Article VIII – Judicial Department |2
Regional Trial Courts
Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one
Supreme Court and in
such lower courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
justice to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable, and
to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.
Judicial power
JUDICIAL POWER is the power to apply the laws to
contests or disputes concerning legally recognized
rights or duties between the State and private
persons, or between individual litigants in cases
properly brought before the judicial tribunals.
The judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court of
the Philippines and lower courts established by law.
 The Supreme Court, which has a Chief Justice
as its head and 14 Associate Justices,
occupies the highest tier of the judiciary.
 The justices serve until the age of 70. The
justices are appointed by the presidenton
the recommendation of the Judicial and Bar
Council.
 The sitting Chief Justice is Maria Lourdes
Sereno, the 24th to serve in that position.
Other court types of courts, of varying jurisdiction
around the archipelago, are
the following, which can also be categorized into
three groups:
Lower Collegiate Courts:
Court of Appeals
Court of Tax Appeals
Sandiganbayan
Regular Courts:
Court of Appeals
Metropolitan Trial Courts
Municipal Trial Courts
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities
Muslim Courts
Shari’a District Courts
Shari’a Circuit Courts
Scope of Judicial Power
It includes the duty of courts of justice: to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable; and
to determine whether there has been a grave
abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction(infra) on
the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the government
to pass upon the validity or constitutionality of
the laws of the state and
the acts of the other departments of the
government;
to interpret and construe them; and
to render authoritative judgment
It likewise includes the incidental powers necessary
to the effective discharge of the judicial functions
such as the power to punish persons adjudged in
contempt.
Abuse of discretion
It is the failure to take into proper consideration the
facts and law relating to a particular matter; an
Arbitrary or unreasonable departure from
precedent and settled judicial custom.
Where a trial court must exercise discretion in
deciding a question, it must do so in a way that is not
clearly against logic and the evidence. An
improvident exercise of discretion is an error of law
and grounds for reversing a decision on appeal. It
does not, however, necessarily amount to bad faith,
intentional wrong, or misconduct by the trial judge.
For example, the traditional standard of appellate
review for evidence-related questions arising during
trial is the "abuse of discretion" standard. Most
judicial determinations are made based on evidence
introduced at legal proceedings.
Evidence may consist of oral testimony,written
testimony,videotapes and sound recordings,
documentary evidence such as exhibits and business
records, and a host of other materials, including
voice exemplars, handwriting samples, and blood
tests.
Before such materials may be introduced into the
record at a legal proceeding, the trial court must
determine that they satisfy certain criteria
governing the admissibility of evidence. At a
minimum, the court must find that the evidence
offered is relevant to the legal proceedings.
Evidence that bears on a factual or legal issue at
stake in a controversy is considered relevant
evidence.
The relevancy of evidence is typically measured by
its probative value. Evidence is generally deemed
Probative if it has a tendency to make the existence
of any material fact more or less probable. Evidence
that a murder defendant ate spaghetti on the day of
the murder might be relevant at trial if spaghetti
sauce was found at the murder scene. Otherwise
such evidence would probably be deemed irrelevant
and could be excluded from trial if opposing counsel
made the proper objection.
During many civil and criminal trials, judges rule on
hundreds of evidentiary objections lodged by both
parties. These rulings are normally snap judgments
made in the heat of battle. Courts must make these
decisions quickly to keep the proceedings moving on
schedule. For this reason, judges are given wide
latitude in making evidentiary rulings and will not be
over-turned on appeal unless the appellate court
finds that the trial judge abused his or her
discretion.
For example, in a Negligence case, a state appellate
court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion by admitting into evidence a posed
accident- scene photograph, even though the
photograph depicted a model pedestrian blindly
walking into the path of the driver's vehicle with the
pedestrian's head pointed straight ahead as if she
was totally oblivious to the vehicle and other
traffic. Gorman v. Hunt, 19 S.W.3d 662 (Ky. 2000). In
upholding the trial court's decision to admit the
evidence, the appellate court observed that the
photograph was only used to show the pedestrian's
position relative to the vehicle at the time of impact
and not to blame the pedestrian for being
negligent. The appellate court also noted that the
lawyer objecting to the photograph's admissibility
was free to remind the jury of its limited relevance
during cross-examination and closing arguments.
