Download Judicial Power and the Role of the Supreme Court in the Philippines: An Overview and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT by Atty. Anselmo S. Rodiel IV
Concepts Judicial power Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice: To settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable (TRADITIONAL CONCEPT); and To determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. (EXPANDED POWER) (Sec. 1(2), Art. VIII) Who exercises judicial power? Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. (Sec. 1(1), Art. VIII) The Court, sitting en banc or in Division, acts as a collegial body as it exercises judicial power through the collective action of its individual members. (FASAP v PAL, 2018) Although the Chief Justice is “primus inter pares,” he cannot legally decide/overturn a case on his own. (Complaint of Arrienda Against Justice Puno, 2005) “Primus inter pares” means the first among equals. Judicial review Judicial review means the power of the courts to test the validity of executive or legislative acts in light of their conformity with the Constitution. (Angara v Electoral Commission, 1936) From the requisites of judicial review, the first two are the most important. (Belgica vs. Ochoa) Requisites (ALEL) Actual case or controversy (COSCo - Conflict of legal rights; Opposite legal claims; Susceptible of judicial resolution; COnjectural) Jurisprudence provides that an actual case or controversy is one which involves a CONFLICT of legal rights, an assertion of OPPOSITE legal claims, SUSCEPTIBLE of judicial resolution. It cannot be conjectural or anticipatory, or that which seeks to resolve hypothetical cases/cases based on assumptions/ render advisory opinions. Related to this is the requirement of "ripeness.” Hence, it is a prerequisite that an act had been performed by either branch, causing adverse effects on the individual challenging it,
before a court may come into the picture." (Francisco v HOR,
Also, the case must not be moot or academic. A moot and academic case is one that CEASES to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of SUPERVENING EVENTS, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical value. (Gunsi v Commissioners, 2009) Exceptions: (VPGR) Grave Violation of the Constitution; Paramount Public interest; Guide the Bench, the Bar and the public; and Capable of Repeating yet evading review. (Garcia v Executive Secretary, 2009) There are two (2) factors to be considered before a case is deemed one capable of repetition yet evading review: Evading - The challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration; and Repeating - There is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action (Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operators v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 223505, October 3, 2017). Locus standi He must have a PERSONAL AND SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement Exceptions: Transcendental importance - the rule on standing is a matter of procedure, hence, can be relaxed when public interest so requires, such as when the matter is of transcendental importance. Facial challenges involving free speech - Such as void- for-vagueness and overbreadth. The rule on locus standi does not apply. (Spouses Romualdez v COMELEC, Separate Opinion, Carpio) Third party standing - Requisites: (ICA - Injury; Close relation; Ability hindrance of 3rd party) Injury suffered by litigant - The litigant must suffer an injury-in-fact, giving him or her a "sufficiently concrete interest" in the outcome of the issue in
Citizen - when the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the mere fact that he is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest. Taxpayer - he is allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed, or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that there is a wastage of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. When is taxpayer suit available? Tax law Expenditure of public funds Legislator - he is allowed to sue to question the validity of any official action which he claims infringes his prerogatives as a legislator. Earliest possible opportunity As a general rule, the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity, so that if not raised by the pleadings, ordinarily it may not be raised at the trial, and if not raised in the trial court, it will not be considered on appeal. This rule, which is subject to exceptions, is applicable to criminal cases. (Robb v People, 1939) The Supreme Court has held that the requirement that the constitutional issue be raised at the earliest opportunity refers ONLY to raising the issue in a competent court. Here, the Office of the Ombudsman before which proceedings against Hipolito were had is not a competent court but only an administrative body. Hence, Hipolito may still raise the issue of constitutionality before the Court of Appeals. (Estarija v Ranada, 2006) Lis mota Lis mota means the MAIN ISSUE OF THE CASE. It is a well-settled maxim that an issue of constitutionality should be AVOIDED whenever possible, unless it is very lis mota or crux of the controversy. Previous petitions challenging the intended burial of the mortal remains of Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani were dismissed by the Supreme Court. Marcos was finally laid to rest at the LNMB around noontime of Nov 18, 2016. Petitioners argue that the burial of Marcos at the LNMB should not be allowed because it has the effect of not just rewriting history as to the Filipino people's act of revolting against an authoritarian ruler but also condoning the abuses committed during the Martial Law, thereby violating the letter and spirit of the 1987 Constitution, which is a "post-
