udicial Department under the Philippine Constitution

A. Judicial Power

1. Definition of Judicial Power

Judicial power encompasses two essential functions:

o The duty of the courts to resolve actual controversies involving legally demandable and
enforceable rights.

o The authority to determine whether any branch or instrumentality of the Government

has committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
(Article VIII, Section 1). This limits the "political question" doctrine, which traditionally
shielded certain areas from judicial scrutiny.

Additionally, courts possess inherent powers to amend or control their decisions, particularly when an
error or injustice has occurred. The courts may reverse previous rulings if adhering to them would result
in injustice, as seen in the cases of Tocao v. Court of Appeals and De Leon v. Court of Appeals.

2. Vesting of Judicial Power

Judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court and in lower courts established by law (Article VIII,
Section 1).

3. Jurisdiction of the Courts

o Jurisdiction refers to the authority to hear and decide cases.

o Congress has the power to define and distribute the jurisdiction of various courts but
cannot deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction in matters specified in the
Constitution (Article VIII, Section 2).

o The Constitution prohibits any law from increasing the Supreme Court’s appellate
jurisdiction without the Court’s advice and consent (Article VI, Section 30). For example,
a provision in Republic Act No. 6770 was declared unconstitutional for allowing appeals
to the Supreme Court from Ombudsman decisions without the Court’s consent (Fabian
v. Desierto).

B. Constitutional Safeguards for Judicial Independence

1. Constitutional Status of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is established as a constitutional body, and the legislature cannot abolish it.

2. Impeachment as the Sole Means of Removal

Justices of the Supreme Court can only be removed through impeachment, ensuring their
security of tenure.

3. Preservation of Supreme Court Jurisdiction

The Court cannot be deprived of its original and minimum appellate jurisdiction. Any increase in
its appellate jurisdiction requires the Court's advice and consent.
 4. Administrative Supervision
The Supreme Court exercises administrative supervision over all lower courts and their
personnel.

5. Exclusive Disciplinary Power

The Supreme Court has the exclusive authority to discipline judges and justices of lower courts.

6. Security of Tenure
Members of the Judiciary enjoy security of tenure, safeguarding them from arbitrary dismissal or
removal.

7. Prohibition on Quasi-Judicial or Administrative Designation

Members of the Judiciary cannot be assigned to any agency performing quasi-judicial or
administrative duties.

8. Fiscal Autonomy
The Judiciary enjoys fiscal autonomy, which allows it flexibility in allocating and utilizing its
resources without interference from other branches. For example, in Re: Clarifying and
Strengthening the Organizational Structure and Administrative Set-up of the Philippine Judicial
Academy, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) was ruled to have overstepped its
authority by downgrading positions within the Judicial Academy, infringing on the fiscal
autonomy of the Judiciary.

9. Rule-Making Authority
The Supreme Court has the sole authority to initiate and promulgate the Rules of Court.

10. Temporary Detail of Judges

The Supreme Court has the exclusive power to order the temporary detail of judges when
necessary.

11. Appointment of Judiciary Employees

The Supreme Court is the sole body responsible for appointing all officials and employees within
the Judiciary.

C. Power of Judicial Review/Inquiry

A. Definition and Scope of Judicial Review

Judicial review refers to the power of the courts to assess the constitutionality of executive and
legislative acts. It enables courts to invalidate actions that violate the Constitution. This power is not an
assertion of judicial superiority over other branches but is an expression of constitutional supremacy.
The courts are tasked with ensuring that all governmental actions conform to the highest law of the land.

1. Judicial Review in the Constitution

Judicial review is explicitly recognized in the Philippine Constitution under Article VIII, Section 1. It
includes:

 The authority to settle actual controversies involving legally demandable and enforceable rights.
  The power to determine whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of the government.

2. Scope of Judicial Review

Judicial review applies to laws, treaties, executive orders, presidential proclamations, and other
regulations. The Supreme Court and lower courts have jurisdiction to decide on constitutional issues.
However, when a case involves the constitutionality of treaties, executive agreements, or laws, the
Supreme Court may hear the case en banc (in full session).

3. Functions of Judicial Review

Judicial review serves the following functions:

 Checking: Ensures that government actions conform to constitutional limits.

 Legitimating: Confirms the legality of laws and government actions that comply with the
Constitution.

 Symbolic: Upholds the Constitution as the supreme law and educates the public on
constitutional principles (Salonga v. Pano).

B. Requisites for Judicial Review/Inquiry

Judicial review cannot be exercised arbitrarily. Certain requisites must be met for a court to adjudicate a
constitutional issue. These requisites include:

1. Actual Case or Controversy

For judicial review to be invoked, there must be a real conflict involving opposing legal rights. The
dispute must involve adverse parties and must persist throughout the stages of litigation. A hypothetical
or abstract question does not meet the standard of an actual case or controversy. The controversy must
be concrete and have a bearing on the legal relations of the parties (Guingona v. Court of Appeals).

