UPDATE: Philippine Legal Research islands and waters embraced therein and all other territories which

the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction."

By Milagros Santos-Ong
Laws enacted by Congress defined the baselines of the territorial sea
Milagros Santos-Ong is the Director of the Library Services of of the Philippine archipelago. As early as 1935, the baselines have
the Supreme Court of the Philippines . She is the author of Legal been defined in the 1935 Constitution. This was followed by
Research and Citations (Rexl Book Store) a seminal book published Republic Act No. 3046 as amended by Republic Act No.5446.
in numerous editions and a part-time professor on Legal Research in Republic Act No. 9522, approved on March 10, 2000 amended both
some law schools in the Metro-Manila. laws and defined the archipelagic baselines as “Regime of Islands”
(section 2) This definition is consistent with Art.121 of the United
Table of Contents Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), where the
1. Introduction Philippines took an active part. Rodolfo Severino, in his article
2. Political Structure “ Clarifying the New Philippines Baseline Law” (Republic Act No.
3. Government Structure 9522) stated that the purpose of the law is mainly to amend the
3.1. Executive Branch existing baselines act and to ‘define the archipelagic baselines of the
3.2. Legislative Department Philippines’. It does not extend the baselines to Spratlys or to
3.3. Judicial System Scarborough Shoal, both of which China and Vietnam claim in their
3.4. Constitutional Commissions territory, while the Philippines claims a part of what are called
3.5. Local Governments “ Spratlys and all of Scarborough Shoal .” Protest made by China
3.6. Other Government Agencies remains. The constitutionality of the law was question at the
4. Legal System Supreme Court in the case Magallona, et. al vs. Ermita, et. al., G.R.
4.1. Nature of the Philippine Legal System No. 187167. The decision upholding the constitutionality of the law
4.2. Sources of Law was penned by Justice Antonio T. Carpio on July 16, 2011. The
5. Philippine Legal Research petitioners of the case were professors of law, law students and a
5.1. Research of Statute law legislator. The petitioners filed the case in their capacities as citizens
5.2. Research of Case Law of the Philippines, taxpayers and legislators. Noteworthy to mention
6. Legal Profession and Legal Education are the two grounds invoked by the petitioners in questioning the
6.1. Law Schools constitutionality of the law:”1). RA 9522 reduces the Philippine
6.2. Bar Associations maritime territory, and logically, the reach of the Philippine state’s
7. Law Librarians Association sovereign power, in violation of Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution”
and 2) “RA 9522 opens the country’s waters landward of the
Part 2: Philippine Legal Information Resources and Citations baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and aircrafts,
undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security,
1. Introduction contravening the country’s nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine
The Philippines is an archipelago of 7,107 islands with a land area of resources, in violation of relevant constitutional provisions.”
299,740 sq. kilometers. It is surrounded by the Pacific Ocean on the
East, South China Sea on the North and the West and the Celebes Sea Justice Antonio T. Carpio in his speech before Philippine Women
on the South. This comprises the National Territory of the Judges Association, entitled “Protecting the Nation’s Marine Wealth
Philippines. Article I of the 1987 Constitution provides that the in the West Philippine Sea,” March 6, 2014, provided an illustration
"national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the of the baselines defined by Republic Act Nos. 5446 and 9522.

The Philippines’ claim to the Spratlys and the historic claim to Sabah
remain unresolved. The Philippines is now confronted with
conflicting claims in the South China Sea which is governed by the
1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
which entered into force in 1994. The Philippines and China who are
claimants to the South China seas are among the 165 countries that
have ratified the UNCLOS.
China’s claim is based on the 9-dashed line which covers a total area
almost 90% of the South China Sea. In a speech delivered by Senior
Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio entitled, “The Rules of Law in the
West Philippine Sea Dispute,” he stated that China’s 9-dash claim
encroaches on 80% on the Philippines’ 200-nm exclusive economic
zone (EEZ) and 100% of its 150-nm extended continental shelf (ECS)
facing the South China sea – what the Philippines call West
Philippine sea. China’s 9-dash line claim has similar effects on the
EEZs and ECSs of Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia facing
the South China Sea.”
Justice Antonio T. Carpio’s speech before Philippine Women Judges
Association, entitled “Protecting the Nation’s Marine Wealth in the
West Philippine Sea,” March 6, 2014 includes the illustration on the
9-Dashed Lines.
Senior Justice Antonio Carpio stated that “maritime dispute in the
West Philippine Sea could be more easily resolved if all the claimant
States agreed on two things: first, on the applicable law to govern the
maritime dispute, and second, on the historical facts on the West
Philippine Sea.”
David Rosenberg in his article, “The Paradox of the South China Sea
Disputes,” considers the nine-dash line claim as the most
controversial maritime territorial claim. Rosenberg traced the
history as claim as far “back as December 1914 when Hu Jinjie, a
Chinese cartographer, published a map with a line around only the
Pratas and Paracels, entitled ‘The Chinese Territorial Map Before the
Qianglong-Jiaqing Period of the Qing Dynasty (AD 1736–1820)”
until “1953 when the two dotted line portion in the Gulf of Tonkin
was deleted by Premier Zhou Enlai’s approval. Chinese maps
published since 1953 have shown the nine-dotted line in the South
China Sea.”
The Philippines however has its own version on historical claims
based on historical maps available at the United States Library of
Congress, National Library of Australia. The Philippine historical
claim can be seen in a cartographic exhibit entitled “ Historical
Truths and Lies, Scarborough Schoal in Ancient Maps ,” which was
based on the June 2014 of Senior Associate Justice Antonio T.
Carpio. The first map in this cartographic exhibit was published in
1734 by Jesuit Pedro Murillo. It is considered the "mother of all
Philippine maps."
Caption: "Carta Hydrographica Y Chorographica de las Yslas
Filipinas" (8407x7734) (U.S. Library of Congress (Catalog No.
2013585226; Digital ID g8060 ct003137)
This territorial dispute has both political and economic implications
for the Philippines, China and also to Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and
Indonesia. There was even a headline stating “ Is the South China Sea
on the Brink of War? ” As a measure to resolve the controversy, the
Philippines has used the legal remedy in as much as China and the
Philippines are parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea or UNCLOS.
The Philippines filed a formal claim before an arbitration tribunal
constituted under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention
of the Law of the Sea entitled “In the Matter of an Arbitration
between The Republic of the Philippines (applicant) and The People’s
Republic of China (Respondent), 24 August 2013 (PCA Case No.
2013-19. Full text of the Rules of Procedure of the case is available in
the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Further details can be
found here , here , and here .
The Filipino culture was molded over more than a hundred ethnic
groups consisting of 91% Christian Malay, 4% Muslim Malay, 1.5%
Chinese and 3% others. As of the August 2007 national census , the
population of the Philippines has increased to 88.57 million and is
estimated to reach 92.23 million in 2009. The census is scheduled to
be undertaken this 2009.
Filipino ( Tagalog) is the national language (1987 Constitution, Art.
XIV, sec. 6) of the Philippines. However, Filipino and English are the
official languages for the purpose of communication and instruction
(Art. XIV, sec 7). Optional use of the national language, Filipino
( Tagalog ) is allowed. Supreme Court Administrative Circular No.
16-2010 allowed the optional use and on a per case basis, the use of
Filipino (Tagalog ) in court proceedings in view to the difficulties
encountered in the use of Filipino as manifested by the Presiding
Judges and the court stenographers of some courts. This Circular
provides that “in appropriate cases as may be determined by the
Presiding Judge and without objection of the parties, the above-
mentioned courts may use Filipino in the hearing and resolution of
motions, or in the conduct of mediation, pre-trial conference, trial,
and in any other court proceedings. Existing translations of laws and
rules may be used freely, and technical terms in English or Latin
need not be translated literally into Filipino.” Republic Act No.
10157, known as the Kindergarten Education Act utilizes the “mother
tongue-based multilingual education (MTB-MLE) method as the”
primary medium of instruction for teaching and learning in the
kindergarten level (sec.5). Section 5, likewise specifically provides
that the Department of Education must include in its teaching
strategies the “child’s understanding of English, which is the official
language.”
There are several dialects or regional languages (spoken and written)
throughout the different islands of the country, but there are eight
major dialects, which include Bicolano, Cebuano,
Hiligaynon or Ilongo,
Ilocano, Pampango, Pangasinense, Tagalog, and Waray .
There are two major religions of the country: Christianity and Islam.
Christianity, more particularly Catholicism, is practiced by more than
80% of the population. It was introduced by Spain in 1521. The
Protestant religion was introduced by American missionaries.
Aglipay , or the Philippine Independent Church, and the Iglesia ni
Kristo are two Filipino independent churches or religious
organizations. Other Christian religious organizations like
the El Shaddai, Ang DatingDaan , and ‘Jesus is Lord' have been
established. Members of the Iglesia ni Kristo and the El Shaddai are
increasing and their membership has exented worldwide. These
independent churches and religious organizations are having a great
influence to the nation, especially during elections.
The Constitution of the Philippines specifically provides that the
separation of Church and State is inviolable. (Constitution (987), Art.
II, sec.6). However, religion has a great influence in the legal system
of the Philippines. For the Muslim or Islamic religion, a special law,
the Code of Muslim Personal Laws (Presidential Decree no. 1083),
was promulgated and special courts were established,
the Shari’a courts, a separate bar examination for the Muslim or
Islamic community is being conducted. The Catholic Church has
affected the present political system. A priest had to take leave as a
priest when he was elected governor of a province in Region 3. A
movement was even started to be able to choose the President of the
Philippines and other government officials in the May 2009 national
election. The Church stand on major issues have affected the
passage of bills pending in Congress and such as the Reproductive
Health Bill (Senate Bill No. 2865 and House Bill No. 4244) which
was approved by both House of Congress on December 19, 2012.
After the passage of the law, religious organizations and individuals
questioned the constitutionality of the law in the consolidated case of
“Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr.,” G.R. No. 204819, April 08, 2014.
The other bill still pending in Congress is Divorce, etc. The
Philippines is considered as the only country that does not allow
Divorce. However, annulment of marriage is recognized.
2. Political Structure
The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. The present
political structure of the Philippines was defined by the 1987
Constitution, duly ratified in a plebiscite held on February 2, 1987
and proclaimed ratified on February 11, 1987. There is a move now
in Congress, which was started at the House of Representatives to
revise/amend the present Constitution. One of the major problems
to be resolved by both Houses of Congress is the mode or method in
revising/amending the present 1987 Constitution. A much debated
proposed amendment is the term extension for the President.
The 1987 Constitution provides that the Philippines is a democratic
and republican state where sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them (Article II, section 1).
3. Government Structure
The government structure differs as one goes through the history of
the Philippines, which may be categorized as follows: a) Pre-
Spanish; b). Spanish period; c). American period; d). Japanese
period; e). Republic; and f). Martial Law Period
a) Pre-Spanish (before 1521)
The Barangays or independent communities were the unit
of government structures before Spain colonized the Philippines. The
head of each barangay was the Datu . The Datus were called Cabeza
de Barangayduring the Spanish period. He governs the barangays
using native rules, which are customary and unwritten. There were
two codes during this period: the Maragtas Code issued by Datu
Sumakwel of Panay Island and the Code of Kalantiao issued by Datu
Kalantiano in 1433. The existence of these codes is questioned by
some historians.
Just like many ancient societies, trial by ordeal was practiced.
 b) Spanish period (1521-1898)
The Spanish period can be traced from the time Magellan
discovered the Philippines when he landed on Mactan Island (Cebu)
on March 16, 1521. Royal decrees, Spanish laws, and/or special
issuances of special laws for the Philippines were extended to the
Philippines from Spain by the Spanish Crown through the councils.
The chief legislator is the governor-general who exercises legislative
functions by promulgating executive decrees, edicts or ordinances
with the force of law. The Roya l Audencia, or Spanish Supreme
Court, in the Philippines also exercised legislative functions when
laws are passed in the form of autos accordados . Melquiades
Gamb oa , in his book entitled “ An Introduction to Philippine Law ”
(7th ed, 1969), listed the most prominent laws in this period: Fuero
Juzgo, Fuero Real, Las Siete Partidas, Leyes de Toros, Nueva
Re copi lacion de las Leyes de Indias and the Novisima
Recopilacion . Some of these laws were also in force in other Spanish
colonies. Laws in force at the end of the Spanish rule in 1898 are as
follows: Codigo Penal de 1870, Ley Provisional para la Aplicaciones
de las Dispociciones del Codigo Penal en las Islas Filipinas, Ley de
Enjuciamento Criminal, Ley de Enjuciameniento Civil, Codigo de
Comercio, Codigo Civil de 1889, Ley Hipotecaria, Ley de Minas, Ley
Notarial de 1862 , Railway Law of 1877, Law of Foreigners for
Ultramarine Provinces and the Code of Military Justice. Some of
these laws remained in force even during the early American period
and/or until Philippine laws were promulgated.
In between the Spanish and the American period is what
Philippine historians consider the first Philippine Republic. This was
when General Emilio Aguinaldo proclaimed the Philippine
Independence in Kawit , Cavite on June 12, 1898. The Malolos
Congress also known as Assembly of the Representatives, which can
be considered as revolutionary in nature, was convened on
September 15, 1898. The first Philippine Constitution, the Malolos
Constitution was approved on January 20, 1899. General Emilio
Aguinaldo was the President and Don Gracio Gonzaga as the Chief
Justice. A Republic, although with de facto authority, was in force
until the start of the American Sovereignty when the Treaty of Paris
was signed on December 10, 1898.
c) American period (1898-1946)
The start of this period can be traced after the Battle of
Manila Bay when Spain ceded the Philippines to the United States
upon the signing of the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898. A
military government was organized with the military governor as the
chief executive exercising executive, legislative and judicial
functions. Legislative function was transferred to the Philippine
Commission in 1901, which was created by the United States
President as commander-in-chief of the Armed forces and later
ratified by the Philippine Bill of 1902. This same Bill provided for the
establishment of the First Philippine Assembly, which convened on
October 16, 1907. The Jones law provided for the establishment of a
bicameral legislative body on October 16, 1916, composed of the
Senate and the House of Representatives.
The United States Constitution was recognized until the
promulgation of the Philippine Constitution on February 8, 1935,
signed by U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on March 23,
1935 and ratified at a plebiscite held on May 14, 1935.
The organic laws that governed the Philippines during this
period were: President McKinley’s Instruction to the Second
Philippine Commission on April 7, 1900; Spooner Amendment of
1901; Philippine Bill of 1902; Jones Law of 1916 and the Tydings
McDuffie Law of May 1, 1934. The later law is significant for it
allowed the establishment of a Commonwealth government and the
right to promulgate its own Constitution. The 1935 Constitution
initially changed the legislative system to a unicameral system.
However, the bicameral system was restored pursuant to the 1940
Constitutional amendment. The Commonwealth government is
considered as a transition government for ten years before the
granting of the Philippine independence. Cayetano Arellano was
installed as the first Chief Justice in 1901. The Majority of the
Justices of the Philippine Supreme Court were Americans. Decisions
rendered by the Supreme Court of the Philippines were appealed to
the United States Supreme Court, which were reported in the United
States Supreme Court Reports.
Manuel L. Quezon and Sergio Osmeña were elected as
President and Vice-President respectively during the September 14,
1935 elections. In this election, President Quezon won over General
Emilio Aguinaldo and Bishop Gregorio Aglipay, the President of the
First Philippine Republic (1898) and the head of the Aglipayan
church, respectively. This Commonwealth government went into
exile in Washington DC during the Japanese period from May 13,
1942 to October 3, 1944. President Manuel L. Quezon died on
August 1, 1944 and was succeeded by President Sergio Osmena who
brought back the government to Manila on February 28, 1945.
d) Japanese period
The invasion of the Japanese forces when Clark Field, an
American military airbase in Pampanga, was bombed on December
8, 1941, marked the start of the Japanese period, which lasted for
three years. A Japanese Republic was established with Jose P. Laurel
as its President. Jose Yulo was the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court. Supreme Court decisions during this period were recognized
and are found in the Philippine Reports, the official publication for
Supreme Court decisions . This period was considered as a military
rule by the Japanese Imperial Army. The 1943 Constitution was
ratified by a special national convention of the Kapisanan sa
Paglilingkod ng Bagong Pilipinas (KALIBAPI). No law/statutes,
including the 1943 Constitution were recognized after the war. This
period lasted for three years and ended in 1944 with the defeat of the
Japanese forces.
e) Republic period (1946-1972)
July 4, 1946 was the inauguration of Philippine
independence. A Philippine Republic was born. A republic means a
government by the people and sovereignty resides in the entire
people as a body politic. The provisions of the 1935 Constitution
defined the government structure, which provided for the
establishment of three co-equal branches of government. Executive
power rests in the President, legislative power in two Houses of
Congress and judicial power in the Supreme Court, and inferior
courts. Separation of powers is recognized.
Efforts to amend the 1935 Constitution started on August 24,
1970 with the approval of Republic Act No. 6132 where 310 delegates
were elected on November 10, 1970. On June 1, 1971, the delegates of
the Constitutional Convention met. While it was still in session,
President Ferdinand E. Marcos declared Martial Law on September
21, 1972. The Constitutional Convention completed the draft
Constitution on November 29, 1972. It was submitted for ratification
through citizens’ assemblies on January 17, 1973. This is known as
the 1973 Constitution.
f) Martial Law Period (1972-1986).
