ART. VIII.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Sec. 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 grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the
government.
 Bar Questions:

 1989/10. Where is judicial power vested? What are

included in judicial power?
 1994, 2: What is the difference if any between the
scope of judicial power under the 1987 Constitution, on
the one hand; and the 1935 and 1973 Constitution, on
the other?
 1995: Judicial power ad defined in Sec. 1, VIII,
includes…/ This definition is said to have expanded the
power of the judiciary to include political questions
formerly beyond its jurisdiction. Do you agree with this
interpretation…
 1997/5: To what extent has the 1987 Constitution affected the
political question doctrine?
 2004/1: substance is the same
 2012, No. 4 (d) What is judicial power? Explain Briefly. (2%)
 2015, No. XI (1). XI. (1) What is the concept of expanded
judicial review under the 1987 Constitution? (3%)

Two types of jurisdiction:

1. Ordinary jurisdiction (first part – to settle actual controversies
involving rights…)
2. Extraordinary jurisdiction (2nd part – to determine whether
there is grave abuse of discretion…]
Two types of questions:
1. Justiciable questions: can be resolved by applying
the statutes or the Constitution
2. Political question – does not call for the application
of any law – to determine the “wisdom” of an act.
Policy determination, not legality
 Political Question:

1. Those to be decided, under the Constitution, by the

people in their sovereign capacity
[amendment/revision]
2. Those where full discretionary authority has been
delegated to the political department [executive or
legislative]
 Which ones is a justiciable question:
 [A] Whether the imposition of the Value Added
Tax (VAT) is necessary for the recovery of the
national economy?
 [B] Whether taxpayers can afford a new round
of tax increases under the VAT law?
 [C] Whether the VAT law is consistent with the
concept of uniform, progressive and equitable system
of taxation?
 [D] Whether it is proper for Congress to
impose VAT at a time when the economy is taking a
downward slide?
 Political Questions: ” Wisdom”
1. Kabataan Party-List v. COMELEC, 777 SCRA 574 (2015)
(Biometrics Law)
2. Republic v. Bayao, 697 SCRA 313 (2013) (Transfer of
Regional Center to Koronadal)
3. Ocampo v. Enriquez, 807 SCRA 223 (2016) (Burial of
Marcos at the LNMB)
4. Garcia v. Corona, 321 SCRA 218 (1999) (Deregulation of
the Petroleum Industry)
Also practicality, economy, “beneficial”
Which question, as framed, is a political question?
a. Whether the President committed grave abuse of
discretion in ratifying the WTO?
b. Whether the signing of the WTO which allows
unrestricted flow of foreign goods would violate the
Filipino First Policy?
c. Whether the WTO which compels Congress to enact
laws implementing its terms constitutes an intrusion
into the plenary power of Congress?
d. Whether the removal of the tariff barriers as a
consequence of ratifying WTO would eventually benefit
the Philippine economy?
 Summary:
1. Must alleged specific constitutional provision violated; or
2. Must allege grave abuse of discretion

Test: Is the President correct?

Did she act arbitrarily? “Test of Arbitrariness” [ Did he abuse
gravely?]
Burden?
National Artist Award? Almario v. Executive Secretary, 701 SCRA 269
(2013)
 Sec. 2. The Congress shall have the power to define,
prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of various
courts, but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its
jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Sec. 5 hereof.
 No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary
when it undermines the security of tenure of its
Members.
Sec. 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.

