1

MODULE 10
THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Judicial Power
The power of courts of justice (1) to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable and (2) 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.

Requisites of Judicial Review

(1) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial
power;

(2) the person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of
the subject act or issuance; otherwise stated, he must have a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct
injury as a result of its enforcement; (locus standi)

(3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and

(4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.

Role of the legislature in the judicial process

Although judicial power is vested in the judiciary, the proper exercise of such power
requires prior legislative action: (1) defining such enforceable and demandable rights and
(2) prescribing remedies for violations of such rights; and (3) determining the court with
jurisdiction to hear and decide controversies or disputes arising from legal rights.

The courts cannot exercise judicial power when there is no applicable law

CASE: SANTIAGO, JR. VS. BAUTISTA, G.R. No. L-25024 March 30, 1970

Power of Congress over the judicial system

Congress has the power to create new courts and to apportion jurisdiction among
various courts.
Limitation: Congress may not impair the independence of the judiciary.

CASE: FABIAN VS. DESIERTO, G.R. NO. 129742, SEPTEMBER 16, 1998

Art. VI, Sec. 30, 1987 Constitution

“No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence.”
 2

Fiscal Autonomy of the Judiciary

Appropriations for the judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the
amount appropriated for the previous year and after approval, shall be automatically and
regularly released. Fiscal autonomy is granted to the Supreme Court in order to
strengthen its independence.

CASE: IN THE MATTER OF: SAVE THE SUPREME COURT’S JUDICIAL

INDEPENDENCE AND FISCAL AUTONOMY MOVEMENT VS. ABOLITION OF JDF
AND REDUCTION OF FISCAL AUTONOMY, UDK 15143, JANUARY 21, 2015
A.M. NO. 09-8-6-SC AUGUST 26, 2014 RE: REQUEST FOR SALN AND PDS OR CVS
OF JUSTICES
Constitutional Safeguards that Guarantee the Independence of the Judiciary
1. The members of the judiciary have security of tenure;
2. The members of the Supreme Court can only be removed by impeachment;
3. The Supreme Court is a constitutional body, hence, it may not be abolished by the
legislature;
4. The Supreme Court has administrative supervision over all other courts;
5. The Supreme Court has the exclusive power to discipline judges/justices of inferior
courts;
6. The Supreme Court may not be deprived of minimum original and appellate
jurisdiction. Appellate jurisdiction may not be increased without its advice and
concurrence;
7. The members of the judiciary may not be designated to any agency performing
quasi-judicial or administrative functions;
8. The judiciary enjoys fiscal autonomy;
9. The Supreme Court alone may initiate Rules of Court;
10. The Supreme Court alone may order temporary detail of judges;
11. The Supreme Court can appoint all officials and employees of the judiciary.
12. Salaries of judges may not be reduced.

Principle of Judicial Hierarchy of Courts – In the observance of this principle,

petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level (inferior) courts should
be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of
Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to issue these
writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons
therefore, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. (Constancio, Bulalacao, Oriental
Mindoro vs. Mayor Enrilo Villas, et al, G.R. No. 187256, February 23, 2011)

Doctrine of Judicial Stability – No court can interfere by injunction with the

judgments or orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power
to grant the relief sought by the injunction. (Atty. Tomas Ong Cabili vs. Judge Rasad
G. Balindong, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2225, September 6, 2011)
 3

Powers of the Supreme Court

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Over Auxiliary Administrative Powers of the

Cases Supreme Court
Original Jurisdiction Section 5(3). Assign temporarily
Section 5(1). The Supreme Court judges of the lower courts to other
shall have the power to exercise original stations as public interest may require.
jurisdiction over cases affecting Such temporary assignment shall not
ambassadors, other public ministers exceed six months without the consent
and consuls, and over petitions for of the judge concerned.
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,
quo warranto, and habeas corpus. Section 5(4). Order a change of
venue or place of trial to avoid
Appellate Jurisdiction miscarriage of justice.
Section 5(2). The Supreme Court shall
have the power to review, revise, Section 5(5). Promulgate rules
reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or concerning the protection and
certiorari as the law or the Rules of enforcement of constitutional rights,
Court may provide, final judgments and pleading, practice, and procedure in
orders of lower courts in: all courts, the admission to the
a. All cases in which the practice of law, the Integrated Bar,
constitutionality or validity and legal assistance to the
of any treaty, international or underprivileged. Such rules shall
executive agreement, law, provide a simplified and inexpensive
presidential decree, procedure for the speedy disposition of
proclamation, order, cases, shall be uniform for all courts of
instruction, ordinance, or the same grade, and shall not diminish,
regulation is in question. increase, or modify substantive rights.
b. All cases involving the Rules of procedure of special courts and
legality of any tax, impost, quasi-judicial bodies shall remain
assessment, or toll, or any effective unless disapproved by the
penalty imposed in relation Supreme Court.
thereto.
c. All cases in which the Section 5(6). Appoint all officials and
jurisdiction of any lower employees of the Judiciary in
court is in issue. accordance with the Civil Service Law.
d. All criminal cases in which the
penalty imposed is reclusion Section 6. The Supreme Court shall
perpetua or higher. have administrative supervision over
all courts and the personnel thereof.