The Philippine Congress was abolished when Martial Law
was declared on September 21, 1972. The Martial Law period was
governed by the 1973 Constitution, which established a
parliamentary form of government. Executive and legislative powers
were merged and the Chief Executive was the Prime Minister who
was elected by majority of all members of the National Assembly
(Parliament). The Prime Minister had the power to advise the
President. The President is the symbolic head of state. This
parliamentary government was never implemented due to the
transitory provision of the 1973 Constitution. Military tribunals were
also established. Amendments to the Constitution were made
wherein by virtue of amendment No. 3, the powers of the President
and the Prime Minister were merged into the incumbent President
Ferdinand E. Marcos. Amendment No. 6 authorized President
Marcos to continue exercising legislative powers until Martial law is
in effect. Amendment No. 7 provided for the barangays as the
smallest political subdivision and the sanggunians , or councils. The
1981 amendment introduced the modified
presidential/parliamentary system of government of the Philippines.
The President shall be elected by the people for a term of six years
while the Prime Minister shall be elected by a majority of
the Batasang Pambansa (Parliament) upon the nomination of the
President. He was the head of the Cabinet and had supervision over
all the ministries. The President during this period was Ferdinand
E. Marcos and the Prime Minister was Cesar Enrique Aguinaldo
Virata.
Proclamation No. 2045 (1981) lifted Martial Law and
abolished mi litary tribunals. Elections were held on June 16, 1981
and President Marcos was re-elected into office as President. The
constitution was again amended in 1984 and a plebiscite was held on
January 27, 1984 pursuant to Batas Pambansa Blg. 643 (1984).
Elections were held on May 14, 1984 for the 183 elective seats in the
200 member of the Batasang Pambansa .
An i mpeachment resolution by 57 members of the opposition was
f iled against President Marcos but was dismissed. A special
presidential election, popularly known as Snap Election, was called
by President Marcos on November 3, 1985 and was held on February
7, 1986. The National Movement for Free Elections, or NAMFREL,
results showed that Corazon Aquino led by over a million votes.
However, the Batasang Pambansa declared that Ferdinand E.
Marcos and Arturo M. Tolentino won over Corazon C . Aquino and
Salvador H. Laurel as President and Vice-President, respectively.
President Marcos and Vice President Arturo took their oath before
Chief Justice Ramon Aquino at the Malacanang Palace, Manila. This
event led to the People Power revolution, which ousted President
Marcos on February 25, 1986.
g) Republic Revival (1986-present)
The Republic period was revived after the bloodless
revolution popularly known as People Power or the EDSA
Revolution.
Corazon C. Aquino and Salvador H. Laurel took their oath of
office as 11 th President and Vice President of the Philippine Republic
on February 25, 1986 before Associate Justice Claudio Teehankee at
the Club Filipino, San Juan, Manila. Proclamation No. 1 (1986) was
promulgated wherein the President and the Vice President took
power in the name and by the will of the Filipino people.
Proclamation No. 3 (1986) adopted as the Provisional Constitution or
Freedom Constitution, provided for a new government.
A Constitutional Commission was constituted by virtue of
Article V of the Provisional Constitution and Proclamation No. 9
(1986). The Constitutional Commission, composed of 48 members,
was mandated to draft a Constitution. After 133 days, the draft
constitution was submitted to the President on October 15, 1986 and
ratified by the people in a plebiscite held on February 2, 1987. Under
the transitory provision of the 1987 Constitution, the President and
Vice President elected in the February 7, 1986 elections were given a
six-year term of office until June 30, 1992. Congressional elections
were held on May 11, 1987. The Republican form of government was
officially revived when the 1987 Constitution was ratified and
Congress was convened in 1987. Legislative enactments again rested
in the Congress. Republic Acts were again issued by Congress, the
number of which took off from the last number used before Martial
Law was declared. The numbering of Republic Acts continued from
the number last used before Martial Law (Republic Act No. 6635
(1972) and Republic Act No. 6636 (1987). The Republic form of
government by virtue of the 1987 Constitution was the same type of
republican government prior to Martial law by virtue of the 1935
Constitution with three co-equal branches: Executive, Legislative and
the Judiciary.
The Philippines once again became a Republic by virtue of
the 1987 Constitution. The same type of republican form of
government prior to Martial law was established with three co-equal
branches were organized, Executive, Legislative and the Judiciary.
Those holding office in these three co-equal branches are public
officers and employees. Constitution (1987), Article XI, provides for
the accountability of public officers. Article XI, Section 1 , “Public
office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all
times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism
and justice, and lead modest lives.” Public officers in the Executive
(President and Vice President) , Judiciary (Members or Justices of
the Supreme Court) and the Constitutional Commissions and the
Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery,
graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.
All other public officers and employees may be removed from office
as provided by law, such as the civil service laws, but not by
impeachment (Article XI, Section 2).
The legislative branch is composed of the Senate and the
House of Representatives. It is the legislative branch or Congress,
which is involved in the impeachment process. The House of
Representatives has the exclusive power to initiate all cases of
impeachment though a verified complaint or resolution of
impeachment filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the
House of Representatives, and an Articles of Impeachment (Article
XI, Section 3, (1) – (5)). The Senate shall have the sole power to try
and decide all cases of impeachment. When the President of the
Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall
preside, but shall not vote. The public officer (President and Vice
President, members or Justices of the Supreme Court and the
Constitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman) shall be convicted
with the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.
(Article XI, Section 3, (6). When the Chief Justice or members of the
Judiciary and the Constitutional Commissions and Ombudsman are
on trial, the Senate President shall preside. Rules of impeachment
shall be promulgated by the Senate.
Impeachment (Constitution (1987) Article XI, Sections 2
and 3 has been filed against a President, two Chief Justices and one
Associate Justice and an Ombudsman. In the case of President
Joseph E. Estrada , verified complaint was filed by 115 members of
the House of Representatives led by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives Manuel Villar on November 13, 2000.
Impeachment trial was held December 9, 2000 with Chief Justice
Hilario G. Davide Jr. as presiding officer and Senate President
Aquilino Pimentel. The impeachment trial did not end for the
Prosecutors walked out on January 16, 2001 when the impeachment
court did not grant their request to open the second envelope. This
lead to what is called “People Power 2,” which ended when Vice-
President Gloria Macapal Arroyo took her oath of office as President
on January 21, 2001 before Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr., in
EDSA where the people gathered for the People Power 2. The
legality of the Arroyo Presidency was brought to the Supreme Court
by President Estrada (Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15, March
2, 2001)
On October 23, 2003, an impeachment case was filed against
Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. but it did not prosper in the House
of Representatives. The question on the impeachment case of Chief
Justice Davide was resolved by the Supreme Court in the case of
Francisco, Jr. v. The House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261,
November 10, 2003). On May 2011, the House Committee on
Justice declared that the impeachment complaint against incumbent
Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo as sufficient in form and in
December 2011, as sufficient in substance. The impeachment
complaint is still pending in the House of Representatives.
December 2011, an impeachment case was filed against Chief Justice
Renato C. Corona by 188 members of the House of Representatives
or more than the required one-third requirement of Article XI,
Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution . Trial started January 16,
2012 with Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile as Presiding Officer.
Chief Justice Renato C. Corona was found guilty under Article II of
the Articles of Impeachment last May 29, 2012 or after 43 days of
trial. The vote of the Senators who acted as Impeachment Court
Judges was 20-3, 20 found him guilty. Chief Justice Renato C.
Corona is the first high ranking government official to be convicted
by an impeachment court.
In March 2011, 212 members of the House of Representatives
led by House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte voted to impeach the
Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez and to transmit the Articles of
Impeachment to the Senate. The 7-year term of office
of Ombudsman Gutierrez was supposed to end December 2012.
Ombudsman Gutierrez resigned before the impeachment trial by the
Senate.
3.1. Executive Branch
The President is vested with the executive power. (Art. VII, sec.
1, 1987 Constitution). The President is both the Chief of State (head
of government) and the Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces
of the Philippines (Art. VII, sec. 18). Since 1898 when the First
Philippine Republic was established, the Philippines has had fifteen
(15) Presidents from Emilio Aguinaldo to Benigno S. Aquino III.
The Executive Branch also includes the Vice-President and
the Secretaries of Heads of the Executive Departments and other
Cabinet officials
Both the President and the Vice-President are elected by direct
vote of the Filipino people for a term of six years. The President is
not eligible for a re-election while the Vice President cannot serve for
more than two terms. Congress is empowered to promulgate rules in
the canvassing of certificates of election. The Supreme Court
sitting en banc is the sole judge of all election contests relating to
their election, returns and qualifications (Art VII, sec. 4). The
Supreme Court en banc thus acts as the Presidential Electoral
Tribunal. The Supreme Court promulgated the 2005 Rules on the
Presidential Tribunal (A.M. No. 05-11-06-SC).Both may be
removed from office by impeachment (Art. XI sec. 2) to be initiated
by the House of Representatives (Art. XI, sec, 3) and tried and
decided by the Senate (Art. XI, sec, 3 (6)). The Cabinet members are
nominated by the President, subject to the confirmation of the
Commission on Appointments (Art. VII, sec, 16) which consists of
the President of the Senate, as ex- officio Chairman, twelve Senators
and twelve members of the House of Representatives (Art. VI, sec. 1).
Cabinet members are nominated by the President, subject to the
confirmation of the Commission on Appointments (Art. VII, sec, 16),
which consists of the President of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman,
twelve Senators and twelve members of the House of Representatives
(Art. VI, sec. 1).
The President exercises control over all the executive
departments, bureaus and offices (Art. VI, sec, 17).
Office of the Solicitor General .
Its mandate and function as found in its website is that it is
“the law firm of the Republic of the Philippines. It is tasked to
represent the People of the Philippines, the Philippine Government,
its Agencies and Instrumentalities, Officials and Agents (especially
before appellate courts) in any litigation or matter requiring the
services of a lawyer.” Its mission is “to promote and protect the
interest of the Republic of the Philippines and its people in legal
proceedings and matters requiring the services of a lawyer.
3.2. Legislative Department
Legislative power is vested in the Congress of the Philippines,
consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives (Art.
VI, sec. 1). History has provided that the legislative structure
has undergone numerous changes. A brief history of the
Philippine legislature is available at the House of
Representative website and at the Senate .
The Senate of the Philippines is composed of twenty four (24)
Senators who are elected at large by qualified voters who serve for a
term of not more than six (6) years. No Senator may be elected for
more than two consecutive terms. (Art VI, sec. 4). The Senate is led
by the Senate President, Pro Tempore, Majority Leader and the
Minority Leader. The Senate President is elected by majority vote of
its members. There are thirty six (36) permanent committees and
five (5) oversight committees. The sole judge of contests relating to
election, returns and qualifications of members of the Senate rests
with the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET), which is composed of nine
members, three of whom are Justices of the Supreme Court and six
members of the Senate. (Art. VI, sec. 17). The Senate Electoral
Tribunal has approved on November 12, 2003 its Revised Rules.
The House of Representatives is composed of not more than two
hundred fifty (250) members, elected by legislative districts for a
term of three years. No representative shall serve for more than three
consecutive terms. The party-list representatives who come
from registered national, regional and sectional parties and
organizations, shall constitute twenty percent (20%) of the total
number of representatives. The election of party-list representatives
was by virtue of the Republic Act No. 7941, which was approved on
March 3, 1995. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court penned by
Justice Antonio T. Carpio on April 21, 2009, Barangay Association
for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v.
Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 17971) and Bayan Muna,
Advocacy for Teacher Empowerment Through Action, Cooperation
and Harmony Towards Educational Reforms, Inc. and Abono (G.R.
No. 179295), Republic Act No. 7941 was declared unconstitutional
with regards to the two percent threshold in the distribution of
additional party-list seats. The Court in this decision provided a
procedure in the allocation of additional seats under the Party-List
System. Major political parties are disallowed from
participating in party-list elections . Another case on the party-
list elections, pursuant to Republic Act No. 7941 COMELEC
Resolutions Nos. 9366 and 9531, was filed by the 52 party-list groups
who were disqualified by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
to participate in the May 13, 2013 election. The consolidated case is
Atong Paglaum, Inc., Represented by its President, Mr. Alan Igot
v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 203766, April 2, 2013) was
penned by Justice Antonio T. Carpio. This case enumerated the six
parameters in determining as to who may participate in party-list
elections.
The officials of the House of Representatives are the Speaker of the
House, Deputy Speaker for Luzon, Deputy Speaker for Visayas,
Deputy Speaker for Mindanao, Majority Leader, and Minority
Leader. They are elected by a majority vote of members. There are
fifty seven (57) standing committees and sixteen (16) special
committees of the House of Representatives. The sole judge of
contests relating to election, returns and qualifications of members
of the House of Representatives rests with the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) which is composed of
nine members, three of whom are Justices of the Supreme Court and
six members of the Senate.(Art. VI, sec. 17). The House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal adopted its 1998 Internal Rules
on March 24, 1998.
3.3. Judicial System
Organizational Chart of the whole Judicial System and those of
each type of Court is available in 2002 Revised Manual of Clerks of
Court. Manila: Supreme Court, 2002. Organizational Chart was
amended due to the passage of Republic Act No. 9282 (law elevating
the Court of Tax Appeals to the level of a collegiate court)
Judicial power rests with the Supreme Court and the lower
courts, as may be established by law (Art. VIII, sec. 1). The judiciary
enjoys fiscal autonomy. Its appropriation may not be reduced by the
legislature below the appropriated amount the previous year, after
approval, shall be automatically and regularly released. (Art. VIII,
sec. 3). This provision may now face construction or interpretation
in line with what the Secretary of Budget and Management call
“ Transparency and Accountability Primordial to Fiscal
Autonomy .” This involves the release of funds of unfilled
positions in agencies enjoying fiscal autonomy such as Congress,
Judiciary, Constitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman. The
last annual budget from the government represents less than one
(1%) of the entire budget of the Philippine government. In 1984,
President Ferdiand Marcos passed Presidential Decree No. 1949, a
special fund popularly called The Judiciary Development Fund
(JDF). It is a special fund established “to help ensure and guarantee
the independence of the Judiciary as mandated by the Constitution
and public policy.” This fund is sourced from the legal fees collected
by the courts and 80% is for the cost of living allowances of the
members and personnel of the Judiciary and 20% is for the
acquisition, maintenance and repair of office equipment and
facilities.
The Rules of Court of the Philippines as amended and the rules and
regulations issued by the Supreme Court define the rules and
procedures of the Judiciary. These rules and regulations are in the
form of Administrative Matters, Administrative Orders, Circulars,
Memorandum Circulars, Memorandum Orders and OCA Circulars.
To inform the members of the Judiciary, legal profession and the
public of these rules and regulations, the Supreme Court
disseminates this rules and regulations to all courts, publishes
important ones in newspapers of general circulation, prints in book
or pamphlet form and now downloads them in the Supreme
Court and the Supreme Court E-Library websites .
Department of Justice Administrative Order No. 162 dated August 1,
1946 provided for the Canon of Judicial Ethics . Supreme Court of
the Philippines promulgated a new Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary effective June 1, 2004 (A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC),
which was published in two newspapers of general circulation on
May 3, 2004 (Manila Bulletin & Philippine Star) and available on
its websiteand the Supreme Court E-Library website .
The Supreme Court promulgated on June 21, 1988 the Code of
Professional Responsibility for the legal profession. The draft was
prepared by the Committee on Responsibility, Discipline and
Disbarment of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
A Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC) was
adopted on April 13, 2004, effective June 1, 2004, published in two
newspapers of general circulation on April 26, 2004 (Manila
Bulletin & Philippine Star) and available at the websites.
Supreme Court of the Philippines :
The barangay chiefs exercised judicial authority prior to the arrival
of Spaniards in 1521. During the early years of the Spanish period,
judicial powers were vested upon Miguel Lopez de Legaspi, the first
governor general of the Philippines where he administered civil and
criminal justice under the Royal Order of August 14, 1569.
The Royal Audencia was established on May 5, 1583 , composed of a
president, four oidores (justices) and a fiscal. The Audencia
exercised both administrative and judicial functions. Its functions
and structure were modified in 1815 when its president was replaced
by a chief justice and the number of justices was increased. It came
to be known as the Audencia Territorial de Manila with two
branches, civil and criminal. Royal Decree issued July 24, 1861
converted it to a purely judicial body wherein its decisions were
appealable to the Supreme Court of the Philippines to the Court of
Spain in Madrid. A territorial Audencia in Cebu and Audencia for
criminal cases in Vigan were organized on February 26, 1898.
The Audencias were suspended by General Wesley Merrit when a
military government was established after Manila fell to American
forces in 1898. Major General Elwell S. Otis re-established
the Audencia on May 29, 1899 by virtue of General Order No. 20.
Said Order provided for six Filipino members of the Audencia . Act
No. 136 abolished the Audencia and established the present Supreme
Court on June 11, 1901 with Cayetano Arellano as the first Chief
Justice together with associate justices, the majority of whom were
American. Filipinization of the Supreme Court started only during
the Commonwealth, 1935. Administrative Code of 1917 provided for a
Supreme Court with a Chief Justice and eight associate Justices.
With the ratification of the 1935 Constitution, the membership was
increased to 11 with two divisions of five members each. The 1973
Constitution further increased its membership to 15 with two (2)
divisions.
Pursuant to the provisions of the 1987 Constitution, the
Supreme Court is composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate
Justices who shall serve until the age of seventy (70). The Court may
sit En Banc or in its three (3) divisions composed of five members
each. A vacancy must be filled up by the President within ninety (90)
days of occurrence from the list submitted by the Judicial and Bar
Council. Constitution (1987),Article VIII, sec. 4 (2) explicitly
provides for the cases that must be heard En Banc and sec. 4 (3) f or
cases that may be heard by divisions.
