1.

Introduction
The Philippines is an archipelago of 7,107 islands with a land area of 299,740 sq.
kilometers. Article I of the 1987 Constitution provides that the "national territory
comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein and
all other territories which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction."
dash claim encroaches on 80% on the Philippines’ 200-nm exclusive economic zone (EEZ)
and 100% of its 150-nm extended continental shelf (ECS) facing the South China sea –
what the Philippines call West Philippine sea. China’s 9-dash line claim has similar effects
on the EEZs and ECSs of Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia facing the South China
Sea.”

Laws enacted by Congress defined the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine
archipelago. As early as 1935, the baselines have been defined in the 1935 Constitution.
This was followed by Republic Act No. 3046 as amended by Republic Act No.5446.
Republic Act No. 9522, approved on March 10, 2000 amended both laws and defined the
archipelagic baselines as “Regime of Islands” (section 2) This definition is consistent with
Art.121 of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), where the
Philippines took an active part. Rodolfo Severino, in his article “ Clarifying the New
Philippines Baseline Law” (Republic Act No. 9522) stated that the purpose of the law is
mainly to amend the existing baselines act and to ‘define the archipelagic baselines of the
Philippines’. It does not extend the baselines to Spratlys or to Scarborough Shoal, both of
which China and Vietnam claim in their territory, while the Philippines claims a part of
what are called “ Spratlys and all of Scarborough Shoal .” Protest made by China
remains. The constitutionality of the law was question at the Supreme Court in the case
Magallona, et. al vs. Ermita, et. al., G.R. No. 187167. The decision upholding the
constitutionality of the law was penned by Justice Antonio T. Carpio on July 16, 2011.
The petitioners of the case were professors of law, law students and a legislator. The
petitioners filed the case in their capacities as citizens of the Philippines, taxpayers and
legislators. Noteworthy to mention are the two grounds invoked by the petitioners in
questioning the constitutionality of the law:”1). RA 9522 reduces the Philippine maritime
territory, and logically, the reach of the Philippine state’s sovereign power, in violation of
Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution” and 2) “RA 9522 opens the country’s waters landward
of the baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining Philippine
sovereignty and national security, contravening the country’s nuclear-free policy, and
damaging marine resources, in violation of relevant constitutional provisions.”
Justice Antonio T. Carpio in his speech before Philippine Women Judges Association,
entitled “Protecting the Nation’s Marine Wealth in the West Philippine Sea,” March 6,
2014, provided an illustration of the baselines defined by Republic Act Nos. 5446 and
9522.
The Philippines’ claim to the Spratlys and the historic claim to Sabah remain unresolved.
The Philippines is now confronted with conflicting claims in the South China Sea which is
governed by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which
entered into force in 1994. The Philippines and China who are claimants to the South
China seas are among the 165 countries that have ratified the UNCLOS.
China’s claim is based on the 9-dashed line which covers a total area almost 90% of the
South China Sea. In a speech delivered by Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio
entitled, “The Rules of Law in the West Philippine Sea Dispute,” he stated that China’s 9-
Justice Antonio T. Carpio’s speech before Philippine Women Judges Association, entitled
“Protecting the Nation’s Marine Wealth in the West Philippine Sea,” March 6, 2014
includes the illustration on the 9-Dashed Lines.
Senior Justice Antonio Carpio stated that “maritime dispute in the West Philippine Sea
could be more easily resolved if all the claimant States agreed on two things: first, on the
applicable law to govern the maritime dispute, and second, on the historical facts on the
West Philippine Sea.”
David Rosenberg in his article, “The Paradox of the South China Sea Disputes,” considers
the nine-dash line claim as the most controversial maritime territorial claim. Rosenberg
traced the history as claim as far “back as December 1914 when Hu Jinjie, a Chinese
cartographer, published a map with a line around only the Pratas and Paracels, entitled
‘The Chinese Territorial Map Before the Qianglong-Jiaqing Period of the Qing Dynasty
(AD 1736–1820)” until “1953 when the two dotted line portion in the Gulf of Tonkin was
deleted by Premier Zhou Enlai’s approval. Chinese maps published since 1953 have
shown the nine-dotted line in the South China Sea.”
The Philippines however has its own version on historical claims based on historical maps
available at the United States Library of Congress, National Library of Australia. The
Philippine historical claim can be seen in a cartographic exhibit entitled “ Historical Truths
and Lies, Scarborough Schoal in Ancient Maps ,” which was based on the June 2014 of
Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio. The first map in this cartographic exhibit was
published in 1734 by Jesuit Pedro Murillo. It is considered the "mother of all Philippine
maps."
This territorial dispute has both political and economic implications for the Philippines,
China and also to Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia. There was even a headline
stating “ Is the South China Sea on the Brink of War? ” As a measure to resolve the
controversy, the Philippines has used the legal remedy in as much as China and the
Philippines are parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea or
UNCLOS.
The Philippines filed a formal claim before an arbitration tribunal constituted under Annex
VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea entitled “In the Matter of
an Arbitration between The Republic of the Philippines (applicant) and The People’s
Republic of China (Respondent), 24 August 2013 (PCA Case No. 2013-19. Full text of the
Rules of Procedure of the case is available in the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Further
details can be found here , here , and here .
The Filipino culture was molded over more than a hundred ethnic groups consisting of
91% Christian Malay, 4% Muslim Malay, 1.5% Chinese and 3% others. As of the
August 2007 national census , the population of the Philippines has increased to 88.57
million and is estimated to reach 92.23 million in 2009. The census is scheduled to be
undertaken this 2009.
Filipino ( Tagalog) is the national language (1987 Constitution, Art. XIV, sec. 6) of the
Philippines. However, Filipino and English are the official languages for the purpose of
communication and instruction (Art. XIV, sec 7). Optional use of the national language,
Filipino ( Tagalog ) is allowed. Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 16-2010
allowed the optional use and on a per case basis, the use of Filipino (Tagalog ) in court
proceedings in view to the difficulties encountered in the use of Filipino as manifested by
the Presiding Judges and the court stenographers of some courts. This Circular provides
that “in appropriate cases as may be determined by the Presiding Judge and without
objection of the parties, the above-mentioned courts may use Filipino in the hearing and
resolution of motions, or in the conduct of mediation, pre-trial conference, trial, and in any
other court proceedings. Existing translations of laws and rules may be used freely, and
technical terms in English or Latin need not be translated literally into Filipino.” Republic
Act No. 10157, known as the Kindergarten Education Act utilizes the “mother tongue-
based multilingual education (MTB-MLE) method as the” primary medium of instruction
for teaching and learning in the kindergarten level (sec.5). Section 5, likewise specifically
provides that the Department of Education must include in its teaching strategies the
“child’s understanding of English, which is the official language.”
There are several dialects or regional languages (spoken and written) throughout the
different islands of the country, but there are eight major dialects, which include Bicolano,
Cebuano, Hiligaynon or Ilongo,
Ilocano, Pampango, Pangasinense, Tagalog, and Waray .
There are two major religions of the country: Christianity and Islam. Christianity, more
particularly Catholicism, is practiced by more than 80% of the population. It was
introduced by Spain in 1521. The Protestant religion was introduced by American
missionaries.
Aglipay , or the Philippine Independent Church, and the Iglesia ni Kristo are two Filipino
independent churches or religious organizations. Other Christian religious organizations
like the El Shaddai, Ang DatingDaan , and ‘Jesus is Lord' have been established.
Members of the Iglesia ni Kristo and the El Shaddai are increasing and their membership
has exented worldwide. These independent churches and religious organizations are
having a great influence to the nation, especially during elections.
The Constitution of the Philippines specifically provides that the separation of Church and
State is inviolable. (Constitution (987), Art. II, sec.6). However, religion has a great
influence in the legal system of the Philippines. For the Muslim or Islamic religion, a
special law, the Code of Muslim Personal Laws (Presidential Decree no. 1083), was
promulgated and special courts were established, the Shari’a courts, a separate bar
examination for the Muslim or Islamic community is being conducted. The Catholic
Church has affected the present political system. A priest had to take leave as a priest
when he was elected governor of a province in Region 3. A movement was even started to
be able to choose the President of the Philippines and other government officials in the
May 2009 national election. The Church stand on major issues have affected the
passage of bills pending in Congress and such as the Reproductive Health Bill (Senate Bill
No. 2865 and House Bill No. 4244) which was approved by both House of Congress on
December 19, 2012. After the passage of the law, religious organizations and individuals
questioned the constitutionality of the law in the consolidated case of “Imbong v. Ochoa,
Jr.,” G.R. No. 204819, April 08, 2014.
The other bill still pending in Congress is Divorce, etc. The Philippines is considered as the
only country that does not allow Divorce. However, annulment of marriage is recognized.
2. Political Structure
The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. The present political structure of the
Philippines was defined by the 1987 Constitution, duly ratified in a plebiscite held on
February 2, 1987 and proclaimed ratified on February 11, 1987. There is a move now in
Congress, which was started at the House of Representatives to revise/amend the present
Constitution. One of the major problems to be resolved by both Houses of Congress is the
mode or method in revising/amending the present 1987 Constitution. A much debated
proposed amendment is the term extension for the President.
The 1987 Constitution provides that the Philippines is a democratic and republican state
where sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them
(Article II, section 1).
3. Government Structure
The government structure differs as one goes through the history of the Philippines, which
may be categorized as follows: a) Pre-Spanish; b). Spanish period; c). American period;
d). Japanese period; e). Republic; and f). Martial Law Period
a) Pre-Spanish (before 1521)
The Barangays or independent communities were the unit of government
structures before Spain colonized the Philippines. The head of each barangay was
the Datu . The Datus were called Cabeza de Barangayduring the Spanish period. He
governs the barangays using native rules, which are customary and unwritten. There were
two codes during this period: the Maragtas Code issued by Datu Sumakwel of Panay Island
and the Code of Kalantiao issued by Datu Kalantiano in 1433. The existence of these
codes is questioned by some historians.
Just like many ancient societies, trial by ordeal was practiced.
b) Spanish period (1521-1898)
 The Spanish period can be traced from the time Magellan discovered the
Philippines when he landed on Mactan Island (Cebu) on March 16, 1521. Royal decrees,
Spanish laws, and/or special issuances of special laws for the Philippines were extended to
the Philippines from Spain by the Spanish Crown through the councils. The chief
legislator is the governor-general who exercises legislative functions by promulgating
executive decrees, edicts or ordinances with the force of law. The Roya l Audencia, or
Spanish Supreme Court, in the Philippines also exercised legislative functions when laws
are passed in the form of autos accordados . Melquiades Gamb oa , in his book entitled
“ An Introduction to Philippine Law ” (7th ed, 1969), listed the most prominent laws in this
period: Fuero Juzgo, Fuero Real, Las Siete Partidas, Leyes de Toros, Nueva Re copi lacion
de las Leyes de Indias and the Novisima Recopilacion . Some of these laws were also in
force in other Spanish colonies. Laws in force at the end of the Spanish rule in 1898 are as
follows: Codigo Penal de 1870, Ley Provisional para la Aplicaciones de las Dispociciones
del Codigo Penal en las Islas Filipinas, Ley de Enjuciamento Criminal, Ley de
Enjuciameniento Civil, Codigo de Comercio, Codigo Civil de 1889, Ley Hipotecaria, Ley
de Minas, Ley Notarial de 1862 , Railway Law of 1877, Law of Foreigners for Ultramarine
Provinces and the Code of Military Justice. Some of these laws remained in force even
during the early American period and/or until Philippine laws were promulgated.
In between the Spanish and the American period is what Philippine historians
consider the first Philippine Republic. This was when General Emilio Aguinaldo
proclaimed the Philippine Independence in Kawit , Cavite on June 12, 1898. The Malolos
Congress also known as Assembly of the Representatives, which can be considered as
revolutionary in nature, was convened on September 15, 1898. The first Philippine
Constitution, the Malolos Constitution was approved on January 20, 1899. General Emilio
Aguinaldo was the President and Don Gracio Gonzaga as the Chief Justice. A Republic,
although with de facto authority, was in force until the start of the American Sovereignty
when the Treaty of Paris was signed on December 10, 1898.
c) American period (1898-1946)
The start of this period can be traced after the Battle of Manila Bay when Spain
ceded the Philippines to the United States upon the signing of the Treaty of Paris on
December 10, 1898. A military government was organized with the military governor as
the chief executive exercising executive, legislative and judicial functions. Legislative
function was transferred to the Philippine Commission in 1901, which was created by the
United States President as commander-in-chief of the Armed forces and later ratified by the
Philippine Bill of 1902. This same Bill provided for the establishment of the First
Philippine Assembly, which convened on October 16, 1907. The Jones law provided for
the establishment of a bicameral legislative body on October 16, 1916, composed of the
Senate and the House of Representatives.
The United States Constitution was recognized until the promulgation of the
Philippine Constitution on February 8, 1935, signed by U.S. President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt on March 23, 1935 and ratified at a plebiscite held on May 14, 1935.
The organic laws that governed the Philippines during this period were: President
McKinley’s Instruction to the Second Philippine Commission on April 7, 1900; Spooner
Amendment of 1901; Philippine Bill of 1902; Jones Law of 1916 and the Tydings
McDuffie Law of May 1, 1934. The later law is significant for it allowed the establishment
of a Commonwealth government and the right to promulgate its own Constitution. The
1935 Constitution initially changed the legislative system to a unicameral system.
However, the bicameral system was restored pursuant to the 1940 Constitutional
amendment. The Commonwealth government is considered as a transition government for
ten years before the granting of the Philippine independence. Cayetano Arellano was
installed as the first Chief Justice in 1901. The Majority of the Justices of the Philippine
Supreme Court were Americans. Decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of the
Philippines were appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which were reported in the
United States Supreme Court Reports.