dictatorship charter" and a "human rights constitution." Does the Court have authority to check and override the President’s decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB? No, Court has no authority to check and override the President’s decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB. The President's decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is in accordance with the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence. Judicial power covers only the recognition, review or reversal of the policy crafted by the political departments if and when a case is brought before it on the ground of illegality, unconstitutionality or GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION ( i.e. , blatant abuse of power or capricious exercise thereof). The determination of the wisdom, fairness, soundness, justice, equitableness or expediency of a statute or what "ought to be" as a MATTER OF POLICY is within the realm of and should be addressed to the legislature. If existing laws are inadequate, the policy- determining branches of the government, specifically the duly elected representatives who carry the mandate of the popular will, may be exhorted peacefully by the citizenry to effect positive changes. No matter how well- meaning, the Court can only air its views in the hope that Congress would take notice (Ocampo v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 225973, August 8, 2017). The answer is in the meaning of judicial power, not in the requisites of judicial review. Remember that judicial review are just requisites in order to determine if the Court will hear the petition. The judicial power is the legal basis to determine if the law/governmental act will be held unconstitutional, i.e., grave abuse of discretion. One day after the effectivity of Republic Act No. 9372 "An Act to Secure the State and Protect our People from Terrorism," Samahang XYZ filed a petition assailing the said law’s constitutionality. XYZ alleged that they were tagged as militant organizations fronting for the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the National People’s Army (NPA). In addition, they claim that sporadic “surveillance” is being conducted in their persons. The tagging, according to them, is tantamount to the effects of proscription without following the procedure under the law. Will the petition prosper? No, the petition will not prosper because petitioners fail to present an actual case or controversy. The power of judicial review has four requisites: (a) there must
graded film shall be deducted and withheld by the proprietors, operators or lessees of theaters or cinemas and remitted within 30 days from the termination of the exhibition to the Philippine Film Council which shall reward the corresponding amusement tax to the producers of the graded film within 15 days from receipt thereof. Such legislative grant of tax incentives was however declared by law to be unconstitutional, having been enacted in violation of local fiscal autonomy. On the date of finality of the decision, the Cebu City alone is entitled to the taxes which it should have collected under the Local Government Code. The City of Cebu argues that a law which is declared unconstitutional produces no effect and is deemed not to have been enacted at all. Thus, the Philippine Film Council and the producers must remit the taxes due to all LGUs. However, the latter argue that they should not be required to refund under the doctrine of operative fact. Decide. Philippine Film Council and the producers are correct. It is a well-settled rule that 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 inoperative as if it has not been passed at all. An exception to the above rule, however, is the doctrine of operative fact, which applies as a matter of equity and fair play. It applies when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law. Here, to order the return of all the amounts remitted to the Film Council and given to the producers of graded films, by all of the covered cities, actually amounts to hundreds of millions, if not billions. To order the Film Council and producers to refund the incentives would certainly impose a heavy, and possibly crippling, financial burden upon them who merely, and presumably in good faith, complied with the legislative fiat subject of this case (Film Development Council of the Philippines vs. Colon Heritage Realty Corp., G.R. No. 203754, October 15, 2019, Resolution) Political question doctrine Political question is a question of policy or wisdom (exercised by the PEOPLE (political) or DEPARTMENT (discretionary)). (Congressman Garcia v Executive Secretary, 2009) It is to be exercised by the PEOPLE in their primary political capacity, or It has been specifically delegated to some other DEPARTMENT, with DISCRETIONARY power to act. (Tañada v
Cuenco, 1957) As a rule, political questions cannot be interfered with by courts. As exception, when there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government, it becomes a justiciable question. It has been settled that the expanded certiorari or prohibition is the proper remedy to question the act. (Jardeleza v Sereno,
An example of grave abuse of discretion is infringing upon the freedom of speech. (Diocese of Bacolod v COMELEC, 2015, Leonen) Does judicial restraint apply in our courts? No, because the Court would be shirking from its DUTY vested under Art. VIII. Hence, the Court must exercise the power of judicial review over justiciable issues in impeachment proceedings. (Francisco v HOR, 2003) Judicial independence and autonomy; Constitutional Safeguards The Supreme Court is a constitutional body; it may not be abolished by Legislature The members of the Supreme Court are removable only by impeachment (Sec. 2, Art. XI) or a petition for quo warranto against an illegible public official for acts committed prior to the appointment. (Republic v Sereno,
From 1986 to 2006, X served as a member of the faculty of the ABC University College of Law, a state university. While being employed as such, X was concurrently employed as legal counsel of the government in two international arbitrations from 2003 to 2006. After a break from government service, X was appointed Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in 2010. When the position of the Chief Justice was declared vacant in 2012, X was required to submit all previous SALNs (up to December 31, 2011). However, X submitted only the SALNs from the end of 2009 up to December 31, 2011 when he was appointed Associate Justice. And in lieu of his SALNs from his previous government service, he submitted a clearance from ABC University College of Law, attesting that he has been cleared from all administrative responsibilities and accountabilities. According to X, his government records in the academe are more than 15 years old, and thus it is reasonable to consider them impossible to be retrieved. Nonetheless, X’s nomination has been accepted. He was appointed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 2012. In 2017, an impeachment complaint was filed by Atty. Y against Chief Justice X, alleging that he failed to make truthful declarations in his SALNs. Meanwhile, the Office of the Solicitor General initiated a quo warranto proceeding
