Review Notes on Article 8

7/31/2019 Review Notes on Article 8

1/21

Article 8 JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Section 1 JUDICIAL POWER

Paragraph 1 - The judicial power SHALL be vested in one SUPREME COURT and in such lower courts as

may be established by law

1. Judicial power Courts are given JUDICIAL POWER, nothing more. Judicial power has been defined in jurisprudence as:

a. The right to determine actual controversies arising between adverse litigants, dulyinstituted in courts of proper jurisdiction. (Muskrat v. United States)

b. It is the authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving rights that areenforceable and demandable before the courts of justice or the redress of wrongs for

violation of such rights. (Lopes v. Roxas)

Requisite before Courts can exercise judicial power- There can be no occasion for the exercise of judicial power unless real parties come to

court for the settlement of an actual controversy and unless the controversy is such that

it can be settled in a manner that binds the parties by the application of existing laws.

The exercise of judicial power goes beyond the mere promulgation of final decisions. In thecase of Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, the contention that the Court had violated the rule

on finality of judgment and even encroached on the Presidents power of executive

clemency; the Court replied that the power to control the execution of its decision is an

essential aspect of jurisdiction. The most important part of litigation, whether civil or

criminal, is the process of evaluation of decisions where supervening events may change the

circumstance of the parties and compel courts to intervene and adjust the rights of the

litigants to prevent unfairness. In truth, an accused who been convicted by final judgment

still possesses collateral rights and these rights can be claimed in the appropriate courts. The

suspension of such a death sentence is undisputably an exercise of judicial power. It is not ausurpation of the presidential power of reprieve though its effect is the same. Furthermore,

to contend that only the Executive can protect the right of life of an accused after his final

conviction is to violate the principle of coequal and coordinate powers of the three branches

of our government.

2. Intrinsic limit on judicial power By the principle of separation of powers, all that is given to the judiciary is judicial power

and courts may neither attempt to assume nor be compelled o perform NON-JUDICIAL

functions. The Supreme Court and its members should not and cannot be required to

exercise any power or to perform any trust or to assume duty not pertaining to or

connected with the administering of judicial functions.

There is no inherent power in the Executive or Legislature to charge the judiciary withadministrative functions EXCEPT when reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of judicial

duties.

In the exercise of administrative powers by administrative agencies, the courts can come inwhen agencies violate constitutional rights or commit grave abuse of discretion or acts in

excess of their jurisdiction. (Mantrust Systems, Inc. v. Court of Appeals)


2/21

The GENERAL RULE is that judicial power is not exercised to address moot questions. Amoot case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening

events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value.

Generally, courts decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on ground of mootness.However, Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if:

a. There is grave violation of the Constitutionb. The exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involvedc. When the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to

guide the bench, the bar, and the public

d. The case is capable of repetition yet evading review. (Quizon v. COMELEC)Paragraph 2 Judicial power includes: (components of judicial power)

1. The duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legallydemandable and enforceable; and

2. To determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack orexcess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government

3. Grave abuse of discretion Not every abuse of discretion can be the occasion for the Court to come in by virtue of the

second sentence of Section 1. It must be GRAVE ABUSE of discretion amounting to lack or

excess of jurisdiction. By grave abuse of discretion is meant such CAPRICIOUS and

WHIMSICAL exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of

discretion MUST be PATENT and GROSS to amount to and EVASION OF POSITIVE DUTY or a

VIRTUAL REFUSAL TO PERFORM A DUTY enjoined by law, or to ac at all in contemplation of

law, as where the power is exercised in ARBITRARY and DESPOTIC manner by reason of

passion or HOSTILITY. (Sinon v. Civil Service Commission)

Grave abuse of discretion may arise when a lower court or tribunal violates or contravenesthe Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence. (PCGG v. COCOFED)

There is grave abuse of discretion:a. When an act is done in contrary to the Constitution, the law, or jurisprudence;b. When it is executed whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily out of malice, ill will or

personal bias. (Infotech Foundation, et al. v. COMELEC)

The abuse of discretion MUST be GRAVE, as where the power is exercised in ARBITRARY orDESPOTIC manner by reason of passion or personal HOSTILITY and must be so PATENT and

GROSS as to amount to an EVASION OF POSITIVE DUTY or to a VIRTUAL REFUSAL to perfrom

the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law. The word CAPRICIOUS is usually

used in tandem with the term ARBITRARY which conveys the notion of willful and

unreasoning action. (Balangauan v. CA)

The Court has used the authority to check on the business of the following:a.

Electoral Tribunal (E.g., Lerias v. House El. Trib)b. Political parties and the House of Representatives (Bondoc v. Pineda)

c. Administrative agencies (E.g., Sinon v. Civil Service Commission)d. Senate or its officials (Santiago v. Guingona)e. Act of President in calling the AFP (Lacson v. Perez)

4. Advisory opinions


3/21

The nature of judicial power is also the foundation of the principle but it is NOT the functionof the judiciary to give advisory opinions. The function of the courts is to determine

controversies between litigants. They DO NOT give advisory opinions. The giving of such

opinions is not the exercise of the judicial functions.

5. Declaratory relief Section 1, Rule 64 of the Revised Rules of Court defines an action for DECLARATORY RELIEF

as an action by any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written

instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute, ordinance, executive order or

regulation to determine any question of construction or validity arising under the

instrument, executive order or regulation or statute and for a determination of his rights or

duties thereunder.

Requisites for a petition for declaratory relief:1. There must be a justiciable controversy;2. The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse;3. The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy; and4. The issue involved must be ripe for judicial determination. (Delumen v. Republic)

Advisory opinion Declaratory relief

- It is a response to a legal issue posed in theabstract in advance of any actual case in which

it may be presented.

- It involves real parties in interest with realconflicting legal interests

- It binds no one. - It is final and is forever binding on the parties.- It is NOT a judicial act. - It is ajudicial act.