Manuel L. Quezon and Sergio Osmeña were elected as President and Vice-
President respectively during the September 14, 1935 elections. In this election, President
Quezon won over General Emilio Aguinaldo and Bishop Gregorio Aglipay, the President
of the First Philippine Republic (1898) and the head of the Aglipayan church, respectively.
This Commonwealth government went into exile in Washington DC during the Japanese
period from May 13, 1942 to October 3, 1944. President Manuel L. Quezon died on
August 1, 1944 and was succeeded by President Sergio Osmena who brought back the
government to Manila on February 28, 1945.
d) Japanese period (1941-1944)
The invasion of the Japanese forces when Clark Field, an American military
airbase in Pampanga, was bombed on December 8, 1941, marked the start of the Japanese
period, which lasted for three years. A Japanese Republic was established with Jose P.
Laurel as its President. Jose Yulo was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Supreme
Court decisions during this period were recognized and are found in the Philippine
Reports, the official publication for Supreme Court decisions . This period was considered
as a military rule by the Japanese Imperial Army. The 1943 Constitution was ratified by a
special national convention of the Kapisanan sa Paglilingkod ng Bagong
Pilipinas (KALIBAPI). No law/statutes, including the 1943 Constitution were recognized
after the war. This period lasted for three years and ended in 1944 with the defeat of the
Japanese forces.
e) Republic period (1946-1972)
July 4, 1946 was the inauguration of Philippine independence. A Philippine
Republic was born. A republic means a government by the people and sovereignty resides
in the entire people as a body politic. The provisions of the 1935 Constitution defined the
government structure, which provided for the establishment of three co-equal branches of
government. Executive power rests in the President, legislative power in two Houses of
Congress and judicial power in the Supreme Court, and inferior courts. Separation of
powers is recognized.
Efforts to amend the 1935 Constitution started on August 24, 1970
with the approval of Republic Act No. 6132 where 310 delegates were elected on
November 10, 1970. On June 1, 1971, the delegates of the Constitutional Convention met.
While it was still in session, President Ferdinand E. Marcos declared Martial Law on
September 21, 1972. The Constitutional Convention completed the draft Constitution on
November 29, 1972. It was submitted for ratification through citizens’ assemblies on
January 17, 1973. This is known as the 1973 Constitution.
f) Martial Law Period (1972-1986).
The Philippine Congress was abolished when Martial Law was declared on
September 21, 1972. The Martial Law period was governed by the 1973 Constitution,
which established a parliamentary form of government. Executive and legislative powers
were merged and the Chief Executive was the Prime Minister who was elected by majority
of all members of the National Assembly (Parliament). The Prime Minister had the power
to advise the President. The President is the symbolic head of state. This parliamentary
government was never implemented due to the transitory provision of the 1973
Constitution. Military tribunals were also established. Amendments to the Constitution
were made wherein by virtue of amendment No. 3, the powers of the President and the
Prime Minister were merged into the incumbent President Ferdinand E. Marcos.
Amendment No. 6 authorized President Marcos to continue exercising legislative powers
until Martial law is in effect. Amendment No. 7 provided for the barangays as the smallest
political subdivision and the sanggunians , or councils. The 1981 amendment introduced
the modified presidential/parliamentary system of government of the Philippines. The
President shall be elected by the people for a term of six years while the Prime Minister
shall be elected by a majority of the Batasang Pambansa (Parliament) upon the nomination
of the President. He was the head of the Cabinet and had supervision over all the
ministries. The President during this period was Ferdinand E. Marcos and the Prime
Minister was Cesar Enrique Aguinaldo Virata.
Proclamation No. 2045 (1981) lifted Martial Law and abolished mi litary
tribunals. Elections were held on June 16, 1981 and President Marcos was re-elected into
office as President. The constitution was again amended in 1984 and a plebiscite was held
on January 27, 1984 pursuant to Batas Pambansa Blg. 643 (1984). Elections were held on
May 14, 1984 for the 183 elective seats in the 200 member of the Batasang Pambansa .
An impeachment resolution by 57 members of the opposition was f iled against President
Marcos but was dismissed. A special presidential election, popularly known as Snap
Election, was called by President Marcos on November 3, 1985 and was held on February
7, 1986. The National Movement for Free Elections, or NAMFREL, results showed that
Corazon Aquino led by over a million votes. However, the Batasang Pambansa declared
that Ferdinand E. Marcos and Arturo M. Tolentino won over Corazon C . Aquino and
Salvador H. Laurel as President and Vice-President, respectively. President Marcos and
Vice President Arturo took their oath before Chief Justice Ramon Aquino at the
Malacanang Palace, Manila. This event led to the People Power revolution, which ousted
President Marcos on February 25, 1986.
g) Republic Revival (1986-present)
The Republic period was revived after the bloodless revolution popularly known
as People Power or the EDSA Revolution.
Corazon C. Aquino and Salvador H. Laurel took their oath of office as
11 th President and Vice President of the Philippine Republic on February 25, 1986 before
Associate Justice Claudio Teehankee at the Club Filipino, San Juan, Manila. Proclamation
No. 1 (1986) was promulgated wherein the President and the Vice President took power in
the name and by the will of the Filipino people. Proclamation No. 3 (1986) adopted as the
Provisional Constitution or Freedom Constitution, provided for a new government.
A Constitutional Commission was constituted by virtue of Article V of the
Provisional Constitution and Proclamation No. 9 (1986). The Constitutional Commission,
composed of 48 members, was mandated to draft a Constitution. After 133 days, the draft
constitution was submitted to the President on October 15, 1986 and ratified by the people
in a plebiscite held on February 2, 1987. Under the transitory provision of the 1987
Constitution, the President and Vice President elected in the February 7, 1986 elections
were given a six-year term of office until June 30, 1992. Congressional elections were held
on May 11, 1987. The Republican form of government was officially revived when the
1987 Constitution was ratified and Congress was convened in 1987. Legislative
enactments again rested in the Congress. Republic Acts were again issued by Congress,
the number of which took off from the last number used before Martial Law was declared.
The numbering of Republic Acts continued from the number last used before Martial Law
(Republic Act No. 6635 (1972) and Republic Act No. 6636 (1987). The Republic form of
government by virtue of the 1987 Constitution was the same type of
republican government prior to Martial law by virtue of the 1935 Constitution with three
co-equal branches: Executive, Legislative and the Judiciary.
The Philippines once again became a Republic by virtue of the 1987
Constitution. The same type of republican form of government prior to Martial law was
established with three co-equal branches were organized, Executive, Legislative and the
Judiciary. Those holding office in these three co-equal branches are public officers and
employees. Constitution (1987), Article XI, provides for the accountability of public
officers. Article XI, Section 1 , “Public office is a public trust. Public officers and
employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead
modest lives.” Public officers in the Executive (President and Vice President) , Judiciary
(Members or Justices of the Supreme Court) and the Constitutional Commissions and the
Ombudsman 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. All other public officers and employees may be removed from
office as provided by law, such as the civil service laws, but not by impeachment (Article
XI, Section 2).
The legislative branch is composed of the Senate and the House of
Representatives. It is the legislative branch or Congress, which is involved in the
impeachment process. The House of Representatives has the exclusive power to initiate all
cases of impeachment though a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment filed by
at least one-third of all the Members of the House of Representatives, and an Articles of
Impeachment (Article XI, Section 3, (1) – (5)). The Senate shall have the sole power to
try and decide all cases of impeachment. When the President of the Philippines is on trial,
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. The public officer
(President and Vice President, members or Justices of the Supreme Court and the
Constitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman) shall be convicted with the concurrence
of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate. (Article XI, Section 3, (6). When the Chief
Justice or members of the Judiciary and the Constitutional Commissions and Ombudsman
are on trial, the Senate President shall preside. Rules of impeachment shall be promulgated
by the Senate.
Impeachment (Constitution (1987) Article XI, Sections 2 and 3 has been filed
against a President, two Chief Justices and one Associate Justice and an Ombudsman. In
the case of President Joseph E. Estrada , verified complaint was filed by 115 members of
the House of Representatives led by the Speaker of the House of Representatives Manuel
Villar on November 13, 2000. Impeachment trial was held December 9, 2000 with Chief
Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. as presiding officer and Senate President Aquilino Pimentel.
The impeachment trial did not end for the Prosecutors walked out on January 16, 2001
when the impeachment court did not grant their request to open the second envelope. This
lead to what is called “People Power 2,” which ended when Vice-President Gloria
Macapal Arroyo took her oath of office as President on January 21, 2001 before Chief
Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr., in EDSA where the people gathered for the People Power 2.
The legality of the Arroyo Presidency was brought to the Supreme Court by President
Estrada (Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15, March 2, 2001)
On October 23, 2003, an impeachment case was filed against Chief Justice Hilario G.
Davide Jr. but it did not prosper in the House of Representatives. The question on the
impeachment case of Chief Justice Davide was resolved by the Supreme Court in the case
of Francisco, Jr. v. The House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003).
On May 2011, the House Committee on Justice declared that the impeachment complaint
against incumbent Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo as sufficient in form and in
December 2011, as sufficient in substance. The impeachment complaint is still pending
in the House of Representatives. December 2011, an impeachment case was filed against
Chief Justice Renato C. Corona by 188 members of the House of Representatives or more
than the required one-third requirement of Article XI, Section 3 of the 1987
Constitution . Trial started January 16, 2012 with Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile as
Presiding Officer. Chief Justice Renato C. Corona was found guilty under Article II of the
Articles of Impeachment last May 29, 2012 or after 43 days of trial. The vote of the
Senators who acted as Impeachment Court Judges was 20-3, 20 found him guilty. Chief
Justice Renato C. Corona is the first high ranking government official to be convicted by
an impeachment court.
In March 2011, 212 members of the House of Representatives led by House Speaker
Feliciano Belmonte voted to impeach the Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez and to
transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. The 7-year term of office
of Ombudsman Gutierrez was supposed to end December 2012. Ombudsman Gutierrez
resigned before the impeachment trial by the Senate.
3.1. Executive Branch
The President is vested with the executive power. (Art. VII, sec. 1, 1987
Constitution). The President is both the Chief of State (head of government) and the
Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces of the Philippines (Art. VII, sec. 18). Since
1898 when the First Philippine Republic was established, the Philippines has had fifteen
(15) Presidents from Emilio Aguinaldo to Benigno S. Aquino III.
The Executive Branch also includes the Vice-President and the Secretaries of
Heads of the Executive Departments and other Cabinet officials
Both the President and the Vice-President are elected by direct vote of the Filipino
people for a term of six years. The President is not eligible for a re-election while the Vice
President cannot serve for more than two terms. Congress is empowered to promulgate
rules in the canvassing of certificates of election. The Supreme Court sitting en banc is
the sole judge of all election contests relating to their election, returns and qualifications
(Art VII, sec. 4). The Supreme Court en banc thus acts as the Presidential Electoral
Tribunal. The Supreme Court promulgated the 2005 Rules on the Presidential
Tribunal (A.M. No. 05-11-06-SC).Both may be removed from office by impeachment
(Art. XI sec. 2) to be initiated by the House of Representatives (Art. XI, sec, 3) and tried
and decided by the Senate (Art. XI, sec, 3 (6)). The Cabinet members are nominated by the
President, subject to the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments (Art. VII, sec,
16) which consists of the President of the Senate, as ex- officio Chairman, twelve Senators
and twelve members of the House of Representatives (Art. VI, sec. 1).
Cabinet members are nominated by the President, subject to the confirmation of the
Commission on Appointments (Art. VII, sec, 16), which consists of the President of the
Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators and twelve members of the House of
Representatives (Art. VI, sec. 1).
The President exercises control over all the executive departments, bureaus and
offices (Art. VI, sec, 17).
Office of the Solicitor General .
 Its mandate and function as found in its website is that it is “the law firm of the
Republic of the Philippines. It is tasked to represent the People of the Philippines, the
Philippine Government, its Agencies and Instrumentalities, Officials and Agents
(especially before appellate courts) in any litigation or matter requiring the services of a
lawyer.” Its mission is “to promote and protect the interest of the Republic of the
Philippines and its people in legal proceedings and matters requiring the services of a
lawyer.
3.2. Legislative Department
Legislative power is vested in the Congress of the Philippines, consisting of the Senate and
the House of Representatives (Art. VI, sec. 1). History has provided that the legislative
structure has undergone numerous changes. A brief history of the Philippine legislature is
available at the House of Representative website and at the Senate .
The Senate of the Philippines is composed of twenty four (24) Senators who are elected at
large by qualified voters who serve for a term of not more than six (6) years. No Senator
may be elected for more than two consecutive terms. (Art VI, sec. 4). The Senate is led by
the Senate President, Pro Tempore, Majority Leader and the Minority Leader. The Senate
President is elected by majority vote of its members. There are thirty six (36) permanent
committees and five (5) oversight committees. The sole judge of contests relating to
election, returns and qualifications of members of the Senate rests with the Senate Electoral
Tribunal (SET), which is composed of nine members, three of whom are Justices of the
Supreme Court and six members of the Senate. (Art. VI, sec. 17). The Senate Electoral
Tribunal has approved on November 12, 2003 its Revised Rules.
The House of Representatives is composed of not more than two hundred fifty (250)
members, elected by legislative districts for a term of three years. No representative shall
serve for more than three consecutive terms. The party-list representatives who come
from registered national, regional and sectional parties and organizations, shall constitute
twenty percent (20%) of the total number of representatives. The election of party-list
representatives was by virtue of the Republic Act No. 7941, which was approved on March
3, 1995. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court penned by Justice Antonio T. Carpio
on April 21, 2009, Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency
(BANAT) v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 17971) and Bayan Muna, Advocacy for
Teacher Empowerment Through Action, Cooperation and Harmony Towards Educational
Reforms, Inc. and Abono (G.R. No. 179295), Republic Act No. 7941 was declared
unconstitutional with regards to the two percent threshold in the distribution of additional
party-list seats. The Court in this decision provided a procedure in the allocation of
additional seats under the Party-List System. Major political parties are disallowed from
participating in party-list elections . Another case on the party-list elections, pursuant
to Republic Act No. 7941 COMELEC Resolutions Nos. 9366 and 9531, was filed by the
52 party-list groups who were disqualified by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
to participate in the May 13, 2013 election. The consolidated case is Atong Paglaum, Inc.,
Represented by its President, Mr. Alan Igot v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 203766,
April 2, 2013) was penned by Justice Antonio T. Carpio. This case enumerated the six
parameters in determining as to who may participate in party-list elections.
