The Judicial Branch

INTRODUCTION

Judicial power rests with the Supreme Court and the lower courts, as established by
law (Art. VIII, sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution). Its duty is to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable (Art. VIII Sec. 1 (2)).

The judiciary enjoys fiscal autonomy. Its appropriation may not be reduced by the
Legislature below the appropriated amount the previous year (Art. VIII, Sec. 3).

ANA

ARMS OF SUPREME COURT TO PERFORM ITS MANDATE

The Rules of Court of the Philippines, as amended and the rules and regulations
issued by the Supreme Court, define the rules and procedures of the judiciary. These
rules and regulations are in the form of administrative matters, administrative orders,
circulars, memorandum circulars, memorandum orders, and OCA circulars.  The
Supreme Court disseminates these rules and regulations to all courts, publishes
important ones in newspapers of general circulation, prints them in book or pamphlet
form, and uploads them to the Supreme Court website and the Supreme Court E-
Library website.

On June 21, 1988, the Supreme Court promulgated the Code of Professional
Responsibility for the legal profession.  The draft was prepared by the Committee on
Responsibility, Discipline and Disbarment of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

PHILIPPINE BAR EXAMINATION

Administered by Supreme court of the Philippines for the qualified law students to be a
lawyer and a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

APPOINTMENTS TO THE JUDICIARY

By virtue of Article VIII, Section 8, appointments to the judiciary are made by the
President of the Philippines based on a list submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council
which is under the supervision of the Supreme Court.  Its principal function is to screen
prospective appointees to any judicial post.

It is composed of the
1)chief justice as ex-officio chairman,
2)the Secretary of Justice and
3) representatives of Congress as ex-officio members, and
4)a representative of the Integrated Bar,
5)a professor of law,
6)a retired member of the Supreme Court and
7)a representative of the private sector as members
.

PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY

The Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) is the “training school for justices, judge,
court personnel, lawyers and aspirants to judicial posts.”   It was originally created by
the Supreme Court on March 16, 1996, by virtue of Administrative Order No. 35-96, and
was institutionalized on February 26, 1998 by virtue of Republic Act No. 8557.  No
appointee to the bench may commence the discharge his adjudicative function without
completing the prescribed court training in the academy. Its organizational structure and
administrative setup are provided for by the Supreme Court in its en banc resolution
(Revised A.M. No. 01-1-04-sc-PHILJA).

PHILIPPINE MEDIATION CENTER

The Philippine Mediation Center was organized pursuant to the en banc Supreme
Court Resolution A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA, dated October 16, 2001, and in line
with the objectives of the Action Program for Judicial Reforms (APJR) to decongest
court dockets, among others, the court prescribed guidelines in institutionalizing and
implementing the mediation program in the Philippines. The same resolution designated
the Philippine Judicial Academy as the component unit of the Supreme Court for Court-
Annexed Mediation and other Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms and
established the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC).

Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Office was organized to implement the rules
on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for members of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (B.M. No. 850 – “Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)). It holds
office in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines main office.

KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY

Presidential Decree No. 1508, or the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, took effect on
December 11, 1978, and established a system of amicably settling disputes at the
barangay level.  This decree and the Local Government Code provided rules and
procedures, Title I, Chapter 7, Sections 339-422. This system of amicable settlement of
dispute aims to promote the speedy administration of justice by easing the congestion
of court dockets.  The court does not take cognizance of cases filed if they are not filed
first with the Katarungang Pambarangay.
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) SYSTEM

Republic Act No. 9285 institutionalized the use of an alternative dispute resolution
system, which serves to promote the speedy and impartial administration of justice and
unclog the court dockets.  This act shall be without prejudice to the adoption of the
Supreme Court of any ADR system such as mediation, conciliation, arbitration, or any
combination thereof. 

THE SUPREME COURT

HH

HHOF THE 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.

Philippine Revolution and First Republic

In the three phases of the revolution: 1896-1897; 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 ApolinarioMabini 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 Americans.

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 on November 15, 1935. The
composition of the court was reduced by virtue of Commonwealth Act No. 3. It provided
for a Supreme Court, headed by a chief justice with six associate justices.

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 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.:

1. The 1973 Constitution further increased the membership of the Supreme Court to
15, with two divisions;
2. The process by which a chief justice and associate justices are appointed was
changed under to grant the president (Ferdinand Marcos during this time) the
sole authority to appoint members of the Supreme Court. There were five chief
justices that were appointed under this provision.
PRESENT-DAY SUPREME COURT

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, Section 4 (2) of the constitution explicitly provides for the cases that must be
heard en banc, and Section 4 (3) for cases that may be heard by divisions.

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 Article VIII, Section 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 amended by Presidential Decree No.
842 (and its functions further strengthened by a resolution of the Supreme Court en
banc 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.

According to the 1987 Constitution, Article VIII, Section 5, the Supreme Court
exercises the following powers:

1. Exercise 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 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;
3. 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.
 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 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 (Sec. 5 , id.).

