CHAPTER 12- THE JUDICIAL JUDICIAL POWER
DEPARTMENT
INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY
To maintain the independence of the judiciary, the
following safeguards have been embodied in the
Constitution:
1. The SC is a constitutional body. It cannot be
abolished nor may its membership or the
manner of its meetings be changed by mere
legislation.
2. The members of the SC may not be removed
except by impeachment.
3. The SC may not be deprived of its minimum
original and appellate jurisdiction as
prescribed in Art. VIII, Section 5, of the
Const.
4. The appellate jurisdiction of the SC may not
be increased by law without its device and
concurrence.
5. Appointees to the judiciary are now
nominated by the Judicial and Bar Council
and no longer subject to confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments.
6. The SC now has administrative supervision
over all lower courts and their personnel.
7. The SC has exclusive power to discipline
judges of lower courts.
8. The members of the SC and all lower courts
have security of tenure, which cannot be
undermined by a law reorganizing the
judiciary.
9. They shall not be designated to any agency
performing quasi-judicial or administrative
functions.
10. The salaries of judges may not be reduced
during their continuance in office.
11. The judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy.
12. The SC alone may initiate rules of court.
13. Only the SC may order the temporary detail
of judges.
14. The SC can appoint all officials and
employees of the judiciary.
SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in
one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may
be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
justice to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable, and
to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.
- Lower courts- as here used is to be
understood as referring to all other courts
below the SC.
o Courts created through statutes.
- Supreme Court- the only constitutional
court.
“The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme
Court and in such lower courts as may be established
by law.”
- Traditional concept of judicial power,
involving the settlement of conflicting rights
as conferred by law.
“Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
justice to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable, and
to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.”
- Expanded power of Judicial Review or
Extraordinary power of the court
- The broadening of judicial power to enable
the courts of justice to review what was
before forbidden territory, to wit, the
discretion of the political departments of the
government.
- IBP CASE: (interpret the expanded def. of
judicial power)
o When political questions are
involved, the Constitution limits the
determination as to whether or not
1
 there has been a grave abuse of justices, ensure the choice of competent
discretion amounting to lack or judges, and fill existing vacancies as soon as
excess of jurisdiction on the part of possible.
the official whose action is being
SECTION 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and
questioned.
judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the
The 1987 Constitution has narrowed the reach of the President from a list of at least three nominees
political doctrine when it expanded the power of prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every
judicial review of the court not only to settle actual vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.
controversies involving rights which are legally
For the lower courts, the President shall issue the
demandable and enforceable but also to determine
appointments within ninety days from the submission
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
of the list.
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the - The reason for requiring at least 3 nominees
government. is to give the President enough leeway in the
exercise of his discretion when he makes his
- Judicial power includes the power of the
appointment.
courts “to alter, modify, or set aside their
decisions before they become final and
(1) Qualifications
unalterable.
- Every member of the judiciary “be a person
of proven competence, integrity, probity, and
JURISDICTION independence.”
- This general qualification is intended to
SECTION 2. The Congress shall have the power to
improve the quality of the judiciary by
define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of
admitting only deserving persons who can
various courts but may not deprive the Supreme
dispense justice wisely and impartially.
Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in
- Specific qualifications for the collegiate
Section 5 hereof.
courts:
- Jurisdiction- defined as the authority by
SECTION 7. (1) No person shall be appointed
which the court take cognizance of and
Member of the Supreme Court or any lower
decide cases, the legal right by which judges
collegiate court unless he is a natural-born citizen of
exercise their authority.
the Philippines. A Member of the Supreme Court
- The jurisdiction spoken of in this provision
must be at least forty years of age, and must have
jurisdiction over cases, to be prescribed by
been for fifteen years or more a judge of a lower
the Congress subject to the constitutional
court or engaged in the practice of law in the
limitations.
Philippines.