The officials of the House of Representatives are the Speaker of the House, Deputy
Speaker for Luzon, Deputy Speaker for Visayas, Deputy Speaker for Mindanao, Majority
Leader, and Minority Leader. They are elected by a majority vote of members. There are
fifty seven (57) standing committees and sixteen (16) special committees of the House of
Representatives. The sole judge of contests relating to election, returns and qualifications
of members of the House of Representatives rests with the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal (HRET) which is composed of nine members, three of whom are
Justices of the Supreme Court and six members of the Senate.(Art. VI, sec. 17). The
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal adopted its 1998 Internal Rules on March 24,
1998.
3.3. Judicial System
Organizational Chart of the whole Judicial System and those of each type of Court is
available in 2002 Revised Manual of Clerks of Court. Manila: Supreme Court, 2002.
Organizational Chart was amended due to the passage of Republic Act No. 9282 (law
elevating the Court of Tax Appeals to the level of a collegiate court)
Judicial power rests with the Supreme Court and the lower courts, as may be
established by law (Art. VIII, sec. 1). The judiciary enjoys fiscal autonomy. Its
appropriation may not be reduced by the legislature below the appropriated amount the
previous year, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released. (Art. VIII, sec.
3). This provision may now face construction or interpretation in line with what the
Secretary of Budget and Management call “ Transparency and Accountability
Primordial to Fiscal Autonomy .” This involves the release of funds of unfilled
positions in agencies enjoying fiscal autonomy such as Congress, Judiciary, Constitutional
Commissions and the Ombudsman. The last annual budget from the government
represents less than one (1%) of the entire budget of the Philippine government. In 1984,
President Ferdiand Marcos passed Presidential Decree No. 1949, a special fund
popularly called The Judiciary Development Fund (JDF). It is a special fund established
“to help ensure and guarantee the independence of the Judiciary as mandated by the
Constitution and public policy.” This fund is sourced from the legal fees collected by the
courts and 80% is for the cost of living allowances of the members and personnel of the
Judiciary and 20% is for the acquisition, maintenance and repair of office equipment and
facilities.
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. To inform the
members of the Judiciary, legal profession and the public of these rules and regulations, the
Supreme Court disseminates this rules and regulations to all courts, publishes important
ones in newspapers of general circulation, prints in book or pamphlet form and now
downloads them in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court E-Library websites .
Department of Justice Administrative Order No. 162 dated August 1, 1946 provided for
the Canon of Judicial Ethics . Supreme Court of the Philippines promulgated a new Code
of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary effective June 1, 2004 (A.M. No. 03-05-
01-SC), which was published in two newspapers of general circulation on May 3, 2004
(Manila Bulletin & Philippine Star) and available on its websiteand the Supreme Court E-
Library website .
The Supreme Court promulgated on June 21, 1988 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.
A Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC) was adopted on April
13, 2004, effective June 1, 2004, published in two newspapers of general circulation on
April 26, 2004 (Manila Bulletin & Philippine Star) and available at the websites.
Supreme Court of the Philippines :
The barangay chiefs exercised judicial authority prior to the arrival of Spaniards in 1521.
During the early years of the Spanish period, judicial powers were vested upon Miguel
Lopez de Legaspi, the first governor general of the Philippines where he administered civil
and criminal justice under the Royal Order of August 14, 1569.
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 its president
was replaced by a chief justice and the number of justices was increased. It came to be
known as the Audencia Territorial de Manila with two branches, civil and criminal. Royal
Decree issued July 24, 1861 converted it to a purely judicial body wherein its decisions
were appealable to the Supreme Court of the Philippines 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. The Audencias were suspended by General Wesley Merrit when a
military government was established after Manila fell to American forces in 1898. Major
General Elwell S. Otis re-established the Audencia on May 29, 1899 by virtue of General
Order No. 20. Said Order provided for six Filipino members of the Audencia . Act No.
136 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. Filipinization of the Supreme Court started only during
the Commonwealth, 1935. Administrative Code of 1917 provided for a Supreme Court
with a Chief Justice and eight associate Justices. With the ratification of the 1935
Constitution, the membership was increased to 11 with two divisions of five members
each. The 1973 Constitution further increased its membership to 15 with two (2) divisions.
Pursuant to the provisions of the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court is
composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices who shall serve until the age
of seventy (70). The Court may sit En Banc or in its three (3) divisions composed of five
members each. A vacancy must be filled up by the President within ninety (90) days of
occurrence from the list submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council. Constitution
(1987),Article VIII, sec. 4 (2) explicitly provides for the cases that must be heard En Banc
and sec. 4 (3) f or cases that may be heard by divisions.
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 transferred from the Department of Justice
to the Supreme Court the administrative supervision of all courts and their personnel.
This was affirmed by Constitution(1987), Art. VIII, sec. 6. 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 (3) Deputy Court Administrators and three (3) Assistant
Court Administrators.
According to the 1987 Constitution , Art. VIII, sec. 5, the Supreme Court
exercises the following powers:
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 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 court to other stations as public interest may
require. Such temporary assignment 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.).
Supreme Court has promulgated the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court ( As
amended in Resolutions dated July 6, 2010, August 3, 2010, January 17, 2012, September
18, 2012) ), to govern the internal operations of the Court and as a guide to the exercise of
its judicial and administrative functions). The last revision of the Internal Rules (A.M. No,
10-4-20-SC (Revised)) was in March 12, 2013).
The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court provides that cases may be heard on oral
arguments upon defined issues. The constitutionality of laws, treaties and other
agreements are defined issues. The procedure defined by section 3 is as follows: “The
petitioner shall argue first, followed by the respondent and the amicus curiae , if any.
Rebuttal of oral arguments may be allowed by the Chief Justice or the Chairperson. If any,
the Court may invite amicus curiae. The constitutionality of two significant laws has been
decided after a series of oral arguments. Republic Act No. 10354 – “Responsible
Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 or RH LAW too years before it became a
law. One primary consideration is that the Philippines is a Catholic/Christian country. The
constitutionality of the RH law was assailed in the consolidated case of Imbong v. Ochoa,
Jr., (G.R. No. 204819, April 08, 2014). The Court declared that the law is constitutional.
The importance of religion and the Constitution was laid down at the very start of the
decision of Justice Jose Mendoza, and I quote:
“Freedom of religion was accorded preferred status by the framers of our fundamental
law. And this Court has consistently affirmed this preferred status, well aware that it is
“designed to protect the broadest possibly liberty of conscience, to all each man to believe
as his conscience directs, to profess his beliefs, and to live as he believes he ought to live,
consistent with the liberty of others and with the common good.”
The constitutionality of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No.10175
passed on September 12, 2012 was assailed in the consolidated case of Disini, Jr. v. The
Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014.
The constitutionality of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), an agreement with
the United States, was question in the consolidated case of BAYAN ( Bagong Alyansang
Makabayan ) v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000. Although this case declared
the agreement constitutional, cases involving this agreement are being filed. The case of
Sombilon v. Romulo, G.R. No. 175888, February 11, 2009, pertains to the custody of
defendant Lance Corporal (L/CPL) Daniel Smith, a member of the United States Visiting
Forces who was accused of rape. Another case involving Cpl. Scott Pemberton, member
of the United States Visiting Forces was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo
City for the murder of a transgender. Cpl. Pemberton was heavily guarded by both United
States and Filipino soldiers and has undergone mandatory fingerprinting and mug shorts
but arraignment has not yet been scheduled.
Another agreement between Philippines and the United States, the Enhanced
Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) has been question in
consolidated petitions pertions. The Supreme Court has started last November 18, 2014 to
hold oral arguments on these consolidated petitions.
Recent cases filed in the Supreme Court involve the use of government funds in
the two co-equal branches of government, the Legislature and the Executive. The Belgica
v. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2003, involves the use of the Priority
Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) by the members of the Legislative Department. In
the decision of Justice Perlas-Bernabe, the concept and the history of the pork barrel
system was discussed. The Araullo v. Aquino III, G. R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014 on the
other hand assailed the constitutionality of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP),
National Budget Circular (NBC) No. 541, and related issuances of the Department of
Budget and Management (DBM) implementing the DAP of the Executive Department.
The Supreme Court decided that use of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF)
of the Legislative Department and the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) of the
Executive Department are both unconstitutional. Plunder cases relating to the use of the
Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) have been filed by the Office of the
Ombudsman at the Sandiganbatan against three incumbent Senators, Senators Juan Ponce
Enrile, Ramon Revilla, Jr. and Jose P. Ejercito-Estrada. All the three incumbent Senators
are under detention.
The Supreme Court website includes the petitions, oral arguments, audio recording and
advisories of landmark decisions like those previously mentioned.
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. In line with this mandate of the
Rules of Court and extrajudicial killing and disappearances, the Supreme Court passed two
important Resolutions: the Rule on the Writ of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC), approved
on September 25, 2007 and effective on October 24, 2007, and the Rule on the Writ of
Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-1-16--SC), approved on January 22, 2008 and effective
February 2, 2008. The “Writ of Amparo is a remedy available to any person whose
right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act
or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity. This writ
shall cover extrajudicial killing and enforced disappearances or threats. (sec.1)” The Writ
of Habeas data on the other hand “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 any private individual or entity engaged in the
gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home
and correspondence of the aggrieved party” (section 1).
Writ of Kalikasan , a resolution on Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
(A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC) was approved on April 13, 2010 and was to take effect on April 29,
2010, fifteen (15) days following its publication in a newspaper of general circulation.
This rule covers civil and criminal actions brought before the Regional Trial Courts,
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts involving
the enforcement or violations on the existing environmental and other related laws and
regulations, conservation, development, preservation, protection and utilization of the
environment and natural resources, promulgated during the American period such as Act
No. 3572 approved on November 26, 1929 until the present Republic such as Republic Act
No. 9637 approved on May 13, 2009. The Courts designated to try these cases are called
“Green Courts.”
A Writ of Kalikasan was issued with a Temporary Environmental Protection
Order (TEPO) was issued by the Supreme Court in the case of “West Tower
Condominium Corporation, On Behalf of the Residents off West Tower Condo., And In
Representation of Barangay Bangkal, And Others, Including Minors and Generations Yet
Unborn vs. First Philippine Industrial Corporation, First Gen Corporation And Their
Respective Board of Directors and Officers, John Does and Richard Does,” G.R. No.
194239, May 31, 2011. The case of Abrigo v. Swift, G.R. No. 206510, September 16,
2014, was filed when the USS Guardian ran aground on the northwest side of South Shoal
of the Tubbataha Reefs. Tubataha Reefs is declared as a Nature Park by law (Republic
Act No. 10067, approved April 6, 2010) and a World Heritage Site by the United Nations
Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). A Writ of Kalikasan petition
with prayer for the Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) under Rule 7 of
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, otherwise known as the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases (Rules) was filed for violations of environmental laws and regulations. This case
however takes into consideration involves international responsibility. The USS Guardian
was allowed to enter Philippine waters by pursuant to the Visiting Forces Agreement
(VFA) and “as a treaty privilege should be considered as an act jure imperii .” The
petition was dismissed. The Court stated and I quote:
“The Court defers to the Executive Branch on the matter of compensation and
rehabilitation measures through diplomatic channels. Resolution of these issues impinges
on our relations with another State in the context of common security interests under the
VFA. It is settled that “[t]he conduct of the foreign relations of our government is
committed by the Constitution to the executive and legislative—“the political”--
departments of the government, and the propriety of what may be done in the exercise of
this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision.”
The Supreme Court has promulgated what can be considered as a landmark decision at the
start of 2015. The Risos-Vidal v. Commission on Elections and Joseph E. Estrada, G.R.
No. 206666, January 21, 2015, penned by Associate Justice Teresita L De Castro,
dismissed the disqualification case against the former President and now the elected
Mayor of Manila. The former President was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of plunder.
President Arroyo granted former President Estrada executive clemency or pardon on
October 25, 2007 on the grounds that the government has a policy to pardon convicts who
are 70 and above and that Estrada has already been on house of arrest for 6 years. This
disqualification case’ main contention was on this pardon extended by President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo. The Supreme Court En Banc voted 11-3 and one abstention. Majority
of the justices characterized the pardon as absolute and this restored Estrada’s qualification
to stand as candidate in the last mayoral election. This decision upheld Estrada’s
contention that President Arroyo’s pardon “restored his full civil and political rights,
including the right to seek public elective office.”
Amendments are promulgated through the Committee on Revision of Rules the
Court also issues administrative rules and regulations in the form of court issuances found
in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court E-Library websites .
Draft personnel manual (A.M. No. 00-6-01-SC) was been submitted to the Court En Banc
for action on March 29, 2011. In a Resolution of the Court En Banc dated January 31,
2012, the Human Resource Manual formerly referred to as Personnel Manual, was
approved.
The Judicial and Bar Council was created by virtue of Constitution(1987), Art. VIII, sec. 8.
under the supervision of the Supreme Court. Its principal function is to screen prospective
appointees to any judicial post. It is composed of the Chief Justice as ex-officio Chairman,
the Secretary of Justice and representatives of 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 as members. The Judicial and Bar Council
has promulgated on October 31, 2000 its Rules (JBC-009) in the performance of its
function. The Supreme Court opined that in the case of Jardeleza v. Sereno, The Judicial
And Bar Council and Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 213181, August 19, 2014, that the application
of Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 to petitioner violated the petitioners’ constitutionally
guaranteed right to due process and having garnered a majority vote of the JBC Members,
declare that the petitioner be deemed included in the short list submitted by respondent
JBC to the President. The Supreme Court further stated the need to “ respect to the
interpretation and application of Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009.”
