ARTICLE VIII

Judicial Department
SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one
Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice
to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government.
The Judicial Department is vested with judicial power.
Q: What does judicial power mean?
A: The ordinary meaning of judicial power is the power to settle
disputes among parties involving rights that are legally
demandable or enforceable; simply settling conflicts and
controversies.
However, there is the expanded judicial power. The courts can
now determine whether there exists a grave abuse of
discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. This is
done by the courts via judicial review.
Q: Where is this power vested?

A:
Section 1 - It is vested in the SC and the other statutory
courts.
Section 5 - relating to the review power of the SC of the
session of the lower courts as to the constitutionality of laws,
treaties, etc. What will the SC review if the courts do not also
exercise the power in reviewing WON a law or an act is in
consonance of the Constitution?
These two legal provisions arrive at the conclusion that even
lower courts exercise judicial review.
However, the difference between the SC's judicial review
power and that of the lower courts is that the lower court's
reviews are not final because they are still subject to review by
the Supreme Court which means that it can be reversed by the
SC. What will bind the whole country or the world insofar as
the decision of the court is concerned is the prevailing principle
or jurisprudence is always the decision of the SC, and not the
lower court.
Another point is that, while this is a power enjoyed be the
lower courts, it must be exercised by the lower courts with
utmost prudence and caution because it may cause political
unrest resulting from different interpretations of the laws and
the Constitution.
Q: You must also master Judicial Review. What are the
requisites?
A: There must be an actual case or controversy raised by the
proper party at the earliest opportunity of time

A: It is vested in one Supreme Court and other such courts as

may be established by statutes i.e. Statutory Courts.

The issue of constitutionality must be the lis mota of the case.

Q: Who exercises judicial power?

A: One who is directly injured or in the imminent danger of

sustaining injury.

A: It is exercised, not only be the Supreme Court, but also by

the lower courts.
Q: Cite provisions in the Constitution which supports the
principle that judicial review is not only exercised by the
Supreme Court but also by all other courts.

Q: Who is the proper party?

Q: In the ratification of the Constitution as to its validity, who is

the proper party?
A: An ordinary citizen may be the proper party, even if not
directly injured. This is an exception.

Q: What about the factual basis of the declaration of Martial

Law? Who is the proper party?

Q:And then there's the requirement of actual case or

controversy. What does this mean?

A: Also an ordinary citizen may be a proper party.

A: That by "actual case", it means that the case is existing until

the issue is resolved because it is possible that the controversy
is existing at the time of filing but becomes moot and
academic as the time lapses or as the circumstances change,
in which case it will be dismissed because the case has
become moot and academic.

Q: When is the taxpayer considered a proper party?

A:

When it involves disbursement of public funds that is

anomalous or contrary to law; misapplication of public
funds
Involves imposition of unreasonable taxes. This amounts
to deprivation of property without due process of law.

Q: Who else can be a proper party? Can the government be a

proper party in relation to the validity of its laws?
A: Yes. Case in point - People vs Vera.
Q: What about members of Congress, may they be a proper
party in a question involving the validity of laws?
A: Yes. When they will intrude into the legislative prerogative
or impairs their discretionary powers, in which case they can
be a proper party.
The bottom line, regardless of whether you have an actual
interest in the outcome of the case is what we call legal
standing or locus standi. That's all that you need. You dont
need to have a real right on the outcome of the case. For as
long as you have the legal standing, you can be a proper party.
However, all this can be set aside by the Supreme Court at its
discretion when the issue raised is of paramount public interest
or of transcendental importance. Take note of this since this is
common in the bar exams.
In all questions regarding constitutionality, you will observe the
PDAF cases, the RH law, when there was a question on
constitutionality of these laws, there was always a question on
whether the party who filed the case was a proper party. So,
the requirement of the proper party may be set aside as a
mere procedural technicality if the issue raised is of
transcendental importance or of paramount public interest.

In the case of Pormento vs Estrada.