An appellate court would find that a trial court
abused its discretion, however, if it admitted into
evidence a photograph without proof that it was
authentic. Apter v. Ross, 781 N.E.2d 744 (Ind. App.
2003). A photograph's authenticity may be
established by a witness's personal observations
that the photograph accurately depicts what it
purports to depict at the time the photograph was
taken. Ordinarily the photographer who took the
picture is in the best position to provide such
testimony.
Abuse of Discretion is a polite way of saying a trial
judge has made such a bad mistake ("clearly against
reason and evidence" or against established law)
during a trial or on ruling on a motion and that a
person did not get a fair trial. A court of appeals will
use a finding of this abuse as a reason to reverse the
a previous court result. Examples of "abuse of
discretion" or judges' mistakes include not allowing
an important witness to testify, making improper
comments that might influence a jury, showing bias,
or making rulings on evidence that deny a person a
chance to tell his or her side of the matter. This
does not mean a trial or the judge has to be perfect,
but it does mean that the judge's actions were so far
out of bounds that someone truly did not get a fair
trial. Sometimes the appeals courts admit the judge
was wrong, but not wrong enough to have
influenced the outcome of the trial, often to the
annoyance of the losing party. In criminal cases
abuse of discretion can include sentences that are
grossly too harsh. In a divorce action, it includes
awarding alimony way beyond the established
formula or the spouse's or life partner's realistic
ability to pay.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power monthly plus allowances on transportation, housing
to define, prescribe, and apportion the and other stuffs. So, if they cut the budget, they
won’t be able to sustain a lot of judges resulting to
jurisdiction of the various courts but may not
more vacancies which will slow down law processes.
deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction
over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof. If the budget last year was Php 13 billion, then the
budget this year will not be lower than Php 13
No law shall be passed reorganizing the billion.
Judiciary when it undermines the
Section 4. (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed
security of tenure of its Members.
of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It
may sit en banc or in its discretion, in division of
It is vested upon the Congress the power to define,
three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be
prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of the
filled within ninety days from the occurrence
various or different courts. However it should not
thereof.
remove or impair or by the word of the constitution
"to deprive" the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
(2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a
over cases enumerated by Section 5. It's like saying
treaty, international or executive agreement, or law,
that the Congress has its powers but it must
which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc,
remember that it has its limitation and that the
and all other cases which under the Rules of Court
Supreme Court has its power as well. Also no law
are required to be heard en banc, including those
should be passed that involves reorganizing the
involving the constitutionality, application, or
Judiciary if it threatens the security of term of its
operation of presidential decrees, proclamations,
Members.
orders, instructions, ordinances, and other
regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence
Section 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy.
of a majority of the Members who actually took part
Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced
in the deliberations on the issues in the case and
by the legislature below the amount appropriated
voted thereon.
for the previous year and, after approval, shall be
automatically and regularly released.
(3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be
decided or resolved with the concurrence of a
The judiciary department has the privilege of the
majority of the Members who actually took part in
automatic release of funds once they are approved
the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted
and appropriated by the legislature. Also, the
thereon, and in no case without the concurrence of
legislative department can’t reduce the amount
at least three of such Members. When the required
lower than the appropriated budget that is provided
number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en
for the judiciary department the year before. After
banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law
the budget if approved, the releasing of funds is
laid down by the court in a decision rendered en
necessary to be regular and automatic.
banc or in division may be modified or reversed
except by the court sitting en banc.