The JBC conducts live public interviews and has set guidelines for vacancy in
the Chief Justice, Associate Justices of the Supreme Court and Appellate Courts. JBC
Resolution No. 007 provides for wider publicity of notice of opening of nomination and list
of applicants for judicial positions.
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 8557. It is an important
component of the Supreme Court for its important mission on judicial education it to
p rovide opportunities to develop judicial competence, instill sound values, and form
constructive attitudes in its continuing pursuit of judicial excellence. No appointee to the
Bench may commence the discharge his adjudicative function without completing the
prescribed course in the Philippine Judicial
Academy (http://philja.judiciary.gov.ph/programs.html) Its organizational structure and
administrative set-up are provided for by the Supreme Court in its En Banc resolution
(Revised A.M. No. 01-1-04-SC-PHILJA). It has development partners . The PHILJA
Training Center is situated at Brgy. Silang, Crossing East, Tagaytay City.
The Philippine Mediation Center was organized “pursuant to Supreme Court En banc
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 dated October 2, 2001 – “Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education (MCLE)). The purpose of the MCLE is “to ensure that throughout” the career of
the members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, “they keep abreast with law and
jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of the
practice of law.” Members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines who are not exempt
from the MCLE must complete thirty six (36) hours of continuing legal education every
three (3) years (B.M. No. 850, Rule 2, sec. 2). Exemptions from the MCLE requirement
are under Rule 7, sec. 1-2. It holds office in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines main
office at Julio Vargas St., Ortigas Center, Mandaluyong City.
Court of Appeals :
Commonwealth Act No. 3 (December 31, 1935), pursuant to the Constitution (1935), Art.
VIII, sec. 1, established the Court of Appeals. It was formally organized on February 1,
1936 and was composed of eleven justices with Justice Pedro Concepcion as the first
Presiding Justice. Its composition was increased to 15 in 1938 and further increased to 17
in 1942 by virtue of Executive Order No. 4. The Court of Appeals was regionalized in the
later part of 1944 when five District Courts of Appeal were organized for Northern, Central
and Southern Luzon, for Manila and for Visayas and Mindanao. It was abolished by
President Osmena in 1945, pursuant to Executive Order No. 37 due to the prevailing
abnormal conditions . However, it was re-established on October 4, 1946 by virtue of
Republic Act No. 52 with a Presiding Justice and fifteen (15) Associate Justices. Its
composition was increased by the following enactments: Republic Act No. 1605 to
eighteen (18); Republic Act No. 5204 to twenty-four (24); Presidential Decree No. 1482 to
one (1) Presiding Justice and thirty-four (34) Associate Justices; Batas Pambansa Blg. 129
to fifty (50); Republic Act No. 8246 to sixty-nine (69). With Republic Act No. 8246, the
Court of Appeals in Cebu, and Cagayan de Oro were established. With Republic Act
8246, the 69 Justices are divided in twenty three divisions throughout the Philippines:
Luzon (Manila- 1-17 th Division), Visayas (Cebu- 18 th -20 th Division) and Mindanao
(Cagayan de Oro- 21 st -23 rd Division). The 2009 Internal Rules of Procedure of the Court
of Appeals was approved by the Supreme Court En Ban in a Resolution (A.M. No. 09-11-
11-CA) dated December 15, 2009.
(http://ca.judiciary.gov.ph/images/references_corner/2009irca.pdf)
Batas Pambansa Blg . 129 changed t he name of the Court of Appeals to Intermediate
Appellate Court. Executive Order No. 33, issued by President Corazon C. Aquino on July
28, 1986, brought back its name to Court of Appeals.
Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by Executive Order No. 33 and
Republic Act No. 7902 provides for the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals as follows:
 Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari habeas
corpus, and quo warrant, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of
its appellate jurisdiction;
 Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgment of
Regional Trial Courts; and
 Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions,
orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies,
instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees Compensation
Commission and the Civil Service Commission, except those falling within the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution,
the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended,
the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and
subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of
1948.
In the case of St. Martin Funeral Home v. National Labor Relations Commission,
G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998 (356 Phil. 811), the decision and resolutions of the
National Labor Relations Commission now initially reviewable to the Court of Appeals
through a petition of Certiorari under Rule 65. Prior to this decision, it was directly to the
Supreme Court.
Criminal cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or
death were automatically elevated to the Supreme Court. With the case of People v.
Mateo, G.R. No. 147678-87, July 4, 2004 (433 SCRA 640), the Supreme Court allowed
the Court of Appeals to conduct an intermediate review of the case before it is elevated to
the Supreme Court.
As per the Resolution of the Supreme Court (A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC), the Court of
Appeals has jurisdiction over petitions for freeze orders on any money instrument, property
or proceeds involving the Anti-Money Laundering cases (Republic Act No. 9160).
Jurisdiction for Writs of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC dated October 24, 2007) and Writs
of Habeas data (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC dated February 2, 2008) rests with the Court of
Appeals.
The Supreme Court, acting on the recommendation of the Committee on Revision of
the Rules of Court, resolved to approve the 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals
(A.M. No. 02-6-13-CA) and amended by a resolution of the Court En Banc on July 13,
2004 (A.M. No. 03-05-03-SC).
Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9372 otherwise known as the Human Security Act of
2007, the Chief Justice issued Administrative Order No. 118-2007, designating the First,
Second and Third Divisions of the Court of Appeals to handle cases involving the crimes
of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism and all other matters incident to the said
crimes emanating from the Metropolitan Manila and Luzon. For those emanating from
Visayas, all divisions of the Court of Appeals stationed in Cebu are designated to handle
these cases while the Court of Appeals stationed in Cagayan De Oro will handle cases from
Mindanao.
Sandiganbayan :
The Anti-Graft Court, or Sandiganbayan, was created to maintain integrity, honesty and
efficiency in the bureaucracy and weed out misfits and undesirables in government service
Constitution (1973), Art. XIII, sec. 5 and Constitution (1987), Art. XI, sec. 4. It was
restructured by Presidential Decree No. 1606 as amended by Republic Act No. 8249. It is
composed of a Presiding Justice and fourteen (14) Associate Justices still in five Divisions
of three (3) Justices each.
As per Republic Act No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over cases involving the
violations of the following:
 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019, as amended,
Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Sec. 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised
Penal Code), of a government official occupying the following positions in the
government whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the
commission of the offense;
 “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);
 Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade'27'and up under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989; cralaw
 Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;
 Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution; and
 All other national and local officials classified as Grade'27'and higher under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.
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.
Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1,
2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.”
The Supreme Court, acting on the recommendation of the Committee on Revision of the
Rules of Court, resolved with modification the Revised Internal Rules of the
Sandiganbayan on August 28, 2002 (A.M. No. 02-6-07—SB)
Court of Tax Appeals :
Created by Republic Act No. 1125 on June 16, 1954, it serves as an appellate court to
review tax cases. It had three judges and one Division. Under Republic Act No. 9282 , its
jurisdiction has been expanded where it now enjoys the same level as the Court of
Appeals. This law has doubled its membership, from three to six justices, one (1)
Presiding Justice and five (5) Associate Justices. There are now two (2) Divisions with
three Justices per division. Republic Act Number 9503 enacted on June 12, 2008 and
effective July 5, 2008 further expanded its composition to one (1) Presiding Justice and
eight (8) Associate Justices in three (3) Divisions. A decision of a division may be
appealed to the En Banc. The en Banc decision may be appealed by verified petition for
certiorari to the Supreme Court.
T he Supreme Court acting on the recommendation of the Committee on Revision of the
Rules of Court resolved to approve the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (A.M.
No. 05-11-07-CTA) and amended by aresolution of the Court En Banc on November 22,
2005 .
The Court of Tax Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal pursuant
to Republic Act No. 1125 are the following:
 Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed,
assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties
imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal
Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue;
 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 imposed in relation thereto;
or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other laws administered by the
Bureau of Customs;
 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;
  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 R.A. No. 8800, where either party may appeal the
decision to impose or not to impose said duties;
 The expanded appellate jurisdiction of the under Republic Act No. 9282 are
follows;
 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;
 Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases;
 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;
 Collection of internal revenue taxes and customs duties the assessment of which
have become final.
 Under Republic Act No. 9282, the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals
include civil tax cases and cases that are criminal in nature, as well as local tax
cases, property tax and collection of taxes.
Regional Trial Courts:
They are called the second level courts and are divided into thirteen (13) judicial regions:
National Capital Region (Metro Manila) and the twelve (12) regions of the country, which
are divided into several branches. The jurisdictions are defined in sec. 19-23 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by Republic Act No. 7671. The Supreme Court designates
certain branches of regional trial courts as special courts to handle exclusively criminal
cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban land reform cases that do
not fall under the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies. The Supreme Court issues
resolutions designating specific branches of the Regional Trial Courts as special courts for
heinous crimes, dangerous drugs cases, commercial courts and intellectual property rights
violations. Special rules are likewise promulgated. A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC is a resolution of
the Court En Banc on the Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation. The Interim
Rules was promulgated in November 2000 and December 2008 affects special commercial
courts. Some Regional Trial Courts are specifically designated to try and decide cases
formerly cognizable by the Securities and Exchange Commission (A.M. No. 00-11-
030SC).
Some branches of the Regional Trial Courts have been designated as family courts (A.M.
No. 99-11-07) because the family courts to be established pursuant to Republic Act No.
8369 of the Family Court Law of 1997 have not yet been organized. Pursuant to Republic
Act No. 8369, the Family Court Law of 1997, some branches of the Regional Trial Courts
have been designated as family courts (A.M. No. 99-11-07).
The Regional Trial Courts’ jurisdictions are defined as follows:
Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in Civil Cases as follows:
 All civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation;
 All civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of real property, or any
interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds twenty
thousand pesos (P 20,000.00) or, civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value
exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P 50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into
and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is
conferred upon the MeTCs, MTCs, and MCTCs;
 All actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claim
exceeds one hundred thousand pesos (P 100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila, where
such demand or claim exceeds two hundred thousand pesos (P 200,000.00);
 All matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the
estate exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P 100,000.00) or, in probate matters
in Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (P
200,000.00);
 All actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;
 All cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or
body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
 All civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court of
Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and
 All other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs or the value of the property in
controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P 100,000.00) or, in such other
cases in Metro Manila, where the demand, exclusive of the above-mentioned
items exceeds Two hundred pesos (P 200,000.00) (Sec. 19, Batas Pambansa Blg.
129, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7691).
Exercise original jurisdiction in other cases as follows:
 The issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto , habeas
corpus, and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective
regions; and
 Actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls.
 They shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs, and
MCTCs in their respective territorial jurisdiction.
Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC), Municipal
Trial Courts (MTC) and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC):
These are called the first level courts established in each city and municipality. Their
jurisdiction is provided for by section 33, 35 of Batas Pambansa Blg 129. Their
jurisdiction has been expanded by special lawsnamely Republic Act Nos. 9276,
9252, 9305, 9306, and 9308.
MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs, and MCTCs shall exercise original jurisdiction in Civil Cases as
provided for in section 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 is as follows:
 Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate
and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where
the value of the personal property, estate or amount of the demand does not
exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P 100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where
such personal property, estate or amount of the demand does not exceed Two
hundred thousand pesos (P 200,000.00), exclusive of interests, damages of
whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs the amount of which
must be specifically alleged: Provided, That interests, damages of whatever kind,
attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs shall be included in the
determination of the filing fees. Provided further, That where there are several
claims or causes of action between the same or different parties embodied in the
same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all
the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions;
 Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer:
Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the question of
ownership in his pleadings and the question of ownership in his pleadings and the
question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of
ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of
possession; and
 Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the
property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P 20,000.00)
or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed
Fifty thousand pesos (P 50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That in cases of land
not declared for taxation purposes the value of such property shall be determined
by the assessed value of the adjacent lots (Sec. 33, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129).
Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 provides that the Supreme Court may designate
MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs, and MCTCs to hear and determine cadastral or land registration
cases where the value does not exceed one hundred thousand pesos (P100, 000.00). Their
decision is can be appealed in the same manner as the Regional Trial Courts.
The MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs, and MCTCs are empowered to hear and decide petitions for
a writ of habeas corpus or applications for bail in criminal cases in the province or city in
the absence of the Regional Trial Court Judges.
The Supreme Court approved on September 9, 2008 the Rule of Procedure for Small
Claims Cases (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC) which took effect on October 1, 2008 after its
publication in two newspapers of general circulation. Forty four (44) first level courts
(Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC), Municipal
Trial Courts (MTC) and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC) were designated to hear
small claims cases. On February 16, 2010, a Resolution of the Court En Banc was
approved amending provisions of the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases (A.M. No.
08-8-7-SC). In March of 2010, all the first Level Courts in the country, except Shari’a
courts were empowered to hear small claims cases. Small claims courts are also called
“People’s Courts” cases are readily resolve for al courts are required to decide the matter at
the first hearing. Lawyers are not allowed in hearings. Thus, the procedure is considered
inexpensive. These first level courts try small claims cases for payment of money where
the value of the claim does not exceed One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100, 000.00)
exclusive of interest and costs. These courts shall apply the rules of procedure provided in
A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC in all actions “which are: (a) purely civil in nature where the claim or
relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for payment or reimbursement of sum of money,
and (b) the civil aspect of criminal actions, either filed before the institution of the criminal
action, or reserved upon the filing of the criminal action in court, pursuant to Rule 111 of
the Revised Rules Of Criminal Procedure.”