1999, 11: What do you understand by the mandate of

the Constitution that the Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal
autonomy?
2017, No. 15 (a): According to Sec. 3, Art. VIII of the Constitution,
the Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. What does the
term fiscal autonomy signify? Explain your answer. (3%)
Meaning of Fiscal Autonomy:
“Automatic release of appropriation”
Also: Power to – (Bengzon v. Drilon)
1. Allocate resources
2. Charge fees
3. Determine compensation
4. Disburse funds
5. CSC v. Dept: Even if there is revenue shortfall, funds must be
immediately released
6. In re: Clarifying- DBM has no authority to downgrade
positions/SG
7. In Re: GSIS, Re: In the Matter of Clarification…, 668 SCRA 61
Bar Question, 2001, No. 1: Name at least three
Constitutional safeguards to maintain judicial
independence.
2014, No. 17. Towards the end of the year, the
Commission on Audit (COA) sought the remainder of
its appropriation from the Department of Budge t and
Management (DBM). However, the DBM refused
because the COA had not yet submitted a report on
the expenditures relative to the earlier amount
released to it. And, pursuant to the "no report, no
release" policy of the DBM, COA is not entitled to any
further releases in the meantime. COA counters that
such a policy contravenes the guaranty of fiscal
autonomy granted by the Constitution. Is COA entitled
to receive the rest of its appropriations even without
complying with the DBM policy? (4%)
 2014, XXVII.
 Congress enacted a law exempting certain government institutions
providing social services from the payment of court fees. Atty. Kristopher
Timoteo challenged the constitutionality of the said law on the ground
that only the Supreme Court has the power to fix and exempt said
entities from the payment of court fees.
 Congress, on the other hand, argues that the law is constitutional as it
has the power to enact said law for it was through legislative fiat that
the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and the Special Allowance for
Judges and Justices (SAJJ), the funding of which are sourced from the
fees collected by the courts, were created. Thus, Congress further
argues that if it can enact a law utilizing court fees to fund the JDF and
SAJJ, a fortiori it can enact a law exempting the payment of court fees.
 Discuss the constitutionality of the said law, taking into account the
arguments of both parties? (4%)
 2015, XIV. Congress enacted R.A. No. 14344 creating
the City of Masuwerte which took effect on September
25, 2014. Section 23 of the law specifically exempts
the City of Masuwerte from the payment of legal fees
in the cases that it would file and/or prosecute in the
courts of law. In two (2) cases that it filed, the City of
Masuwerte was assessed legal fees by the clerk of
court pursuant to Rule 141 (Legal Fees) of the Rules of
Court. The City of Masuwerte questions the assessment
claiming that it is exempt from paying legal fees under
Section 23 of its charter. Is the claim of exemption
tenable? Explain. ( 4%)
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 division of three, five, or
seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within
ninety days from the occurrence thereof.
 “

Sec. 4 (1) – 90 days from vacancy

Sec. 5- Lower courts – 90 days from submission of the
list by the JBC.

Villanueva and Villarama – general v. specific

Castro v. JBC – Intent is to exclude the Supreme Court –
1. it does not say it is covered
2. arrangement of Articles
3. “any vacancy shall be filled”
What happened to Villanueva case?
 (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.
 (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.
Cases to be decided en banc:
1. Constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive
agreement or law
[Elma v. Public Interest. 517 SCRA 337 (2007)
2. Constitutionality, application or operation of
presidential decrees, proclamations or orders,
instructions, ordinances
3. Cases or matters heard by a division when the required
majority in a division is not obtained;
4. Cases where the Supreme Court modifies or reverses a
doctrine laid en banc or by a division;
5. Administrative cases where the vote is for the dismissal of a
judge or otherwise to discipline him
6. Election contest for President or Vice

League of cities – 5/6/Recon: 6/6 – 2nd MR

 1999, No. 11: What are the cases that must be decided
by the Supreme Court en banc?
 1996, No. VII. Can five members of the Supreme Court
declare a municipal ordinance unconstitutional?
 1999, 11 (b): What does it mean when a Supreme
Court justice concurs in a decision pro hac vice?
Sec. 5. Powers of the Supreme Court:
I. Judicial Power (Jurisdiction of SC)
A. Original jurisdiction
1. Cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers and consuls
2. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto and habeas corpus

Gerochi v. Department of Energy, 527 SCRA

696 (2007) - injunction
B. Appellate Jurisdiction
1. Constitutionality of a treaty, law [Bar Q’s]
2. Legality of any tax, assessments, etc
3. Jurisdiction of lower courts is in issue
4. Criminal cases where the penalty is reclusion perpetua or
higher [Esparas]
5. Error or question of law is involved
2.
Bar Q: 1992, 7: Mantrust Case-APT
Congress is considering new measures to encourage
foreign corporations to bring investments to the
Philippines. Congress has found that foreign investors
are deterred by the uncertain investment climate in
partly brought about by judicial intervention. Thus, it
passed a law saying: “No court or administrative
agency shall issue any restraining order or injucntion
against the Central Bank. Is the law constitutional?
 2018, X. Ascertain the constitutionality of the following
acts: (2.5% each)

(b) A law prohibiting any court, other than the Supreme

Court, from issuing a writ of injunction against an
investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman
 Carpio-Morales v. OMB, 774 SCRA 431 (2015)
 Sec. 14 of the Ombudsman Act states:
 Section 14. Restrictions. - No writ of injunction shall be issued by any
court to delay an investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman
under this Act, unless there is a prima facie evidence that the subject
matter of the investigation is outside the jurisdiction of the Office of the
Ombudsman. Is this valid?

