October 23, 2019
involving the constitutionality of a treaty or international or executive agreement or law
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court – Art. VIII
Kailangan inviolate ang iyahang independence, there are several provisions in the
Constitution laid down to protect its independence. It is a Constitutional body which cannot
be abolished by law because it is created by the Constitution.
The members of the Supreme Court are removal only by impeachment, and now, quo
warranto. The Supreme Court may not be deprived of its original and appellate jurisdiction by
law. Its appellate jurisdiction may be increased but cannot be done without its advice and
concurrence.
It has administrative over all inferior courts and personnel, ang murag HR sa iyang sariling
teritoryo. It has exclusive power to discipline judges, justices of inferior courts, employees of
the judiciary, also. They enjoy security of tenure. They cannot remove anyone without due
process. Members of the Supreme Court and the judiciary cannot be designated to any agency
performing any administrative and quasi-judicial functions.
Salaries of judges cannot be reduced. The judiciary enjoys fiscal autonomy. The Supreme
Court promulgates the Rules of Court and that cannot be amended by Congress. It also
appoints the officials and employees of the judiciary.
Now what is the composition of the Supreme Court?
It is on Article VIII, Section 4. It shall be composed of a Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices.
So there are 15 justices, all in all. 1 CJ and 14 Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its
discretion in 3, 5 or 7 members and any vacancy shall be filled within 90 days from the
occurrence thereof.
Remember the case of De Castro vs. JBC which talks about the 90-day period which the
President should fill up the vacancy in the Supreme Court. In so far as the other lower courts
are concerned, 90 days to appoint the appointee within 90 days from the receipt of the short
list from the JBC.
Paragraph 2 of the same section talks about when the Supreme Court decides on cases
which shall be heard by the SC en banc.
So, kani na mga instances, dapat en banc and all other cases which the Rules of Court required
to be heard en banc including those involving the constitutionality, application, operation of
presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions and other regulations shall be
decided by the majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations of the
cases voted thereon.
Cases or matters heard by the division shall be decided with the concurrence of the majority
of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and
voted thereon and in no case, without the concurrence of at least 3 of its members.
If it is a division of 3 members, how many justices have to vote to validly resolve the case?
It must be unanimous, 3.
What if it is a division of 5 members?
Majority which is 3. In no case, without the concurrence of at least 3 of such members.
When the required number is not obtained? (Tie or if there is no majority)
The case shall be decided en banc. So, it is raised from the division; provided, that the no
doctrine or principle of law laid down in a decision rendered en banc or in a division be
modified by the Court sitting en banc.
So, sometimes, you’ll see that there is a prevailing rule. Tapos later on, naay bag-ong decision
na inconsistent with the previous rule but the new decision is decided in a division.
Can that be done? Can that ruling in that division abrogate or overturn that previous decision
of the SC that is inconsistent with it even if it was decided in a division?
No because to overturn a rule that was decided by the Court in a division or en banc, it must
be the Court en banc that changes that rule.
So, pwde nila i-argue na inconsistent with the previous rule. Pero pag-tan-aw nimo, ay,
division lang diay ana ang nag-rule ana, pwde nimo siya i-argue if you are in favor or against
the applicability of the new decision na it’s not decided by the SC en banc and therefore, it
did not reverse the earlier ruling because it is only the Court en banc that can reverse a ruling
of a Court division preceded principle of law laid down by the Court division or by the Court
en banc.
SC Resolution 2-89 on the guidelines in the referral to the Court en banc of cases assigned to
a division. So, nag-start ang case sa is aka division sa SC, kani ang guidelines kung when siya
irefer to the SC en banc.
1. The Supreme Court sits either en banc or in Divisions of three, five or seven Members (Sec.
4[1],Article VIII, 1987 Constitution). At present the Court has three Divisions of five Members
each.
2. A decision or resolution of a Division of the Court, when concurred in by a majority of its
Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in a case and voted
thereon, and in no case without the concurrence of at least three of such Members, is a
decision or resolution of the Supreme Court (Section 4[3]. Article VIII, 1987 Constitution).
3. The Court en banc is not an Appellate Court to which decisions or resolutions of a Division
may be appealed.
4. At any time after a Division takes cognizance of a case and before a judgment or resolutions
of a Division may refer the case en consulta to the Court en banc which, after consideration of
the reasons of the Division for such referral may return the case to the Division or accept the
case for decision or resolution.
4a. Paragraph [f] of the Resolution of this Court of 23 February 1984 in Bar Matter No.
205 [formerly item 6, en banc Resolution dated 29 September 1977], enumerating the
cases considered as en banc cases, states:
f. Cases assigned to a division including motions for reconsideration which in
the opinion of at least three (3) members merit the attention of the Court en
banc and are acceptable by a majority vote if the actual membership of the
Court en banc.
5. A resolution of the Division denying a party's motion for referral to the Court en banc of any
Division case, shall be final and not appealable to the Court en banc.
6. When a decision or resolution is referred by a Division to the Court en banc, the latter may, in
the absence of sufficiently important reasons, decline to take cognizance of the same, in which
case, the decision or resolution shall be returned to the referring Division.
7. No motion for reconsideration of the action of the Court en banc declining to take cognizance
of a referral by a Division, shall be entertained.
8. This Circular shall take effect on March 1, 1989
Now, so, take note of that guideline.
So, unsa ang mag-compose sa SC?
1 CJ and 14 Associate Justices.
It can sit en banc in 3, 5 or 7 members. If there is a vacancy in the SC, dapat mafill up within
90 days from the vacancy thereof. If there is a vacancy in any of the courts below the SC, it
must be filled up within 90 days from the receipt of the President of the shortlist submitted
by the JBC.
There are instances when the Court has to decide cases en banc. For example,
constitutionality of a treaty, international agreement, executive agreement or law,
constitutionality, application or operation of presidential decrees, proclamation or orders,
instructions, ordinance and regulations.
Instances when a case is heard by a division but the required majority is not obtained. Tabla,
dili maresolve against. Dili maresolve in favor. Then, that can be raised to SC en banc.
Cases where the SC modifies or reverses a doctrine laid by the Court in a division or en banc,
only the SC en banc can reverse that or modify it.
Also, the SC en banc decides to vote or determines an issue regarding the dismissal of a judge.
And in cases when the Court acts as the PET, the PET is composed of the SC en banc.
Now, if there’s an issue about the constitutionality of a law, pila ka buok ang minimum number
sa justices of the SC en banc can rule in its constitutionality? For example, there is a law passed
which is in favor to all of us; i.e. tanggalon na ang ENDO, wala na tong probatiomary period,
pag-appoint nimo, hired dayun ka, regular dayun ka.
