ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS

issued by the Supreme Court from 2010-2015

In partial fulfillment with the requirements in Legal
Techniques and Logic

Is submitted by:
Agutaya, Ma. Angeli Graciella W.
Kalaw, Ann Bernadette M.
Lafuente, Fionna Lyn A.
Marquez, Agrieliza
Olmedo, Jessica L.

to:
Atty. Chato A. Cabigas-Punzalan

INTRODUCTION
By virtue of an express grant by the 1987 Philippine
Constitution, the Supreme Court has administrative
supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. This
supervision includes, among others, issuing administrative
orders detailing rules and procedures anent the internal
matters in the Judiciary.
Administrative Orders (AO) are enforceable orders
issued by the Supreme Court in the exercise of its powers
over the courts and quasi-judicial bodies under its
administrative supervision for the latter to take certain
actions or refrain from doing something (Insert Citation).
These orders may have objectives such as efficiency and
effectiveness in the conduct of internal affairs in the judicial
department. The importance of these administrative orders
cannot be overlooked. These orders help the Judiciary in
achieving its avowed purpose.
This study aims to provide a simplified explanation of
the matters addressed by the following Administrative
Orders issued by the Supreme Court from 2010 to 2015:
Administrative Order No. 87-2010, Administrative Order No.
103-2011, Administrative Order No. 171-2012,
Administrative Order No. 52-2013, Administrative Order No.
138-2014, and Administrative Order No. 80-2015.

BODY
This part details the discussion of each Administrative
Order issued by the Supreme Court per year from 20102015. Among the matters discussed are the purpose, scope,
and authority given under each administrative order.
I.

Administrative Order No. 87-2010

Administrative Order No. 87-2010 was issued to

decentralize administrative and financial management
functions, based on the principle of subsidiarity. The said
decentralization is intended to improve efficiency in the
management of limited resources and to provide prompt and
responsive services to the first and second level courts. The
same order vests certain powers to the Court Administrator
and provides for the creation of an Oversight Unit.
The Court Administrator was given responsibility in the
overall management of the implementation of the
decentralization process and in the overall authority over
administrative and financial management functions involving
the 3rd, 7th and 11th Judicial Regions and the Regional Court
Administration Office (RCAO) therein, and such other RCAOs
which may be established thereafter. Batas Pambansa Blg.
129 (B.P. 129), otherwise known as The Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980, provides for the creation of
Regional Trial Courts in thirteen judicial regions. B.P. 129
provides that: 3rd Judicial Region shall be composed of the
provinces of Bataan, Bulacan (except the municipality of
Valenzuela), Nueva Ecija, Pampanga, Tarlac, and Zambales;
7th Judicial Region shall be composed of the provinces of
Bohol, Cebu, Negros Oriental, and Siquijor, and the cities of
Bais, Canlaon, Cebu, Davao, Dumaguete, Lapu-Lapu,
Mandaue, Tagbilaran and Toledo; and 11th Judicial Region
shall be composed of the provinces of Davao del Norte,
Davao Oriental, Davao del Sur, South Cotabato, and Surigao
del Sur, and the cities of Davao, and General Santos.
In the implementation of the decentralization process,
the Court Administrator has the power to administer the
centrally managed funds within the approved allotment and
cash programs of the judicial region and its RCAO, including
the timely review and approval of requests by RCAO for
releases from these funds and to recommend to the Chief
Justice budget realignments.

An Oversight Unit (OU) was created to act as the

coordination and capacity-building arm of the Court
Administrator for the implementation of the decentralization
process. Among the functions of the OU are the coordination
of actions that require integrated decisions and the provision
of guidance to the RCAOs in the formulation of their
proposed annual budgets, annual work and financial plans,
allotment programs and cash programs.
II.