Section 2 ROLE OF THE LEGISLATURE

Paragraph 1 The Congress shall have the POWER to DEFINE, PRESCRIBE, and APPORTION thejurisdiction of the various courts but may NOT deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases

enumerated in Section 5 hereof.

1. Role of the legislature Although judicial power is vested in the judiciary, the proper exercise of such power requires

prior legislative action by (1) defining such enforceable and demandable rights and

prescribing remedies for violation of such rights; and (2) determining the court with

jurisdiction to hear and decide controversies or disputes arising from legal rights. (Lopez v.

Roxas)

Since judicial power involves the APPLICATION OF LAW to actual controversies, its exercisepresupposes the existence of an applicable law. The courts are WITHOUT power to settlecontroversies, unless there is an applicable law.

Aside from creating judicially demandable rights, the Congress also creates COURTS anddetermines which court or courts shall have jurisdiction over various types of controversies.

Judicial power is vested in the courts by the Constitution itself. Courts other than theSupreme Court established by the Constitution are created by Congress.

Jurisdiction must be distinguished from judicial power. JURISDICTION is the authority of thea court to exercise judicial power in a specific case and is, of course, a prerequisite of judicial


4/21

power, which is the totality of powers a court exercises when it assumes jurisdiction and

hears and decides a case.

No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court asprovided in the Constitution without its advice and concurrence. (Article 6, Section 30)

It has been suggested that the power to determine probable cause for the issuance ofwarrants may not be taken away from judges by the legislature since such power has been

conferred by Article 3, Section 2. (Collector of Customs v. Judge Villaluz)

When Congress creates a court it also concomitantly determines the jurisdiction of thatcourt, and simultaneously too, by operation of the Constitution, that court becomes one of

the repositories of judicial power.

Also implicit limitation of the Congress is that it may not create a court equal in authority orsuperior to the Supreme Court.

Paragraph 2 No law SHALL be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of

tenure of its Members.

The authority to create courts also included the authority to abolish courts. It should be noted that the Supreme Court is beyond the power of Congress to reorganize

even if only as a temporary measure. (Vargas v. Rilloraza)

Section 3 FISCAL AUTONOMY OF JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

The judiciary SHALL ENJOY fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the Judiciary MAY NOT BE REDUCED by

the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year and, after approval, shall be

AUTOMATICALLY and REGULARLY released.

1. Fiscal autonomy The basic aim of granting fiscal autonomy to the judiciary is to assure its INDEPENDENCE. FISCAL AUTONOMY Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature

below the amount appropriated for the previous year and, after approval, shall be

automatically and regularly released.

Section 4 COMPOSITION & JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT

Paragraph 1 The Supreme Court SHALL be composed of a CHIEF JUSTICE and 14 ASSOCIATE JUSTICES.

It may sit EN BANC or in its discretion, in DIVISIONS ofTHREE, FIVE, or SEVEN Members. Any vacancy

shall be filled within 90 days from the occurrence thereof.

Paragraph 2 All cases involving the constitutionality of a TREATY, INTERNATIONAL or EXECUTIVEAGREEMENT, or LAW, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court EN BANC, and all other cases which

under the Rules of Court are required to be heard EN BANC, including those involving the

constitutionality, application, or operation of PRESDIENTIAL DECREES, PROCLAMATIONS, ORDERS,

INSTRUCTIONS, ORDINANCES, and other REGULATIONS, shall be decided with the concurrence of a

MAJORITY of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and

voted thereon.


5/21

Paragraph 3 CASES or MATTERS heard by a division shall be DECIDED or RESOLVED with the

concurrence of the MAJORITY of members who actually took part in the issues in the case and voted

thereon, and in no case, without the concurrence of at least THREE of such Members. When the

required number is not obtained, the case SHALL BE DECIDED EN BANC: Provided, that no doctrine or

principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or

reversed except by the court sitting en banc.

1. Composition and sessions The composition of the Supreme Court may not be changed by ordinary legislation. There can be as many as FIVE divisions in the Supreme Court thereby allowing for a more

speedy disposition of cases before the Supreme Court.

Cases to be heard EN BANC:a. All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international executive agreement,

or law;

b. Cases involving the constitutionality application, or operation of presidential decrees,proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations;

c. Cases heard by division when the required majority in the division is not obtained(Article 8, Section 4 (3))

d. Cases where the Supreme Court modifies or reverses a doctrine or principle of lawpreviously laid down by the en banc or divisions;

e. Administrative cases where the vote is for the dismissal of a judge of a lower court orotherwise to discipline such a one (Article 8, Section 11)

f. Election contest for President or Vice-President (Article 7, Section 4) When the Supreme Court sits en banc, cases are decided by the concurrence of a majority of

the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted

thereon. This reflects a two-fold desire of the Commission:

1. Not to allow the absence of some members of the Supreme Court of their non-participation in deliberations to delay decisions;

2. To require that only those thoroughly familiar with the case participate in the decision. To emphasize that to have participated means not just have studied the briefs and listened

to oral arguments but also to have taken part in the deliberations among the Justices. This

rule applies to all types of cases decided en banc, even cases involving constitutionality.

The effect of the new rule is that a law or a presidential decree with the force of law can bedeclared unconstitutional by as few as FIVE votes because a quorum of the Court en banc is

EIGHT, a majority of which is only FIVE.

Decisions or resolutions of a division of the courts are NOT INFERIOR to an en banc decision.When concurred in by a majority of its members who actually took part in the deliberation

on the issues in the case, the decision of a division is a decision or resolution of t Supreme

Court itself.

The Supreme Court sitting en banc is not an appellate court vis--vis its Divisions, and itexercises no appellate jurisdiction over the latter.

Each division of the Court is considered NOT a body inferior to the Court en banc, and sitsveritably as the Court en banc itself.

A decision of a division is not appealable to the Court en banc. When the required numberof votes is not obtained in a Division, the case shall be decided en banc.


