Kareen Mae B. Baucan I- Sanchez Roman

I. JUDICIAL POWER

1.) Definitions of:

a. According to Section 1 of Article 8 of the Constitution, 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. It shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.

b. A Justiciable question calls upon the duty of the courts to determine grave abuse of discretion or to settle actual controversies wherein there are rights (property or personal rights) involved which are legally demandable and enforceable. It is one which is proper to be examined or decided in courts of justice because its determination would not involve an encroachment upon the legislative or executive power.

c. A political question is one which under the Constitution “is to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government.” It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not the validity or legality, of a particular measure or a contested act.

d. Grave abuse of discretion is the arbitrary or despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice or personal hostility; or the whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power that amounts to an evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law. For an act to be struck down as having been done with grave abuse of discretion, the abuse of discretion must be patent and gross.

2.) Judicial power has two components and these are: justiciable questions, which the Court defines as “actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable”; and political questions, which the Constitution defines as “grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Justiciable questions would be under the jurisdiction of the judicial department, but political questions are beyond the reach of the jurisdiction of the courts. However, there is an expanded jurisdiction of the Supreme Court granted by Section 1 of Article 8 of the Constitution wherein the courts are given the authority to determine whether or not there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the official who may have acted arbitrarily.

II.

1.) The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of various courts, but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in section 5 of article 8 of the Constitution.

2.) Fiscal autonomy shall be enjoyed by 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. It guarantees full flexibility to allocate and utilize their resources, which means that they do not need the dictation or the control of the Department of Budget and Management. It authorizes the power to levy, assess and collect fees, fixed rate of compensation as provided by law.

3.) Fiscal autonomy is enjoyed not only by the Judiciary but also by all Constitutional Commissions such as Commission On Audit, Commission on Elections, Civil Service Commission, as well as the Office of the Ombudsman.

III. COMPOSITION

1.) The supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief of Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in division of three, five, or seven members.

2.) Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.

3.) In the Resolution of the Court en banc dated November 18, 1993, the following were enumerated as the cases to be considered as "en banc cases": cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, executive order, or presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question; criminal cases in which the appealed decision imposes the death penalty; cases raising novel questions of law; cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; cases involving decisions, resolutions or orders of the Civil Service Commission, Commission on Elections, and Commission on Audit; cases where 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 (1) year or a fine exceeding P10,000.000 or both; cases where a doctrine or principle laid down by the court en banc or in division may be modified or reversed; cases assigned to a division which in the opinion of at least three (3) members thereof merit the attention of the court en banc and are acceptable to a majority of the actual membership of the court en banc; and all other cases as the court en banc by a majority of its actual membership may deem of sufficient importance to merit its attention.

4.) The Court en banc is not an Appellate Court to which decisions or resolutions of a Division may be appealed. This means that decisions or resolutions 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 is a decision or resolution of the Supreme Court itself. The Supreme Court sitting en banc is not an appellate court vis a vis its Divisions, and it exercises no appellate jurisdiction over the latter. Each division of the Court is considered not a body inferior to the Court en banc, and sits veritably as the Court en banc itself. The only constraint is that any doctrine or principle of law laid down by the Court, either rendered en banc or in division, may be overturned or reversed only by the Court sitting en banc.

5.) If a case is decided with a tie vote, it must be heard en banc. It cannot be considered as an appeal because there was no decision yet. It is a case where the required majority vote in a division is not obtained and the case should be referred to the Supreme Court en banc as mandated by the Constitution. However, if the decision in the Motion for Reconsideration is decided with a tie vote, it cannot be referred to the court en banc. The failure of the division to resolve the motion for reconsideration does not leave the case undecided. The prior decision stands in lieu of the failure of the division to muster the necessary votes to resolve the Motion. In short, the Motion for Reconsideration is lost. The decision must be affirmed. So long as there is a decision, such decision will remain.

IV. JURISDICTION

1.) The doctrine of hierarchy of courts is an established policy that parties must observe the hierarchy of courts before they can seek relief directly from the Supreme Court. The rationale for this rule is twofold: (a) it would be an imposition upon the limited time of the Supreme Court; and (b) it would inevitably result in a delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of cases, which in some instances, had to be remanded or referred to the lower court as the proper forum under the rules of procedure, or as better equipped to resolve the issues because the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.

2.) The cases within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court are those cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; and petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.

3.) Within its appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court can also review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, final judgments and orders of lower courts in: all cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree,

proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question; all cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto; all cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue; all criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher; and all cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

V. POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

1.) Judicial review flows from judicial power to settle actual controversies. It is the power of the Supreme Court to declare if laws, treaties, international agreements, presidential decrees, etc are constitutional. It is used by the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality and validity of the acts of co-equal departments.

2.) The following are the requisites for the Supreme Court to exercise judicial review: first, there must be an actual case of controversy; second, the party must have locus standi; third, the issue of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; fourth, the issue of constitutionality is the very lis mota of the case.

3.) TELEBAP v COMELEC – Petitioners here had no standing to file the petition questioning the validity of Section 92 of BP 881 on the grounds that it takes property without due process of law and without just compensation; that it denies radio and television broadcast companies the equal protection of the laws; and that it is in excess of the power given to the COMELEC to supervise or regulate the operation of media of communication or information during the period of election. It was denied because all broadcasting stations is licensed by the government. This is, therefore, a franchise, which is a privilege subject to amendment by Congress in accordance with the constitutional provision that a franchise shall be subject to amendment by the Congress when the common good requires.