Shari’a Courts:
These special courts were created by sec. 137 of Presidential Decree No. 1083 or the Code
of Muslim Personal Laws. The judges should possess all the qualifications of a Regional
Trial Court Judge and should also be learned in Islamic law and jurisprudence. Articles
143, 144, and 155 of Presidential Decree No. 1083 provide the jurisdiction of the said
courts as follows:
Shari’a D istrict Courts (SDC) as provided for in paragraph (1), Article 143 of Presidential
Decree No. 1083, shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the following cases:
 All cases involving custody, guardianship, legitimacy, paternity and filiations
arising under the Code;
 All cases involving disposition, distribution and settlement of the estates of
deceased Muslims, probate of wills, issuance of letters of administration or
appointment of administrators or executors regardless of the nature or aggregate
value of the property;
 Petitions for the declaration of absence and death and for the cancellation or
correction of entries in the Muslim Registries mentioned in Title VI of Book Two
of the Code;
 All actions arising from customary contracts in which the parties are Muslim, if
they did not specified which law shall govern their relations; and
  All petitions for mandamus, prohibition, injunction, certiorari, habeas corpus, and
all other auxiliary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
The SDC in concurrence with existing civil courts shall have original jurisdiction over the
following cases (paragraph (2) of Article 143):
 Petitions by Muslims for the constitution of family home, change of name and
commitment of an insane person to any asylum:
 All other personal and real actions not mentioned in paragraph (1) (d) wherein the
parties involved are Muslims except those for forcible entry and unlawful
detainer, which shall fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTCs;
 All special civil actions for interpleader or declaratory relief wherein the parties
are Muslims or the property involved belongs exclusively to Muslims.
Article 144 of Presidential Decree No. 1083 provides that the SDC within shall have
appellate jurisdiction over all cases tried in the Shari’a Circuit Courts (SCC) within their
territorial jurisdiction.
Article 155 of Presidential Decree No. 1083 provides that the SCCs have exclusive original
jurisdiction over:
 All cases involving offenses defined and punished under the Code;
 All civil actions and proceedings between parties who are Muslims or have been
married in accordance with Article 13 of the Code involving disputes relating to:
o Marriage;
o Divorce recognized under the Code;
o Betrothal or breach of contract to marry;
o Customary dower (mahr);
o Disposition and distribution of property upon divorce;
o Maintenance and support, and consolatory gifts (mut’a); and
o Restitution of marital rights; and
 All cases involving disputes to communal properties.
Rules of procedure are provided for in articles 148 and 158. En Banc Resolution of the
Supreme Court in 183, provided the special rules of procedure in the Shari’a courts ( Ijra-
at-Al Mahakim Al Sharia’a).
Shari’a courts and personnel are subject to the administrative supervision of the Supreme
Court. Appointment of judges, qualifications, tenure, and compensation are subject to the
provisions of the Muslim Code (Presidential Decree No. 1083. SDCs and SCCs have the
same officials and other personnel as those provided by law for RTCs and MTCs,
respectively.
Quasi-Courts or Quasi-Judicial Agencies:
Quasi-judicial agencies are administrative agencies, more properly belonging to the
Executive Department, but are empowered by the Constitution or statutes to hear and
decide certain classes or categories of cases.
Quasi-judicial agencies, which are empowered by the Constitution, are the Constitutional
Commissions: Civil Service Commission, Commission on Elections and the Commission
on Audit.
Quasi-judicial agencies empowered by statutes are: Office of the President. Department of
Agrarian Reform, Securities and Exchange Commission, National Labor Relations
Commission, National Telecommunication Commission, Employees Compensation
Commission, Insurance Commission, Construction Industry Arbitration Commission,
Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Social Security System, Government Service
Insurance System, Bureau of Patents, Trademark and Technology, National Conciliation
Mediation Board, Land Registration Authority, Civil Aeronautics Board, Central Board of
Assessment Appeals, National Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Board,
Agricultural Inventions Board and the Board of Investments. When needed, t he Supreme
Court issues rules and regulations for these quasi-judicial agencies in the performance of
their judicial functions. Republic Act No. 8799, known as the “Securities Regulation
Code,” reorganized the Securities and Exchange Commission (Chapter II) and provided for
its powers and function (sec.5). Specifically provided for in these powers and function is
the Commission’s jurisdiction over all cases previously provided for in sec. 5, Pres. Decree
No. 902-A (sec. 5.2). The Supreme Court promulgated rules of procedure governing intra-
corporate controversies under Republic Act No. 8799 (A.M. No. 01-2-04-SC).
Decisions of these quasi-courts can be appealed to the Court of Appeals except those of the
Constitutional Commissions: Civil Service Commission, Commission on Elections and the
Commission on Audit, which can be appealed by certiorari to the Supreme Court (Art. IX-
A, sec. 7).
Other Judicial Procedures:
Katarungang Pambarangay - Presidential Decree No. 1508, or the Katarungang
Pambarangay Law, took effect December 11, 1978, and established a system of amicably
settling disputes at the barangay l evel. Rules and procedures were provided by this decree
and the Local Government Code, Title I, Chapter 7, sec. 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 Chairperson of the Sub-
Committee on the Rules on Alternative Dispute Resolution recommended the Special
Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution (A.M. No. 07-11-08-SC) to the Supreme
Court En Banc and it was approved on October 30, 2009. The Department of Justice on
the other hand promulgated Department Circular No. 98 - Implementing Rules and
Regulations of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 (Republic Act No. 9285)
on December 4, 2009. The Supreme Court on June 22, 2010 approved the Rules on Court-
Annexed Family Mediation, amending the Rules on Court Annexed Mediation and the
corresponding Code of Ethical Standards for Mediators. (A.M. No. 10-4-16-SC).
The Supreme Court by virtue of an En Banc Resolution dated October 16, 2001
(Administrative Matter No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA), designated the Philippine Judicial
Academy as the component unit of the Supreme Court for court-referred or court-related
mediation cases and alternative dispute resolution mechanism and establishing the
Philippine Mediation Center. Muslin law provides its own arbitration Council called The
Agama Arbitration Council.
Aside from the three co-equal branches, the other offices in government are the
government financial institutions and government-owned and controlled corporations .
3.4. Constitutional Commissions
Civil Service Commission - Act No. 5 (1900) established the Philippine civil service and
was reorganized as a Bureau in 1905. It was established in the 1935 Constitution.
Republic Act No. 2260 (1959) converted it from a Bureau into the Civil Service
Commission. Presidential Decree No. 807 further redefined its role. Its present status is
provided for in the 1987 Constitution, Art. IX-B and reiterated by the provision of the 1987
Administrative Code (Executive Order No. 292).
Commission on Elections - It is the constitutional commission created by a 1940
amendment to the 1935 Constitution whose primary function is to manage to maintain its
authority and independence in the conduct of elections. The COMELEC exercises
administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial powers. Its membership increased to nine with a
term of nine years by the 1973 Constitution. It was however decreased to seven with a term
of seven years without re-appointment by the 1987 Constitution.
Commission on Audit - Article IX, sec, 2 of the 1987 Constitution provided the powers
and authority of the Commission on Audit, which is to examine, audit and settle all
accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of and expenditures or uses of funds and
property owned or held in trust by or pertaining to the Government including government
owned and controlled corporations with original charters.
3.5. Local Governments
Article X of the 1987 Constitution provides for the territorial and political subdivisions of
the Philippines as follows: province, cities, municipalities and barangays . The 1991 Local
Government Code or Republic Act No. 7160, as amended by Republic Act No. 9009,
provides the detail that implements the provision of the Constitution. The officials,
namely, the governor, city mayor, city vice mayor, municipal mayor, municipal vice-mayor
and punong barangay are elected by their respective units. (1991 Local Government Code,
Title II, Chapter 1, sec. 41 (a)). The regular members of
the sangguniang panlalawigan (for the province), sangguniang panglunsod (for
cities), sangguniang bayan (municipalities) are elected by districts while
the sangguniang barangay are elected at large.
Each territorial or political subdivision enjoys local autonomy as defined in the
Constitution. The President exercises supervision over local Governments.
Each region is composed of several provinces while each province is composed of a cluster
of municipalities and component cities (Local Government Code, Title IV, Chapter 1, sec.
459). The Provincial government is composed of the governor, vice-governor, members of
the sangguniang panlalawigan and other appointed officials.
The city consists of more urbanized and developed barangays which are created, divided,
merged, abolished or its boundary altered by law or act of Congress, subject to the
approval of majority votes cast by its residents in a plebiscite conducted by the Comelec
(Local Government Code, Title III, Chapter 1, sec. 448-449). A City may be classified
either as a component or highly urbanized. The city government is composed of the
mayor, vice-mayor, members of the sangguniang panlunsod (which is composed of the
president of the city chapter of the liga ng mga barangay , president of the panlungsod ng
mga pederasyon ng mga sangguniang kabataan and the sectoral representatives) and other
appointed officials.
The municipality consists of a group of barangays which is created, divided, merged,
abolished or its boundary altered by law or act of Congress, subject to the approval of
majority votes casts in a plebiscite conducted by the Comelec (Local Government Code,
Title II, Chapter 1, sec. 440-441). The municipal government is composed of the mayor,
vice-mayor, sangguniang members (which are composed of president of the municipal
chapter of the liga ng mga barangay , president of the pambayang pederasyon ng mga
sangguniang kabataan and the sectoral representatives) and other appointed officials. In
order for a municipality to be converted into cities, a law or act of Congress must be passed
by virtue of the provisions of the Local Government Code and the Constitution. A
plebiscite must be conducted to determine if a majority of the people in the said
municipality are in favor of converting the municipality into a city. Although laws have
been passed, their constitutionality can be question in the Supreme Court. This can be
seen in the November 18, 2008 decision penned by Justice Antonio T. Carpio. The League
of Cities of the Philippines, City of Iloilo, and City of Calbayog filed consolidated petitions
questioning the constitutionality of the Cityhood Laws and enjoined the Commission on
Elections and the respondent municipality from conducting plebiscites. The Cityhood Laws
were declared as unconstitutional for they violated sections 6 and 10, Article X of the 1987
Constitution. The Cityhood laws referred to in this case are: Republic Acts 9389, 9390,
9391, 9392, 9293, 9394, 9398, 9404, 9405, 9407, 9408, 9409, 9434, 9435, 9436 and 9491.
(League of Cities of the Philippines (CP) represented by LCP National President Jerry P.
Trenas v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 176951, 177499, 178056, November 18,
2008). Acting on an appeal, Justice Antonio T. Carpio on August 24, 2010 sustained the
earlier decision declaring the Cityhood Laws unconstitutional. On appeal, the Court in a
decision on February 15, 2011, penned by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, reversed the two
previous decisions of the Court and declared the Cityhood laws constitutional. Justice
Bersamin sustained this decision on April 12, 2011 and the finally on June 28, 2011.
The Barangay is the smallest local government unit which is created, divided, merged,
abolished or its boundary altered by law or by an ordinance of the sangguniang
panlalawigan or sangguniang panlunsod , subject to the approval of majority votes casts in
a plebiscite conducted by the Comelec (Local Government Code, Title I, Chapter 1, sec.
384-385)
The Philippines is divided into the following local government units:
 Region I (ILOCOS REGION)
 Region II (CAGAYAN VALLEY)
 Region III (CENTRAL LUZON)
 Region IV (CALABARZON & MIMAROPA)
 Region V (BICOL REGION)
 Region VI (WESTERN VISAYAS)
 Region VII (CENTRAL VISAYAS)
 Region VIII (EASTERN VISAYAS)
 Region IX (ZAMBOANGA PENINSULA)
 Region X (NORTHERN MINDANAO)
 Region XI (DAVAO REGION)
 Region XII (SOCCSKSARGEN)
 Region XIII (CARAGA)
 Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindano (ARMM)
 Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR)
 National Capital Region (NCR)
The Caraga Administrative Region (Region XIII) was created by Republic Act No. 7901,
which was passed by both houses of Congress and approved by the President on February
23, 1995. It is composed of the provinces of Agusan del Norte, Agusan del Sur, Surigao
del Norte, Surigao del Sur, and the cities of Butuan and Surigao.
The Cordillera Administrative Region was created by President Corazon C. Aquino by
virtue of Executive Order No. 220 on July 15, 1987. It includes the provinces of Abra,
Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao and Kalinga-Apayao. Republic Act No. 6766, which
was approved on October 23, 1989. Republic Act No. 6766 providing for an Organic Act
for the Cordillera Autonomous Region was passed Congress and took effect on October 23,
1989. A plebiscite was called but it failed to get the majority affirmative vote on January
30, 1990. Another law, Republic Act No. 8438, establishing the Cordillera Autonomous
Region was passed by Congress on December 22, 1997. Another plebiscite was held on
March 7, 1998 among the people of the region. Again, it failed to gain the majority
approval of the Cordillera people. Efforts in Congress are being made for the passage of
another law.
The Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) was created by Republic Act No.
6734 and further strengthened by Republic Act No. 9054. Republic Act No. 6734 was
passed by both houses of Congress on February7, 2001 and lapsed into law without the
signature of the President in accordance with Article VI, Section 27 (1) of the Constitution
on March 31, 2001. The ARMM has its seat of government in Muslim Mindanao. It is
composed of four provinces, Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi. It is
guided by its own Constitution and Organic Act. It has its own Legislative, Executive and
Administration of Justice (Judicial) department of government.
In the case of Disomangcop v. Datumanong, G.R. No. 149848, November 25, 2004, touch
on the fate of the autonomy for Muslim Mindanao. In this decision Justice Tinga stated
“we have the overwhelming support of the Bangsa Moro and the Cordillera Constitution.
By this we mean meaningful an authentic regional autonomy. We propose that we have a
separate Article on the autonomous regions for the Bangsa Moro and the Cordillera people
clearly spelled out in the Constitution, instead of prolonging the agony of...”