It is a violation of the principle of separation of
powers of the executive and judiciary, the court’s
fiscal autonomy and the policy of non-reduction of
Composition
the judiciary’s budget from previous years if they
decide to cut the budget short. Also, if they cut the
The Supreme Court is composed of the Chief Justice,
budget, there will be more trial court vacancies. The
together with its 14 Associate Justices. The Supreme
logic here is that, to lure them to the judiciary
Court may sit En Banc or in panels (or divisions) of
department by giving them comparable pays and
three, five or seven members.En Banc is a French
benefits. Right now, judges receive Php 150,000.00
word which literally means, on the bench. It is used
to refer to the hearing of a legal case where all
judges of a court will hear the case rather than a
selected few.
Cases that are required to be heard by the Supreme
Court en banc
These include constitutionality of a treaty,
international or executive agreement, or law and all
other cases which under the rules of court are
required to be heard en banc including those
involving the constitutionality, application, or
operation of presidential decrees, proclamations,
orders, instructions, ordinances, and other
regulations.
How many votes are required to decide for a case
en banc?
Since a Quorum of the Supreme Court is Eight, the
votes of at least five are needed and are enough,
even if it is a question of constitutionality.
Moreover, those who did not take part in the
deliberation do not have the right to vote.
How justices come up with a decision in divisions?
In cases heard by division or panels, the cases are
resolved with the concurrence of the majority who
took part in deliberation of the case. When the
required number is not obtained, the case shall be
decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or
principle of law laid down by the court in a decision
rendered en banc or in division may be modified or
reversed except by the court sitting en banc
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the
following powers:
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases
affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, and over petitions for
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, and habeas corpus.
Foreign dignitaries and their privileges
An ambassador is the foreign diplomatic
representative of a nation who is authorized to
handle political negotiations between his or her
country and the country where the ambassador has
been assigned. A consul is the commercial agent of
a nation, who is empowered only to engage in
business transactions, and not political matters in
the country where he or she is stationed.
The Vienna Treaty on Diplomatic Relations, a 1972
treaty in which the Philippines is also a signatory,
states that diplomatic agents are to enjoy diplomatic
immunity, which includes the immunity of being
summoned into court of any criminal cases which
took place in the country of assignment. This
immunity also extends to civil cases, except for the
actions done outside the duties of a diplomatic
agent, and involvement of properties personally
owned by the agent. The highest form of
punishment that can be applied to diplomatic
agents will be the recall of the agent to the
represented country.
A consul, however, is not covered in the diplomatic
immunity. He/she is still under the jurisdiction of the
country he/she is assigned, and the consul can be
charged of anything under local laws
Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court over
petitions for certiorari, etc.
The Supreme Court exercises original jurisdiction
over petitions for the issuance of Writs, etc.
Certiorari
A writ issued from a superior court requiring a lower
court to transmit the records of a case to the
superior court for the purposes of review.
Prohibition
A writ by which a superior court commands a lower
court to desist from further proceedings in an action
or matter.
Mandamus
An order by a superior court commanding a lower
court, a board or a corporation to perform a certain
act which is its or his duty to do.
Quo warranto
An action by the government to recover an office or
franchise from an individual unlawfully holding it. An
example for this is the petition for Quo warranto VS.
Jovito Palparan.
Habeas Corpus
A writ issued in order to bring somebody who has
been detained into court, usually for a decision on
whether the detention is lawful.
Section 5. (2) 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:
a. 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.
b. All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in
relation thereto.
c. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower
court is in issue.
d. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua or higher.
e. All cases in which only an error or question of law
is involved.
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court:
a. Cases of great public Interest
b. Elevation of the cases to supreme court
i. By appeal
ii. By Certiorari
Section 5. (3) Assign temporarily judges of lower
courts to other stations as public interest may
require. Such temporary assignment shall not
exceed six months without the consent of the judge
concerned.
Reassignment of judges:
(1) Assignment temporary
o Under the provision, temporary assignments of
judges of lower courts may be made only by the
Supreme Court.
(2) Assignment permanent
o If the transfer is a permanent one, it can only be
affected with the consent of the judge and by
extension of a new appointment by the President.
(3) Assignment within the same region
o The station of the judge is the region where he is
assigned by law to hold regular sessions. Therefore,
there is no need for the Supreme Court or the
President to approve the reassignment to another
branch of the same region.
