ART. VIII. SEC.

1. The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in division of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof. In relation to the section: ART. VIII. SEC. 15 1. All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts. As such, this paper would like to set forth the following amendments:

ART. VIII. SEC. 4 1. The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and twenty-one Associate Justices. ART. VIII. SEC. 15 1. All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of amendment must be decided or resolved within 12 months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, six months for all lower Collegiate Courts, and one and a half month for all lower courts. The intent is clear: the changes I propose to make are only an amendment. Amendments are not wholesale changes to the provision, but rather, minor tweaks or changes that seek to improve upon the provision of the authors choice. By altering only the number of justices and shortening the time by which courts must dispose of cases, the author of the paper does not seek to scrap the entire provision but to improve upon it.

The Constitution is the backbone of the Philippine State, providing guidelines to build a just and humane society, among other goals and ideals that the Preamble clearly sets forth.1 It is a shot in the dark, but I am willing to make a wager, that in light of the recent incidents in Sulu, or Krystel Tejadas suicide, most of the authors peers will probably amend the provisions on eminent domain and autonomous regions, as well as the States interest in education. Many will also try to amend the provision of the local government in light of the upcoming national elections on May. The author of this paper begs to differ, as this paper would like to amend or insert a provision to provide a solution for a problem most often overlooked by students of the law: an amendment to improve the judiciary processes. The Judiciary draws its power and authority from the Constitution. Such provisions have been present ever since the 1935 Constitution, under the same article number. The 1935 Constitution had immediately vested the judicial authority in the Supreme Court, but did not stipulate a ceiling number allowed for the members of the Supreme Court and any period of time with which to dispose of a case.2 There were slight changes under the 1973 Constitution, wherein Article X was then devoted to the Judiciary. The provisions thereof provided an absolute number of the judges to be present in the Supreme Court. These judges can decide en banc or in two divisions.3 It was also the first time the Constitution provided for a period that limits the time for Courts were to act upon a case; during those times, the Supreme Court as given 18 months to decide upon a case, 12 months for inferior courts, and three months for lower courts. The 1973 Constitution likewise inserted the authority of the Batasang Pambansa to define, prescribe, and apportion the
1 2

Preamble, 1987 Constitution 1935 Constitution (link to the website nalang, its available online) 3 1973 Constitution, paste a link as well

jurisdiction of various courts, but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section Five thereof. Upon the creation of the 1987 Constitution, Article VIII was devoted to the Judiciary again. The authority of the Batasang Pambansa to bestow the jurisdiction upon various courts was abolished. Section 1 thereof included the definition of Judicial Power, which, stated: includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.4 Under Section 4 of Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution, no longer were the judges observed to sit in two divisions, but in divisions of three, five, and seven members. The amended provisions also saw the institution of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), in order that the Court may monitor and supervise the Bar. Prior to the 1987 Constitution, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 was promulgated on August 14, 1981. It was titled the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, which paved the way for the creation of various levels of courts around cities, towns, and regions.5 Courts of First Instance, Circuit Criminal Courts, Juvenile and Domestic Relation of Courts, the Courts of Agrarian Relations, the City Courts, the Municipal Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Courts were all reorganized. From such reorganization came the improvement of the appellate court system, hence named the Court of Appeals, provided with one Presiding Justice, 50 Associate Justices,

4 5

Cite 1987 Constitution Google BP 129, insert link na lang

and a permanent address in Manila.6 The appellate court system featured 17 divisions with three presiding justices each. The appellate court was given original jurisdiction to deal with mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus and quo warranto cases. It was also given the jurisdiction to annul judgments from the Regional Trial Courts, which were also instituted along with the BP 129. BP 129 provided one regional trial court for all 13 regions, with several branches scattered throughout various judicial regions. Metropolitan Trial Courts were scattered throughout Manila, having an initial number of 82 during the enactment of BP 129. For places outside Metro Manila, Municipal Trial Courts were instituted. On February 4, 1997, Presidential Decree No. 1083 (P.D. 1083), titled A Decree To Ordain and Promulgate A Code Recognizing the System of Filipino Muslim Laws, Codifying Muslim Personal Laws, and Providing for its Administration and Other Purposes, was enact ed.7 Pursuant to Sec. 11 of Art. XV of the Constitution, P.D. 1083 enabled the operation of Sharia Courts in Islamic regions and provinces. These courts allowed for the interpretation and the application of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws. Along with the Sharia Courts, Sharia Circuit Courts and Sharia District Courts were instituted. These courts were given similar jurisdiction as Municipal Circuit Courts and Regional Trial Courts, respectively. Section 16 of the Bill of Rights8 states that All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative bodies With such improvements indicated above, with all the justices presiding in various municipal, metropolitan, and regional trial courts, the number of cases which keep clogging the dockets are alarming. The Court, in several cases, has used such phrases as litigation clogging our dockets, cases
6 7

Cite BP 129 as well Google PD 1083, cite link 8 Cite 1987 Constitution

clogging our dockets, unreasonable delay, unnecessary litigations, and so on and so forth. It is quite alarming that, with the number of courts and justices working in the judicial system, that courts take years, or even decades, to draw up resolutions for those who seek and rightfully deserve justice. In a study conducted 10 years ago, a study conducted by the United Nations University titled The Judiciary and Governance in 16 Developing Countries gauged the current statuses of the judicial arena. It was their theory that the legal culture of a society is important for how people perceivethe political system at large and that The way judicial institutions operate also has an impact on a countrys economic and development performance9 The parameters that the authors of the study rated the countries according to (1) access to justice; (2) due process; (3) autonomy; (4) incorporation of international human rights norms; and (5) non-judicial mechanisms for settling disputes. Needless to say, the Philippines was part of the bottom six, ranking below Pakistan and just a spot ahead of Russia. The Philippines had a lower rating on the Access to Justice parameter than the lowest-scoring country, Togo, and just a 0.18 point ahead of Russia. Although the study revealed that the masses trusted then Chief Justice Hilario Davide, things were different in the lower courts.10 In the case titled Pesca v. Pesca, Zosimo Pesca and Lorna Pesca were wed, but not happily after a long time.11 In the facts of the case, it was revealed that Zosimo Pesca habitually hurt Lorna. Lorna filed for annulment on 1994. The court resolved her case only in 2001. The

http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/4108.pdf DONT CITE THE LINK!!! Authors are in the paper themselves. Just check for author, title, etc... 10 Same as footnote 9 11 Link this http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/apr2001/136921.htm google how to cite a case ok?

delay in the administration of justice leaves stones unturned. What could have happened to Lorna in those seven years? As said by Sir Francis Bacon, If we do not maintain justice, justice will not maintain us. The author is sure that there are numerous other cases aside from Pesca v. Pesca which have left more question marks than the judgment issued. The Bill of Rights tries to assure us of a speedy resolution, but such is only an ideal, because cases take more than years to be disposed of. An improvement in the court system and the addition of judges will help us in more ways imagined.