UPDATE: Philippine Legal Research

By Milagros Santos-Ong

Milagros Santos-Ong is the Director of the Library Services of

the Supreme Court of the Philippines . She is the author of Legal
Research and Citations (Rexl Book Store) a seminal book published in
numerous editions and a part-time professor on Legal Research in some
law schools in the Metro-Manila.

Published March 2015

(Previous updates on March 2006, December 2007, June 2009, and March 2012)
See the archive version!

Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Political Structure
3. Government Structure
3.1. Executive Branch
3.2. Legislative Department
3.3. Judicial System
3.4. Constitutional Commissions
3.5. Local Governments
3.6. Other Government Agencies
4. Legal System
4.1. Nature of the Philippine Legal System
4.2. Sources of Law
5. Philippine Legal Research
5.1. Research of Statute law
5.2. Research of Case Law
6. Legal Profession and Legal Education
6.1. Law Schools
6.2. Bar Associations
 7. Law Librarians Association

Part 2: Philippine Legal Information Resources and Citations

1. Introduction
The Philippines is an archipelago of 7,107 islands with a land area of
299,740 sq. kilometers. It is surrounded by the Pacific Ocean on the East,
South China Sea on the North and the West and the Celebes Sea on the
South. This comprises the National Territory of the Philippines. Article I
of the 1987 Constitution provides that the "national territory comprises
the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced
therein and all other territories which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction."

Laws enacted by Congress defined the baselines of the territorial sea of

the Philippine archipelago. As early as 1935, the baselines have been
defined in the 1935 Constitution. This was followed by Republic Act No.
3046 as amended by Republic Act No.5446. Republic Act No. 9522,
approved on March 10, 2000 amended both laws and defined the
archipelagic baselines as “Regime of Islands” (section 2) This definition
is consistent with Art.121 of the United Nations Convention of the Law
of the Sea (UNCLOS), where the Philippines took an active part. Rodolfo
Severino, in his article “ Clarifying the New Philippines Baseline Law”
(Republic Act No. 9522) stated that the purpose of the law is mainly to
amend the existing baselines act and to ‘define the archipelagic baselines
of the Philippines’. It does not extend the baselines to Spratlys or to
Scarborough Shoal, both of which China and Vietnam claim in their
territory, while the Philippines claims a part of what are called “ Spratlys
and all of Scarborough Shoal .” Protest made by China remains. The
constitutionality of the law was question at the Supreme Court in the
case Magallona, et. al vs. Ermita, et. al., G.R. No. 187167. The decision
upholding the constitutionality of the law was penned by Justice Antonio
T. Carpio on July 16, 2011. The petitioners of the case were professors
of law, law students and a legislator. The petitioners filed the case in
their capacities as citizens of the Philippines, taxpayers and
legislators. Noteworthy to mention are the two grounds invoked by the
petitioners in questioning the constitutionality of the law:”1). RA 9522
reduces the Philippine maritime territory, and logically, the reach of the
Philippine state’s sovereign power, in violation of Article 1 of the 1987
Constitution” and 2) “RA 9522 opens the country’s waters landward of
the baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and aircrafts,
undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security, contravening
the country’s nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources, in
violation of relevant constitutional provisions.”

Justice Antonio T. Carpio in his speech before Philippine Women Judges

Association, entitled “Protecting the Nation’s Marine Wealth in the West
Philippine Sea,” March 6, 2014, provided an illustration of the baselines
defined by Republic Act Nos. 5446 and 9522.

The Philippines’ claim to the Spratlys and the historic claim to Sabah
remain unresolved. The Philippines is now confronted with conflicting
claims in the South China Sea which is governed by the 1982 United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which entered into
force in 1994. The Philippines and China who are claimants to the South
China seas are among the 165 countries that have ratified the UNCLOS.

China’s claim is based on the 9-dashed line which covers a total area
almost 90% of the South China Sea. In a speech delivered by Senior
Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio entitled, “The Rules of Law in the
West Philippine Sea Dispute,” he stated that China’s 9-dash claim
encroaches on 80% on the Philippines’ 200-nm exclusive economic zone
(EEZ) and 100% of its 150-nm extended continental shelf (ECS) facing the
South China sea – what the Philippines call West Philippine sea. China’s
9-dash line claim has similar effects on the EEZs and ECSs of Vietnam,
Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia facing the South China Sea.”

Justice Antonio T. Carpio’s speech before Philippine Women Judges

Association, entitled “Protecting the Nation’s Marine Wealth in the West
Philippine Sea,” March 6, 2014 includes the illustration on the 9-Dashed
Lines.

Senior Justice Antonio Carpio stated that “maritime dispute in the West
Philippine Sea could be more easily resolved if all the claimant States
agreed on two things: first, on the applicable law to govern the maritime
dispute, and second, on the historical facts on the West Philippine Sea.”

David Rosenberg in his article, “The Paradox of the South China Sea
Disputes,” considers the nine-dash line claim as the most controversial
maritime territorial claim. Rosenberg traced the history as claim as far
“back as December 1914 when Hu Jinjie, a Chinese cartographer,
published a map with a line around only the Pratas and Paracels, entitled
‘The Chinese Territorial Map Before the Qianglong-Jiaqing Period of the
Qing Dynasty (AD 1736–1820)” until “1953 when the two dotted line
portion in the Gulf of Tonkin was deleted by Premier Zhou Enlai’s
approval. Chinese maps published since 1953 have shown the nine-
dotted line in the South China Sea.”

The Philippines however has its own version on historical claims based
on historical maps available at the United States Library of Congress,
National Library of Australia. The Philippine historical claim can be seen
in a cartographic exhibit entitled “ Historical Truths and Lies,
Scarborough Schoal in Ancient Maps ,” which was based on the June
2014 of Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio. The first map in this
cartographic exhibit was published in 1734 by Jesuit Pedro Murillo. It is
considered the "mother of all Philippine maps."
 Caption: "Carta Hydrographica Y Chorographica de las Yslas Filipinas"
(8407x7734) (U.S. Library of Congress (Catalog No. 2013585226; Digital
ID g8060 ct003137)

This territorial dispute has both political and economic implications for
the Philippines, China and also to Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and
Indonesia. There was even a headline stating “ Is the South China Sea on
the Brink of War? ” As a measure to resolve the controversy, the
Philippines has used the legal remedy in as much as China and the
Philippines are parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea or UNCLOS.

The Philippines filed a formal claim before an arbitration tribunal

constituted under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention of
the Law of the Sea entitled “In the Matter of an Arbitration between The
Republic of the Philippines (applicant) and The People’s Republic of
China (Respondent), 24 August 2013 (PCA Case No. 2013-19. Full text of
the Rules of Procedure of the case is available in the Permanent Court of
Arbitration. Further details can be found here , here , and here .
The Filipino culture was molded over more than a hundred ethnic groups
consisting of 91% Christian Malay, 4% Muslim Malay, 1.5% Chinese and
3% others. As of the August 2007 national census , the population of the
Philippines has increased to 88.57 million and is estimated to reach 92.23
million in 2009. The census is scheduled to be undertaken this 2009.

Filipino ( Tagalog) is the national language (1987 Constitution, Art. XIV,

sec. 6) of the Philippines. However, Filipino and English are the official
languages for the purpose of communication and instruction (Art. XIV,
sec 7). Optional use of the national language, Filipino ( Tagalog ) is
allowed. Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 16-2010 allowed
the optional use and on a per case basis, the use of Filipino (Tagalog ) in
court proceedings in view to the difficulties encountered in the use of
Filipino as manifested by the Presiding Judges and the court
stenographers of some courts. This Circular provides that “in
appropriate cases as may be determined by the Presiding Judge and
without objection of the parties, the above-mentioned courts may use
Filipino in the hearing and resolution of motions, or in the conduct of
mediation, pre-trial conference, trial, and in any other
court proceedings. Existing translations of laws and rules may be used
freely, and technical terms in English or Latin need not be translated
literally into Filipino.” Republic Act No. 10157, known as the
Kindergarten Education Act utilizes the “mother tongue-based
multilingual education (MTB-MLE) method as the” primary medium of
instruction for teaching and learning in the kindergarten level
(sec.5). Section 5, likewise specifically provides that the Department of
Education must include in its teaching strategies the “child’s
understanding of English, which is the official language.”

There are several dialects or regional languages (spoken and written)

throughout the different islands of the country, but there are eight major
dialects, which include Bicolano, Cebuano, Hiligaynon or Ilongo,
Ilocano, Pampango, Pangasinense, Tagalog, and Waray .
 There are two major religions of the country: Christianity and
Islam. Christianity, more particularly Catholicism, is practiced by more
than 80% of the population. It was introduced by Spain in 1521. The
Protestant religion was introduced by American missionaries.

Aglipay , or the Philippine Independent Church, and the Iglesia ni

Kristo are two Filipino independent churches or religious
organizations. Other Christian religious organizations like
the El Shaddai, Ang DatingDaan , and ‘Jesus is Lord' have been
established. Members of the Iglesia ni Kristo and the El Shaddai are
increasing and their membership has exented worldwide. These
independent churches and religious organizations are having a great
influence to the nation, especially during elections.

The Constitution of the Philippines specifically provides that the

separation of Church and State is inviolable. (Constitution (987), Art. II,
sec.6). However, religion has a great influence in the legal system of the
Philippines. For the Muslim or Islamic religion, a special law, the Code of
Muslim Personal Laws (Presidential Decree no. 1083), was promulgated
and special courts were established, the Shari’a courts, a separate bar
examination for the Muslim or Islamic community is being conducted.
The Catholic Church has affected the present political system. A priest
had to take leave as a priest when he was elected governor of a province
in Region 3. A movement was even started to be able to choose the
President of the Philippines and other government officials in the May
2009 national election. The Church stand on major issues have
affected the passage of bills pending in Congress and such as the
Reproductive Health Bill (Senate Bill No. 2865 and House Bill No.
4244) which was approved by both House of Congress on December 19,
2012. After the passage of the law, religious organizations and
individuals questioned the constitutionality of the law in the
consolidated case of “Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr.,” G.R. No. 204819, April 08,
2014.

The other bill still pending in Congress is Divorce, etc. The Philippines is
considered as the only country that does not allow Divorce. However,
annulment of marriage is recognized.

2. Political Structure
The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. The present political
structure of the Philippines was defined by the 1987 Constitution, duly
ratified in a plebiscite held on February 2, 1987 and proclaimed ratified
on February 11, 1987. There is a move now in Congress, which was
started at the House of Representatives to revise/amend the present
Constitution. One of the major problems to be resolved by both Houses
of Congress is the mode or method in revising/amending the present
1987 Constitution. A much debated proposed amendment is the term
extension for the President.

The 1987 Constitution provides that the Philippines is a democratic and

republican state where sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them (Article II, section 1).
3. Government Structure
The government structure differs as one goes through the history of the
Philippines, which may be categorized as follows: a) Pre-Spanish; b).
Spanish period; c). American period; d). Japanese period; e). Republic;
and f). Martial Law Period

a) Pre-Spanish (before 1521)

The Barangays or independent communities were the unit of
government structures before Spain colonized the Philippines. The head
of each barangay was the Datu . The Datus were called Cabeza de
Barangayduring the Spanish period. He governs the barangays using
native rules, which are customary and unwritten. There were two codes
during this period: the Maragtas Code issued by Datu Sumakwel of Panay
Island and the Code of Kalantiao issued by Datu Kalantiano in 1433. The
existence of these codes is questioned by some historians.

Just like many ancient societies, trial by ordeal was practiced.

b) Spanish period (1521-1898)

The Spanish period can be traced from the time Magellan discovered the
Philippines when he landed on Mactan Island (Cebu) on March 16, 1521.
Royal decrees, Spanish laws, and/or special issuances of special laws for
the Philippines were extended to the Philippines from Spain by the
Spanish Crown through the councils. The chief legislator is the governor-
general who exercises legislative functions by promulgating executive
decrees, edicts or ordinances with the force of law.
The Roya l Audencia, or Spanish Supreme Court, in the Philippines also
exercised legislative functions when laws are passed in the form of autos
accordados . Melquiades Gamb oa , in his book entitled “ An Introduction
to Philippine Law ” (7th ed, 1969), listed the most prominent laws in this
period: Fuero Juzgo, Fuero Real, Las Siete Partidas, Leyes de Toros, Nueva
Re copi lacion de las Leyes de Indias and the Novisima
Recopilacion . Some of these laws were also in force in other Spanish
colonies. Laws in force at the end of the Spanish rule in 1898 are as
follows: Codigo Penal de 1870, Ley Provisional para la Aplicaciones de las
Dispociciones del Codigo Penal en las Islas Filipinas, Ley de Enjuciamento
Criminal, Ley de Enjuciameniento Civil, Codigo de Comercio, Codigo Civil
de 1889, Ley Hipotecaria, Ley de Minas, Ley Notarial de 1862 , Railway
Law of 1877, Law of Foreigners for Ultramarine Provinces and the Code
of Military Justice. Some of these laws remained in force even during the
early American period and/or until Philippine laws were promulgated.
In between the Spanish and the American period is what Philippine
historians consider the first Philippine Republic. This was when General
Emilio Aguinaldo proclaimed the Philippine Independence in Kawit ,
Cavite on June 12, 1898. The Malolos Congress also known as Assembly
of the Representatives, which can be considered as revolutionary in
nature, was convened on September 15, 1898. The first Philippine
Constitution, the Malolos Constitution was approved on January 20,
1899. General Emilio Aguinaldo was the President and Don Gracio
Gonzaga as the Chief Justice. A Republic, although with de
facto authority, was in force until the start of the American Sovereignty
when the Treaty of Paris was signed on December 10, 1898.

c) American period (1898-1946)

The start of this period can be traced after the Battle of Manila Bay when
Spain ceded the Philippines to the United States upon the signing of the
Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898. A military government was
organized with the military governor as the chief executive exercising
executive, legislative and judicial functions. Legislative function was
transferred to the Philippine Commission in 1901, which was created by
the United States President as commander-in-chief of the Armed forces
and later ratified by the Philippine Bill of 1902. This same Bill provided
for the establishment of the First Philippine Assembly, which convened
on October 16, 1907. The Jones law provided for the establishment of a
bicameral legislative body on October 16, 1916, composed of the Senate
and the House of Representatives.

The United States Constitution was recognized until the promulgation

of the Philippine Constitution on February 8, 1935, signed by U.S.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on March 23, 1935 and ratified at
a plebiscite held on May 14, 1935.

The organic laws that governed the Philippines during this period were:
President McKinley’s Instruction to the Second Philippine Commission on
April 7, 1900; Spooner Amendment of 1901; Philippine Bill of 1902; Jones
Law of 1916 and the Tydings McDuffie Law of May 1, 1934. The later law
is significant for it allowed the establishment of a Commonwealth
government and the right to promulgate its own Constitution. The 1935
Constitution initially changed the legislative system to a
unicameral system. However, the bicameral system was restored
pursuant to the 1940 Constitutional amendment. The Commonwealth
government is considered as a transition government for ten years
before the granting of the Philippine independence. Cayetano Arellano
was installed as the first Chief Justice in 1901. The Majority of the Justices
of the Philippine Supreme Court were Americans. Decisions rendered by
the Supreme Court of the Philippines were appealed to the United States
Supreme Court, which were reported in the United States Supreme Court
Reports.

Manuel L. Quezon and Sergio Osmeña were elected as President and

Vice-President respectively during the September 14, 1935 elections. In
this election, President Quezon won over General Emilio Aguinaldo and
Bishop Gregorio Aglipay, the President of the First Philippine Republic
(1898) and the head of the Aglipayan church, respectively. This
Commonwealth government went into exile in Washington DC during
the Japanese period from May 13, 1942 to October 3, 1944. President
Manuel L. Quezon died on August 1, 1944 and was succeeded by
President Sergio Osmena who brought back the government to Manila
on February 28, 1945.

d) Japanese period (1941-1944)

The invasion of the Japanese forces when Clark Field, an American
military airbase in Pampanga, was bombed on December 8, 1941,
marked the start of the Japanese period, which lasted for three years. A
Japanese Republic was established with Jose P. Laurel as its President.
Jose Yulo was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court
decisions during this period were recognized and are found in the
Philippine Reports, the official publication for Supreme Court decisions .
This period was considered as a military rule by the Japanese Imperial
Army. The 1943 Constitution was ratified by a special national
convention of the Kapisanan sa Paglilingkod ng Bagong
Pilipinas (KALIBAPI). No law/statutes, including the 1943 Constitution
were recognized after the war. This period lasted for three years
and ended in 1944 with the defeat of the Japanese forces.

e) Republic period (1946-1972)

July 4, 1946 was the inauguration of Philippine independence. A
Philippine Republic was born. A republic means a government by the
people and sovereignty resides in the entire people as a body
politic. The provisions of the 1935 Constitution defined the government
structure, which provided for the establishment of three co-equal
branches of government. Executive power rests in the President,
legislative power in two Houses of Congress and judicial power in the
Supreme Court, and inferior courts. Separation of powers is recognized.

Efforts to amend the 1935 Constitution started on August 24, 1970

with the approval of Republic Act No. 6132 where 310 delegates were
elected on November 10, 1970. On June 1, 1971, the delegates of the
Constitutional Convention met. While it was still in session, President
Ferdinand E. Marcos declared Martial Law on September 21, 1972. The
Constitutional Convention completed the draft Constitution on
November 29, 1972. It was submitted for ratification through citizens’
assemblies on January 17, 1973. This is known as the 1973 Constitution.

f) Martial Law Period (1972-1986).

