Republic of the Phillipines

Manila, Phillipines

THE SUPREME COURT

HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT

Royal Audencia

The Royal Audencia was established on May 5, 1583, composed of a president, four
oidores (justices) and a fiscal. The Audencia exercised both administrative and judicial
functions. Its functions and structure were modified in 1815 when a chief justice replaced its
president and the number of justices was increased. It came to be known as the Audencia
Territorial de Manila with two branches, civil and criminal. A Royal Decree issued on July 24,
1861 converted it to a purely judicial body with its decisions appealable to the Court of Spain in
Madrid. A territorial Audencia in Cebu and Audencia for criminal cases in Vigan were organized
on February 26, 1898.

Revolution and First Republic

In the three phases of the Revolution: 1896-97; 1898; 1899-1901, the exigencies of war
prevented the thorough organization of the administration of justice. Katipunan councils, then
the provisional governments of Tejeros, Biak-na-Bato, and the Revolutionary Republic
proclaimed in Kawit, essentially had General Emilio Aguinaldo exercising decree-making
powers instituting ad hoc courts and reviewing any appeals concerning their decisions.

In 1899, when the Malolos Constitution was ratified, it provided for a Supreme Court of
Justice. President Aguinaldo proposed the appointment of Apolinario Mabini as Chief Justice
but the appointment and the convening of the Supreme Court of Justice never materialized
because of the Philippine-American War.
American Military Rule

During the Philippine-American War, General Wesley Merrit suspended the Audencias
when a military government was established after Manila fell to American forces in August,
1898. Major General Elwell S. Otis re-established the Audencia on May 29, 1899 by virtue of
General Order No. 20, which provided for six Filipino members of the Audencia.

Establishment of the Supreme Court

With the establishment of Civil Government, Act No. 136 of the Philippine Commission
abolished the Audencia and established the present Supreme Court on June 11, 1901 with
Cayetano Arellano as the first Chief Justice together with associate justices, the majority of
whom were American.

Commonwealth: Filipinization of the Supreme Court

With the ratification of the 1935 Constitution, the membership was increased to 11 with
two divisions of five members each. The Supreme Court was Filipinized upon the inauguration
of the Commonwealth of the Philippines in November 15, 1935. In all other respects, the
function of the Court under the Administrative Code of 1917, which provided for a Supreme
Court with a Chief Justice and eight associate Justices, was retained.

World War II and the Third Republic

During World War II, the National Assembly passed legislation granting Emergency
Powers to President Manuel L. Quezon; Chief Justice Jose Abad Santos was made concurrent
Secretary of Justice and Acting President of the Philippines in unoccupied areas. After his
capture and execution at the hands of the Japanese, the Commonwealth government-in-exile
had no system of courts.

Meanwhile, the Japanese organized the Philippine Executive Commission in In occupied

areas on January 8, 1942, which gave way to the Second Republic in October 14, 1943. By the
end of World War II, the regular function of the courts had been restored, beginning with the
appointment of a new Supreme Court on June 6, 1945. On September 17, 1945, the laws of the
Second Republic were declared null and void; a Supreme Court decision on Co Kim Cham v.
Eusebio Valdez Tan Keh and Arsenio P. Dizon recognized this.

Martial Law

The Supreme Court was retained during the martial law years under rules similar to the 1935
Constitution, but with the exception few key factors, e.g.:

 The 1973 Constitution further increased the membership of the Supreme Court to 15,
with two divisions;
 The process by which a Chief Justice and Associate Justices are appointed was
changed under to grant the President (then, President Ferdinand Marcos) the sole
authority to appoint members of the Supreme Court. There were five Chief Justices that
were appointed under this provision.

Under the 1987 Constitution - Present Day

Pursuant to the provisions of the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court is composed of a
Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices who serve until the age of 70. The Court may sit en
banc or in one of its three divisions composed of five members each. The Chief Justice and
Associate Justices are appointed by the President of the Philippines, chosen from a shortlist
submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council. The President must fill up a vacancy within 90 days
of occurrence.

Article VIII, sec. 4 (2) of the Constitution explicitly provides for the cases that must be
heard en banc and sec. 4 (3) for cases that may be heard by divisions (Constitution, Art. VIII,
sec. 4, par.1).