Since Estrada was not elected as president, that was the
change in circumstance. It may have been relevant at the time
of filing of his Certificate of Candidacy for President since he
was running for presidency notwithstanding the fact that he
already served the six-year term as President where the
Constitution provides that he is no longer eligible for another
election. Instead of discussing the minutes of the case on the
constitutionality, the SC said that the case is already moot and
academic since Estrada lost the election and thereafter
dismissed the case. I repeat, the controversy must be existing.
But even if the issue has become moot and academic,
according to the SC in the case of David et. al. vs. Exec. Sec.,it
is not a mathematical formula that the SC would not just
discuss on the merits because it is possible that it may occur
again in the future especially when there is blatant violation of
the constitution and the issue raised is of transcendental
importance or of paramount public interest. If you can recall in
the case of the constitutionality of the declaration of a state of
national emergency, the SC was saying that even if it was
lifted and the issue therefore has become moot and academic,
nonetheless the SC proceeded in discussing the merits of the
case because there is always a possibility that it will recur, it
will be repeated in the future and yet it will evade any
discussion or resolution on the merits of the case.
So these are the requisites:

There has to be a blatant violation of the constitution and a

possibility that it will be repeated and yet it will evade any
resolution.
And finally, that the issue raised is of transcendental
importance or of paramount public interest.
(TN) Another point on actual case and controversy, that it must
be a justiciable question. In other words, it is only involving
questions that are based on a law or a constitutional provision
because if you go into the wisdom of the act complained of, or
the reason why the law was passed, or its propriety, that is a
political question beyond the ambit of judicial inquiry,
therefore should have been answered by makers of the law
themselves being the representatives of the people, or the
president himself who implements the law. But there is an
exception to this again because even if the issue is political
however there is allegation of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction, still the court
may look into it by way of exception as part of the expanded
jurisdiction of the SC.
(TN) Another point also, it must be raised at the earliest
opportunity of time.
Q: What is earliest opportunity of time?
A: You have to allege that in the pleading otherwise, if not
alleged, you may not be allowed to raise that for the first time
during the trial, or if it is not raised during the trial, you may
not be allowed to raise that for the first time on appeal.
Exceptions:
1. When the issue raised is the jurisdiction- anytime at
any stage of the proceeding
2. When you cannot resolve the case without first
settling the issue of constitutionality in civil cases
3. In criminal cases- anytime because after all, where
there is no law punishing the act, no crime is committed.

So if the law is nullified, it is as if theres no crime

committed by the accused.
(TN) And finally, the issue raised must be the lis mota of the
case because if it is not, then the court by all means must use
other grounds to dispose of the issue without going into the
merits of the case in order to maintain the equality among the
3 branches and maintain the separation of powers so that one
cannot be accused of intruding into the prerogative of the 2
other branches of the government.
So you take note of those requisites for a valid exercise of
judicial review because they are repeated in the subsequent
and more recent decisions of the SC.
USC WARRIOR NOTES 2014 Political Law Review (Constitutional
Law) 72
Q: What would then be the consequences after the resolution
of the case? A: It depends on what the resolution is.
Q: If the law is valid, what would SC do? A: Make a double
negative declaration- that the law is not unconstitutional. In
effect legitimating, if not ratifying the validity of the law.
Or the SC will declare the law to be null and void for being
unconstitutional. By that act, through the exercise of judicial
review, the SC checks. Thats part of the checking power of the
court over the act of executive and legislative departments.
Either way, the SC will perform its symbolic function to educate
the bench and the bar by providing principles, precepts,
guidelines on how the law should be construed or interpreted
in actual cases.
Q: (BAR) If the law is declared unconstitutional, what would be
the effect of the declaration of unconstitutionality? A: What we
follow is the modern view.
Q: What does it mean? A: It is valid until declared null and void
for being unconstitutional but you have to respect the
operative effects of this law before the declaration of nullity.