- Thus, although the appellate jurisdiction of
SC may be increased by law, this may not be (2) The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications
done now except upon advice and with the of judges of lower courts, but no person may be
concurrence of the SC itself. appointed judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the
Philippines and a member of the Philippine Bar.
APPOINTMENTS (3) A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of
proven competence, integrity, probity, and
- Under Article VIII, a new process of
independence.
appointment for judiciary is prescribed which
is intended to “de-politicize” the courts of

2
 - These qualifications may not be reduced or
increased by Congress through ordinary
legislation.
- Natural-Born citizenship is not required for
courts lower than collegiate courts.
(2) The Judicial and Bar Council
- This council will screen the appointments
and not the Commission on Appointments.
SECTION 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is
hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme
Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio
Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a
representative of the 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.
(2) The regular Members of the Council shall be
appointed by the President for a term of four years
with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments. Of the Members first appointed, the
representative of the Integrated Bar shall serve for
four years, the professor of law for three years, the
retired Justice for two years, and the representative
of the private sector for one year.
(3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the
Secretary ex officio of the Council and shall keep a
record of its proceedings.
(4) The regular Members of the Council shall receive
such emoluments as may be determined by the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall provide in
its annual budget the appropriations for the Council.
(5) The Council shall have the principal function of
recommending appointees to the Judiciary. It may
exercise such other functions and duties as the
Supreme Court may assign to it.
- Congress may only have one representative
in the JBC (not 2 from each House)
- A rotational scheme similar to that of the
Senate and the Constitutional Commissions
is provided for the Council, with the original
regular appointees being given staggered
terms of 4,3,2, and 1 year, to be followed with
new appointees who shall each serve for the
full term of 4 yrs.
- The supposed guaranties to the independence
of the JBC are not really effective. Reasons:
1. Of its regular members, the Sec. of Justice is
under the Pres. Constitutional power of
control
2. The representative from the Congress usually
belongs to the party in power, of which the
President is the actual or titular head.
3. For the appointive members, there is no limit
on the number of the terms they may serve.
4. Except for Chief Justice, the president can
simply order the rest of the body to nominate
whomever he wants to appoint, thus making
judicial appointments his unlimited
prerogative.
FISCAL AUTONOMY
SECTION 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal
autonomy. Appropriations for the Judiciary may not
be reduced by the legislature below the amount
appropriated for the previous year and, after
approval, shall be automatically and regularly
released.
- Fiscal autonomy- means freedom from
outside control.
- Ex. If the SC says it needs 100 typewriters
but DBM rules we only need 10 typewriters
and send its recommendations to Congress
without even informing us, the autonomy
given by the Constitution becomes empty and
illusory platitude.
- The judiciary’s fiscal autonomy entitles it to
levy, assess and collect fees.
COMPOSITION OF THE SUPREME COURT
SECTION 4. (1) The Supreme Court shall be
composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate
Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in
divisions of three, five, or seven Members. Any
vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the
occurrence thereof.
3
 - Suppose the 90-day requirement conflicts
with Section 15 of Art. VII of the
Constitution, which prohibits the President
from making appointments within 2 months
immediately preceding the next presidential
election up to the end of his term?
o The president may provide for
appointments in the judiciary even
within “2 months immediately before
the next presidential election and up
to the end of his term”
(1) En Banc Cases
Section 4 provides:
(2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a
treaty, international or executive agreement, or law,
which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc,
and all other cases which under the Rules of Court
are required to be heard en banc, including those
involving the constitutionality, application, or
operation of presidential decrees, proclamations,
orders, instructions, ordinances, and other
regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of
a majority of the Members who actually took part in
the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted
thereon.
- In Bayan Muna vs. Romulo:
o Treaty- an international agreement
concluded between states in written
form and governed by International
law, whether embodied in a single
instrument or in 2 or more related
instruments and whatever its
particular designation.
- As few as 5 members of the court can declare
any of the measures previously mentioned
unconstitutional, this number being a
majority of the quorum of 8 of the 15-
member Court.