Held: No. Thus, when Congress passed the first paragraph of Section
14, RA 6770 and, in so doing, took away from the courts their power to
issue a TRO and/or WPI to enjoin an investigation conducted by the
Ombudsman, it encroached upon this Court's constitutional rule-making
authority. Clearly, these issuances, which are, by nature, provisional
reliefs and auxiliary writs created under the provisions of the Rules of
Court, are matters of procedure which belong exclusively within the
province of this Court.
1. Can the RTC declare a law unconstitutional? [Planters
– 2008]
2. Can the Court of Tax Appeals? [British Tobacco -
2008
3. Can the Ombudsman? [Estarija – 2006)
 2004, 10: In case there is an irreconciliable conflict
between a provision of the treaty and a provision of
the Constitution, in a jurisdiction and legal system like
ours, which should prevail: the provision of the treaty
or of the Constitution. Why? Explain with reasons.
 2003, No. 16: Treaty v. Statute.
II. Administrative Powers
1. Temporary assignment of judges[not more than
six months without his consent]
2. Change of venue
3. Promulgate rules of court [Cases/questions]
4. Appoint its officials
5. Administrative supervision of courts and
personnel
 1. Can a treaty amend the Rules of Court?
 Tanada v. Angara/Nicolas v. Romulo, 578 SCRA
438 (2009)
 In re:Garcia/Bar 1987,9: The Philippines entered into
a Treaty of Friendship with Indonesia providing that the nationals of
each contracting State admitted to the practice of law in said State,
to practice law without taking the bar examinations in the other
contracting State.
 2018, XI: Under Section 6 of Article V (on Criminal Jurisdiction) of the
Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), the custody of a United States (US)
personnel who becomes subject to criminal prosecution before a Philippine
court shall be with the US military authorities, if the latter so requests. The
custody shall begin from the commission of the offense until the completion
of all judicial proceedings. However, when requested, the US military
authorities shall make the US personnel available to Philippine authorities for
any investigative or judicial proceeding relating to the offense with which the
person has been charged. In the event that the Philippine judicial
proceedings are not completed within one year, the US shall be relieved of
any obligation under Section 6.
 The constitutionality of Section 6, Article V of the VFA is challenged on two
grounds: (1) it nullifies the exclusive power of the Supreme Court to adopt
rules of procedure for all courts in the Philippines; and (2) it violates the
equal protection clause to the extent that it allows the transfer of the
custody of an accused to a foreign power as providing a different rule of
procedure for that accused.
 Rule on the challenge. (5%)
2. 2. Can Congress amend the Rules of Court

 Estipona v. Lobrigo, 837 SCRA 160 (2017) (Rule-Making Power)

 Section 23 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, or the
"Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," provides: “SEC
23. Plea-Bargaining Provision. - Any person charged under any
provision of this Act regardless of the imposable penalty shall not
be allowed to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining.”
 Is the provision valid?
2009, No 1: True or False:

A law fixing the passing grade in the Bar examinations

at 70% with no grade lower than 40% in any subject,
is constitutional.
2008, No. 13:
Congress enacted a law establishing the right to a
trial by jury of an accused charged with a felony or
offense punishable with reclusion perpetual or life
imprisonment. The law provides for the qualifications
of prospective jury members, the guidelines to be
observed by the judge and the lawyers in jury selection
including the grounds for challenging the selection of
jury members, and the methodology for jury
deliberations. Is the law constitutional?
2013, No. IV.

Congress enacted a law providing for trial by jury for

those charged with crimes or offenses punishable by
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. The law
provides for the qualifications of members of the jury,
the guidelines for the bar and bench for their selection,
the manner a trial by jury shall operate, and the
procedures to be followed.

