Part II Topic 6 – The Judiciary

A. Supreme Court

a. Composition

Sec. 4(1), Art. 8

(1) Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices
(2) May sit en banc or in divisions of 3, 5, or 7 Members
(3) Vacancy shall be filled within 90 days from the occurrence thereof

*EN BANC AND DIVISION CASES

En banc– Cases decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took
part in the deliberations and voted.

Sec. 4(2)(3), Art. 8

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.

*INSTANCES WHEN THE SC SITS EN BANC:

Those involving the Constitutionality, (e) Presidential decrees
application, or operation of:
(f) Instructions
(a) Treaties
(g) Proclamations
(b) Orders
(h) Ordinances
(c) International or executive agreement
(i) Other regulations
(d) Law
However, the Court also has the discretion to hear a case en banc even if no constitutional issue
is involved, as it typically does if the decision would reverse precedent or presents novel or
important questions.
Case: US v. Limsiongco
Cases decided by only a division of the Supreme Court and not en banc are still
decisions of the Supreme Court as a whole.
There is but one Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands. It is the jurisdiction of this Supreme
Court, which cannot be diminished. The Supreme Court remains a unit notwithstanding it works
in divisions. Although it may have two divisions, it is but a single court. Actions considered in any
one of these divisions and decisions rendered therein are, in effect, by the same Tribunal. The two
divisions of this court are not to be considered as two separate and distinct courts but as divisions
of one and the same court.
Acting as only one court either en banc or divided, the SC en banc is not an appellate court
vis-à-vis its divisions. The only constraint is that any doctrine or principle of law laid down by the
Court, either rendered en banc or in division, may be overturned or reversed only by the Court
sitting en banc.

b. Appointment and Qualifications

Sec. 7 & 8, Art. 8

(1) Natural born citizens

(2) At least 40 years of age
(3) Engaged in the practice of law or a judge of 15 years or more
(4) Must be of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence

Appointed by the President from a list of nominees made by the Judicial and Bar Council. An
appointment to the Supreme Court needs no confirmation of the Commission on
Appointments as the nomination is already vetted by the Judicial and Bar Council, a
constitutionally-created body which recommends appointments within the judiciary.
Case: Arturo de Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council
Can the incumbent President still appoint a member of the SC, notwithstanding the prohibition
on Sec. 15, Art. 7? YES
If the framers of the Constitution intended that the prohibition shall apply to the appointment of
Chief Justice, then they should have expressly stated it in the Constitution under Section 15 (THE
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT), Article VII and Section 4 (1), Article VIII (JUDICIAL
DEPARTMENT).
Section 14, Section 15 and Section 16 refers only to the appointments made in the Executive
Department.
Case: Aguinaldo v. Aquino
The Judicial & Bar Council submitted several lists of nominees for possible appointees to the
vacancies in the Sandiganbayan. The nominees were clustered into several lists like for example
17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st with five (5) nominees for each cluster. President Aquino appointed
Justice’s to the vacant positions, but did not pick the appointees from the clusters concerned but
appointed justices from one cluster to another position. Petitioners who were listed in the cluster
for the 17th Justice questioned the appointments. They contended that the President could only
choose one nominee from each of the six separate shortlists for each specific vacancy and no other
and the appointment made in deviation of this procedure is a violation of the Constitution. In
ruling that the contention is not correct, the Supreme Court
Illustration:

Vacant post 1 Vacant post 2 Vacant post 3 Vacant post 4 Vacant post 5
5 nominees “ “ “ “

-President appoints 2 nominees of vacant post 5 for post 1 and 3, respectively

-Petitioners argue that appointment of each nominee must only be for the post he was nominated
for
Ratio:
The power to recommend of the JBC cannot be used to restrict or limit the President's power to
appoint as the latter's prerogative to choose someone whom he/she considers worth appointing
to the vacancy in the Judiciary is still paramount. As long as in the end, the President
appoints someone nominated by the JBC, the appointment is valid, and he, not the
JBC, determines the seniority of appointees to a collegiate court.

c. Annual Salary

Sec. 10, Art. 8

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 the continuance in office, their salary
shall not be decreased.

Sec. 17, Art. 18

Until the Congress provides otherwise […] the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court
[...] two hundred four thousand pesos each

Case: Nitafan v. CIR

“…. their salary shall not be decreased.”
Are members of the Judiciary exempt from income taxes? NO

A period (.) after “decreased” was made on the understanding that the salary of justices is subject
to tax. With the period, the doctrine in Perfecto vs. Meer and Endencia vs. David is understood
not to apply anymore. Justices and judges are not only the citizens whose income have been
reduced in accepting service in government and yet subjected to income tax. Such is true also of
Cabinet members and all other employees.

d. Security of Tenure

Sec. 2(2), Art.8

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

Sec. 11, Art. 8

Members of the Judiciary – justices of the Supreme Court and judges of the lower courts
are given security of tenure. They shall serve until good behavior or until reaching the
mandatory retirement age of 70, or until such time that they shall become incapacitated.

e. Removal

Sec. 2, Art. 11
[…]Members of the Supreme Court […]may be removed from office on impeachment for,
and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and
corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust […].

Case: Republic v. Sereno *Removal not by impeachment trial*

The Court ruled that quo warranto proceedings and impeachment proceedings can be proceed
independently and simultaneously due to the fact that they are distinct facts and
circumstance; quo warranto assails the eligibility and valid exercise of the position
whereas the impeachment is removal by committing the grounds specified under
the Constitution, furthermore, the Congress may continue to address the impeachment without
prejudice from the Court and the principle of the separation of powers.

The Court ruled that plain interpretation of the Constitution that impeachment is not an exclusive
remedy in challenging the legitimacy of valid exercise of the position, the word "may" is
construed as a discretionary and not a mandatory one.

f. Fiscal Autonomy

Sec. 3, Art, 8
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.
 Sec. 1, P.D. No. 1949
There is hereby established a Judiciary Development Fund, hereinafter referred to as the
Fund, for the benefit of the members and personnel of the Judiciary to help ensure and
guarantee the independence of the Judiciary as mandated by the Constitution and public
policy and required by the impartial administration of justice[…].

*As a Safeguard for Judicial Independence

Fiscal autonomy means freedom from outside control. As the Court explained in Bengzon v.
Drilon: As envisioned in the Constitution, the fiscal autonomy enjoyed by the Judiciary, the Civil
Service Commission and the Commission on Audit, the Commission on Elections, and the Office
of the Ombudsman contemplates a guarantee of full flexibility to allocate and utilize their
resources with the wisdom and dispatch that their needs require. It recognizes the power and
authority to levy, assess and collect fees, fix rates of compensation not exceeding the highest rates
authorized by law for compensation and pay plans of the government and allocate and disburse
such sums as may be provided by law or prescribed by them in the course of the discharge of their
functions.