 Exceptions to the Rule: Courts may hear cases that would otherwise be considered moot if the
issues involved are of paramount public interest or if the case is capable of repetition yet
evading review (David v. Macapagal-Arroyo).

2. Proper Party (Legal Standing)

Only a proper party—one with legal standing or locus standi—may bring a case for judicial review. A
party must demonstrate a direct and substantial interest in the case and that they have suffered, or are
in imminent danger of suffering, harm due to the unconstitutional law or act.

 Private Suits: In private disputes, the real party in interest is the person who stands to benefit or
be harmed by the outcome.

 Public Suits: In cases involving public rights, petitioners must demonstrate a sufficient interest as
citizens or taxpayers (David v. Macapagal-Arroyo).

The courts have taken a liberal approach to legal standing in cases involving matters of public interest,
particularly in cases involving constitutional issues, where petitioners have been allowed to sue as
representatives of the general public or in taxpayer suits (Kilosbayan v. Guingona, Information
Technology Foundation v. Comelec).

3. Raised at the Earliest Opportunity

Constitutional issues must be raised at the earliest opportunity, typically in the pleadings before the trial
court. Failure to raise the issue early may preclude the court from considering it on appeal (Matibag v.
Benipayo).

4. Determinative of the Case (Lis Mota)

The constitutional question must be the lis mota or the core issue of the case. Courts will not rule on
constitutional issues if the case can be resolved on other legal grounds. Constitutional issues are avoided
unless necessary to resolve the case (Planters Products v. Fertiphil Corporation).

C. Related Principles

1. Standing as a Procedural Technicality

The court may set aside the technical requirement of standing if the issues raised involve matters of
paramount public interest. For instance, in Kilosbayan v. Guingona, the Supreme Court allowed
petitioners to challenge a government contract because of the importance of the constitutional issues
raised.

2. Facial Challenge and Overbreadth Doctrine

A facial challenge allows a party to contest a law’s constitutionality, not based on how it is applied to
them but on its potential application to others. This is typically allowed in free speech cases to prevent a
"chilling effect" on constitutionally protected activities. The overbreadth doctrine invalidates laws that
could discourage or prohibit protected activities (David v. Macapagal-Arroyo).

3. Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine

A law may be declared unconstitutional if it is so vague that it does not provide a clear standard of
behavior for people to follow. This doctrine is closely related to the overbreadth doctrine and is usually
applied in cases involving criminal statutes (Romualdez v. Comelec).

D. Effects of a Declaration of Unconstitutionality

When a law is declared unconstitutional, it is treated differently depending on whether the orthodox or
modern view is applied:

1. Orthodox View

Under the orthodox view, an unconstitutional law is void from the start, as if it never existed. It creates
no rights, imposes no duties, and is inoperative (Art. 7, Civil Code of the Philippines).

2. Modern View

The modern view is more practical, recognizing that a law declared unconstitutional may have had legal
effects before the declaration. Courts may refuse to apply the law moving forward but recognize its
effects in the past. Public officers who implemented the law in good faith before it was invalidated are
not held liable (Ynot v. IAC).

Detailed Report on the Power of Judicial Review/Inquiry

Introduction

Judicial review is a fundamental aspect of the Philippine legal system, embedded in the Constitution,
that empowers the courts to determine the constitutionality of executive and legislative acts. This power
ensures the supremacy of the Constitution and maintains the principle of checks and balances among
the branches of government. Judicial review allows courts to scrutinize government actions and laws to
ensure they comply with constitutional mandates.

This report will cover the core aspects of judicial review, including its definition, scope, requisites, and
related principles, as well as the legal standing required for parties to bring cases before the courts. It
will also discuss the effects of a declaration of unconstitutionality and the concept of partial
unconstitutionality.

A. Definition and Scope of Judicial Review

Judicial review refers to the power of the courts to assess the constitutionality of executive and
legislative acts. It enables courts to invalidate actions that violate the Constitution. This power is not an
assertion of judicial superiority over other branches but is an expression of constitutional supremacy.
The courts are tasked with ensuring that all governmental actions conform to the highest law of the land.

1. Judicial Review in the Constitution

Judicial review is explicitly recognized in the Philippine Constitution under Article VIII, Section 1. It
includes:

 The authority to settle actual controversies involving legally demandable and enforceable rights.

 The power to determine whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of the government.

2. Scope of Judicial Review

Judicial review applies to laws, treaties, executive orders, presidential proclamations, and other
regulations. The Supreme Court and lower courts have jurisdiction to decide on constitutional issues.
However, when a case involves the constitutionality of treaties, executive agreements, or laws, the
Supreme Court may hear the case en banc (in full session).