Is the law constitutional? (6%)

 2014, No. XXX.
 Congress passed a law, R.A. No. 15005, creating an administrative Board
principally tasked with the supervision and regulation of legal education. The
Board was attached to the Department of Education. It was empowered, among
others, to prescribe minimum standards for law admission and minimum
qualifications of faculty members, the basic curricula for the course of study
aligned to the requirements for admission to the Bar, law practice and social
consciousness, as well as to establish a law practice internship as a requirement
for taking the Bar which a law student shall undergo anytime during the law
course, and to adopt a system of continuing legal education. Professor
Boombastick, a long-time law practitioner and lecturer in several prestigious law
schools, assails the constitutionality of the law arguing; that it encroached on the
prerogatives of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules relative to admission to
the pra ctice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged. If you were Professor Boombastick’s understudy, how may you
help him develop clear, concise and cogent arguments in support of his position
based on the present Constitution and the decisions of the Supreme Court on
judicial independence and fiscal autonomy? (4%)
 2015, No. 11. (2) Differentiate the rule-making power
or the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules
under Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
and judicial legislation. (2%)
 2016, -XX-
 Under Sec. 5, Article VIII of the Constitution, the Supreme Court
shall have the power to "promulgate rules concerning the
protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
practice and procedure in all courts xxx." Section 23 of R.A. No.
9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
provides that "any person charged under any provision of this Act
regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail
of the provision on plea-bargaining." Patricio, a user who was
charged with alleged sale of shabu but who wants to enter a plea
of guilt to a charge of possession, questions the constitutionality
of Sec. 23 on the ground that Congress encroached on the rule-
making power of the Supreme Court under Sec. 5, Article VIII. He
argues that plea-bargaining is procedural in nature and is within
the exclusive constitutional power of the Court. Is Patricio
correct? Explain your answer. (5%)
,Power of Judicial Review – The Supreme
Court’s power to declare a treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or
regulation unconstitutional.
Requisites –
1. Actual case or controversy
2. Question raised by the proper party (standing)
3. Earliest opportunity
4. Necessity for the determination of the case itself.

1994, No. 2. Assume that the constitutional question

raised in the petition before the Supreme Court is
the lis mota of the case, give at least two other
requirements before the court will exercise judicial
power.
 1. Case or Controversy: No advisory opinion, moot and
academic controversy.

Gordon Case -
Tan – bark, grass, shrub
Romualdez v. COMELEC, 573 SCRA 639 (2008): Sec. 45,
RA 9189: The following shall be considered election
offenses under this Act.

1. Violations of any of the provisions of this act.

Constitutional: “void for vagueness” ‘facial invalidation”
facial challenge as distinguished from “as applied
challenge”
Exceptions: Freedom of Speech, religion, right to travel,
privacy and “other fundamental rights.
Moot and Academic, exceptions: David/GRP cases
1. there is a grave violation of the Constitution
2. the exceptional character of the situation and the
paramount public interest involved
3. the 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. Locus Standi – personal and substantial interest, will
sustain or has sustained a direct injury (IBP,osmena, In re
Bermudez
1. Any citizen –
a. -martial law/habeas corpus/
b. public rights – Chavez v. PCGG
c. – question of transcendental
importance;Tatad/Oil Derregulation/Bayan Muna -VFA
/Tanada – WTO -David v. GMA
 3. Voters – validity of election laws/affecting right as
voter -Quinto
4. Taxpayer – illegal disbursement of funds or to
challenge a revenue law [macalintal, Chavez pcgg)
5. Legislator – act which infringes on his prerogative
as legislator [Ople/PCA/Sanlakas/Acting appointments]
6. Environmental law cases –Oposa v. Factoran/

1995: What are the requisites for a tax-

payer’s suit to prosper?
White Light Corp. v. City of Manila, GR No. 122846,
Jan. 20, 2009
What is “third-party” standing?
Litigants have a right to bring actions on behalf of third
parties, provided three important criteria are satisfied:
the litigant must have suffered an ‘injury-in-fact,’ thus
giving him or her a "sufficiently concrete interest" in
the outcome of the issue in dispute; the litigant must
have a close relation to the third party; and there must
exist some hindrance to the third party's ability to
protect his or her own interests
 3. Earliest Opportunity –
 Sta. Rosa – DAR – CA – SC
 Estarija – OMB – CA – SC
In he pleadings before the tribunal with jurisdiction to rule on
consitutional issue.
 4. Necessity
(Judicial Restraint)

 Bar Q: 1992/6 – The Phil. Environmentalists’ Organization for

Nature, a duly recognized non-governmental organization, intends
to file suit to enjoin the Phil. Government from allocating funds to
operate a power plant at Mt. Tuba in a southern island. They
claim that there was no consultation with the indigenous cultural
community who will be displaced from ancestral lands essential to
their livelihood and indispensable to their religious practices.
 1. The organizations is based in Makati. All its officers
live and work in Makati. Not one of its officers or
members belongs to the affected tribe. Do they have
standing?