Velarde v SJS – SJS has no legal interest in the controversy and has failed to establish how the resolution of the proffered question would benefit or injure it because there was no showing in the Petition for Declaratory Relief that SJS as a political party or its members as registered voters would be adversely affected by the alleged acts of the respondents below, such as the deprivation of votes or barring of suffrage to its constituents.

4.) The Supreme Court has the broad discretion to waive the requirement of locus standi or legal standing in favor of any petitioner when the matter involved has transcendental importance.

5.) Every statute is presumed valid. The presumption is that the legislature intended to enact a valid, sensible and just law and one which operates no further than may be necessary to effectuate the specific purpose of the law. Every presumption should be indulged in favor of the constitutionality and the burden of proof is on the party alleging that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution.

6.) It can be according to the Orthodox View which any unconstitutional act, is not a law. Therefore it vests no right, imposes no duty and accords no protection. The Modern View will apply as a rule of equity and fair-play. Here, the law is an Operative Fact meaning that they have consequences before being declared as unconstitutional..

7. ) According to the orthodox view, if the act is unconstitutional it is not a law and thus does not confer any rights, impose no duty, or offers no protection while in the modern view, the Supreme Court recognizes the view that the actual existence of a statute prior to the affirmation of the unconstitutionality of an act that it is in actual existence and therefore has consequences, which is

applied when there are cases where the law is still applicable, therefore it cannot be erased by a mere judicial declaration.

8.) Relative constitutionality means that a statute that was valid at one time or constitutional at one time may become void at another time because of altered circumstances without amending the constitution.

VI. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION

1.) By virtue of Article VIII, Section 8, appointments to the judiciary are made by the President of the Philippines based on a list submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council, which is under the supervision of the Supreme Court.

2.) It means that the Supreme Court exclusively has administrative supervision over the employees and judges and only the Supreme Court may take up administrative cases over court personnel. No other branch of government may include in this power without running against the doctrine of separation of powers.

VII. QUALIFICATION & APPOINTMENT OF JUSTICES AND JUDGES

1.) Constitutional Qualifications

a. According to Section 7 of Article VIII of the Constitution, a Supreme Court Justice must be 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 the Philippines.

b. 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.

c. A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.

2.) Judicial and Bar Council

a. 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.

b. It 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, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.

c. The Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members.

d. The regular members are: a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.

e. 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.) Appointment

a. 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.

b. For the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointments within ninety days from the submission of the list.

c. They shall be made within 90 days from the occurrence of a vacancy.

d. They shall be made within 90 days from the occurrence of a vacancy.

e. According to the ruling in De Castro vs. JBC, the prohibition on midnight appointments do not cover appointments in the judiciary.

VIII. TENURE

1.) 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.

2.) 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.

IX. DECISIONS: PROCESS, FORMS, & PERIOD

1.) Process

a. 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.

b. It requires the certification signed by the Chief Justice, which shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties.

c. The lack of certification at the end of the decision would only serve as evidence of failure to observe the certification requirement and may be basis for holding the official responsible for the omission to account therefore. Such absence of certification would not have the effect of invalidating the decisions.

2.) Forms of decisions

a. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.

b. Failure of a lower court judge to follow would subject him to disciplinary action and failure of a member of the Supreme Court would subject him to impeachment.

c. 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.

d. These are decisions that the appellate court merely adopts the lower court‘s decision if it agrees to the findings.

e. The memorandum decision cannot incorporate the findings of fact or conclusions of law only are remote reference.

Meaning, the challenged decision is not easily and immediately available to the person reading the memorandum decision. The decision referred to must be attached as annex to that memorandum decision.

3.) Periods of decisions

a.1. It must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission, unless reduced by the Supreme Court.

a.2 It must be decided or resolved within twelve months for all lower collegiate courts.

a.3 It must be decided or resolved within three months for all other lower courts.

a.4 It must be decided or resolved within three months for all other lower courts, as held in In Re: Problem of Delays.

b. 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.

X. IMPEACHMENT

1.) The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment.

2.) In In Re: Raul Gonzales, the Supreme Court said that a public officer who under the constitution is required to be a member of the Philippine Bar as qualification for his office who may be removed from office only by impeachment and cannot be charged with disbarment during the incumbency of such public officer.

3.) Yes, because membership to the Philippine Bar is not a qualification for him to retain his office.

4.) The grounds for impeachment are the convictions of any of the following: culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.

5.) The Congress has the specific function to initiate cases of impeachment. The judiciary may exercise its power of judicial review on cases of impeachment, as held by the Court in Francisco vs. House of Representatives.

6.) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.

7.) A vote of at least one-third of all the Member of the House shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or override its contrary resolution.

8.) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.

9.) The required number of votes to impeach is 2/3 of all the members. This is an absolute 2/3 .

10.) The one-year bar rule means that no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.

11.) The Court held in the case of Gutierrez vs HOR that it is initiated when a verified complaint is filed to the Committee of Justice for action and to the referral, meaning it starts to run because it was referred.

12.) Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment, according to law.