CONCLUSION

(The proponent’s thesis is that Congress cannot abolish the Court of

Appeals without violating security of tenure, judicial supremacy in the judicial

process, and judicial independence. Herein findings, prove the thesis.)

On the basis of the responses to the survey and interview and analysis of

the constitutional and legal provisions as well as jurisprudence, the following can

be concluded:

(1) In the legal community the perspective is that the Court of Appeals

should not be abolished primarily because the judicial independence of

the judiciary will be destroyed as well as security of tenure of affected

judges.

(2) The ex-justices including the members of the faculty are likely to disagree

on the abolition because of their legal training and education. It is

reasonable to expect from them adherence to law and due process, as

well as a firm belief in judicial independence.

(3) But it is interesting to note that among law students they are open to the

idea of abolishing Court of Appeals. They believe that “whatever decision

of the Court of Appeals can nonetheless be elevated to the Supreme

Court” and that “the duty to render justice on the part of Supreme Court
 can never be frustrated or affected just because the Court of Appeals is

to be dissolved.

(4) These findings can be anticipated, considering that the respondents are

trained in law and legal education with the exception of some law

students who have a more liberal stance. It may be a good idea to

explore a further determination of the issues on the perception of the

public. Given more time, the study can be expanded to include the

perception of general public across so many professions and academic

disciplines, including legal and judicial institutions in order to widen the

scope of study.

(5) While in the case of De La Lana the Supreme Court held that the Congress

has the power to abolish, majority of the respondents are against the

exercise of such power by Congress because it violates judicial

independence and it cannot be done without the Consent of the

Supreme Court.

(6) On the other hand, those who favor abolition are people who are open

minded and believes that even if the Congress abolishes the Court of

Appeals, it will not result in violation of judicial independence or security

of tenure. Rather, Congress can abolish Court of Appeals precisely

because there is no constitutional hindrance

(7) While abolition of court was allowed in the De La Llana case, this ruling

may no longer hold true today in view of the provision of the 1987

Constitution upholding judicial independence and the expanded power of

the Supreme Court. Moreover, Congress is expressly prohibited to add or

expand the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction without the latter’s

consent. By abolishing the Court of Appeals, those handled by Court of

Appeals would end up being handled by the Supreme Court. That would

unduly burden the High Court. In that situation, Supreme Court will

become a Trier of facts, notwithstanding that there are many Regional

Trial Courts. Hence, it is submitted that the Teehankee dissenting opinion

becomes the prevailing opinion in view of the 1987 Constitution.

(8) Therefore it can be restated or concluded that Congress cannot abolish

Court of Appeals without violating judicial independence and without

getting the consent of the Supreme Court.

“ “

- Teehankee