 2. Would your answer be different if the Phililline

Power Corporation, a private company, were to
operate the plant? [Would they have standing?]
 2007, VIII. The Provincial Governor of Bataan
requested the Department of Budget and
Management (DBM) to release it Internal Revenue
Allocation (IRA) of P100 million for the current budget
year. However, the General Appropriations Act
provided that the IRA may be released only if the
province meets certain conditions as determined by
an oversight council created by the President.
 [Is this requirement valid?]
 The Provincial Governor is a party-mate of the
President. May the Bataan Representative instead file
a petition to compel the DBM to release the funds?
 2014, No. XI. In keeping with the modern age of instant anSd incessant
information and transformation, Congress passed Cybercrime Prevention
Act to regulate access to and use of the amenities of the cyberspace.
While ostensibly the law is intended to protect the interests of society,
some of its provisions were also seen as impermissibly invading and
impairing widely cherished liberties of the people particularly the
freedom of expression. Before the law could even be implemented,
petitions were filed in the Supreme Court questioning said provisions by
people who felt threatened, for themselves as well as for the benefit of
others who may be similarly affected but not minded enough to
challenge the law. The Solicitor General countered that there is no basis
for the exercise of the power of judicial review since there has yet been
no violation of the law, and therefore, there is no actual case or
controversy to speak of, aside from the fact that the petitioners have no
locus standi since they do not claim to be in imminent danger of being
prosecuted under the law. Can the Court proceed to decide the case
even if the law has not yet become effective? (4%)
 What is the effect if a law is declared unconstitutional?
 1. Orthodox view- an unconstitutional act is not law.
It is as if the law did not exist.
 2. Modern view- It has no retroactive effect, it
affects only the parties before it. [“operative fact
doctrine” Flores v. Drilon
Planters v. Fertiphil, 548 SCRA 485 (2008): What do we
follow?
The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to
the general rule, 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 always
be ignored. The doctrine is applicable when a
declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue
burden on those who have relied on the invalid law.
Sec. 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative
supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.

MACEDA V. VASQUEZ: (Ombudsman)

A. Administrative - NO JURISDICTION
B. Criminal
1. Act relates to his administrative duties –
Supreme Court
2. Act does not relate – OMB can proceed
independently

Falsifaction of service record. Delay in …

CSC v. Andal, 608 SCRA 370 (2009)
Garcia v. Miro (2009_: Reckless Imprudence -
 Bar Q: 2004/3: An NLRC Commissioner is facing a
complaint before the OMB for violation of the Anti-
Graft Law. He contends that under the law creating
the NLRC, he has the rank of a jsutice of the Court of
Appeals. Hence the OMB has no jurisdiction over him.
Is he correct?
 2012, No. 5Judge Red is the Executive Judge of Green City.
Red is known to have corrupt tendencies and has a reputation
widely known among practicing lawyers for accepting bribes.
Ombudsman Grey, wishing to "clean up" the government from
errant public officials, initiated an investigation on the alleged
irregularities in the performance of duties of Judge Red.
(1) Judge Red refused to recognize the authority of the Office of the
Ombudsman over him because according to him, any
administrative action against him or any court official or
employee falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court. Decide with reasons. (5%)
(2) Does the Ombudsman have authority to conduct investigation
over crimes or offenses committed by public officials that are
NOT in connection or related at all to the official’s discharge of
his duties and functions? Explain. (3%)
 Section 7. (1) No person shall be appointed Member of the
Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court unless he is a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines. A Member of the Supreme
Court must be at least forty years of age, and must have been for
fifteen years or more, a judge of a lower court or engaged in the
practice of law in the Philippines.
 (2) The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of
lower courts, but no person may be appointed judge thereof
unless he is a citizen of the Philippines and a member of the
Philippine Bar.
 (3) A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven
competence, integrity, probity, and independence.
Qualification of SC Justice
1. Natural-born citizen
2. At least 40 years of age
3. Must have been for 15 years or more a judge or
engaged in practice
4. Must be of proven competence, integrity, probity
and independence (Sereno Case)

Must lower court judges of single sala courts be

natural-born Filipinos?
 2018, No. V. State whether or not the following acts
are constitutional: (2% each)