6/21

In matters pertaining to CASE, when the number of votes required is not obtained or in caseof tie, there is no decision. The only way to dispose of the case then is to refer it to the Court

en banc.

If a case has already been decided by the Division and the losing party files a motion forreconsideration, the failure of the Division to resolve the motion because of a tie in the

voting does not leave the case undecided. There is still the decision which must stand in

view of the failure of the Members of the Division to muster the necessary vote for its

reconsideration. If the voting results in a tie, the motion for reconsideration is LOST. The

assailed decision is not reconsidered and must therefore be deemed AFFIRMED.

Section 5 POWERS OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court shall have the following powers

1. Exercise ORIGINAL JURISDICTION over cases affecting (a) AMBASSADORS, (b) other PUBLICMINISTRIES and CONSULS, and over petitions for (a) CERTIORARI, (b) PROHIBITION, (c)

MANDAMUS, (d) QUO WARRANTO, and (e) HABEAS CORPUS.

2. REVIEW, REVISE, REVERSE, MODIFY, or AFFIRM on appeal or certiorari as the law or the Rulesof Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:

a. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any TREATY, INTERNATIONAL orEXECUTIVE AGREEMENT, LAW, PRESIDENTIAL DECREES, PROCLAMATION, ORDER,

INSTRUCTION, ORDINANCE, or REGULATION is in question.

b. All cases involving the LEGALITY of any TAX, IMPOST, ASSESSMENT, or TOLL, or any penaltyimposed in relation thereto.

c. All cases in which the JURISDICTION of any lower court in issue.d. All cases in which the penalty imposed is RECLUSION PERPETUA or HIGHERe. All cases in which only an ERROR or QUESTION of law is involved.

3. Assign temporarily JUDGES of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require.Such temporary assignment shall NOT EXCEED 6 months without the consent of the judge

concerned.

4. Order a CHANGE OF VENUE or PLACE OF TRIAL to avoid a miscarriage of justice.5. Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,

practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar,

and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and

inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of thesame grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of

special court and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme

Court.

6. Appoint all officials and employees of the judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.1. Powers of the Supreme Court


7/21

Section 5 & 6 provide the powers of the Supreme Court. These powers may be classifiedinto:

a. The irreducible jurisdiction of the Supreme Court;b. The auxiliary administrative powers

Section 5, Paragraph 1 and 2 speak of the jurisdiction over cases. Jurisdiction over thesecases represents the irreducible jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. They include:

a. Original jurisdiction over cases affecting diplomatic representativesb. Over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus;c. Appellate jurisdiction over enumerated type of cases.

Section 5, Paragraph 3 to 6 and Section 6 provide for auxiliary administrative powers. Theyinclude;

a. The power to issue temporary assignment of judgesb. To order change of venuec. To promulgate rules of procedured. Enforcement of constitutional rightse. Integration of the barf. Legal assistanceg. Admission to the practice of lawh. To appoint its officials and employeesi. To have administrative supervision over all court

2. Judicial review JUDICIAL REVIEW it is the Supreme Courts power to declare a treaty, international or

executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance,

or regulation UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

- It also includes the power to declare unconstitutional the APPLICATION or OPERATIONof presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instruction, ordinances, or regulations

even of the legal basis for the action is constitutional.

The power of judicial review leaves a deep POLITICAL IMPRINT on the life of the State; it istimportant to keep in mind that the power is NOT POLITICAL but JUDICIAL.

JUDICIAL POWER it is the power of a court to settle actual controversies between realconflicting parties through the application of a law. It therefore necessarily involves a search

of an applicable law.

When the judiciary mediated to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert anysuperiority over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of

legislature, but only ASSERTS THE SOLEMN and SACRED OBLIGATION assigned to it by the

Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to

establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures

and guarantees to them. (Angara v. Electoral Commission)

3. Requisites for the exercise of JUDICIAL REVIEWa. Actual case and ripeness

- The first requisite for the Court to be able to exercise the power of judicial review is thatthere must be before it an ACTUAL CASE calling for the exercise of judicial review.

- Closely related to the requirement of an actual case is the cognate requirement thatthe question must be RIPE FOR ADJUDICATION. A constitutional question is ripe for


8/21

adjudication when the governmental act being challenged has had direct adverse

effect on the individual challenging it.

- A judicial review is a procedural rule and, like all procedural rules, it tolerates exception.Thus, for instance, the Court will come in when lack of clarity about a law may be

creating CONFUSION.

b. Standing (locus standi) Another important requisite is LOCUS STANDI which is an aspect of the case or

controversy requirement.

Even after an act of a governmental agency and after that something has begun to take itstoll on the right of individuals, the Court will not yet exercise judicial review UNLESS the

constitutional question is brought before it by a party having the requisite standing to

challenge it.

A person has standing to challenge the governmental act only if he has a personal andsubstantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a

result of its enactment. (People v. Vera)

The elements of standing are:1. The petitioner must have suffered injury in fact which can be legal, economic, or

environmental;

2. The injury must be traceable to the governmental act challenged;3. The injury must be redressable by the remedy being sought by petitioner

(Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc. v. Commission on

Elections)

The challengers interest in the suit must be PERSONAL and not one based on a desire tovindicate the constitutional right of some third and unrelated party.

However, the rule on standing does not prevent an ASSOCIATION from asserting the right ofits members where the rights of the association and of the members are so intertwined that

to vindicate one is really to vindicate also the other.

There has been rigorous and strict requirement for standing. However in recent years, theCourt has been following a LIBERAL APPROACH on standing in HIGH PROFILE ISSUES.