Section 5. (4) Order a change of venue or place of
trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
An example of this is the transfer of Andal Jr’s case
to Quezon City. According to Davanadera, they have
to transfer the hearing due to security reasons. Also,
the witnesses were hesitant about the hearing
conducted in Cotabato because they were afraid for
their and their families’ lives.
Section 5. (5) Promulgate rules concerning the
protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the
admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar,
and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such
rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall
be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall
not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.
Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-
judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
disapproved by the Supreme Court.
Rule-making power of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has been obligated by the
Constitution with full legislative authority to
promulgate the Rules of Court concerning the
following:

1. Protection and enforcement of constitutional
rights
Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission
to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal
assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall
provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for
the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for
all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish,
increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of
procedure of special
courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain
effective unless
disapproved by the Supreme Court.
2. Pleading
3. Practice of law
4. Procedure
5. Admission to the practice of law or to the bar
6. Integrated bar (the inclusion in the Roll of
Attorneys)
7. Legal assistance to the underprivileged
Limitations on the rule-making power of the
Supreme Court
1. Such rules shall provide a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the
speedy disposition of cases;
2. They shall be uniform for all courts of the same
grade;
3. They shall not diminish, increase, or modify
substantive rights.
Substantive Laws are laws which create, define, and
regulate rights concerning life, liberty, or property,
or the power of agencies and instrumentalities for
the administration of public affairs. Some of these
substantive laws include the Philippine Constitution,
Civil Code, Code of Commerce, Insurance Code,
Corporation Code, National Internal Revenue Code
and the Revised Penal Code.
Substantive rights are basic human rights possessed
by people in an ordered society and include rights
granted by natural law as well as substantive law.
Substantive rights involve a right to the substance of
being human (life, liberty, happiness), rather than a
right to a procedure to enforce that right, which is
defined by procedural law. More of these
substantive rights are provided under Article III (Bill
of Rights) of the same Constitution.
Procedural laws are the part of law which prescribes
the method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress
for their violation. Procedural law is governed by the
Rules of Court promulgated by the Supreme Court
and by special laws. Procedural rights, meanwhile,
are the remedies or means by which an aggrieved
party, whose rights have been violated, may bring
the case to trial.
These procedural rights include: access to
information, participation in decision-making,
access to justice and judicial review, substantive
redress and non-interference with international
petition (where applicable).
Section 5. (6) Appoint all officials and employees of
the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service
Law.
This subsection talks about the safeguards of
independence that is appointed to all officials and
employees with the Civil Service Law. In the previous
constitutions, the Judiciary is subject to the
administrative supervision of the president, through
his/her alter ego in the Department of Justice. The
lack of independence in the exercise of
administrative supervision by the Judiciary led to
many cases being politically influenced.
Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have the
administrative supervision over all courts and the
personnel thereof.
The judicial branch of government is made up of the
Supreme Court and several other lower courts
established by law. Only the Supreme Court,
however, is a constitutional court - its creation being
provided by the Constitution under Section1, Article
VIII.
Its duty is to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable (Art. VIII Sec. 1 (2)).
Since the Supreme Court is the highest court in the
Philippines, it has the legitimate power to supervise
all other courts like the Court of Appeals which
consists of a Presiding Justice and fifty Associate
Justice who shall be appointed by the President of
the Philippines; the Regional Trial Courts that shall
exercise original jurisdiction; the Metropolitan Trial
Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts and the Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts.
Section 7. (1) No person shall be appointed Member
of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court
unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.
A Member of the Supreme Court must be at least
forty years of age, and must have been for fifteen
years or more, a judge of a lower court or engaged
in the practice of law in thePhilippines.
(2) The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of
judges of lower courts, but no person may be
appointed judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the
Philippines and a member of the Philippine Bar.
(3) A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of
proven competence, integrity, probity, and
independence.
Qualifications of Supreme Court and lower
collegiate courts justices
Member of the Supreme Court or any lower
collegiate court must be a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines. Moreover, a member of the Supreme
Court must be at least forty years of age and must
have been for fifteen years or more, a judge of a
lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the
Philippines.