This ARMM will be replaced by the Bangsang Moro basic law according to the Chief
Peace Negotiator Marvic Leonen. The Philippine Government and the Moro Islamic
Liberation have agreed to form the transition commission to craft the basic Bangsamoro
Basic Law. Framework of Agreement of the Bangsa Moro was drafted in 2012. Annex of
Power Sharing was signed in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on December 8, 2013 between
Prof. Miriam Coronel- Ferrer as the GPH Panel Chair and Mohaher Iqbal as the MILF
Panel Chair, in the presence of the Malaysian Facilitator Tengku Dato’ Ab Ghafar Tengku
Mohamed.
3.6. Other Government Agencies
The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (Central Bank) is considered as a constitutional office in
the official Philippine government directory .
The Commission on Appointment is an independent constitutional body separate and
distinct from the Legislative. Its members are members of both house of Congress. It aims
to “acts as a restraint against the abuse of the appointing power of the President by
approving only those who are fit and qualified to ensure the efficient and harmonious
functioning of the government.” This mandate and the government officials who need the
Commission’s confirmation are provided in the Constitution (1987), Article VII, sec. 16.
The members of the judiciary are not covered by the Commission on Appointments for the
are under the Judicial and Bar Council.
The Commission on Human Rights was created as an independent office for cases of
violation of the human rights (1987 Constitution, Art. XIII, sec. 17), Article XIII, sec. 18
whose mission is “committee to ensure the primacy of all human rights to their protection,
promotion and fulfillment, on the basis of equality and non-discrimination, in particular for
those who are marginalized and vulnerable. It is composed of aChairperson and four (4)
members.
Office of the Ombudsman :
Constitution (1987), Article XI, sec. 12 and Republic Act No. 6770, sec. 13 , provide that
the mandate of the Office of the Ombudsman is to “act promptly on complaints filed in
any form or manner against officers or employees of the Government, or of any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled
corporations, and enforce their administrative, civil and criminal liability in every case
where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service by the Government to the
people .” Republic Act No. 677, sec. 15 provides that priority is given to complaints
filed against high ranking government officials and/or those occupying supervisory
positions and those complaints involving grave offenses as well as complaints involving
large sums of money and/or properties. It is composed of the Ombudsman and six (6)
deputies.
The President, Vice President, members of the Supreme Court, Constitutional Commission
and the Ombudsman may be removed from office by impeachment for conviction of
violations of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes or
betrayal of public trust. (Art. XI, sec. 2). The House of Representatives has the exclusive
power to initiate (Art. XI, sec. 3 (1)) while the Senate has the sole power to try and decide
impeachments cases (Art. XI, sec. 3(6)). All other public officials and employees may be
removed by law (Art. XI, sec. 2 the Civil Service Law).
4. Legal System
4.1. Nature of the Philippine Legal System
The Philippine legal system may be considered as a unique legal system because it is a
blend of civil law (Roman), common law (Anglo-American), Muslim (Islamic) law and
indigenous law. Like other legal systems, there are two main sources of law.
4.2. Sources of Law
There are two primary sources of the law:
Statutes or statutory law - Statutes are defined as the written enactment of the will of the
legislative branch of the government rendered authentic by certain prescribed forms or
solemnities are more also known as enactment of congress. Generally, they consist of two
types, the Constitution and legislative enactments. In the Philippines, statutory law includes
constitutions, treaties, statutes proper or legislative enactments, municipal charters,
municipal legislation, court rules, administrative rules and orders, legislative rules and
presidential issuance.
Jurisprudence - or case law - is cases decided or written opinion by courts and by persons
performing judicial functions. Also included are all rulings in administrative and legislative
tribunals such as decisions made by the Presidential or Senate or House Electoral
Tribunals. Only decisions of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal are available
in print as House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal Reports, volume 1 (January 28,
1988-October 3, 1990) to present. They will be available electronically at the Supreme
Court E-Library and as a separate CD.
For Muslim law, the primary sources of Shariah are Quran, Sunnaqh, Ijma and Qiyas .
Jainal D. Razul in his book Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Muslin Law of
the Philippines (1984) further stated there are new sources of Muslim law, which some
jurists rejected such as Istihsan or juristic preference; Al-Masalih, Al Mursalah or public
interest ; Istidlal (custom) and Istishab . (deduction based on continuity or permanence).
Classification of Legal Sources:
Classification by Authority:
“Authority is that which may be cited in support of an action, theory or hypothesis.”
Primary Authority is the only authority that is binding on the courts. These are the two
sources of law which includes the Constitution, legislative statutes or those passed by
Congress, decisions of the Supreme Court , appellate courts, lower court and other quasi-
judicial agencies, Executive issuances or Presidential issuances, treaties entered into by the
Philippines, ordinances, rules and regulations of government agencies. They are the actual
law or those promulgated by the three branches of government: Legislative, Executive
and Judiciary.
The legislature promulgates statutes, namely: Act, Commonwealth Act, Republic Act, and
Batas Pambansa. The Executive promulgates presidential issuances (Presidential Decrees,
Executive Orders, Memorandum Circular, Administrative Orders, Proclamations, etc.),
rules and regulations through its various departments, bureaus and agencies. The Judiciary
promulgates judicial doctrines embodied in decisions.
We however need to clarify that the Presidential Decrees or law issued by President
Ferdinand E. Marcos during Martial Law and Executive Orders issued by Aquino President
Corazon C. Aquino before the opening Congress in July 1987 can be classified as
legislative-executive acts, there being no legislature during these two periods.
Primary Authority or sources may be further subdivided into the following:
 Mandatory primary authority is law created by the jurisdiction in which the law
operates like the Philippines;
 Persuasive mandatory authority is law created by other jurisdictions but which
have persuasive value to our courts e.g. Spanish and American laws and
jurisprudence. These sources as used specially when there are no Philippine
authorities available or when the Philippine statute or jurisprudence under
interpretation is based on either the Spanish or American law.
It is in this regard that the collections of law libraries in the Philippines include United
States court reports, West’s national reporter system, court reports of England and
international tribunal, important reference materials such as the American Jurisprudence,
Corpus Juris Secundum, Words and Phrases and different law dictionaries. Some of these
law libraries subscribe to the Westlaw and/or LexisNexis . The Supreme Court, University
of the Philippines, University of Santo Tomas and a number of prominent law libraries also
have a Spanish collection where a great number of our laws originated.
Secondary authority or sources are commentaries or books, treatise, writings, journal
articles that explain, discuss or comment on primary authorities. Also included in this
category are the opinions of the Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange
Commission or circulars of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas . These materials are not
binding on courts but they have persuasive effect and/or the degree of persuasiveness.
With regards to commentaries or books, treatise, writings, journal articles, the reputation or
expertise of the author is a consideration. Some of the authors of good reputation and
considered experts in the field are Chief Justice Ramon C. Aquino and Justice Carolina
Grino Aquino on Revised Penal Code or Criminal Law, Senator Arturo M. Tolentino on
Civil law, Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando and Fr. Joaquin Bernas on Constitutional
Law, Prof. Perfecto Fernandez on Labor Law, Vicente Francisco, Chief Justice Manuel
Moran on Remedial Law, and Justice Vicente Abad Santos and Senator Jovito Salonga on
International Law, etc. A list of these materials by subject are found in GlobaLex - Part 2:
Philippine Legal Information Resources and Citations
A.v Treatise/Annotations/Commentaries, etc.
Classification by Source:
It is important for legal research experts to know the source where the materials were
taken from. One has to determine whether they came from primary (official) sources or
secondary (unofficial sources). Primary and secondary sources for the sources of law are
found in Part 2: Philippine Legal Information Resources and Citations -
A.v Treatise/Annotations/Commentaries, etc.
Primary sources are those published by the issuing agency itself or the official repository,
the Official Gazette. The Official Gazette online was launched by the Office of the
President in July 2010. This online version is maintained and managed by the Presidential
Communications Development and Strategic Management Office. . Thus, for Republic
Acts and other legislative enactments or statutes, the primary sources are
the Official Gazette published by the National Printing Office and the Laws and
Resolutions published by Congress. For Supreme Court decisions, the primary sources are
the Philippine Reports , the individually mimeographed Advance Supreme Court decisions
and the Official Gazette . Publication of Supreme Court decisions in the Official
Gazette is selective. The publication of the Philippine Reports by the National Printing
Office ceased in 1960s. It was only in 1983 when the publication of the Philippine
Reports was revived by then Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando who requested then
President Ferdinand E. Marcos to take charge of its publication with special appropriation
in the Judiciary’s annual budget. However, when the Supreme Court took over the printing
in 1983, the delay in printing covered more than twenty (20) years. The last volume
printed was volume 126 (June 1967). The Philippine Reports is up-to-date and almost
complete from 1901. The volumes are to be printed cover June 1991-December 1994.
Online, the Supreme Court E-Library is complete and updated as soon as the decisions
have been certified by the Chief Justice. The Supreme Court E-Library includes the
citation of the Philippine Reports where each case is found whenever it is available.
The Secondary Sources are the unofficial sources and generally referred to as those
commercially or institutionally published in print or online.
Some of the Secondary sources of statutes are the Vital Legal Documents , published by
the Central Book Supply, contains a compilation of Presidential Decrees (1973). The
second edition contains Republic Acts. Prof. Sulpicio Guevara published three books,
which contain s the full text of legislative enactments or laws namely: a ). Public Laws
Annotated (7 vols.), compilation of all laws from 1901 to 1935, b).Commonwealth Acts
Annotated (3vos.), compilation of laws from 1935-1945 c). The Laws of the First
Philippine Republic (The Laws of Malolos) 1898-1899 . For the Supreme Court
decisions, Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA), a secondary source, published by the
Central Book Supply is more updated and popular in the legal community than
the Philippine Reports, the primary and official source. The SCRA was published
because of the delay in the printing of the Philippines and the need of the Philippine legal
- profession for Supreme Court decision. Citations in commentaries or books, treatise,
writings, journal articles, pleading and even court decisions show SCRA’s popular
acceptance. The general rule is that in the absence of a primary source, the secondary
source may be cited. This was the primary rationale for the SCRA’s popularity. SCRA is
now available online (including tablet and iPad) by subscription.
With the advent of the new information technology, electronic or digitized sources are
popular sources and effective sources of legal information for the following reasons: a) no
complete and updated legal information available; b) the search engines utilizing the
electronic or digitized method facilitate research, and c) no complete and update manually
published search tools for statute and case law. These electronic sources started with CD
ROMS and now online or electronic libraries. The popular use of online/electronic
libraries was due to the advent of the iPads, iPods, tablet and notebooks and internet with
Wi-Fi connection. Online access is either through Open access or subscription basis.
Open access for law is used for both the government and the private sector. The Chan
Robles Law Firm Library and Arellano Law Foundation Lawphil use open access in
their electronic libraries, which contains the full-text of all sources of Philippine legal
information, case law and statute law. Chanrobles.com has also in its database the full text
of United States decisions and materials on important legal events such as Impeachment
proceedings, bar examinations. Chan Robles conducts online bar review program.
Official or government online source for full-text for all legal sources and related materials
in the Official Gazette online , launched in July 2010. It contains the issuances of all the
executive departments, which are found also in the websites of the different executive
departments. They aim (as reflected in their website) to include the issuances of the
legislative and the judiciary. The Supreme Court E-Library is an electronic library
(online and CD Rom for decisions updated quarterly) for all Philippine legal information,
case law and statute law. Access however is limited to the Justices, judges and court
attorneys of the Supreme Court and law schools (by request) through their law librarians.
Decisions and issuances of the Supreme Court and its Offices and the Appellate Courts are
found in the Judiciary portal .
CD Asia online contains full-text of Supreme Court decisions and statutes, available on a
subscription basis. Subscription may be made solely for court decisions or statutes or for
both. Central Books’ eSCRA is another database which can be accessed online with the
use of desktops, laptops, notebooks, and iPads. Law Juan , iPad app is a new source for
full-text statutes and Supreme Court decisions available by subscription.
By using Google search, some of this legal information may be retrieved.
The established policy is that in case of conflict between the printed and electronic sources,
the printed version coming from the issuing government agency prevails.
Legal research for statute law in the Philippines benefited remarkably from the use of the
latest technology due to two major problems: a) no complete and updated published or
printed search tools or law finders for statute law and b) no complete compilation of
statute law from 1901-present were available. Problems of the publication of compilations
of statute law or the existence of the full-text of Presidential Decrees was that brought
about to the Supreme Court in the Tanada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. 63915, April 24, 1985 (220
Phil 422), December 29, 1986 (146 SCRA 446) case was resolved by the use of the latest
technology. TheTanada v. Tuvera, case that was first decided before the bloodless
revolution popularly known as People Power or the EDSA Revolution and modified in the
December 29, 1986 or after the People Power or the EDSA Revolution resolved the
publication requirement for the effectivity of laws as provided for in Section 2 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines. This was resolved by Executive Order No. 200, s. 1987 that
provides that laws become effective fifteen (15) days after publication in the Official
Gazette or in two newspapers of general circulation.
Still, to be resolved i s how to classify sources published in the newspapers. Will
Executive Order No. 200, s. 1987, these resources as primary and secondary source.
However, in case of conflict between those published in the newspapers and the Official
Gazette , the rule is following the Official Gazette.
The existence, availability and access to local ordinances issued by the local governments
in the Philippines remains a problem for the City of Manila is the one with a compilation.
However all government agencies have started to use the latest technology in their
operations and some of them are available online.
In finding the law, our ultimate goal is to locate mandatory primary authorities, which have
bearing on the legal problem at hand. If these authorities are scarce or nonexistent, our
next alternative is to find any relevant persuasive mandatory authority. If our search is still
negative, the next alternative might be secondary authorities. There are however instances
where the secondary authorities, more particularly the commentaries made by experts of
the field, take precedence over the persuasive mandatory authorities. With the availability
of both, using both sources is highly recommended.