The Philippine Congress was abolished when Martial Law was declared
on September 21, 1972. The Martial Law period was governed by the
1973 Constitution, which established a parliamentary form of
government. Executive and legislative powers were merged and the
Chief Executive was the Prime Minister who was elected by majority of
all members of the National Assembly (Parliament). The Prime Minister
had the power to advise the President. The President is the symbolic
head of state. This parliamentary government was never implemented
due to the transitory provision of the 1973 Constitution. Military
tribunals were also established. Amendments to the Constitution were
made wherein by virtue of amendment No. 3, the powers of the
President and the Prime Minister were merged into the incumbent
President Ferdinand E. Marcos. Amendment No. 6 authorized President
Marcos to continue exercising legislative powers until Martial law is in
effect. Amendment No. 7 provided for the barangays as the smallest
political subdivision and the sanggunians , or councils. The 1981
amendment introduced the modified presidential/parliamentary system
of government of the Philippines. The President shall be elected by the
people for a term of six years while the Prime Minister shall be elected
by a majority of the Batasang Pambansa (Parliament) upon the
nomination of the President. He was the head of the Cabinet and had
supervision over all the ministries. The President during this period was
Ferdinand E. Marcos and the Prime Minister was Cesar Enrique
Aguinaldo Virata.

Proclamation No. 2045 (1981) lifted Martial Law and abolished mi litary
tribunals. Elections were held on June 16, 1981 and President Marcos
was re-elected into office as President. The constitution was again
amended in 1984 and a plebiscite was held on January 27, 1984 pursuant
to Batas Pambansa Blg. 643 (1984). Elections were held on May 14, 1984
for the 183 elective seats in the 200 member of the Batasang Pambansa .

An i mpeachment resolution by 57 members of the opposition was f iled

against President Marcos but was dismissed. A special presidential
election, popularly known as Snap Election, was called by President
Marcos on November 3, 1985 and was held on February 7, 1986. The
National Movement for Free Elections, or NAMFREL, results showed that
Corazon Aquino led by over a million votes. However, the Batasang
Pambansa declared that Ferdinand E. Marcos and Arturo M. Tolentino
won over Corazon C . Aquino and Salvador H. Laurel as President and
Vice-President, respectively. President Marcos and Vice President
Arturo took their oath before Chief Justice Ramon Aquino at the
Malacanang Palace, Manila. This event led to the People Power
revolution, which ousted President Marcos on February 25, 1986.

g) Republic Revival (1986-present)

The Republic period was revived after the bloodless revolution popularly
known as People Power or the EDSA Revolution.

Corazon C. Aquino and Salvador H. Laurel took their oath of office as

11 th President and Vice President of the Philippine Republic on February
25, 1986 before Associate Justice Claudio Teehankee at the Club Filipino,
San Juan, Manila. Proclamation No. 1 (1986) was promulgated wherein
the President and the Vice President took power in the name and by the
will of the Filipino people. Proclamation No. 3 (1986) adopted as the
Provisional Constitution or Freedom Constitution, provided for a new
government.

A Constitutional Commission was constituted by virtue of Article V of the

Provisional Constitution and Proclamation No. 9 (1986). The
Constitutional Commission, composed of 48 members, was mandated to
draft a Constitution. After 133 days, the draft constitution was
submitted to the President on October 15, 1986 and ratified by the
people in a plebiscite held on February 2, 1987. Under the transitory
provision of the 1987 Constitution, the President and Vice President
elected in the February 7, 1986 elections were given a six-year term of
office until June 30, 1992. Congressional elections were held on May 11,
1987. The Republican form of government was officially revived when
the 1987 Constitution was ratified and Congress was convened in
1987. Legislative enactments again rested in the Congress. Republic
Acts were again issued by Congress, the number of which took off from
the last number used before Martial Law was declared. The numbering
of Republic Acts continued from the number last used before Martial Law
(Republic Act No. 6635 (1972) and Republic Act No. 6636 (1987). The
Republic form of government by virtue of the 1987 Constitution was the
same type of republican government prior to Martial law by virtue of
the 1935 Constitution with three co-equal branches: Executive,
Legislative and the Judiciary.

The Philippines once again became a Republic by virtue of the 1987

Constitution. The same type of republican form of government prior to
Martial law was established with three co-equal branches were
organized, Executive, Legislative and the Judiciary. Those holding
office in these three co-equal branches are public officers and
employees. Constitution (1987), Article XI, provides for the
accountability of public officers. Article XI, Section 1 , “Public office is a
public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be
accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility,
integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead
modest lives.” Public officers in the Executive (President and Vice
President) , Judiciary (Members or Justices of the Supreme Court) and
the Constitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman may be removed
from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of
the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high
crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and
employees may be removed from office as provided by law, such as the
civil service laws, but not by impeachment (Article XI, Section 2).

The legislative branch is composed of the Senate and the House of

Representatives. It is the legislative branch or Congress, which is
involved in the impeachment process. The House of Representatives has
the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment though
a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment filed by at least one-
third of all the Members of the House of Representatives, and an Articles
of Impeachment (Article XI, Section 3, (1) – (5)). The Senate shall have
the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When the
President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court shall preside, but shall not vote. The public officer (President and
Vice President, members or Justices of the Supreme Court and the
Constitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman) shall be convicted
with the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the
Senate. (Article XI, Section 3, (6). When the Chief Justice or members of
the Judiciary and the Constitutional Commissions and Ombudsman are
on trial, the Senate President shall preside. Rules of impeachment shall
be promulgated by the Senate. Find further information here , here ,
and here .

Impeachment (Constitution (1987) Article XI, Sections 2 and 3 has

been filed against a President, two Chief Justices and one Associate
Justice and an Ombudsman. In the case of President Joseph E.
Estrada ,verified complaint was filed by 115 members of the House of
Representatives led by the Speaker of the House of Representatives
Manuel Villar on November 13, 2000. Impeachment trial was held
December 9, 2000 with Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. as presiding
officer and Senate President Aquilino Pimentel. The impeachment trial
did not end for the Prosecutors walked out on January 16, 2001 when
the impeachment court did not grant their request to open the second
envelope. This lead to what is called “People Power 2,” which ended
when Vice-President Gloria Macapal Arroyo took her oath of office as
President on January 21, 2001 before Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide
Jr., in EDSA where the people gathered for the People Power 2. The
legality of the Arroyo Presidency was brought to the Supreme Court by
President Estrada (Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15, March 2,
2001)

On October 23, 2003, an impeachment case was filed against Chief

Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. but it did not prosper in the House of
Representatives. The question on the impeachment case of Chief Justice
Davide was resolved by the Supreme Court in the case of Francisco, Jr. v.
The House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261, November 10,
2003). On May 2011, the House Committee on Justice declared that the
impeachment complaint against incumbent Associate Justice Mariano
Del Castillo as sufficient in form and in December 2011, as sufficient in
substance. The impeachment complaint is still pending in the House of
Representatives. December 2011, an impeachment case was filed
against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona by 188 members of the House of
Representatives or more than the required one-third requirement
ofArticle XI, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution . Trial started January
16, 2012 with Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile as Presiding
Officer. Chief Justice Renato C. Corona was found guilty under Article II
of the Articles of Impeachment last May 29, 2012 or after 43 days of
trial. The vote of the Senators who acted as Impeachment Court Judges
was 20-3, 20 found him guilty. Chief Justice Renato C. Corona is the first
high ranking government official to be convicted by an impeachment
court.

In March 2011, 212 members of the House of Representatives led by

House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte voted to impeach the Ombudsman
Merceditas Gutierrez and to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the
Senate. The 7-year term of office of Ombudsman Gutierrez was
supposed to end December 2012. Ombudsman Gutierrez resigned
before the impeachment trial by the Senate.

3.1. Executive Branch

The President is vested with the executive power. (Art. VII, sec. 1, 1987
Constitution). The President is both the Chief of State (head of
government) and the Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (Art. VII, sec. 18). Since 1898 when the First Philippine
Republic was established, the Philippines has had fifteen (15) Presidents
from Emilio Aguinaldo to Benigno S. Aquino III.

The Executive Branch also includes the Vice-President and the

Secretaries of Heads of the Executive Departments and other Cabinet
officials
Both the President and the Vice-President are elected by direct vote of
the Filipino people for a term of six years. The President is not eligible for
a re-election while the Vice President cannot serve for more than two
terms. Congress is empowered to promulgate rules in the canvassing of
certificates of election. The Supreme Court sitting en banc is the sole
judge of all election contests relating to their election, returns and
qualifications (Art VII, sec. 4). The Supreme Court en banc thus acts as
the Presidential Electoral Tribunal. The Supreme Court promulgated
the 2005 Rules on the Presidential Tribunal (A.M. No. 05-11-06-SC).Both
may be removed from office by impeachment (Art. XI sec. 2) to be
initiated by the House of Representatives (Art. XI, sec, 3) and tried and
decided by the Senate (Art. XI, sec, 3 (6)). The Cabinet members are
nominated by the President, subject to the confirmation of the
Commission on Appointments (Art. VII, sec, 16) which consists of the
President of the Senate, as ex- officio Chairman, twelve Senators and
twelve members of the House of Representatives (Art. VI, sec. 1).

Cabinet members are nominated by the President, subject to the

confirmation of the Commission on Appointments (Art. VII, sec, 16),
which consists of the President of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman,
twelve Senators and twelve members of the House of Representatives
(Art. VI, sec. 1).

The President exercises control over all the executive departments,

bureaus and offices (Art. VI, sec, 17).

Office of the Solicitor General .

Its mandate and function as found in its website is that it is “the law
firm of the Republic of the Philippines. It is tasked to represent the
People of the Philippines, the Philippine Government, its Agencies and
Instrumentalities, Officials and Agents (especially before appellate
courts) in any litigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer.” Its
mission is “to promote and protect the interest of the Republic of the
Philippines and its people in legal proceedings and matters requiring the
services of a lawyer.

3.2. Legislative Department

Legislative power is vested in the Congress of the Philippines, consisting
of the Senate and the House of Representatives (Art. VI, sec. 1). History
has provided that the legislative structure has undergone numerous
changes. A brief history of the Philippine legislature is available at
the House of Representative website and at the Senate .

The Senate of the Philippines is composed of twenty four (24) Senators

who are elected at large by qualified voters who serve for a term of not
more than six (6) years. No Senator may be elected for more than two
consecutive terms. (Art VI, sec. 4). The Senate is led by the Senate
President, Pro Tempore, Majority Leader and the Minority Leader. The
Senate President is elected by majority vote of its members. There are
thirty six (36) permanent committees and five (5) oversight
committees. The sole judge of contests relating to election, returns and
qualifications of members of the Senate rests with the Senate Electoral
Tribunal (SET), which is composed of nine members, three of whom are
Justices of the Supreme Court and six members of the Senate. (Art. VI,
sec. 17). The Senate Electoral Tribunal has approved on November 12,
2003 its Revised Rules.

The House of Representatives is composed of not more than two

hundred fifty (250) members, elected by legislative districts for a term of
three years. No representative shall serve for more than three
consecutive terms. The party-list representatives who come from
registered national, regional and sectional parties and organizations,
shall constitute twenty percent (20%) of the total number of
representatives. The election of party-list representatives was by virtue
of the Republic Act No. 7941, which was approved on March 3, 1995. In
a recent decision of the Supreme Court penned by Justice Antonio T.
Carpio on April 21, 2009, Barangay Association for National
Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v. Commission on Elections
(G.R. No. 17971) and Bayan Muna, Advocacy for Teacher
Empowerment Through Action, Cooperation and Harmony Towards
Educational Reforms, Inc. and Abono (G.R. No. 179295), Republic Act No.
7941 was declared unconstitutional with regards to the two percent
threshold in the distribution of additional party-list seats. The Court in
this decision provided a procedure in the allocation of additional seats
under the Party-List System. Major political parties are disallowed from
participating in party-list elections . Another case on the party-list
elections, pursuant to Republic Act No. 7941 COMELEC Resolutions Nos.
9366 and 9531, was filed by the 52 party-list groups who were
disqualified by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to participate in
the May 13, 2013 election. The consolidated case is Atong Paglaum, Inc.,
Represented by its President, Mr. Alan Igot v. Commission on Elections
(G.R. No. 203766, April 2, 2013) was penned by Justice Antonio T. Carpio.
This case enumerated the six parameters in determining as to who may
participate in party-list elections.

The officials of the House of Representatives are the Speaker of the

House, Deputy Speaker for Luzon, Deputy Speaker for Visayas, Deputy
Speaker for Mindanao, Majority Leader, and Minority Leader. They
are elected by a majority vote of members. There are fifty seven (57)
standing committees and sixteen (16) special committees of the House
of Representatives. The sole judge of contests relating to election,
returns and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives
rests with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) which
is composed of nine members, three of whom are Justices of the
Supreme Court and six members of the Senate.(Art. VI, sec. 17). The
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal adopted its 1998 Internal
Rules on March 24, 1998.
3.3. Judicial System

Organizational Chart of the whole Judicial System and those of each type
of Court is available in 2002 Revised Manual of Clerks of Court. Manila:
Supreme Court, 2002. Organizational Chart was amended due to the
passage of Republic Act No. 9282 (law elevating the Court of Tax Appeals
to the level of a collegiate court)

Judicial power rests with the Supreme Court and the lower courts, as
may be established by law (Art. VIII, sec. 1). The judiciary enjoys fiscal
autonomy. Its appropriation may not be reduced by the legislature
below the appropriated amount the previous year, after approval, shall
be automatically and regularly released. (Art. VIII, sec. 3). This provision
may now face construction or interpretation in line with what the
Secretary of Budget and Management call “ Transparency and
Accountability Primordial to Fiscal Autonomy .” This involves the release
of funds of unfilled positions in agencies enjoying fiscal autonomy such
as Congress, Judiciary, Constitutional Commissions and the
Ombudsman. The last annual budget from the government represents
less than one (1%) of the entire budget of the Philippine government. In
1984, President Ferdiand Marcos passed Presidential Decree No.
1949, a special fund popularly called The Judiciary Development Fund
(JDF). It is a special fund established “to help ensure and guarantee the
independence of the Judiciary as mandated by the Constitution and
public policy.” This fund is sourced from the legal fees collected by the
courts and 80% is for the cost of living allowances of the members and
personnel of the Judiciary and 20% is for the acquisition, maintenance
and repair of office equipment and facilities.

The Rules of Court of the Philippines as amended and the rules and
regulations issued by the Supreme Court define the rules and procedures
of the Judiciary. These rules and regulations are in the form of
Administrative Matters, Administrative Orders, Circulars, Memorandum
Circulars, Memorandum Orders and OCA Circulars. To inform the
members of the Judiciary, legal profession and the public of these rules
and regulations, the Supreme Court disseminates this rules and
regulations to all courts, publishes important ones in newspapers of
general circulation, prints in book or pamphlet form and now downloads
them in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court E-Library websites .

Department of Justice Administrative Order No. 162 dated August 1,

1946 provided for the Canon of Judicial Ethics . Supreme Court of the
Philippines promulgated a new Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary effective June 1, 2004 (A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC), which was
published in two newspapers of general circulation on May 3, 2004
(Manila Bulletin & Philippine Star) and available on its websiteand
the Supreme Court E-Library website .

The Supreme Court promulgated on June 21, 1988 the Code of

Professional Responsibility for the legal profession. The draft was
prepared by the Committee on Responsibility, Discipline and Disbarment
of theIntegrated Bar of the Philippines.

A Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC) was

adopted on April 13, 2004, effective June 1, 2004, published in two
newspapers of general circulation on April 26, 2004 (Manila Bulletin &
Philippine Star) and available at the websites.

Supreme Court of the Philippines :

The barangay chiefs exercised judicial authority prior to the arrival of
Spaniards in 1521. During the early years of the Spanish period, judicial
powers were vested upon Miguel Lopez de Legaspi, the first governor
general of the Philippines where he administered civil and criminal
justice under the Royal Order of August 14, 1569.

The Royal Audencia was established on May 5, 1583 , composed of a

president, four oidores (justices) and a fiscal. The Audencia exercised
both administrative and judicial functions. Its functions and structure
were modified in 1815 when its president was replaced by a chief justice
and the number of justices was increased. It came to be known as
the Audencia Territorial de Manila with two branches, civil and
criminal. Royal Decree issued July 24, 1861 converted it to a purely
judicial body wherein its decisions were appealable to the Supreme
Court of the Philippines to the Court of Spain in Madrid. A
territorial Audencia in Cebu and Audencia for criminal cases in Vigan
were organized on February 26, 1898. The Audencias were suspended
by General Wesley Merrit when a military government was established
after Manila fell to American forces in 1898. Major General Elwell S. Otis
re-established the Audencia on May 29, 1899 by virtue of General Order
No. 20. Said Order provided for six Filipino members of
the Audencia . Act No. 136 abolished the Audencia and established
the present Supreme Court on June 11, 1901 with Cayetano Arellano as
the first Chief Justice together with associate justices, the majority of
whom were American. Filipinization of the Supreme Court started only
during the Commonwealth, 1935. Administrative Code of 1917 provided
for a Supreme Court with a Chief Justice and eight associate
Justices. With the ratification of the 1935 Constitution, the membership
was increased to 11 with two divisions of five members each. The 1973
Constitution further increased its membership to 15 with two (2)
divisions.