The Supreme Court has adopted and promulgated the Rules of Court for the protection and enforcement
of constitutional rights, pleadings and practice and procedure in all courts, and the admission in the
practice of law.  Amendments are promulgated through the Committee on Revision of Rules.  The Court
also issues administrative rules and regulations in the form of court issuances posted on the Supreme
Court E-Library website. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

THE INCUMBEN

Ma. Lourdes P. A. Sereno

Tenure as Chief Justice: August 24, 2012 – present
Appointed by: Benigno S. Aquino III
Age at Appointment: 52

Read her biography from on website of the Supreme Court

Full roster of chief justices

The position of chief justice was created in 1901 by virtue of the establishment of the
Philippine Supreme Court. At the time, the chief justice was appointed by the President
of the United States: the court was composed mainly of American citizens with a Filipino
chief justice.

The incumbent Chief Justice, Ma. Lourdes P.A. Sereno, appointed by President Benigno S.
Aquino III, took her oath of office on August 25, 2012. She is the first woman to hold the
position.

There were six chief justices appointed by the President of the United States. In 1935,
upon the inauguration of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, the power to appoint the
chief justice was transferred to the President of the Philippines. According to the 1935
Constitution, the President of the Philippines shall make appointments with concurrence
of the National Assembly. There have been six Chief Justices who were appointed
under the 1935 Constitution. The only chief justice that was not appointed by a
president was Chief Justice Jose Yulo, who was in office during the Japanese
occupation, from 1942 until the liberation of the Philippines in 1945. During this time, the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was appointed by the Philippine Executive
Committee headed by Jorge B. Vargas.

The 1943 Constitution provided for the members of the Supreme Court and the chief
justice to be appointed by the president with the concurrence of his cabinet. Upon the
declaration of martial law and the subsequent establishment of the 1973 Constitution,
the process of selection of the Chief Justice of the Philippines was changed. The power
of Congress to veto an appointment by the president to the office of the chief justice
was removed. According to the 1973 Constitution, “The Members of the Supreme Court
and judges of inferior courts shall be appointed by the President.” There were five chief
justices that were appointed under this provision.

After the revolution of 1986, a new constitution was enacted and a new process of
selecting a chief magistrate was created. Former chief justice and 1986 Constitutional
Commission delegate Roberto V. Concepcion introduced the concept of the Judicial and
Bar Council. The aim of the Council is to de-politicize the judiciary by lessening the
appointing power of the president. To read more about the appointment of chief justices,
members of the judiciary, and the Office of the Ombudsman.

To date, there have been nine chief justices appointed under the conditions of the 1986
Constitution.

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.

1. Manuel L. Quezon
o Jose Abad Santos
2. Sergio Osmeña
o Manuel V. Moran
3. ElpidioQuirino
o Ricardo M. Paras
4. Carlos P. Garcia
o Cesar Bengzon
5. Ferdinand E. Marcos
o Roberto V. Concepcion
o QuerubeMakalintal
o Fred Ruiz Castro
o Enrique M. Fernando
o Felix V. Makasiar
o Ramon C. Aquino
 6. Corazon C. Aquino
o Claudio Teehankee
o Pedro L. Yap
o Marcelo B. Fernan
o Andres R. Narvasa
7. Joseph Ejercito Estrada
o Hilario G. Davide
8. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo
o Artemio Panganiban
o Reynato Puno
o Renato C. Corona
9. Benigno S. Aquino III
o Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.”
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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
7. 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.
8. 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.

Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals is the second highest tribunal in the country, which was
established on February 1, 1936, by virtue of Commonwealth Act No. 3. The current
form of the Court of Appeals was constituted through Batas PambansaBlg. 129, as
amended by Executive Order No. 33, s. 1986, Republic Act No. 7902, and Republic Act
No. 8246.

The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals are as follows:

1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas

corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid
of its appellate jurisdiction;
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgements of
Regional Trial Courts; and
3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgements, resolutions, orders or
awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities,
boards or commission.

The Court of Appeals shall also have the power to try cases and conduct hearings,
receive evidence and perform acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases
falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and
conduct new trials or proceedings.
The Court of Appeals is composed of one presiding justice and 68 associate justices, all
of which are appointed by the President from a shortlist submitted by the Judicial and
Bar Council. The associate justices shall have precedence according to the dates (or
order, in case of similar appointment dates) of their respective appointments. The
qualifications for the justices of the Supreme Court also apply to members of the Court
of Appeals.

The current presiding justice of the Court of Appeals is Andres Reyes Jr., who is set to
retire on May 11, 2020.

Court of Tax Appeals

The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), which is of the same level as the Court of Appeals,
was created by virtue of Republic Act No. 1125, which was signed into law on June 16,
1954. Its present-day form was constituted through RA 1125, as amended by Republic
Act No. 9282 and Republic Act No. 9503.