So, if there is a question on the constitutionality of that law, how many justices, at least, can
decide on the constitutionatlity?
The SC is composed of 15 justices. So, unsa ang majority ana? One-half plus 1? 8 justices.
And if 8 justices are present, they can do business. And out of the 8 justices, pila ang majority?
5, so in other words, 5 justices can already declare a law unconstitutional.
In the previous Constitution, the 1935 Constitution, 2/3 ang kailangan. Karon, majority nalang.
Public Interest vs. Elma
The issue here is about appointment. Elma filed an Omnibus Motion where Elma sought
reconsideration of the Court’s decision in the previous case, Public Interest vs. Elma 2006.
Iyahang prayer pud sa iyang Omnibus Motion is to elevate the case to the SC en banc.
The Court said that this is not an issue that may lead the Court to convene en banc to resolve.
Why?
It talks about the constitutionality of its current appointment but not the constitutionality of
a law, treaty or agreement; and therefore, in the list of the cases the Court must decide en
banc, iyahang appointment is not one of the cases kelangan ang Court mag-sit en banc.
What about the fact that it modifies the previous doctrines laid down by the Court?
The Court said that the issue did not modify any doctrine. So, it’s not one of the cases to be
decided by the Court en banc.
City of Tagaytay vs. Guerrero
Where the Court faced with a case na gidecidean na sa SC in a previous case, naa na siyay GR
number, 106812.
The Court said that in this case, the foregoing ponencia in GR 106812 is the controlling
precedent in the matters being raised by the instant case anew. Therefore, as a rule, the Court
cannot digress from its ruling.
In fact, the ruling in that instant case has become final and executory. Therefore, as a general
rule, cannot be disputed, relitigated or reopened.
Why?
Because reasons of public policy, judicial orderliness, economy, judicial time, interests of
litigants, peace and order of society all requires that stability be accorded the solemn and final
judgements of courts or tribunals of competent jurisdiction.
Lain pud na every time na magpresent ang SC ug kaso, mag-change na pud, mag-reverse na
pud, etc. So, depende na sa Court. Not all the time, especially if you present a compelling case
to reverse the doctrine that the Court will reverse the same. Kay kelangan stable. Ang atuang
profession baya and even laws rely on stability and predictability.
There are provisions in the Rules of Court that govern cases filed before the SC. For civil cases,
we have Rule 56. In Sec. 1, it talks about the cases where the Court has original jurisdiction.
Meaning, pwde ka mudiretso sa SC mufile aning mga kasuha. But of course, sometimes, the
Court will dismiss, i-endorse sa lower courts on the ground of hierarchy.
Kaning mga original cases, petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
habeas corpus, disciplinary proceedings against members of the judiciary, attorneys, cases
affecting ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls may be filed originally in the SC.
Now, there are cases na appealed in the SC. Mas daghan ni sila. In fact, Article VIII enumerates
the many instances where the Court exercises appellate jurisdiction.
An appeal by the SC may be taken by a petition for review on certiorari except in criminal
cases where the penalty imposed is death, RP or life imprisonment.
In Section VIII of Rule 56, it talks about what happens if the Court en banc cannot get the
majority. Meaning, kuntahay, 14 ka justices and nag-hear atong kaso, so dapat 7-7, dili
madecidean ang case.
Where the Court en banc is equally divided in opinion or the necessary majority cannot be
had, the case shall be again deliberated on. Kung tie, mag-deliberate na pud and if after such
deliberation, the decision is reached. The original action commenced at the Court shall be
dismissed.
In other words, kung unsa man tong gi-appeal will be sustained. The judgment or order shall
stand affirmed and all incidental matters or motions in the petition shall be denied.
The Rules of Court also provides for the cases to be appealed before the SC in criminal cases
pertaining to Rule 125. The same provision in Sec. 3 in so far as the SC en banc is equally
divided; it’s in the same rule. When the SC en banc is equally divided or the necessary majority
cannot be had on whether to acquit the appellant, the accused, the case shall be deliberated
upon.
Nisaka ang case on appeal before the SC en banc, so magdecide and Court, tabla. Mag-
redeliberate. The Court will deliberate again and if no decision is reached, the judgment of
conviction in the lower court shall be reversed and the accused shall be acquitted. So, mao
ang distinction sa criminal case sa civil case.
The manner of voting and the number or votes required
The SC hears or decides cases either by division or by en banc.
What about the voting?
The voting follows the rule, commonly known as the Shifting Majority.
What is this Shifting Majority?
It means that the only votes of the majority present in the session, there being a quorum, is
required.
Again, previously, in the 1935 Constitution, 2/3 ang required. Karon, majority of the justices,
there being a quorum, lang to rule on that issue.
We first determine that there is a quorum. Kung 15 justices, to have a quorum, dapat more
than half which is 8.
So, kung naa nay quorum, makadecide na pud sila sa kaso by a mere majority vote. As we
said earlier, the majority of 8 is 5.
However, kung ang magdecide sa case is a division, even if pag 3 justices na, what if 3 justices
and 2 justices voted for the party and 1 justice does not? Would that become a valid decision
of the SC?
No. because there is a requirement under the Constitution that there must be at least 3
justices. So, kung magdecide ang SC division of 3, dapat unanimous sila.
What is the basis of the quorum?
We have AM 10-4-20-SC, Rule 2, Sec. 2.
Sec. 2. Quorum of the Courts en banc. – eight
members shall constitute a quorum of the Court. In
the absence of the Chief Justice, the most senior
Associate Justice present shall chair the sessions of the
Court.
Composition and quorum in a division is in Sec. 5.
Sec. 5. Composition and Quorum of a Division – Unless
the Court en banc decrees otherwise, a quorum shall
consist of a majority of all the Members of the
Division, and an absent or a non-participating regular
Member of a Division may be replaced at the request
of the regular Members by a Member designated from
another Division in order to constitute a quorum.
So, pursuant to this Administrative Matter, kung nay division of 5, pila ang kelangan na
quorum? 3. Kung mag decideni sila, pila man ang kelangan na quorum? 3 also. Because in no
case, dili pwede mubaba og 3 ang decision.
LEAGUE OF CITIES VS. COMELEC
Take note of this very interesting case.
FACTS: What happened is that during the 11th Congress, 57 cityhood bills were filed before
the HR. 33 became laws. So, naa tay bag-ong 33 na Cities. And 24 bills were not acted upon.
Then in the meantime, nay change in the income requirement in the LGC na gi-introduce.