- A decision garnering only 8 votes out of 15
members is still a decision of the SC en banc
and must be respected as such.
(2) Division Cases
Section 4 provides:
(3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be
decided or resolved with the concurrence of a
majority of the Members who actually took part in
the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted
thereon, and in no case, without the concurrence of
at least three of such Members. When the required
number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en
banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law
laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc
or in division may be modified or reversed except by
the court sitting en banc.
- Where the necessary vote cannot be had in
division, the case shall be referred to the
Court en banc and decided in accordance
with its own rules.
- The same action shall be taken where a
doctrine or principle of law laid down by the
court en banc or in division is sought to be
modified or reversed, as a contrary rule
would lead to confusion in our jurisprudence,
with the divisions contradicting each other or
even changing rulings laid down by the full
court.
- There are now 3 divisions of the SC with 5
members each.
REQUISITES OF A JUDICIAL INQUIRY
1. There must be an actual case or controversy.
2. The question of constitutionality must be
raised by the proper party.
3. The constitutional question must be raised at
the earliest possible opportunity.
4. The decision of the constitutional question
must be necessary to the determination.
(1) ACTUAL CASE
- Involves a conflict of legal rights, an
assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible
of judicial resolution.
4
 - The case must not be moot and academic or
based on extra-legal or other similar
considerations not cognizable by a court of
justice.
- The controversy must be definite and
concrete, touching the legal relations of
parties having adverse legal interests. It must
be real and substantial controversy admitting
of specific relief through a decree that is
conclusive in character, as distinguished
from an opinion advising what the law would
be upon a hypothetical state of facts.
- “Moot and Academic” principle is not a
magic formula that can automatically
dissuade the courts in resolving a case.
- Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and
academic, if:
1. There is a grave violation of the Constitution
2. The exceptional character of the situation and
the paramount public interest is involved
3. When the constitutional issue raised requires
formulation of controlling principles to guide
the bench, the bar, and the public
4. The case is capable of repetition yet evading
review.
(2) PROPER PARTY
- is one who has sustained or is in immediate danger
of sustaining an injury as a result of the act
complained of.
Locus Standi – mere procedural technicality, has
been defined as a personal and substantial interest in
a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain
direct injury as a result of the governmental act that
is being challenged.
Requisites for Taxpayer’s suit to prosper:
1) Public funds derived from taxation are disbursed
by a political subdivision or instrumentality and in
doing so, a law is violated or some irregularity
2) The petitioner is directly affected by the illegal act.
- A taxpayer is considered to have the proper
personality or standing o raise constitutional issue
when it is established that public funds from taxation
have been disbursed in alleged contravention of the
law or the constitution.
- Supreme Court retains discretion whether or not to
allow taxpayer’s suit. Being a mere procedural
technicality, the requirement of locus standi may be
waived by the court in the exercise of its discretion.
- Legislators have been acknowledged as proper
parties in suits involving claims that the official
action complained of infringes upon their
prerogatives.
- Local government units can seek relief in order to
protect or vindicate their own interests and of the
interests of other local government units.
Locus standing on the ground of Transcendental
Importance:
1) The character of the funds (that it is public) or
other assets involved in the case.
2) The presence of a clear case or disregard of a
constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public
respondent agency or instrumentality of the
government.
3) The lack of any party with a more direct and
specific interest in raising the questions being raised.
- Ordinary citizens may be considered as clothed
with locus standi and would satisfy the requirement
of personal interest when the proceeding involves
assertion of public right.
- Persons who only have “a generalized interest”
shared with the rest of the citizenry and where well-
meaning citizens with only second-hand knowledge
of events” are not sufficient to clothe with legal
standing.
A constitutional question only when:
(a) he can show that he has personally suffered some
actual or threatened injury because of the allegedly
illegal conduct of the government
(b) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged
action
5
(c) a favorable action will likely redress the injury.