The CTA exercises jurisdiction in the following:

1. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided:

1. Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed
assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in
relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue or
other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue;
2. Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed
assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in
relations thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue
Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the
National Internal Revenue Code provides a specific period of action, in which
case the inaction shall be deemed a denial;
3. Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases
originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate
jurisdiction;
4. Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for
customs duties, fees or other money charges, seizure, detention or release of
property affected, fines, forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or other
matters arising under the Customs Law or other laws administered by the Bureau
of Customs;
5. Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and taxation of real
property originally decided by the provincial or city board of assessment appeals;
6. Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to him
automatically for review from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs which
are adverse to the Government under Section 2315 of the Tariff and Customs
Code;
 7. Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry, in the case of non-agricultural
product, commodity or article, and the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of
agricultural product, commodity or article, involving dumping and countervailing
duties under Section 301 and 302, respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code,
and safeguard measures under Republic Act No. 8800, where either party may
appeal the decision to impose or not to impose said duties.
2. Jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses as herein provided:
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all criminal offenses arising from violations of
the National Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs Code and other laws
administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs:
Provided, however, that offenses or felonies mentioned in this paragraph where
the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties,
claimed is less than P1 million or where there is no specified amount claimed
shall be tried by the regular courts and the jurisdiction of the CTA shall be
appellate.
2. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal offenses:
1. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional
Trial Courts in tax cases originally decided by them, in their respective
territorial jurisdiction.
2. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the
Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over
tax cases originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective
jurisdiction.
3. Jurisdiction over tax collection cases as herein provided:
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction in tax collection cases involving
final and executory assessments for taxes, fees, charges and
penalties: Provided, however, that collection cases where the
principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and
penalties, claimed is less than P1 million shall be tried by the
proper Municipal Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court and
Regional Trial Court.
2. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in tax collection cases:
1. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of
the Regional Trial Courts in tax collection cases originally
decided by them, in their respective territorial jurisdiction.
2. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or
orders of the Regional Trial Courts in the Exercise of their
appellate jurisdiction over tax collection cases originally
decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, in their
respective jurisdiction.

The CTA is composed of one presiding justice and 8 associate justices, all of which are
appointed by the President from a shortlist submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council.
The associate justices shall have precedence according to the dates (or order, in case
of similar appointment dates) of their respective appointments. The qualifications for the
justices of the Court of Appeals also apply to members of the CTA.

The current presiding justice of the CTA is Roman del Rosario, who is set to retire on
October 6, 2025.

Sandiganbayan

To attain the highest norms of official conduct among officials and employees in the
government, the creation of a special graft court to be known as the Sandiganbayan
was provided for in Article XIII, Section 5 of the 1973 Constitution. This court was
formally established through Presidential Decree No. 1606, which was signed into law
on December 10, 1978.

Through Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers), Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution,

the Sandiganbayan was carried over to the post-EDSA Revolution republic. The current
form of the Sandiganbayan was constituted through PD 1606, s. 1978, as amended by
Republic Act No. 7975 and Republic Act No. 8245.

The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the following:

1. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
as amended, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal
Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following
positions in the government whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity,
at the time of the commission of the offense:
1. Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and
higher, otherwise classified as grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and
Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically
including:
1. Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang
panlalawigan and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers and other
provincial department heads;
2. City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniangpanlungsod, city
treasurers, assessors engineers and other city department heads;
3. Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and
higher;
4. Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of
higher rank;
5. Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of
provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent or
higher;
6. City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and
prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
 7. Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or -
controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or
foundations;
2. Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as grade 27 and up under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;
3. Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the constitution;
4. Chairmen and members of constitutional commissions, without prejudice to the
provisions of the constitution; and
5. All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and higher under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.
2. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes
committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a of
this section in relation to their office.
3. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order
Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, s. 1986.

In addition, the Sandiganbayan exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final

judgments, resolutions or orders or regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their
own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided.

The Sandiganbayan also has exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the
issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions,
and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over
petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto, arising or that may arise in cases
filed or which may be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1,2,14 and 14-A issued in 1986.

In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories

with the public officers or employees, including those employed in government-owned
or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said public officers and
employees in the proper courts which shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over them.

The Sandiganbayan comprises of one presiding justice and 14 associate justices, all of
which are appointed by the President from a shortlist submitted by the Judicial and Bar
Council. The associate justices shall have precedence according to the dates (or order,
in case of similar appointment dates) of their respective appointments.

The qualifications to become a member of the Sandiganbayan are as follows:

1. a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.

2. at least 40 years of age
3. has been a judge of a court for at least ten years or been engaged in the practice
of law in the Philippines or has held office requiring admission to the bar as a
prerequisite for at least ten years.

The current presiding justice of the Sandiganbayan is Amparo Cabotaje-Tang, who is

set to retire on November 8, 2024.