The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 transferred the administrative supervision of all
courts and their personnel from the Department of Justice to the Supreme Court. This was
affirmed by Art. VIII, sec. 6 of the 1987 Constitution. To effectively discharge this constitutional
mandate, The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) was created under Presidential Decree
No. 828, as mended by Presidential Decree No. 842 (and its functions further strengthened by a
Resolution of the Supreme Court En Bans dated October 24, 1996). Its principal function is the
supervision and administration of the lower courts throughout the Philippines and all their
personnel. It reports and recommends to the Supreme Court all actions that affect the lower
court management. The OCA is headed by the Court Administrator, three Deputy Court
Administrators, and three Assistant Court Administrators.

ADMINISTRATION

Judicial Power and Jurisdiction

According to the 1987 Constitution, uUnder Article VIII, §1, the judicial power shall be
vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be provided by law. This power
includes the duty to settle actual controversies involving rights that are legally demandable and
enforceable and to determine if any branch or instrumentality of government has acted with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court has both original and appellate jurisdiction. It exercises original
jurisdiction (cases are directly filed with the SC in the first instance without passing through any
of the lower courts) over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and
over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. (Art. VIII,
§5(1)). It also has original jurisdiction over writs of amparo, habeas data and the environmental
writ of kalikasan. It exercises appellate jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm
final judgments, and orders of the lower courts in:

 Exercise jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and
habeas corpus.
 Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm, on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the
Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of the lower courts in:
 All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or
regulation is in question;
 All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty
imposed in relation thereto;
 All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue;
  All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher;
 All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved;
 Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require.
Such temporary assignments shall not exceed six months without the consent of the
judge concerned.
 Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
 Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts; the admission to the practice of law, the
Integrated Bar; and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be
uniform for all courts the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase or modify
substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall
remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
 Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service
Law (Sec. 5 , id.).
 The Supreme Court has administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel.
(Article VIII, §6) It exercises this power through the Office of the Court Administrator.

Rule-making Powers

The Supreme Court has the exclusive power to 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. Any 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. (Art. VIII,
§54(5))

MANAGEMENT

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.
(Art. VIII, §4) Its members shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three
nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy, without need of
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. (Art. VIII, §9) Members of the Supreme Court
are required to have proven competence, integrity, probity and independence; they must be
natural-born citizens of the Philippines, at least forty years old, with at least fifteen years of
experience as a judge of a lower court or law practice in the country. (Art. VIII, §7) Justices shall
hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years, or become
incapacitated to discharge the duties of office. (Art. VIII, §11)

THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT

The Chief Justice

Hon. LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

The Senior Associate Justice

Hon. ANTONIO T. CARPIO

The Associate Justices

Hon. DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Hon. ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE

Hon. MARVIC M. V. F. LEONEN Hon. JOSE C. REYES, JR.

Hon. FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA Hon. RAMON PAUL L. HERNANDO

Hon. ALFREDO BENJAMIN S. CAGUIOA Hon. ROSMARI D. CARANDANG

Hon. ANDRES B. REYES, JR. Hon. AMY C. LAZARO-JAVIER

Hon. ALEXANDER G. GESMUNDO Hon. HENRI JEAN PAUL B. INTING

Chief justices listed according to appointing President of the Philippines

Of the 15 Presidents of the Philippines, only eight have been able to appoint an
individual to the highest judicial post in the land. The following is the list of presidents who
appointed chief Jjstices and their appointees.

Manuel L. Quezon Querube Makalintal Joseph Ejercito Estrada

Jose Abad Santos Fred Ruiz Castro Hilario G. Davide

Sergio Osmeña Enrique M. Fernando Gloria Macapagal Arroyo

Manuel V. Moran Felix V. Makasiar Artemio Panganiban

Elpidio Quirino Ramon C. Aquino Reynato Puno

Ricardo M. Paras Corazon C. Aquino Renato C. Corona

Carlos P. Garcia Claudio Teehankee Benigno S. Aquino III

Cesar Bengzon Pedro L. Yap Maria Lourdes P.A.

Sereno
Ferdinand E. Marcos Marcelo B. Fernan
Rodrigo Roa Dutere
Roberto V. Concepcion Andres R. Narvasa
Lucas P. Bersamin
Notable chief justices

Of the list of chief justices, there are a few individuals that stand out for having gone
above and beyond their duty and tenure as chief justice.