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 transferred from the
Department of Justice to the Supreme Court the administrative
supervision of all courts and their personnel. This was affirmed
by Constitution(1987), Art. VIII, sec. 6. To effectively discharge this
constitutional mandate, The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
was created under Presidential Decree No. 828, as amended by
Presidential Decree No. 842, and its functions further strengthened
by a Resolution of the Supreme Court En Banc dated October 24,
1996. Its principal function is the supervision and administration of
the lower courts throughout the Philippines and all their personnel.
It reports and recommends to the Supreme Court all actions that
affect the lower court management. The OCA is headed by the Court
Administrator, three (3) Deputy Court Administrators and three (3)
Assistant Court Administrators.
According to the 1987 Constitution , Art. VIII, sec. 5, the
Supreme Court exercises the following powers:
Exercise jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari , prohibition ,
mandamus , quo warranto , and habeas corpus .
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:
 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.
 All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation
thereto.
 All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in
issue.
 All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua or higher.
 All cases in which only an error or question of law is
involved.
 Assign temporarily judges of lower court to other stations as
public interest may require. Such temporary assignment
shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge
concerned.
 Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a
miscarriage of justice.
 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
 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.
 Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in
accordance with the Civil Service Law (Sec. 5, id.).
Supreme Court has promulgated the Internal Rules of the
Supreme Court ( As amended in Resolutions dated July 6, 2010,
August 3, 2010, January 17, 2012, September 18, 2012) ), to govern
the internal operations of the Court and as a guide to the exercise of
its judicial and administrative functions). The last revision of the
Internal Rules (A.M. No, 10-4-20-SC (Revised)) was in March 12,
2013).
The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court provides that cases may
be heard on oral arguments upon defined issues. The
constitutionality of laws, treaties and other agreements are defined
issues. The procedure defined by section 3 is as follows: “The
petitioner shall argue first, followed by the respondent and
the amicus curiae , if any. Rebuttal of oral arguments may be allowed
by the Chief Justice or the Chairperson. If any, the Court may
invite amicus curiae. The constitutionality of two significant laws
has been decided after a series of oral arguments. Republic Act No.
10354 – “Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of
2012 or RH LAW too years before it became a law. One primary
consideration is that the Philippines is a Catholic/Christian country.
The constitutionality of the RH law was assailed in the consolidated
case of Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr., (G.R. No. 204819, April 08, 2014). The
Court declared that the law is constitutional. The importance of
religion and the Constitution was laid down at the very start of the
decision of Justice Jose Mendoza, and I quote:
“Freedom of religion was accorded preferred status by the
framers of our fundamental law. And this Court has consistently
affirmed this preferred status, well aware that it is “designed to
protect the broadest possibly liberty of conscience, to all each man to
believe as his conscience directs, to profess his beliefs, and to live as
he believes he ought to live, consistent with the liberty of others and
with the common good.”
The constitutionality of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
(Republic Act No.10175 passed on September 12, 2012 was assailed
in the consolidated case of Disini, Jr. v. The Secretary of Justice, G.R.
No. 203335, February 18, 2014.
The constitutionality of the Visiting Forces Agreement
(VFA), an agreement with the United States, was question in the
consolidated case of BAYAN ( Bagong Alyansang
Makabayan ) v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000.
Although this case declared the agreement constitutional, cases
involving this agreement are being filed. The case of Sombilon v.
Romulo, G.R. No. 175888, February 11, 2009, pertains to the custody
of defendant Lance Corporal (L/CPL) Daniel Smith, a member of the
United States Visiting Forces who was accused of rape. Another case
involving Cpl. Scott Pemberton, member of the United States Visiting
Forces was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City for
the murder of a transgender. Cpl. Pemberton was heavily guarded by
both United States and Filipino soldiers and has undergone
mandatory fingerprinting and mug shorts but arraignment has not
yet been scheduled.
Another agreement between Philippines and the United
States, the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) has
been question in consolidated petitions pertions. The Supreme Court
has started last November 18, 2014 to hold oral arguments on these
consolidated petitions.
Recent cases filed in the Supreme Court involve the use of
government funds in the two co-equal branches of government, the
Legislature and the Executive. The Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No.
208566, November 19, 2003, involves the use of the Priority
Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) by the members of the
Legislative Department. In the decision of Justice Perlas-Bernabe,
the concept and the history of the pork barrel system was discussed.
The Araullo v. Aquino III, G. R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014 on the
other hand assailed the constitutionality of the Disbursement
Acceleration Program (DAP), National Budget Circular (NBC) No.
541, and related issuances of the Department of Budget and
Management (DBM) implementing the DAP of the Executive
Department. The Supreme Court decided that use of the Priority
Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of the Legislative Department
and the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) of the Executive
Department are both unconstitutional. Plunder cases relating to the
use of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) have been
filed by the Office of the Ombudsman at the Sandiganbatan against
three incumbent Senators, Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Ramon
Revilla, Jr. and Jose P. Ejercito-Estrada. All the three incumbent
Senators are under detention.
The Supreme Court website includes the petitions, oral arguments,
audio recording and advisories of landmark decisions like those
previously mentioned.
The Supreme Court has adopted and promulgated the Rules
of Court for the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleadings and practice and procedure in all courts, and the
admission in the practice of law. In line with this mandate of the
Rules of Court and extrajudicial killing and disappearances, the
Supreme Court passed two important Resolutions: the Rule on the
Writ of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC), approved on September 25,
2007 and effective on October 24, 2007, and the Rule on the Writ of
Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-1-16--SC), approved on January 22, 2008
and effective February 2, 2008. The “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 writ shall cover extrajudicial killing and enforced
disappearances or threats. (sec.1)” The Writ of Habeas data on the
other hand “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 any
private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or
storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home
and correspondence of the aggrieved party” (section 1).
Writ of Kalikasan , a resolution on Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC) was approved on April
13, 2010 and was to take effect on April 29, 2010, fifteen (15) days
following its publication in a newspaper of general circulation. This
rule covers civil and criminal actions brought before the Regional
Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Trial Courts involving the enforcement or violations on
the existing environmental and other related laws and regulations,
conservation, development, preservation, protection and utilization
of the environment and natural resources, promulgated during the
American period such as Act No. 3572 approved on November 26,
1929 until the present Republic such as Republic Act No. 9637
approved on May 13, 2009. The Courts designated to try these
cases are called “Green Courts.”
A Writ of Kalikasan was issued with a Temporary
Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) was issued by the
Supreme Court in the case of “West Tower Condominium
Corporation, On Behalf of the Residents off West Tower Condo., And
In Representation of Barangay Bangkal, And Others, Including
Minors and Generations Yet Unborn vs. First Philippine Industrial
Corporation, First Gen Corporation And Their Respective Board of
Directors and Officers, John Does and Richard Does,” G.R. No.
194239, May 31, 2011. The case of Abrigo v. Swift, G.R. No. 206510,
September 16, 2014, was filed when the USS Guardian ran aground
on the northwest side of South Shoal of the Tubbataha Reefs.
Tubataha Reefs is declared as a Nature Park by law (Republic Act
No. 10067, approved April 6, 2010) and a World Heritage Site by the
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO). A Writ of Kalikasan petition with prayer for the
Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) under Rule 7 of
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, otherwise known as the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases (Rules) was filed for violations of
environmental laws and regulations. This case however takes into
consideration involves international responsibility. The USS
Guardian was allowed to enter Philippine waters by pursuant to the
Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) and “as a treaty privilege should be
considered as an act jure imperii .” The petition was dismissed. The
Court stated and I quote:
“The Court defers to the Executive Branch on the matter of
compensation and rehabilitation measures through diplomatic
channels. Resolution of these issues impinges on our relations with
another State in the context of common security interests under the
VFA. It is settled that “[t]he conduct of the foreign relations of our
government is committed by the Constitution to the executive and
legislative—“the political”--departments of the government, and the
propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this political power
is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision.”
The Supreme Court has promulgated what can be considered as a
landmark decision at the start of 2015. The Risos-Vidal v.
Commission on Elections and Joseph E. Estrada, G.R. No. 206666,
January 21, 2015, penned by Associate Justice Teresita L De Castro,
dismissed the disqualification case against the former President and
now the elected Mayor of Manila. The former President was
convicted by the Sandiganbayan of plunder. President Arroyo
granted former President Estrada executive clemency or pardon on
October 25, 2007 on the grounds that the government has a policy to
pardon convicts who are 70 and above and that Estrada has already
been on house of arrest for 6 years. This disqualification case’ main
contention was on this pardon extended by President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo. The Supreme Court En Banc voted 11-3 and one
abstention. Majority of the justices characterized the pardon as
absolute and this restored Estrada’s qualification to stand as
candidate in the last mayoral election. This decision upheld
Estrada’s contention that President Arroyo’s pardon “restored his
full civil and political rights, including the right to seek public
elective office.”
Amendments are promulgated through the Committee on
Revision of Rules the Court also issues administrative rules and
regulations in the form of court issuances found in the Supreme
Court and the Supreme Court E-Library websites .
Draft personnel manual (A.M. No. 00-6-01-SC) was been submitted
to the Court En Banc for action on March 29, 2011. In a Resolution
of the Court En Banc dated January 31, 2012, the Human Resource
Manual formerly referred to as Personnel Manual, was approved.
The Judicial and Bar Council was created by virtue of
Constitution(1987), Art. VIII, sec. 8. under the supervision of the
Supreme Court. Its principal function is to screen prospective
appointees to any judicial post. It is composed of the Chief Justice
as ex-officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice and representatives
of 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 as members. The Judicial and Bar
Council has promulgated on October 31, 2000 its Rules (JBC-009) in
the performance of its function. The Supreme Court opined that in
the case of Jardeleza v. Sereno, The Judicial And Bar Council and
Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 213181, August 19, 2014, that the application of
Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 to petitioner violated the petitioners’
constitutionally guaranteed right to due process and having
garnered a majority vote of the JBC Members, declare that the
petitioner be deemed included in the short list submitted by
respondent JBC to the President. The Supreme Court further stated
the need to “ respect to the interpretation and application of Section
2, Rule 10 of JBC-009.”
The JBC conducts live public interviews and has set
guidelines for vacancy in the Chief Justice, Associate Justices of the
Supreme Court and Appellate Courts. JBC Resolution No. 007
provides for wider publicity of notice of opening of nomination and
list of applicants for judicial positions.
The Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) is the “training
school for justices, judge, court personnel, lawyers and aspirants to
judicial posts.” It was originally created by the Supreme Court on
March 16, 1996 by virtue of Administrative Order No. 35-96 and was
institutionalized on February 26, 1998 by virtue of Republic 8557. It
is an important component of the Supreme Court for its important
mission on judicial education it to p rovide opportunities to develop
judicial competence, instill sound values, and form constructive
attitudes in its continuing pursuit of judicial excellence. No
appointee to the Bench may commence the discharge his
adjudicative function without completing the prescribed course in
the Philippine Judicial
Academy (http://philja.judiciary.gov.ph/programs.html) Its organiz
ational structure and administrative set-up are provided for by the
Supreme Court in its En Banc resolution (Revised A.M. No. 01-1-04-
SC-PHILJA). It has development partners . The PHILJA Training
Center is situated at Brgy. Silang, Crossing East, Tagaytay City.
The Philippine Mediation Center was organized “pursuant to
Supreme Court En banc Resolution A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA,
dated October 16, 2001, and in line with the objectives of the Action
Program for Judicial Reforms (APJR) to decongest court dockets,
among others, the Court prescribed guidelines in institutionalizing
and implementing the mediation program in the Philippines. The
same resolution designated the Philippine Judicial Academy as the
component unit of the Supreme Court for Court-Annexed Mediation
and other Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mechanisms, and
established the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC).”
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Office was organized
to implement the rules on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
for members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (B.M. No. 850
dated October 2, 2001 – “Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
(MCLE)). The purpose of the MCLE is “to ensure that throughout”
the career of the members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
“they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of
the profession and enhance the standards of the practice of law.”
Members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines who are not
exempt from the MCLE must complete thirty six (36) hours of
continuing legal education every three (3) years (B.M. No. 850, Rule
2, sec. 2). Exemptions from the MCLE requirement are under Rule
7, sec. 1-2. It holds office in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
main office at Julio Vargas St., Ortigas Center, Mandaluyong City.
Court of Appeals :
Commonwealth Act No. 3 (December 31, 1935), pursuant to the
Constitution (1935), Art. VIII, sec. 1, established the Court of
Appeals. It was formally organized on February 1, 1936 and was
composed of eleven justices with Justice Pedro Concepcion as the
first Presiding Justice. Its composition was increased to 15 in 1938
and further increased to 17 in 1942 by virtue of Executive Order No.
4. The Court of Appeals was regionalized in the later part of 1944
when five District Courts of Appeal were organized for Northern,
Central and Southern Luzon, for Manila and for Visayas and
Mindanao. It was abolished by President Osmena in 1945, pursuant
to Executive Order No. 37 due to the prevailing abnormal
conditions . However, it was re-established on October 4, 1946 by
virtue of Republic Act No. 52 with a Presiding Justice and fifteen (15)
Associate Justices. Its composition was increased by the following
enactments: Republic Act No. 1605 to eighteen (18); Republic Act
No. 5204 to twenty-four (24); Presidential Decree No. 1482 to one (1)
Presiding Justice and thirty-four (34) Associate Justices; Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129 to fifty (50); Republic Act No. 8246 to sixty-nine
(69). With Republic Act No. 8246, the Court of Appeals in Cebu, and
Cagayan de Oro were established. With Republic Act 8246, the 69
Justices are divided in twenty three divisions throughout the
Philippines: Luzon (Manila- 1-17 th Division), Visayas (Cebu- 18 th -
20 th Division) and Mindanao (Cagayan de Oro- 21 st -23 rd Division).
The 2009 Internal Rules of Procedure of the Court of Appeals was
approved by the Supreme Court En Ban in a Resolution (A.M. No.
09-11-11-CA) dated December 15, 2009.
(http://ca.judiciary.gov.ph/images/references_corner/2009irca.pdf)
Batas Pambansa Blg . 129 changed t he name of the Court of
Appeals to Intermediate Appellate Court. Executive Order No. 33,
issued by President Corazon C. Aquino on July 28, 1986, brought
back its name to Court of Appeals.
Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by Executive
Order No. 33 and Republic Act No. 7902 provides for the
jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals as follows:
 Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari habeas corpus, and quo warrant, and
auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction;
 Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of
judgment of Regional Trial Courts; and
 Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments,
decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial
Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards
or commissions, including the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees
Compensation Commission and the Civil Service
Commission, except those falling within the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the
Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under
Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of
this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and
subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the
Judiciary Act of 1948.
In the case of St. Martin Funeral Home v. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998 (356
Phil. 811), the decision and resolutions of the National Labor
Relations Commission now initially reviewable to the Court of
Appeals through a petition of Certiorari under Rule 65. Prior to this
decision, it was directly to the Supreme Court.
Criminal cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua,
life imprisonment or death were automatically elevated to the
Supreme Court. With the case of People v. Mateo, G.R. No. 147678-
87, July 4, 2004 (433 SCRA 640), the Supreme Court allowed the
Court of Appeals to conduct an intermediate review of the case before
it is elevated to the Supreme Court.
As per the Resolution of the Supreme Court (A.M. No. 05-11-04-
SC), the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over petitions for freeze
orders on any money instrument, property or proceeds involving the
Anti-Money Laundering cases (Republic Act No. 9160). Jurisdiction
for Writs of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC dated October 24, 2007)
and Writs of Habeas data (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC dated February 2,
2008) rests with the Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court, acting on the recommendation of the
Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court, resolved to approve the
2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (A.M. No. 02-6-13-CA)
and amended by a resolution of the Court En Banc on July 13, 2004
(A.M. No. 03-05-03-SC).
Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9372 otherwise known as the
Human Security Act of 2007, the Chief Justice issued Administrative
Order No. 118-2007, designating the First, Second and Third
Divisions of the Court of Appeals to handle cases involving the
crimes of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism and all other
matters incident to the said crimes emanating from the Metropolitan
Manila and Luzon. For those emanating from Visayas, all divisions
of the Court of Appeals stationed in Cebu are designated to handle
these cases while the Court of Appeals stationed in Cagayan De Oro
will handle cases from Mindanao.
Sandiganbayan :
The Anti-Graft Court, or Sandiganbayan, was created to maintain
integrity, honesty and efficiency in the bureaucracy and weed out
misfits and undesirables in government service Constitution (1973),
Art. XIII, sec. 5 and Constitution (1987), Art. XI, sec. 4. It was
restructured by Presidential Decree No. 1606 as amended by
Republic Act No. 8249. It is composed of a Presiding Justice and
fourteen (14) Associate Justices still in five Divisions of three (3)
Justices each.
As per Republic Act No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction
over cases involving the violations of the following:
 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019,
as amended, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Sec. 2,
Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code), of a
government official occupying the following positions in the
government whether in a permanent, acting or interim
capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense;
 “Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of
regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade
'27' and higher, of the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758);
 Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as
Grade'27'and up under the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989; cralaw
 Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions
of the Constitution;
 Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions,
without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and
 All other national and local officials classified as
Grade'27'and higher under the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989.
Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other
crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in
subsection a) of this section in relation to their office.
Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with
Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.”
The Supreme Court, acting on the recommendation of the
Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court, resolved with
modification the Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan on
August 28, 2002 (A.M. No. 02-6-07—SB)
Court of Tax Appeals :
Created by Republic Act No. 1125 on June 16, 1954, it serves as an
appellate court to review tax cases. It had three judges and one
Division. Under Republic Act No. 9282 , its jurisdiction has been
expanded where it now enjoys the same level as the Court of
Appeals. This law has doubled its membership, from three to six
justices, one (1) Presiding Justice and five (5) Associate Justices.