We have some case on this where SC does not disturb the

effect of the application of the law before the law is declared
unconstitutional. They must be respected.
Once declared a nullity, you follow the traditional view. It is not
a law, it creates no rights, imposes no obligations, creates no
office and affords no protection. It will be as if the law has
never been passed. Just take note of that operative effect
principle. Because that was asked in the bar exam particularly
in the MCQ.
As regards to that, read the cases of Dulay vs. JBC, Chavez
vs. JBC.
In checkered contrast, there is essentially no interaction
between the two Houses in their participation in the JBC. No
mechanism is required between the Senate and the House of
Representatives in the screening and nomination of judicial
officers. Rather, in the creation of the JBC, the Framers arrived
at a unique system by adding to the four (4) regular members,
three (3) representatives from the major branches of
government the Chief Justice as ex-officio Chairman
(representing the Judicial Department), the Secretary of Justice
(representing the Executive Department), and a representative
of the Congress (representing the Legislative Department). The
total is seven (7), not eight. In so providing, the Framers simply
gave recognition to the Legislature, not because it was in the
interest of a certain constituency, but in reverence to it as a
major branch of government.(Chavez v. Judicial and Bar
Council, G.R. No. 202242, April 16, 2013)
However, the Supreme Court has provided some guidance
regarding the issues we have raised. In the en banc decision in
Dulay vs. Judicial and Bar Council and Executive Secretary
Paquito Ochoa, the Supreme Court made two significant
rulings. First, the court ruled that the most senior justice who is
not an applicant for the position of chief justice shall "preside
over the proceedings in the absence of the said
constitutionally named Ex-Officio Chairman." Second, the

proposition that the JBC may only be chaired by the incumbent

chief justice is without merit. http://jurist.org/sidebar/2012/07/

SECTION 2. The Congress shall have the power to

define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of
various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court
of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5
hereof.
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when
it undermines the security of tenure of its Members.
So you have the Rules of Court enumerating the jurisdiction of
court. But take note, in so far as amending the Rules of Court
that is now exclusive to the SC under Section 5 as part of its
rule-making power. But, in the case of Gingoyon v Republic,
the SC was saying that notwithstanding that the SC has the
power to amend the Rules of Court, still the power being
legislative in nature, plenary in so far as congress is
concerned, it was never precluded from making a law that will
amend Rules of Court. You remember that case involving
payment of just compensation? Because there is definition
there in the Rules of Court particularly Rule 67 on just
compensation determined by the court at 10% of the assessed
value of the property for taxation purposes, that was amended
by R.A. 8974 passed by congress where it was based on
market value or BIR zonal valuation- 100% and not just 10%
and it was an amendment of Rules of Court and it was
questioned, and SC was saying that the congress was never
precluded from amending Rules of Court although now, that
power is govern to the SC promulgating rules governing
pleadings and procedures in the practice of law. You have writ
of amparo, writ of habeas data, and writ of kalikasan. You have
the judicial affidavit rule, etc. in effect amending the Rules of

Court without passing through congress although in Section 2,

it should have been congress because it is congress that
vested and prescribed and apportioned jurisdiction on various
courts.

SECTION 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy.

Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by
the legislature below the amount appropriated for the
previous year and, after approval, shall be
automatically and regularly released.
It is one of the factors that maintain the independence of SC
and there had been so many instances that this fiscal
autonomy has been challenged by the 2 other branches in the
government.
Q: What do you mean by fiscal autonomy? A: It means that
their budget cannot be reduced by congress even if they hate
the guts of the justices of the SC. Whatever is the budget in
the last fiscal year, if they will not increase it, they cannot also
reduce it. Should they reduce the budget, automatically the old
budget will be adopted because of fiscal autonomy. They
cannot interfere on how the SC should spend the money
appropriated for the SC but recently there is a question
regarding on this because there are so many vacancies in the
court. At the end of the year, youre supposed to USC
WARRIOR NOTES 2014 Political Law Review (Constitutional
Law) 73 remit kuno the money that was expended, intended
for this vacant court to the national treasury. But what did SC
do? Asserting its fiscal autonomy, they put up a separate fund
where this savings will go and not to the general fund of the
national treasury and thats the start of the quarrel between
the executive department, including now the congress, and the
SC because the SC was saying, we enjoy fiscal autonomy,
ayaw mo panghilabot in so far as our budget is concerned.
Karon ka, what theyre doing now, ang DBM will not release the
whole budget for the Judiciary. They will wait until you fill up