Collegiate Courts:
Sandiganbayan
Court of Tax Appeals
The practice of law is defined as follows:
Whoever,
(1) In a representative capacity appears as an
advocate or draws papers, pleadings or documents,
or performs any act in connection with proceedings
pending or prospective before a court or a body,
board, committee, commission or officer
constituted by law or having authority to take
evidence in or settle or determine controversies in
the exercise of the judicial power of the state or any
subdivision thereof;
or (2) For a consideration, reward or pecuniary
benefit, present or anticipated, direct or indirect,
advises or counsels another as to secular law, or
draws or procures or assists in the drawing of a
paper, document or instrument affecting or relating
to secular rights;
or (3) For a consideration, reward or pecuniary
benefit, present or anticipated, direct or indirect,
does any act in a representative capacity in behalf of
another tending to obtain or secure for such other
the prevention or the redress of a wrong or the
enforcement or establishment of a right;
or (4) As a vocation, enforces, secures, settles,
adjusts or compromises defaulted, controverted or
disputed accounts, claims or demands between
persons with neither of whom he is in privity or in
the relation of employer and employee in the
ordinary sense; is practicing law
Qualifications for other court judges may be set by
Congress, but not for Supreme Court
Congress is allowed to modify qualifications of lower
collegiate court judges, or even adding them, but
not to remove any qualification specified under the
Constitution. However, qualifications for being a
Justice of the Supreme Court cannot be altered by
Congress as it is given under the limitations of the
power of Congress.
How to check whether a judicial agent is of proven
competence and integrity, among others
According to the Judicial and Bar Council, justices
and judges shall be evaluated according to:
1. Competence, to be measured by
a. Educational preparation
b. Experience
c. Performance
d. Other accomplishments
2. Integrity, by means of:
a. Evidence of integrity
b. Background check
c. Testimony of parties
d. Anonymous testimonies
3. Probity and independence
4. Sound physical, mental, and emotional condition,
by means of
a. Medical documents
b. Psychological/psychiatric tests
Section 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby
created under the supervision of the Supreme Court
composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio
Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and
arepresentative of the Congress as ex officio
Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a
professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme
Court, and a representative of the private sector.
(2) The regular members of the Council shall be
appointed by the President for a term of four years
with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments. Of the Members first appointed, the
representative of the Integrated Bar shall serve for
four years, the professor of law for three years, the
retired Justice for two years, and the representative
of the private sector for one year.
(3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the
Secretary ex officio of the Council and shall keep a
record of its proceedings.
(4) The regular Members of the Council shall receive
such emoluments as may be determined by the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall provide in
its annual budget the appropriations for the Council.
(5) The Council shall have the principal function of
recommending appointees to the Judiciary. It may
exercise such other functions and duties as the
Supreme Court may assign to it.
As stated in Article VIII section 8, the President
appoints a Judicial and Bar Council by a non-political
process of election and appointment with the
consent of the Commission on Appointments in
Congress. However, this power of the Congress to
confirm the appointments to the judiciary was
sometimes a source of “horse trading” and political
“haggling”.
The Judicial Bar and Council is composed of the Chief
Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of
Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex
officio Members, a representative of the Integrated
Bar which shall serve for four years, a professor of
law for three years, a retired Member of the
Supreme Court for two years, and a representative
of the private sector for one year. The regular
members of the Council shall be appointed for a
term of four years.
Although it is not mentioned by the constitution as
a qualification, a member of the council must be a
person of proven competence, integrity, probity and
independence.
For every vacancy, the president shall appoint from
a list of at least three nominees prepared by the
Judicial and Bar Council. The president cannot
appoint someone whose name is not listed but he
can ask for additional nominees. Such appointments
need no confirmation from the Commission on
Appointments.