- Voters may be considered as proper parties with
respect to the implementation of election laws
provided that “there must be a showing of obvious
interest in the validity of the election law in question”
(3) EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY
GR: Constitutional question must be raised at the
earliest opportunity. If it is not raised in the
pleadings, it cannot be considered at the trial. If not
considered at the trial, it cannot be considered on
appeal.
XPNs:
(1) In criminal cases, the constitutional question can
be raised at any time in the discretion of the court
(2) In civil cases, the constitutional question can be
raised at any stage if it is necessary to the
determination of the case itself.
(3) In every case, except where there is estoppel, the
constitutional question may be raised at any stage if
it involves the jurisdiction of the court.
(4) NECESSITY OF DECIDING
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
- As a rule, the courts will not resolve the
constitutionality of a law, if the controversy can be
settled on other grounds. It can be traced to the
doctrine of separation of powers which enjoins upon
each department a proper respect for the acts of the
other departments.
- The policy of the courts is to avoid ruling on
constitutional questions and to presume that the acts
of the political departments are valid, absent a clear
and unmistakable showing to the contrary. To doubt
is to sustain.
(In Demetria vs Alba, SC cited the “Seven Pillars” of
limitations of the power of Judicial Review, as
written by US SC Justice, SEE PAGE 525)
EFFECTS OF A DECLARATION OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY
- Two Views on the effects of declaration of the
unconstitutionality of a statute:
(1) ORTHODOX VIEW
- An unconstitutional act is not a law
- it confers no rights;
- it imposes no duties;
- it affords no protection;
- it creates no office;
- it is in legal contemplation, inoperative, as if it had
not been passed.
- it is therefore stricken from the statute books and
considered never to have existed at all.
- Not only the parties but all persons are bound by
the declaration of unconstitutionality, which means
that no one may thereafter invoke it nor may the
courts be permitted to apply it in subsequent cases
- it is a total nullity.
(2) MODERN VIEW
- less stringent
- Under this view, the court in passing upon the
question of constitutionality does not annul or repeal
the statute if it finds it in conflict with the
constitution.
- It simply refuses to recognize it and determines the
rights of the parties just as if such statute had no
existence.
- the court may give its reasons for ignoring or
disregarding the law, but the decision affects the
parties only and there is no judgment against the
statute.
- the opinion or reasons of the court may operate as a
precedent for the determination of other similar
cases, but it does not strike the statute from the
statute books
6
- it does not repeal, supersede, revoke or annul the
statute. The parties to the suit are concluded by the
judgment, but no one else is bound.
GR: An unconstitutional law is void. It produces no
rights, imposes no duties and affords no protection.
It has no legal effect. It is inoperative as if it has not
been passed.
XPN: The DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT, it
only applies as a matter of equity and fair play. It
nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by
recognizing that the existence of a statute prior to a
determination of unconstitutionality is an operative
fact and may have consequences which cannot be
always ignored. The past cannot be always be erased
by a new judicial declaration.
- the doctrine of operative fact is applicable when a
declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an
undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid
law.
- this doctrine does not only apply to laws
subsequently declared unconstitutional or unlawful,
as it also applies to executive acts subsequently
declared invalid.
(1) PARTIAL UNCONSTITUTIONALITY
- Also in deference to the Doctrine of Separation of
powers, courts hesitate to declare a law totally
unconstitutional and as long as it is possible, will
salvage the valid portions in order to give effect to
the legislation will.
A DECLARATION OF PARTIAL
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY WILL BE VALID
ONLY IF TWO CONDITIONS CONCUR:
(1) that the legislature is willing to retain the valid
portions even if the rest of the statute is declared
illegal.
(2) that the valid portions can stand independently
as a separate statute.
- the legislative willingness to retain the valid
portion may be expressed in “Separability Clause”
- But even without separability clause, it has been
held that if the valid portion is so far independent of
the invalid portion, it may be fair to presume that the
legislature would have enacted it by itself if it had
supposed that it could constitutionally do so.