3. Functions of Judicial Review

Judicial review serves the following functions:

 Checking: Ensures that government actions conform to constitutional limits.

 Legitimating: Confirms the legality of laws and government actions that comply with the
Constitution.
  Symbolic: Upholds the Constitution as the supreme law and educates the public on
constitutional principles (Salonga v. Pano).

B. Requisites for Judicial Review/Inquiry

Judicial review cannot be exercised arbitrarily. Certain requisites must be met for a court to adjudicate a
constitutional issue. These requisites include:

1. Actual Case or Controversy

For judicial review to be invoked, there must be a real conflict involving opposing legal rights. The
dispute must involve adverse parties and must persist throughout the stages of litigation. A hypothetical
or abstract question does not meet the standard of an actual case or controversy. The controversy must
be concrete and have a bearing on the legal relations of the parties (Guingona v. Court of Appeals).

 Exceptions to the Rule: Courts may hear cases that would otherwise be considered moot if the
issues involved are of paramount public interest or if the case is capable of repetition yet
evading review (David v. Macapagal-Arroyo).

2. Proper Party (Legal Standing)

Only a proper party—one with legal standing or locus standi—may bring a case for judicial review. A
party must demonstrate a direct and substantial interest in the case and that they have suffered, or are
in imminent danger of suffering, harm due to the unconstitutional law or act.

 Private Suits: In private disputes, the real party in interest is the person who stands to benefit or
be harmed by the outcome.

 Public Suits: In cases involving public rights, petitioners must demonstrate a sufficient interest as
citizens or taxpayers (David v. Macapagal-Arroyo).

The courts have taken a liberal approach to legal standing in cases involving matters of public interest,
particularly in cases involving constitutional issues, where petitioners have been allowed to sue as
representatives of the general public or in taxpayer suits (Kilosbayan v. Guingona, Information
Technology Foundation v. Comelec).

3. Raised at the Earliest Opportunity

Constitutional issues must be raised at the earliest opportunity, typically in the pleadings before the trial
court. Failure to raise the issue early may preclude the court from considering it on appeal (Matibag v.
Benipayo).

4. Determinative of the Case (Lis Mota)

The constitutional question must be the lis mota or the core issue of the case. Courts will not rule on
constitutional issues if the case can be resolved on other legal grounds. Constitutional issues are avoided
unless necessary to resolve the case (Planters Products v. Fertiphil Corporation).
C. Related Principles

1. Standing as a Procedural Technicality

The court may set aside the technical requirement of standing if the issues raised involve matters of
paramount public interest. For instance, in Kilosbayan v. Guingona, the Supreme Court allowed
petitioners to challenge a government contract because of the importance of the constitutional issues
raised.

2. Facial Challenge and Overbreadth Doctrine

A facial challenge allows a party to contest a law’s constitutionality, not based on how it is applied to
them but on its potential application to others. This is typically allowed in free speech cases to prevent a
"chilling effect" on constitutionally protected activities. The overbreadth doctrine invalidates laws that
could discourage or prohibit protected activities (David v. Macapagal-Arroyo).

3. Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine

A law may be declared unconstitutional if it is so vague that it does not provide a clear standard of
behavior for people to follow. This doctrine is closely related to the overbreadth doctrine and is usually
applied in cases involving criminal statutes (Romualdez v. Comelec).

D. Effects of a Declaration of Unconstitutionality

When a law is declared unconstitutional, it is treated differently depending on whether the orthodox or
modern view is applied:

1. Orthodox View

Under the orthodox view, an unconstitutional law is void from the start, as if it never existed. It creates
no rights, imposes no duties, and is inoperative (Art. 7, Civil Code of the Philippines).

2. Modern View

The modern view is more practical, recognizing that a law declared unconstitutional may have had legal
effects before the declaration. Courts may refuse to apply the law moving forward but recognize its
effects in the past. Public officers who implemented the law in good faith before it was invalidated are
not held liable (Ynot v. IAC).

E. Partial Unconstitutionality

In some cases, only part of a law may be declared unconstitutional. For the valid portions to remain in
force, two conditions must be met:

 Legislative Intent: The legislature must have intended to retain the valid portions, usually
evidenced by a separability clause.

 Independent Validity: The valid portions must be able to stand independently as law without
reliance on the unconstitutional sections (In Re: Cunanan, Salazar v. Achacoso).
D. Appointment to the Judiciary

1. Qualifications for Appointment to the Judiciary

The Constitution provides a set of qualifications that apply to the different levels of the judiciary, with
varying standards for the Supreme Court, lower collegiate courts, and lower courts:

 General Qualifications: Every appointee to the Judiciary must possess proven competence,
integrity, probity, and independence (Article VIII, Section 7(3)).