Administrative Order No. 103-2011

Due to accumulation of voluminous records and

numerous physical evidence over the last half century by the
trial courts, storage space for these records and evidence
has been sorely lacking, leading to using all available free
space in the Halls of Justice, including public hallways and
corridors, stairwells, basements, and even fire exits. This
resulted in improper and unsafe storage practices, exposure
of the papers and documents to loss, as well as danger to
the courts and their personnel, and the general public.
To address the aforementioned problems, a system of
records disposal has been created by virtue of Administrative
Order No. 103-2011. The said administrative order prescribes
the guidelines to be followed by the concerned trial courts in
the disposal and maintenance of court records. These
guidelines will not govern when there is a specific law
governing the disposal of certain court records, papers
and/or exhibits.
To start, a Records Disposal Period was set from July 16,
2011 to August 15, 2011 for all trial courts, both First Level
Courts and Second Level Courts, as well as the Office of the
Clerk of Courts, in the cities of Quezon, Manila, Makati and
Angeles. During this period, hearings shall only be conducted
on urgent matters such as but not limited to applications for
habeas corpus, writs of Amparo or habeas data, temporary
restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction,
temporary/permanent protection order, applications for bail,
arraignment and trial of detained accused, and the like.
The procedure as outlined in the order starts with the
publication of the notice of Records Disposal Period in major
dailies in the country notifying the public that they may
withdraw residual records (those which the courts are not
bound to electronically copy and preserve) within fifteen
days from the publication upon application with the branch
concerned or if unknown, with the Office of the Clerk of Court

and payment of the retrieval fee of five hundred Pesos. This

fee shall be refunded to the applicant if the requested file
cannot be located anymore and a certification that it could
no longer be located shall be issued. Upon receipt of any
application for retrieval, a hold list is drawn up
enumerating the case details covered by the application,
records of which should be set aside accordingly. A notice of
the intention to dispose court records is also posted by the
trial courts concerned for the duration of the Records
Disposal Period in the individual branches, and in
conspicuous places in the Halls of Justice, the City Hall, and
the Central Post Office in the station.
The Records Disposal Period was devoted primarily to
sorting and segregating the inactive case records, which
include archived cases, disposed cases, and those in the
dead files, to identify records for destruction in accordance
with the following guidelines.
1. In cases where all proceedings have been terminated
for a period exceeding 20 years on the date of the
required inventory, all trial court records, papers and
exhibits, including object evidence/exhibits which by
their nature cannot be appended to case records,
shall be completely destroyed subject to the
retention of the decision, order or resolution that
finally disposes of the case.
2. In cases where all proceedings have been terminated
for at least seven years on the date of the required
inventory, the same shall be set aside for complete
destruction subject to the retention of certain
documents such as:
a. In all civil cases, special civil actions, special
proceedings, land registration cases and
commercial court cases: complaint, petition or
other initiatory pleading; any responsive
pleading; the decision, order or resolution that
finally disposes of the case; the certificate of
finality; any outstanding writ of execution; and
in land registration cases, the sepia film plan
and the original of the technical description of
the property.
b. In all criminal cases: the Information; the
decision, order or resolution that finally disposes
of the case; any proof of identity of the accused;
the final discharge of the accused from
probation; and the order of commitment of the

accused to serve the sentence imposed by the

court.
c. In all family court cases, whether civil or
criminal in nature: all records and exhibits.
d. In naturalization cases: the petition and all its
attachments; the decree, order or resolution
either granting or denying the petition; and the
subscribed oath as citizen of the applicant.
e. Where the contents of a case record are illegible
and beyond recognition: if the status of the case
is known and verifiable as disposed from other
court records, such as the docket book, the
entire record shall be completely destroyed.
Upon segregation in accordance with these guidelines,
a list was prepared outlining the documents for destruction
which was submitted to the Executive Judge by August 17,
2011 who compiled all the documents in the station and
submitted the same to the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) not later than August 19, 2011. The Court
Administrator is the one who sought authority for destruction
from the Executive Director, National Archives of the
Philippines. Upon approval, destruction of case records,
papers and exhibits was carried out through shredding and
recycling, as the OCA deems proper.
The records, papers and exhibits that are required to be
maintained shall be in the custody of the Clerk of Court, and
shall be scanned and electronically copied in a manner to be
determined most expedient by the OCA. Once scanned, the
electronic files shall be stored at a Central Information
Facility at the Office of the Clerk of Court of each station
concerned.
These guidelines shall be conducted periodically every
seven years, as scheduled by the OCA. Also, a mechanism
for periodic monitoring and productivity assessment review
shall be set up per station and under the supervision of the
OCA.
III.

Administrative Order No. 171-2012

In order to protect court personnel and the transacting

public at large and to secure records and office equipment,
Administrative Order No. 171-2012 was issued transferring
the location of Branch 43, Regional Trial Court, Tanjay City,
Negros Oriental. The said court was previously situated in an
old building which was fire hazard which posed danger to the

life and limb of the court personnel and of the public. It was
temporarily transferred to the Hall of Justice (HOJ) in
Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental.
It was ordered that the said Regional Trial Court will be
transferred to its official station in Tanjay City within three (3)
years or earlier from its temporary location in the HOJ,
Dumaguete City. The Office of HOJ of Dumaguete City was
ordered to supervise and coordinate the immediate
accommodation and transfer of the said court as
aforementioned. Presiding Judge Winston M. Villegas of the
same court and the HOJ were ordered to coordinate with the
local government of Tanjay City for the eventual transfer
thereat.
IV.