Pursuant to the provisions of the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court

is composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices who shall
serve until the age of seventy (70). The Court may sit En Banc or in its
three (3) divisions composed of five members each. A vacancy must be
filled up by the President within ninety (90) days of occurrence from the
list submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council. Constitution (1987),Article
VIII, sec. 4 (2) explicitly provides for the cases that must be heard En Banc
and sec. 4 (3) f or cases that may be heard by divisions.

Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 transferred from the Department of

Justice to the Supreme Court the administrative supervision of all courts
and their personnel. This was affirmed by Constitution(1987), Art. VIII,
sec. 6. To effectively discharge this constitutional mandate, The Office
of the Court Administrator (OCA) was created under Presidential Decree
No. 828, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 842, and its functions
further strengthened by a Resolution of the Supreme Court En Banc
dated October 24, 1996. Its principal function is the supervision and
administration of the lower courts throughout the Philippines and all
their personnel. It reports and recommends to the Supreme Court all
actions that affect the lower court management. The OCA is headed by
the Court Administrator, three (3) Deputy Court Administrators and
three (3) Assistant Court Administrators.

According to the 1987 Constitution , Art. VIII, sec. 5, the Supreme Court
exercises the following powers:
Exercise jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari , prohibition ,
mandamus , quo warranto , and habeas corpus .

Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the

law or the Rules of Court may provide final judgments and orders of
lower courts in:

 All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty,

international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in
question.
 All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or
toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.
 All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
 All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua or higher.
 All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
 Assign temporarily judges of lower court to other stations as public
interest may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed
six months without the consent of the judge concerned.
 Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of
justice.
 Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all
courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and
legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts the same grade, and shall not
diminish, increase or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure
of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective
unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
  Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance
with the Civil Service Law (Sec. 5, id.).

Supreme Court has promulgated the Internal Rules of the Supreme

Court ( As amended in Resolutions dated July 6, 2010, August 3, 2010,
January 17, 2012, September 18, 2012) ), to govern the internal
operations of the Court and as a guide to the exercise of its judicial and
administrative functions). The last revision of the Internal Rules (A.M.
No, 10-4-20-SC (Revised)) was in March 12, 2013).

The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court provides that cases may be
heard on oral arguments upon defined issues. The constitutionality of
laws, treaties and other agreements are defined issues. The procedure
defined by section 3 is as follows: “The petitioner shall argue first,
followed by the respondent and the amicus curiae , if any. Rebuttal of
oral arguments may be allowed by the Chief Justice or the Chairperson.
If any, the Court may invite amicus curiae. The constitutionality of two
significant laws has been decided after a series of oral
arguments. Republic Act No. 10354 – “Responsible Parenthood and
Reproductive Health Act of 2012 or RH LAW too years before it became
a law. One primary consideration is that the Philippines is a
Catholic/Christian country. The constitutionality of the RH law was
assailed in the consolidated case of Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr., (G.R. No.
204819, April 08, 2014). The Court declared that the law is
constitutional. The importance of religion and the Constitution was laid
down at the very start of the decision of Justice Jose Mendoza, and I
quote:

“Freedom of religion was accorded preferred status by the framers of

our fundamental law. And this Court has consistently affirmed this
preferred status, well aware that it is “designed to protect the broadest
possibly liberty of conscience, to all each man to believe as his
conscience directs, to profess his beliefs, and to live as he believes he
ought to live, consistent with the liberty of others and with the common
good.”

The constitutionality of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic

Act No.10175 passed on September 12, 2012 was assailed in the
consolidated case of Disini, Jr. v. The Secretary of Justice, G.R. No.
203335, February 18, 2014.

The constitutionality of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), an

agreement with the United States, was question in the consolidated case
of BAYAN ( Bagong Alyansang Makabayan ) v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570,
October 10, 2000. Although this case declared the agreement
constitutional, cases involving this agreement are being filed. The case
of Sombilon v. Romulo, G.R. No. 175888, February 11, 2009, pertains to
the custody of defendant Lance Corporal (L/CPL) Daniel Smith, a member
of the United States Visiting Forces who was accused of rape. Another
case involving Cpl. Scott Pemberton, member of the United States
Visiting Forces was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City
for the murder of a transgender. Cpl. Pemberton was heavily guarded by
both United States and Filipino soldiers and has undergone mandatory
fingerprinting and mug shorts but arraignment has not yet been
scheduled.

Another agreement between Philippines and the United

States, the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) has been
question in consolidated petitions pertions. The Supreme Court has
started last November 18, 2014 to hold oral arguments on these
consolidated petitions.

Recent cases filed in the Supreme Court involve the use of government
funds in the two co-equal branches of government, the Legislature and
the Executive. The Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 208566, November 19,
2003, involves the use of the Priority Development Assistance Fund
(PDAF) by the members of the Legislative Department. In the decision
of Justice Perlas-Bernabe, the concept and the history of the pork barrel
system was discussed. The Araullo v. Aquino III, G. R. No. 209287, July 1,
2014 on the other hand assailed the constitutionality of the
Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), National Budget Circular
(NBC) No. 541, and related issuances of the Department of Budget and
Management (DBM) implementing the DAP of the Executive
Department. The Supreme Court decided that use of the Priority
Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of the Legislative Department and
the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) of the Executive
Department are both unconstitutional. Plunder cases relating to the
use of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) have been filed
by the Office of the Ombudsman at the Sandiganbatan against three
incumbent Senators, Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Ramon Revilla, Jr. and
Jose P. Ejercito-Estrada. All the three incumbent Senators are under
detention.

The Supreme Court website includes the petitions, oral

arguments, audio recording and advisories of landmark decisions like
those previously mentioned.

The Supreme Court has adopted and promulgated the Rules of Court for
the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleadings and
practice and procedure in all courts, and the admission in the practice of
law. In line with this mandate of the Rules of Court and extrajudicial
killing and disappearances, the Supreme Court passed two important
Resolutions: the Rule on the Writ of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC),
approved on September 25, 2007 and effective on October 24, 2007, and
the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-1-16--SC), approved
on January 22, 2008 and effective February 2, 2008. The “Writ of
Amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty
and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act
or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or
entity. This writ shall cover extrajudicial killing and enforced
disappearances or threats. (sec.1)” The Writ of Habeas data on the other
hand “is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life,
liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or any private individual or
entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or
information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of
the aggrieved party” (section 1).

Writ of Kalikasan , a resolution on Rules of Procedure for Environmental

Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC) was approved on April 13, 2010 and was to
take effect on April 29, 2010, fifteen (15) days following its publication in
a newspaper of general circulation. This rule covers civil and criminal
actions brought before the Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts involving the
enforcement or violations on the existing environmental and other
related laws and regulations, conservation, development, preservation,
protection and utilization of the environment and natural
resources, promulgated during the American period such as Act No.
3572 approved on November 26, 1929 until the present Republic such
as Republic Act No. 9637 approved on May 13, 2009. The Courts
designated to try these cases are called “Green Courts.”

A Writ of Kalikasan was issued with a Temporary Environmental

Protection Order (TEPO) was issued by the Supreme Court in the case
of “West Tower Condominium Corporation, On Behalf of the Residents
off West Tower Condo., And In Representation of Barangay Bangkal, And
Others, Including Minors and Generations Yet Unborn vs. First Philippine
Industrial Corporation, First Gen Corporation And Their Respective Board
of Directors and Officers, John Does and Richard Does,” G.R. No. 194239,
May 31, 2011. The case of Abrigo v. Swift, G.R. No. 206510, September
16, 2014, was filed when the USS Guardian ran aground on the
northwest side of South Shoal of the Tubbataha Reefs. Tubataha
Reefs is declared as a Nature Park by law (Republic Act No. 10067,
approved April 6, 2010) and a World Heritage Site by the United Nations
Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). A Writ of
Kalikasan petition with prayer for the Temporary Environmental
Protection Order (TEPO) under Rule 7 of A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, otherwise
known as the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (Rules) was
filed for violations of environmental laws and regulations. This case
however takes into consideration involves international
responsibility. The USS Guardian was allowed to enter Philippine
waters by pursuant to the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) and “as a
treaty privilege should be considered as an act jure imperii .” The
petition was dismissed. The Court stated and I quote:

“The Court defers to the Executive Branch on the matter of

compensation and rehabilitation measures through diplomatic
channels. Resolution of these issues impinges on our relations with
another State in the context of common security interests under the VFA.
It is settled that “[t]he conduct of the foreign relations of our
government is committed by the Constitution to the executive and
legislative—“the political”--departments of the government, and the
propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this political power is
not subject to judicial inquiry or decision.”

The Supreme Court has promulgated what can be considered as a

landmark decision at the start of 2015. The Risos-Vidal v. Commission
on Elections and Joseph E. Estrada, G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015,
penned by Associate Justice Teresita L De Castro, dismissed the
disqualification case against the former President and now the elected
Mayor of Manila. The former President was convicted by the
Sandiganbayan of plunder. President Arroyo granted former President
Estrada executive clemency or pardon on October 25, 2007 on the
grounds that the government has a policy to pardon convicts who are 70
and above and that Estrada has already been on house of arrest for 6
years. This disqualification case’ main contention was on this pardon
extended by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The Supreme Court En
Banc voted 11-3 and one abstention. Majority of the justices
characterized the pardon as absolute and this restored Estrada’s
qualification to stand as candidate in the last mayoral election. This
decision upheld Estrada’s contention that President Arroyo’s
pardon “restored his full civil and political rights, including the right to
seek public elective office.”

Amendments are promulgated through the Committee on Revision of

Rules the Court also issues administrative rules and regulations in the
form of court issuances found in the Supreme Court and the Supreme
Court E-Library websites .

Draft personnel manual (A.M. No. 00-6-01-SC) was been submitted to

the Court En
Banc for action on March 29, 2011. In a Resolution of the Court En Banc
dated January
31, 2012, the Human Resource Manual formerly referred to as
Personnel Manual, was approved.

The Judicial and Bar Council was created by virtue of Constitution(1987),

Art. VIII, sec. 8. under the supervision of the Supreme Court. Its principal
function is to screen prospective appointees to any judicial post. It is
composed of the Chief Justice as ex-officio Chairman, the Secretary of
Justice and representatives of Congress as ex-officio members, a
representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired
member of the Supreme Court and a representative of the private sector
as members. The Judicial and Bar Council has promulgated on October
31, 2000 its Rules (JBC-009) in the performance of its function. The
Supreme Court opined that in the case of Jardeleza v. Sereno, The
Judicial And Bar Council and Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 213181, August 19,
2014, that the application of Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 to petitioner
violated the petitioners’ constitutionally guaranteed right to due process
and having garnered a majority vote of the JBC Members, declare that
the petitioner be deemed included in the short list submitted by
respondent JBC to the President. The Supreme Court further stated the
need to “ respect to the interpretation and application of Section 2, Rule
10 of JBC-009.”

The JBC conducts live public interviews and has set guidelines for
vacancy in the Chief Justice, Associate Justices of the Supreme Court
and Appellate Courts. JBC Resolution No. 007 provides for wider
publicity of notice of opening of nomination and list of applicants for
judicial positions.

The Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) is the “training school for

justices, judge, court personnel, lawyers and aspirants to judicial
posts.” It was originally created by the Supreme Court on March 16,
1996 by virtue of Administrative Order No. 35-96 and was
institutionalized on February 26, 1998 by virtue of Republic 8557. It is an
important component of the Supreme Court for its important mission on
judicial education it to p rovide opportunities to develop judicial
competence, instill sound values, and form constructive attitudes in its
continuing pursuit of judicial excellence. No appointee to the Bench may
commence the discharge his adjudicative function without completing
the prescribed course in the Philippine Judicial
Academy (http://philja.judiciary.gov.ph/programs.html) Its organizatio
nal structure and administrative set-up are provided for by the Supreme
Court in its En Banc resolution (Revised A.M. No. 01-1-04-SC-PHILJA). It
has development partners . The PHILJA Training Center is situated
at Brgy. Silang, Crossing East, Tagaytay City.

The Philippine Mediation Center was organized “pursuant to Supreme

Court En banc Resolution A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA, dated October 16,
2001, and in line with the objectives of the Action Program for Judicial
Reforms (APJR) to decongest court dockets, among others, the Court
prescribed guidelines in institutionalizing and implementing the
mediation program in the Philippines. The same resolution designated
the Philippine Judicial Academy as the component unit of the Supreme
Court for Court-Annexed Mediation and other Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) Mechanisms, and established the Philippine Mediation
Center (PMC).”

Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Office was organized to

implement the rules on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for
members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (B.M. No. 850 dated
October 2, 2001 – “Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)). The
purpose of the MCLE is “to ensure that throughout” the career of the
members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, “they keep abreast
with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and
enhance the standards of the practice of law.” Members of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines who are not exempt from the MCLE
must complete thirty six (36) hours of continuing legal education every
three (3) years (B.M. No. 850, Rule 2, sec. 2). Exemptions from the MCLE
requirement are under Rule 7, sec. 1-2. It holds office in the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines main office at Julio Vargas St., Ortigas Center,
Mandaluyong City.

Court of Appeals :
Commonwealth Act No. 3 (December 31, 1935), pursuant to the
Constitution (1935), Art. VIII, sec. 1, established the Court of Appeals. It
was formally organized on February 1, 1936 and was composed of eleven
justices with Justice Pedro Concepcion as the first Presiding Justice. Its
composition was increased to 15 in 1938 and further increased to 17 in
1942 by virtue of Executive Order No. 4. The Court of Appeals was
regionalized in the later part of 1944 when five District Courts of Appeal
were organized for Northern, Central and Southern Luzon, for Manila
and for Visayas and Mindanao. It was abolished by President Osmena
in 1945, pursuant to Executive Order No. 37 due to the prevailing
abnormal conditions . However, it was re-established on October 4,
1946 by virtue of Republic Act No. 52 with a Presiding Justice and fifteen
(15) Associate Justices. Its composition was increased by the following
enactments: Republic Act No. 1605 to eighteen (18); Republic Act No.
5204 to twenty-four (24); Presidential Decree No. 1482 to one (1)
Presiding Justice and thirty-four (34) Associate Justices; Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129 to fifty (50); Republic Act No. 8246 to sixty-nine (69). With
Republic Act No. 8246, the Court of Appeals in Cebu, and Cagayan de Oro
were established. With Republic Act 8246, the 69 Justices are divided in
twenty three divisions throughout the Philippines: Luzon (Manila- 1-
17 th Division), Visayas (Cebu- 18 th -20 th Division) and Mindanao
(Cagayan de Oro- 21 st -23 rd Division). The 2009 Internal Rules of
Procedure of the Court of Appeals was approved by the Supreme Court
En Ban in a Resolution (A.M. No. 09-11-11-CA) dated December 15,
2009.
(http://ca.judiciary.gov.ph/images/references_corner/2009irca.pdf)
Batas Pambansa Blg . 129 changed t he name of the Court of Appeals to
Intermediate Appellate Court. Executive Order No. 33, issued by
President Corazon C. Aquino on July 28, 1986, brought back its name to
Court of Appeals.

Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by Executive Order

No. 33 and Republic Act No. 7902 provides for the jurisdiction of the
Court of Appeals as follows:

 Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition,

certiorari habeas corpus, and quo warrant, and auxiliary writs or
processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
 Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of
judgment of Regional Trial Courts; and
 Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions,
resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-
 judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions,
including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social
Security Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission
and the Civil Service Commission, except those falling within the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the
Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential
Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of
subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of
the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.

In the case of St. Martin Funeral Home v. National Labor Relations

Commission, G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998 (356 Phil. 811), the
decision and resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission
now initially reviewable to the Court of Appeals through a petition of
Certiorari under Rule 65. Prior to this decision, it was directly to the
Supreme Court.

Criminal cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life

imprisonment or death were automatically elevated to the Supreme
Court. With the case of People v. Mateo, G.R. No. 147678-87, July 4,
2004 (433 SCRA 640), the Supreme Court allowed the Court of Appeals
to conduct an intermediate review of the case before it is elevated to the
Supreme Court.

As per the Resolution of the Supreme Court (A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC), the
Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over petitions for freeze orders on any
money instrument, property or proceeds involving the Anti-Money
Laundering cases (Republic Act No. 9160). Jurisdiction for Writs of
Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC dated October 24, 2007) and Writs of
Habeas data (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC dated February 2, 2008) rests with
the Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court, acting on the recommendation of the Committee on
Revision of the Rules of Court, resolved to approve the 2002 Internal
Rules of the Court of Appeals (A.M. No. 02-6-13-CA) and amended by a
resolution of the Court En Banc on July 13, 2004 (A.M. No. 03-05-03-
SC).

Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9372 otherwise known as the Human

Security Act of 2007, the Chief Justice issued Administrative Order No.
118-2007, designating the First, Second and Third Divisions of the Court
of Appeals to handle cases involving the crimes of terrorism or
conspiracy to commit terrorism and all other matters incident to the said
crimes emanating from the Metropolitan Manila and Luzon. For those
emanating from Visayas, all divisions of the Court of Appeals stationed
in Cebu are designated to handle these cases while the Court of Appeals
stationed in Cagayan De Oro will handle cases from Mindanao.