Diba ang minimum requirement is only P20 million? Then, it was proposed to be increased to
P100 million. Katong nabilin na 24 Cities, they wanted to be a City. But, they wanted to be
exempted from that P100 million requirement. So, they filed individual bills to be exempted
from the applicability of the P100 million income requirement.
Ultimately, 16 municipalities were all exempted from the change of the income requirement
and they all became Cities. They were approved, included therein is Mati City.
Now, the cityhood laws were challenged before the SC. And in Nov. 18, 2008 by a vote of 6:5
(6 in favor), the Court ruled that the laws were unconstitutional. So, Mati is no longer a City
after that.
Now, nag MR ang League of Cities on March 31, 2009. And the Court in that case achieved a
6:6 tie vote on MR. unsa gani ang effect if dili ma-achieve and required majority in that MR?
kung unsa tong decision sa SC in the original petition, mao to ang mag-govern. So, denied ang
MR, affirmed ang original decision.
Now, there is a second MR filed on April 28, 2009 which is denied again by the SC by a tie
vote. 6-6. Now, on May 2009, there was a motion to amend the April 28 2009 resolution
denying the 2nd MR. eventually, the decision became final and executory on May 21, 2009. In
other words, on that date, that cityhood laws were unconstitutional.
However, on December 21, 2009, the SC reversed the Nov. 18, 2008 decision despite the fact
that it already become final and executory. Tapos nag MR napud, 3rd MR on Aug 24, 2010.
And the Court reversed the Dec 21, 2009 decision reinstating the original decision that the
cityhood laws were unconstitutional.

Now, another MR was filed on September 2010. And finally, in that case, the SC reversed the
Aug 24, 2010 decision. Thus, ultimately holding that these laws were NOT unconstitutional.
They are valid.
So, Makita nimo na diba naa tay rules of court that govern the stability of the decisions, etc.
katong mga principles na gipang disuss na dapat maging final ang mga decisions. But in this
case, Kapila pa nag flip flop ang SC. Murag ika-upat sila nagchange sa ilang mind.
How did the SC justify its decision?
So, in this 2009 case, this is the decision na nag-reverse sa original decision which is ang
original is unconstitutional ang cityhood laws. Meaning, not unconstitutional, valid sila.
Are the laws valid in this case? Yes.
Now, going to the discussion on the manner by which they still entertained this case despite
the fact na nagging final na ang decision.
Because, here, ang MR dawn a gi-present sa SC while it was decided by the court en banc
presented questions of constitutionality on the laws.
Pursuant to Article VIII, Sec. 4(2), All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty,
international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en
banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc,
including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential
decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be
decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
In other words, katong pag MR, even if MR siya, but it touched on issues on constitutionality,
kelangan gihapon mag decide ang court by a majority vote. Dili pwede na undecided ang vote.
So, the Court is saying here that even if MR to siya, mag-apply n inga rule – na it should be a
decision of the court by a majority because it still talked about the constitutionality of a law.
Issue: WON the required vote set forth in that provision, is it limited to the initial vote on the
petition or to subsequent voting on the MR?
Held: the Court said that it applies to MR particularly dealing with the constitutionality of the
laws. Because at the end of the day, the single issue that matters and the vote that really
counts really turn on the constitutionality of the cityhood laws. And be it remembered that
the inconclusive 6-6 tie vote reflected in the April 28, 2009 Resolution was the last vote on
the issue of whether or not the cityhood laws infringe the Constitution. So, dili pwede na mag-
tie mo, dapat ma-break ang tie because the constitutionality of the law is in question here.
There is that argument that AM 99-1-09-SC that what happens if the SC kung equally divided
in opinion?
The original action commenced in the court shall be dismissed; in appealed cases, the
judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed; and on all incidental matters, the
petition or motion shall be denied.
Diba nag-apply man ning the petition or motion should be denied because there was a tie
vote pursuant to this AM?
That Court said that despite that rule, the court said that it has its own power to suspend its
own rules when the ends of justice would be served thereby. It can relax its own rules in order
to resolve the case and bring about what is the required vote what justice entails.
Ultimately in this case, by vote of 6-4, the court granted the MR and held that the cityhood
laws were valid and NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
And pinaka recent ani na decision is ang April 2011. But before that, nay decision ang SC on
Feb 2011 where the Court said that we understand nag flipflop mi, ana ang SC we should not
be restricted by technical rules of procedure at the expense of the transcendental interest of
justice and equity. In the April 2011 decision, the Court reiterated its decision that the actions
stated by the Court en banc were strictly in accordance with the Rules of Court and it Internal
Procedure.
And, again, whether the principle of immutability of judgments and bar by res judicata apply
herein, suffice it to state that the succession of the events recounted herein indicates that the
controversy about the 16 Cityhood Laws has not yet been resolved with finality because of
the 6-6 tie votes. As such, the operation of the principle of immutability of judgments did not
yet come into play. For the same reason is an adherence to the doctrine of res judicata not
yet warranted, especially considering that the precedential ruling for this case needed to be
revisited and set with certainty and finality.
So, as of now, the cityhood laws are NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Now, there are requirement in the Constitution in so far as the Courts are concerned. Art. VIII,
Sec. 14 provides:
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.
Why is that?
Dapat man gud kung nay decision ana, it should be nakabutang dira and mga fact, reason,
judgement, so that you’ll be guided kung nganong ing-ana ang decision sa SC. It is pursuant
to the basic requirements of Due Process. To be notified why it was decided that way and also
to guide the losing party as to how he/she will raise an error pursuant to that decision.
There are 2 basic requirements in so far as the decisions of the Court are concerned:
(1) Formal Requirements
(2) Substantial Requirements.
Formal Requirements
If it is the SC or any court, there is a formal requirement of certification that the case was
reached upon prior consultation. Normally, if the case is deliberated by the SC, it would be
assigned to a member for the writing of a decision after a voting has been had. So, after the
voting is reached, the case is now assigned to a member of the Court to write for the majority.
Other formal requirements would be if there is a dissent, the dissenting opinion must have to
be written. Or, if there is an extension or refusal to participate, the participation of the division
must also be indicated.
Is there such thing na decision sa Court na oral? No. No decision shall be rendered by any
court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is
based. So, it must be a written decision.
Substantive Requirements
The decision must express clearly and distinctly the facts of the law on which it is based. Again,
this is part of due process so you will know how the court thought about your case, how they
reach a decision. So, kung ma-violate ang imong due process the effect is that the proceeding
is rendered null and void.
Dapat ba naay format sa decision? Dapat ing-ani ang title, kani ang sulod sa decision, dapat
ing-ani katas ang decision, ani kadaghan ang number of words?