Classification by Character:
This refers to the nature of the subject treated in books. This classification categorizes
books as: a) Statute Law Books, b) Case Law Books or Law Reports, c) a combination of
both and d) “Law Finders.”
Law Finders refer to indexes, citators, encyclopedias, legal dictionaries, thesauri or digests.
A major problem in the Philippines is that there are no up-to-date Law Finders. Federico
Moreno’s Philippine Law Dictionary , the only available Philippine law dictionary was last
published in 1988, and, Jose Agaton Sibal’s Philippine Legal Thesaurus , which is likewise
considered a dictionary, was published in 1986. Foreign law dictionaries like Blacks’ Law
Dictionary, Words and Phrases are used as alternate. To search for legal information, legal
researchers go online virtual libraries such as the Supreme Court E-Library , Chan Robles
Virtual Library , Arellano’s lawphil , CD Asia online and the different databases in CD-
ROM format from CD Asia Technologies Asia Inc. The databases developed by CD Asia
include not only the compilation of Laws (statutes) and Jurisprudence, but also include a
compilation of legal information that are not available in printed form such as Opinions of
the Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission and Bangko
Sentral (Central Bank) rules and regulations. Search engines used in these databases
answer for the lack of complete and updated indexes of legal information. In this regard,
effective legal research can be conducted with one cardinal rule in mind: "ALWAYS
START FROM THE LATEST." The exception to this is when the research has defined or
has provided a SPECIFIC period.
5. Philippine Legal Research
5.1. Research of Statute law
Statute laws are the rules and regulations promulgated by competent authorities;
enactments of legislative bodies (national or local) or they may be rules and regulations of
administrative (departments or bureau) or judicial agencies. Research of statutory law does
not end with consulting the law itself. At times, it extends to the intent of each provision or
even the words used in the law. In this regard, the deliberations of these laws must be
consulted. The deliberation of laws, except Presidential Decrees and other Martial law
issuances are available.
Constitution:
The different Constitutions of the Philippines are provided in some history books such as
Gregorio F. Zaide’s Philippine Constitutional History and Constitutions of Modern
Nations (1970) and Founders of Freedom; The History of Three Constitution by a seven-
man Board. The Philippine legal system recognizes the following Constitutions: Malolos,
1935, 1943, 1973, Provisional or Freedom and 1987 Constitutions. The 1943 Constitution
was effective only during the Second World War while the Provisional Constitution was
effective only from the time President Corazon became President until the 1987
Constitution was ratified and proclaimed by President Aquino by virtue of Proclamation
No. 58, February 11, 1987.

Majority of printed publications provide the 1935, 1973 and the 1987 Constitutions only.
The online sources ( E-library , Chan Robles , LawPhil , CD Asia , Law Juan ) however
have the full-text of all Constitutions of the Philippines: Malolos, 1935, 1943 of
Japanese, 1973, Provisional or Freedom Constitution and 1987. The books of Senator
Ambrosio Padilla ( The 1987 Constitutions of the Republic of the Philippines . vol. 3,
pp779-863) and Carmelo Sison provide a comparative presentation of the provisions of
the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions.
Text of the Malolos Constitution is available in some history books such as Gregorio F.
Zaide’s Philippine Constitutional History and Constitutions of Modern Nations , p. 176
(1970) and online. ( E-library , Chan Robles , CD Asia , Law Juan ).
The Constitutional Convention proceedings provide for the intent and background of each
provision of the Constitution. Sources for the 1934-1935 Constitutional Convention are:
10 volumes of the Constitutional Convention Record by the House of Representatives
(1966), Salvador Laurel's seven volumes book entitled Proceedings of the Constitutional
Convention (1966); 6 volumes of the Philippine Constitution, Origins, Making, Meaning
and Application by the Philippine Lawyers Association with Jose Aruego as one of its
editors (1970) and Journal of the Constitutional convention of the Philippines by Vicente
Francisco.
Proceedings of the 1973 Constitutional Convention were never published. A photocopy
and softcopy of the complete compilation is available at the Filipiniana Reading Room of
the National Library of the Philippines.
Journals (3 volumes) and Records (5 volumes) of the Constitutional Convention of 1986
were published by the Constitutional Commission. This publication does not have an
index. This problem was remedied when CD Technologies Asia Inc. came out with a CD-
ROM version, which facilitated research for it has a search engine.
The proceedings and text of the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions are electronically
available at the Supreme Court E-Library.
Commentaries or interpretations on the constitution, decisions of the Supreme Court and
other courts, textbooks or treaties, periodical articles of the different Constitution are
available. (Part 2: Philippine Legal Information Resources and Citations -
A.v Treatise/Annotations/Commentaries, etc. A.v.10 Political Law
Treaties and other International Agreements:
A treaty is an agreement or a contract between two (bilateral) or more (multilateral) nations
or sovereigns, entered into by agents appointed (generally the Secretary of Foreign Affairs
or ambassadors) for the purpose and duly sanctioned by supreme powers of the respective
countries. Treaties that do not have legislative sanctions are executive agreements which
may or may not have legislative authorization, and which have limited execution by
constitutional restrictions.
In the Philippines, a treaty or international agreement shall not be valid and effective unless
concurred in by at least two-thirds of all members of the Senate (Constitution, Article VII,
section 21). Those without the concurrence of the Senate are considered as Executive
Agreements.
The President of the Philippines may enter into international treaties or agreements as the
national welfare and interest may require, and may contract and guarantee foreign loans on
behalf of the Republic, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. During the
time of Pres. Marcos, there was the so-called Tripoli Agreement.
The official text of treaties is published in the Official Gazette, Department of Foreign
Affairs Treaty Series (DFATS), United Nations Treaty Series (UNTS ) or the University of
the Philippines Law Center'sPhilippine Treaty Series ( PTS). To locate the latest treaties,
there are two possible sources: Department of Foreign Affairs and the Senate of the
Philippines. There is no complete repository of all treaties entered into by the Philippines.
There is a selective publication of treaties in the Official Gazette . The DFATS was last
published in the 1970s while the PTS's last volume, vol. 8 contains treaties entered into
until 1981.With the UN Treaty Series, which used to be available only in UN depository
libraries in the country and its United Nation Information Center in Makati in now
available online through the United Nations website . Electronically, major law libraries
use the Treaties and International Agreements Researchers Archives
(TIARA), WESTLAW , LEXIS , other online sources via the Internet.
A formal Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Supreme Court and the
Department of Foreign Affairs was signed at the Supreme Court for the digitization of
full-text of all the treaties entered into by the Philippines from 1946-2010. The MOA
provided that the Department of Foreign Affairs will supply the official treaties and the
Supreme Court Library Services will produce the CD Rom version with search engine of
the treaties. CD-ROM containing all these treaties was launched last June 2010 at the
Department of Foreign Affairs. Online version is found in the Supreme Court E-Library .
Also launched last June 2010 was the Philippine Treaties Index 1946-2010 by the Foreign
Service Institute.
For tax treaties, Eustaquio Ordoño has published a series on the Philippine tax treaties.
Other sources of important treaties are appended in books on the subject or law journals
such as the American Journal of International Law or the Philippine Yearbook of
International Law.
Statutes Proper:
Legislative Enactments:
Statutes are enactments of the different legislative bodies since 1900 broken down
as follows:
  4,275 ACTS - Enactments from 1900-1935
 733 Commonwealth Acts - Enactments from 1935-1945
 2034 Presidential Decrees - Enactments from 1972-1985
 884 Batas Pambansa. – Enactments from 1979-1985
 10650 Republic Acts - Enactments from 1946-1972, 1987-December 2014
Republic Act No. 10650 is the “Act Expanding Access to Educational Services by the
Institutionalizing Open Distance Learning in Levels of the Tertiary Education.
The above figures clearly show that during Martial Law, both President Marcos and
the Batasang Pambansa (Parliament) were issuing laws at the same time - Presidential
Decrees by President Marcos and Batas Pambansa by the Philippine Parliament.
During Martial Law, aside from Presidential Decrees, the President promulgated other
issuances namely: 57 General Orders, 1,525 Letters of Instruction, 2,489 Proclamations,
832 Memorandum Order, 1,297 Memorandum Circular, 157 Letter of Implementation,
Letter of Authority, Letters of Instruction, 504 Administrative Order and 1,093 Executive
Orders. Complete compilation of Presidential Decrees and all Martial Issuances are
available at present in the Malacanang Records and Archives. Efforts are being made by
Malacanang to make them available through the Official Gazette online.
As previously stated, the Presidential Decrees issued by Pres. Marcos during Martial Law
and the Executive Orders issued by Pres. Aquino before the opening of Congress may be
classified as both executive and legislative acts for there was no legislature during those
two periods.
Laws passed by the new 1987 Congress started from Rep. Act No. 6636, as the last
Republic Act promulgated by Congress before Martial Law was Rep. Act No. 6635.
The following are the Philippine codes adopted from 1901 to present:
 Administrative Code of 1987 ( Executive Order No. 292)
 Child and Youth Welfare Code (Pres. Decree No. 603)
 Civil Code (Rep. Act No. 386)
 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Code
 Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Rep. Act o. 6713)
 Cooperative Code (Rep. Act No. 9520)
 Corporation Code (Batas Blg. 68)
 Family Code (Executive Order No. 209)
 Fire Code (Rep. Act No. 9514)
 Fisheries Code (Rep. Act No. 8550)
 Forest Reform Code (Pres. Decree No. 705)
 Insurance Code (Pres/ Decree No. 1460)
 Intellectual Property Code (Rep. Act No. 8293)
 Labor Code (Pres. Decree No. 442)
 Land Transportation and Traffic Code (Rep. Act No. 4136)
 Local Government Code (Rep. Act No. 7160)
 Muslim Code of Personal Laws ( Pres. Decree No. 1083)
 National Building Code (Pres. Decree No. 1096)
 National Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and Supplements
(Executive Order No. 51 s. 1986)
 National Internal Revenue Code (Pres. Decree No. 1158)
 Omnibus Election Code (Batas Blg 881)
 Philippine Environment Code (Pres. Decree No. 1152)
 Revised Penal Code (Act no. 3815)
 Sanitation Code (Pres. Decree No. 856)
 State Auditing Code
 Tariff and Customs Code (Pres. Decree No. 1464)
 Water Code (Pres. Decree No. 1067)
The Senate has prepared the entire legislature process and has enumerated the types of
legislation. This procedure is pursuant to the Constitution and recognized by both Houses
of Congress. The House of Representatives has provided a diagram of the procedure on
how a bill becomes a law.
Administrative acts, orders and regulations of the President touching on the
organization or mode of operation of the government, re-arranging or adjusting districts,
divisions or parts of the Philippines, and acts and commands governing the general
performance of duties of public officials and employees or disposing of issues of general
concern are made effective by Executive Orders. Those orders fixing the dates when
specific laws, resolutions or orders cease to take effect and any information concerning
matters of public moment determined by law, resolution or executive orders, take the form
of executive Proclamation.
Executive Orders and Proclamations of the Governor-General were published
annually in a set Executive Orders and Proclamations. Thirty three (33) volumes were
published until 1935 by the Bureau of Printing. Administrative Acts and Orders of the
President and Proclamations were published. Only a few libraries in the Philippines have
these publications for a majority of them was destroyed during World War II. There are
copies available at the Law Library of Congress, Cincinnati Law Library Association (who
offered to donate them to the Supreme Court of the Philippines) and some at the Library of
the Institute of South East Asian Studies in Singapore.
In researching for Proclamations, Administrative Orders, Executive Orders and
Memorandum Orders & Circulars of the President, the year it was promulgated is a must or
needed. If no year is available, the President and/or the Executive Secretary issuing it
must be stated. As a new President is sworn in, all the Presidential issuances start with No.
1. The only exception was Executive Orders issued by President Carlos Garcia after he
assumed the Presidency because President Magsaysay died in a plane crash. He continued
the number started by President Magsaysay. When President Garcia was elected President,
he started his Executive Order No. 1.
 To look for the intent of Republic Acts, we have to go through the
printed Journals and Records of both houses of Congress, which contain their deliberation.
To facilitate the search, the House Bill No. or Senate Bill No. or both found on the upper
left portion of the first page of the law is important. The problem for this research is the
availability of the complete printed Journals and Records of both houses of Congress. The
solution to this problem is the Archives of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
For the recent laws, the deliberations are available online from the websites of the the
House of Representatives and thePhilippine Senate . The Batasang Pambansa has likewise
published it proceedings. There are no available proceedings for the other laws Acts,
Commonwealth Act and Presidential Decrees.
Administrative Rules and Regulations:
Administrative Rules and regulations are orders, rules and regulations issued by
the heads of Departments, Bureau and other agencies of the government for the effective
enforcement of laws within their jurisdiction. However, in order that such rules and
regulations may be valid, they must be within the authorized limits and jurisdiction of the
office issuing them and in accordance with the provisions of the law authorizing their
issuance. Access to administrative rules and regulations have been facilitated due to the
two developments: a) government agencies, including government owned and controlled
corporations, have their own websites and at the Official Gazette and Official Gazette
online where they include the full-text of their issuances, and b) the National
Administrative Register, which is available in print, CD-Rom and in the Supreme Court
website.
In handling these types of materials, there are two important items needed: a.)
Issuing Agency and b.) Year it was promulgated. This is due to the fact that all
Departments, Bureaus, and other government agencies use the administrative orders,
memorandum orders and memorandum circulars for their administrative rules and
regulations and they start always with number 1 every year. Even the Supreme Court issues
Administrative Orders, Circulars, Memorandum Orders, and Administrative Matters.
Before the Administrative Code of 1987, these orders, rules and regulations were
selectively published in the Official Gazette . Thus, the only source to be able to get a copy
of the text of these rules and regulations is the issuing government agency itself.