Section 8 of Article 8 also states that the Clerk of the
Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex officio of
the Council and shall keep a record of its
proceedings, the regular Members of the Council
shall receive such emoluments as may be
determined by the Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court shall provide in its annual budget the
appropriations for the Council and the Council shall
have the principal function of recommending
appointees to the Judiciary. It may exercise such
other functions and duties as the Supreme Court
may assign to it.
Section 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and
judges of the lower courts shall be appointed by the
President from a list of at least three nominees
prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every
vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.
For the lower courts, the President shall issue the
appointments within ninety days from the
submission of the list.
Section 10. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and of
judges of lower courts, shall be fixed by law. During
their continuance in office, their salary shall not be
decreased.
Section 10 of Article VIII talks about the distribution
of salary for the Justices of our Supreme Court. Php
240,000.00 will initially be given annually to the
Chief Justice and Php 204,000.00 to the associate
justices until the Congress provides otherwise.
According to the Prohibition against reduction, the
compensation is fixed by law and is effective down
to the lower courts. The purpose of this prohibition
is to assure judicial independence. This is to
guarantee that judges need not fear that their salary
be reduced if they render an unpopular or
controversial decision.
Section 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and
judges of lower courts shall hold office during good
behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or
become incapacitated to discharge the duties of
their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have
the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or
order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the
Members who actually took part in the deliberations
on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
This section emphasizes two important points:
Members of the Supreme Court and judges of
lower courts retires at the
age of seventy (70).
The Supreme Court has the power to discipline
judges of lower courts or
order their dismissal by the vote of the majority of
its members.
Tenure of Office of Members of the Judiciary
1.) Importance of security of tenure
Section 11 insures the security of tenure of the
members of the Supreme Court and the judges of
lower courts. They shall hold office during good
behavior until they reach the age of seventy (70)
years or become incapacitated, physically or
mentally, to discharge the duties of their office.
Security of tenure dependent upon good behavior
has long been considered as an indispensable
guarantee to keep judicial independence, the
cornerstone of all systems of effective
administration of justice.
2.) Retirement age
The retirement age in the 1973 Constitution was
reduced from the original seventy (70) to sixty-five
(65) years which is the retirement age of other non-
elective government officials and employees, and
restored again to seventy (70).
The reduction was obviously intended to afford
members the judiciary ample time to enjoy the
benefits of their retirement from the service and to
give opportunity to comparatively younger men to
occupy the Bench. On the other hand, it will deprive
the country of the services of members of the
judiciary who have acquired experience, wisdom
and expertise in their work but are still capable
physically and mentally to discharge the duties of
their office although past the age of sixty-five (65).
In fact, many retirees have remained hale and
healthy and mentally sharp years after retiement at
70.
3.) Termination of right to hold office
The Constitution provides for the impeachment of
the members of the Supreme Court. (Art. XI, Sec. 2.)
As for judges of lower courts, Congress has the
power to prescribe the procedure and the causes for
their removal. Congress may also validly provide for
the process of determining the incapacity of a judge
to discharge the duties of his office.
4.) Abolition of office
It is well-known rule that valid abolition of offices is
neither removal nor separation of the incumbents.
Removal from office is to be distinguished from
termination by virtue of the abolition of the office.
In case of removal, there is an office with an
occupant who would thereby lose his position. After
the abolition of an office, there is in law no
occupant. Thus, the question of any impairment of
security of tenure does not raise.
This ruling does not apply to the judiciary.
Section 2 expressly provides that“no law shall be
passed reorganizing the judiciary when it
undermines the security of tenure.”
The prohibition seeks to prevent the use of such law,
under the guise of reorganization, to remove
members of the judiciary who refuse to kowtow to
the powers that be.
Meaning of good behavior
Good behavior is conduct authorized by law. So,
mere mistake or error of judgment is not a breach
of good behavior, within the meaning of the
Constitution, to justify expulsion from office.
(1) With reference to the members of the Supreme
Court, it implies that they have not committed any
of the offenses which are grounds for impeachment.
(see Art. XI, Sec. 2.)