The Court has the discretion to take cognizance of a suit which does not satisfy therequirement of legal standing when paramount interest is involved. In not a few cases, the

Court has adopted a liberal attitude on the locus standi of a petitioner where the petitioner

is able to craft an issue ofTRANSCENDENTAL SIGNIFICANCE to people and has advanced a

constitutional issue which deserves the attention of the Court in view of their seriousness,

novelty and weight. Thus, when the issues raised are ofPARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE to the

public, the Court may brush aide technicalities of procedure. (IBP v. Zamora)

In view of the PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE and the CONSTITUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE of theissues raised in the petitions, this Court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, brushes aside

the procedural barrier and takes cognizance of the petitions. (Bayan v. Zamora)

When the matter is ofTRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE and PARAMOUNT INTEREST to the native, the Court must take the liberal approach to recognize the legal standing of

non-traditional plaintiffs, such as citizens and taxpayers, to raise constitutional issues that

affect them.

In line with the liberal policy of the Court on locus standi, the following are allowed toinstitute and prosecute action to question the constitutionality of validity of laws, acts,

decisions, rulings, or orders of various government agencies or instrumentalities:

a. Ordinary taxpayers


9/21

b. Members of Congressc. Association of plantersd. Non-profit civic organizations

REAL PARTY IN INTEREST and REAL INTEREST- Under Rule 3, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, a REAL PARTY IN INTEREST is the party

who stands to be benefitted or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled

to the avails of the suit. INTEREST within the meaning of the rules means MATERIAL

INTERESTS, an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from

mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest.

o It is not strictly applicable in PUBLIC LAW cases.- REAL INTEREST means a present SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST, as distinguished from a mere

expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest.

4. Standing of Legislators, Taxpayers and Citizens The members of the Congress, as a body, have a standing to challenge an unconstitutional

act.

The Court has recognized the legal standing of the Senate, as an institution, when itchallenged a presidential veto or other acts of the Executive which injures them in their

person or the institution of Congress to which they belong. (Gonzales v. Macaraig)

The contention commands our concurrence for it is now settled that a member of theHouse of the Representatives has standing to maintain inviolate the prerogatives, powers

and privileges vested by the Constitution in his office. (Sandoval v. PAGCOR)

In cases involving expenditure of public funds, a taxpayer has standing if it can be shownthat (1) he has sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by

taxation; (2) He will sustain a direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the questioned

statute (People v. Secretary of Public Works). It is well-settled that the validity of a statute

may be contested only by one who will sustain a direct injury in consequence of its

enforcement. (Demetria v. Alba)

The right to information on matters of public concern and the right of access to publicdocuments has been recognized as accruing to mere citizenship (Legaspi v. Civil Service

Commission). Access to public documents is a public right, and the real party in interest are

the PEOPLE themselves. (Chavez v. PCGG)

5. Other requisites of judicial review As a general rule, the question of constitutionality must be raised at the EARLIEST

OPPORTUNITY, so that if not raised by the pleadings, ordinarily it may not be raised at the

trial, and if not raised in the trial court, it will not be considered on appeal.

The Courts, in the exercise of sound discretion, may determine the time when a questionaffecting constitutionality of a statute should be represented.

The Court will not touch the issue of unconstitutionality UNLESS it really is unavoidable or irthe very lis mota.6. Political questions

When the question is the legality of a political act of government, the Court derives itspower to adjudicate from the constitutional grant of judicial power and from the explicit of

the power of judicial review. But the court does not always assume jurisdiction over every

actual constitutional case brought before it even that are ripe for resolution.


10/21

One class of cases which the Court generally refuses to touch are POLITICAL QUESTIONS.The political questions doctrine then constitutes another limitation on the power of

judicial review.

POLITICAL QUESTIONS are those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decidedby the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority

has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government. (Tanada v.

Cuenco)

Kinds of POLITICAL QUESTIONSa. Textual kind where there is found textually demonstrable commitment of the issue to

a political department

b. Functional kind where there is lack of judicially discoverable and manageablestandards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy

determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion.

c. Prudential kindwhere there is the impossibility of a courts undertaking independentresolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of

government; or unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision

already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements

by various departments on one question.

The validity of the manner of proposing amendments and the question whether thePresident could propose amendments were justiciable and not political questions. (Sanidad

v. COMELEC)

The following are not political questions.a. The Court takes cognizance of case whenever it finds constitutionally imposed limits on

powers or functions conferred upon political bodies.

b. The Supreme Court has also held that apportionment of representative district is not apolitical question because there are constitutional rules governing apportionment.

(Macias v. COMELEC)

c. The Supreme Court took cognizance of a dispute involving the formation of the SenateElectoral Tribunal. (Tanada v. Macapagal)

d. The Court passed judgment on whether Congress had formed the Commission ofAppointments in accordance with the dictates of the Constituion. (Cunanan v. Tan, Jr.)

e. The Court held that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was nota political question because the Constitution had set limits to executive discretion on

the matter. (Lansang v. Garcia)

f. The Court held that whether or not Congress or a constitutional convention has properlyproposed amendments to the Constitution is a justiciable and not a political question.

(Gonzales v. COMELEC)

g. The Court intervened in the manner of forming the Commission on Appointments. (Dazav. Singson, Coseteng v. Mitra & Guingona , Jr. v. Gonzales)

h. The Court invalidated the expulsion of a member of the House Electoral Tribunal.(Bondoc v. Padilla)

It must emphasized that the political question doctrine is no longer the insurmountableobstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the impenetrable shield that protects executive

and legislative actions from judicial inquiry or review. (Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.)

7. Effects of declaration of unconstitutionality


11/21

Where the assailed legislative or executive act is found by the judiciary to be contrary to theConstitution, it s NULL and VOID. (Fernandez v. Cuerva)

The provision of the Civil Code reflects the ORTHODOX VIEW that an unconstitutional at,whether legislative or executive, is NOT A LAW, CONFERS NO RIGHTS, IMPOSES NO DUTIES,

and AFFORDS NO PROTECTION. (Fernandez v. Cuerva)

8. Judicial review by inferior courts Since the power of judicial review flows from judicial power and since inferior courts are

possessed of judicial power, it may fairly be inferred that the power is not an exclusive

power of the Supreme Court. This same conclusion may be inferred from Article 8, Section

5(2).