When the 1987 Administrative Code (Executive Order No. 292) was promulgated, all
government agencies including government owned and controlled corporations are
mandated to file three (3) certified copies of their orders, rules and regulations with the
University of the Philippines Law Center's Office of National Administrative Register
which in turn is required to publish quarterly the publication called National Administrative
Register . Aside from the printed copies, the National Administrative Register is available
electronically on CD-ROM (CD Asia Technologies Inc.) and online at the Supreme Court
E-Library . Rules in force on the date on which the Code took effect, which are not filed
within three months from the date not thereafter, shall be the basis of any sanction against
any person or party. Each rule becomes effective 15 days after the filing, unless a different
date is fixed by law or specified in the rule, such as in cases of imminent danger to public
health, safety and welfare, the existence of which must be expressed in a statement
accompanying the rule. The court shall take judicial notice of the certified copy of each
rule duly filed or as published in the bulletin or codified rules.
University of the Philippines Law Center’s Office of National Administrative Register is
not only tasked to publish this quarterly register but must keep an up-to-date codification of
all rules thus published and remaining in effect together with a complete index and
appropriate tables. Every rule establishing an offense or defining an act, which pursuant to
law is punishable as a crime or subject to a penalty, shall in all cases be published in full
text. Exceptions to the “filing requirement" are Congress, Judiciary, Constitutional
Commission, military establishments in all matters relative to Armed Forces personnel, the
Board of Pardons and Parole and state universities and colleges. With the use of the latest
technology, majority of government agencies including government owned and controlled
corporations maintain their own websites and have incorporation laws and legislations
relevant to their agencies. These developments have facilitated research for administrative
rules and regulations.
As previously stated, there are no up-to-date or complete Statutes finders. As previously
stated, to facilitate legal research, one has to go online to virtual libraries. The primary
source for statutes is: Supreme Court E-Library and the Official Gazette and Official
Gazette online . The secondary sources area: Chan Robles Virtual Law Library , Arellano
Law Foundation’s The Lawphil Project , and CD Asia Technologiesonline and or
CD ROM. Law Juan iPad app (Law) contains only full-text legislative enactments from
1901, Rules of Court and all the Philippine Constitutions.
5.2. Research of Case Law
Case Law or Judicial decisions are official interpretations or manifestation of law made by
persons and agencies of the government performing judicial and quasi-judicial functions.
At the apex of the Philippine Judicial System is the Supreme Court, or what is referred
to as court of last resort. The reorganization of the Judiciary of 1980 (Batas Pambansa
Bldg. 129) established the following courts:
 Court of Appeals;
 Regional Trial Courts divided into different judicial regions,
 Metropolitan Trial Court;
 Municipal Trial Court in Cities;
 Municipal Trial Courts;
 Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
The Shariah (Sharia’a ) Circuit and District Courts (Presidential Decree No. 1083), Court
of Tax Appeals (Republic Act No. 1125) and the Sandiganbayan
Conventional decisions are decisions or rulings made by regularly constituted court of
justice. Subordinate decisions are those made by administrative agencies performing
quasi-judicial functions.
One major problem in conducting research on case law is the availability of published or
printed decisions from the Court of Appeals to the rest of the judicial and quasi-judicial
agencies. The Judicial Reform Program of the Supreme Court funded by the World Bank
started to address this problem with the establishment of the Supreme Court E-Library
aims to address this problem and also those from statute law and the digitization of the
decisions of the Supreme Court, and the appellate: Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and
the Court of Tax Appeals. Digitization of the Appellate Courts have started and are
available online from the most recent and will continue until all their first decision from
their creation will be completed. The Reporters Office of the Supreme Court and the Court
of Appeals keep all the original and complete copies of the court decisions. By original,
this means that the keep the decisions with the “original” signatures of the justices of the
Supreme court and Court of Appeals. For the rest of the Judiciary or the quasi-judicial
agencies, copies of their decisions may be taken from the Legal Office, Office of the Clerks
of Court, Records Office or their libraries. There are no available printed compilations of
lower courts decisions. For those of the Appellate Court, the Court of Appeals has until
1980s only and while the Sandiganbayan has only one volume. For the Court of Tax
Appeals, the compilation is only from 1980 to present in the CD Asia CD for taxation. The
details are in Part 2: Philippine Legal Information Resources and Citations . A.iv Case
Law/ Jurisprudence
Supreme Court Decisions:
Decisions of the Supreme Court are highest source of jurisprudence, source of law. It is
the judgment of this court interprets the law and/or determines whether a law is
constitutional or not. Unconstitutional laws even though it is signed by the President and
passed by both house of congress cannot take effect in the Philippines.
Decisions of the Supreme Court are classified as follows:
"Regular decisions" and extended Resolutions are published in court reports either in
primary or secondary sources. These decisions provide the justice who penned the
decision or ponente and the other justices responsible for promulgating the decision,
whether En Banc or by Division. Separate dissenting and/or concurring opinions are
likewise published with the main decision. These regular and extended resolutions are
available electronically in the Supreme Court website under Decisions and the Supreme
Court E-Library under Decisions.
Unsigned Minute Resolutions are not published. Although they bear the same force and
effect as the regular decisions or extended resolutions, they are issued and signed by the
respective Clerks of Court En Banc or by any of the three (3) Division s and signed by their
respective Clerks of Court. Since these Minutes Resolutions are not published, the
Supreme Court has now incorporated these Minute Resolutions, more particularly those
that resolve a motion for reconsideration or those that explain or affirm a decision; and (2)
Administrative Matters in the Supreme Court E-Library , under RESOLUTIONS.
Recently, the Supreme Court website has included these decisions. The Chanrobles has
included Minutes Resolution in its website.
Case Reports in the Philippines such as the Philippine Reports, Supreme Court Reports
Annotated (SCRA) , and the Supreme Court Advance Decisions (SCAD) come in bound
volumes which generally cover a month per volume. The Supreme Court Advance
Decisions (SCAD) has been discontinued. The Official Gazette, Philippine Reports and
the Advance Sheets are the primary source or official repositories of decisions and
extended resolutions of the Supreme Court. The Advance Sheets are decisions in
“reproduced form” or “photocopied “ copy of the actual original decision which contains
the full text, the signatures of the justices and the certification of the Chief Justice. The
original decisions are those which the actual signatures is deposited in the Reporters
Office of the Supreme Court. The Advance Sheets was made available as soon as a
decision is issuance. This was however discontinued because decisions of the Supreme
Court are now available almost immediately upon issuance at the Supreme Court
website . The Official Gazette, Philippine Reports are the other primary source for
Supreme Court decisions. The difference between the two lies in the fact that the Official
Gazette selective compilation while Philippine Reports contains the complete compilation
decisions of the Supreme Court. Original decisions with original signature of the Justices
of the Supreme Court are found in the Office of the Reporter of the Supreme Court.
There were unpublished decisions of the Supreme Court from 1901 until 1960. The list
and subject field are found at the back of some volumes of the Philippine Reports . Some
of these decisions are cited in treatises or annotations. In view of the importance of these
decisions, the Supreme Court E-Library started to collect these unpublished decisions and
include them in its database.
The availability of some of the unpublished decisions before World War II is a problem for
a number of the original decisions have been burned. So, there is no complete compilation
of the original decisions of the Supreme Court. This problem is being addressed by the
Supreme Court E-Library where are great number of these unpublished decisions of the
Supreme Court before the war were retrieved from different sources such as the United
States National Archives in Maryland, private collection of former Supreme Court Justices
such as Chief Justice Ramon Avancena and Justice George Malcolm (collection is found in
the University of Michigan) and private law libraries who were able to save some of their
collection such as the University of Santo Tomas, the oldest university in the Philippines.
Search for the unpublished decisions still continues.
The unpublished decisions after the War, the late Judge Nitafan of the Regional Trial Court
of Manila started publishing Supreme Court Unpublished Decision s ; vol. 1 covers
decisions from March 1946 to February 1952. However only two volumes were published
due to Judge Nitafan’s untimely death. The Office of the Reporter of the Supreme Court availability of updated indexes. Only the SCRA Quick Index Digest is updated. It is
has these unpublished decisions. however delayed by about one year for they have to wait for the last volume of the SCRA
for the year before they could come up with the SCRA Quick Index Digest. In the Title
The early volumes, particularly those before the war were originally published in Spanish Approach, the latest is M. Ong Title Index to SC decisions, 2 nd supplement 1981-1985. The
in the Jurisprudencia Filipina . They were translated in English to become the Philippine updated Title Index is available at the Supreme Court Library portal but is not yet available
Reports . Some decisions after the second Philippine independence were still in the online. Title search made be made through the Lex Libris: Jurisprudence online.
Spanish language. There are a number of decisions now in the Filipino language.
The Philippine Reports until volume 126 (1960's) was published by the Bureau of Printing, Electronic application is the source for effective legal research. These sources are as
now called the National Printing Office. Printing was transferred to the Supreme Court in follows:
the 1980s due to the need for a complete official publication of the Court’s decision. The  !e-library! A Century & 4 Years of Philippine Supreme Court Decisions 1901-
Supreme Court’sPhilippine Reports started with volume 127. April 2004 . Research & Development Department, Agoo Computer College,
Agoo, Lau Union, Philippines (CD ROM)
The most popular secondary source is the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA )  eSCRA . Q.C.: Central Book Supply
and eSCRA and the Lex Libris Jurisprudence CD ROM and CD Asia Online . The online  Law Juan . IPad App (Jurisprudence)
and CD versions are on subscription basis while the printed SCRA may be purchased per  Lex Libris: Jurisprudence. Pasig City: CD Asia Technologies Inc. (CD ROM)
volume. Two new sources on subscription basis are: a) My Legal Whiz ; Easy and CD Asia online
Contextual Legal Research and Law Juan decisions, iPad app.  My Legal Whiz ; Easy Contextual Legal Research
( https://www.mylegalwhiz.com/)
How can we search for Supreme Court decisions manually?  Supreme Court E-Library online
 Supreme Court website
Topic or Subject Approach: (Please See Complete title of the publication from the
Philippine Legal Bibliography chapter) Court of Appeals decisions:
Decisions of the Court of Appeals are merely persuasive on lower courts. They are cited in
 Philippine Digest cases where there are no Supreme Court decisions in point. In this regard, they are
 Republic of the Philippine Digest considered as judicial guides to lower courts and that conclusion or pronouncement they
 Velayo's digest make can be raised as a doctrine. The Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals is the
 Magsino's Compendium repository of all of the Court of Appeals decisions.
 Supreme Court's unpublished Subject Index
 Martinez's Summary of Supreme Court rulings 1984 to 1997 Sources of Court of Appeals decisions are:
 UP Law Center's Supreme Court decisions: subject index and digest's
 SC's Case Digest's Text:
 Philippine Law and Jurisprudence  Court of Appeals decisions are now being complete online starting from the latest
 Castigador’s Citations to 1936.
 SCRA Quick Index Digest  Official Gazette (selective publication)
 Title Approach or Title of the Approach: (Please See Complete title of the  Court of Appeals Reports which was published by the Court of Appeals until
publication from the Philippine Legal Bibliography chapter) 1980. Even this publication is not a complete compilation. It is still considered
 Philippine Digest - Case Index selective for not all CA decisions are included.
 Republic of the Philippines Digest  Court of Appeals Reports (CAR) by Central Book Supply. One volume was
 Ong, M. Title Index to SC decisions 1946-1978 2v.; 1978-1981 1st Suppl; 1981- published
1985, 2nd Suppl; 1986 to present is unpublished but available at the Supreme  Philippine Law and Jurisprudence
Court Library portal  Reports Office of the Court of Appeals
 Ateneo's Index
Manual approach is not possible in majority of law libraries for the above sources Subject or Topic Approach:
enumerated are no longer available. For those who have these sources, the problem is the  Velayo's Digest;
  Moreno's Philippine Law dictionary

Decisions of Special Courts:

Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals do not have published decisions. The
Sandiganbayan has only one volume published; Sandiganbayan Reports vol. 1 covers
decisions promulgated from December 1979 to 1980. Sandiganbayan decisions are now
being made available online starting from the latest to its first decision. The Legal Office of
the Sandiganbayan is the repository of all of its decisions.

Court of Tax Appeals decisions from 1980 to 2004 are found in the Lex Libris particularly
in Taxation CD ROM. Court of Tax decisions are now being complete online starting from
the latest to its first decision.

Decisions of Administrative Agencies, Commissions and Boards:

Laws have been promulgated which grants some administrative agencies to perform quasi-
judicial functions. These functions are distinct from their regular administrative or
regulatory functions where rules and regulations are promulgated. The Securities
Regulations Code (Republic Act No. 8799) signed by President Joseph E. Estrada on July
19, 2000 affects Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) quasi-judicial functions.
The other agencies performing said functions are National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC), Insurance Commission, Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB),
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), Social Security System (SSS) and even the
Civil Service Commission (CSC). Some of their decisions are published in the Official
Gazette. Some have their own publication such as the SEC and the CSC or some include
them in their own websites. An important source is the National Administrative
Register which is available in printed and CR ROM (CD Asia) and the Supreme Court E-
Library. The 1987 Administrative Code required that all government including all
government owned and controlled corporations must provide the UP. Law Center with
three certified copies (3) of their rules and regulations. In turn the UP. Law Center is
required to publish them. This is done in the National Administrative Register .

CD Asia Technologies’ Lex Libris series has individual CD ROMs for the Department of
Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (Central Bank
of the Philippines), and the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Included in these individual CD
ROMs are the pertinent laws, their respective issuances as well as Supreme Court
decisions. It CD ROM on Labor (vol. VII) incorporated issuances from the Department of
Labor and Employment and its affiliated agencies and offices. The Trade, Commerce and
Industry CD ROM includes Supreme Court decisions, laws and issuances of its various
agencies such as the Department of Trade and Industry, Board of Investments, Bureau of
Customs, B angko Sentral and the Philippine Stock Exchange.