that vacancy then they will release the money. That will be the
challenge regarding fiscal autonomy.
On section 4, this is with regard to the composition of the SC.
There is 1 chief justice and 14 associate justices.
Q: In case of vacancy, what is the period of filling up? A: 90
days from the occurrence of the vacancy.
Q: For vacancy in the lower courts, how should it be filled up?
A: Its actually 90 days from the submission of the list of names
of nominees of JBC reckoned from the submission. So it may
have been vacant for 20 years, but the moment the list is
submitted by JBC to Malacaang, the President has the period
of 90 days from the submission of the list within which to make
an appointment. But how come it can go beyond 90 days?
Because it can easily retroact the date of appointment.
*** Q: What are the cases that are decided by SC sitting en
banc and sitting in Division? The more important part there is
the sitting en banc. What are the cases? A: You have to
memorize Section 4 on cases involving constitutionality of
treaty or international agreement or executive agreement;
cases that had been decided by a Division and case of
modification or reversal; to reverse a prevailing principle or
jurisprudence; dismissal or fine of a judge or any court
personnel for more than 10,000; when the Division cannot
obtain the majority, it has to be transferred to SC siting en
banc; where the penalty for the capital offenses Reclusion
Perpetua to death.
Q: What would be the composition of a Division?
A: It could be a Division of three, five, or eight. So if you want
to get a majority for very decision, a Division of 3- always 3,
unanimous. If you cannot get that it will be decided by SC
sitting en banc. If its a Division of 5- you should have no less
than 3. In the Division of 8- that is 5. You should have also at
least 3 votes if there is only quorum of 5.

Practically most of the cases are decided in division but there

are specific cases however that must be decided en banc. You
take note of that.
*** Now the most import part of the judicial departmentSection 5. If you want to know all the powers of SC, memorize
section 5.

SECTION 4. (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed

of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It
may sit en banc or in its discretion, in divisions of
three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be
filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.
(2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty,
international or executive agreement, or law, which
shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all
other cases which under the Rules of Court are required
to be heard en banc, including those involving the
constitutionality, application, or operation of
presidential decrees, proclamations, orders,
instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall
be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the
Members who actually took part in the deliberations on
the issues in the case and voted thereon.
(3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be
decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority
of the Members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted
thereon, and in no case, without the concurrence of at
least three of such Members. When the required
number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en
banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid
down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in

division may be modified or reversed except by the

court sitting en banc.

SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the

following powers:

1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting

ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,
and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.

2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on

appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of
Court may provide, final judgments and orders of
lower courts in:
a) All cases in which the constitutionality or
validity of any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, presidential
decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.
b) All cases involving the legality of any tax,
impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty
imposed in relation thereto.
c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any
lower court is in issue.
d) All criminal cases in which the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.

e) All cases in which only an error or question

of law is involved.

3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to

other stations as public interest may require.
Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six
months without the consent of the judge
concerned.

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 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.

6) Appoint all officials and employees of the

Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.

SECTION 6. The Supreme Court shall have

administrative supervision over all courts and the
personnel thereof.

Q: In criminal cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion

perpetua, is that automatic reviews of SC?
A: There is now a circular of SC. It is no longer automatic to sc.
It must pass through an intermediate review by the CA before
it goes to the SC. And that is declared as constitutional.
You have on purely questions of law, also with the SC.
The temporary assignment of judges. If its for more than 6
months, you need the consent of the judge.
On the change of venue, also you must ask permission from
SC. In case of doubt whether it should be granted or not, it
should be decided in favor of the change of venue to avoid
miscarriage of justice.
(BAR) Sec 5(5) on the rule-making power of the SC
Rules concerning enforcement and protection of constitutional
right, pleading, practice and procedure in all courts; admission
in the practice of law; the Integrated Bar; legal assistance to
the underprivileged.
(BAR) As regards to the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, take note of the writs promulgated by SC:
writ of amparao, writ of habeas data, writ of Kalikasan and
other rules and regulation amending the Rules of Court.
Kadagahan na nigawas ang writ of amparo ug writ of habeas
data. Theyre related to each other but they re not the same.
Q: All this in protection of the right to privacy particularly the
writ of amparo, what is being protected?
A: Right to life, liberty and security, not property. The recent
decision on the writ of amparo is this: that to apply the writ of
amparo there must be an element of government involvement.
If there is no government involvement, although it may also
apply to private entities, but without government involvement,
the writ of amparo is not the proper remedy. Thats the bottom
line on the recent decision of SC.
To give you an example, this is a case involving a person who
was abducted by a security guard of a subdivision. Then he

