for the most
exhaustive deliberation before a conclusion is reached.
 Once agreement is arrived at by the required majority, a member is assigned as
the ponente of the Court. Other members may, if they choose, write separate
concurring opinions, but a separate opinion is required from any dissenting
justice, who should state the reasons for his dissent.
 A justice who takes no part or abstains must now also explain his non-
participation as it is not permitted for a member to refuse to act except for valid
reasons.

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 denied without stating the legal basis therefor.

 It is a requirement of due process that the parties to a litigation be informed of

how it was decided, with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led
to the conclusions of the court.
 This is because the losing party is entitled to know why he lost, so he may
appeal to a higher court, if permitted, should he believe that the decision should
be reversed.
 This section merely requires that the decision rendered makes clear why either
party prevailed under the applicable law to the established facts.
 This is only applicable to a decision, which is described as a judgment rendered
after the presentation of proof or based on a stipulation of facts.
 It is intended to inform the parties of the factual and legal considerations
employed to support the decision of the court.

The Supreme Court held that Section 14 does not apply to decisions in administrative
proceedings, like those rendered by the Office of the President, or the determinations of
the Secretary of Justice and prosecutors, who are not members of the judiciary and do not
exercise quasi-judicial functions.

 FORMAL REQUIREMENT

 SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENT

 PERIOD OF PROMULGATION

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 pending, 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.

| 1A – ASPA, ASHLEY VOCAE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 / 2022-2023
X. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE CONGRESS

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 Judiciary.

| 1A – ASPA, ASHLEY VOCAE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 / 2022-2023