POWERS OF SUPREME COURT
The SC has the following powers under Section 5:
(1) ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and
over petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas
corpus.
- Under International Law, diplomats and even
consuls to a lesser extent are not subject to
jurisdiction of the courts of the receiving state unless
waived. In such instances, SC can and probably
should take cognizance of the litigation in view of
possible international repercussions.
- The petitions for certiorari, mandamus, prohibition
and quo warranto are special civil actions. The
questions raised in the first 3 petitions are questions
of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion and in the
fourth, the title of the respondent.
- the petition for habeas corpus is a special
proceeding.
- Jurisdiction in these matters is also conferred on the
CA and RTC. The nature and importance of the
issues raised may warrant direct resort to the SC.
- When any tribunal, board, or officer exercising
judicial functions has acted without or in excess of
its or his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion and there is no appeal nor any plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI in the proper
court alleging the facts with certainty and praying
that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying
7
the proceedings, as the law requires, of such tribunal,
board or officer and granting such incidental reliefs
as law and justice may require
- When the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation,
board or person whether exercising functions judicial
or ministerial are without or in excess of its or his
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion and
there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a
person aggrieved may file a verified PETITION
FOR PROHIBITION in the proper court alleging
the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be
rendered commanding the defendant to desist from
further proceedings in the action or matter specified
therein or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs
as law and justice may require.
- When any tribunal, corporation, board or person
unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which
the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from
an office, trust, or station or unlawfully excludes
another from the use and enjoyment of a right or
office to which such other is entitled and there is no
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law, the person aggrieved may file a
verified PETITION FOR MANDAMUS in the
proper court alleging the facts with certainty and
praying that judgment be rendered commanding the
defendant, immediately or at some other specified
time, to do the act required to be done to protect the
rights of the petitioner and to pay for damages
sustained by the petitioner
- QUO WARRANTO – is an action for usurpation
of office or against a public officer who does or
suffers an act which, by the provision of law,
constitutes a ground for the forfeiture of his office or
against an association which acts as a corporation
within the Philippines without being legally
incorporated or without lawful authority to act
- WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS shall extend to all
cases of illegal confinement or detention by which
any person is deprived of his liberty or by which the
rightful custody of any person is withheld from the
person entitled thereto.
- Principle of Judicial Courtesy – applies only to
lower courts in instances where, even if there is no
writ of preliminary conjunction or temporary
restraining order issued by a higher court, it would
be proper for a lower court to suspend its proceedings
for practical and ethical considerations.
- this principle cannot be applied to the president who
represents a co—equal branch of government.
- Principle of Hierarchy of Courts requires that
recourse must first be made to the lower-ranked court
exercising concurrent jurisdiction with a higher
court.
(2) APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on
appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court
may provide, final judgments and orders of lower
courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity
of any treaty, international or executive agreement,
law, presidential decree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax,
impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed
in relation thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower
court is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed
is reclusion perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of
law is involved.
- Right to appeal is not embraced in due process of
law.
- Appeal is a general rule, statutory right entirely
dependent upon the discretion or policy of
lawmaking body.
- Appeals allowed in this section are from the final
judgments and decrees only of lower courts or
8
judicial tribunals. Administrative decisions are not
included.
- A court martial is an example of an administrative
body which is not covered by appellate jurisdiction
of the SC as provided by the constitution.
- Supreme Court is guaranteed appellate jurisdiction
where the case involves ONLY error or question of
law.
- RTC have the authority and jurisdiction to consider
the constitutionality of statutes, EO, PD and other
issuances. The constitution vests the power not only
to SC but in all RTC.
- Court of Tax Appeals cannot pass upon the
constitutionality of a law.
(3) TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES
(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to
other stations as public interest may require. Such
temporary assignment shall not exceed six months
without the consent of the judge concerned.
- This will minimize the practice of transfer of judges
at will to suit the motivations of the chief executive.