No court shall hear any appeal or application for remedy against the decision or findings of the Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court, on pure question of law. The first paragraph is ineffective because it violates the doctrine of separation of powers. Under the Constitution, the Court has the power to “promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts.” Hence, the issuance of an injunction, which is a provisional remedy to protect or enforce rights, cannot be prohibited by law. Otherwise, the Congress will encroach upon the rule-making authority of the Court, which will then violate the doctrine of separation of powers. (Morales v CA and Binay, 2015) The second paragraph is unconstitutional because it increased the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court without its advice or concurrence. (Morales v CA and Binay, 2015) The Supreme Court has administrative supervision over all its courts and personnel thereof. (Sec. 6, Art. VIII) The Supreme Court has the exclusive power to discipline the judges/ justices of inferior courts. (Sec. 11, Art. VIII) The first clause, which is “shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts,” did NOT intend that all administrative disciplinary cases should be heard by the Court en banc. This would result in an absurdity. Hence, if they are not for dismissal, they can be heard in division. The second clause is “order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations.” In this instance of dismissal, the administrative case must be deliberated upon and decided by the Court en banc itself. (People v Judge Gacott,
The members of the Judiciary have security of tenure (Sec. 2(2), Art. VIII) Appointments to the Judiciary are always permanent. Temporary/Acting appointments can undermine the independence of the Judiciary. (De Castro v JBC, 2010) Judiciary enjoys fiscal autonomy Appropriations cannot be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year; After approval, they shall be automatically and regularly released The salaries of justices and judges cannot be decreased during their tenure; The members of the Judiciary cannot be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions. (Sec. 12, Art. VIII) This does not include ex-officio positions held by Justices.
The Supreme Court, alone, has the power to promulgate rules for pleading, practice, procedure in all courts, admission to the practice of law, and the Integrated Bar. (Estipona v Lobrigo, 2017) The Supreme Court may order temporarily detail of judges The Supreme Court can appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary, in accordance with Civil Service Law (Sec. 5(6), Art. VIII) This means appointees OTHER than justices and judges. “Administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof” Hence, the President cannot remove justices, judges, and court personnel from their position. Only the Supreme Court has that power. The Court ruled that the Ombudsman may NOT initiate or investigate a criminal or administrative complaint before his office against the judge. He must first indorse/defer the case to the Supreme Court for appropriate action. (Fuentes v Ombudsman- Mindanao, 2001) Prescinding from this premise, the Ombudsman cannot determine for itself and by itself whether a criminal complaint against a judge, or court employee, involves an administrative matter. The Ombudsman is duty bound to have all cases against judges and court personnel filed before it, referred to the Supreme Court for determination as to whether an administrative aspect is involved therein. This rule should hold true regardless of whether an administrative case based on the act subject of the complaint before the Ombudsman is already pending with the Court. For, aside from the fact that the Ombudsman would not know of this matter unless he is informed of it, he should give due respect for and recognition of the administrative authority of the Court, because in determining whether an administrative matter is involved, the Court passes upon not only administrative liabilities but also other administrative concerns, as is clearly conveyed in the case of Maceda v. Vasquez. (Judge Caoibes v Ombudsman,
Hence, if a person files an administrative case against a judge or court personnel with the Ombudsman, the same must be dismissed. (Maceda v Vasquez, 1993) The House of Representatives Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability (House Committee) conducted an inquiry, in aid of legislation, pertaining to the use by the Provincial Government of Ilocos Norte of its shares from the excise taxes on locally manufactured virginia-type cigarettes for a purpose other than that provided for by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7171. When they
securing a fair and impartial trial, or of preventing a miscarriage of justice, so demands. Such incidental and inherent power cannot be interpreted to mean an authority on the part of the Court to determine which court should hear specific cases without running afoul with the doctrine of separation of powers between the Judiciary and the Legislative (Agcaoili, Jr., et al. v. Fariñas, et al., G.R. No. 232395, July 3, 2018). “Fiscal autonomy” contemplates a guarantee of full flexibility to allocate and utilize the resources with the wisdom and dispatch that their needs require. In short, fiscal autonomy means freedom from outside control. Thus, the Court En Banc can determine and decide the who, what, where, when and how of the privileges and benefits they extend to justices, judges, court officials and court personnel within the parameters of the Court’s granted power. Any kind of interference violates the fiscal autonomy and independence of the Judiciary. (Re: COA Opinion on the Computation of the Appraised Value of the Properties Purchased by the Retired Chief/Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, 2012) As example, vetoing an item in the appropriations bill for the pension fund of the Judiciary violates fiscal autonomy. Why? Because that President touched/controlled/interfered with the funds of Judiciary. “Promulgate rules concerting pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts” The provision prohibiting the issuance of injunction by any court other than the Supreme Court is unconstitutional because a) the Congress encroached upon the rule-making authority of the Court and b) it violated the separation of powers. (Morales v CA and Binay, 2015) The prohibition on plea-bargaining in drug cases is unconstitutional. Why? Plea bargaining has been defined as "a process whereby the accused and the prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval." Hence, plea-bargaining is a matter of procedure, and RA 9165, in prohibiting plea-bargaining, encroached into the rule-making power of the Court. (Estipona v Lobrigo, 2017) “Promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law, and the Integrated Bar” The LEB imposed a requirement that law students must become interns before they take the Bar. Is this valid?