made a complaint to the security guard, it was not acted upon.

And then that person became missing. So the relatives of this
person who was abducted accused the security guard and filed
a writ of amparo.

Power to Appoint

Q: Will the action prosper?

Also, the Supreme Court has the power to appoint its own
officials and employees in accordance with the Civil Service
Law (Sec. 5(6), Art. XVIII, Constitution). This is to maintain its
independence subject to civil service law.

A: According to the SC, no because the security guards are

private individuals. No showing that it involves the government
or its law enforcers. Here it was dismissed.

The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over

all courts and the personnel thereof (Sec. 6, Art. VIII).

Q: (TN) What are the remedial or preliminary remedies you

may avail of while you are applying for writ amparo?
A:
1. Temporary protection order
2. Inspection order
3. Production order
4. Witness protection order
You have also the Writ of Habeas data which is a limitation to
the right of information. It is a remedy available to any person
whose right to privacy in life liberty or security is violated or
threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee or a private individual or entity engaging in the
gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding
the person, family home, correspondence of the aggrieved
party (A. M. No. 08-1-16-SC).
Q: If you think that because of some erroneous information the
military is following you because you are suspected to be a
member of the NPA. What do you do?
A: You ask the military to produce the information so that it can
be corrected or destroyed if it is totally untrue. You can avail of
that by obtaining a writ of habeas data.- TN
On the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules the
only limitation in the promulgation of rules by the Supreme
Court is that it shall not diminish, increase or modify
substantive rights (Sec. 5(5), Art. XVIII, Constitution).

The administrative supervision of the Supreme Court over

judges and court personnel is exclusive. The Ombudsman does
not have jurisdiction over judges and court personnel because
the supervision over them is exclusive to the Supreme Court.
Q: Can the ombudsman investigate a judge involving a
criminal case?
A: The Ombudsman has to wait for the recommendation of the
Supreme Court to conduct the preliminary investigation.
Q: In an administrative case?
A: It should be dismissed because the Ombudsman has no
jurisdiction since the Constitution provides that supervision of
judges and court personnel is exclusive to the Supreme Court.
In fact, the President cannot grant pardon to a judge or court
personnel who is convicted. TN

SECTION 7. (1) No person shall be appointed Member

of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court
unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. A
Member of the Supreme Court must be at least forty
years of age, and must have been for fifteen years or
more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the
practice of law in the Philippines.
(2) The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of
judges of lower courts, but no person may be appointed
judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines
and a member of the Philippine Bar.

(3) A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of

proven competence, integrity, probity, and
independence.
Q: What is the qualification for a member of the judiciary that
is not required in ordinary employees in the government?
A: He must be a person of proven competence, integrity and
independence. (BAR)

SECTION 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby

created under the supervision of the Supreme Court
composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman,
the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the
Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the
Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of
the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private
sector.
(2) The regular Members of the Council shall be
appointed by the President for a term of four years
with the consent of the Commission on Appointments.
Of the Members first appointed, the representative of
the Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the
professor of law for three years, the retired Justice for
two years, and the representative of the private sector
for one year.
(3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the
Secretary ex officio of the Council and shall keep a
record of its proceedings.
(4) The regular Members of the Council shall receive
such emoluments as may be determined by the

Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall provide in its

annual budget the appropriations for the Council.
(5) The Council shall have the principal function of
recommending appointees to the Judiciary. It may
exercise such other functions and duties as the
Supreme Court may assign to it.
Q: What would the President do if he does not like any of the
nominees in the list? Can he return it to the JBC?
A: No. He has to choose from the list. Otherwise, the purpose
of the JBC to screen applicants for the judiciary, ombudsman
and deputy ombudsman would be useless. However, the
nominees in the list should be at least 3 for every vacancy. The
Presidents choice should be limited only in the names that
were submitted by the JBC.
The Composition of the JBC is shared by the Justice of the
Supreme Court. Now, there is a controversy involving the Chief
Justice as chairman of the JBC because the SOLGEN applied for
the Supreme Court as Justice. Now, he wants the Chief Justice
to inhibit in participating because according to him the Chief
Justice had already made statements against him. The thing is
it is chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
TN
It is also composed of ex-officio members and regular
members. In Chavez v. JBC, there is a controversy because
supposedly each branch of the government should be
represented in the JBC. For the executive department, it is the
DOJ secretary. For Congress they must also have a
representative. But Congress have two (2) representatives, 1 in
the Senate and 1 in the House of Representatives while the
Constitution is very clear that it should only be A
REPRESENTATIVE- singular. Back then, it was alright to have
two representatives for Congress because each representative
will be entitled to vote. But in has been the practice to

accord each representative 1 full vote. Thus, it is unfair on the

part of the other branches of the government and there is no
more equality among the three branches of the government.

SECTION 9. 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.
For the lower courts, the President shall issue the
appointments within ninety days from the submission
of the list.

SECTION 10. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the

Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and of judges
of lower courts shall be fixed by law. During their
continuance in office, their salary shall not be
decreased.
(Self-Explanatory). The Salary of the justices and judges is
fixed by law.

SECTION 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and

judges of lower courts shall hold office during good
behavior until they reached the age of seventy years or
become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their
office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power
to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their
dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who
actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in
the case and voted thereon.

The retirement age is 70 years old but we are given an option

to retire at 60 or 65.
The Supreme Court Justices enjoy security of tenure which
means that they cannot be removed in any other manner
except on impeachment.
Q: Can you sue a justice of the Supreme Court involving a
criminal case?
A: You cannot. Not even a disbarment case against them
because it is a circumvention of the Constitution. You have to
wait until they retire so you can sue them criminally. But I
suppose you can sue them for collection of sum of money.

SECTION 12. The Members of the Supreme Court and

of other courts established by law shall not be
designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or
administrative functions.
In Macalintal v. PET, the Supreme Court acted as the
Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET). There was a question of
constitutionality on the creation of the PET because according
to Macalintal by being a member of PET, in effect, the Supreme
Court performs a quasi-judicial function. But the Supreme
Court said that the PET does not perform quasi-judicial
functions but judicial functions.
Q: What are the two exceptions of Section 12?
A: Justices of the Supreme Court appointed to the Presidential
Electoral Tribunal and the Chief Justice as the chairman of the
JBC.

SECTION 13. The conclusions of the Supreme Court in

any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in
division shall be reached in consultation before the
case is assigned to a Member for the writing of the
opinion of the Court. A certification to this effect signed
by the Chief Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof

attached to the record of the case and served upon the

parties. Any Member who took no part, or dissented, or
abstained from a decision or resolution must state the
reason therefor. The same requirements shall be
observed by all lower collegiate courts.
There must be a deliberation either in en banc or division.
Usually, the decision is written by the most junior Justice.
There is a certification that will be made by the Chief Justice to
the effect that whatever decision may have been reached is a
result of consultation and concurrence of the majority of the
Supreme Court. If there is no certification, it will not affect the
validity of the decision.