There are now two (2) Divisions with three Justices per division.
Republic Act Number 9503 enacted on June 12, 2008 and effective
July 5, 2008 further expanded its composition to one (1) Presiding
Justice and eight (8) Associate Justices in three (3) Divisions. A
decision of a division may be appealed to the En Banc. The en Banc
decision may be appealed by verified petition for certiorari to the
Supreme Court.
T he Supreme Court acting on the recommendation of the Committee
on Revision of the Rules of Court resolved to approve the Revised
Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA) and
amended by aresolution of the Court En Banc on November 22,
2005 .
The Court of Tax Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction to
review by appeal pursuant to Republic Act No. 1125 are the following:
 Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases
involving disputed, assessments, refunds of internal revenue
taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation
thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal
Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of
Internal Revenue;
 Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving
liability for customs duties, fees, or other money charges;
seizure, detention or release of property affected; fines,
forfeitures or other penalties imposed in relation thereto; or
other matters arising under the Customs Law or other laws
administered by the Bureau of Customs;
 Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases
elevated to him automatically for review from decisions of
the Commissioner of Customs which are adverse to the
Government under Section 2315 of the Tariff and Customs
Code;
 Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry in the case
of non-agricultural product, commodity or article, and the
Secretary of Agriculture in the case of agricultural product,
commodity or article, involving dumping and countervailing
duties under Section 301 and 302, respectively, of the Tariff
and Customs Code, and safeguard measures under R.A. No.
8800, where either party may appeal the decision to impose
or not to impose said duties;
 The expanded appellate jurisdiction of the under Republic
Act No. 9282 are follows;
 all criminal offenses arising from violations of the National
Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs Code and
other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue
or the Bureau of Customs;
 Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts
in local tax cases;
 Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the
assessment and taxation of real property originally decided
by the provincial or city board of assessment appeals;
 Collection of internal revenue taxes and customs duties the
assessment of which have become final.
 Under Republic Act No. 9282, the jurisdiction of the Court of
Tax Appeals include civil tax cases and cases that are
criminal in nature, as well as local tax cases, property tax and
collection of taxes.
Regional Trial Courts:
They are called the second level courts and are divided into thirteen
(13) judicial regions: National Capital Region (Metro Manila) and the
twelve (12) regions of the country, which are divided into several
branches. The jurisdictions are defined in sec. 19-23 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by Republic Act No. 7671. The
Supreme Court designates certain branches of regional trial courts as
special courts to handle exclusively criminal cases, juvenile and
domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban land reform cases
that do not fall under the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies. The
Supreme Court issues resolutions designating specific branches of
the Regional Trial Courts as special courts for heinous crimes,
dangerous drugs cases, commercial courts and intellectual property
rights violations. Special rules are likewise promulgated. A.M. No.
00-8-10-SC is a resolution of the Court En Banc on the Rules of
Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation. The Interim Rules was
promulgated in November 2000 and December 2008 affects special
commercial courts. Some Regional Trial Courts are specifically
designated to try and decide cases formerly cognizable by the
Securities and Exchange Commission (A.M. No. 00-11-030SC).
Some branches of the Regional Trial Courts have been designated as
family courts (A.M. No. 99-11-07) because the family courts to be
established pursuant to Republic Act No. 8369 of the Family Court
Law of 1997 have not yet been organized. Pursuant to Republic Act
No. 8369, the Family Court Law of 1997, some branches of the
Regional Trial Courts have been designated as family courts (A.M.
No. 99-11-07).
The Regional Trial Courts’ jurisdictions are defined as follows:
Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in Civil Cases as follows:
 All civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation;
 All civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of
real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed
value of the property involved exceeds twenty thousand
pesos (P 20,000.00) or, civil actions in Metro Manila, where
such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P 50,000.00)
except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of
lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is
conferred upon the MeTCs, MTCs, and MCTCs;
 All actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the
demand or claim exceeds one hundred thousand pesos (P
100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila, where such demand or
claim exceeds two hundred thousand pesos (P 200,000.00);
 All matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the
gross value of the estate exceeds One hundred thousand
pesos (P 100,000.00) or, in probate matters in Metro
Manila, where such gross value exceeds Two hundred
thousand pesos (P 200,000.00);
 All actions involving the contract of marriage and marital
relations;
 All cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions;
 All civil actions and special proceedings falling within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court and of the Court of Agrarian Relations as
now provided by law; and
 All other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation
expenses and costs or the value of the property in
controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P
100,000.00) or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where
the demand, exclusive of the above-mentioned items exceeds
Two hundred pesos (P 200,000.00) (Sec. 19, Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7691).
Exercise original jurisdiction in other cases as follows:
 The issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto , habeas corpus, and injunction
which may be enforced in any part of their respective
regions; and
 Actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers
and consuls.
 They shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over MeTCs,
MTCCs, MTCs, and MCTCs in their respective territorial
jurisdiction.
Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities
(MTCC), Municipal Trial Courts (MTC) and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts (MCTC):
These are called the first level courts established in each city and
municipality. Their jurisdiction is provided for by section 33, 35 of
Batas Pambansa Blg 129. Their jurisdiction has been expanded by
special lawsnamely Republic Act Nos. 9276, 9252, 9305, 9306, and
9308.
 MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs, and MCTCs shall exercise original
jurisdiction in Civil Cases as provided for in section 33 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129 is as follows:
 Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate
proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of
provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the
personal property, estate or amount of the demand does not
exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P 100,000.00) or, in
Metro Manila where such personal property, estate or
amount of the demand does not exceed Two hundred
thousand pesos (P 200,000.00), exclusive of interests,
damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation
expenses, and costs the amount of which must be specifically
alleged: Provided, That interests, damages of whatever kind,
attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs shall be
included in the determination of the filing fees. Provided
further, That where there are several claims or causes of
action between the same or different parties embodied in the
same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the
totality of the claims in all the causes of action arose out of
the same or different transactions;
 Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry
and unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases,
the defendant raises the question of ownership in his
pleadings and the question of ownership in his pleadings and
the question of possession cannot be resolved without
deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall
be resolved only to determine the issue of possession; and
 Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which
involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein where the assessed value of the property or
interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P
20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such
assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P
50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That
in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes the value
of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of
the adjacent lots (Sec. 33, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129).
Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 provides that the Supreme
Court may designate MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs, and MCTCs to hear and
determine cadastral or land registration cases where the value does
not exceed one hundred thousand pesos (P100, 000.00). Their
decision is can be appealed in the same manner as the Regional Trial
Courts.
The MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs, and MCTCs are empowered to hear and
decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or applications for bail in
criminal cases in the province or city in the absence of the Regional
Trial Court Judges.
The Supreme Court approved on September 9, 2008 the Rule of
Procedure for Small Claims Cases (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC) which took
effect on October 1, 2008 after its publication in two newspapers of
general circulation. Forty four (44) first level courts (Metropolitan
Trial Courts (MeTC), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC),
Municipal Trial Courts (MTC) and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
(MCTC) were designated to hear small claims cases. On February
16, 2010, a Resolution of the Court En Banc was approved amending
provisions of the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases (A.M. No.
08-8-7-SC). In March of 2010, all the first Level Courts in the
country, except Shari’a courts were empowered to hear small claims
cases. Small claims courts are also called “People’s Courts” cases are
readily resolve for al courts are required to decide the matter at the
first hearing. Lawyers are not allowed in hearings. Thus, the
procedure is considered inexpensive. These first level courts try small
claims cases for payment of money where the value of the claim does
not exceed One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100, 000.00) exclusive
of interest and costs. These courts shall apply the rules of procedure
provided in A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC in all actions “which are: (a) purely
civil in nature where the claim or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is
solely for payment or reimbursement of sum of money, and (b) the
civil aspect of criminal actions, either filed before the institution of
the criminal action, or reserved upon the filing of the criminal action
in court, pursuant to Rule 111 of the Revised Rules Of Criminal
Procedure.”

Shari’a Courts:
These special courts were created by sec. 137 of Presidential Decree
No. 1083 or the Code of Muslim Personal Laws. The judges should
possess all the qualifications of a Regional Trial Court Judge and
should also be learned in Islamic law and jurisprudence. Articles 143,
144, and 155 of Presidential Decree No. 1083 provide the jurisdiction
of the said courts as follows:
Shari’a D istrict Courts (SDC) as provided for in paragraph (1),
Article 143 of Presidential Decree No. 1083, shall have exclusive
jurisdiction over the following cases:
 All cases involving custody, guardianship, legitimacy,
paternity and filiations arising under the Code;
 All cases involving disposition, distribution and settlement of
the estates of deceased Muslims, probate of wills, issuance of
letters of administration or appointment of administrators or
executors regardless of the nature or aggregate value of the
property;
 Petitions for the declaration of absence and death and for the
cancellation or correction of entries in the Muslim Registries
mentioned in Title VI of Book Two of the Code;
 All actions arising from customary contracts in which the
parties are Muslim, if they did not specified which law shall
govern their relations; and
 All petitions for mandamus, prohibition, injunction,
certiorari, habeas corpus, and all other auxiliary writs and
processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
The SDC in concurrence with existing civil courts shall have original
jurisdiction over the following cases (paragraph (2) of Article 143):
 Petitions by Muslims for the constitution of family home,
change of name and commitment of an insane person to any
asylum:
 All other personal and real actions not mentioned in
paragraph (1) (d) wherein the parties involved are Muslims
except those for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, which
shall fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
MTCs;
 All special civil actions for interpleader or declaratory relief
wherein the parties are Muslims or the property involved
belongs exclusively to Muslims.
Article 144 of Presidential Decree No. 1083 provides that the SDC
within shall have appellate jurisdiction over all cases tried in
the Shari’a Circuit Courts (SCC) within their territorial jurisdiction.
Article 155 of Presidential Decree No. 1083 provides that the SCCs
have exclusive original jurisdiction over:
 All cases involving offenses defined and punished under the
Code;
 All civil actions and proceedings between parties who are
Muslims or have been married in accordance with Article 13
of the Code involving disputes relating to:
o Marriage;
o Divorce recognized under the Code;
o Betrothal or breach of contract to marry;
o Customary dower (mahr);
o Disposition and distribution of property upon
divorce;
o Maintenance and support, and consolatory gifts
(mut’a); and
o Restitution of marital rights; and
 All cases involving disputes to communal properties.
Rules of procedure are provided for in articles 148 and 158. En Banc
Resolution of the Supreme Court in 183, provided the special rules of
procedure in the Shari’a courts ( Ijra-at-Al Mahakim Al Sharia’a).
Shari’a courts and personnel are subject to the administrative
supervision of the Supreme Court. Appointment of judges,
qualifications, tenure, and compensation are subject to the
provisions of the Muslim Code (Presidential Decree No. 1083. SDCs
and SCCs have the same officials and other personnel as those
provided by law for RTCs and MTCs, respectively.
Quasi-Courts or Quasi-Judicial Agencies:
Quasi-judicial agencies are administrative agencies, more properly
belonging to the Executive Department, but are empowered by the
Constitution or statutes to hear and decide certain classes or
categories of cases.
Quasi-judicial agencies, which are empowered by the Constitution,
are the Constitutional Commissions: Civil Service Commission,
Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit.
Quasi-judicial agencies empowered by statutes are: Office of the
President. Department of Agrarian Reform, Securities and Exchange
Commission, National Labor Relations Commission, National
Telecommunication Commission, Employees Compensation
Commission, Insurance Commission, Construction Industry
Arbitration Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission,
Social Security System, Government Service Insurance System,
Bureau of Patents, Trademark and Technology, National Conciliation
Mediation Board, Land Registration Authority, Civil Aeronautics
Board, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, National Electrification
Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, Agricultural Inventions
Board and the Board of Investments. When needed, t he Supreme
Court issues rules and regulations for these quasi-judicial agencies in
the performance of their judicial functions. Republic Act No. 8799,
known as the “Securities Regulation Code,” reorganized the
Securities and Exchange Commission (Chapter II) and provided for
its powers and function (sec.5). Specifically provided for in these
powers and function is the Commission’s jurisdiction over all cases
previously provided for in sec. 5, Pres. Decree No. 902-A (sec. 5.2).
The Supreme Court promulgated rules of procedure governing intra-
corporate controversies under Republic Act No. 8799 (A.M. No. 01-
2-04-SC).
Decisions of these quasi-courts can be appealed to the Court of
Appeals except those of the Constitutional Commissions: Civil
Service Commission, Commission on Elections and the Commission
on Audit, which can be appealed by certiorari to the Supreme Court
(Art. IX-A, sec. 7).
Other Judicial Procedures:
Katarungang Pambarangay - Presidential Decree No. 1508, or
the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, took effect December 11, 1978,
and established a system of amicably settling disputes at
the barangay l evel. Rules and procedures were provided by this
decree and the Local Government Code, Title I, Chapter 7, sec. 339-
422). This system of amicable settlement of dispute aims to promote
the speedy administration of justice by easing the congestion of court
dockets. The Court does not take cognizance of cases filed if they are
not filed first with the Katarungang Pambarangay.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) System - Republic Act No.
9285 institutionalized the use of an alternative dispute resolution
system, which serves to promote the speedy and impartial
administration of justice and unclog the court dockets. This act shall
be without prejudice to the adoption of the Supreme Court of any
ADR system such as mediation, conciliation, arbitration or any
combination thereof. The Chairperson of the Sub-Committee on the
Rules on Alternative Dispute Resolution recommended the Special
Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution (A.M. No. 07-11-
08-SC) to the Supreme Court En Banc and it was approved on
October 30, 2009. The Department of Justice on the other hand
promulgated Department Circular No. 98 - Implementing Rules and
Regulations of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004
(Republic Act No. 9285) on December 4, 2009. The Supreme Court
on June 22, 2010 approved the Rules on Court-Annexed Family
Mediation, amending the Rules on Court Annexed Mediation and the
corresponding Code of Ethical Standards for Mediators. (A.M. No.
10-4-16-SC).
The Supreme Court by virtue of an En Banc Resolution dated
October 16, 2001 (Administrative Matter No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA),
designated the Philippine Judicial Academy as the component unit of
the Supreme Court for court-referred or court-related mediation
cases and alternative dispute resolution mechanism and establishing
the Philippine Mediation Center. Muslin law provides its own
arbitration Council called The Agama Arbitration Council.
Aside from the three co-equal branches, the other offices in
government are the government financial institutions and
government-owned and controlled corporations .
3.4. Constitutional Commissions
Civil Service Commission - Act No. 5 (1900) established the
Philippine civil service and was reorganized as a Bureau in 1905. It
was established in the 1935 Constitution. Republic Act No. 2260
(1959) converted it from a Bureau into the Civil Service Commission.
Presidential Decree No. 807 further redefined its role. Its present
status is provided for in the 1987 Constitution, Art. IX-B and
reiterated by the provision of the 1987 Administrative Code
(Executive Order No. 292).
Commission on Elections - It is the constitutional commission
created by a 1940 amendment to the 1935 Constitution whose
primary function is to manage to maintain its authority and
independence in the conduct of elections. The COMELEC exercises
administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial powers. Its membership
increased to nine with a term of nine years by the 1973 Constitution.
It was however decreased to seven with a term of seven years without
re-appointment by the 1987 Constitution.
Commission on Audit - Article IX, sec, 2 of the 1987 Constitution
provided the powers and authority of the Commission on Audit,
which is to examine, audit and settle all accounts pertaining to the
revenue and receipts of and expenditures or uses of funds and
property owned or held in trust by or pertaining to the Government
including government owned and controlled corporations with
original charters.
3.5. Local Governments
Article X of the 1987 Constitution provides for the territorial and
political subdivisions of the Philippines as follows: province, cities,
municipalities and barangays . The 1991 Local Government Code or
Republic Act No. 7160, as amended by Republic Act No. 9009,
provides the detail that implements the provision of the
Constitution. The officials, namely, the governor, city mayor, city
vice mayor, municipal mayor, municipal vice-mayor and punong
barangay are elected by their respective units. (1991 Local
Government Code, Title II, Chapter 1, sec. 41 (a)). The regular
members of the sangguniang panlalawigan (for the
province), sangguniang panglunsod (for cities), sangguniang
bayan (municipalities) are elected by districts while
the sangguniang barangay are elected at large.
Each territorial or political subdivision enjoys local autonomy as
defined in the Constitution. The President exercises supervision over
local Governments.
Each region is composed of several provinces while each province is
composed of a cluster of municipalities and component cities (Local
Government Code, Title IV, Chapter 1, sec. 459). The Provincial
government is composed of the governor, vice-governor, members of
the sangguniang panlalawigan and other appointed officials.
The city consists of more urbanized and developed barangays which
are created, divided, merged, abolished or its boundary altered by
law or act of Congress, subject to the approval of majority votes cast
by its residents in a plebiscite conducted by the Comelec (Local
Government Code, Title III, Chapter 1, sec. 448-449). A City may be
classified either as a component or highly urbanized. The city
government is composed of the mayor, vice-mayor, members of
the sangguniang panlunsod (which is composed of the president of
the city chapter of the liga ng mga barangay , president of
the panlungsod ng mga pederasyon ng mga sangguniang
kabataan and the sectoral representatives) and other appointed
officials.