Sandiganbayan :
The Anti-Graft Court, or Sandiganbayan, was created to maintain
integrity, honesty and efficiency in the bureaucracy and weed out misfits
and undesirables in government service Constitution (1973), Art. XIII,
sec. 5 and Constitution (1987), Art. XI, sec. 4. It was restructured by
Presidential Decree No. 1606 as amended by Republic Act No. 8249. It is
composed of a Presiding Justice and fourteen (14) Associate Justices still
in five Divisions of three (3) Justices each.
As per Republic Act No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over
cases involving the violations of the following:

 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019, as

amended, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Sec. 2, Title VII,
Book II of the Revised Penal Code), of a government
official occupying the following positions in the government
whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of
the commission of the offense;
  “Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of
regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade '27' and
higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989
(Republic Act No. 6758);
 Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as
Grade'27'and up under the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989; cralaw
 Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution;
 Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without
prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and
 All other national and local officials classified as Grade'27'and
higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of
1989.

Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other

crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in
subsection a) of this section in relation to their office.

Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with

Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.”

The Supreme Court, acting on the recommendation of the Committee

on Revision of the Rules of Court, resolved with modification the
Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan on August 28, 2002 (A.M.
No. 02-6-07—SB)

Court of Tax Appeals :

Created by Republic Act No. 1125 on June 16, 1954, it serves as an
appellate court to review tax cases. It had three judges and one Division.
Under Republic Act No. 9282 , its jurisdiction has been expanded where it
now enjoys the same level as the Court of Appeals. This law has doubled
its membership, from three to six justices, one (1) Presiding Justice and
five (5) Associate Justices. There are now two (2) Divisions with three
Justices per division. Republic Act Number 9503 enacted on June 12,
2008 and effective July 5, 2008 further expanded its composition to one
(1) Presiding Justice and eight (8) Associate Justices in three (3)
Divisions. A decision of a division may be appealed to the En Banc. The
en Banc decision may be appealed by verified petition for certiorari to
the Supreme Court.

T he Supreme Court acting on the recommendation of the Committee on

Revision of the Rules of Court resolved to approve the Revised Rules of
the Court of Tax Appeals (A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA) and amended by
aresolution of the Court En Banc on November 22, 2005 .

The Court of Tax Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review

by appeal pursuant to Republic Act No. 1125 are the following:

 Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases

involving disputed, assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes,
fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or
other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or
other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue;
 Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving
liability for customs duties, fees, or other money charges; seizure,
detention or release of property affected; fines, forfeitures or other
penalties imposed in relation thereto; or other matters arising
under the Customs Law or other laws administered by the Bureau
of Customs;
 Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to
him automatically for review from decisions of the Commissioner
of Customs which are adverse to the Government under Section
2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code;
 Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry in the case of non-
agricultural product, commodity or article, and the Secretary of
 Agriculture in the case of agricultural product, commodity or
article, involving dumping and countervailing duties under Section
301 and 302, respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, and
safeguard measures under R.A. No. 8800, where either party may
appeal the decision to impose or not to impose said duties;
 The expanded appellate jurisdiction of the under Republic Act No.
9282 are follows;
 all criminal offenses arising from violations of the National Internal
Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs Code and other laws
administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of
Customs;
 Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local
tax cases;
 Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the
assessment and taxation of real property originally decided by the
provincial or city board of assessment appeals;
 Collection of internal revenue taxes and customs duties the
assessment of which have become final.
 Under Republic Act No. 9282, the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax
Appeals include civil tax cases and cases that are criminal in nature,
as well as local tax cases, property tax and collection of taxes.

Regional Trial Courts:

They are called the second level courts and are divided into thirteen (13)
judicial regions: National Capital Region (Metro Manila) and the twelve
(12) regions of the country, which are divided into several
branches. The jurisdictions are defined in sec. 19-23 of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129 as amended by Republic Act No. 7671. The Supreme Court
designates certain branches of regional trial courts as special courts to
handle exclusively criminal cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases,
agrarian cases, urban land reform cases that do not fall under the
jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies. The Supreme Court issues
resolutions designating specific branches of the Regional Trial Courts as
special courts for heinous crimes, dangerous drugs cases, commercial
courts and intellectual property rights violations. Special rules are
likewise promulgated. A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC is a resolution of the Court
En Banc on the Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation. The
Interim Rules was promulgated in November 2000 and December 2008
affects special commercial courts. Some Regional Trial Courts are
specifically designated to try and decide cases formerly cognizable by the
Securities and Exchange Commission (A.M. No. 00-11-030SC).

Some branches of the Regional Trial Courts have been designated as

family courts (A.M. No. 99-11-07) because the family courts to be
established pursuant to Republic Act No. 8369 of the Family Court Law
of 1997 have not yet been organized. Pursuant to Republic Act No. 8369,
the Family Court Law of 1997, some branches of the Regional Trial Courts
have been designated as family courts (A.M. No. 99-11-07).
The Regional Trial Courts’ jurisdictions are defined as follows:

Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in Civil Cases as follows:

 All civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of

pecuniary estimation;
 All civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of real
property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the
property involved exceeds twenty thousand pesos (P 20,000.00) or,
civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty
thousand pesos (P 50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into
and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction
over which is conferred upon the MeTCs, MTCs, and MCTCs;
 All actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the
demand or claim exceeds one hundred thousand pesos (P
100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila, where such demand or claim
exceeds two hundred thousand pesos (P 200,000.00);
  All matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross
value of the estate exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P
100,000.00) or, in probate matters in Metro Manila, where such
gross value exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (P 200,000.00);
 All actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;
 All cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal,
person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
 All civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and
of the Court of Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and
 All other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages
of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs or
the value of the property in controversy exceeds One hundred
thousand pesos (P 100,000.00) or, in such other cases in Metro
Manila, where the demand, exclusive of the above-mentioned
items exceeds Two hundred pesos (P 200,000.00) (Sec. 19, Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7691).

Exercise original jurisdiction in other cases as follows:

 The issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo

warranto , habeas corpus, and injunction which may be enforced
in any part of their respective regions; and
 Actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and
consuls.
 They shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over MeTCs, MTCCs,
MTCs, and MCTCs in their respective territorial jurisdiction.

Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities

(MTCC), Municipal Trial Courts (MTC) and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
(MCTC):
These are called the first level courts established in each city and
municipality. Their jurisdiction is provided for by section 33, 35 of Batas
Pambansa Blg 129. Their jurisdiction has been expanded by special
lawsnamely Republic Act Nos. 9276, 9252, 9305, 9306, and 9308.

MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs, and MCTCs shall exercise original jurisdiction in

Civil Cases as provided for in section 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 is as
follows:

 Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate

proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of
provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the
personal property, estate or amount of the demand does not
exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P 100,000.00) or, in Metro
Manila where such personal property, estate or amount of the
demand does not exceed Two hundred thousand pesos (P
200,000.00), exclusive of interests, damages of whatever kind,
attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs the amount of which
must be specifically alleged: Provided, That interests, damages of
whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs shall
be included in the determination of the filing fees. Provided
further, That where there are several claims or causes of action
between the same or different parties embodied in the same
complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the
claims in all the causes of action arose out of the same or different
transactions;

 Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and

unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the
defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the
question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of
possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of
 ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to
determine the issue of possession; and

 Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title

to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where
the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not
exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P 20,000.00) or, in civil actions in
Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty
thousand pesos (P 50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs:
Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes
the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed
value of the adjacent lots (Sec. 33, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129).

Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 provides that the Supreme Court
may designate MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs, and MCTCs to hear and determine
cadastral or land registration cases where the value does not exceed one
hundred thousand pesos (P100, 000.00). Their decision is can be
appealed in the same manner as the Regional Trial Courts.

The MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs, and MCTCs are empowered to hear and
decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or applications for bail in
criminal cases in the province or city in the absence of the Regional Trial
Court Judges.

The Supreme Court approved on September 9, 2008 the Rule of

Procedure for Small Claims Cases (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC) which took effect
on October 1, 2008 after its publication in two newspapers of general
circulation. Forty four (44) first level courts (Metropolitan Trial Courts
(MeTC), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC), Municipal Trial Courts
(MTC) and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC) were designated to hear
small claims cases. On February 16, 2010, a Resolution of the Court En
Banc was approved amending provisions of the Rule of Procedure for
Small Claims Cases (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC). In March of 2010, all the first
Level Courts in the country, except Shari’a courts were empowered to
hear small claims cases. Small claims courts are also called “People’s
Courts” cases are readily resolve for al courts are required to decide the
matter at the first hearing. Lawyers are not allowed in hearings. Thus,
the procedure is considered inexpensive. These first level courts try small
claims cases for payment of money where the value of the claim does
not exceed One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100, 000.00) exclusive of
interest and costs. These courts shall apply the rules of procedure
provided in A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC in all actions “which are: (a) purely civil
in nature where the claim or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for
payment or reimbursement of sum of money, and (b) the civil aspect of
criminal actions, either filed before the institution of the criminal action,
or reserved upon the filing of the criminal action in court, pursuant to
Rule 111 of the Revised Rules Of Criminal Procedure.”

Shari’a Courts:
These special courts were created by sec. 137 of Presidential Decree No.
1083 or the Code of Muslim Personal Laws. The judges should possess
all the qualifications of a Regional Trial Court Judge and should also be
learned in Islamic law and jurisprudence. Articles 143, 144, and 155 of
Presidential Decree No. 1083 provide the jurisdiction of the said courts
as follows:

Shari’a D istrict Courts (SDC) as provided for in paragraph (1), Article 143
of Presidential Decree No. 1083, shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the
following cases:
 All cases involving custody, guardianship, legitimacy, paternity and
filiations arising under the Code;
 All cases involving disposition, distribution and settlement of the
estates of deceased Muslims, probate of wills, issuance of letters
 of administration or appointment of administrators or executors
regardless of the nature or aggregate value of the property;
 Petitions for the declaration of absence and death and for the
cancellation or correction of entries in the Muslim Registries
mentioned in Title VI of Book Two of the Code;
 All actions arising from customary contracts in which the parties
are Muslim, if they did not specified which law shall govern their
relations; and
 All petitions for mandamus, prohibition, injunction, certiorari,
habeas corpus, and all other auxiliary writs and processes in aid of
its appellate jurisdiction.

The SDC in concurrence with existing civil courts shall have original
jurisdiction over the following cases (paragraph (2) of Article 143):

 Petitions by Muslims for the constitution of family home, change of

name and commitment of an insane person to any asylum:
 All other personal and real actions not mentioned in paragraph (1)
(d) wherein the parties involved are Muslims except those for
forcible entry and unlawful detainer, which shall fall under the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTCs;
 All special civil actions for interpleader or declaratory relief
wherein the parties are Muslims or the property involved belongs
exclusively to Muslims.
Article 144 of Presidential Decree No. 1083 provides that the SDC within
shall have appellate jurisdiction over all cases tried in the Shari’a Circuit
Courts (SCC) within their territorial jurisdiction.

Article 155 of Presidential Decree No. 1083 provides that the SCCs have
exclusive original jurisdiction over:

 All cases involving offenses defined and punished under the Code;
  All civil actions and proceedings between parties who are Muslims
or have been married in accordance with Article 13 of the Code
involving disputes relating to:
o Marriage;
o Divorce recognized under the Code;
o Betrothal or breach of contract to marry;
o Customary dower (mahr);
o Disposition and distribution of property upon divorce;
o Maintenance and support, and consolatory gifts (mut’a); and
o Restitution of marital rights; and
 All cases involving disputes to communal properties.

Rules of procedure are provided for in articles 148 and 158. En Banc
Resolution of the Supreme Court in 183, provided the special rules of
procedure in the Shari’a courts ( Ijra-at-Al Mahakim Al Sharia’a).
Shari’a courts and personnel are subject to the administrative
supervision of the Supreme Court. Appointment of judges,
qualifications, tenure, and compensation are subject to the provisions of
the Muslim Code (Presidential Decree No. 1083. SDCs and SCCs have the
same officials and other personnel as those provided by law for RTCs and
MTCs, respectively.

Quasi-Courts or Quasi-Judicial Agencies:

Quasi-judicial agencies are administrative agencies, more properly
belonging to the Executive Department, but are empowered by the
Constitution or statutes to hear and decide certain classes or categories
of cases.

Quasi-judicial agencies, which are empowered by the Constitution, are

the Constitutional Commissions: Civil Service Commission, Commission
on Elections and the Commission on Audit.
Quasi-judicial agencies empowered by statutes are: Office of the
President. Department of Agrarian Reform, Securities and Exchange
Commission, National Labor Relations Commission, National
Telecommunication Commission, Employees Compensation
Commission, Insurance Commission, Construction Industry Arbitration
Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Social Security
System, Government Service Insurance System, Bureau of Patents,
Trademark and Technology, National Conciliation Mediation Board, Land
Registration Authority, Civil Aeronautics Board, Central Board of
Assessment Appeals, National Electrification Administration, Energy
Regulatory Board, Agricultural Inventions Board and the Board of
Investments. When needed, t he Supreme Court issues rules and
regulations for these quasi-judicial agencies in the performance of their
judicial functions. Republic Act No. 8799, known as the “Securities
Regulation Code,” reorganized the Securities and Exchange Commission
(Chapter II) and provided for its powers and function (sec.5). Specifically
provided for in these powers and function is the Commission’s
jurisdiction over all cases previously provided for in sec. 5, Pres. Decree
No. 902-A (sec. 5.2). The Supreme Court promulgated rules of procedure
governing intra-corporate controversies under Republic Act No. 8799
(A.M. No. 01-2-04-SC).

Decisions of these quasi-courts can be appealed to the Court of Appeals

except those of the Constitutional Commissions: Civil Service
Commission, Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit,
which can be appealed by certiorari to the Supreme Court (Art. IX-A, sec.
7).

Other Judicial Procedures:

Katarungang Pambarangay - Presidential Decree No. 1508, or
the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, took effect December 11, 1978, and
established a system of amicably settling disputes at
the barangay l evel. Rules and procedures were provided by this decree
and the Local Government Code, Title I, Chapter 7, sec. 339-422). This
system of amicable settlement of dispute aims to promote the speedy
administration of justice by easing the congestion of court dockets. The
Court does not take cognizance of cases filed if they are not filed first
with the Katarungang Pambarangay.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) System - Republic Act No. 9285

institutionalized the use of an alternative dispute resolution system,
which serves to promote the speedy and impartial administration of
justice and unclog the court dockets. This act shall be without prejudice
to the adoption of the Supreme Court of any ADR system such as
mediation, conciliation, arbitration or any combination thereof. The
Chairperson of the Sub-Committee on the Rules on Alternative Dispute
Resolution recommended the Special Rules of Court on Alternative
Dispute Resolution (A.M. No. 07-11-08-SC) to the Supreme Court En Banc
and it was approved on October 30, 2009. The Department of Justice
on the other hand promulgated Department Circular No. 98 -
Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Alternative Dispute
Resolution Act of 2004 (Republic Act No. 9285) on December 4,
2009. The Supreme Court on June 22, 2010 approved the Rules on Court-
Annexed Family Mediation, amending the Rules on Court Annexed
Mediation and the corresponding Code of Ethical Standards for
Mediators. (A.M. No. 10-4-16-SC).

The Supreme Court by virtue of an En Banc Resolution dated October

16, 2001 (Administrative Matter No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA), designated the
Philippine Judicial Academy as the component unit of the Supreme Court
for court-referred or court-related mediation cases and alternative
dispute resolution mechanism and establishing the Philippine Mediation
Center. Muslin law provides its own arbitration Council called The
Agama Arbitration Council.
Aside from the three co-equal branches, the other offices in government
are the government financial institutions and government-owned and
controlled corporations .

3.4. Constitutional Commissions

Civil Service Commission - Act No. 5 (1900) established the Philippine civil
service and was reorganized as a Bureau in 1905. It was established in
the 1935 Constitution. Republic Act No. 2260 (1959) converted it from a
Bureau into the Civil Service Commission. Presidential Decree No. 807
further redefined its role. Its present status is provided for in the 1987
Constitution, Art. IX-B and reiterated by the provision of the 1987
Administrative Code (Executive Order No. 292).

Commission on Elections - It is the constitutional commission created by

a 1940 amendment to the 1935 Constitution whose primary function is
to manage to maintain its authority and independence in the conduct of
elections. The COMELEC exercises administrative, quasi-judicial and
judicial powers. Its membership increased to nine with a term of nine
years by the 1973 Constitution. It was however decreased to seven with
a term of seven years without re-appointment by the 1987 Constitution.

Commission on Audit - Article IX, sec, 2 of the 1987 Constitution provided

the powers and authority of the Commission on Audit, which is to
examine, audit and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and
receipts of and expenditures or uses of funds and property owned or
held in trust by or pertaining to the Government including government
owned and controlled corporations with original charters.

3.5. Local Governments

Article X of the 1987 Constitution provides for the territorial and political
subdivisions of the Philippines as follows: province, cities, municipalities
and barangays . The 1991 Local Government Code or Republic Act No.
7160, as amended by Republic Act No. 9009, provides the detail that
implements the provision of the Constitution. The officials, namely, the
governor, city mayor, city vice mayor, municipal mayor, municipal vice-
mayor and punong barangay are elected by their respective units. (1991
Local Government Code, Title II, Chapter 1, sec. 41 (a)). The regular
members of the sangguniang panlalawigan (for the
province), sangguniang panglunsod (for cities), sangguniang
bayan (municipalities) are elected by districts while
the sangguniang barangay are elected at large.