The Court said that, no. compliance with the requirements is met if the decision express
clearly and distinctly the facts of the law on which it is based. Bisag 1 paragraph lang siya but
it talks clearly and distinctly the facts of the law, then there is compliance with that.
In fact, there are decisions that we call as memorandum decisions, which simply copies
portions of the lower Court subject of the review. The Rules of Court do not make these
memorandum decisions invalid because as long as it substantially complied with the
requirement that the facts and the law in the decision are stated then it is valid.
Ex: the court finds the following facts, the issues, the ruling of the lower court is this, the court
affirms. There is nothing wrong with that. for as long as there are presentation of facts and
the law is applied to the decision, then that would suffice.
We have cases here where the court in question violated that rule.
MANGELEN v. CA
Facts: the respondent appellate court here adopted the factual findings of the Trial Court held
that the Trial court did not commit any reversible error.
Now, the losing party filed a MR in the IAC. and later on, granting that MR, the IAC said that
the movants have good and valid defenses as a amplified in their motion for reconsideration
and their reply to Opposition which in fairness to the lower court, We will not point out, since
this is default case so that any decision of the lower court will not in any way be preempted
in the interest of justice. Reversing the original decision.
Issue: Is that compliance with the requirement of the Constitution?
Held: The Court said that NO. the challenged decision here, that decision granting the MR,
leaves much to be desired.
The first decision was valid. Katong gi-adopt ni appellate court and decision sa lower court
with the facts, the laws, the ruling. With that considered, katong pag reverse karon ni IAC sa
iyahang original decision necessitated a full-blown decision as to why it reversed its decision.
Dili pwede na good ang iyahang decision or valid.

Good and valid defenses in their submissions reversing the original decision.
Such decision had to be completely overturned or set aside upon he filing of an MR in the
subsequent action via resolution and modify decision such resolution or decision should
likewise state the facts and the legal foundations relied upon particularly because its reversing
its own ruling.
The court, in this case, violated the manner or requirements as to how decisions shall be
crafted.
GERMAN MACHINERIES vs. ENDAYA
The labor arbiter rendered a decision in favor of Endaya and the NLRC affirmed its decision
with modification. The GM petitioned for MR, but the same was denied by the NLRC.
It elevated now by way of Certiorari before the CA and the latter issued a resolution dismissing
the resolution for certiorari. It was now challenged before the CA because in that resolution
because it was not expressfully and distinctively the facts and the law which is due in this
case.
The court said that the assailed resolution here of the CA is not a decision contemplated under
Art. 8 Sec. 14 of the Constitution.
The mandate is only applicable only in cases that are submitted for decision. It will not apply
whether matter is submitted to the court for resolution particularly of it denies due force to
a petition and state the legal basis thereof for example - minute resolutions which are stated
in a one-page decision.
The court said that it is valid. In this case, the CA denied due course and outrightly dismissed
the petition of certiorari on the grounds that factual issues had been passed by the NLRC. The
court said that, since its factual findings are in agreement with the findings of the labor
arbiter, the same are binding and conclusive upon the CA and so when the CA dismissed the
case by resolution, the court said that the these legal bases is in conformity with the decision
on the Constitution.
PEOPLE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
There is a demurer of evidence and it was granted by the Sandiganbayan. Demurer to
evidence meaning, the pieces of evidence were already presented by the prosecution and the
latter already rest its case. Now, it is the turn of the defense to present its evidence. In the
meantime, before the demurer to evidence be filed with or without leave of court, you are
basically asking the court to dismiss the case right there and then because the prosecution
failed to establish its case.
The guilt beyond reasonable doubt was not established or it failed to establish in the first
place, the prosecution its case, they failed to hit the elements etc. Basically, it is a motion to
dismiss.
Now, the Sandiganbayan granted the demurer to evidence, the state complained thereafter
on the ground that the facts and laws were not written for the grant of demurer be valid.
The court said that there was a compliance with such a requirement. A demurer to evidence
must likewise comply with that because it is nevertheless a decision which decides the case.
Just because it was decided by the court prior to the full presentation of evidence of both
parties, it is nevertheless a decision. In fact, the effect of the demurer to evidence, it granted
acquittal of the accused and therefore if the latter is acquitted, the rule on double jeopardy
shall be applied.
In the threat of the demurer to evidence, the case will be full blown, and the court said that it
was done in this case.
LUMANOG VS. PEOPLE
The CA affirming with modification the decision of the Trial Court. What was challenged here
is the verbatim VERBATIM COPYING OF THE CA not only the facts but also the arguments and
discussions including the legal authorities in disposing of the bill of one party.
ISSUE: Can verbatim copy be done?
HELD:
Yes, because the decisions states clearly the facts and the laws upon which the same is based.
This decision also talks about the forms of decisions:
There are actually decisions of the lower court that the court (sufree) for the sustain because
they substantially or sufficiently complied with the Constitutional Requirement even if much
to be decide in terms of their clarity, coherence, and comprehensibility, provided that they
still set up the facts and the law upon which the same was based.
What happens when the rule is violated? ----no facts and no law
HELD: There will be a denial of the right to due process. The losing party is supposed to know
why he/she lost so he/she may appeal to the higher court. If not compliant with the
requirement of the Constitution, it leaves the parties in darkness as to how it was reached
and it is prejudicial to the losing party, who will now be unable to pinpoint the possible error
of the court for review by a higher tribunal. Considering that it violates the right to due process
among others, the decision will be considered void.
What about memorandum decisions?
The act of the trial court completely copying the memorandum submitted by a party
nevertheless stating the facts and the law, can that be done by the RTC and the CA?
YES, although it is not a good practice, the court has said that it is not illegal in the act of the
trial court completely copying the memorandum submitted by a party provided that a
decision clearly and sufficiently states sufficient findings of fact and the law of which the
findings are based especially if the decision will to be used is the sole bases because there is
no other way by which the court can dispose the case in the manner it was presented by one
of the parties.
If what was stated in the decision is the existing law, controlling precedent, then the court
may be bound by that. It is unnecessary for the court to craft a new wordings of decision to
give due credence therefor.
AS A RULE: IT IS NOT ILLEGAL, ALTHOUGH IT SHOULD NOT BE THE PRACTICE, BUT IT IS NOT
ILLEGAL.
What is a memorandum decision anyway?
It is a decision which adopts by reference the findings and facts and conclusions of law
contained in the decisions of the inferior courts and this may be validly resorted to on the
grounds of EXPEDIENCY, PRACTICALITY, CONVENIENCE, and DOCKET STATUS. The court said
that these kinds of decisions are valid.