The municipality consists of a group of barangays which is created,
divided, merged, abolished or its boundary altered by law or act of
Congress, subject to the approval of majority votes casts in a
plebiscite conducted by the Comelec (Local Government Code, Title
II, Chapter 1, sec. 440-441). The municipal government is composed
of the mayor, vice-mayor, sangguniang members (which are
composed of president of the municipal chapter of the liga ng mga
barangay , president of the pambayang pederasyon ng mga
sangguniang kabataan and the sectoral representatives) and other
appointed officials. In order for a municipality to be converted into
cities, a law or act of Congress must be passed by virtue of the
provisions of the Local Government Code and the Constitution. A
plebiscite must be conducted to determine if a majority of the people
in the said municipality are in favor of converting the municipality
into a city. Although laws have been passed, their constitutionality
can be question in the Supreme Court. This can be seen in the
November 18, 2008 decision penned by Justice Antonio T. Carpio.
The League of Cities of the Philippines, City of Iloilo, and City of
Calbayog filed consolidated petitions questioning the
constitutionality of the Cityhood Laws and enjoined the Commission
on Elections and the respondent municipality from conducting
plebiscites. The Cityhood Laws were declared as unconstitutional for
they violated sections 6 and 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution.
The Cityhood laws referred to in this case are: Republic Acts 9389,
9390, 9391, 9392, 9293, 9394, 9398, 9404, 9405, 9407, 9408, 9409,
9434, 9435, 9436 and 9491. (League of Cities of the Philippines (CP)
represented by LCP National President Jerry P. Trenas v.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 176951, 177499, 178056,
November 18, 2008). Acting on an appeal, Justice Antonio T.
Carpio on August 24, 2010 sustained the earlier decision declaring
the Cityhood Laws unconstitutional. On appeal, the Court in a
decision on February 15, 2011, penned by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin,
reversed the two previous decisions of the Court and declared the
Cityhood laws constitutional. Justice Bersamin sustained this
decision on April 12, 2011 and the finally on June 28, 2011.
The Barangay is the smallest local government unit which is
created, divided, merged, abolished or its boundary altered by law or
by an ordinance of the sangguniang panlalawigan or sangguniang
panlunsod , subject to the approval of majority votes casts in a
plebiscite conducted by the Comelec (Local Government Code, Title
I, Chapter 1, sec. 384-385)
The Philippines is divided into the following local government units:
 Region I (ILOCOS REGION)
 Region II (CAGAYAN VALLEY)
 Region III (CENTRAL LUZON)
 Region IV (CALABARZON & MIMAROPA)
 Region V (BICOL REGION)
 Region VI (WESTERN VISAYAS)
 Region VII (CENTRAL VISAYAS)
 Region VIII (EASTERN VISAYAS)
 Region IX (ZAMBOANGA PENINSULA)
 Region X (NORTHERN MINDANAO)
 Region XI (DAVAO REGION)
 Region XII (SOCCSKSARGEN)
 Region XIII (CARAGA)
 Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindano (ARMM)
 Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR)
 National Capital Region (NCR)
The Caraga Administrative Region (Region XIII) was created by
Republic Act No. 7901, which was passed by both houses of Congress
and approved by the President on February 23, 1995. It is composed
of the provinces of Agusan del Norte, Agusan del Sur, Surigao del
Norte, Surigao del Sur, and the cities of Butuan and Surigao.
The Cordillera Administrative Region was created by President
Corazon C. Aquino by virtue of Executive Order No. 220 on July 15,
1987. It includes the provinces of Abra, Benguet, Mountain Province,
Ifugao and Kalinga-Apayao. Republic Act No. 6766, which was
approved on October 23, 1989. Republic Act No. 6766 providing for
an Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region was passed
Congress and took effect on October 23, 1989. A plebiscite was
called but it failed to get the majority affirmative vote on January 30,
1990. Another law, Republic Act No. 8438, establishing the
Cordillera Autonomous Region was passed by Congress on December
22, 1997. Another plebiscite was held on March 7, 1998 among the
people of the region. Again, it failed to gain the majority approval of
the Cordillera people. Efforts in Congress are being made for the
passage of another law.
The Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) was created
by Republic Act No. 6734 and further strengthened by Republic Act
No. 9054. Republic Act No. 6734 was passed by both houses of
Congress on February7, 2001 and lapsed into law without the
signature of the President in accordance with Article VI, Section 27
(1) of the Constitution on March 31, 2001. The ARMM has its seat of
government in Muslim Mindanao. It is composed of four
provinces, Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi. It is
guided by its own Constitution and Organic Act. It has its own
Legislative, Executive and Administration of Justice (Judicial)
department of government.
In the case of Disomangcop v. Datumanong, G.R. No. 149848,
November 25, 2004, touch on the fate of the autonomy for Muslim
Mindanao. In this decision Justice Tinga stated “we have the
overwhelming support of the Bangsa Moro and the Cordillera
Constitution. By this we mean meaningful an authentic regional
autonomy. We propose that we have a separate Article on the
autonomous regions for the Bangsa Moro and the Cordillera people
clearly spelled out in the Constitution, instead of prolonging the
agony of...”
This ARMM will be replaced by the Bangsang Moro basic law
according to the Chief Peace Negotiator Marvic Leonen. The
Philippine Government and the Moro Islamic Liberation have
agreed to form the transition commission to craft the basic
Bangsamoro Basic Law. Framework of Agreement of the Bangsa
Moro was drafted in 2012. Annex of Power Sharing was signed in
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on December 8, 2013 between Prof. Miriam
Coronel- Ferrer as the GPH Panel Chair and Mohaher Iqbal as the
MILF Panel Chair, in the presence of the Malaysian Facilitator
Tengku Dato’ Ab Ghafar Tengku Mohamed.
3.6. Other Government Agencies
The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (Central Bank) is considered as a
constitutional office in the official Philippine government directory .
The Commission on Appointment is an independent constitutional
body separate and distinct from the Legislative. Its members are
members of both house of Congress. It aims to “acts as a restraint
against the abuse of the appointing power of the President by
approving only those who are fit and qualified to ensure the efficient
and harmonious functioning of the government.” This mandate and
the government officials who need the Commission’s confirmation
are provided in the Constitution (1987), Article VII, sec. 16. The
members of the judiciary are not covered by the Commission on
Appointments for the are under the Judicial and Bar Council.
The Commission on Human Rights was created as an independent
office for cases of violation of the human rights (1987 Constitution,
Art. XIII, sec. 17), Article XIII, sec. 18 whose mission is “committee
to ensure the primacy of all human rights to their protection,
promotion and fulfillment, on the basis of equality and non-
discrimination, in particular for those who are marginalized and
vulnerable. It is composed of aChairperson and four (4) members.
Office of the Ombudsman :
Constitution (1987), Article XI, sec. 12 and Republic Act No. 6770,
sec. 13 , provide that the mandate of the Office of the Ombudsman is
to “act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against
officers or employees of the Government, or of any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations, and enforce their administrative, civil and
criminal liability in every case where the evidence warrants in order
to promote efficient service by the Government to the
people .” Republic Act No. 677, sec. 15 provides that priority is
given to complaints filed against high ranking government officials
and/or those occupying supervisory positions and those complaints
involving grave offenses as well as complaints involving large sums of
money and/or properties. It is composed of the Ombudsman and
six (6) deputies.
The President, Vice President, members of the Supreme Court,
Constitutional Commission and the Ombudsman may be removed
from office by impeachment for conviction of violations of the
Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high
crimes or betrayal of public trust. (Art. XI, sec. 2). The House of
Representatives has the exclusive power to initiate (Art. XI, sec. 3
(1)) while the Senate has the sole power to try and decide
impeachments cases (Art. XI, sec. 3(6)). All other public officials and
employees may be removed by law (Art. XI, sec. 2 the Civil Service
Law).
4. Legal System
4.1. Nature of the Philippine Legal System
The Philippine legal system may be considered as a unique legal
system because it is a blend of civil law (Roman), common law
(Anglo-American), Muslim (Islamic) law and indigenous law. Like
other legal systems, there are two main sources of law.
4.2. Sources of Law
There are two primary sources of the law:
Statutes or statutory law - Statutes are defined as the written
enactment of the will of the legislative branch of the government
rendered authentic by certain prescribed forms or solemnities are
more also known as enactment of congress. Generally, they consist
of two types, the Constitution and legislative enactments. In the
Philippines, statutory law includes constitutions, treaties, statutes
proper or legislative enactments, municipal charters, municipal
legislation, court rules, administrative rules and orders, legislative
rules and presidential issuance.
Jurisprudence - or case law - is cases decided or written opinion
by courts and by persons performing judicial functions. Also
included are all rulings in administrative and legislative tribunals
such as decisions made by the Presidential or Senate or House
Electoral Tribunals. Only decisions of the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal are available in print as House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal Reports, volume 1 (January 28, 1988-October 3,
1990) to present. They will be available electronically at the Supreme
Court E-Library and as a separate CD.
For Muslim law, the primary sources of Shariah are Quran,
Sunnaqh, Ijma and Qiyas . Jainal D. Razul in his
book Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Muslin Law of
the Philippines (1984) further stated there are new sources of
Muslim law, which some jurists rejected such as Istihsan or juristic
preference; Al-Masalih, Al Mursalah or public interest ;
Istidlal (custom) and Istishab . (deduction based on continuity or
permanence).
Classification of Legal Sources:
Classification by Authority:
“Authority is that which may be cited in support of an action, theory
or hypothesis.” Primary Authority is the only authority that is
binding on the courts. These are the two sources of law which
includes the Constitution, legislative statutes or those passed by
Congress, decisions of the Supreme Court , appellate courts, lower
court and other quasi-judicial agencies, Executive issuances or
Presidential issuances, treaties entered into by the Philippines,
ordinances, rules and regulations of government agencies. They are
the actual law or those promulgated by the three branches of
government: Legislative, Executive and Judiciary.
The legislature promulgates statutes, namely: Act, Commonwealth
Act, Republic Act, and Batas Pambansa. The Executive promulgates
presidential issuances (Presidential Decrees, Executive Orders,
Memorandum Circular, Administrative Orders, Proclamations, etc.),
rules and regulations through its various departments, bureaus and
agencies. The Judiciary promulgates judicial doctrines embodied in
decisions.
We however need to clarify that the Presidential Decrees or law
issued by President Ferdinand E. Marcos during Martial Law and
Executive Orders issued by Aquino President Corazon C. Aquino
before the opening Congress in July 1987 can be classified as
legislative-executive acts, there being no legislature during these two
periods.
Primary Authority or sources may be further subdivided into the
following:
 Mandatory primary authority is law created by the
jurisdiction in which the law operates like the Philippines;
 Persuasive mandatory authority is law created by other
jurisdictions but which have persuasive value to our courts
e.g. Spanish and American laws and jurisprudence. These
sources as used specially when there are no Philippine
authorities available or when the Philippine statute or
jurisprudence under interpretation is based on either the
Spanish or American law.
It is in this regard that the collections of law libraries in the
Philippines include United States court reports, West’s national
reporter system, court reports of England and international tribunal,
important reference materials such as the American Jurisprudence,
Corpus Juris Secundum, Words and Phrases and different law
dictionaries. Some of these law libraries subscribe to the Westlaw
and/or LexisNexis . The Supreme Court, University of the
Philippines, University of Santo Tomas and a number of prominent
law libraries also have a Spanish collection where a great number of
our laws originated.
Secondary authority or sources are commentaries or books, treatise,
writings, journal articles that explain, discuss or comment on
primary authorities. Also included in this category are the opinions of
the Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission or
circulars of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas . These materials are not
binding on courts but they have persuasive effect and/or the degree
of persuasiveness. With regards to commentaries or books, treatise,
writings, journal articles, the reputation or expertise of the author is
a consideration. Some of the authors of good reputation and
considered experts in the field are Chief Justice Ramon C. Aquino
and Justice Carolina Grino Aquino on Revised Penal Code or
Criminal Law, Senator Arturo M. Tolentino on Civil law, Chief
Justice Enrique M. Fernando and Fr. Joaquin Bernas on
Constitutional Law, Prof. Perfecto Fernandez on Labor Law, Vicente
Francisco, Chief Justice Manuel Moran on Remedial Law, and
Justice Vicente Abad Santos and Senator Jovito Salonga on
International Law, etc. A list of these materials by subject are found
in GlobaLex - Part 2: Philippine Legal Information Resources and
Citations - A.v Treatise/Annotations/Commentaries, etc.
Classification by Source:
It is important for legal research experts to know the source where
the materials were taken from. One has to determine whether they
came from primary (official) sources or secondary (unofficial
sources). Primary and secondary sources for the sources of law are
found in Part 2: Philippine Legal Information Resources and
Citations - A.v Treatise/Annotations/Commentaries, etc.
Primary sources are those published by the issuing agency itself or
the official repository, the Official Gazette. The Official Gazette
online was launched by the Office of the President in July 2010.
This online version is maintained and managed by the Presidential
Communications Development and Strategic Management
Office. . Thus, for Republic Acts and other legislative enactments or
statutes, the primary sources are the Official Gazette published by
the National Printing Office and the Laws and Resolutions published
by Congress. For Supreme Court decisions, the primary sources are
the Philippine Reports , the individually mimeographed Advance
Supreme Court decisions and the Official Gazette . Publication of
Supreme Court decisions in the Official Gazette is selective. The
publication of the Philippine Reports by the National Printing Office
ceased in 1960s. It was only in 1983 when the publication of
the Philippine Reports was revived by then Chief Justice Enrique M.
Fernando who requested then President Ferdinand E. Marcos to take
charge of its publication with special appropriation in the Judiciary’s
annual budget. However, when the Supreme Court took over the
printing in 1983, the delay in printing covered more than twenty (20)
years. The last volume printed was volume 126 (June 1967).
The Philippine Reports is up-to-date and almost complete from
1901. The volumes are to be printed cover June 1991-December
1994. Online, the Supreme Court E-Library is complete and updated
as soon as the decisions have been certified by the Chief Justice. The
Supreme Court E-Library includes the citation of the Philippine
Reports where each case is found whenever it is available.
The Secondary Sources are the unofficial sources and generally
referred to as those commercially or institutionally published in print
or online.
Some of the Secondary sources of statutes are the Vital Legal
Documents , published by the Central Book Supply, contains a
compilation of Presidential Decrees (1973). The second edition
contains Republic Acts. Prof. Sulpicio Guevara published three
books, which contain s the full text of legislative enactments or laws
namely: a ). Public Laws Annotated (7 vols.), compilation of all laws
from 1901 to 1935, b).Commonwealth Acts Annotated (3vos.),
compilation of laws from 1935-1945 c). The Laws of the First
Philippine Republic (The Laws of Malolos) 1898-1899 . For the
Supreme Court decisions, Supreme Court Reports Annotated
(SCRA), a secondary source, published by the Central Book Supply is
more updated and popular in the legal community than
the Philippine Reports, the primary and official source. The SCRA
was published because of the delay in the printing of the Philippines
and the need of the Philippine legal profession for Supreme Court
decision. Citations in commentaries or books, treatise, writings,
journal articles, pleading and even court decisions show SCRA’s
popular acceptance. The general rule is that in the absence of a
primary source, the secondary source may be cited. This was the
primary rationale for the SCRA’s popularity. SCRA is now available
online (including tablet and iPad) by subscription.
With the advent of the new information technology, electronic or
digitized sources are popular sources and effective sources of legal
information for the following reasons: a) no complete and updated
legal information available; b) the search engines utilizing the
electronic or digitized method facilitate research, and c) no complete
and update manually published search tools for statute and case law.
These electronic sources started with CD ROMS and now online or
electronic libraries. The popular use of online/electronic libraries
was due to the advent of the iPads, iPods, tablet and notebooks and
internet with Wi-Fi connection. Online access is either through Open
access or subscription basis. Open access for law is used for both the
government and the private sector. The Chan Robles Law Firm
Library and Arellano Law Foundation Lawphil use open access in
their electronic libraries, which contains the full-text of all sources of
Philippine legal information, case law and statute law.
Chanrobles.com has also in its database the full text of United States
decisions and materials on important legal events such as
Impeachment proceedings, bar examinations. Chan Robles conducts
online bar review program.
Official or government online source for full-text for all legal sources
and related materials in the Official Gazette online , launched in July
2010. It contains the issuances of all the executive departments,
which are found also in the websites of the different executive
departments. They aim (as reflected in their website) to include the
issuances of the legislative and the judiciary. The Supreme Court E-
Library is an electronic library (online and CD Rom for decisions
updated quarterly) for all Philippine legal information, case law and
statute law. Access however is limited to the Justices, judges and
court attorneys of the Supreme Court and law schools (by request)
through their law librarians. Decisions and issuances of the
Supreme Court and its Offices and the Appellate Courts are found in
the Judiciary portal .
CD Asia online contains full-text of Supreme Court decisions and
statutes, available on a subscription basis. Subscription may be
made solely for court decisions or statutes or for both. Central
Books’ eSCRA is another database which can be accessed online
with the use of desktops, laptops, notebooks, and iPads. Law Juan ,
iPad app is a new source for full-text statutes and Supreme Court
decisions available by subscription.
By using Google search, some of this legal information may be
retrieved.
The established policy is that in case of conflict between the printed
and electronic sources, the printed version coming from the issuing
government agency prevails.
Legal research for statute law in the Philippines benefited
remarkably from the use of the latest technology due to two major
problems: a) no complete and updated published or printed search
tools or law finders for statute law and b) no complete compilation
of statute law from 1901-present were available. Problems of the
publication of compilations of statute law or the existence of the full-
text of Presidential Decrees was that brought about to the Supreme
Court in the Tanada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. 63915, April 24, 1985 (220
Phil 422), December 29, 1986 (146 SCRA 446) case was resolved by
the use of the latest technology. TheTanada v. Tuvera, case that was
first decided before the bloodless revolution popularly known as
People Power or the EDSA Revolution and modified in the December
29, 1986 or after the People Power or the EDSA Revolution resolved
the publication requirement for the effectivity of laws as provided for
in Section 2 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. This was resolved
by Executive Order No. 200, s. 1987 that provides that laws become
effective fifteen (15) days after publication in the Official Gazette or
in two newspapers of general circulation.