Each territorial or political subdivision enjoys local autonomy as defined

in the Constitution. The President exercises supervision over local
Governments.
Each region is composed of several provinces while each province is
composed of a cluster of municipalities and component cities (Local
Government Code, Title IV, Chapter 1, sec. 459). The Provincial
government is composed of the governor, vice-governor, members of
the sangguniang panlalawigan and other appointed officials.

The city consists of more urbanized and developed barangays which are
created, divided, merged, abolished or its boundary altered by law or
act of Congress, subject to the approval of majority votes cast by its
residents in a plebiscite conducted by the Comelec (Local Government
Code, Title III, Chapter 1, sec. 448-449). A City may be classified either
as a component or highly urbanized. The city government is composed
of the mayor, vice-mayor, members of the sangguniang
panlunsod (which is composed of the president of the city chapter of
the liga ng mga barangay , president of the panlungsod ng mga
pederasyon ng mga sangguniang kabataan and the sectoral
representatives) and other appointed officials.

The municipality consists of a group of barangays which is created,

divided, merged, abolished or its boundary altered by law or act of
Congress, subject to the approval of majority votes casts in a plebiscite
conducted by the Comelec (Local Government Code, Title II, Chapter 1,
sec. 440-441). The municipal government is composed of the mayor,
vice-mayor, sangguniang members (which are composed of president of
the municipal chapter of the liga ng mga barangay , president of
the pambayang pederasyon ng mga sangguniang kabataan and the
sectoral representatives) and other appointed officials. In order for a
municipality to be converted into cities, a law or act of Congress must be
passed by virtue of the provisions of the Local Government Code and the
Constitution. A plebiscite must be conducted to determine if a majority
of the people in the said municipality are in favor of converting the
municipality into a city. Although laws have been passed, their
constitutionality can be question in the Supreme Court. This can be seen
in the November 18, 2008 decision penned by Justice Antonio T. Carpio.
The League of Cities of the Philippines, City of Iloilo, and City of Calbayog
filed consolidated petitions questioning the constitutionality of the
Cityhood Laws and enjoined the Commission on Elections and the
respondent municipality from conducting plebiscites. The Cityhood Laws
were declared as unconstitutional for they violated sections 6 and 10,
Article X of the 1987 Constitution. The Cityhood laws referred to in this
case are: Republic Acts 9389, 9390, 9391, 9392, 9293, 9394, 9398, 9404,
9405, 9407, 9408, 9409, 9434, 9435, 9436 and 9491. (League of Cities of
the Philippines (CP) represented by LCP National President Jerry P.
Trenas v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 176951, 177499, 178056,
November 18, 2008). Acting on an appeal, Justice Antonio T. Carpio on
August 24, 2010 sustained the earlier decision declaring the Cityhood
Laws unconstitutional. On appeal, the Court in a decision on February 15,
2011, penned by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, reversed the two previous
decisions of the Court and declared the Cityhood laws constitutional.
Justice Bersamin sustained this decision on April 12, 2011 and the finally
on June 28, 2011.

The Barangay is the smallest local government unit which is created,

divided, merged, abolished or its boundary altered by law or by an
ordinance of the sangguniang panlalawigan or sangguniang panlunsod ,
subject to the approval of majority votes casts in a plebiscite conducted
by the Comelec (Local Government Code, Title I, Chapter 1, sec. 384-
385)

The Philippines is divided into the following local government units:

 Region I (ILOCOS REGION)

 Region II (CAGAYAN VALLEY)
 Region III (CENTRAL LUZON)
 Region IV (CALABARZON & MIMAROPA)
 Region V (BICOL REGION)
 Region VI (WESTERN VISAYAS)
 Region VII (CENTRAL VISAYAS)
 Region VIII (EASTERN VISAYAS)
 Region IX (ZAMBOANGA PENINSULA)
 Region X (NORTHERN MINDANAO)
 Region XI (DAVAO REGION)
 Region XII (SOCCSKSARGEN)
 Region XIII (CARAGA)
 Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindano (ARMM)
 Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR)
 National Capital Region (NCR)

The Caraga Administrative Region (Region XIII) was created by Republic

Act No. 7901, which was passed by both houses of Congress and
approved by the President on February 23, 1995. It is composed of
the provinces of Agusan del Norte, Agusan del Sur, Surigao del Norte,
Surigao del Sur, and the cities of Butuan and Surigao.

The Cordillera Administrative Region was created by President Corazon

C. Aquino by virtue of Executive Order No. 220 on July 15, 1987. It
includes the provinces of Abra, Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao
and Kalinga-Apayao. Republic Act No. 6766, which was approved on
October 23, 1989. Republic Act No. 6766 providing for an Organic Act
for the Cordillera Autonomous Region was passed Congress and took
effect on October 23, 1989. A plebiscite was called but it failed to get
the majority affirmative vote on January 30, 1990. Another law, Republic
Act No. 8438, establishing the Cordillera Autonomous Region was passed
by Congress on December 22, 1997. Another plebiscite was held on
March 7, 1998 among the people of the region. Again, it failed to gain
the majority approval of the Cordillera people. Efforts in Congress are
being made for the passage of another law.

The Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) was created by

Republic Act No. 6734 and further strengthened by Republic Act No.
9054. Republic Act No. 6734 was passed by both houses of Congress on
February7, 2001 and lapsed into law without the signature of the
President in accordance with Article VI, Section 27 (1) of the Constitution
on March 31, 2001. The ARMM has its seat of government in Muslim
Mindanao. It is composed of four provinces, Lanao del Sur,
Maguindanao, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi. It is guided by its own Constitution
and Organic Act. It has its own Legislative, Executive and Administration
of Justice (Judicial) department of government.

In the case of Disomangcop v. Datumanong, G.R. No. 149848, November

25, 2004, touch on the fate of the autonomy for Muslim Mindanao. In
this decision Justice Tinga stated “we have the overwhelming support of
the Bangsa Moro and the Cordillera Constitution. By this we mean
meaningful an authentic regional autonomy. We propose that we have
a separate Article on the autonomous regions for the Bangsa Moro and
the Cordillera people clearly spelled out in the Constitution, instead of
prolonging the agony of...”

This ARMM will be replaced by the Bangsang Moro basic law according
to the Chief Peace Negotiator Marvic Leonen. The Philippine
Government and the Moro Islamic Liberation have agreed to form the
transition commission to craft the basic Bangsamoro Basic Law.
Framework of Agreement of the Bangsa Moro was drafted in 2012.
Annex of Power Sharing was signed in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on
December 8, 2013 between Prof. Miriam Coronel- Ferrer as the GPH
Panel Chair and Mohaher Iqbal as the MILF Panel Chair, in the presence
of the Malaysian Facilitator Tengku Dato’ Ab Ghafar Tengku Mohamed.

3.6. Other Government Agencies

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (Central Bank) is considered as a
constitutional office in the official Philippine government directory .

The Commission on Appointment is an independent constitutional body

separate and distinct from the Legislative. Its members are members of
both house of Congress. It aims to “acts as a restraint against the abuse
of the appointing power of the President by approving only those who
are fit and qualified to ensure the efficient and harmonious functioning
of the government.” This mandate and the government officials who
need the Commission’s confirmation are provided in the Constitution
(1987), Article VII, sec. 16. The members of the judiciary are not covered
by the Commission on Appointments for the are under the Judicial and
Bar Council.

The Commission on Human Rights was created as an independent office

for cases of violation of the human rights (1987 Constitution, Art. XIII,
sec. 17), Article XIII, sec. 18 whose mission is “committee to ensure the
primacy of all human rights to their protection, promotion and
fulfillment, on the basis of equality and non-discrimination, in particular
for those who are marginalized and vulnerable. It is composed of
aChairperson and four (4) members.

Office of the Ombudsman :

Constitution (1987), Article XI, sec. 12 and Republic Act No. 6770, sec. 13
, provide that the mandate of the Office of the Ombudsman is to “act
promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against officers or
employees of the Government, or of any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled
corporations, and enforce their administrative, civil and criminal liability
in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient
service by the Government to the people .” Republic Act No. 677, sec.
15 provides that priority is given to complaints filed against high ranking
government officials and/or those occupying supervisory positions and
those complaints involving grave offenses as well as complaints
involving large sums of money and/or properties. It is composed of the
Ombudsman and six (6) deputies.

The President, Vice President, members of the Supreme Court,

Constitutional Commission and the Ombudsman may be removed from
office by impeachment for conviction of violations of the Constitution,
treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes or betrayal of
public trust. (Art. XI, sec. 2). The House of Representatives has the
exclusive power to initiate (Art. XI, sec. 3 (1)) while the Senate has the
sole power to try and decide impeachments cases (Art. XI, sec. 3(6)). All
other public officials and employees may be removed by law (Art. XI, sec.
2 the Civil Service Law).

4. Legal System

4.1. Nature of the Philippine Legal System

The Philippine legal system may be considered as a unique legal system
because it is a blend of civil law (Roman), common law (Anglo-American),
Muslim (Islamic) law and indigenous law. Like other legal systems, there
are two main sources of law.

4.2. Sources of Law

There are two primary sources of the law:

Statutes or statutory law - Statutes are defined as the written enactment

of the will of the legislative branch of the government rendered
authentic by certain prescribed forms or solemnities are more also
known as enactment of congress. Generally, they consist of two types,
the Constitution and legislative enactments. In the Philippines, statutory
law includes constitutions, treaties, statutes proper or legislative
enactments, municipal charters, municipal legislation, court rules,
administrative rules and orders, legislative rules and presidential
issuance.

Jurisprudence - or case law - is cases decided or written opinion by courts

and by persons performing judicial functions. Also included are all rulings
in administrative and legislative tribunals such as decisions made by the
Presidential or Senate or House Electoral Tribunals. Only decisions of the
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal are available in print
as House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal Reports, volume 1
(January 28, 1988-October 3, 1990) to present. They will be available
electronically at the Supreme Court E-Library and as a separate CD.

For Muslim law, the primary sources of Shariah are Quran, Sunnaqh,
Ijma and Qiyas . Jainal D. Razul in his book Commentaries and
Jurisprudence on the Muslin Law of the Philippines (1984) further stated
there are new sources of Muslim law, which some jurists rejected such
as Istihsan or juristic preference; Al-Masalih, Al Mursalah or public
interest ; Istidlal (custom) and Istishab . (deduction based on continuity
or permanence).

Classification of Legal Sources:

Classification by Authority:
“Authority is that which may be cited in support of an action, theory or
hypothesis.” Primary Authority is the only authority that is binding on the
courts. These are the two sources of law which includes the Constitution,
legislative statutes or those passed by Congress, decisions of the
Supreme Court , appellate courts, lower court and other quasi-judicial
agencies, Executive issuances or Presidential issuances, treaties entered
into by the Philippines, ordinances, rules and regulations of government
agencies. They are the actual law or those promulgated by the three
branches of government: Legislative, Executive and Judiciary.

The legislature promulgates statutes, namely: Act, Commonwealth Act,

Republic Act, and Batas Pambansa. The Executive promulgates
presidential issuances (Presidential Decrees, Executive Orders,
Memorandum Circular, Administrative Orders, Proclamations, etc.),
rules and regulations through its various departments, bureaus and
agencies. The Judiciary promulgates judicial doctrines embodied in
decisions.

We however need to clarify that the Presidential Decrees or law issued

by President Ferdinand E. Marcos during Martial Law and Executive
Orders issued by Aquino President Corazon C. Aquino before the
opening Congress in July 1987 can be classified as legislative-executive
acts, there being no legislature during these two periods.

Primary Authority or sources may be further subdivided into the

following:

 Mandatory primary authority is law created by the jurisdiction in

which the law operates like the Philippines;
 Persuasive mandatory authority is law created by other
jurisdictions but which have persuasive value to our courts
e.g. Spanish and American laws and jurisprudence. These sources
as used specially when there are
 no Philippine authorities available or when the Philippine statute
or jurisprudence under interpretation is based on either the
Spanish or American law.

It is in this regard that the collections of law libraries in the Philippines

include United States court reports, West’s national reporter system,
court reports of England and international tribunal, important reference
materials such as the American Jurisprudence, Corpus Juris Secundum,
Words and Phrases and different law dictionaries. Some of these law
libraries subscribe to the Westlaw and/or LexisNexis . The Supreme
Court, University of the Philippines, University of Santo Tomas and a
number of prominent law libraries also have a Spanish collection where
a great number of our laws originated.

Secondary authority or sources are commentaries or books, treatise,

writings, journal articles that explain, discuss or comment on primary
authorities. Also included in this category are the opinions of the
Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission or circulars
of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas . These materials are not binding on
courts but they have persuasive effect and/or the degree of
persuasiveness. With regards to commentaries or books, treatise,
writings, journal articles, the reputation or expertise of the author is a
consideration. Some of the authors of good reputation and considered
experts in the field are Chief Justice Ramon C. Aquino and Justice
Carolina Grino Aquino on Revised Penal Code or Criminal Law, Senator
Arturo M. Tolentino on Civil law, Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando and
Fr. Joaquin Bernas on Constitutional Law, Prof. Perfecto Fernandez on
Labor Law, Vicente Francisco, Chief Justice Manuel Moran on
Remedial Law, and Justice Vicente Abad Santos and Senator Jovito
Salonga on International Law, etc. A list of these materials by subject are
found in GlobaLex - Part 2: Philippine Legal Information Resources and
Citations - A.v Treatise/Annotations/Commentaries, etc.
Classification by Source:

It is important for legal research experts to know the source where the
materials were taken from. One has to determine whether they came
from primary (official) sources or secondary (unofficial sources). Primary
and secondary sources for the sources of law are found in Part 2:
Philippine Legal Information Resources and Citations
- A.v Treatise/Annotations/Commentaries, etc.

Primary sources are those published by the issuing agency itself or the
official repository, the Official Gazette. The Official Gazette online was
launched by the Office of the President in July 2010. This online version
is maintained and managed by the Presidential Communications
Development and Strategic Management Office. . Thus, for Republic
Acts and other legislative enactments or statutes, the primary sources
are the Official Gazette published by the National Printing Office and the
Laws and Resolutions published by Congress. For Supreme Court
decisions, the primary sources are the Philippine Reports , the
individually mimeographed Advance Supreme Court decisions and
the Official Gazette . Publication of Supreme Court decisions in
the Official Gazette is selective. The publication of the Philippine
Reports by the National Printing Office ceased in 1960s. It was only in
1983 when the publication of the Philippine Reports was revived by then
Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando who requested then President
Ferdinand E. Marcos to take charge of its publication with special
appropriation in the Judiciary’s annual budget. However, when the
Supreme Court took over the printing in 1983, the delay in printing
covered more than twenty (20) years. The last volume printed was
volume 126 (June 1967). The Philippine Reports is up-to-date and almost
complete from 1901. The volumes are to be printed cover June 1991-
December 1994. Online, the Supreme Court E-Library is complete and
updated as soon as the decisions have been certified by the Chief
Justice. The Supreme Court E-Library includes the citation of
the Philippine Reports where each case is found whenever it is available.

The Secondary Sources are the unofficial sources and generally referred
to as those commercially or institutionally published in print or online.

Some of the Secondary sources of statutes are the Vital Legal

Documents , published by the Central Book Supply, contains a
compilation of Presidential Decrees (1973). The second edition contains
Republic Acts. Prof. Sulpicio Guevara published three books, which
contain s the full text of legislative enactments or laws namely: a ).
Public Laws Annotated (7 vols.), compilation of all laws from 1901 to
1935, b).Commonwealth Acts Annotated (3vos.), compilation of laws
from 1935-1945 c). The Laws of the First Philippine Republic (The Laws
of Malolos) 1898-1899 . For the Supreme Court decisions, Supreme Court
Reports Annotated (SCRA), a secondary source, published by the Central
Book Supply is more updated and popular in the legal community than
the Philippine Reports, the primary and official source. The SCRA was
published because of the delay in the printing of the Philippines and the
need of the Philippine legal profession for Supreme Court
decision. Citations in commentaries or books, treatise, writings, journal
articles, pleading and even court decisions show SCRA’s popular
acceptance. The general rule is that in the absence of a primary source,
the secondary source may be cited. This was the primary rationale for
the SCRA’s popularity. SCRA is now available online (including tablet and
iPad) by subscription.

With the advent of the new information technology, electronic or

digitized sources are popular sources and effective sources of legal
information for the following reasons: a) no complete and updated legal
information available; b) the search engines utilizing the electronic or
digitized method facilitate research, and c) no complete and update
manually published search tools for statute and case law. These
electronic sources started with CD ROMS and now online or electronic
libraries. The popular use of online/electronic libraries was due to the
advent of the iPads, iPods, tablet and notebooks and internet with Wi-Fi
connection. Online access is either through Open access or subscription
basis. Open access for law is used for both the government and the
private sector. The Chan Robles Law Firm Library and Arellano Law
Foundation Lawphil use open access in their electronic libraries, which
contains the full-text of all sources of Philippine legal information, case
law and statute law. Chanrobles.com has also in its database the full text
of United States decisions and materials on important legal events such
as Impeachment proceedings, bar examinations. Chan Robles conducts
online bar review program.

