By: Bal-Ad, Maddara, and Uddi-e

JUDICIAL
DEPARTMENT
(ARTICLE VIII,
SECTIONS 1-
2)
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.
 SCOPE OF JUDICIAL POWER

o ADJUDICATORY POWER
- To settle actual controversies involving rights
- To determine whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion to
lack or excess of jurisdiction.
o JUDICIAL REVIEW
- Interpret the law and make them binding judgments.
- Constitutionality of the laws.
o INCIDENTAL POWER
- Powers essential for the discharge of their judiciary function
SUPREME COURT
- Final Decision maker
- Highest Court of the land
CLASSES OF COURTS
 Constitutional Court
- provided by the Constitution
- One Supreme Court
 Statutory Courts
- Creations of law
• Legislative
- Lower Courts
• Courts below the Supreme Court
STATUTORY COURTS
REGULAR
 COURT OF APPEALS
 B. REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
 Metropolitan Trial Court
 Municipal Trial Court
 Municipal Circuit Trial Court

 SHARI’A DISTRICT COURTS

SPECIAL
 SANDIGANBAYAN
 Review cases filed against government officials.

 COURT OF TAX APPEALS

 Review appeals on the decisions of the BIR.
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
- There is a grave abuse of discretion where the power is exercised in an
arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal
hostility amounting to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to
perform the duty enjoined or not to act at all in contemplation of law

THREE POINTS TO REMEMBER

1. The abuse of discretion, as alleged, must be grave which amounts to
lack or excess of jurisdiction.
2. The alleged grave abuse of discretion will have yet to be determined by
the courts of justice, particularly the Supreme Court.
3. That if indeed it is true that there exists a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, our courts of justice, particularly
the Supreme Court, can check even Congress and the President of the Republic
of the Philippines, or even Constitutional bodies because they fall within the
phrase “any branch or instrumentality of the government.
SECTION 2
The Congress shall have the power to define,
prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the
various courts but may not deprive the Supreme
Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in
Section 5 thereof. No law shall be passed
reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the
security of tenure of its members.
POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER SECTION 2 AND
THE LIMITATIONS TO THE EXERCISE OF THIS
POWER:
To define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts.
This means that Congress has the power to create new courts. This power,
however, is subject to the following:
1. This power may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over
cases enumerated in Section 5.
2. No law shall be passed reorganizing the judiciary when it undermines
the security of tenure of its members.
F I S C A‹ L A‹ U T O N O M Y
 “
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.
Fiscal autonomy, as explained in Bengzon vs. Drilon (G.R. No.
103524, April 15, 1992), contemplates a guarantee of full flexibility
to allocate and utilize resources with the wisdom and dispatch that
their needs require.
COMPOSITION
 “
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 division
of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days
from the occurrence thereof.
In the case of Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc. vs. CA (G.R. No.
118509, September 5, 1996), the Supreme Court held that
reorganizations in the Supreme Court’s Divisions are purely an
internal matter to which parties have no business at all.
 “
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
division of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled
within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.
 of NgfYes \ Ra¢doM nar R

The office of the Chief3ustice is not included In the ban on midnight appointees prior
the election.

Locked
▣ De Castro vs. Judicial and Bar Council (G.R. No. 191002, March
17, 2010)
▣ De Castro vs. Judicial and Bar Council (G.R. No. 191002, April
20, 2010)

The Court explained that:

Had the framers intended to extend the prohibition
contained in Sec 15, Art VII to the appointment of Members of the
SC, they could have explicitly done so.
This was borne out of the fact that 30 years hitherto, the
Court seldom had a complete complement.
 “
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 division
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.
 “
Article VII, Section 4, par. 7 of the Constitution which provides:
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of
all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications
of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules
for the purpose.
 “
(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.
This reflects a two-fold desire of the Commission:

(1) not to allow the absence of some members of the Supreme Court
or their non-participation in deliberations to delay decisions, and (2)
to require that only those thoroughly familiar with the case
participate in the decision.
PO WER S OF THC SUPREME COURT
Irreducible Auxiliary administrative
jurisdiction powers
□ Paragraph 1 & 2 ▣ Paragraph 3 - 6
Republic vs. Sereno (G.R. No. 237428, June 19, 2018)

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Quo Warranto is GRANTED. Respondent

Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno is found DISQUALIFIED from and is here y
adjudged GUILTY of UNLAWFULLY HOLDING and EXERCISING the
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE. Accordingly, Respondent Maria
Lourdes P.A. Sereno is OUSTED and EXCLUDED therefrom.
 “
(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.
Republic vs. Sereno (G.R. No. 237428, June 19, 2018)

The Supreme Court held that Section 5 of Article VIII does not limit
the Court's quo warranto jurisdiction only to certain public officials
or that excludes impeachable officials therefrom.
 “
(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.
JUDICIAL REVIEW:

Requisites to exercise the power of Judicial Review:

a) Actual Case
b) Ripe
c) Locus Standi
d) Auxiliary rules that evolved from Jurisprudence
JUDICIAL REVIEW

Requisites to exercise the power of Judicial Review: Ripe

A constitutional question is ripe for adjudication when the

governmental act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect
on the individual challenging it.
JUDICIAL REVIEW

Requisites to exercise the power of Judicial Review: Locus Standi

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Requisites to exercise the power of Judicial Review: Locus Standi

A person has standing to challenge the governmental act only if he

has "a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has
sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its
enforcement.” Macasiano vs. National Housing Authority (G.R.
No. 107921, July 1, 1993).
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Requisites to exercise the power of Judicial Review: Locus Standi

Three Elements:
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. vs.