Cayetano Arellano: Cayetano Arellano was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He
was appointed in 1901 when the Supreme Court was created through Act No. 136, along with
three American justices and one Filipino justice.

Ramon Avanceña: Appointed in 1925 by U.S. President Calvin Coolidge, he is known for
ushering in an all-Filipino Supreme Court in 1935. Upon the establishment of the Philippine
Commonwealth in 1935, American justices were no longer allowed to sit in the Philippine
Supreme Court—thus, new justices were appointed, all of whom were of Filipino citizenship.

Jose Abad Santos: As a wartime chief justice, Abad Santos took on two different roles; he was
the chief justice and concurrently the Secretary of Justice. When President Quezon left the
Philippines to evade capture by the Japanese, Abad Santos chose to stay in the country as a
caretaker of the government. On May 2, 1942, the Japanese military caught Abad Santos in
Cebu and invited him to become one of the members of their puppet government. Abad Santos
refused to collaborate. He died at the hands of the Japanese on May 2, 1942. His last words to
his son were, “Do not cry, Pepito, show to these people that you are brave. It is an honor to die
for one’s country. Not everybody has that chance.”

Manuel V. Moran: Appointed in 1945 by President Sergio Osmeña, Manuel V. Moran would
serve as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for six years. Upon his retirement in 1951, Moran
was appointed as Philippine Ambassador to Spain and concurrently to the Holy See. During
President Quirino’s administration, Moran was once again offered a position in the Supreme
Court in 1953, at the twilight of Quirino’s presidency. Moran, however, refused the midnight
appointment.

Roberto V. Concepcion: He went into early retirement for refusing to grant absolute power to
Ferdinand Marcos, the president who appointed him. In the resolution of Javellana v. Executive
Secretary, Concepcion argued against the validity of the 1973 Constitution and its questionable
aspects. Accordingly, he dissented, along with Justices Teehankee, Zaldivar, and Fernando,
from implementing the 1973 Constitution. Due to the court’s decision, Concepcion would enter
early retirement, 50 days before his originally scheduled retirement date.
Claudio Teehankee: Claudio Teehankee was known for his firm anti-martial law stance during
his tenure in the Supreme Court. Teehankee resisted multiple attempts by the Marcos
administration to garner absolute power by issuing questionable decrees. In 1973, he was part
of the bloc that dissented from the implementation of the 1973 Constitution. In 1980, he
dissented from the proposed judicial reorganization act of President Marcos. In 1986, after the
EDSA Revolution, he administered the Oath of Office of President Corazon C. Aquino in Club
Filipino. He was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1986 by President Corazon C.
Aquino

Hilario G. Davide: Appointed by President Joseph Ejercito Estrada in 1998, Chief Justice
Hilario G. Davide was known as the presiding judge of the first impeachment proceedings in
Asia. During the impeachment of President Estrada, he conducted proceedings with impartiality.
Following EDSA II uprising, which deposed President Estrada, Davide swore in Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo as the 14th President of the Philippines.

Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno: Appointed by President Benigno S. Aquino III in 2012, Chief
Justice Sereno is the first woman appointed to the position.

SERVICES

Regular/Lower Courts Municipal Trial Courts

Court of Appeals Special

Sandiganbayan Sandiganbayan

Court of Tax Appeals Court of Tax Appeals

Regional Trial Courts Shari'a District Courts

Metropolitan Trial Courts Shari'a Circuit Courts

Municipal Trial Courts in Cities

Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

 The regular courts below the SC established by law are: the Court of Appeals, the
Regional Trial Courts, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal
Trial Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. The Court of Appeals reviews the decisions
and orders of the Regional Trial Courts. Standing between the trial courts and the Supreme
Court, the appellate court was precisely created to take over much of the work that used to be
previously done by the SC. Accordingly, the CA has been of great help to the Highest Court in
synthesizing facts, issues, and rulings in an orderly and intelligible manner and in identifying
errors which ordinarily might have escaped detection. Statistics will show that the great majority
of petitions to review the decisions of the appellate court have been denied due course for lack
of merit in minute resolutions.