The Constitution plainly contemplates that the inferior courts should have jurisdictioninvolving constitutionality of any treaty or law, for it speaks of appellate review of final

judgments of inferior courts in cases where such constitutionality happens to be in issue.

A declaration of unconstitutionality made by the Supreme Court constitutes a precedentbinding on all; a similar decision of an inferior court binds only the parties in the case.

9. Modalities of Constitutional interpretation The Supreme Court is not just a court. It is also a political institution. Because the key

provisions of the Constitution are couched in grand ambiguities and because the key

provisions concern the larger issues of our life, of our liberties, and of our happiness, the

Supreme Court, by the exercise of judicial review, wields tremendouspolitical power.

Different modalitiesa. Historical approach The Justice analyzes the intention of the framers of the

Constitution and the circumstances of its ratification. The original meaning of expression

can be traced to historical events or ideological positions. But a historical approach or

appeal to the intent of the framers may not be resorted to when it is contrary to the

plain meaning of the text.

b. Textual approachThe Justice simply chooses to read the language of the Constitutionas the man on the street would understand it. After all, it is the man on the street who

in the ultimate analysis is the author of the Constitution because it was he who ratified

it. However, a word or phrase found in the text does not always yield a plain

meaning.

c. Structural approachThe Justice draws inferences form the architecture of the three-cornered power relationships that are found in the constitutional arrangement.

Structure is what the text shows but does not say.

d. Doctrinal approach The Justice might prefer to rely on established precedents. Thegrowing numbers of Supreme Court decisions are in a sense a second set of

constitutional text.

e.

Ethical approach - The Justice seeks to interpret the Filipino moral commitments thatare embedded in the constitutional document.

f. Prudential approach The Justice weighs and compares the costs and benefits thatmight be found in conflicting rules because constitutional rules are not always written in

clear black and white.

10.Review of Death sentences


12/21

The Supreme Court is authorized to review where the penalty imposed is reclusionperpetua, life imprisonment, or death. However, the Constitution has not proscribed an

intermediate review.

The Rule now is that such cases must be reviewed by the Court of Appeals before they canbe elevated to the Supreme Court. (People V. Mateo)

In case the sentence is death, there is automatic review by the Court of Appeals andultimately by the Supreme Court. This is mandatory and neither the accused nor the courts

may waive the right of appeal.

In case the sentence is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the Supreme Court hasjurisdiction to review them but the review is not mandatory. Therefore, review in these

cases may be waived and appeal may be withdrawn.

11.Temporary assignment of judges It should be noted that the text uses the expression other station. The rule applies even

when the temporary transfer is to a branch within the same region because appointments

are made to a particular branch of a given region.

QUESTION: Who can effect the transfer?- Since the transfer imports removal from one office and since a judge enjoys security of

tenure, it cannot be effected without the CONSENT OF THE JUDGE concerned.

It is submitted nonetheless that the power to determine by law the residence of judges stillbelongs to the legislature as part of its authority to determine the additional qualifications

of judges of lower courts.

12.Change of Venue The courts can by appropriate means do all things necessary to preserve and maintain every

quality needful to make the judiciary an effective institution of government (Borromeo v.

Mariano). One of the incidental and inherent powers of courts is that of transferring the trial

of cases from one court to another of equal rank in a neighboring site, whenever the

imperative of securing a fair and impartial trial, or of preventing a miscarriage of justice, sodemands.

13.Rules concerning protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice andprocedure, and admission to the Bar.

The 1987 Constitution has given the Supreme Court authority to promulgate rulesconcerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. This is auxiliary to its

broad judicial power. This includes an inherent power to suspend its own rules in particular

cases in order to do justice (Lim, et al. v. CA). And this is the basis for the Rule creating the

Writ of Amparo.

Rules promulgated by special courts and quasi-judicial bodies are effective UNLESSdisapproved by the Supreme Court. (De Guzman v. People)

The grant of authority lays down certain limitation and guidelines:a. They shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of

cases;

b. They shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade;c. They shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.


13/21

Since the Court is not allowed to promulgate rules that can alter substantive rights, itbecomes necessary to understand what substantive rights are and how they are

distinguished from procedural or remedial rights

SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS PROCEDURAL/REMEDIAL RIGHTS

-

It is a term which includes those rights whichone enjoys under the legal system prior to the

disturbance of normal relations.

-

It prescribes the method of enforcing therights or obtains redress for their invasion.

- Substantive law is that part of the law whichCREATES, DEFINES, and REGULATES rights, or

which regulates the rights and duties which

give rise to a cause of action.

- It provides or regulates the steps by which onewho commits a crime is to be punished.

- As applied to criminal law, substantive law isthat which declares what acts are crimes and

prescribed the punishment for committing

them.

-

Section 6 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION

The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over ALL COURTS and the PERSONNEL thereof.

1. Administrative supervision on inferior courts This provision is a significant innovation towards strengthening the independence of the

judiciary. There was no constitutional provision on the subject and administrative

supervision over the lower courts and their personnel was exercised by the SECRETARY OF

JUSTICE.

The power of administrative supervision of the Supreme Court includes according to Section11 the power of the Supreme Court, sitting en banc, to discipline judges of lower courts, ororder their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the

deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.

The Ombudsman may not investigate a judge independently of any administrative action ofthe Supreme Court. Article 8, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution exclusively vests in the

Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the

Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals down to the lowest municipal trial court clerk. It is

only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges and court personnels compliance with

all laws, and takes the proper administrative action against them if they commit any

violation thereof. NO OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT MAY INTRUDE INTO THIS POWER,

WITHOUT RUNNING AFOUL OF THE DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS. (Maceda v.