Effect of a statute declared unconstitutional

2 Schools of Thought
1. Orthodox View – an unconstitutional act, whether legislative or executive, is not a
law, confers no rights, imposes no duties and affords no protection.
 4

2. Second View – the Supreme Court simply ignores statutes deemed

unconstitutional. It does not strike the statute from the statute books; it does not
repeal, supersede revoke or annul the statute.

Requisites for declaration of partial unconstitutionality

1. That the legislature is willing to retain the valid portion even if the rest is declared
illegal; and
2. That the valid portions can stand independently as a separate statute.

Principle of Inter-Departmental Courtesy

In Re: Production of Court Records and Documents and the Attendance of Court
Officials and Employees as Witnesses under the Subpoena of February 10, 2012
and the Various Letters for the Impeachment Prosecution Panel dated January 19
and 25, 2012, - SCRA February 14, 2012 (Impeachment of Former CJ Renato
Corona)

Writ of Amparo
It is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security has
been violated or is threatened with violation by an ulawful act of omission of a public
official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.

Enforced Disappearance of Persons

It means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization,
support or acquiescence of a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to
acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts
of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection fo the law for a
prolonged period of time.

Writ of Habeas Data

It is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or
security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing
of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the
aggrieved party.

The Power of the Congress under Section 2, Article VIII

To define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts The
Congress has the power to create new courts but subject to the following
limitations:
1. The power may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases
enumerated in Section 5;
2. No law shall be passed reorganizing the judiciary when it undermines the
security of tenure of its members.
 5

Power of Judicial Review or Judicial Supremacy

It is the assertion of the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to the Judiciary by
the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to
establish for the parties in an actual controversy the right which that instrument secures
and guarantees them.

Requisites of Judicial Review

No constitution question will be heard and decided by our courts unless the following
requisites are complied with:
1. There must be an actual case or controversy.
2. The question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party;
3. The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and
4. The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of
the case itself (lis mota).

Cases which shall be heard en banc by the Supreme Court under the 1987 Constitution
– majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberation
1. All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international
agreement, executive agreement and law;
2. All other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en
banc;
3. All cases involving the constitutionality, application or operation of:
Presidential Decrees, Proclamations, Orders, Instructions, Ordinances, and other
Regulations.

Votes needed for cases or matter heard by a division

Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the
concurrence of a majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on
the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case, without the concurrence of at
least three of such Members. When the required number is not obtained, the case shall
be decided en banc; Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court
in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the
court sitting en banc.

Composition of the Supreme Court

Congress cannot increase or decrease the composition of the Supreme Court. 15

Justices = 1 Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices.
The Court is free to create divisions of three, five or seven. The purpose of allowing
up to five divisions within one Court is to enable the Court to disposes of cases more
speedily.

CASE: ARTURO DE CASTRO VS. JBC, G.R. NO. 191002, MARCH 17, 2010
 6

Cases that must be heard en banc

1. all cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive
agreement, or law;
2. all cases which under the Rules of Court may be required to be heard en banc;
3. all cases involving the constitutionality, application or operation of presidential
decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances and other regulations;
4. cases heard by a division when the required majority in the decision is not
obtained;
5. cases where the Supreme Court modifies or reverses a doctrine or principle of
law previously laid down either en banc or in division;
6. administrative cases involving the discipline or dismissal of judges of lower
courts;
7. election contest for President or Vice-President

Votes required in en banc cases and in division

For en banc, concurrence of a majority of the members who actually took part in
the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. Thus, since the quorum of
the Supreme Court is 8, the votes of at least 5 are needed are and enough, even if it is a
question of constitutionality. For cases heard in division, concurrence of a majority of the
members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted
thereon, and IN NO CASE without the concurrence of at least 3 such members. When
the required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc.