When JUDICIARY is talked about, it is therefor included the topic referring to the PERIOD by
which the cases are decided.
JUSTICE DELAYED, JUSTICE DENIED (kaya sagutin mo na ako, cheret)
The Constitution, however, provides for mandatory periods for courts to decide the case.
Is this being followed?
Art. 8 Sect. 15
All cases or matters filed after effectivity of this Constitution.
For Supreme Court Decision, for the resolution of the Supreme Court ---- must be resolved in
24th month from the day of submission ----SUBMISSION/RESOLUTION.
Meaning, all court proceedings, after receiving all the documents, the case is now ripe for
adjudication, it is now submitted for resolution.
Unless reduced by the SC, 12 months for all lower collegiate courts and 3 months for all other
courts.
A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the
last pending pleading, brief, or memorandum, required by the rules of court or the court itself.
What happens if the mandatory period expires , especially with the SC?
Article 8 Sec. 15 Paragraph 4 - despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the
court without prejudice to such responsibility as may be incurred in the consequences thereof
shall decide or resolve the matter submitted for determination without further dealings. In
other words, the Constitution is saying that decide it nevertheless, but you can be
administratively sued for the delay in the promulgation of the decision thereof - JUSTICE
DELAYED, JUSTICE DENIED.
The courts are very slow in deciding cases. It corrodes the image of the court, when the case
is filed before the court and there is a tendency that such decision will be promulgated after
the entire Philippines has been covered with sea waters.
There are also cases by which there are shorter deadlines for example the decision of the
Supreme Court when there is a case filed before it to determine the factual basis of Martial
Law or the Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus where the court has
promulgated it s decision within 30 days from its filing. THIS IS AN EXCEPTION CASE FORM
THE 24,12, and 3 months rule from the date the case is submitted for resolution.
Here, if there is a Martial Law or Suspension, 30 days from filing of the petition for pleading.
We have cases whereby the Judges of the Courts were subjected to disciplinary proceedings:
OCA vs. FUENTES
There are plenty of case loads under the chamber of Judge, which he failed to decide within
the reglementary 90-day period.
The Judge made an excuse that he is not a resident of the place where the court is located -
that his chamber is in Bohol, but he lives in Osamis City, thus he has to go home from time to
time upon proper leave to visit his family, which process has affected his health and greatly
hampered his case disposition.
The SC penalized him administratively because prior judges are mandated to decide and
resolve cases within 90 days form the submission for decision or resolution. Sometimes the
case would reach 20 years, 12 years, and it is then the prosecution stops producing and
receiving evidence then it is thereafter the court shall issue an order that was submitted for
decision - it then the 12 months or 24, even if it was filed 20 years before.
The Judges and Justices are required to comply with this constitutionally set periods otherwise
they might be held liable administratively.
If you were a judge, and in the abovementioned case, there was a valid reason,and that the
judge several complaints regarding body pain. The court said that it is not unmindful of the
situation of this judge. It remained sympathetic to him. And therefore what we could have
done is to file a request for an extension of time to decide the case, but here he did not make
such request. Therefore, the judge was not granted since he never asked permission at all ,
he should have asked for more for extension for good reasons.
IN RE CARBONEL
The same, why is it required to render decision of the cases with dispatch?
The trial judge shall all times act with efficiency and probity. Why? the effect if he delays is
that the delay in the disposition of cases is a major culprit in the erosion of the public faith
and confidence to the Judicial System.
As judges have the sworn duty to administer justice without due delay. We are nation of Law
therefor we should not put the same in our ow hands. Nevertheless, sometimes we have to
play the practical aspect of such recourse because of the current situation of our court.
As future lawyers good in practice, great lawyers with integrity, as much as possible, we
should not file or so letigious ---- keep on filing cases. As much as possible, we try to settle.
The judge here failed to comply with the mandatory period within which he should decide the
case therefore he was held administratively liable.
JUDGE BALUNGAG
Under the Constitution, and the Code of Judicial Conduct, there is a period within which the
court must decide the case. All cases or matters must be decided or resolved for collegiate
courts 12 months, lower courts 3 months, otherwise, the judge will be held liable. JUSTICE
DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED. If the judge fails to do that, he can be held liable for gross
inefficiency, warranting the impositions of administrative sanctions upon him.
The judge may ask for extension and the same may be granted by the court – within which
the court must decide the case.
All cases or matters must be decided or resolved for collegiate courts –12 months, for lower
courts – 3 months. Otherwise, liable administratively because justice delayed is justice denied.
If the judge fails to do that he may be held liable for gross inefficiency warranting the
imposition of administrative sanctions.
Now, the rule is tempered if the judge can ask for extension the same is granted by the court.
In this case, he did not do so. there was no request and reason and did not comply to the
period to decide the case. therefore, he was held liable administratively.
The court has also emphasized the rule-making powers. So much so, that in the 1987
Constitution, it cannot be amended by the Congress unlike the previous constitution where
the Congress can amend by way of law. But now, it is an exclusive power by the Supreme
Court. This can be found: Article 8 Section 5 par 5 (Promulgate Rules)
YLAYA VS GACOTT
This case talks about the nature of disbarment proceedings. Just note here that disbarment
proceedings are Sui Generis. It may be initiated by the court motu proprio or it can be initiated
by the party. parties are given due process, here the due process was given to the lawyer. He
was administratively sanctioned here for fooling his client in executing SPA and sold the
client’s property to his relatives. So there was betrayal of trust and he was punished by the
Supreme Court.
ASTIPONA VS LOBRIGO
This talks about the provision on constitutionality of Section 23 of RA 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act because it prohibits the one to avail plea bargain. The
court declared this specific provision as unconstitutional because this talks about a matter of
procedure before the courts that should not be interfered by the Congress. Plea Bargaining
can be found on the Rules of Court particularly Rule 116 on arraignment and plea and Rule
118 on pre-trial. So it is a procedural rule therefore plea bargaining cannot be prohibited by a
law.

ECHEGARAY VS SECRETARY
Echegaray a rapist, sentenced to death penalty by lethal injection. However, he went to the
Supreme Court and challenged the provision of IRR of RA 8177 (concerning Death Penalty and
lethal injection).
Can the court in that case declare a valid several provisions of the IRR? and it also made in
the decision that respondents are enjoined from enforcing and implementing RA 8177 until
the IRR is appropriately amended.
So can the Supreme Court suspend the decision of the lower court which is final and
executory? (Because it affects judicial independence)
It was held that the Court has no jurisdiction to restrain the execution of Echegaray because
it diminishes the independence of the Judiciary. The court has the power to regulate the
execution of their judgments. Just because the judgment is final, its execution is different.