The appellate court has, therefore, freed the SC to better discharge its constitutional duties and
perform its most important work which, in the words of Dean Vicente G. Sinco, "is less
concerned with the decision of cases that begin and end with the transient rights and obligations
of particular individuals but is more intertwined with the direction of national policies,
momentous economic and social problems, the delimitation of governmental authority and its
impact upon fundamental rights."

Regional Trial Courts

Regional Trial Courts (RTC), also known as Second Level Courts, are the highest regular trial
courts in the Philippines. It was formerly called as the Court of First Instance since the Spanish
era. It continued throughout its colonization under Spanish and Americans. After World War II,
Republic Act No. 296 or the Judiciary Act of 1948 was enacted to reinforce the jurisdictional
powers of the Court of First Instance. The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, which
reorganized the lower and intermediate courts in the country, included the change of Court of
First Instance to Regional Trial Court.

Lower Courts

Lowest in the heirarchy of courts are the First Level Courts which every city or municipality in
the Philippines has. Municipal Trial Courts in the towns and cities in the Metropolitan Manila
area are called Metropolitan Trial Courts. When the court covers two or more municipalities it is
called a Municipal Circuit Trial Court.
 The first contact of people seeking judicial redress for their grievances begins with the
first and second level trial courts. The lower courts nationwide are the ones that directly bring
the concept of justice to the majority of the people. It is the face of the Judiciary which people
see every day. That is why, in a 2000 case involving an RTC Judge, Justice Ynares-Santiago
had occasion to say that “… besides the basic equipment of possessing the requisite learning in
the law, a magistrate must exhibit that hallmark judicial temperament of utmost sobriety and
self-restraint which are indispensable qualities of every judge. A judge anywhere should be the
last person to be perceived as a petty tyrant holding imperious sway over his domain. It has
time and again been stressed that the role of a judge in relation to those who appear before his
court must be one of temperance, patience and courtesy. A judge who is commanded at all
times to be mindful of his high calling and his mission as a dispassionate and impartial arbiter of
justice is expected to be ‘a cerebral man who deliberately holds in check the tug and pull of
purely personal preferences which he shares with his fellow mortals.’”

In another case, the SC held that: “. . . it will be prudent for such courts, if only out of a
becoming modesty, to defer to the higher judgment of this Court in the consideration of its
validity, which is better determined after a thorough deliberation by a collegiate body and with
the concurrence of the majority of those who participated in its discussion.” In a case where the
lower Court, disagreeing with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, preferred to
impose his own criterion, the Highest Court said: “Now, if a Judge of a lower Court feels, in the
fulfillment of his mission of deciding cases, that the application of a doctrine promulgated by this
Superiority is against his way of reasoning, or against his conscience, he may state his opinion
on the matter, but rather than disposing of the case in accordance with his personal views he
must first think that it is his duty to apply the law as interpreted by the Highest Court of the Land,
and that any deviation from a principle laid down by the latter would unavoidably cause, as a
sequel, unnecessary inconveniences, delays and expenses to the litigants. And if despite of
what is here said a Judge, by delicate or acute qualms of conscience, still believes that he
cannot follow Our rulings, then he has no other alternative than to place himself in the position
that he could properly avoid the duty of having to render judgment on the case concerned (Art.
9, C. C), and he has only one legal way to do that.”
 The SC did not say what that one “legal way” is. The concept of “becoming modesty” is
not new. As early as 1922, and reiterated in subsequent cases, the Supreme Court pointed out
that “if each and every Court of First Instance could enjoy the privilege of overruling decisions of
the Supreme Court, there would be no end to litigation, and judicial chaos would result.” A
becoming modesty of inferior courts demands conscious realization of the position that they
occupy in the interrelation and operation of the integrated judicial system of the nation.

LOCATION

SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES

Padre Faura St., Ermita, Manila

Philippines 1000

Website: sc.judiciary.gov.ph
 REFERENCES

History of the Supreme Court. Retrieved on October 7, 2019 at

https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/about/gov/judiciary/

Brief Overview of the History of the Supreme Court. Retrieved on October 7, 2019 at
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/389/

The heirarchy of courts. Atencia, R. (2016) Retrieved on October 7, 2019 at

http://www.catanduanestribune.com/article/3Y34