(2) As regards judges of lower courts, the
determination by the Supreme Court as to whether
there has been a deviation or not from the
requirement of good behavior is conclusive since it
alone has the power to order their dismissal. Aside
from the grounds for impeachment, judges may be
removed from office for gross ignorance of the law,
incompetence, and immorality (e.g, maintaining a
mistress).
Disciplining or dismissal of judges of lower courts
The present Constitution gives to the Supreme Court
the power to discipline judges of lower courts,
including justices of the Court of Appeals and the
Sandinganbayan. By a vote of a majority of the
member who actually took part in the deliberations
on the issues in the case and voted thereon, it can
order their dismissal.
Section 12. The Members of the Supreme Court and
of other courts established by law shall not be
designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial
or administrative functions.
In the past administration, members of the judiciary
were sometimes designated to executive positions
in the government, at the same time retaining their
rank or seniority as such members. This practice is
no longer possible under the new Constitution.
Article VIII, Section 8 prohibits the designation by
the President of members of the Supreme Court and
of other courts established by law to any agency
performing quasi-judicial and/or administrative
functions.
The following reasons may be given for the
prohibition:
(1) Such designation violates the doctrine of
separation of powers between the judicial and
executive branches of the government;
(2) It may compromise the independence of the
members in the performance of their judicial
functions; and
(3) With so many cases pending in courts, the
practice will result in further delay in their
disposition. The Supreme Court and the Court
of Appeals particularly, which are already burdened
with heavy load of cases, could never reduce, much
less eliminate, the backlog in their dockets if their
members could be assigned to non-judicial
agencies.
Section 13. The conclusions of the Supreme Court in
any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in
division shall be reached in consultation before the
case is assigned to a Member for the writing of the
opinion of the Court. A certification to this effect
signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued and a copy
thereof attached to the record of the case and
served upon the parties. Any Member who took no
part, or dissented, or abstained from a decision or
resolution, must state the reason therefor. The
same requirements shall be observed by all lower
collegiate courts.
Procedure in rendering decisions
Section 13 prescribes the manner by which the
conclusions of the Supreme Court and all lower
collegiate courts in any case submitted to them for
decision shall be arrived at. It requires the issuance
of a certification of compliance by the Chief Justice
or the Presiding Judge, and copies of such
documents must be furnished to the parties. It shall
not include the identity of the member to whom the
case has been assigned.
This procedure has been placed to avoid the practice
of assigning a case to a justice for study and decision
by him alone, and the other justices signing the
decision for formality purposes. Every justice is
obliged to take part in the consideration and
decision-making process whether the court sits en
banc or in division. After which, one judge is
assigned to write an opinion about the case.
Requirement in case of non-participation, dissent
or abstention
Any Supreme Court or lower collegiate justice who
did not take participation in the decision (either by
mere absence, or intentional abstinence) or have
opposing view shall state the reason of its act.
When a justice abstains from the decision-making
process, he may cause the results of the process be
different from expected. Abstained votes could
complicate the process, especially when the tallies
for the ‘yeas’ and ‘nays’ have tied.
If a justice meanwhile has an opposing view from
the rest, he/she must be able to explain the bases
for the view. This way, justices’ opinions are given
regard and merit. It gives the justices another
perspective for their decision, and it may, by value
of merit, be considered as the new decision.
Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by any
court without expressing therein clearly and
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration
of a decision of the court shall be refused due course
or denied without stating the legal basis therefor.
In Section 14, the Constitution gives the courts the
obligation that it must clearly state the bases of its
decisions: the facts, statutes and other related
documents that support their verdict.
Decisions are the judgments or verdicts of the court
on cases, after the positions of the involved parties
are presented, including evidences, testimonies and
claims using existing statutes.
The Constitution requires all courts to state both the
factual and legal bases of its decisions to ensure
transparency and utmost objectivity of the decision
given by court. If these bases are not strictly stated,
any involved party may raise it to a higher court,
which also delays the delivery of justice.
As cited in Supreme Court jurisprudence from a case
brought up by NICOS Industrial Corporation vs.