Vasquez) No other entity or official of Government, not the prosecution or investigation service of any

other branch, not any functionary thereof, has competence to review a judicial order or

decision. (Judge Fuentes v. Office of the Ombudsman)

The Ombudsman cannot determine for itself and by itself whether a criminal complaintagainst a judge, or court employee, involves and administrative matter. The Ombudsman

cannot dictate and bind the Court to its findings that a case before it does or does not have

administrative implications. (Judge Caoibes v. Ombudsman)


14/21

Section 7 QUALIFICATIONS OF THE JUSTICES AND JUDGES

Paragraph 1 No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court

UNLESS he is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the Philippines. A member of the Supreme Court must be atleast FORTY YEARS OF AGE, and must have been for FIFTEEN YEARS OR MORE A JUDGE OF LOWER

COURT or ENGAGED IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES.

Paragraph 2 The CONGRESS shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts, but no person

may be appointed judge thereof UNLESS he is a CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES and a MEMBER OF THE

PHILIPPINE BAR.

Paragraph 3 A member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven COMPETENCE, INTEGRITY,

PROBITY, and INDEPENDENCE.

1. Qualification of the Members of the Judiciary The qualification of members of the Supreme Court are prescribed in Section 7 (1) & (3) and

may not be altered by Congress:

a. Natural-born citizen of the Philippinesb. At least 40 years old of agec. Must have been for 15 years or more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice

of law in the Philippines

d. Of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence. The requirements, however, is also prescribed for the Chairman of the Commission on

Elections. (Cayetano v. Monsod)

The qualifications of members of collegiate courts lower than the Supreme Court arescattered through the 3 paragraphs of Section 7:

a. Natural-born citizens of the Philippinesb. Member of the Philippine Barc. Of proven competence, probity, integrity, and independenced. Possessing such other qualification as may be prescribed by Congress.

The qualification of judges of single-member courts are set down in Section 7 (2) & (3). Itshould be noted that they can be either NATURAL BORN or NATURALIZED citizens. The

intent of this provision is to open up courts lower than the collegiate courts to naturalized

citizens.

Before one who is offered an appointment to the Supreme Court can accept it, he mustcorrect the entry in his birth certificate saying that he is an alien. (Kilosbayan v. Ermita)

Who may bring an action for quo warranto?a. Solicitor Generalb. Public prosecutorc. Any person claiming to be entitled to the public office or position usurped or unlawfully

held or exercised by another

Section 8 FORMATION OF JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL


15/21

Paragraph 1 A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the SUPERVISION of the Supreme Court

composed of the CHIEF JUSTICE as ex-officio chairman, the SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, and a

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CONGRESS as ex-officio members, a REPRESENTATIVE OF THE INTEGRATED

BAR, a PROFESSOR OF LAW, a RETIRED MEMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT, and a REPRESENTATIVE OF

THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

Paragraph 2 The regular members of the Council shall be appointed by the President for a TERM OF

FOUR YEARS with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Of the members first appointed, the

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE INTEGRATED BAR shall serve for FOUR years, the PROFESSOR OF LAW for

THREE years, the RETIRED JUSTICE for TWO years, and the REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR for

ONE year.

Paragraph 3 The CLERK OF SUPREME COURT shall be the Secretary ex-officio of the Council and shall

keep a record of its proceedings

Paragraph 4 The regular members of the Council shall receive shall emoluments as may be determined

by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall provide in its annual budget the appropriations for the

Council.

Paragraph 5 The Council shall have the PRINCIPAL FUNCTION OF RECOMMENDING APPOINTEES TO

THE JUDICIARY. It may exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court assign to it.

1. The Judicial and Bar Council The principal function of the Council is to recommend to the President appointees to the

Judiciary. From among the nominees, the President appoints judges without need for

confirmation by a Commission on Appointments.

This innovation is a response to the suggestion of the practicing lawyer upon the groundthat in the past, the judges had to kowtow to members of the legislative body to get an

appointment or at least to see the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary in Congressand request support as much as possible the influence of partisan politics.

The council functions under the supervision of the Supreme Court with the CLERK OFSUPREME COURT as ex-officio secretary.

The Council is compose of three ex-officio members:a. Chief Justice (ex-officio Chairman)b. Secretary of Justicec. Representative of Congress

The Council is composed of four regular membersa. Representative of the Integrated Bar (to serve for 4 years)b. Professor of Law (to serve for 3 years)c. Retired Member of the Supreme Court (to serve for 2 years)d. Representative of the Private sector (to serve for 1 year)

The regular members of the Council are appointed by the President for a term of four (4)years with the consent of Commission on Appointments. The requirement that the regular

members be appointed with the consent of the Commission on Appointments allows a

POLITICAL CHECK on the President

The four year term allows for the staggering of appointments for purposes of continuity.


16/21

QUESTION: Where then should the legislative member come form Senate or House ofRepresentatives?

- The solution for this question as practiced now is that a member each comes from bothHouses but they each have only half a vote.

Section APPOINTMENT OF JUSTICES AND JUDGES BY THE PRESIDENT

Paragraph 1 The Members of the Supreme Court and Judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the

PRESIDENT from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every

vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.

Paragraph 2 For the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointments within ninety days from

the submission of the list.

1. Appointments of Justices and Judges The principal function of the Judicial and Bar Council is to form a list of nominees to the

judiciary out of which the President choose appointees as Justices and Judges.

For every vacancy, the Judicial and Bar Council submits to the President a list of at leastthree (3) names.

The President may not appoint anybody who is not in the list. If the President is not satisfied with the names in the list, he may ask for another list. Once the appointment is issued by the President and accepted by the nominee, it needs no

further confirmation.

For lower courts, the President is given ninety (90) days from submission of the list withinwhich to issue the appointment.

It should be noted that what the Constitution authorizes the President to do is to appointJustices and Judges and not the authority merely to designate a non-member of the

Supreme Court temporarily to sit as Justice of the Supreme Court.

Section 10 SALARY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY

The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and of judges of lower

courts SHALL BE FIXED BY LAW. During their continuance in office, their salary SHALL NOT BE

DECREASED.