SECTION 14. No decision shall be rendered by any

court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly
the facts and the law on which it is based.
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of
a decision of the court shall be refused due course or
denied without stating the legal basis therefor.
No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing
therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it
is based. This is mandatory. However, the exception to this is
cases on certiorari or petition for review filed before the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can issue a 1 page minute
resolution dismissing the petition for lack of merit. This is an
exception because a petition for certiorari is not a matter of
right. It is merely a privilege. The Supreme Court has the
discretion either to give due course or not to the petition. If the
Supreme Court denies the petition, it is in effect adopted the
decision in toto of the lower court. However, if the Supreme
Court gives due course to the petition and dismisses it

thereafter the Supreme Court has to comply now with Section

14. (BAR)

SECTION 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the

effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or
resolved within twenty-four months from date of
submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced
by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower
collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower
courts.
(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for
decision or resolution upon the filing of the last
pending, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules
of Court or by the court itself.
(3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a
certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice or
the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a
copy thereof attached to the record of the case or
matter, and served upon the parties. The certification
shall state why a decision or resolution has not been
rendered or issued within said period.
(4) Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory
period, the court, without prejudice to such
responsibility as may have been incurred in
consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case
or matter submitted thereto for determination, without
further delay.
This is mandatory because a judge can be sanctioned or
punished for non-observance of the prescribed period. It is,
however, directory in the sense that even if the judgment is

rendered beyond the prescribed period the decision remains

valid.

with the constitutional requirement.||| (Komatsu Industries

(Phils.), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127682, April 24,
1998) HDATCc

SECTION 16. The Supreme Court shall, within thirty

The grant of due course to a petition for review is not a matter

of right, but of sound judicial discretion. Thus, when the Court
denies due course to a petition because it fails to show any
reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals (CA), there
is no need to fully explain the Court's denial. For one thing, the
facts and law are already discussed in the CA's opinion. A
minute resolution denying a petition for review of a decision of
the CA can only mean that the Supreme Court agrees with or
adopts the findings and conclusions of the CA, and deems the
CA decision as correct.

days from the opening of each regular session of the

Congress, submit to the President and the Congress an
annual report on the operations and activities of the
Judiciary.
Cases relating to the Judiciary 1.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW;
SUPREME COURT; "RESOLUTIONS" ARE NOT "DECISIONS";
CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE NOT APPLICABLE TO
RESOLUTIONS. As early as Novino, et al. vs. Court of
Appeals, et al., it has been stressed that these "resolutions"
are not "decisions" within the constitutional requirements of
Section 14, Article VIII; they merely hold that the petition for
review should not be entertained and even ordinary lawyers
have all this time so understood it; and the petition to review
the decision of the Court of Appeals is not a matter of right but
of sound judicial discretion, hence there is no need to fully
explain the Court's denial since, for one thing, the facts and
the law are already mentioned in the Court of Appeals'
decision. This was reiterated in Que vs. People, et al., and
further clarified in Munal vs. Commission on Audit, et al. that
the constitutional mandate is applicable only in cases
"submitted for decision," i.e., given due course and after the
filing of briefs or memoranda and/or other pleadings, but not
where the petition is refused due course, with the resolution
therefor stating the legal basis thereof. Thus, when the Court,
after deliberating on a petition and subsequent pleadings,
decides to deny due course to the petition and states that the
questions raised are factual or there is no reversible error in
the respondent court's decision, there is sufficient compliance

We reiterate that a "resolution" is not a "decision" within the

constitutional requirement of Section 14, Article VIII. The
constitutional mandate is applicable only in cases "submitted
for decision", i.e., where the petition is given due course and
after the filing of briefs or memoranda and/or other pleadings,
but not where the petition is denied due course, with the
resolution stating the legal basis thereof.
In Candelaria v. CA, we held that a resolution denying a
petition for review on certiorari actually states the legal basis
therefor, which is that the petition failed to sufficiently show
that the appellate court committed any reversible error in the
challenged decision. The patent significance of such ground for
denial is that the allegations of the petition aimed at proving
errors in the challenged decision failed to persuade the
Supreme Court that the imputed errors had been committed
and, thus, there was no cause to reverse or modify the
conclusions set forth in the decision. In such case, there is no
point in reproducing or restating in the resolution of denial the
conclusions of the appellate court thereby affirmed.| (JoaquinAgregado v. Yamat, G.R. No. 181107, March 30, 2009)