No. It is clear from the plain text of Section 7(g) that another requirement, i.e., completion of a law internship program, is imposed by law for taking the bar examinations. This requirement unduly interferes with the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court to promulgate rules concerning the practice of law and admissions thereto. (Pimentel v LEB, 2019) The LEB was given the power by RA 7662 for “continuing legal education.” Is this valid? No. Inasmuch as the LEB is authorized to compel mandatory attendance of practicing lawyers in such courses, the same encroaches upon the Court's power to promulgate rules concerning the Integrated Bar, which includes the education of lawyers. The mandatory continuing legal education of the members of the bar is, in fact, covered by B.M. No. 850, promulgated by the Supreme Court. (Pimentel v LEB, 2019) Can LEB prescribe minimum standards for admission to legal education? Yes. The LEB's power to prescribe admission requirements refers only to those seeking enrollment to a school or college of law and not to the practice of law. Hence, the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court was not encroached. (Pimentel v LEB, 2019) Does the PHILSAT violate the authority to promulgate rules admission to the practice of law? No. As stated, minimum standards for admission to school or college of law does not encroach upon the rule-making power of the Court (Pimentel v LEB, 2019) However, it violates the academic freedom of educational institutions. Appointments to the Judiciary Qualifications of members of Judiciary For Justice of Supreme Court: (N-40-15-CIPI) Natural-born citizen; At least 40 years of age; and At least 15 years as a judge or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines. Proven Competence, Integrity, Probity, and Independence. (Sec. 7, Art. VIII) Should a justice of lower collegiate court be a natural-born citizen? Yes, as provided by Sec. 7, Art. VIII) Should a judge be a natural-born citizen? Yes, as provided by BP 129. Competence - he knows the law Integrity - Integrity contemplates both adherence to the highest moral
The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) published in the Philippine Star and Philippine Daily Inquirer and posted on the JBC website an announcement calling for applications or recommendations for 6 vacant positions of Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan. After screening and selection of applicants, the JBC submitted to the President 6 separate lists, with five to seven nominees each, for the 6 vacancies in the Sandiganbayan. However, X, who was a nominee for the 6th vacancy, was instead appointed by the President to the 1st vacancy. The nominees for the 1st vacancy, after having been bypassed, assailed the President’s appointment of X to the first vacancy, insisting that the President could only choose one nominee from each of the 6 separate shortlists submitted by the JBC for each specific vacancy, and no other, and that any appointment made in deviation of this procedure is a violation of the Constitution. Is the argument correct? No, the argument is not correct. Under Sec. 9, Art. VIII of the Constitution , the Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least 3 nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. The power to recommend of the JBC cannot be used to restrict or limit the President's power to appoint as the latter's prerogative to choose someone whom he/she considers worth appointing to the vacancy in the Judiciary is still paramount. As long as in the end, the President appoints someone nominated by the JBC, the appointment is valid. Here, although X was nominated for the 6th vacancy, his appointment to the 1st vacancy is not unconstitutional as he was nonetheless appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the JBC. Hence, the argument is not correct (Aguinaldo v. His Excellency President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, G.R. No. 224302, November 29, 2016). The Supreme Court Composition (15) 1 Chief Justice and 14 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 90 days from occurrence thereof. (Sec. 4(1), Art. VIII) Powers and functions SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: Exercise original 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 courts 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 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. Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law. Spouses H and W filed Petitions for Mandamus and Prohibition with Prayer for TRO and a subsequent Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court in 2012 and 2013 respectively. Both Petitions were assigned to the Supreme Court’s First Division and were raffled to then Justice X. Despite the lapse of more than five (5) years, Justice X failed to decide on both Petitions of Spouses. Spouses maintain that Justice X’s failure to promptly act within 24 months on the Petitions resulted in a violation of the spouses’ constitutional right to speedy disposition of their cases. Are the Spouses correct? No. Both the 1987 Constitution (under Article VIII, Section 15) and