Still, to be resolved i s how to classify sources published in the
newspapers. Will Executive Order No. 200, s. 1987, these resources
as primary and secondary source. However, in case of conflict
between those published in the newspapers and the Official
Gazette , the rule is following the Official Gazette.

The existence, availability and access to local ordinances issued by
the local governments in the Philippines remains a problem for the
City of Manila is the one with a compilation. However all
government agencies have started to use the latest technology in
their operations and some of them are available online.
In finding the law, our ultimate goal is to locate mandatory primary
authorities, which have bearing on the legal problem at hand. If
these authorities are scarce or nonexistent, our next alternative is to
find any relevant persuasive mandatory authority. If our search is
still negative, the next alternative might be secondary authorities.
There are however instances where the secondary authorities, more
particularly the commentaries made by experts of the field, take
precedence over the persuasive mandatory authorities. With the
availability of both, using both sources is highly recommended.
Classification by Character:
This refers to the nature of the subject treated in books. This
classification categorizes books as: a) Statute Law Books, b) Case
Law Books or Law Reports, c) a combination of both and d) “Law
Finders.”
Law Finders refer to indexes, citators, encyclopedias, legal
dictionaries, thesauri or digests. A major problem in the Philippines
is that there are no up-to-date Law Finders. Federico
Moreno’s Philippine Law Dictionary , the only available Philippine
law dictionary was last published in 1988, and, Jose Agaton Sibal’s
Philippine Legal Thesaurus , which is likewise considered a
dictionary, was published in 1986. Foreign law dictionaries
like Blacks’ Law Dictionary, Words and Phrases are used as
alternate. To search for legal information, legal researchers go online
virtual libraries such as the Supreme Court E-Library , Chan Robles
Virtual Library , Arellano’s lawphil , CD Asia online and the
different databases in CD-ROM format from CD Asia Technologies
Asia Inc. The databases developed by CD Asia include not only the
compilation of Laws (statutes) and Jurisprudence, but also include a
compilation of legal information that are not available in printed
form such as Opinions of the Department of Justice, Securities and
Exchange Commission and Bangko Sentral (Central Bank) rules and
regulations. Search engines used in these databases answer for the
lack of complete and updated indexes of legal information. In this
regard, effective legal research can be conducted with one cardinal
rule in mind: "ALWAYS START FROM THE LATEST." The
exception to this is when the research has defined or has provided a
SPECIFIC period.
5. Philippine Legal Research
5.1. Research of Statute law
Statute laws are the rules and regulations promulgated by competent
authorities; enactments of legislative bodies (national or local) or
they may be rules and regulations of administrative (departments or
bureau) or judicial agencies. Research of statutory law does not end
with consulting the law itself. At times, it extends to the intent of
each provision or even the words used in the law. In this regard, the
deliberations of these laws must be consulted. The deliberation of
laws, except Presidential Decrees and other Martial law issuances are
available.
Constitution:
The different Constitutions of the Philippines are provided in some
history books such as Gregorio F. Zaide’s Philippine Constitutional
History and Constitutions of Modern Nations (1970) and Founders
of Freedom; The History of Three Constitution by a seven-man
Board. The Philippine legal system recognizes the following
Constitutions: Malolos, 1935, 1943, 1973, Provisional or Freedom
and 1987 Constitutions. The 1943 Constitution was effective only
during the Second World War while the Provisional Constitution was
effective only from the time President Corazon became President
until the 1987 Constitution was ratified and proclaimed by President
Aquino by virtue of Proclamation No. 58, February 11, 1987.
Majority of printed publications provide the 1935, 1973 and the 1987
Constitutions only. The online sources ( E-library , Chan
Robles , LawPhil , CD Asia , Law Juan ) however have the full-text
of all Constitutions of the Philippines: Malolos, 1935, 1943 of
Japanese, 1973, Provisional or Freedom Constitution and 1987. The
books of Senator Ambrosio Padilla ( The 1987 Constitutions of the
Republic of the Philippines . vol. 3, pp779-863) and Carmelo Sison
provide a comparative presentation of the provisions of the 1935,
1973 and 1987 Constitutions.

Text of the Malolos Constitution is available in some history books
such as Gregorio F. Zaide’s Philippine Constitutional History and
Constitutions of Modern Nations , p. 176 (1970) and online. ( E-
library , Chan Robles , CD Asia , Law Juan ).
The Constitutional Convention proceedings provide for the intent
and background of each provision of the Constitution. Sources for
the 1934-1935 Constitutional Convention are: 10 volumes of the
Constitutional Convention Record by the House of Representatives
(1966), Salvador Laurel's seven volumes book entitled Proceedings of
the Constitutional Convention (1966); 6 volumes of the Philippine
Constitution, Origins, Making, Meaning and Application by the
Philippine Lawyers Association with Jose Aruego as one of its
editors (1970) and Journal of the Constitutional convention of the
Philippines by Vicente Francisco.
Proceedings of the 1973 Constitutional Convention were never
published. A photocopy and softcopy of the complete compilation is
available at the Filipiniana Reading Room of the National Library of
the Philippines.
Journals (3 volumes) and Records (5 volumes) of the Constitutional
Convention of 1986 were published by the Constitutional
Commission. This publication does not have an index. This problem
was remedied when CD Technologies Asia Inc. came out with a CD-
ROM version, which facilitated research for it has a search engine.
The proceedings and text of the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions
are electronically available at the Supreme Court E-Library.
Commentaries or interpretations on the constitution, decisions of the
Supreme Court and other courts, textbooks or treaties, periodical
articles of the different Constitution are available. (Part 2: Philippine
Legal Information Resources and Citations
A.v Treatise/Annotations/Commentaries, etc. A.v.10 Political Law
Treaties and other International Agreements:
A treaty is an agreement or a contract between two (bilateral) or
more (multilateral) nations or sovereigns, entered into by agents
appointed (generally the Secretary of Foreign Affairs or
ambassadors) for the purpose and duly sanctioned by supreme
powers of the respective countries. Treaties that do not have
legislative sanctions are executive agreements which may or may not
have legislative authorization, and which have limited execution by
constitutional restrictions.
In the Philippines, a treaty or international agreement shall not be
valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all
members of the Senate (Constitution, Article VII, section 21). Those
without the concurrence of the Senate are considered as Executive
Agreements.
The President of the Philippines may enter into international treaties
or agreements as the national welfare and interest may require, and
may contract and guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republic,
subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. During the
time of Pres. Marcos, there was the so-called Tripoli Agreement.
The official text of treaties is published in the Official Gazette,
Department of Foreign Affairs Treaty Series (DFATS), United
Nations Treaty Series (UNTS ) or the University of the Philippines
Law Center'sPhilippine Treaty Series ( PTS). To locate the latest
treaties, there are two possible sources: Department of Foreign
Affairs and the Senate of the Philippines. There is no complete
repository of all treaties entered into by the Philippines. There is a
selective publication of treaties in the Official Gazette . The DFATS
was last published in the 1970s while the PTS's last volume, vol. 8
contains treaties entered into until 1981.With the UN Treaty Series,
which used to be available only in UN depository libraries in the
country and its United Nation Information Center in Makati in now
available online through the United Nations website . Electronically,
major law libraries use the Treaties and International Agreements
Researchers Archives (TIARA), WESTLAW , LEXIS , other online
- sources via the Internet.
A formal Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Supreme
Court and the Department of Foreign Affairs was signed at the
Supreme Court for the digitization of full-text of all the treaties
entered into by the Philippines from 1946-2010. The MOA provided
that the Department of Foreign Affairs will supply the official treaties
and the Supreme Court Library Services will produce the CD Rom
version with search engine of the treaties. CD-ROM containing all
these treaties was launched last June 2010 at the Department of
Foreign Affairs. Online version is found in the Supreme Court E-
Library . Also launched last June 2010 was the Philippine Treaties
Index 1946-2010 by the Foreign Service Institute.
For tax treaties, Eustaquio Ordoño has published a series on the
Philippine tax treaties. Other sources of important treaties are
appended in books on the subject or law journals such as the
American Journal of International Law or the Philippine Yearbook of
International Law.
Statutes Proper:
Legislative Enactments:
Statutes are enactments of the different legislative bodies since 1900
broken down as follows:
 4,275 ACTS - Enactments from 1900-1935
 733 Commonwealth Acts - Enactments from 1935-1945
 2034 Presidential Decrees - Enactments from 1972-1985
 884 Batas Pambansa. – Enactments from 1979-1985
 10650 Republic Acts - Enactments from 1946-1972, 1987-
December 2014
Republic Act No. 10650 is the “Act Expanding Access to Educational
Services by the Institutionalizing Open Distance Learning in Levels
of the Tertiary Education.
The above figures clearly show that during Martial Law, both
President Marcos and the Batasang Pambansa (Parliament) were
issuing laws at the same time - Presidential Decrees by President
Marcos and Batas Pambansa by the Philippine Parliament.
During Martial Law, aside from Presidential Decrees, the President
promulgated other issuances namely: 57 General Orders, 1,525
Letters of Instruction, 2,489 Proclamations, 832 Memorandum
Order, 1,297 Memorandum Circular, 157 Letter of Implementation,
Letter of Authority, Letters of Instruction, 504 Administrative Order
and 1,093 Executive Orders. Complete compilation of Presidential
Decrees and all Martial Issuances are available at present in the
Malacanang Records and Archives. Efforts are being made by
Malacanang to make them available through the Official Gazette
online.
As previously stated, the Presidential Decrees issued by Pres. Marcos
during Martial Law and the Executive Orders issued by Pres. Aquino
before the opening of Congress may be classified as both executive
and legislative acts for there was no legislature during those two
periods.
Laws passed by the new 1987 Congress started from Rep. Act No.
6636, as the last Republic Act promulgated by Congress before
Martial Law was Rep. Act No. 6635.
The following are the Philippine codes adopted from 1901 to present:
 Administrative Code of 1987 ( Executive Order No. 292)
 Child and Youth Welfare Code (Pres. Decree No. 603)
 Civil Code (Rep. Act No. 386)
 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Code
 Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
(Rep. Act o. 6713)
 Cooperative Code (Rep. Act No. 9520)
 Corporation Code (Batas Blg. 68)
 Family Code (Executive Order No. 209)
 Fire Code (Rep. Act No. 9514)
 Fisheries Code (Rep. Act No. 8550)
 Forest Reform Code (Pres. Decree No. 705)
 Insurance Code (Pres/ Decree No. 1460)
 Intellectual Property Code (Rep. Act No. 8293)
 Labor Code (Pres. Decree No. 442)
 Land Transportation and Traffic Code (Rep. Act No. 4136)
 Local Government Code (Rep. Act No. 7160)
 Muslim Code of Personal Laws ( Pres. Decree No. 1083)
 National Building Code (Pres. Decree No. 1096)
  National Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and
Supplements (Executive Order No. 51 s. 1986)
 National Internal Revenue Code (Pres. Decree No. 1158)
 Omnibus Election Code (Batas Blg 881)
 Philippine Environment Code (Pres. Decree No. 1152)
 Revised Penal Code (Act no. 3815)
 Sanitation Code (Pres. Decree No. 856)
 State Auditing Code
 Tariff and Customs Code (Pres. Decree No. 1464)
 Water Code (Pres. Decree No. 1067)
SOURCE: Congressional Library; House Printing Division,
Administrative Support Bureau, July 1996.
The Senate has prepared the entire legislature process and has Presidential Issuances
enumerated the types of legislation. This procedure is pursuant to
the Constitution and recognized by both Houses of Congress. The
House of Representatives has provided a diagram of the procedure
on how a bill becomes a law.
 Administrative acts, orders and regulations of the President
touching on the organization or mode of operation of the
government, re-arranging or adjusting districts, divisions or parts of
the Philippines, and acts and commands governing the general
performance of duties of public officials and employees or disposing
of issues of general concern are made effective by Executive Orders.
Those orders fixing the dates when specific laws, resolutions or
orders cease to take effect and any information concerning matters of
public moment determined by law, resolution or executive orders,
take the form of executive Proclamation.
Executive Orders and Proclamations of the Governor-
General were published annually in a set Executive Orders and
Proclamations. Thirty three (33) volumes were published until 1935
by the Bureau of Printing. Administrative Acts and Orders of the
President and Proclamations were published. Only a few libraries in
the Philippines have these publications for a majority of them was
destroyed during World War II. There are copies available at the
Law Library of Congress, Cincinnati Law Library Association (who
offered to donate them to the Supreme Court of the Philippines) and
some at the Library of the Institute of South East Asian Studies in
Singapore.
In researching for Proclamations, Administrative Orders, Executive
Orders and Memorandum Orders & Circulars of the President, the
year it was promulgated is a must or needed. If no year is available,
the President and/or the Executive Secretary issuing it must be
stated. As a new President is sworn in, all the Presidential issuances
start with No. 1. The only exception was Executive Orders issued by
President Carlos Garcia after he assumed the Presidency because
President Magsaysay died in a plane crash. He continued the
number started by President Magsaysay. When President Garcia was
elected President, he started his Executive Order No. 1.
To look for the intent of Republic Acts, we have to go
through the printed Journals and Records of both houses of
Congress, which contain their deliberation. To facilitate the search,
the House Bill No. or Senate Bill No. or both found on the upper left
portion of the first page of the law is important. The problem for this
research is the availability of the complete
printed Journals and Records of both houses of Congress. The
solution to this problem is the Archives of the House of
Representatives and the Senate. For the recent laws, the
deliberations are available online from the websites of the the House
of Representatives and thePhilippine Senate . The Batasang
Pambansa has likewise published it proceedings. There are no
available proceedings for the other laws Acts, Commonwealth Act
and Presidential Decrees.
Administrative Rules and Regulations:
Administrative Rules and regulations are orders, rules and
regulations issued by the heads of Departments, Bureau and other
agencies of the government for the effective enforcement of laws
within their jurisdiction. However, in order that such rules and
regulations may be valid, they must be within the authorized limits
and jurisdiction of the office issuing them and in accordance with the
provisions of the law authorizing their issuance. Access to
administrative rules and regulations have been facilitated due to the
two developments: a) government agencies, including government
owned and controlled corporations, have their own websites and at
the Official Gazette and Official Gazette online where they include
the full-text of their issuances, and b) the National Administrative
Register, which is available in print, CD-Rom and in the Supreme
Court website.
In handling these types of materials, there are two important
items needed: a.) Issuing Agency and b.) Year it was promulgated.
This is due to the fact that all Departments, Bureaus, and other
government agencies use the administrative orders, memorandum
orders and memorandum circulars for their administrative rules and
regulations and they start always with number 1 every year. Even the
Supreme Court issues Administrative Orders, Circulars,
Memorandum Orders, and Administrative Matters.
Before the Administrative Code of 1987, these orders, rules and
regulations were selectively published in the Official Gazette . Thus,
the only source to be able to get a copy of the text of these rules and
regulations is the issuing government agency itself.
When the 1987 Administrative Code (Executive Order No. 292) was
promulgated, all government agencies including government owned
and controlled corporations are mandated to file three (3) certified
copies of their orders, rules and regulations with the University of app (Law) contains only full-text legislative enactments from 1901,
the Philippines Law Center's Office of National Administrative Rules of Court and all the Philippine Constitutions.
Register which in turn is required to publish quarterly the
publication called National Administrative Register . Aside from the 5.2. Research of Case Law
printed copies, the National Administrative Register is available
electronically on CD-ROM (CD Asia Technologies Inc.) and online at
the Supreme Court E-Library . Rules in force on the date on which
the Code took effect, which are not filed within three months from
the date not thereafter, shall be the basis of any sanction against any
person or party. Each rule becomes effective 15 days after the filing,
unless a different date is fixed by law or specified in the rule, such as
in cases of imminent danger to public health, safety and welfare, the
existence of which must be expressed in a statement accompanying
the rule. The court shall take judicial notice of the certified copy of
each rule duly filed or as published in the bulletin or codified rules.

University of the Philippines Law Center’s Office of National

Administrative Register is not only tasked to publish this quarterly
register but must keep an up-to-date codification of all rules thus
published and remaining in effect together with a complete index
and appropriate tables. Every rule establishing an offense or
defining an act, which pursuant to law is punishable as a crime or
subject to a penalty, shall in all cases be published in full text.
Exceptions to the “filing requirement" are Congress, Judiciary,
Constitutional Commission, military establishments in all matters
relative to Armed Forces personnel, the Board of Pardons and Parole
and state universities and colleges. With the use of the latest
technology, majority of government agencies including government
owned and controlled corporations maintain their own websites and
have incorporation laws and legislations relevant to their agencies.
These developments have facilitated research for administrative rules
and regulations.