1. Diminution of salary The prohibition of the salary of Justices and Judges during their continuance in office is

intended as a protection for the independence of the judiciary. QUESTION: Does thisprohibit the imposition of a tax on the salary of Justices and Judges.

- The true intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution was to make the salaries of themembers of the Judiciary TAXABLE.

Section 11 SECURITY OF TENURE OF MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY


17/21

The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior

until they reach the age ofSEVENTY YEARS or become INCAPACITATED TO DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF

THEIR OFFICE. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or

order dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberation on the

issues in the case and voted thereon.

1. Security of tenure in the Judiciary Security of tenure is essential to an independent Judiciary. The guarantee of security of tenure is a guarantee not just against actual removal but also

of uninterrupted continuity in tenure. (Vargas v. Rilloraza)

Since the members of the Supreme Court are removable only by IMPEACHMENT, they canbe said to have failed to satisfy the requirement of GOOD BEHAVIOR only if they are guilty

of offenses which are constitutional grounds for impeachment. It is submitted that the

Supreme Court ALONE can determine this since the Supreme Court ALONE can order their

dismissal.

The Supreme Courts power to determine what GOOD BEHAVIOR means is exclusive justas the power of the Congress to determine DISORDERLY BEHAVIOR of its members is

exclusive.

The Supreme Courts decision to dismiss a judge is reached en banc by a vote of a majorityof the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the cases and

voted thereon. QUESTION: What about disciplinary action short of dismissal?

- As the text is constructed, the requirement is that the Supreme Court sits en banc in ALLDISCIPLINARY CASES.

Disciplinary cases to be decided by Supreme Court en banc; It was ruled that a decision enbanc is needed only when:

a. The penalty imposed is dismissal of a judgeb. Disbarment of a lawyerc. Suspension of either for more than one year, or fine exceeding 10,000 pesos.

Incapacity to discharge the duties of their office is not defined by the Constitution either.Neither does the Constitution specify who should decide whether a Justice or Judge has

become incapacitated. QUESTION: Who will then determine incapacity?

- The power to determine incapacity is part of the overall administrative power which theSupreme Court has over its members and overall members of the Judiciary. The practice

in fact is for the Supreme Court to create a PANEL OF DOCTORS who can assist the

Supreme Court in making the proper decision.

The power of the Supreme Court to discipline judges of inferior courts or to order theirdismissal is EXCLUSIVE. It may not be vested in any other body. Nor may Congress pass a law

that judges of lower courts are removable only by impeachment. (Article 11, Section 2)

Abolition of office is one ploy for removing an otherwise irremovable officer. Undoubtedly,implicit in the authority of Congress to create courts and apportion their jurisdiction is alsothe authority to abolish courts. Necessarily the abolition of court results in the termination

of the tenure of whoever may be occupying the offices abolished. Abolition, however, to be

valid MUST NOT BE USED AS A PLOY FOR CIRCUMVENTING THE GUARANTEE OF SECURITY

OF TENURE.

Abolition of office is valid when done in GOOD FAITH and not for POLITICAL or PERSONALREASONS. In such a situation, properly and logically speaking there is no removal from office


18/21

because a removal implies that the office remains to exist after the ouster. (Zandueta v. De

la Costa and Ocampo v. Secretary of Justice)

Section 12 PROHIBITION OF PERFORMANCE OF NON-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS

The Members of the Supreme Court and of other Courts established by law SHALL NOT BE DESIGNATED

TO AGENCY PERFORMING QUASI-JUDICIAL or ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS.

1. Non-judicial assignments The provision merely makes explicit an application of the principle of separation of powers.

Section 13 PROCESS OF JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING

The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in division

SHALL BE REACHED IN CONSULTATION before the case is assigned to a Member for the writing of the

opinion of the Court. A CERTIFICATION to this effect signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued and a

copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties. Any Member who took no

part, or dissented, or abstained from a decision or resolution must state the reason therefor. The

same requirements shall be observed by all lower collegiate courts.

1. Process of decision-making The inclusion of the provision is to rectify the notion and widespread belief that many of the

decisions of the Supreme Court were really the decisions of only one Justice.

This provision OBLIGES all Justices of the Supreme Court to study every case to be decideden banc or by the division to which they belong.

Its purpose is TO ENSURE the implementation of the constitutional requirement thatdecisions of the Supreme Court and lower collegiate courts, such as the Court of Appeals,Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals, are reached after consultation with the

members of the court sitting en banc or in division before the case is assigned to a member

thereof for decision-making. (Consing v. Court of Appeals)

QUESTION: What is the effect of the absence of certification?- It would not necessarily mean that the case submitted for decision had not been

reached for consultation before being assigned to one member for the writing of the

opinion of the Court.

- The lack of certification at the end of the decision would only serve as evidence offailure to observe certification requirement and may be basis for HOLDING THE OFFICIAL

RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OMISSION to account therefor.

- Such absence of certification would not have the effect of invalidating the decision.(Consing v. Court of Appeals) This requirement also applies to intermediate appellate courts. The requirement that each dissenting Justice must state the reasons for his dissent also

ensures personal study by each Justice and at the same time is a recognition of the fact that

dissenting opinions sometime eventually become the majority opinion. THIS IS MANDATORY

and it also applies to Justices of intermediate collegiate courts.


19/21

The1987 Constitution also requires Justices who took no part or abstained from a decisionto give an explanation for their inaction. THIS IS MANDATORY and it also applies to Justices

of intermediate collegiate courts.

Section 14 CONTENTS OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Paragraph 1 No decision shall be rendered by any court WITHOUT EXPRESSING THEREIN CLEARLY

AND DISTINCTLY THE FACTS AND THE LAW ON WHICH IT IS BASED.

Paragraph 2 No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be

refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefore.

1. Contents of decision of courts The first paragraph refers to DECISIONS, that is, the final determination made by a court

of the substantive issues brought for resolution. This happens after a case is given due

courts and after the filing of Briefs or Memoranda and all other pleadings. It does NOT apply

to a resolution refusing due course, or to disposition of incidental matters. (Nunan v.