- Temporary assignments may be justified to arrange
for judges with clogged dockets to be assisted by
their less busy colleagues.
(4) CHANGE OF VENUE OR PLACE OF
TRIAL
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid
a miscarriage of justice.
- This power may be exercised to both civil and
criminal cases.
(5) RULE MAKING POWER
“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 of the same grade, and shall not diminish,
increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of
procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial
bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by
the Supreme Court.” (ARTICLE VIII, SEC.5,
paragraph 5)
 The limitations on the rule-making power of
the SC are the ff:
1. The rules must be uniform for all courts
of the same grade
2. The rules must not diminish, increase or
modify substantive rights.
 The rule-making power of this Court was
expanded. This Court for the first time was
given the power to promulgate rules
concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights. The Court was also
granted for the first time the power to
disapprove rules of procedure of special
courts and quasi-judicial bodies. But most
importantly, the 1987 Constitution took away
the power of Congress to repeal, alter, or
supplement rules concerning pleading,
practice and procedure. In fine, the power to
promulgate rules of pleading, practice, and
procedure is no longer shared by this Court
with Congress, more so with the Executive.
(6) APPOINTMENT OF COURT PERSONNEL
“Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary
in accordance with the Civil Service Law”
(ARTICLE VIII, SEC.5, PARAGRAPH 6)
 This provision is an improvement on the
original rule, which empowered the SC to
appoint only its own officials and employees.
9
  Now the power extends to all the officials and
employees of the judiciary itself, which is
thus further removed from the influence of
the political departments, especially the
President of the Phils
 Appointments made by the SC are, like all
similar appointments made by the other
departments, required to be in accordance
with the Civil Service Law
 thereon.
(7) ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF
COURTS
“The SC shall have administrative supervision over
all courts and the personnel thereof” (SEC. 6)
 This provision is one of the most significant
innovations in the 1973 Constitution.
o The previous set-up placed the power
of administrative supervision over
courts in the Dept of Justice, which
determined such matters as detail of
judges, payment of their salaries,
grant of their vacation and sick
leaves, appointment or transfer of
their personnel, purchase of
equipment and the like. This impaired
the independence of judges who
tended to defer to the pressures and
suggestions of the executive dept in
exchange for favorable action on their
requests and administrative problems.
Realizing this, and responding to
popular clamor for a change in this
arrangement, the Constitutional
Convention of 1971 then decided to
transfer the power of administrative
supervision over all courts and their
personnel to the SC.
 This power of the SC has been
characterized as exclusive.
TENURE OF JUDGES
SECTION 11. The Members of the Supreme Court
and judges of lower courts shall hold office during
good behavior until they reached the age of seventy
years or become incapacitated to discharge the
duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc
shall have the power to discipline judges of lower
courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a
majority of the Members who actually took part in
the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted
 Also intended to bolster the
independence of judges, this
provision guarantees them security of
tenure until they reach the retirement
age of seventy.
 The members of the judiciary may be
removed only after charges have been
filed and proved against them in a
proper administrative proceeding
conducted or ordered by the SC. The
power to remove judges has been
transferred from the Chief executive
to the SC which may now exercise it
with the concurrence of a majority of
the members who actually took part
in the deliberations and voted on the
issues in the case
 “Judges of lower courts” includes
justices of the Sandiganbayan
CONSULTATIONS OF THE COURT
SECTION 13. The conclusions of the Supreme Court
in any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in
division shall be reached in consultation before the
case is assigned to a Member for the writing of the
opinion of the Court. A certification to this effect
signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued and a copy
thereof attached to the record of the case and served
upon the parties. Any Member who took no part, or
dissented, or abstained from a decision or resolution
must state the reason therefor. The same
10
requirements shall be observed by all lower
collegiate courts.