Therefore, the person can still avail remedies pursuant to the execution. It is a long process.
One of the remedies is the power of the court, for valid reasons to not execute the decision.
So the court said that it is within its power to do so because it is within the Rules of Courts.
The court wants to emphasize in this case that change in the phraseology of the 1987
Constitution which now excluded the power of congress to modify the rules of procedure
promulgated by the Supreme Court. (unlike the previous Constitutions) now, the rule making
power of the court is expanded but most importantly the 1987 Constitution took away the
power of the Congress repeal, alter, or supplement rules dealing and concerning practice and
procedure. So this power is no longer shared with the Congress as well as with the Executive.
Article 8 Section 6 gives the Supreme Court Administrative Supervision (Remember the
definition of supervision: higher authority makes sure that those below him or her complies
in their duties, and it also includes the power of discipline and sanctions for non-compliance)
What is the extent of the Administrative Supervision power of the Supreme Court? – Among
others it can temporarily assign judges but not more than 6 months without the consent of
the judge concerned. The court can also change the venue of where the case is pending to
avoid miscarriage justice.
Now, going to the matter of supervision of lower courts we have the case of:
CAOIBES VS OMBUDSMAN
(Case where two judges where fighting and punching each other over furniture)
Caoibes requested to return the executive table he borrowed from Alombres so they punched
each they punched each other. Eventually, Judge Alombres filed in the office of Ombudsman.
Because these are public officials and it involves a furniture in the judiciary, so they filed
before the Ombudsman. He prayed that criminal charges should be filed against Judge
Caoibes before the Sandiganbayan.
Judge Alombres also filed and administrative conplaint before the Supreme Court praying for
the dismissal of Caiobes on the ground of grave misconduct. What did the office of
Ombudsman do when it received the complaint? So the complaint was entertained and
required respondent (Caiobes) to file a CA. Now what did Caiobes do? He went to the Supreme
Court on the argument that it is not the office of the Ombudsman but the Supreme Court has
authority (take note this is a criminal case not an administrative matter) he argued that they
are both members of the bench therefore they are under the control and supervision of the
Supreme Court.
So, does the office of ombudsman have jurisdiction to resolve this criminal case against Judge
Caiobes?
The office of the Ombudsman cannot entertain this criminal case against a judge because the
ombudsman cannot determine for itself of a criminal complaint against a judge because it
involves and administrative matter. The Ombudsman is duty bound to have all cases against
judges filed before the Supreme Court for determination if the administrative aspect is
invoked therein. In other words, if you file a case in the office of Ombudsman it is required to
refer that case in the Supreme Court. Then the Supreme Court will determine if there is an
administrative matter here or is this criminal matter. So it must undergo the Supreme court,
the same holds true regardless whether the administrative case based on the act subject to
the complaint is already pending with the court.
Why? Aside from the fact the Ombudsman would not know of this matter unless he is
informed of it, he should give due respect and recognition to the administrative authority of
the court because in determining whether an administrative matters is involved the court
passes not only an administrative liability but also other administrative concerns. So the
Ombudsman cannot dictate and bind the court on its findings if the case has administrative
implications or not because it will deprive the Supreme Court of its administrative
prerogatives.
FUENTES VS OMBUDSMAN
This happened in Davao, talks about the building in flyover. The court administrator here of
the Supreme Court directed Judge Fuentes and Sheriff Paralisan to comment on the report
recommending the filing of an administrative complaint on the sheriff and on the other
persons responsible for the anomalous implementation of the writ of execution.
In the meantime, there is also a criminal case filed in the Ombudsman and eventually the
office of the deputy Ombudsman from Mindanao field a criminal case charging judge Fuentes
with the violation of the anti-graft law. Also, there is a recommendation in the same action
document of the office of Ombudsman that the judge should be administratively charged
before the Supreme Court.
So the office of the Ombudsman therefore decided there is a criminal liability and at the same
time criminal liability. Can the ombudsman do that?
No. the ombudsman may not initiate or investigate criminal or administrative complaint
before his office against a judge pursuant to his powers to investigate public officers. He must
endorse the case to the Supreme Court for appropriate action. Why? Article 8 Section 6 vests
exclusively the supreme Court with Administrative supervision over all courts and court
personnel.
ADAJAR VS DEVELOS
So they were court employees and Adajar filed misconduct complaint before the office of
Ombudsman arguing that the issue is not related to their job. What did the office of
Ombudsman do? It took cognizance of the case. was it proper?
It was not proper (especially this is an administrative complaint). Why? It is only the Supreme
Court who can oversee the judges and court personnel’s compliance with all laws and take
the proper administrative action against them of they commit any violation. so it is only the
supreme court who can determine if it is part of its job. No other branch of the government
can intrude into this power without impairing the doctrine of the separation of powers. The
office of the Ombudsman should not took cognizance and dismissed the case but should have
referred instead into the Supreme Court
*ADAJAR V. DEVELOS*
What should it have done? It should have, as you said earlier. Ha? Unsaon niya sa Supreme
Court? I-refer. I-endorse. Ang instant complaint to the Supreme Court for appropriate action
instead of resolving the same. So here, the decision rendered by the office of the ombudsman
dismissing the case did not have any force and effect on the present administrative case
involving the Supreme Court. Thank you.
*CIVIL SERVICE V. RAMONEDA PITA*
Here, prior sya nagging empleyado sa Court, she was an officer of another government
agency. Gifile-an syag administrative case because she was not honest in her PDS, katong
required document kay dili sya ang nag take sa iyahang civil service exam it was another
person. So later on, there was an investigation by the Civil Service Commission, eventually
found her guilty of the administrative offense charged against her but tung nigawas na ang
resolution sa Civil Service Commission, she was now working under the court.
So pwede ba na ma-implement ang decision sa Civil Service Commission? Which involved the
act of this individual prior to her entry into the judiciary. The court said, although she was not
yet a Supreme Court employee when the Civil Service initiated the case against her, she had
already become a member of the judiciary when the resolution of the Civil Service found her
guilty and meted upon her the penalty of dismissal. The court said it cannot just implement a
civil service resolution and dismiss her because it maintains its administrative jurisdiction over
this person considering, so mao tong general rule, mag kuan ta ani, dili namo nii-comply na
resolution because this person is now a member of the judiciary and only the Supreme Court
has administrative jurisdiction over her. However the court said that, considering that the Civil
Service already conducted both fact finding and formal investigations and this person was
already given due process in the Civil Service, it found no reason why it should not replicate
what the Civil Service has done *inaudible*
So, GENERAL RULE, dili na basta2 iadopt sa SC but here nahuman na man ang proceedings so
pwede nila iadopt tong decision and implement the corresponding penalty against this
person. What was interesting here was that kato lagi, nahimo na syang empleyado by the SC
by that time nga naa nay decision ang CSC.