COMELEC (G.R. No. 132922, April 21, 1998), Tatad vs. Secretary of
the Department of Energy (G.R. No. 124360 and 127867, November 5,
1997)
JUDICIAL REVIEW

Requisites to exercise the power of Judicial Review: Locus Standi

In recent years, however, the Court has been following a liberal

approach on standing in high profile issues.

Temporary rigidity: Kilosbayan vs. Morato (G.R. No. 118910,

November 16, 1995)
JUDICIAL REVIEW

Requisites to exercise the power of Judicial Review: Auxiliary rules

that evolved from Jurisprudence

▣ People vs. Vera [65 Phil 56 (1937)]

“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. ... But we must state that the general rule admits of
exceptions. Courts, in the exercise of sound discretion, may determine the
time when a question affecting constitutionality of a statute should be
presented."
JUDICIAL REVIEW

Requisites to exercise the power of Judicial Review: Auxiliary rules

that evolved from Jurisprudence

▣ Sotto vs. COMELEC [76 Phil 516, 522 (1946)]

“A court should not pass upon a constitutional question and decide a
law to be unconstitutional or invalid, unless such question is raised
by the parties and that when it is raised, if the record also presents
some other ground upon which the court may raise its judgment,
that course will be adopted and the constitutional question will be
left for consideration until such question will be unavoidable."
JUDICIAL REVIEW

Limitation: Political Question

What is the effect of a declaration of nullity?

An unconstitutional statute is an “operative fact” before it is

declared unconstitutional, as applied in the case of De Agbayani vs.
Philippine National Bank [38 SCRA 429 (1971)]
 “
(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:
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua or higher.
▣ The Rule now is that such cases must be reviewed by the Court of
Appeals before they are elevated to the Supreme Court. People vs.
Mateo (G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004).
▣ It is only in cases where the penalty actually imposed is death
that the trial court must forward the records of the case to the
Supreme Court for automatic review of the conviction. Garcia
vs.
People (G.R. No. 106531, November 18, 1991)
PO WER S OF THC SUPREME COURT
 “
Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative
supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.
▣ The power of administrative supervision of the SC over all
courts and its personnel is EXCLUSIVE. No other branch of the
govt may intrude. Maceda vs. Vasquez [221 SCRA 464 (1993)]
▣ Quantum of evidence required to remove a judicial officer is
evidence beyond reasonable doubt although such cases are
administrative. Raquiza vs. Castañeda, Jr. (A.M. No. 1312-CFI,
January 31, 1978)
Section 7, Article VIII of the 1987
Philippine Constitution

Qualifications of a Member of the Supreme Court

1. Must be a natural born citizen of the Philippines

2. Must at least be 40 years of age;
3. Must have been for 15 years or more a judge of a
lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the
Philippines; and
4. A person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.
Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987
Philippine Constitution
Composition, Function, Reason of Creation of Judicial and Bar Council
1. SC Chief Justice (ex officio Chairman)
2. Secretary of Justice
3. Representative of Congress
Regular Members (Term of 4 years appointed by President with the consent of
CA)
4. Representative of IBP (four years)
5. Professor of Law ( three years)
6. Retired Member of SC (two years)
7. Representative of private sector ( one year)
Function of JBC

 recommend to the president appointees to the judiciary

 may exercise such other functions and duties as the
Supreme Court may assign to it

Rationale for Creation of JBC

 principally designed to eliminate politics from the appointment and judges and justices
 appointments to the Judiciary do not have to go through a
political Commission on Appointments
Section 9, Article VIII of the 1987
Philippine Constitution
Appointment of the Members of the Supreme Court and Lower Courts

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.

2. For the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointments within ninety
days from the submission of the list.
 Section 10, Article VIII of the 1987
Philippine Constitution
Salaries

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.

Rationale: intended as a protection for the independence of the judiciary

The clear intent of the Constitutional Commission was to subject the salary of the judges and
justices to income tax. (Nitafan v. CIR, 1987)
Section 11, Article VIII of the 1987
Philippine Constitution
Tenure

The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good
behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the
duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power of 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.

Power to Discipline
Disciplinary Actions
 (People v. Gacott)
 Removal
By Impeachment
They can be said to have failed to satisfy the requirement of “good behavior” only
if they are guilty of the offenses which are constitutional grounds of impeachment.

1. Culpable violation of the Constitution;

2. Treason;
3. Bribery;
4. Graft and Corruption;
5. Other High Crimes
6. Betrayal of Public Trust(Article XI, Section 2)
Section 12, Article VIII of the 1987
Philippine Constitution

Prohibition

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.
Section 13 & 14, Article VIII of the 1987
Philippine Constitution
Process of Decision Making
1. “In Consulta”
2. Certification of Consultation ( Consing v. CA, 1989)
3. Explanation on Abstention etc.
4. Statement of Facts and the Law (Borromeo v. CA)
5. Denial of MR or Petition for Review (Martinez v. CA, 2001)
6. Decisions of the Court
7. Period for Decision
8. Certification and Explanation
D C C I S I O H M A‹ K I N G P C R I O D
 “
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.
 “
Section 15. (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.
 “
Section 15. (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.
 “
Section 15. (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.
▣ It should be emphasized that even when there is delay and no
decision or resolution is made within the prescribed period, there is
no automatic affirmance of the appealed decision.
REPORT
 “
Section 16. The Supreme Court shall, within thirty 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.
Thank you for listening!