As previously stated, there are no up-to-date or complete Statutes

finders. As previously stated, to facilitate legal research, one has to
go online to virtual libraries. The primary source for statutes
is: Supreme Court E-Library and the Official Gazette and Official
Gazette online . The secondary sources area: Chan Robles Virtual
Law Library , Arellano Law Foundation’s The Lawphil Project ,
and CD Asia Technologiesonline and or CD ROM. Law Juan iPad
 SOURCE: 2002 Revised Manual of Clerks of Court . Manila,
Supreme Court, 2002. Organizational Chart was amended due to the
passage of Republic Act No. 9282 (CTA)
Case Law or Judicial decisions are official interpretations or
manifestation of law made by persons and agencies of the
government performing judicial and quasi-judicial functions. At the
apex of the Philippine Judicial System is the Supreme Court, or
what is referred to as court of last resort. The reorganization of the
Judiciary of 1980 (Batas Pambansa Bldg. 129) established the
following courts:
 Court of Appeals;
 Regional Trial Courts divided into different judicial regions,
 Metropolitan Trial Court;
 Municipal Trial Court in Cities;
 Municipal Trial Courts;
 Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
The Shariah (Sharia’a ) Circuit and District Courts (Presidential
Decree No. 1083), Court of Tax Appeals (Republic Act No. 1125) and
the Sandiganbayan (Presidential Decree Nos. 1486 and 1606), sec. 4,
Art XI of the 1987 Constitution were created by separate laws.
Conventional decisions are decisions or rulings made by regularly
constituted court of justice. Subordinate decisions are those made by
administrative agencies performing quasi-judicial functions.
One major problem in conducting research on case law is the
availability of published or printed decisions from the Court of
Appeals to the rest of the judicial and quasi-judicial agencies. The
Judicial Reform Program of the Supreme Court funded by the World
Bank started to address this problem with the establishment of the
Supreme Court E-Library aims to address this problem and also
those from statute law and the digitization of the decisions of the
Supreme Court, and the appellate: Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan
and the Court of Tax Appeals. Digitization of the Appellate Courts
have started and are available online from the most recent and will
continue until all their first decision from their creation will be
completed. The Reporters Office of the Supreme Court and the Court
of Appeals keep all the original and complete copies of the court
decisions. By original, this means that the keep the decisions with
the “original” signatures of the justices of the Supreme court and
Court of Appeals. For the rest of the Judiciary or the quasi-judicial
agencies, copies of their decisions may be taken from the Legal
Office, Office of the Clerks of Court, Records Office or their libraries.
There are no available printed compilations of lower courts
decisions. For those of the Appellate Court, the Court of Appeals has
until 1980s only and while the Sandiganbayan has only one volume.
For the Court of Tax Appeals, the compilation is only from 1980 to
present in the CD Asia CD for taxation. The details are in Part 2:
Philippine Legal Information Resources and Citations . A.iv Case
Law/ Jurisprudence
Supreme Court Decisions:
Decisions of the Supreme Court are highest source of jurisprudence,
source of law. It is the judgment of this court interprets the law
and/or determines whether a law is constitutional or not.
Unconstitutional laws even though it is signed by the President and
passed by both house of congress cannot take effect in the
Philippines.
Decisions of the Supreme Court are classified as follows:
"Regular decisions" and extended Resolutions are published in court
reports either in primary or secondary sources. These decisions
provide the justice who penned the decision or ponente and the other
justices responsible for promulgating the decision, whether En Banc
or by Division. Separate dissenting and/or concurring opinions are
likewise published with the main decision. These regular and
extended resolutions are available electronically in the Supreme
Court website under Decisions and the Supreme Court E-
Library under Decisions.
Unsigned Minute Resolutions are not published. Although they bear
the same force and effect as the regular decisions or extended
resolutions, they are issued and signed by the respective Clerks of
Court En Banc or by any of the three (3) Division s and signed by
their respective Clerks of Court. Since these Minutes Resolutions are
not published, the Supreme Court has now incorporated these
Minute Resolutions, more particularly those that resolve a motion
for reconsideration or those that explain or affirm a decision; and (2)
Administrative Matters in the Supreme Court E-Library , under
RESOLUTIONS.
Recently, the Supreme Court website has included these
decisions. The Chanrobles has included Minutes Resolution in its
website.
Case Reports in the Philippines such as the Philippine Reports,
Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) , and the Supreme Court
Advance Decisions (SCAD) come in bound volumes which generally
cover a month per volume. The Supreme Court Advance Decisions
(SCAD) has been discontinued. The Official Gazette, Philippine
Reports and the Advance Sheets are the primary source or official
repositories of decisions and extended resolutions of the Supreme
Court. The Advance Sheets are decisions in “reproduced form” or
“photocopied “ copy of the actual original decision which contains
the full text, the signatures of the justices and the certification of the
Chief Justice. The original decisions are those which the actual
signatures is deposited in the Reporters Office of the Supreme Court.
The Advance Sheets was made available as soon as a decision is
issuance. This was however discontinued because decisions of the
Supreme Court are now available almost immediately upon issuance
at the Supreme Court website . The Official Gazette, Philippine
Reports are the other primary source for Supreme Court
decisions. The difference between the two lies in the fact that
the Official Gazette selective compilation while Philippine
Reports contains the complete compilation decisions of the Supreme
Court. Original decisions with original signature of the Justices of
the Supreme Court are found in the Office of the Reporter of the
Supreme Court.
There were unpublished decisions of the Supreme Court from 1901
until 1960. The list and subject field are found at the back of some
volumes of the Philippine Reports . Some of these decisions are
cited in treatises or annotations. In view of the importance of these
decisions, the Supreme Court E-Library started to collect these
unpublished decisions and include them in its database.
The availability of some of the unpublished decisions before World
War II is a problem for a number of the original decisions have been
burned. So, there is no complete compilation of the original decisions
of the Supreme Court. This problem is being addressed by the
Supreme Court E-Library where are great number of these
unpublished decisions of the Supreme Court before the war were
retrieved from different sources such as the United States National
Archives in Maryland, private collection of former Supreme Court
Justices such as Chief Justice Ramon Avancena and Justice George
Malcolm (collection is found in the University of Michigan) and
private law libraries who were able to save some of their collection
such as the University of Santo Tomas, the oldest university in the
Philippines. Search for the unpublished decisions still continues.
The unpublished decisions after the War, the late Judge Nitafan of
the Regional Trial Court of Manila started publishing Supreme
Court Unpublished Decision s ; vol. 1 covers decisions from March
1946 to February 1952. However only two volumes were published
due to Judge Nitafan’s untimely death. The Office of the Reporter of
the Supreme Court has these unpublished decisions.
The early volumes, particularly those before the war were originally
published in Spanish in the Jurisprudencia Filipina . They were
translated in English to become the Philippine Reports . Some
decisions after the second Philippine independence were still in the
Spanish language. There are a number of decisions now in the
Filipino language. The Philippine Reports until volume 126 (1960's)
was published by the Bureau of Printing, now called the National
Printing Office. Printing was transferred to the Supreme Court in the
1980s due to the need for a complete official publication of the
Court’s decision. The Supreme Court’sPhilippine Reports started
with volume 127.
The most popular secondary source is the Supreme Court Reports
Annotated (SCRA ) and eSCRA and the Lex Libris Jurisprudence CD
ROM and CD Asia Online . The online and CD versions are on
subscription basis while the printed SCRA may be purchased per
volume. Two new sources on subscription basis are: a) My Legal
Whiz ; Easy Contextual Legal Research and Law Juan decisions,
iPad app.
How can we search for Supreme Court decisions manually?
Topic or Subject Approach: (Please See Complete title of the
publication from the Philippine Legal Bibliography chapter)
 Philippine Digest
 Republic of the Philippine Digest
 Velayo's digest
 Magsino's Compendium
 Supreme Court's unpublished Subject Index
 Martinez's Summary of Supreme Court rulings 1984 to 1997
 UP Law Center's Supreme Court decisions: subject index and
digest's
 SC's Case Digest's
 Philippine Law and Jurisprudence
 Castigador’s Citations
 SCRA Quick Index Digest
 Title Approach or Title of the Approach: (Please See
Complete title of the publication from the Philippine Legal
Bibliography chapter)
 Philippine Digest - Case Index
 Republic of the Philippines Digest
 Ong, M. Title Index to SC decisions 1946-1978 2v.; 1978-
1981 1st Suppl; 1981-1985, 2nd Suppl; 1986 to present is
unpublished but available at the Supreme Court Library
portal
 Ateneo's Index
Manual approach is not possible in majority of law libraries for the
above sources enumerated are no longer available. For those who
have these sources, the problem is the availability of updated
indexes. Only the SCRA Quick Index Digest is updated. It is
however delayed by about one year for they have to wait for the last
volume of the SCRA for the year before they could come up with the
SCRA Quick Index Digest. In the Title Approach, the latest is M.
Ong Title Index to SC decisions, 2 nd supplement 1981-1985. The
updated Title Index is available at the Supreme Court Library portal
but is not yet available online. Title search made be made through
the Lex Libris: Jurisprudence online.
Electronic application is the source for effective legal research. These
sources are as follows:
 !e-library! A Century & 4 Years of Philippine Supreme
Court Decisions 1901-April 2004 . Research & Development
Department, Agoo Computer College, Agoo, Lau Union,
Philippines (CD ROM)
 eSCRA . Q.C.: Central Book Supply
 Law Juan . IPad App (Jurisprudence)
 Lex Libris: Jurisprudence. Pasig City: CD Asia Technologies
Inc. (CD ROM) and CD Asia online
 My Legal Whiz ; Easy Contextual Legal Research
( https://www.mylegalwhiz.com/)
 Supreme Court E-Library online
 Supreme Court website
Court of Appeals decisions:
Decisions of the Court of Appeals are merely persuasive on lower
courts. They are cited in cases where there are no Supreme Court
decisions in point. In this regard, they are considered as judicial
guides to lower courts and that conclusion or pronouncement they
make can be raised as a doctrine. The Clerk of Court of the Court of
Appeals is the repository of all of the Court of Appeals decisions.
Sources of Court of Appeals decisions are:
Text:
 Court of Appeals decisions are now being complete online
starting from the latest to 1936.
 Official Gazette (selective publication)
 Court of Appeals Reports which was published by the Court
of Appeals until 1980. Even this publication is not a complete
compilation. It is still considered selective for not all CA
decisions are included.
 Court of Appeals Reports (CAR) by Central Book Supply.
One volume was published
 Philippine Law and Jurisprudence
 Reports Office of the Court of Appeals
Subject or Topic Approach:
 Velayo's Digest;
 Moreno's Philippine Law dictionary
Decisions of Special Courts:
Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals do not have published
decisions. The Sandiganbayan has only one volume published;
Sandiganbayan Reports vol. 1 covers decisions promulgated from
December 1979 to 1980. Sandiganbayan decisions are now being
made available online starting from the latest to its first decision. The
Legal Office of the Sandiganbayan is the repository of all of its
decisions.
Court of Tax Appeals decisions from 1980 to 2004 are found in the
Lex Libris particularly in Taxation CD ROM. Court of Tax decisions
are now being complete online starting from the latest to its first
decision.
Decisions of Administrative Agencies, Commissions and Boards:
Laws have been promulgated which grants some administrative
agencies to perform quasi-judicial functions. These functions are
distinct from their regular administrative or regulatory functions
where rules and regulations are promulgated. The Securities
Regulations Code (Republic Act No. 8799) signed by President
Joseph E. Estrada on July 19, 2000 affects Securities and Exchange
Commission's (SEC) quasi-judicial functions. The other agencies
performing said functions are National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC), Insurance Commission, Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board (HLURB), Government Service Insurance System (GSIS),
Social Security System (SSS) and even the Civil Service Commission
(CSC). Some of their decisions are published in the Official Gazette.
Some have their own publication such as the SEC and the CSC or
some include them in their own websites. An important source is
the National Administrative Register which is available in printed
and CR ROM (CD Asia) and the Supreme Court E-Library. The 1987
Administrative Code required that all government including all
government owned and controlled corporations must provide the
UP. Law Center with three certified copies (3) of their rules and
regulations. In turn the UP. Law Center is required to publish them.
This is done in the National Administrative Register .
CD Asia Technologies’ Lex Libris series has individual CD ROMs for
the Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange
Commission, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (Central Bank of the
Philippines), and the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Included in these
individual CD ROMs are the pertinent laws, their respective
issuances as well as Supreme Court decisions. It CD ROM on Labor
(vol. VII) incorporated issuances from the Department of Labor and
Employment and its affiliated agencies and offices. The Trade,
Commerce and Industry CD ROM includes Supreme Court
decisions, laws and issuances of its various agencies such as the
Department of Trade and Industry, Board of Investments, Bureau of
Customs, B angko Sentral and the Philippine Stock Exchange.
6. Legal Profession and Legal Education
Republic Act No. 7662, otherwise known as the Legal Education
Reform Act of 1993 created the Legal Education Board, was approved
on December 23, 1993 . The Board shall be composed of a Chairman
who shall preferably be a former justice of the Supreme Court of
Court of Appeals and regular members composed of: a
representative of each of the following: Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), Philippine Association of Law Schools (PALS),
Philippine Association of Law Professors (PALP), ranks of active law
practitioners and law students’ sector. The Legal Education has
replaced the Commission on Higher Education for legal
education. Its primary functions are:
 to administer the legal education system
 to supervise the law schools
 to set the standards of accreditation for law schools
 to accredit law schools that meet the standards of
accreditation;
 to prescribe minimum standards for law admission and
minimum qualifications and compensation of faculty
members;
 to prescribe the basic curricula for the course of study
aligned to the requirements for admission to the Bar,
 to establish a law practice internship
 to adopt a system of continuing legal education.
The 1987 Constitution however provides under Article VIII, sec.
5(5) that it is the Supreme Court who has the power to promulgate
rules concerning the admission to practice the law. The Supreme
Court has promulgated the Rules of Court, Rule 138 as to the
admission of the bar. To be admitted to the bar, there are three
requirements:
 must have passed the bar examination which is given
annually at four (4) consecutive Sundays
 must take the lawyer’s oath
 must sign the roll of attorneys at the Supreme Court
The lists of lawyers who are allowed to practice are found in the Rolls
of Attorneys of the Supreme Court and the publication of the Court
entitled, Law List . The online version of the Law List, available in
theSupreme Court and Supreme E-Library , includes the annual lists
of additional members of the bar.
Applicants for the annual bar examination must have the following
(Rules of Court, Rule 138, sec. 2):
 citizen and resident of the Philippines
 21 years of age
 good moral character (three testimonials of good moral
character)
 submission of the required documents such as birth
certificate, marriage certificate, three testimonials of good
moral character, official law transcript, certificate of no
derogatory record and certificated from the CHED/LEB and
photos
Academic requirements to qualify to take the bar examinations are
provided in Rules of Court, Rule 138, section 5 and section 6.
Section 5 provides that the applicant should have studied law for
four years and have successfully completed all the prescribed
courses. This section was amended by Bar Matter No. 1153, March
9, 2010 which provides “that they have successfully completed all
the prescribed courses for the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its
equivalent, in a law school or university officially recognized by the
Philippine Government or by the proper authority in foreign
jurisdiction where the degree has been granted.” Bar Matter No.
1153 further provides that a Filipino citizen who graduated from a
foreign law school shall be allowed to take the bar only upon the
submission to the Supreme Court the required certifications.
Section 6 provides the Pre-Law requirement which is a four year high
school course and a bachelor’s degree in arts or science. This section
will be however affected by Republic Act No. 10533 – Enhanced
Basic Education of 2013 which provides a K to 12 Program which
covers Kindergarten and 12 years of basic education (six years of
primary education, four years of Junior High School, and two years
of Senior High School.
The Schedule of subjects for the four Sundays of the month is as
follows:
First Sunday: A.M. Political and International Law (15%), P.M.
Labor Law and Social Legislation (10%);
Second Sunday: A.M. Civil law (15%), P.M. Taxation (10%);
Third Sunday: A.M. Mercantile Law (15%), P.M. Criminal Law (10%);
Fourth Sunday: A.M. Remedial Law (20%), P.M. Legal Ethics and
Practical Exercises (5%).
The Rules of Court, Rule 138, section 16 provides that those who fail
the bar examinations for three or more times must take a refresher
course. The Legal Education Board has listed the following 88
accredited law schools who can conduct refresher courses for 2014-
2015:
 Adamson University
 Aemilianum College Inc.
 Aklan Colleges, Kalibo Aklan
 Andres Bonifacio College
 Angeles University Foundation
 Aquinas University
 Araullo University
 Arellano University
 Ateneo de Davao University
 Ateneo de Manila University
 Bicol Colleges
 Bukidnon State University
 Bulacan State University
 Cagayan State University
 Central Philippines University
 Centro Escolar University
 Colegio de la Purisima College
 Cor Jesu College
 Cordillera Career Development College
 Dr. V. Orestes Romualdez Educational Foundation
 Eastern Samar State University
 Father Saturnino Urios University
 Far Eastern University
 Far Eastern University-DLSU
 Foundation University
 Holy Name University (formerly DWC-T)
 Isabela State College
 J.H. Cerilles State College
 Jose Rizal Memorial State University
 Jose Rizal University
 Leyte Colleges
 Liceo de Cagayan University
 Lyceum of the Philippines University
 Lyceum Northwestern University
 Manila Law College Foundation
 Manuerl Luis Quezon University
 Mariano Marcos State University
 Mindanao State University
 New Era University
 Northeastern College
 Northwestern University
 Notre Dame University
 Palawan State University
 Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila
 Pan Pacific University of Northern Philippines
 Philippine Christian University
 Philippine Law School
 Polytechnic University of the Philippine
 San Sebastian College-Recoletos
 Saint Louis University
 San Beda College-Alabang
 San Beda College-Mendiola
 San Pablo Colleges
 Siliman University
 Southwestern University
 St. Louis College
 St. Mary’s University
 St. Paul School of Business and Law
 St. Thomas More School of Law and Business
 Sultan Kudarat University
 Tarlac State University
 Universidad de Manila
 University of the Cordilleras
 University of Baguio
 University of Batangas
 University of Cagayan Valley
 University of Cebu
 University of Eastern Philippines
 University of Iloilo
 University of Manila
 University of Mindanao
 University of Negros Occidental-Recoletos
 University of Northern Philippines
 University of Nueva Caceres
 University of Pangasinan
 University of Perpetual Help-Laguna
 University of Perpetual Help-Rizal
 University of San Agustin
 University of San Carlos
 University of San Jose-Recoletos
 University of Sothern Philippines-Foundation
 University of St. La Salle
 University of Santo Tomas
 University of the East
 University of the Philippines
 University of the Visayas
  Western Mindanao State University
 Xavier University
Reforms in the Bar Examinations (Bar Matter No. 1161) was adopted
in June 2004 and effective July 15, 2004, 15 days after it was
published in the Manila Bulletin and the Philippine Star (June 21,
2004). In 2011, new reforms were made as to its coverage and the
application of Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) exam and Essay-
Type exams. The date of the Bar examination was moved to the four
(4) Sundays of November.