*IN RE: REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE*
Atty. Candelaria of the SC requested the SC for guidance or clarification on the applicability of
IRR of RA 10154, that the retiring employee shall seek clearance of pendency or non-pendency
of administrative case for his/her employee, CSC, office of the ombudsman or in case of
presidential appointees, from the office of the president.
Covered ba daw ang mga muretire na empleyado sa judiciary ani nga IRR. Did this bind the
employees of the judiciary?
NO, because the Constitution exclusively vests in the supreme court administrative
supervision over all courts and court personnel. It oversees the court’s personnels compliance
with all laws and takes the proper administrative action against them for any violation thereof.
The court rules that the provision here which requires the retiring government employees of
the judiciary to secure a prior clearance should not be made applicable to them.
 Why? Because it would disregard the Court’s constitutionally inscribed power of
administrative supervision over its personnel. In fact retiring court personnel are already
required to secure a prior clearance of non-pendency or pendency of administrative cases
from the court making these additional clearances superfluous. However, insofar as pending
criminal cases are concerned, it’s a different matter. It must however be noted that since the
Constitution accords to the judiciary, administrative supervision over its personnel, a different
treatment for the clearance requirements obtains with respect to criminal cases.
So kung naa kay pending na criminal case, in a specific agency, normally since you are a
government official, gina file na sa office of the ombudsman kay mao na ang naga prosecute.
So asa ka mangayo ug clearance to determine if you have a pending criminal case? The same
office. Valid sya insofar as that kind of clearance is concerned. You secure it with the office of
the ombudsman kay criminal matter man sya.
Among the administrative powers of the court also as we said earlier, assign judges to other
stations in the interest of the public, order a change of venue, and more importantly,
discipline judges.
The disciplinary power of the SC over these court employees including judges, and justices of
Courts below the SC is found in Art. VIII, Sec. 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.
*PEOPLE V. GACOTT*
There was an administrative case filed against Judge Gacott for grave abuse of discretion. So
administrative case sya, padulong kay Supreme Court, the second division of the SC, meaning
dili court en banc, naglay down sa penalty against him of reprimand and fine for gross
ignorance of the law. He did not accept that penalty, so he filed an MR before the SC, arguing
that it should have been the SC en banc that has the power to discipline judges of lower courts.
And it is only the full court and not a division thereof that could administratively punish him.
WON the full court, not a division can administratively punish the lower court judge.
The court said there are two situations contemplated in Sec. 11, Art 8. The first clause which
states that the SC en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts is a
declaration of the grant of that disciplinary power to, and the determination of the procedure
for the exercise of by the SC en banc. The second clause which refers to the second situation
contemplated here, as the intention separated by a comma, declares on the other hand, the
Court en banc can order their dismissal, the dismissal of judges by a vote of majority of the
Members who actually took part in the deliberations in the issue on the case and voted
thereon. Pursuant to that provision, the Court issued Bar Matter No. 209 where the court
provided that the following cases are considered en banc cases included diri ang cases with
the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a judge, officer or employee of the judiciary,
disbarment of a lawyer, or either, the suspension of any of them for a period of more than
one year or a fine exceeding ten thousand or both.
Thus, only in those cases will it necessitate the court en banc’s recognition over the case. It is
only when the penalty imposed is based on the foregoing as enumerated that, that
administrative matter will be decided by the SC en banc. Here, ang giimpose sa iyahana
penalty is only reprimand and fine of 10,000 considering that mao to ang giimpose sa iyahana
penalty, then it need not be decided by the SC en banc. Moreover, a decision or resolution of
the SC division is nevertheless a decision or resolution of the SC itself.
Now, the court has also the power to appoint its officials and employees under Art. VIII, Sec
5, par. 6.
(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service
Law.
Who appoints judges and justices? It is the President who appoints judges and justices.
Who appoints employees of the SC? Below katong mga presidential appointees, kaya na sila
iappoint by the Supreme Court.
So anyway we have qualifications for appointment. Remember katong discussion nato tung
requirement for you to become a justice of the SC. What about judges of lower courts? In Sec.
7 par. 2. Art VIII
(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.
So the basic constitutional requirement for you to be a judge is that you must be a citizen of
the Philippines, wala gispecify kung natural-born, and a member of the Philippine Bar. But
under BA 129, so this is the law, it prescribes for the qualifications of the following judges:
RTC: Natural-born, at least 35 years of age, and must have been for at least 10 years engaged
in the practice of law or public office in the Philippines requiring admission to the practice of
law as an indispensable requisite
MTC/MTCC/MCTC: Natural-born citizen, at least 30 years of age, at least 5 years engaged in
the practice of law or held public office in the Philippines requiring the admission to the
practice of law as an indispensable requisite.
And remember the previous case we discussed na nag-add ug additional requirement ang JBC
na kung judge ka of a first level court dapat 5 years kanag practice before you can be
appointed to a higher level court or to a second level court, and the court said that is a valid
additional requirement. Anyway, so kadto ang mga requirements under BP 129.
Now, kinsa ang nagasift sa mga applicants to the judiciary? What entity? It is the JBC. As we
discussed already and remember sa matter on appointment, it is for purposes of
appointment, it is the commission, kadtong document nga nagabutang didton a appointed
ka, it is the date of the commission kung when sya giapprove or gisign sa appointing authority
that determines your seniority as held in the case of
SENIORITY AMONG FOUR APPOINTMENTS.
The earlier the date of the commission, the more senior the justice or appointee is.
SALARY? We discussed that already. The salary of the Chief Justice and Justices of the SC, and
judges of the lower courts shall be fixed by law. During their continuance in office, their salary
shall not be decreased.
Congress however has the power to reorganize the judiciary, as we discussed before no, it is
the law that determines the jurisdiction of our courts, it can abolish all the courts below the
SC if it deems na proper sya or it can create new courts, establish the jurisdiction of courts
among other things. But, ang iyahang prohibition lang is that dili niya pwede machange kung
unsa tong jurisdiction sa SC nag ibutang na sa Constitution itself because that would be
constitutional amendment.
Also, the Congress may increase the appellate jurisdiction of the SC but it cannot do so without
its advice and concurrence.
Also, no law can be passed reorganizing the judiciary if it undermines the security of tenure
of its members but we already know the case of
DE LA LLAMA V. ALBA.