 As a collegiate court, the SC is required to
reach its conclusions after an exchange of
ideas and full deliberation among its
members. Cases are not supposed to be
assigned for decision by individual members
whose findings are then adopted as the
judgment of the full Court or division. This
judgment will not have had the benefit of a
thorough discussion in which disparate views
or impression are carefully considered and
subjected to voting by the members of the
Court.
 The primary purpose of a collegiate court is
precisely to provide for the most exhaustive
deliberation before a conclsion is reached
 Once agreement is arrived at by the required
majority, a member is assigned as the
ponente of the Court. Other members may, if
they choose, write separate concurring
opinions, but a separate opinion is required
from any dissenting justice, who should state
the reasons for his dissent. Such dissents may
be useful in future considerations of the same
question and may even be the basis of a new
doctrine or ruling that will overturn the
existing precedent.
 A justice who takes no part or abstains must
now also explain his non-participation as it is
not permitted for a member to refuse to act
except for valid reasons.
 The requirement for previous consultation
was originally imposed only on the SC. It is
now applicable also to the CS and other lower
collegiate courts like the Sandiganbayan and
the Court of Tax Appeals.
 The certification is intended as an added
guaranty that the consultation requirement
will be complied with by the Court.
 An unpromulgated decision is no decision at
all. A decision becomes binding only after it
is validly promulgated.
DECISIONS OF THE COURT
SECTION 14. No decision shall be rendered by any
court without expressing therein clearly and
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration
of a decision of the court shall be refused due course
or denied without stating the legal basis therefor.
 It is a requirement of due process that the
parties to a litigation be informed of how it
was decided, with an explanation of the
factual and legal reasons that led to the
conclusions of the court
 This rule is applicable only to a decision,
which is described as a judgment rendered
after the presentation of proof or on the basis
of a stipulation of facts. Mere orders are not
covered since they dispose of only incidents
of the case, such as postponements of the
trial. The ONLY XPN is an order of
dismissal on the merits
 This is intended to inform the parties of the
factual and legal consideration employed to
support the decision of the court
 In appellate courts, the rule does not require
any comprehensive statement of facts or
mention of the applicable law, but merely a
statement of the ‘legal basis’ for denying due
course. There is no need to explain fully the
court’s denial, since the facts and the law
have already been laid out in the assailed
Decision.
 Sec.14 does not apply to decisions in
administrative proceedings, like those
rendered by the Office of the President, or the
determinations of the Secretary of Justice and
11
 prosecutors, who are not members of the
Judiciary and do not even exercise quasi-
judicial functions.
 Certain rules and principles have evolved in
connection with the deliberations leading to
and the eventual finality and application of
decisions of the SC and other lower courts.
These are:
1. SUB JUDICE RULE
– restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to
judicial proceedings to avoid prejudging the issue,
influencing the court, or obstructing the
administration of justice. A violation of the sub
judice rule may render one liable for indirect
contempt.
2. DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA –
provides that “a final judgment or decree on
the merits by a court of competent
jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the
parties or their parties privies in all later suits
on all points and matters determined in the
former suit.”
3. PRINCIPLE OF CONCLUSIVENESS
OF JUDGMENT
– when a right or fact has been judicially tried and
determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, or
when an opportunity for such trial has been given,
the judgment of the court, as long as it remains
unreversed, should be conclusive upon the parties
and those in privity with them. Stated differently,
conclusiveness of judgment bars the re-litigation in a
second case of a fact or question already settled in a
previous case.
4. LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE
– applies in a situation “where an appellate court has
made a ruling on a question on appeal and thereafter
remands the case to the lower court for further
proceedings; the question settled by the appellate
court becomes the law of the case at the lower court
and in any subsequent appeal.
5. DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS ET
NON QUIETA MOVERE
– means “to adhere to precedents, and not to unsettle
things which are established.”
Accdg to the SC, under the doctrine, when this Court
has once laid down a principle of law as applicable
to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that
principle, and apply it to all future cases, where facts
are substantially the same; regardless of whether the
parties and property are the same.