CASE: VIVARES VS. ST. THERESA’S COLLEGE, G.R. NO. 202666, SEPTEMBER 29,
2014];

CASE: OPOSA VS. FACTORAN, G.R. No. 101083; July 30 1993

METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. CONCERNED

RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY, G.R. No. 171947-48, December 18, 2008

Administrative Power of the Supreme Court

Classification of the powers of the Supreme Court
1. Judicial powers
2. Auxiliary administrative powers

Bar Integration –
Integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification of the entire lawyer
population of the Philippines. This requires membership and financial support of
every attorney as conditions sine qua non to the practice of law and the retention
of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court.
 7

Qualifications of Justices, lower collegiate and non-collegiate lower courts

Supreme Court
 Natural born citizen of the Philippines, at least 40 years of age, have been
for 15 years or more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of
law in the Philippines and a person of proven competence, integrity, probity
and independence.

Lower collegiate court (Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals, Sandiganbayan)

 Natural born citizen of the Philippines, member of the Philippine Bar,
possessing the other qualifications prescribed by Congress and must be a
person of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence.

Non-collegiate lower courts

 Citizens of the Philippines, members of the Philippine Bar, possessing other
qualifications prescribed by Congress, and persons of proven competence,
integrity, probity and independence.

Congress may not alter the qualifications of Members of the Supreme Court
and the constitutional qualifications of other members of the Judiciary. But
Congress may alter the statutory qualifications of judges and justices of lower
courts.

Judicial and Bar Council – has the principal function of recommending appointees
to the Judiciary.

Composition of JBC-7 members only

1. Ex-officio members: Chief Justice as Chairman; the Secretary of Justice
and a representative of Congress-3
2. Regular members: A representative of the IBP, a professor of law, a retired
justice of the Supreme Court and a representative of the private sectors

The regular members shall be appointed by the President for a term of four years,
with the consent of the Commission on Appointments.

Powers/Functions:
The principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary.

Rationale behind the creation of JBC:

To eliminate politics from the appointment of judges and justices. Thus,
appointments to the Judiciary do not have to go through a political Commission on
Appointments.

Appointments of the Supreme Court and Judges

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.
 8

For the lower court, the President shall issue the appointments within 90 days from the
submission of the list.

Case: FRANCIS JARDELEZA VS. MARIA LOURDES SERENO, G.R. No. 213181,
August 19, 2014

Tenure of Justices and Judges

Supreme Court Justices may be removed only by impeachment. For Judges, they
shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of 70 or become
incapacitated to discharge 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 and voted thereon.

CASE: REPUBLIC of the PHILIPPINES, represented by SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE

C. CALIDA v. MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018 [J.
Tijam, En Banc]

Requirements on decisions and petitions

A decision must express clearly and distinctly the facts and law on which it is
based. Resolutions disposing of petitions fall under the constitutional provision that no
petition for review shall be refused due course without stating the legal basis therefore.
Minute resolutions need not be signed by the members of the Court who took part in the
deliberations of a case nor do they require the certification of the Chief Justice.

Purpose
To inform the person reading the decision, and especially the parties, of how it was
reached by the court after consideration of the pertinent facts and examination of the
applicable laws. There are various reasons for this: (1) to assure the parties that the judge
studied the case; (2) to give the losing party opportunity to analyze the decision and
possibly appeal or, alternatively, convince the losing party to accept the decision in good
grace; (3) to enrich the body of case law, especially if the decision is from the Supreme
Court.

Exceptions:
1. Court orders which resolve incidental matters only.
2. Minute resolutions in the following cases:
a. In cases which are “patently without merit,” where the issues are factual in
nature; where the decision appealed from is supported by substantial evidence and is in
accord with the facts of the case and applicable laws;
b. In cases where it is clear from the records that the petitions were filed mrerely
to forestall the early execution of judgment and for non-compliance with the rules.

3. In administrative cases where the isseus raised therein have been previously duly
considered and passed upon.
 9

Periods for Decision

All cases must be decided from date of submission within:
24 months – Supreme Court; 12 months – lower collegiate courts; and 3 months-
all other lower courts, unless in the two latter cases, the period is reduced by the Supreme
Court. (CASE: DIZON VS. JUDGE LOPEZ, A.M. NO. RTJ-96-1338, SEPTMBER 5, 1997.

V.