Official or government online source for full-text for all legal sources and
related materials in the Official Gazette online , launched in July 2010. It
contains the issuances of all the executive departments, which are found
also in the websites of the different executive departments. They aim
(as reflected in their website) to include the issuances of the legislative
and the judiciary. The Supreme Court E-Library is an electronic library
(online and CD Rom for decisions updated quarterly) for all Philippine
legal information, case law and statute law. Access however is limited to
the Justices, judges and court attorneys of the Supreme Court and law
schools (by request) through their law librarians. Decisions and
issuances of the Supreme Court and its Offices and the Appellate Courts
are found in the Judiciary portal .
CD Asia online contains full-text of Supreme Court decisions and
statutes, available on a subscription basis. Subscription may be made
solely for court decisions or statutes or for both. Central
Books’ eSCRA is another database which can be accessed online with
the use of desktops, laptops, notebooks, and iPads. Law Juan , iPad app
is a new source for full-text statutes and Supreme Court
decisions available by subscription.
By using Google search, some of this legal information may be retrieved.

The established policy is that in case of conflict between the printed and
electronic sources, the printed version coming from the issuing
government agency prevails.

Legal research for statute law in the Philippines benefited remarkably

from the use of the latest technology due to two major problems: a) no
complete and updated published or printed search tools or law
finders for statute law and b) no complete compilation of statute law
from 1901-present were available. Problems of the publication of
compilations of statute law or the existence of the full-text of
Presidential Decrees was that brought about to the Supreme Court in
the Tanada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. 63915, April 24, 1985 (220 Phil 422),
December 29, 1986 (146 SCRA 446) case was resolved by the use of the
latest technology. TheTanada v. Tuvera, case that was first decided
before the bloodless revolution popularly known as People Power or the
EDSA Revolution and modified in the December 29, 1986 or after the
People Power or the EDSA Revolution resolved the publication
requirement for the effectivity of laws as provided for in Section 2 of the
Civil Code of the Philippines. This was resolved by Executive Order No.
200, s. 1987 that provides that laws become effective fifteen (15) days
after publication in the Official Gazette or in two newspapers of general
circulation.

Still, to be resolved i s how to classify sources published in the

newspapers. Will Executive Order No. 200, s. 1987, these resources
as primary and secondary source. However, in case of conflict between
those published in the newspapers and the Official Gazette , the rule is
following the Official Gazette.

The existence, availability and access to local ordinances issued by the

local governments in the Philippines remains a problem for the City of
Manila is the one with a compilation. However all government agencies
have started to use the latest technology in their operations and some
of them are available online.

In finding the law, our ultimate goal is to locate mandatory primary

authorities, which have bearing on the legal problem at hand. If these
authorities are scarce or nonexistent, our next alternative is to find any
relevant persuasive mandatory authority. If our search is still negative,
the next alternative might be secondary authorities. There are however
instances where the secondary authorities, more particularly the
commentaries made by experts of the field, take precedence over the
persuasive mandatory authorities. With the availability of both, using
both sources is highly recommended.

Classification by Character:
This refers to the nature of the subject treated in books. This
classification categorizes books as: a) Statute Law Books, b) Case Law
Books or Law Reports, c) a combination of both and d) “Law Finders.”

Law Finders refer to indexes, citators, encyclopedias, legal dictionaries,

thesauri or digests. A major problem in the Philippines is that there are
no up-to-date Law Finders. Federico Moreno’s Philippine Law
Dictionary , the only available Philippine law dictionary was last
published in 1988, and, Jose Agaton Sibal’s Philippine Legal Thesaurus ,
which is likewise considered a dictionary, was published in 1986. Foreign
law dictionaries like Blacks’ Law Dictionary, Words and Phrases are used
as alternate. To search for legal information, legal researchers go online
virtual libraries such as the Supreme Court E-Library , Chan Robles Virtual
Library , Arellano’s lawphil , CD Asia online and the different databases
in CD-ROM format from CD Asia Technologies Asia Inc. The databases
developed by CD Asia include not only the compilation of Laws (statutes)
and Jurisprudence, but also include a compilation of legal information
that are not available in printed form such as Opinions of the Department
of Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission and Bangko
Sentral (Central Bank) rules and regulations. Search engines used in
these databases answer for the lack of complete and updated indexes of
legal information. In this regard, effective legal research can be
conducted with one cardinal rule in mind: "ALWAYS START FROM THE
LATEST." The exception to this is when the research has defined or has
provided a SPECIFIC period.

5. Philippine Legal Research

5.1. Research of Statute law

Statute laws are the rules and regulations promulgated by competent
authorities; enactments of legislative bodies (national or local) or they
may be rules and regulations of administrative (departments or bureau)
or judicial agencies. Research of statutory law does not end with
consulting the law itself. At times, it extends to the intent of each
provision or even the words used in the law. In this regard, the
deliberations of these laws must be consulted. The deliberation of laws,
except Presidential Decrees and other Martial law issuances are
available.

Constitution:
The different Constitutions of the Philippines are provided in some
history books such as Gregorio F. Zaide’s Philippine Constitutional History
and Constitutions of Modern Nations (1970) and Founders of Freedom;
The History of Three Constitution by a seven-man Board. The Philippine
legal system recognizes the following Constitutions: Malolos, 1935,
1943, 1973, Provisional or Freedom and 1987 Constitutions. The
1943 Constitution was effective only during the Second World War while
the Provisional Constitution was effective only from the time President
Corazon became President until the 1987 Constitution was ratified and
proclaimed by President Aquino by virtue of Proclamation No. 58,
February 11, 1987.
Majority of printed publications provide the 1935, 1973 and the 1987
Constitutions only. The online sources ( E-library , Chan
Robles , LawPhil , CD Asia , Law Juan ) however have the full-
text of all Constitutions of the Philippines: Malolos, 1935, 1943 of
Japanese, 1973, Provisional or Freedom Constitution and
1987. The books of Senator Ambrosio Padilla ( The 1987 Constitutions
of the Republic of the Philippines . vol. 3, pp779-863) and Carmelo
Sison provide a comparative presentation of the provisions of the 1935,
1973 and 1987 Constitutions.

Text of the Malolos Constitution is available in some history books such

as Gregorio F. Zaide’s Philippine Constitutional History and Constitutions
of Modern Nations , p. 176 (1970) and online. ( E-library , Chan
Robles , CD Asia , Law Juan ).

The Constitutional Convention proceedings provide for the intent and

background of each provision of the Constitution. Sources for the 1934-
1935 Constitutional Convention are: 10 volumes of the Constitutional
Convention Record by the House of Representatives (1966), Salvador
Laurel's seven volumes book entitled Proceedings of the Constitutional
Convention (1966); 6 volumes of the Philippine Constitution, Origins,
Making, Meaning and Application by the Philippine Lawyers Association
with Jose Aruego as one of its editors (1970) and Journal of the
Constitutional convention of the Philippines by Vicente Francisco.

Proceedings of the 1973 Constitutional Convention were never

published. A photocopy and softcopy of the complete compilation is
available at the Filipiniana Reading Room of the National Library of the
Philippines.

Journals (3 volumes) and Records (5 volumes) of the Constitutional

Convention of 1986 were published by the Constitutional
Commission. This publication does not have an index. This problem was
remedied when CD Technologies Asia Inc. came out with a CD-ROM
version, which facilitated research for it has a search engine.

The proceedings and text of the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions are
electronically available at the Supreme Court E-Library.

Commentaries or interpretations on the constitution, decisions of the

Supreme Court and other courts, textbooks or treaties, periodical articles
of the different Constitution are available. (Part 2: Philippine Legal
Information Resources and Citations
- A.v Treatise/Annotations/Commentaries, etc. A.v.10 Political Law

Treaties and other International Agreements:

A treaty is an agreement or a contract between two (bilateral) or more

(multilateral) nations or sovereigns, entered into by agents appointed
(generally the Secretary of Foreign Affairs or ambassadors) for the
purpose and duly sanctioned by supreme powers of the respective
countries. Treaties that do not have legislative sanctions are executive
agreements which may or may not have legislative authorization, and
which have limited execution by constitutional restrictions.

In the Philippines, a treaty or international agreement shall not be valid

and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all members
of the Senate (Constitution, Article VII, section 21). Those without the
concurrence of the Senate are considered as Executive Agreements.

The President of the Philippines may enter into international treaties or

agreements as the national welfare and interest may require, and may
contract and guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republic, subject
to such limitations as may be provided by law. During the time of Pres.
Marcos, there was the so-called Tripoli Agreement.
The official text of treaties is published in the Official Gazette,
Department of Foreign Affairs Treaty Series (DFATS), United Nations
Treaty Series (UNTS ) or the University of the Philippines Law
Center'sPhilippine Treaty Series ( PTS). To locate the latest treaties,
there are two possible sources: Department of Foreign Affairs and the
Senate of the Philippines. There is no complete repository of all treaties
entered into by the Philippines. There is a selective publication of treaties
in the Official Gazette . The DFATS was last published in the 1970s while
the PTS's last volume, vol. 8 contains treaties entered into until
1981.With the UN Treaty Series, which used to be available only in UN
depository libraries in the country and its United Nation Information
Center in Makati in now available online through the United Nations
website . Electronically, major law libraries use the Treaties and
International Agreements Researchers Archives
(TIARA), WESTLAW , LEXIS , other online sources via the Internet.

A formal Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Supreme

Court and the Department of Foreign Affairs was signed at the Supreme
Court for the digitization of full-text of all the treaties entered into by
the Philippines from 1946-2010. The MOA provided that the
Department of Foreign Affairs will supply the official treaties and the
Supreme Court Library Services will produce the CD Rom version with
search engine of the treaties. CD-ROM containing all these
treaties was launched last June 2010 at the Department of Foreign
Affairs. Online version is found in the Supreme Court E-Library . Also
launched last June 2010 was the Philippine Treaties Index 1946-2010 by
the Foreign Service Institute.

For tax treaties, Eustaquio Ordoño has published a series on the

Philippine tax treaties. Other sources of important treaties are
appended in books on the subject or law journals such as the American
Journal of International Law or the Philippine Yearbook of International
Law.

Statutes Proper:

Legislative Enactments:

Statutes are enactments of the different legislative bodies since 1900

broken down as follows:

 4,275 ACTS - Enactments from 1900-1935

 733 Commonwealth Acts - Enactments from 1935-1945
 2034 Presidential Decrees - Enactments from 1972-1985
 884 Batas Pambansa. – Enactments from 1979-1985
 10650 Republic Acts - Enactments from 1946-1972, 1987-
December 2014

Republic Act No. 10650 is the “Act Expanding Access to Educational

Services by the Institutionalizing Open Distance Learning in Levels of the
Tertiary Education.

The above figures clearly show that during Martial Law, both President
Marcos and the Batasang Pambansa (Parliament) were issuing laws at
the same time - Presidential Decrees by President Marcos and Batas
Pambansa by the Philippine Parliament.

During Martial Law, aside from Presidential Decrees, the

President promulgated other issuances namely: 57 General Orders,
1,525 Letters of Instruction, 2,489 Proclamations, 832 Memorandum
Order, 1,297 Memorandum Circular, 157 Letter of Implementation,
Letter of Authority, Letters of Instruction, 504 Administrative Order
and 1,093 Executive Orders. Complete compilation of Presidential
Decrees and all Martial Issuances are available at present in the
Malacanang Records and Archives. Efforts are being made by
Malacanang to make them available through the Official Gazette online.

As previously stated, the Presidential Decrees issued by Pres. Marcos

during Martial Law and the Executive Orders issued by Pres. Aquino
before the opening of Congress may be classified as both executive and
legislative acts for there was no legislature during those two periods.

Laws passed by the new 1987 Congress started from Rep. Act No. 6636,
as the last Republic Act promulgated by Congress before Martial Law was
Rep. Act No. 6635.

The following are the Philippine codes adopted from 1901 to present:

 Administrative Code of 1987 ( Executive Order No. 292)

 Child and Youth Welfare Code (Pres. Decree No. 603)
 Civil Code (Rep. Act No. 386)
 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Code
 Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Rep.
Act o. 6713)
 Cooperative Code (Rep. Act No. 9520)
 Corporation Code (Batas Blg. 68)
 Family Code (Executive Order No. 209)
 Fire Code (Rep. Act No. 9514)
 Fisheries Code (Rep. Act No. 8550)
 Forest Reform Code (Pres. Decree No. 705)
 Insurance Code (Pres/ Decree No. 1460)
 Intellectual Property Code (Rep. Act No. 8293)
 Labor Code (Pres. Decree No. 442)
 Land Transportation and Traffic Code (Rep. Act No. 4136)
 Local Government Code (Rep. Act No. 7160)
 Muslim Code of Personal Laws ( Pres. Decree No. 1083)
 National Building Code (Pres. Decree No. 1096)
  National Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and
Supplements (Executive Order No. 51 s. 1986)
 National Internal Revenue Code (Pres. Decree No. 1158)
 Omnibus Election Code (Batas Blg 881)
 Philippine Environment Code (Pres. Decree No. 1152)
 Revised Penal Code (Act no. 3815)
 Sanitation Code (Pres. Decree No. 856)
 State Auditing Code
 Tariff and Customs Code (Pres. Decree No. 1464)
 Water Code (Pres. Decree No. 1067)

The Senate has prepared the entire legislature process and has
enumerated the types of legislation. This procedure is pursuant to the
Constitution and recognized by both Houses of Congress. The House of
Representatives has provided a diagram of the procedure on how a bill
becomes a law.
SOURCE: Congressional Library; House Printing Division, Administrative
Support Bureau, July 1996.
Presidential Issuances

Administrative acts, orders and regulations of the President touching on

the organization or mode of operation of the government, re-arranging
or adjusting districts, divisions or parts of the Philippines, and acts and
commands governing the general performance of duties of public
officials and employees or disposing of issues of general concern are
made effective by Executive Orders. Those orders fixing the dates when
specific laws, resolutions or orders cease to take effect and any
information concerning matters of public moment determined by law,
resolution or executive orders, take the form of executive Proclamation.
Executive Orders and Proclamations of the Governor-General were
published annually in a set Executive Orders and Proclamations. Thirty
three (33) volumes were published until 1935 by the Bureau of
Printing. Administrative Acts and Orders of the President and
Proclamations were published. Only a few libraries in the Philippines
have these publications for a majority of them was destroyed during
World War II. There are copies available at the Law Library of Congress,
Cincinnati Law Library Association (who offered to donate them to the
Supreme Court of the Philippines) and some at the Library of the Institute
of South East Asian Studies in Singapore.

In researching for Proclamations, Administrative Orders, Executive

Orders and Memorandum Orders & Circulars of the President, the year
it was promulgated is a must or needed. If no year is available, the
President and/or the Executive Secretary issuing it must be stated. As a
new President is sworn in, all the Presidential issuances start with No.
1. The only exception was Executive Orders issued by President Carlos
Garcia after he assumed the Presidency because President Magsaysay
died in a plane crash. He continued the number started by President
Magsaysay. When President Garcia was elected President, he started his
Executive Order No. 1.

To look for the intent of Republic Acts, we have to go through the

printed Journals and Records of both houses of Congress, which contain
their deliberation. To facilitate the search, the House Bill No. or Senate
Bill No. or both found on the upper left portion of the first page of the
law is important. The problem for this research is the availability of the
complete printed Journals and Records of both houses of Congress. The
solution to this problem is the Archives of the House of Representatives
and the Senate. For the recent laws, the deliberations are available
online from the websites of the the House of Representatives and
thePhilippine Senate . The Batasang Pambansa has likewise published it
proceedings. There are no available proceedings for the other laws Acts,
Commonwealth Act and Presidential Decrees.

Administrative Rules and Regulations:

Administrative Rules and regulations are orders, rules and regulations

issued by the heads of Departments, Bureau and other agencies of the
government for the effective enforcement of laws within their
jurisdiction. However, in order that such rules and regulations may be
valid, they must be within the authorized limits and jurisdiction of the
office issuing them and in accordance with the provisions of the law
authorizing their issuance. Access to administrative rules and
regulations have been facilitated due to the two developments: a)
government agencies, including government owned and controlled
corporations, have their own websites and at the Official Gazette and
Official Gazette online where they include the full-text of their issuances,
and b) the National Administrative Register, which is available in print,
CD-Rom and in the Supreme Court website.

In handling these types of materials, there are two important items

needed: a.) Issuing Agency and b.) Year it was promulgated. This is due
to the fact that all Departments, Bureaus, and other government
agencies use the administrative orders, memorandum orders and
memorandum circulars for their administrative rules and regulations and
they start always with number 1 every year. Even the Supreme Court
issues Administrative Orders, Circulars, Memorandum Orders, and
Administrative Matters.
Before the Administrative Code of 1987, these orders, rules and
regulations were selectively published in the Official Gazette . Thus, the
only source to be able to get a copy of the text of these rules and
regulations is the issuing government agency itself.
When the 1987 Administrative Code (Executive Order No. 292) was
promulgated, all government agencies including government owned and
controlled corporations are mandated to file three (3) certified copies of
their orders, rules and regulations with the University of the Philippines
Law Center's Office of National Administrative Register which in turn is
required to publish quarterly the publication called National
Administrative Register . Aside from the printed copies, the National
Administrative Register is available electronically on CD-ROM (CD Asia
Technologies Inc.) and online at the Supreme Court E-Library . Rules in
force on the date on which the Code took effect, which are not filed
within three months from the date not thereafter, shall be the basis of
any sanction against any person or party. Each rule becomes effective
15 days after the filing, unless a different date is fixed by law or specified
in the rule, such as in cases of imminent danger to public health, safety
and welfare, the existence of which must be expressed in a statement
accompanying the rule. The court shall take judicial notice of the
certified copy of each rule duly filed or as published in the bulletin or
codified rules.