 (a) A law prescribing as qualifications for appointment

to any court lower than the Supreme Court, Philippine
citizenship, whether natural-born or naturalized, 35
years of age on the date of appointment, and at least
eight years as a member of the Philippine Bar;
 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.
MEMBERS OF THE JBC
1. Chief Justice
2. Secretary of Justice
3. Representative of Congress
4. Rep. of Integrated Bar
5. Professor of law
6. Retired SC member
7. Private sector representative
Chavez v. JBC, 676 SCRA 579 (2012)
Who represents Congress? Must each House have a
representative?
Villanueva v. JBC, 755 SCRA 182 (2015)
Can the JBC require that an MTC judge must have
served at least 5 years as such before he can apply to
the RTC?
 Section 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and
judges of the lower courts shall be appointed by the
President from a list of at least three nominees
prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every
vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.
 For the lower courts, the President shall issue the
appointments within ninety days from the submission
of the list.
Aquinaldo v. Aquino III, 811 SCRA 304 (2016)
For vacancies that occur simultaneously in collegiate
courts, can the President appoint anyone in the various
shortlists prepared by the JBC?
 Bar Q: 1988, No. 11: a novel feature of the present
Constitution is the Judicial and Bar Council Please
state: 1) its principal function 2) its composition, and
3)who supervises it and takes care of tis
appropriations?
 1999, XI: What is the composition of the JBC and the
term of office of the regular members.
 Sec. 10. The Salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate
Justices of the SC, and of the judges of lower courts shall be fixed
by law. During their continuance in office, their salary shall not
be decreased.
 Sec. 11. The members of the SC and judges of lower courts shall
hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of 70 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 majority of
the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the
issues in the case and voted in thereon.
 Gacott: Must all disciplinary cases against judges be
heard by the Supreme Court en banc? No. Only if
penalty is dismissal. If less, division will do.

 1996, No. 9: A, an associate justice of the Supeme

Court reached the age of seventy on Jul1 1, 1996.
There was a case for deliberation on that day where
the vote of A was crucial. Can A hold over the position
and participate in the deliberation?
 1993, No. 11: How may judges of lower courts be
removed from office?
Sec. 12. The members of the Supreme Court and of other courts
established by law shall not be designated to any agency
performing administrative or quasi-judicial function. [In Re Judge
Manzano]
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 Members who took no part, or dissented, or abstained from a
decision or resolution, must state the reason therefor. The same
requirements shall be observed by all lower collegiate courts.
 Procedure for Decision-Making
First, must deliberate before assigning to the writer
Second, a member who dissents must state the
reason
Third, a member who does not participate must state
the reason.
Consing, requirement of certification/Peragoza-absence
2014, No. 12, The Court had adopted the practice of announcing its decision in
important, controversial or interesting cases the moment the votes had been
taken among the justices, even as the final printed decision and separate
opinions are not yet available to the public. In a greatly anticipated decision in a
case of wide-ranging ramifications, the voting was close – 8 for the majority,
while 7 were for the other side. After the Court had thus voted, it issued a press
release announcing the result, with the advice that the printed copy of the
decision, together with the separate opinions, were to be issued subsequently.
The following day, however, one of the members of the Court died. The Court
then announced that it would deliberate anew on the case since apparently the
one who died belonged to the majority. Citizens for Transparency, a group of
civic-spirited professionals and ordinary citizens dedicated to transparency and
accountability in the government, questioned the act of the Court. The petitioners
claimed the decision had already been validly adopted and promulgated.
Therefore, it could no longer be recalled by the Court. At the same time, the
group also asked the Court to disclose to the public the original decision and the
separate opinions of the magistrates, together with what they had deliberated on
just before they came up with the press release about the 8-7 decision. (6%)
 Sec. 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court
without expressing 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.
Contents of decisions:

1. Decision – facts and law on which it is based

2. Petition for review of Motion for Reconsideration
– reason for the denial

Does not apply to CSC, DOLE, Military

Commission, TRB = Judiciary
Motion for Recon: /Protacio/Mangelen
 Sec. 15 (1) All cases or matters filed after the
efectivity of this Constitution must be decided or
resolved within 24 hours from the date of
submission for the SC, and unless reduced by the
Supreme Court, 12 months for all lower collegiate
courts, and 3 months for all other lower courts.
 Period for making Decisions
1. Supreme Court – 24 months
2. Court of Appeals – 12 months
3. RTC/MTC – 3 months
 4. Sandiganbayan and CTA?
 (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
 1989: No.Despite he lapse of 4 months from end of
trial, the judge failed to decide. The defense counsel
moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the
court had lost jurisdiction. Should the motion be
granted.
 [But take note of Licaros]
 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.