Katongpag-abolish samga lower courts, the court said that if the abolition of the office is done
in good faith, then there is no violation of the right to security of tenure. Such as what
happened here. Why? Because there can be no tenure to a non-existent office. Actual
abolition there is in law no occupant, in case of removal, kani on the other hand, there is an
office with an occupant who would lose his position but in abolition there is no such office
within which you could anchor your tenure on. Especially if the abolition is not in good faith.
Removal of justices and judges. So SC justices are only removable by impeachment and quo
warranto. What about judges of lower courts of SC? Discipline by the SC.
PEOPLE V. GACOTT
As we discussed earlier diba, ang first clause talks about the general grant of the power to the
SC to discipline but there is a separation in the second clause insofar as dismissal and the
imposition of heavier penalties are concerned. So kadto tong mga instances where the SC en
banc ang mag deliberate but if dili ing-ato, dismissal, disbarment of a lawyer, suspension of
any of them for more than one year or a fine of more than ten thousand or both. Dili na sya
necessarily needed to be discussed by the SC en banc.
Jurisdiction, remember that the SC has original and appellate jurisdiction? And we discussed
earlier the instances nga pwede marecognize ni SC in its original jurisdiction katong, particular
tung pleading in the first instance. Now let’s talk about the appellate jurisdiction of the SC
under Art. VIII, Sec. 5. Remember katong nagsugod pa ta aninga course, katong power of
judicial review, when we asked, can the lower courts decide the constitutionality of a law,
ordinance? Can they?
YES.Because the SC has the appellate power to review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on
appeal or certiorari, final judgments and orders of lower courts in example, all cases in which
the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, in other words, naa nay original decision subject
to appeal to the SC. So in the first case, nagdecide na ang lower court ato nga matter, the
constitutionality of kato, treaty kana sya etc.
Now, remember the case of
YNOT V. IAC.
Katong carabao? The court said that, it did not rule on the validity of the executive order here
because according to the court you cannot declare laws as unconstitutional, only the SC can
do that. The court said, you can do that. The court has declared that the lower court should
observe modesty in examining constitutional questions, you are nonetheless, not prevented
from resolving the same whenever warranted subject to review by the SC.
Mandatory period for resolution, decision of cases:
ADAO V. JUDGE LORENZO
Wala sya nag-ask for an extension of time to decide the case, wala niya na-fulfill ang period
under the Constitution and under the rules nga dapat madecide na nya ang case
administratively held liable. He cannot also use as excuse the administrative and criminal
complaints filed against him to justify his delay in the because according to him daghan kayo
kog ginaatubang na mgaproblema, walakoy time magresolve, that’s not a valid excuse.
Now we are done with the judiciary, now let’s go to the Constitutional Commissions.
So, unsa ni sila? Unsa ni ngmga constitutional commissions? So timan-e tulo ra ni sila kabuok.
COA, COMELEC, CSC
Art. IX-A, Sec. 1
The Constitutional Commissions, which shall be independent, are the Civil Service Commission,
the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit.
Asa man diraang CHR? WALA. So walasyagi-enumerate dirasa Constitutional Commission.
Now, these constitutional commissions are placed in the Constitution as one of the checks
and balances mechanism. To check the excesses of the different branches of the government.
And ang COA, diba i-audit niya ang pag spend sa kwarta, ang CSC, icheck niya kung tama baang
appointment process, promotion, removal among other things, and the COMELEC insofar as
the electoral processes are concerned. So importante kayo ilang role. Therefore, they must
be accorded independence. And the Constitution provides general safeguards for their
independence. What are they?
These commissions are constitutionally created, and therefore they cannot be abolished by
statute. So since the CHR is not a constitutional commission, pwedesyamaabolish by statute.
Anyway, each is conferred certain powers and functions which cannot be reduced by statute,
they are independent, expressly described by the Constitution to be so, chairman and
members are fairly given a long term of office for 7 years, they can only be removed by
impeachment, and now quo warranto, chairman and members may not be reappointed or
appointed in an acting capacity, their salaries are relatively higher, they enjoy, these
commissions enjoy fiscal autonomy. They may promulgate their own rules of procedure, the
chairman and members are subject to certain disqualifications to strengthen their integrity,
and the commissions may appoint their own officials and employees in accordance with Civil
Service Law.
There are prohibitions for members and chairman of these Constitutional Commissions:
1. No member of the constitutional commission shall during his tenure hold any other
office or employment, pareha sa kastrikto didto sa executive department, hold any
other office or employment, wala gispecify kung government ba or not
2. Engage in the practice of any profession
3. Engage in the active management and control of any business, which in any way may
be affected by the functions of his office, so the general rule, kung negosyante ka and
if Nakita nimo nga naa nay conflict of interest, you have to divest your interest.
4. They cannot be financially interested directly or indirectly in other contracts with or
in any franchise or privilege granted by the Government, any of its subdivisions,
agencies or instrumentalities, including GOCCs or their subsidiaries.
Now, nay discussion kadtong prohibitions. But before we go there, let’s talk about the nature
of the CHR.
CHR EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION V. CHR
Where the court described the, among others, the nature of the CHR. First, it enjoys a limited
form of fiscal autonomy. The CHR is not among the class of constitutional commissions as
expressed because, klaro didto sa gimention nato na provision nga tulo ra sila kabuok
recognized as constitutional commission. CHR, you’re not one of us. So, dili sya constitutional
commission. Nor there is legal basis to support the contention of the CHR that it enjoys the
fiscal autonomy enjoyed by the constitutional commissions. Fiscal autonomy entails freedom
from outside control, allocate and utilize its own funds, dispatch its needs as its needs may
inquire.
Now, settled under the Constitution and jurisprudence that the only entities that enjoy full
fiscal autonomy are the judiciary, the 3 commissions, CSC, COMELEC, COA, and the office of
the ombudsman. Neither that the fact that the CHR’s grant was admitted as a member of the
CFAG, the constitutional fiscal autonomy group, that it is clothed with fiscal autonomy
because that privilege is not granted by membership but rather, by a constitutional provision.
CHR, although admittedly a constitutional creation, gina mandatesa constitution ang pag
create ani nga entity is nonetheless not included in the genus of offices accorded fiscal
autonomy by the constitutional or legislative fiat. So, kato, naa lang syay, lahi ang iyahang
nature, insofar as the three other commissions are concerned. It is not therefore as powerful
as the other three.
So going back to the Constitutional Commissions and the prohibitions against its members
and chairman, Art. IX-A, sec.2 ang mga prohibitions.