University of the Philippines Law Center’s Office of National

Administrative Register is not only tasked to publish this quarterly
register but must keep an up-to-date codification of all rules thus
published and remaining in effect together with a complete index and
appropriate tables. Every rule establishing an offense or defining an act,
which pursuant to law is punishable as a crime or subject to a penalty,
shall in all cases be published in full text. Exceptions to the “filing
requirement" are Congress, Judiciary, Constitutional Commission,
military establishments in all matters relative to Armed Forces
personnel, the Board of Pardons and Parole and state universities and
colleges. With the use of the latest technology, majority of government
agencies including government owned and controlled corporations
maintain their own websites and have incorporation laws and
legislations relevant to their agencies. These developments have
facilitated research for administrative rules and regulations.

As previously stated, there are no up-to-date or complete Statutes

finders. As previously stated, to facilitate legal research, one has to go
online to virtual libraries. The primary source for statutes is: Supreme
Court E-Library and the Official Gazette and Official Gazette online . The
secondary sources area: Chan Robles Virtual Law Library , Arellano Law
Foundation’s The Lawphil Project , and CD Asia Technologiesonline and
or CD ROM. Law Juan iPad app (Law) contains only full-text legislative
enactments from 1901, Rules of Court and all the Philippine
Constitutions.

5.2. Research of Case Law

 SOURCE: 2002 Revised Manual of Clerks of Court . Manila, Supreme
Court, 2002. Organizational Chart was amended due to the passage of
Republic Act No. 9282 (CTA)

Case Law or Judicial decisions are official interpretations or

manifestation of law made by persons and agencies of the government
performing judicial and quasi-judicial functions. At the apex of the
Philippine Judicial System is the Supreme Court, or what is referred to as
court of last resort. The reorganization of the Judiciary of 1980 (Batas
Pambansa Bldg. 129) established the following courts:

 Court of Appeals;
  Regional Trial Courts divided into different judicial regions,
 Metropolitan Trial Court;
 Municipal Trial Court in Cities;
 Municipal Trial Courts;
 Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.

The Shariah (Sharia’a ) Circuit and District Courts (Presidential Decree

No. 1083), Court of Tax Appeals (Republic Act No. 1125) and the
Sandiganbayan (Presidential Decree Nos. 1486 and 1606), sec. 4, Art XI
of the 1987 Constitution were created by separate laws.

Conventional decisions are decisions or rulings made by regularly

constituted court of justice. Subordinate decisions are those made by
administrative agencies performing quasi-judicial functions.
One major problem in conducting research on case law is the availability
of published or printed decisions from the Court of Appeals to the rest
of the judicial and quasi-judicial agencies. The Judicial Reform Program
of the Supreme Court funded by the World Bank started to address this
problem with the establishment of the Supreme Court E-Library aims to
address this problem and also those from statute law and the digitization
of the decisions of the Supreme Court, and the appellate: Court of
Appeals, Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals. Digitization of the
Appellate Courts have started and are available online from the most
recent and will continue until all their first decision from their
creation will be completed. The Reporters Office of the Supreme Court
and the Court of Appeals keep all the original and complete copies of the
court decisions. By original, this means that the keep the decisions with
the “original” signatures of the justices of the Supreme court and Court
of Appeals. For the rest of the Judiciary or the quasi-judicial agencies,
copies of their decisions may be taken from the Legal Office, Office of the
Clerks of Court, Records Office or their libraries. There are no available
printed compilations of lower courts decisions. For those of the
Appellate Court, the Court of Appeals has until 1980s only and while the
Sandiganbayan has only one volume. For the Court of Tax Appeals, the
compilation is only from 1980 to present in the CD Asia CD for taxation.
The details are in Part 2: Philippine Legal Information Resources and
Citations . A.iv Case Law/ Jurisprudence

Supreme Court Decisions:

Decisions of the Supreme Court are highest source
of jurisprudence, source of law. It is the judgment of this court
interprets the law and/or determines whether a law is constitutional or
not. Unconstitutional laws even though it is signed by the President and
passed by both house of congress cannot take effect in the Philippines.

Decisions of the Supreme Court are classified as follows:

"Regular decisions" and extended Resolutions are published in court

reports either in primary or secondary sources. These decisions provide
the justice who penned the decision or ponente and the other justices
responsible for promulgating the decision, whether En Banc or by
Division. Separate dissenting and/or concurring opinions are likewise
published with the main decision. These regular and extended
resolutions are available electronically in the Supreme Court
website under Decisions and the Supreme Court E-Library under
Decisions.

Unsigned Minute Resolutions are not published. Although they bear the
same force and effect as the regular decisions or extended
resolutions, they are issued and signed by the respective Clerks of Court
En Banc or by any of the three (3) Division s and signed by their respective
Clerks of Court. Since these Minutes Resolutions are not published, the
Supreme Court has now incorporated these Minute Resolutions, more
particularly those that resolve a motion for reconsideration or those
that explain or affirm a decision; and (2) Administrative Matters in
the Supreme Court E-Library , under RESOLUTIONS.
Recently, the Supreme Court website has included these
decisions. The Chanrobles has included Minutes Resolution in its
website.

Case Reports in the Philippines such as the Philippine Reports, Supreme

Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) , and the Supreme Court Advance
Decisions (SCAD) come in bound volumes which generally cover a month
per volume. The Supreme Court Advance Decisions (SCAD) has been
discontinued. The Official Gazette, Philippine Reports and the Advance
Sheets are the primary source or official repositories of decisions and
extended resolutions of the Supreme Court. The Advance Sheets are
decisions in “reproduced form” or “photocopied “ copy of the
actual original decision which contains the full text, the signatures of the
justices and the certification of the Chief Justice. The original
decisions are those which the actual signatures is deposited in the
Reporters Office of the Supreme Court. The Advance Sheets was made
available as soon as a decision is issuance. This was however
discontinued because decisions of the Supreme Court are now available
almost immediately upon issuance at the Supreme Court website . The
Official Gazette, Philippine Reports are the other primary source for
Supreme Court decisions. The difference between the two lies in the fact
that the Official Gazette selective compilation while Philippine
Reports contains the complete compilation decisions of the Supreme
Court. Original decisions with original signature of the Justices of the
Supreme Court are found in the Office of the Reporter of the Supreme
Court.

There were unpublished decisions of the Supreme Court from 1901 until
1960. The list and subject field are found at the back of some volumes
of the Philippine Reports . Some of these decisions are cited in treatises
or annotations. In view of the importance of these decisions, the
Supreme Court E-Library started to collect these unpublished decisions
and include them in its database.

The availability of some of the unpublished decisions before World War

II is a problem for a number of the original decisions have been burned.
So, there is no complete compilation of the original decisions of the
Supreme Court. This problem is being addressed by the Supreme Court
E-Library where are great number of these unpublished decisions of the
Supreme Court before the war were retrieved from different sources
such as the United States National Archives in Maryland, private
collection of former Supreme Court Justices such as Chief Justice Ramon
Avancena and Justice George Malcolm (collection is found in the
University of Michigan) and private law libraries who were able to save
some of their collection such as the University of Santo Tomas, the oldest
university in the Philippines. Search for the unpublished decisions still
continues.

The unpublished decisions after the War, the late Judge Nitafan of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila started publishing Supreme Court
Unpublished Decision s ; vol. 1 covers decisions from March 1946 to
February 1952. However only two volumes were published due to Judge
Nitafan’s untimely death. The Office of the Reporter of the Supreme
Court has these unpublished decisions.

The early volumes, particularly those before the war were originally
published in Spanish in the Jurisprudencia Filipina . They were translated
in English to become the Philippine Reports . Some decisions after the
second Philippine independence were still in the Spanish
language. There are a number of decisions now in the Filipino language.
The Philippine Reports until volume 126 (1960's) was published by the
Bureau of Printing, now called the National Printing Office. Printing was
transferred to the Supreme Court in the 1980s due to the need for a
complete official publication of the Court’s decision. The Supreme
Court’sPhilippine Reports started with volume 127.

The most popular secondary source is the Supreme Court Reports

Annotated (SCRA ) and eSCRA and the Lex Libris Jurisprudence CD ROM
and CD Asia Online . The online and CD versions are on subscription
basis while the printed SCRA may be purchased per volume. Two
new sources on subscription basis are: a) My Legal Whiz ; Easy
Contextual Legal Research and Law Juan decisions, iPad app.

How can we search for Supreme Court decisions manually?

Topic or Subject Approach: (Please See Complete title of the publication

from the Philippine Legal Bibliography chapter)

 Philippine Digest
 Republic of the Philippine Digest
 Velayo's digest
 Magsino's Compendium
 Supreme Court's unpublished Subject Index
 Martinez's Summary of Supreme Court rulings 1984 to 1997
 UP Law Center's Supreme Court decisions: subject index and
digest's
 SC's Case Digest's
 Philippine Law and Jurisprudence
 Castigador’s Citations
 SCRA Quick Index Digest
 Title Approach or Title of the Approach: (Please See Complete title
of the publication from the Philippine Legal Bibliography chapter)
 Philippine Digest - Case Index
 Republic of the Philippines Digest
  Ong, M. Title Index to SC decisions 1946-1978 2v.; 1978-1981 1st
Suppl; 1981-1985, 2nd Suppl; 1986 to present is unpublished but
available at the Supreme Court Library portal
 Ateneo's Index

Manual approach is not possible in majority of law libraries for the above
sources enumerated are no longer available. For those who have these
sources, the problem is the availability of updated indexes. Only the
SCRA Quick Index Digest is updated. It is however delayed by about one
year for they have to wait for the last volume of the SCRA for the year
before they could come up with the SCRA Quick Index Digest. In the
Title Approach, the latest is M. Ong Title Index to SC decisions,
2 nd supplement 1981-1985. The updated Title Index is available at the
Supreme Court Library portal but is not yet available online. Title search
made be made through the Lex Libris: Jurisprudence online.

Electronic application is the source for effective legal research. These

sources are as follows:

 !e-library! A Century & 4 Years of Philippine Supreme Court

Decisions 1901-April 2004 . Research & Development Department,
Agoo Computer College, Agoo, Lau Union, Philippines (CD ROM)
 eSCRA . Q.C.: Central Book Supply
 Law Juan . IPad App (Jurisprudence)
 Lex Libris: Jurisprudence. Pasig City: CD Asia Technologies Inc. (CD
ROM) and CD Asia online
 My Legal Whiz ; Easy Contextual Legal Research
( https://www.mylegalwhiz.com/)
 Supreme Court E-Library online
 Supreme Court website

Court of Appeals decisions:

Decisions of the Court of Appeals are merely persuasive on lower
courts. They are cited in cases where there are no Supreme Court
decisions in point. In this regard, they are considered as judicial guides
to lower courts and that conclusion or pronouncement they make can
be raised as a doctrine. The Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals is the
repository of all of the Court of Appeals decisions.

Sources of Court of Appeals decisions are:

Text:
 Court of Appeals decisions are now being complete online starting
from the latest to 1936.
 Official Gazette (selective publication)
 Court of Appeals Reports which was published by the Court of
Appeals until 1980. Even this publication is not a complete
compilation. It is still considered selective for not all CA decisions
are included.
 Court of Appeals Reports (CAR) by Central Book Supply. One
volume was published
 Philippine Law and Jurisprudence
 Reports Office of the Court of Appeals

Subject or Topic Approach:

 Velayo's Digest;
 Moreno's Philippine Law dictionary

Decisions of Special Courts:

Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals do not have published
decisions. The Sandiganbayan has only one volume published;
Sandiganbayan Reports vol. 1 covers decisions promulgated from
December 1979 to 1980. Sandiganbayan decisions are now being made
available online starting from the latest to its first decision. The Legal
Office of the Sandiganbayan is the repository of all of its decisions.
Court of Tax Appeals decisions from 1980 to 2004 are found in the Lex
Libris particularly in Taxation CD ROM. Court of Tax decisions are now
being complete online starting from the latest to its first decision.

Decisions of Administrative Agencies, Commissions and Boards:

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

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

6. Legal Profession and Legal Education

Republic Act No. 7662, otherwise known as the Legal Education Reform
Act of 1993 created the Legal Education Board, was approved on
December 23, 1993 . The Board shall be composed of a Chairman who
shall preferably be a former justice of the Supreme Court of Court of
Appeals and regular members composed of: a representative of each of
the following: Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Philippine
Association of Law Schools (PALS), Philippine Association of Law
Professors (PALP), ranks of active law practitioners and law students’
sector. The Legal Education has replaced the Commission on Higher
Education for legal education. Its primary functions are:

 to administer the legal education system

 to supervise the law schools
 to set the standards of accreditation for law schools
 to accredit law schools that meet the standards of accreditation;
 to prescribe minimum standards for law admission and minimum
qualifications and compensation of faculty members;
 to prescribe the basic curricula for the course of study aligned to
the requirements for admission to the Bar,
 to establish a law practice internship
 to adopt a system of continuing legal education.
The 1987 Constitution however provides under Article VIII, sec. 5(5) that
it is the Supreme Court who has the power to promulgate rules
concerning the admission to practice the law. The Supreme Court has
promulgated the Rules of Court, Rule 138 as to the admission of the
bar. To be admitted to the bar, there are three requirements:

 must have passed the bar examination which is given annually at

four (4) consecutive Sundays
 must take the lawyer’s oath
 must sign the roll of attorneys at the Supreme Court

The lists of lawyers who are allowed to practice are found in the Rolls of
Attorneys of the Supreme Court and the publication of the Court
entitled, Law List . The online version of the Law List, available in
theSupreme Court and Supreme E-Library , includes the annual lists of
additional members of the bar.

Applicants for the annual bar examination must have the following
(Rules of Court, Rule 138, sec. 2):
 citizen and resident of the Philippines
 21 years of age
 good moral character (three testimonials of good moral character)
 submission of the required documents such as birth certificate,
marriage certificate, three testimonials of good moral character,
official law transcript, certificate of no derogatory record and
certificated from the CHED/LEB and photos

Academic requirements to qualify to take the bar examinations are

provided in Rules of Court, Rule 138, section 5 and section 6.

Section 5 provides that the applicant should have studied law for four
years and have successfully completed all the prescribed courses. This
section was amended by Bar Matter No. 1153, March 9, 2010 which
provides “that they have successfully completed all the prescribed
courses for the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent, in a law
school or university officially recognized by the Philippine Government
or by the proper authority in foreign jurisdiction where the degree has
been granted.” Bar Matter No. 1153 further provides that a Filipino
citizen who graduated from a foreign law school shall be allowed to take
the bar only upon the submission to the Supreme Court the required
certifications.

Section 6 provides the Pre-Law requirement which is a four year high

school course and a bachelor’s degree in arts or science. This section will
be however affected by Republic Act No. 10533 – Enhanced Basic
Education of 2013 which provides a K to 12 Program which
covers Kindergarten and 12 years of basic education (six years of primary
education, four years of Junior High School, and two years of Senior High
School.

The Schedule of subjects for the four Sundays of the month is as follows:

First Sunday: A.M. Political and International Law (15%), P.M. Labor Law
and Social Legislation (10%);
Second Sunday: A.M. Civil law (15%), P.M. Taxation (10%);
Third Sunday: A.M. Mercantile Law (15%), P.M. Criminal Law (10%);
Fourth Sunday: A.M. Remedial Law (20%), P.M. Legal Ethics and Practical
Exercises (5%).

The Rules of Court, Rule 138, section 16 provides that those who fail the
bar examinations for three or more times must take a refresher
course. The Legal Education Board has listed the following 88 accredited
law schools who can conduct refresher courses for 2014-2015:

 Adamson University
 Aemilianum College Inc.
 Aklan Colleges, Kalibo Aklan
 Andres Bonifacio College
 Angeles University Foundation
 Aquinas University
 Araullo University
 Arellano University
 Ateneo de Davao University
 Ateneo de Manila University
 Bicol Colleges
 Bukidnon State University
 Bulacan State University
 Cagayan State University
 Central Philippines University
 Centro Escolar University
 Colegio de la Purisima College
 Cor Jesu College
 Cordillera Career Development College
 Dr. V. Orestes Romualdez Educational Foundation
 Eastern Samar State University
 Father Saturnino Urios University
 Far Eastern University
 Far Eastern University-DLSU
 Foundation University
 Holy Name University (formerly DWC-T)
 Isabela State College
 J.H. Cerilles State College
 Jose Rizal Memorial State University
 Jose Rizal University
 Leyte Colleges
 Liceo de Cagayan University
 Lyceum of the Philippines University
 Lyceum Northwestern University
 Manila Law College Foundation
 Manuerl Luis Quezon University
 Mariano Marcos State University
 Mindanao State University
 New Era University
 Northeastern College
 Northwestern University
 Notre Dame University
 Palawan State University
 Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila
 Pan Pacific University of Northern Philippines
 Philippine Christian University
 Philippine Law School
 Polytechnic University of the Philippine
 San Sebastian College-Recoletos
 Saint Louis University
 San Beda College-Alabang
 San Beda College-Mendiola
 San Pablo Colleges
 Siliman University
 Southwestern University
 St. Louis College
 St. Mary’s University
 St. Paul School of Business and Law
 St. Thomas More School of Law and Business
 Sultan Kudarat University
 Tarlac State University
 Universidad de Manila
 University of the Cordilleras
 University of Baguio
 University of Batangas
 University of Cagayan Valley
 University of Cebu
 University of Eastern Philippines
 University of Iloilo
 University of Manila
  University of Mindanao
 University of Negros Occidental-Recoletos
 University of Northern Philippines
 University of Nueva Caceres
 University of Pangasinan
 University of Perpetual Help-Laguna
 University of Perpetual Help-Rizal
 University of San Agustin
 University of San Carlos
 University of San Jose-Recoletos
 University of Sothern Philippines-Foundation
 University of St. La Salle
 University of Santo Tomas
 University of the East
 University of the Philippines
 University of the Visayas
 Western Mindanao State University
 Xavier University

Reforms in the Bar Examinations (Bar Matter No. 1161) was adopted in
June 2004 and effective July 15, 2004, 15 days after it was published in
the Manila Bulletin and the Philippine Star (June 21, 2004). In 2011, new
reforms were made as to its coverage and the application of Multiple
Choice Question (MCQ) exam and Essay-Type exams. The date of the Bar
examination was moved to the four (4) Sundays of November.