Special Bar Exams for Shari’a Court lawyers is provided for by virtue
of the Court En Banc Resolution dated September 20, 1983. The
exam is given every two years. Although the exam is conducted by
the Supreme Court Office of the Bar Conidant, it is the Office of
Muslim Affairs who certifies as to who are qualified to take the exam.
Candidates to the Sharia’ bar do not need to be degree holder of
Bachelor of laws. Those who have passed the Sharia’ bar or the
Sharia lawyers are not considered as full-fledged members of the
Philippine bar for they are authorized to practice only in Sharia
courts.
All attorneys whose names are in the Rolls of Attorneys of the
Supreme Court who have qualified for and have passed the bar
examinations conducted annually, taken the attorney’s oath, unless
otherwise disbarred must be a member of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines. Bar Matter No. 850 was promulgated by the Resolution
of the Supreme Court En Banc on August 22, 2000, as amended on
October 2, 2001, providing for the rules on Mandatory Continuing
Legal Education (MCLE) for Active Members of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP). The members of the IBP have to complete
every three (3) years at least thirty six (36) hours of continuing legal
activities approved by the MCLE Committee. An IBP member who
fails to comply with the said requirement shall pay a non-compliance
fee and shall be listed as a delinquent member of the IBP. A
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Office to implement said
MCLE was established by the Supreme Court by virtue of SC
Administrative Order No. 113-2003 which was approved on August
15, 2005 and effective September 1, 2003 following its publication in
two newspapers of general circulation. Under the Resolution of the
Court en Banc dated September 2, 2008 (Bar Matter No. 1922), the
counsel’s MCLE Certificate of Compliance must be indicated in all
pleadings filed with the Courts.
The Supreme Court has the power to discipline the members of the
bar by disbarment or suspension based on the grounds provided in
the Rules of Court, Rule 138, sec. 27. Rule 139-B provides that the
“proceedings for disbarment, suspension or discipline may be taken
by the Supreme Court motu proprio or by the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines upon the verified complaint of a person.” “ The IBP
Board of Governors may, motu proprio or upon referral by the
Supreme Court or by a Chapter Board of Officers, or at the instance
of any person, initiate of any prosecute proper charges against erring
attorneys including those in government service.”
6.1. Law Schools
The Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court as of July 2014
has listed the following law schools in the Philippines which have
produced bar candidates:
 *Abra Valley Colleges, Taft St., Bangued, Abra
 *Adamson University, San Marcelino St., Manila
 *Aemilianum College Inc., Sorsogon City
 *Aklan Colleges, Kalibo Aklan
 *Andres Bonifacio College, College Park, Dipolog City
 *Angeles University Foundation, Mac Arthur Highway,
Angeles City, Pampanga
 *Aquinas University, 2-S King’s Building, JAA Penaranda
St., Legaspi City
 *Aquinas University Penablanca Campus, Penablance,
Cagayan
 *Araullo University, Bitas, Cabanatuan City
 *Arellano University, Taft Ave., cor. Menlo St, Pasay City
 *Ateneo de Davao University, Jacinto St., Davao City
 *Ateneo de Manila University, Rockwell Drive, Rockwell
Center, Makati City
 *Batangas State University (BATSU), Rizal Ave., Batangas
City
 *Bicol Colleges, Daraga Albay
 *BIT International College ( formerly Bohol Institute of
Technology), Tagbilaran, Bohol
 *Bukidnon State College, Fortich Street, Malaybalay,
Bukidnon
 *Bulacan State University, Mac Arthur Highway, Malolos,
Bulacan
 *Cagayan State University, Andrews Campus, Tuguegarao,
Cagayan
 *Camarines Norte School of Law, Itomang, Talisay,
Camarines Norte
 *Central Philippines University, Jaro, Iloilo City
 *Centro Escolar University- Makati Campus, Buendia Ave.,
Makati City
 *Christ the King College, Calbayog City, Western Samar
 *City University of Pasay, , Pasadera St., Pasay City
 *Colegio dela Purisima Concepcion, 1 Arzobispo St., Roxas
City, Capiz
 *College of Maasim, R. Kangleon Street, Tunga-Tunga,
Maasim City
 *Cor Jesus College, Digos, Sacred Heart Ave., Digos City,
Davao del Sur
 *Cordillera Career Development College, Buyagan Poblacion,
La Trinidad, Benguet
 *De La Salle University, 2401 Taft. Ave., Manila
 *De La Salle University, 1962 J.P. Laurel, National Highway,
Lipa City, Batangas
 Dipolog Medical Center (DMC) College Foundation Inc., Fr.
Patangan Road, Sta Filomena, Dipolog City
 *Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University, San
Fernando City , La Union
 *Dr. Vicente Orestes Romualdez Education Foundation Inc.,
Calanipawan Road, Calanipawan, Tacloban City, Leyte
 East Central Colleges
 *Eastern Samar State University, Borogan, Eastern Samar
 *Far Eastern University, Nicanor Reyes Sr. St.,
Sampaloc,Manila
 Far Eastern University-De La Salle Makati, RCBC Bldg,
Buendia cor Ayala Ave., Makati
 *Father Saturnino Urios University, San Francisco St.
cor. J.C. Aquino Avenue, Butuan City
 Fernandez College of Arts & Technology, Gil Carlos St.,
Baliuag, Bulacan
 *Foundation University, Dr. Miciano St., Dumaguete City,
Negros Oriental
 *Harvadian Colleges, San Fernando City, Pampanga
 *Holy Name University, Corner Lesage & Gallares Streem,
Tagbilaran City, Bohol
 International Harvardian University, Shellanger Cmpd.,
Bagumbayan, Sta. Cruz, Laguna
 *Isabela State University, Cauayan Campus, San Fabian,
Echague, Cauayan City, Isabela
 *Jose Rizal Memorial State University, Dapitan City,
Zamboanga del Norte
 *Jose Rizal University, 80 Shaw Blvd., Mandaluyong City
 *Josefina H. Cerilles State Collage, West Capitol Road,
Pagadian City
 *Laguna State Polytechnic University, Barangay Bubukal,
Sta. Cruz, Laguna
 *Leyte Colleges, Zamora St., Paterno Street, Tacloban City
 *Liceo de Cagayan University, Rodolfo N. Pelaez Blvd,
Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental
 Luna Goco Colleges, Calapan, Oriental Mindoro
 *Lyceum of the Philippines University, 109. Leviste St.,
Salcedo Village, Makati City
 *Lyceum of the Philippines University
 *Lyceum-Northwestern University, Tapuac, District,
Dagupan City, Pangasinan
 *Manila Law College Foundation, 641 Sales St., Sta. Cruz,
Manila
 *Manuel L. Quezon University, 916 R. Hidalgo St., Quiapo,
Manila
 *Manuel S. Enverga University Foundation-Lucena,
University Site, Lucena City
 *Mariano Marcos State University, Batac, Ilococ Norte
 Masbate Colleges, Masbate, Masbate
 *Medina Colleges, Gov. Angel N. Medina Sr. Avenue,
Carmen Annex, Ozamiz City
 *Mindanao State University-Iligan, Fatima Campus, Fatima,
Iligan City
 *Mindanao State University-Marawi, Laurel Avenue, Marawi
City
 *Misamis University, Hitarion T. Feliciano Street, ., Ozamis
City
 Naval State University-UEP (Fomerly Naval Institute of
Technology), Naval, Biliran
 *Negros Oriental State University, Kagasawan Avenue,
Dumaguete City
 *New Era University, No. 9 Central Avenue, St. Joseph
Street, New Era, Quezon City
 *Northeastern College, Maharlika Highway, Santiago City,
Isabela
 *Northwestern University, Don Mariano Marcos Avenue,
Laoag City
 *Notre Dame University, Notre Dame Ave., Cotabato City
 Our Lady of Mercy College, Borogan, Eastern Samar
 *Pagadian Capitol College, Pagadian City, Zamboanga del
Sur
 *Palawan State University, PSU Road, Barangay Tiniguiban,
Puerto Princesa, Palawan
 *Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, Intramuros, Manila
 *Pan Pacific University of North Philippines, Urdaneta City,
Pangasinan
 *Philippine Advent College, Ramon Magsaysay, Sindangan,
Zamboanga del Norte
 *Philippine Cambridge School of Law, Arts, sciences,
Business, Economics and Technology, Paliparan Site,
Paliparan III, Dasmarinas, Cavite
 *Philippine Christian University, Pedro Gil cor. Taft Ave.,
Manila
 *Philippine Law School, 1942 Donado corner San Juan
Street,, Pasay City
 Polytechnic College of La Union. La Union
 *Polytechnic University of the Philippines, A Mabini
Campus, Anonas Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila
 *Ramon Magsaysay Technological University, Iba, Zambales
 St. Ferdinand College, Santa Ana, Centro Iligan, Isabela
 *St. Dominic Savio College, Block 1, Lot 6, Mountain Heights
Subdivision, Quirino Highway, Pangarap, Caloocan City
 *Saint Louis College, National Highway, Lingsat, San
Fernando City, La Union
 *St. Louis University, A. Bonifacio St., Baguio City
 *St. Mary’s College of Tagum, Inc., National Highway,
Tagum
 *St. Mary’s University, San Vidal corner Ponce Street,
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
 *St. Paul School of Business and Law, Palo, Leyte
 *St. Thomas More School of Law & Business, Doclotero
Avenue, Tagum City
 Samar College, Catbalogan City , Samar
 *San Beda College, 638 Mendiola St., San Miguel, Manila
 *San Beda College-Alabang, 8 Don Manolo Blvd, Alabang
Hills, Alabang
 *San Pablo Colleges, Hermanos Belen Street, San Pablo City,
Laguna
 *San Sebastian College-Recoletos, C.M. Recto Avenue,
Manila
 San Sebastian College-Recoletos, IBP Bldg., Surigao City
 *Silliman University, Hubbard Avenue, Dumaguete City,
Negros Oriental
 *Southern Bicol Colleges, Mabini St., Masbate City
 *Southwestern University, Villa Aznar, Urgello Street, Cebu
City
 *Sultan Kudarat State University, EJC Montilla Street,
Tacurong City, Sultan, Kudarat
 *Tabaco Colleges, 5 Tomas Cabilles Avenue, Tabaco, Albay
 *Tarlac State University, 2/F Tarlac State University Gym,
Romulo Avenue, Tarlac City
 *Universidad de Manila, Cecilia Munos-Palma corner
Antonio Villegas St., Mehan Gardens, Manila
 *University of Baguio, General Luna Road, Baguio City
 *University of Batangas-Batangas City Campus, Batangas
City
 *University of Bohol, Ma. Clara Street, Tagbilaran City,
Bohol
 *University of Cagayan Valley, College Ave., Tuguegarao
City, Cagayan
 *University of Cebu, Gov. Cuenco Avenue, Banilad, Cebu City
 *University of Eastern Philippines, University Town,
Catarman, Northern Samar
 *University of Iloilo, Rizal Street, Iloilo City
 *University of La Sallete, Bachelor Street, Santiago City,
Isabela
 *University of Manila, 546 Dr. M.V. delos Santos, Manila
 *University of Mindanao, Bolton St., Davao City
 *University of Negros Occidental-Recoletos, Lizares St.,
Bacolod City
 *University of Northeastern Philippines, San Roque, Iriga
City, Camarines Sur
 *University of Northern Philippines, Quirino Boulevard,
Vigan, Ilocos Sur
 University of Northwestern Philippines, Mariano Marcos
Ave., Laoag City
 *University of Nueva Caceres, J. Hernandez Avenue, Naga
City
 *University of Pangasinan, Arellano Street, Dagupan City,
Pangasinan
 *University of Perpetual Help-Rizal, Alabang-Zapote Road,
Pamplona, Las Pinas City
 *University of Perpetual Help System, Sto Nino, Binan,
Laguna
 *University of Saint La Salle, La Salle Avenue, Bacolod City
 *University of San Agustin, Gen. Luna St., Iloilo City
 *University of San Carlos, P. del Rosario St., Cebu City
 *University of San Jose-Recoletos, P. Del Rosario Street,
Cebu City
 *University of Santo Tomas, Espana, Manila
 *University of Southern Philippines Foundation, Salinas
Drive, Lahug, Cebu City
 *University of the Cordelleras, Governor Pack Road, Baguio
City
 *University of the East, C.M. Recto Avenue, Manila
 *University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City
 *University of the Visayas, D. Jakosalem Corner Colon
Street, Cebu City
 Virgen de los Remedios College, Eat Bajac-Bajac, Olongapo
City
 *Virgen Milagrosa University Foundation, Martin P.
Posadas Avenue, San Carlos City, Pangasinan
 *Western Leyte College of Ormoc City, Inc., A. Bonifacio
Street, Ormoc City
 *Western Mindanao State University, Normal Road,
Baliwasan, Zamboanga City
 *Xavier University, Corales Avnue., Cagayan de Oro City
The above list from the Office of the Bar Confidant does not
include newly organized law schools and/or law schools who do
not have any graduate to qualify for the annual bar
examination. They however have received accreditation from the
Legal Education Board. These additional law schools are as
follows:
 *Asian Development Foundation of Tacloban, Tacloban City,
Leyte
 *Ateneo de Zamboanga University, La Purisina St.,
Zamboanga City
 *Kalinga-Apayao State College, Tabuk City, Kalinga
 *University of Asia and the Pacific, Pearl Drive, Ortigas
Center, Pasig City
 *University of Batangas-Lipa City Campus, Lipa City ,
Batangas
 *Urdaneta City University, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan
The laws schools with asterisk (*) before the name of the law school
are the accredited law school or schools offering Legal Education as
of October 2014.
The following educational Association and/or Organizations:
 Philippine Association of Law Deans
 Philippine Association of Law Professors
 Philippine Association of Law Students
6.2. Bar Associations
Integrated Bar of the Philippines :
The official organization for the legal profession is the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP), established by virtue of Republic Act No.
6397. This confirmed the power of the Supreme Court to adopt rules
for the integration of the Philippine Bar. Presidential Decree 181
(1973) constituted the IBP into a corporate body.
There are now about 50,000 attorneys who composed the IBP.
These are the attorneys whose names are in the Rolls of Attorneys of
the Supreme Court who have qualified for and have passed the bar
examinations conducted annually, taken the attorney’s oath, unless
otherwise disbarred. Membership in the IBP is compulsory. The
Supreme Court in its resolution Court En Banc dated November 12,
2002 (Bar Matter No. 1132) and amended by resolution Court En
Banc dated April 1, 2003 (Bar Matter No. 112-2002) require all
lawyers to indicate their Roll of Attorneys Number in all papers and
pleadings filed in judicial and quasi-judicial bodies in additional to
the previously required current Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) and
IBP Official Receipt or Life Member Number.
Other Bar Associations:
fora and seminars for improved library services. The PGLL is
sensitive to the latest development in the law library field and has
adopted measures conform to these developments. ASEAN
integration is the latest development in the Asean countries and the
PGLL is preparing for it. In 2014, it started its study tour to notable
law libraries in Asia, starting with Malaysia. Other members have
observed the law libraries of Singapore and other Asian countries. In
2015, it will conduct a National Congress on “Developing the Level of
Competencies of Librarians and Information Professionals Towards Asean
Integration” to be held on May 6-8, 2015 wherein the law librarian of
model law library is Asia is invited.
The Association of Special Libraries of the Philippines (ASLP) is a
national organization of special libraries, including law was
organized in 1954. Through this association, law librarians can
improve their networking and competencies in other disciplines
related to law.

Philippine Bar Association is the oldest voluntary national

organization of lawyers in the Philippines which traces its roots to Hauser Global Law School Program, New York University School of Law
the Colegio de Abogados de Filipinas organized on April 8, 1891. It 40 Washington Square South, New York, New York 10012-1099
Telephone: (212) 998-6691, Facsimile: (212) 995-
was formally incorporated as a direct successor of the Colegio de
Abogados de Filipinas on March 27, 1958.
The other voluntary bar associations are the Philippine Lawyers
Association, Trial Lawyers Association of the Philippines, Vanguard
of the Philippine Constitution, PHILCONSA, All Asia Association,
Catholic Lawyers Guild of the Philippines, Society of International
Law, WILOCI, Women Lawyers Association of the Philippines
(WLAP), FIDA . The Philippines is also a member of international
law associations such as the ASEAN Law Association , and
LAWASIA.

7. Law Librarians Association

The Philippine Group of Law Librarians Inc. (PGLL ) is a national
organization of law librarians from both the government and the
private sector organized August 1980 during the 46 th General
Congress of the International Federation of Library Associations and
Institutions (IFLA). Now on 35 th year, the PGLL aims to develop
the competencies of law librarians in legal research, management,
the information technology and other fields though it congresses,