Commission on Audit)

It was already established that the requirement of CLEAR STATEMENT OF FACTS and of LAWhad reference to a decision rendered after previous presentation of proof in an ordinary civil

or criminal case. (Soncuya v. National Investment Co. & Bacolod Murcia Milling Co. v.

Henares)

The provision aims to correct some routine court matters in all courts which do not requirea statement of reasons, like petitions for postponement or extension of time and the like, in

which case, minute resolutions should be allowed to expedite the administration of justice.

A decision with absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity. It is open to direct attack.(Edwards v. McCoy)

A court of justice is not hidebound to write in its decision every bit and piece of evidencepresented by one party and the other upon the issues raised.

Neither the Court is to be burdened with the obligation to specify in the sentence the factswhich a party considered as proved. (Aringo v. Arena)

A decision is not to be so clogged with details such that prolixity, if not confusion, mayresult.

So long as the decision of the Court of Appeals contains necessary facts to warrant itsconclusions, it is no error for said court to withhold therefrom any specific finding of facts

with respect to the evidence for the defense because there is no law that so requires. (Reyes

v. People)

It was held that the mere fact that the finding were based entirely on the evidence for theprosecution without taking into consideration or even mentioning the appellants side in thecontroversy as shown by his testimony would not vitiate the judgment. (People v. Manique)

If the court did not recite in the decision the testimony of each witness for, or each item ofevidence presented by, the defeated party, it does not mean that the Court has overlooked

such testimony or such item of evidence. (Badger, et al. v. Boyd)

There is substantial compliance with this provision when an order adopts by reference thereasons alleged in the motion to dismiss if they already include the facts and the law in

support of the order. (Vda. De Espiritu v. Court of First Instance)


20/21

Mere general reference should be avoided since anyway it would be difficult to quotetextually the subject of the reference.

The constitutional mandate of providing the essential facts and the law on which it is baseddoes not preclude the validity of MEMORANDUM DECISIONS which adopt by reference the

findings of the fact and conclusions of law contained in the decisions of inferior tribunals.

This rule has been justified on the grounds of expediency, practicality, convenience and the

crowded status of court dockets. (Solid Homes v. Laserna)

The rule on contents of decision is applicable to all courts. Failure of lower court judge tofollow it would subject him to DISCIPLINARY ACTION and failure of a member of Supreme

Court would subject him to IMPEACHMENT.

It has been held that a MILITARY COURT is not a court within the meaning of the provision;hence, the fact that a proceeding in a military commission terminates simply with a guilty or

not guilty verdict is not a violation. Moreover, it may be stated further that the records of

the proceedings are available to the reviewing authorities. (Buscayno v. Enrile)

It has been held that the COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, not being a court, does not comeunder the provision. (Mangca v. COMELEC)

2. Petitions for review and motion for reconsideration The rule does not required a statement of facts and an accompanying reasoning out of the

applicable law but merely a statement of LEGAL BASIS for denying the course.

The practice of Supreme Court in disposing of petitions for review by dismissing them forlack of merit in minute resolutions is a practice that has been patterned after the United

States Supreme Court wherein petitions for review are often merely dismissed; it has helped

the Court in alleviating its heavy docket. (Commercial Union Assurance Company v. Lepanto

Consolidated)

The need to state the legal basis arises from the fact that a denial of review ofreconsideration, unlike minute resolutions resolving incidental matters, affects the subject

matter of the merits of the case.

Section 15 PERIODS OF MAKING JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Paragraph 1 All CASES or MATTERS filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be DECIDED or

RESOLVED within 24 months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by

the Supreme Court, 12 months for all lower collegiate courts, and 3 months for all other lower courts.

Paragraph 2 A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of

the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself.

Paragraph 3 Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to this effect signed bythe Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy thereof attached to the

record of the case or matter, and served upon the parties. The certification shall state why a decision or

resolution has not been rendered or issued within said period.

Paragraph 4 Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the court, without prejudice to

such responsibility as may have been incurred in consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case

or matter submitted thereto for determination, without further delay.


21/21

1. Period of making decisions The basic rule setting down within what period decisions must be rendered is found in the

1st

paragraph:

- Supreme Court to render decision within 24 months- Unless reduced by Supreme Court, lower collegiate courts to render decision within 12

months

- All other lower courts, unless reduced by Supreme Court, to render decision within 3months

The period begins to toll from the date of submission, which means, according to 2ndparagraph, upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the

Rules of Court or by the court itself.

For the purpose of this provision, the SANDIGANBAYAN, being a trail court, has the sameperiod for making decisions as other trial courts3 months.

The respective periods are MANDATORY and failure to comply can subject a Supreme CourtJustice to IMPEACHMENT for culpable violation of the Constitution and a lower court Justice

or Judge to DISCIPLINARY ACTION. But the provision is prospective, that is, it applies only to

cases filed after the effectivity of the Constitution.

QUESTION: How to determine whether or not the prescribed period has been properlycomplied with?

- The 3rd paragraph requires CERTIFICATION to that effect from the Chief Justice or fromthe presiding judge. The certification is attached to the record of the case and is served

upon the parties with an explanation for the failure, if there was failure.

The CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCTS requires judges to decide or resolve cases or matterspending before them within the period fixed by the law. Their failure to do so is considered

GROSS INSUFFICIENCY and warrants ADMINISTRATIVE sanctions. A HEAVY CASE LOAD and

POOR HEALTH may partially excuse such lapses, but only if the judges concerned request

reasonable extensions. (Court Administrator v. Quinanola)

It should be emphasized that even there is delay and no decision or resolution is madewithin the prescribed period, THERE IS NO AUTOMATIC AFFIRMANCE OF THE APPEALEDDECISION.

Date post:	04-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hangul-si-kuya-ali
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Review Notes on Article 8

Documents