Special Bar Exams for Shari’a Court lawyers is provided for by virtue of
the Court En Banc Resolution dated September 20, 1983. The exam is
given every two years. Although the exam is conducted by the Supreme
Court Office of the Bar Conidant, it is the Office of Muslim Affairs who
certifies as to who are qualified to take the exam. Candidates to the
Sharia’ bar do not need to be degree holder of Bachelor of laws. Those
who have passed the Sharia’ bar or the Sharia lawyers are not considered
as full-fledged members of the Philippine bar for they are authorized to
practice only in Sharia courts.

All attorneys whose names are in the Rolls of Attorneys of the Supreme
Court who have qualified for and have passed the bar examinations
conducted annually, taken the attorney’s oath, unless otherwise
disbarred must be a member of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines. Bar Matter No. 850 was promulgated by the Resolution of
the Supreme Court En Banc on August 22, 2000, as amended on October
2, 2001, providing for the rules on Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education (MCLE) for Active Members of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP). The members of the IBP have to complete every three
(3) years at least thirty six (36) hours of continuing legal activities
approved by the MCLE Committee. An IBP member who fails to comply
with the said requirement shall pay a non-compliance fee and shall be
listed as a delinquent member of the IBP. A Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education Office to implement said MCLE was established by the
Supreme Court by virtue of SC Administrative Order No. 113-2003 which
was approved on August 15, 2005 and effective September 1, 2003
following its publication in two newspapers of general
circulation. Under the Resolution of the Court en Banc dated
September 2, 2008 (Bar Matter No. 1922), the counsel’s MCLE Certificate
of Compliance must be indicated in all pleadings filed with the Courts.

The Supreme Court has the power to discipline the members of the bar
by disbarment or suspension based on the grounds provided in the
Rules of Court, Rule 138, sec. 27. Rule 139-B provides that the
“proceedings for disbarment, suspension or discipline may be taken by
the Supreme Court motu proprio or by the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines upon the verified complaint of a person.” “ The IBP Board of
Governors may, motu proprio or upon referral by the Supreme Court or
by a Chapter Board of Officers, or at the instance of any person, initiate
of any prosecute proper charges against erring attorneys including those
in government service.”

6.1. Law Schools

The Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court as of July 2014 has
listed the following law schools in the Philippines which have produced
bar candidates:

 *Abra Valley Colleges, Taft St., Bangued, Abra

 *Adamson University, San Marcelino St., Manila
 *Aemilianum College Inc., Sorsogon City
 *Aklan Colleges, Kalibo Aklan
 *Andres Bonifacio College, College Park, Dipolog City
 *Angeles University Foundation, Mac Arthur Highway, Angeles
City, Pampanga
 *Aquinas University, 2-S King’s Building, JAA Penaranda St., Legaspi
City
 *Aquinas University Penablanca Campus, Penablance, Cagayan
 *Araullo University, Bitas, Cabanatuan City
 *Arellano University, Taft Ave., cor. Menlo St, Pasay City
 *Ateneo de Davao University, Jacinto St., Davao City
 *Ateneo de Manila University, Rockwell Drive, Rockwell Center,
Makati City
 *Batangas State University (BATSU), Rizal Ave., Batangas City
 *Bicol Colleges, Daraga Albay
 *BIT International College ( formerly Bohol Institute of
Technology), Tagbilaran, Bohol
 *Bukidnon State College, Fortich Street, Malaybalay, Bukidnon
 *Bulacan State University, Mac Arthur Highway, Malolos, Bulacan
 *Cagayan State University, Andrews Campus, Tuguegarao, Cagayan
 *Camarines Norte School of Law, Itomang, Talisay, Camarines
Norte
 *Central Philippines University, Jaro, Iloilo City
 *Centro Escolar University- Makati Campus, Buendia Ave., Makati
City
 *Christ the King College, Calbayog City, Western Samar
 *City University of Pasay, , Pasadera St., Pasay City
 *Colegio dela Purisima Concepcion, 1 Arzobispo St., Roxas City,
Capiz
 *College of Maasim, R. Kangleon Street, Tunga-Tunga, Maasim City
 *Cor Jesus College, Digos, Sacred Heart Ave., Digos City, Davao del
Sur
 *Cordillera Career Development College, Buyagan Poblacion, La
Trinidad, Benguet
 *De La Salle University, 2401 Taft. Ave., Manila
 *De La Salle University, 1962 J.P. Laurel, National Highway, Lipa
City, Batangas
 Dipolog Medical Center (DMC) College Foundation Inc., Fr.
Patangan Road, Sta Filomena, Dipolog City
 *Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University, San Fernando
City , La Union
 *Dr. Vicente Orestes Romualdez Education Foundation Inc.,
Calanipawan Road, Calanipawan, Tacloban City, Leyte
 East Central Colleges
 *Eastern Samar State University, Borogan, Eastern Samar
 *Far Eastern University, Nicanor Reyes Sr. St., Sampaloc,Manila
 Far Eastern University-De La Salle Makati, RCBC Bldg, Buendia cor
Ayala Ave., Makati
 *Father Saturnino Urios University, San Francisco St. cor. J.C.
Aquino Avenue, Butuan City
 Fernandez College of Arts & Technology, Gil Carlos St., Baliuag,
Bulacan
 *Foundation University, Dr. Miciano St., Dumaguete City, Negros
Oriental
 *Harvadian Colleges, San Fernando City, Pampanga
 *Holy Name University, Corner Lesage & Gallares Streem,
Tagbilaran City, Bohol
 International Harvardian University, Shellanger Cmpd.,
Bagumbayan, Sta. Cruz, Laguna
 *Isabela State University, Cauayan Campus, San Fabian,
Echague, Cauayan City, Isabela
 *Jose Rizal Memorial State University, Dapitan City, Zamboanga del
Norte
 *Jose Rizal University, 80 Shaw Blvd., Mandaluyong City
 *Josefina H. Cerilles State Collage, West Capitol Road, Pagadian
City
 *Laguna State Polytechnic University, Barangay Bubukal, Sta. Cruz,
Laguna
 *Leyte Colleges, Zamora St., Paterno Street, Tacloban City
 *Liceo de Cagayan University, Rodolfo N. Pelaez Blvd, Carmen,
Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental
 Luna Goco Colleges, Calapan, Oriental Mindoro
 *Lyceum of the Philippines University, 109. Leviste St., Salcedo
Village, Makati City
 *Lyceum of the Philippines University
 *Lyceum-Northwestern University, Tapuac, District, Dagupan City,
Pangasinan
 *Manila Law College Foundation, 641 Sales St., Sta. Cruz, Manila
 *Manuel L. Quezon University, 916 R. Hidalgo St., Quiapo, Manila
 *Manuel S. Enverga University Foundation-Lucena, University Site,
Lucena City
 *Mariano Marcos State University, Batac, Ilococ Norte
 Masbate Colleges, Masbate, Masbate
 *Medina Colleges, Gov. Angel N. Medina Sr. Avenue, Carmen
Annex, Ozamiz City
 *Mindanao State University-Iligan, Fatima Campus, Fatima, Iligan
City
 *Mindanao State University-Marawi, Laurel Avenue, Marawi City
 *Misamis University, Hitarion T. Feliciano Street, ., Ozamis City
 Naval State University-UEP (Fomerly Naval Institute of
Technology), Naval, Biliran
 *Negros Oriental State University, Kagasawan Avenue, Dumaguete
City
 *New Era University, No. 9 Central Avenue, St. Joseph Street, New
Era, Quezon City
 *Northeastern College, Maharlika Highway, Santiago City, Isabela
 *Northwestern University, Don Mariano Marcos Avenue, Laoag
City
 *Notre Dame University, Notre Dame Ave., Cotabato City
 Our Lady of Mercy College, Borogan, Eastern Samar
 *Pagadian Capitol College, Pagadian City, Zamboanga del Sur
 *Palawan State University, PSU Road, Barangay Tiniguiban, Puerto
Princesa, Palawan
 *Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, Intramuros, Manila
 *Pan Pacific University of North Philippines, Urdaneta City,
Pangasinan
 *Philippine Advent College, Ramon Magsaysay, Sindangan,
Zamboanga del Norte
 *Philippine Cambridge School of Law, Arts, sciences, Business,
Economics and Technology, Paliparan Site, Paliparan III,
Dasmarinas, Cavite
 *Philippine Christian University, Pedro Gil cor. Taft Ave., Manila
 *Philippine Law School, 1942 Donado corner San Juan Street,,
Pasay City
 Polytechnic College of La Union. La Union
 *Polytechnic University of the Philippines, A Mabini Campus,
Anonas Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila
 *Ramon Magsaysay Technological University, Iba, Zambales
 St. Ferdinand College, Santa Ana, Centro Iligan, Isabela
 *St. Dominic Savio College, Block 1, Lot 6, Mountain Heights
Subdivision, Quirino Highway, Pangarap, Caloocan City
 *Saint Louis College, National Highway, Lingsat, San Fernando City,
La Union
 *St. Louis University, A. Bonifacio St., Baguio City
 *St. Mary’s College of Tagum, Inc., National Highway, Tagum
 *St. Mary’s University, San Vidal corner Ponce Street, Bayombong,
Nueva Vizcaya
 *St. Paul School of Business and Law, Palo, Leyte
 *St. Thomas More School of Law & Business, Doclotero
Avenue, Tagum City
 Samar College, Catbalogan City , Samar
 *San Beda College, 638 Mendiola St., San Miguel, Manila
 *San Beda College-Alabang, 8 Don Manolo Blvd, Alabang Hills,
Alabang
 *San Pablo Colleges, Hermanos Belen Street, San Pablo City,
Laguna
 *San Sebastian College-Recoletos, C.M. Recto Avenue, Manila
 San Sebastian College-Recoletos, IBP Bldg., Surigao City
 *Silliman University, Hubbard Avenue, Dumaguete City, Negros
Oriental
 *Southern Bicol Colleges, Mabini St., Masbate City
 *Southwestern University, Villa Aznar, Urgello Street, Cebu City
 *Sultan Kudarat State University, EJC Montilla Street, Tacurong
City, Sultan, Kudarat
 *Tabaco Colleges, 5 Tomas Cabilles Avenue, Tabaco, Albay
 *Tarlac State University, 2/F Tarlac State University Gym, Romulo
Avenue, Tarlac City
 *Universidad de Manila, Cecilia Munos-Palma corner Antonio
Villegas St., Mehan Gardens, Manila
 *University of Baguio, General Luna Road, Baguio City
 *University of Batangas-Batangas City Campus, Batangas City
 *University of Bohol, Ma. Clara Street, Tagbilaran City, Bohol
 *University of Cagayan Valley, College Ave., Tuguegarao City,
Cagayan
 *University of Cebu, Gov. Cuenco Avenue, Banilad, Cebu City
 *University of Eastern Philippines, University Town, Catarman,
Northern Samar
 *University of Iloilo, Rizal Street, Iloilo City
 *University of La Sallete, Bachelor Street, Santiago City, Isabela
 *University of Manila, 546 Dr. M.V. delos Santos, Manila
 *University of Mindanao, Bolton St., Davao City
 *University of Negros Occidental-Recoletos, Lizares St., Bacolod
City
 *University of Northeastern Philippines, San Roque, Iriga City,
Camarines Sur
 *University of Northern Philippines, Quirino Boulevard, Vigan,
Ilocos Sur
 University of Northwestern Philippines, Mariano Marcos Ave.,
Laoag City
 *University of Nueva Caceres, J. Hernandez Avenue, Naga City
 *University of Pangasinan, Arellano Street, Dagupan City,
Pangasinan
 *University of Perpetual Help-Rizal, Alabang-Zapote Road,
Pamplona, Las Pinas City
 *University of Perpetual Help System, Sto Nino, Binan, Laguna
 *University of Saint La Salle, La Salle Avenue, Bacolod City
 *University of San Agustin, Gen. Luna St., Iloilo City
 *University of San Carlos, P. del Rosario St., Cebu City
 *University of San Jose-Recoletos, P. Del Rosario Street, Cebu City
 *University of Santo Tomas, Espana, Manila
 *University of Southern Philippines Foundation, Salinas Drive,
Lahug, Cebu City
 *University of the Cordelleras, Governor Pack Road, Baguio City
 *University of the East, C.M. Recto Avenue, Manila
 *University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City
 *University of the Visayas, D. Jakosalem Corner Colon Street, Cebu
City
  Virgen de los Remedios College, Eat Bajac-Bajac, Olongapo City
 *Virgen Milagrosa University Foundation, Martin P. Posadas
Avenue, San Carlos City, Pangasinan
 *Western Leyte College of Ormoc City, Inc., A. Bonifacio
Street, Ormoc City
 *Western Mindanao State University, Normal Road,
Baliwasan, Zamboanga City
 *Xavier University, Corales Avnue., Cagayan de Oro City

The above list from the Office of the Bar Confidant does not include
newly organized law schools and/or law schools who do not have any
graduate to qualify for the annual bar examination. They however
have received accreditation from the Legal Education Board. These
additional law schools are as follows:

 *Asian Development Foundation of Tacloban, Tacloban City, Leyte

 *Ateneo de Zamboanga University, La Purisina St., Zamboanga City
 *Kalinga-Apayao State College, Tabuk City, Kalinga
 *University of Asia and the Pacific, Pearl Drive, Ortigas Center,
Pasig City
 *University of Batangas-Lipa City Campus, Lipa City , Batangas
 *Urdaneta City University, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan

The laws schools with asterisk (*) before the name of the law school are
the accredited law school or schools offering Legal Education as of
October 2014.

The following educational Association and/or Organizations:

 Philippine Association of Law Deans
 Philippine Association of Law Professors
 Philippine Association of Law Students

6.2. Bar Associations

Integrated Bar of the Philippines :
The official organization for the legal profession is the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP), established by virtue of Republic Act No. 6397. This
confirmed the power of the Supreme Court to adopt rules for the
integration of the Philippine Bar. Presidential Decree 181 (1973)
constituted the IBP into a corporate body.

There are now about 50,000 attorneys who composed the IBP. These
are the attorneys whose names are in the Rolls of Attorneys of the
Supreme Court who have qualified for and have passed the bar
examinations conducted annually, taken the attorney’s oath, unless
otherwise disbarred. Membership in the IBP is compulsory. The
Supreme Court in its resolution Court En Banc dated November 12, 2002
(Bar Matter No. 1132) and amended by resolution Court En Banc dated
April 1, 2003 (Bar Matter No. 112-2002) require all lawyers to indicate
their Roll of Attorneys Number in all papers and pleadings filed in judicial
and quasi-judicial bodies in additional to the previously required current
Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) and IBP Official Receipt or Life Member
Number.

Other Bar Associations:

Philippine Bar Association is the oldest voluntary national organization

of lawyers in the Philippines which traces its roots to the Colegio de
Abogados de Filipinas organized on April 8, 1891. It was formally
incorporated as a direct successor of the Colegio de Abogados de
Filipinas on March 27, 1958.
The other voluntary bar associations are the Philippine Lawyers
Association, Trial Lawyers Association of the Philippines, Vanguard of the
Philippine Constitution, PHILCONSA, All Asia Association, Catholic
Lawyers Guild of the Philippines, Society of International Law, WILOCI,
Women Lawyers Association of the Philippines (WLAP), FIDA . The
Philippines is also a member of international law associations such as
the ASEAN Law Association , and LAWASIA.

7. Law Librarians Association

The Philippine Group of Law Librarians Inc. (PGLL ) is a
national organization of law librarians from both the government and
the private sector organized August 1980 during the 46 th General
Congress of the International Federation of Library Associations and
Institutions (IFLA). Now on 35 th year, the PGLL aims to develop the
competencies of law librarians in legal research, management, the
information technology and other fields though it congresses, fora and
seminars for improved library services. The PGLL is sensitive to the latest
development in the law library field and has adopted measures conform
to these developments. ASEAN integration is the latest development in
the Asean countries and the PGLL is preparing for it. In 2014, it started
its study tour to notable law libraries in Asia, starting with
Malaysia. Other members have observed the law libraries of Singapore
and other Asian countries. In 2015, it will conduct a National Congress
on “Developing the Level of Competencies of Librarians and Information
Professionals Towards Asean Integration” to be held on May 6-8, 2015
wherein the law librarian of model law library is Asia is invited.

The Association of Special Libraries of the Philippines (ASLP) is a national

organization of special libraries, including law was organized in
1954. Through this association, law librarians can improve their
networking and competencies in other disciplines related to law.