Administrative Order No. 52-2013

On 20 March 2013, Administrative Order No. 52-2013

was approved allowing the Branch 7, Regional Trial Court of
Baganga, Davao Oriental and the Municipal Circuit Trial
Court, Cateel-Boston, Davao Oriental to rent office spaces
citing Sections 53.2 and 53.10 of the Revised Implementing
Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9184 which allows
negotiated procurement. The said order granted Court
Administrator Jose Midas Marquez the authority to personally
discuss with the interested lessors their proposals and to
sign the agreed contract. The charging of the total amount of
the lease contract for a period of one (1) year should be
charged against the Maintenance and Other Operating
Expenses (MOOE) of the Halls of Justice as provided in the
said order.
V.

Administrative No. 138-2014

Administrative No. 138-2014 provided the exemption of

Branch 32, Regional Trial Court, Calbayog City, Samar from
the application of Section 5, Chapter V of the Resolution of
the Court En Banc dated 27 January 2004 in Administrative
Matter No. 03-8-02-SC, Guidelines on the Selection and
Appointment of the Executive Judges and Defining their
Powers, Prerogatives and Duties. The said administrative
matter deals on the exclusion of the vacant courts from the
raffle of cases and said court shall be included in the raffle of
newly-filed cases. The administrative order partially
amended the designation of Judge Lampasa as Acting Judge
of Branch 32, RTC, Calbayog City, Samar pursuant to
Administrative Order No. 27-2014 dated 18 February 2014.

Accordingly, all newly-filed cases shall be divided

between branches 31 and 32 on the ratio of 2:1, that is, two
(2) cases for Branch 31, and one (1) case for Branch 32.
However, no case/s which need immediate action such as
but not limited to writ of habeas corpus, issuance of search
warrant, application for the issuance of temporary
restraining order, etc. shall be raffled to Branch 32,
whenever at the time of the raffle Acting Presiding Judge
Lampasa is not holding court sessions or not reporting at
Branch 32, RTC, Calbayog City, Samar.
VI.

Administrative Order No. 80-2015

Atty. Vicente M. Joyas, National President of the

Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) requested in a letter
dated 29 April 2015 for the designation of official court
observers and alternates in the regional elections of the
Board of Governors of the IBP. The said elections were held
simultaneously on 30 May 2015 at different venues,
pursuant to Section 15, Article 1 of the By-Laws of the IBP.
The designated judges, as observers and alternatives,
were ordered to coordinate with the Chapter President in
their respective areas. It was provided in the said
administrative order that a report should be submitted to the
Office of the Court Administrator, within ten (10) days from
the date of the election. The report should include the
following: a list of the duly elected governors; any incident
that may constitute any prohibited acts and practices
relative to elections provided for in Section 14, Article 1 of
the By-Laws of the IBP; and any other matter that in their
opinion should be brought to the attention of the Court.
CONCLUSION
The proponents conclude that for more efficient and
effective conduct of the affairs of the judicial department,
the Supreme Court issues administrative orders pursuant to
its administrative supervision over all courts from time to
time as it may deem proper to suit the needs of the Judiciary.
Like any issuance or order of the other two branches of the
government; i.e. the legislative and executive department,
administrative orders issued by the Supreme Court play a
vital role in our society. These orders deal with matters that
are within the competence or power of the Supreme Court as
may be provided by the Constitution or applicable statute, or
those matters that are internal in the judicial department. It
cannot, as a rule, confer jurisdiction to the courts or provide

for the creation of the same, which are matters that are
within the exclusive province of the legislative department
as mandated by the fundamental law of the land.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Section 6, Article VIII, 1987 Philippine Constitution, February
2, 1987.
Supreme Court, Administrative Order No. 87-2010, May 17,
2010.
Section 13, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, The Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980, August 14, 1981.
Supreme Court, Administrative Order No. 103-2011, July 11,
2011.
Supreme Court, Administrative Order No. 171-2012,
November 5, 2012.
Supreme Court, Administrative Order No. 52-2013, March 25,
2013.
Supreme Court, Administrative Order No. 138-2014,
September 25, 2014.
Supreme Court, Administrative Order No. 80-2015, May 14,
2015.