That decision becomes a judicial precedent to be
followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land.
The doctrine is based on the principle that once a
question of law has been examined and decided, it
should be deemed settled and closed to further
argument.
6. DOCTRINE OF FINALITY OF
JUDGMENT OR IMMUTABILITY OF
JUDGMENT
– provides that once a judgment has become final and
executor, it may no longer be modified in any
respect, even if the modification is meant to correct
an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and
regardless of whether the modification is attempted
to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest
court of the land, as what remains to be done is the
purely ministerial enforcement or execution of the
judgment. It has two-fold purpose:
a. to avoid delay in the administration of
justice and thus procedurally, to make
orderly the discharge of judicial
business
b. to put an end to judicial controversies, at
the risk of occasional errors, which is
precisely why courts exist.
The only XPNS to the rule on the immutability of
judgments are:
1. the correction of clerical erros
2. the so called nunc pro tunc entries which
cause no prejudice to any party
12
 3. void judgments
4. whenever circumstances transpire after
the finality of the decision that render its
execution unjust and inequitable.
SALARIES OF JUDGES
SECTION 10. The salary of the Chief Justice and of
the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and of
judges of lower courts shall be fixed by law. During
their continuance in office, their salary shall not be
decreased.
 The prohibition against diminution of the
salaries of judges during their continuance in
office is one of the guarantees to their
independence.
 Without this provision, it would be possible
for the Congress to exert pressure on the
members of the judiciary by threatening their
financial security through reduction of their
salaries.
 The prohibiton is against the decrease, not
increase, of the salaries of judges. If
circumstances warrant, even the
constitutional salaries of the Chief Jsutice
and the Assoc Justices of the SC, and more so
the compensation of judges of lower courts,
may be raised (as in fact they have been) by
the legislature.
PERIODS FOR DECISION
SECTION 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the
effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or
resolved within twenty-four months from date of
submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless
reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all
lower collegiate courts, and three months for all
other lower courts.
(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for
decision or resolution upon the filing of the last
pending, brief, or memorandum required by the
Rules of Court or by the court itself.
(3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding period,
a certification to this effect signed by the Chief
Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith be
issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of
the case or matter, and served upon the parties. The
certification shall state why a decision or resolution
has not been rendered or issued within said period.
(4) Despite the expiration of the applicable
mandatory period, the court, without prejudice to
such responsibility as may have been incurred in
consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case
or matter submitted thereto for determination,
without further delay.
 One of the problems sought to be corrected
by the new Constitution is the backlog og
cases that has long plagued our courts of
justice.
 A judge cannot choose his deadline for
deciding cases pending before him. Without
an extension granted by the Court, the failure
to decide even a single case within the
required period constitutes gross inefficiency
that merits administrative sanction.
 The maximum periods are 24 mos for the SC,
12 mos for the lower collegiate courts unless
reduced by the SC, and 3 mos for the other
lower courts.
 This period shall start from the filing of the
last pleading, brief or memorandum required
by the Rules of Court or by the court itself.
 The SC has held that the Sandiganbayan
should decide its cases within 3 months
because it is a trial court like the RTC and the
MTC.
 It should be noted that, although decision
within the maximum period is now
13
 mandatory, failure to arrive at the same will
not divest the court of jurisdiction, without
prejudice to any responsibility that may
attach to the judge.
 Directive to speed up the wheels of justice
and unclog the dockets of the courts is also in
line with Sec. 16 of the Bill of Rights
proclaiming that “all persons shall have the
right to speedy disposition of their cases
before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies.

ANNUAL REPORT
SECTION 16. The Supreme Court shall, within thirty
days from the opening of each regular session of the
Congress, submit to the President and the Congress
an annual report on the operations and activities of
the Judiciary.
 The annual report required under this
provision can be the basis of appropriate
legislation and govt policies intended to
improve the administration of justice and
strengthen the independence of the judiciary.

14