Court of Appeals judge Victorino Evangelista in
1992:
It is a requirement of due process that the parties to
a litigation be informed of how it was decided, with
an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that
led to the conclusions of the court. The court cannot
simply say that judgment is rendered in favor of X
and against Y and just leave it at that without any
justification whatsoever for its action. The losing
party is entitled to know why he lost, so he may
appeal to a higher court, if permitted, should he
believe that the decision should be reversed. A
decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the
facts and the law on which it is based leave the
parties in the dark as to how it was reached and is
especially prejudicial to the losing party, who is
unable to pinpoint the possible errors of the court
for review by a higher tribunal.
However, with regards to petitions for review and
motions for reconsideration, only a sufficient legal
basis is to be stated as to why the petition was
rejected for the courts to save time. In contrast,
when a motion is approved, the courts need not to
explicitly mention how it came up with such
decision.
Section 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the
effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or
resolved within twenty-four months from date of
submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless
reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for
all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all
other lower courts.
(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for
decision or resolution upon the filing of the last
pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the
Rules of Court or by the court itself.
(3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding period,
a certification to this effect signed by the Chief
Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith be
issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of
the case or matter, and served upon the parties. The
certification shall state why a decision or resolution
has not been rendered or issued within said period.
(4) Despite the expiration of the applicable
mandatory period, the court, without prejudice to
such responsibility as may have been incurred in
consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the
case or matter submitted thereto for determination,
without further delay.
Maximum Periods for Rendition of Decisions
1. From date of submission for decision or resolution
– The various courts must decide or resolve case or
matter submitted thereto within the following
periods from the date of submission.
a) Supreme Court – within (24) months
b) The Court of Appeals and other collegiate
appellate courts – (12) months unless reduced by
the Supreme Court
c) Lower Courts – (3) months unless reduced by the
Supreme Court
2. Where no decision or resolution has been
rendered or issued – If the period has elapsed a
certification that has been signed by the Chief
Justice or the presiding judge must be issued a copy
of which is required to be attached to the record of
the case, and be served upon the parties, stating the
reasons why a decision has not been issued within
the said period.
Time Limitations Mandatory
1. Purpose – The time limitations established above
are mandatory. They are intended to ease up the
clogging of court dockets and implement the right of
party litigants to speedy justice under the familiar
aphorism that “justice delayed is justice denied.”
2. Consequence of violation - Violation of Section 15
by the Supreme Court will constitute culpable
violation of the Constitution, a ground for
impeachment of the members of the Supreme
Court.
Section 16. The Supreme Court shall, within 30 days
from the opening of each regular session of the
Congress,submit to the President and the Congress
an annual report on the operations and activities of
the Judiciary
Annual report
The Supreme Court shall submit an annual report to
the President and Congress for the two bodies to be
guided as to how the Judiciary functioned during the
past twelve months. It will also aid the president to
properly allocate the funds the Judiciary needs for
the next year, and for Congress to create more court
branches for them to accommodate more cases at
the same time.
Most recent Annual Report available for publishing
The 2011 Annual Report included the names and
backgrounds of the Chief Justices and Justices and
the officials of the Supreme Court. It contained the
highlights of the Calendar Year (CY) 2013 Budget
Proposals of the Supreme Court of the Philippines
and the Lower Courts SCPLC). The 2011 Supreme
Court Reform Projects were also included.

In 2011, the Court sought to improve already

established judicial reform programs by either
adding new components or enhancing aspects of
the original programs to provide better judicial
services to the public. The attached institutions
namely the Philippine Judicial Academy, Judicial and
Bar Council and the Presidential Electoral Tribunal
were discussed as well as the 2011 Supreme Court
significant decisions and rules wherein the Court
flexed its constitutional rule making power
concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all
courts.

The Annual report further comprised the significant

accomplishments of Supreme Court Committees
and Technical Working Groups and the significant
rulings which stated that the Supreme Court in 2011
continued to discipline the erring members of the
Bench and the Bar as well as court personnel who
violated thenorms of public accountability or
diminished the faith of the people in the Judiciary.
The employees’ welfare and benefits were even
highlighted.