 Supreme Court: The qualifications for appointment to the Supreme Court are more stringent:

o The appointee must be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.

o The appointee must be at least 40 years old.

o The appointee must have been a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of
law in the Philippines for at least 15 years (Article VIII, Section 7(1)).

 Lower Collegiate Courts (e.g., Court of Appeals):

o The appointee must be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.

o The appointee must be a member of the Philippine Bar.

o Congress may prescribe additional qualifications as needed (Article VIII, Section 7(2)).

 Lower Courts:

o The appointee must be a citizen of the Philippines.

o The appointee must be a member of the Philippine Bar.

o Congress may also prescribe other qualifications for judges of lower courts (Article VIII,
Section 7(2)).

2. Procedure for Appointment

Appointments to the Judiciary follow a set process, primarily involving the President and the Judicial and
Bar Council (JBC):

 Appointment by the President: The President of the Philippines appoints judges and justices
from a list of at least three nominees for each vacancy. The Judicial and Bar Council prepares this
list. Appointments to the Judiciary do not require confirmation by Congress (Article VIII,
Section 9).

 Timelines for Filling Vacancies:

o For vacancies in the Supreme Court, the President must fill the vacancy within 90 days
of its occurrence (Article VIII, Section 4(1)).
 o For vacancies in lower courts, the President has 90 days from the submission of the
JBC's list of nominees to make the appointment (Article VIII, Section 9).

 Prohibition on Midnight Appointments:

o The Constitution prohibits the President from making appointments within the two
months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of the
term. This prohibition extends to judicial appointments (Article VII, Section 15).

o However, temporary appointments to executive positions can be made if necessary to

prevent harm to public service or public safety. This prohibition was further clarified in
Re: Mateo Valenzuela (A.M. No. 98-5-01-SC), where the Supreme Court held that during
the election period, the President is neither required nor allowed to make appointments
to the courts unless a compelling reason exists to justify an exception.

3. Judicial and Bar Council (JBC)

The JBC plays a crucial role in the appointment process by screening and recommending nominees for
judicial positions. Its composition and functions are outlined in the Constitution.

 Composition of the JBC (Article VIII, Section 8(1)):

o Ex-officio members:

 The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who serves as Chairman.

 The Secretary of Justice.

 A representative of Congress.

o Regular members:

 A representative of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

 A professor of law.

 A retired justice of the Supreme Court.

 A representative of the private sector.

o Secretary ex-officio: The Clerk of the Supreme Court serves as the Secretary of the JBC.

 Appointment of Regular Members:

o Regular members of the JBC are appointed by the President for a term of four years,
with the consent of the Commission on Appointments (Article VIII, Section 8(2)).

o They receive emoluments as determined by the Supreme Court.

 Powers and Functions of the JBC:

o The primary function of the JBC is to recommend appointees to the Judiciary.

 o The JBC may also exercise other powers and perform other duties as assigned by the
Supreme Court (Article VIII, Section 8(5)).

E. Supreme Court

1. Composition of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is composed of a Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices. These justices may sit en
banc (as a full court) or in divisions consisting of three, five, or seven members. Vacancies in the
Supreme Court must be filled within 90 days of their occurrence (Article VIII, Section 4(1)).

2. En Banc and Division Cases

The Supreme Court can hear cases either en banc or in divisions, depending on the nature of the case.

 En Banc Cases:

o The Court hears all cases involving constitutionality in full session, particularly those
related to treaties, international agreements, executive agreements, laws, presidential
decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations.

o En banc cases also include those that are explicitly required by the Rules of Court to be
heard by the full Court.

o Decisions in en banc cases require the concurrence of a majority of the justices who
participated in the deliberation and voted on the issues.

 Division Cases:

o Other cases may be heard in divisions, and decisions in these cases require the
concurrence of a majority of the members in that division (but at least three members
must agree).

o If the required number of votes is not obtained in division cases, the case may be
elevated and decided en banc.

o Fortich v. Corona distinguished between “cases” (which are decided) and “matters”
(which are resolved), indicating that only cases are referred to the en banc when the
required number of votes is not met.

o No doctrine or principle of law established by the Court can be modified or reversed

except by the Court sitting en banc.

3. Powers of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has both original and appellate jurisdiction, and it exercises broad powers related to
the review of judicial, administrative, and quasi-judicial decisions.

 Original Jurisdiction:
 o The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over cases involving ambassadors, public
ministers, and consuls.

o It also has original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, and habeas corpus.

 Appellate Jurisdiction:

o The Supreme Court has the power to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm final
judgments and orders from lower courts on matters involving:

 The constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law, international agreement, or

executive order.

 The legality of taxes, imposts, assessments, tolls, or penalties.

 Jurisdictional issues in lower courts.

 Criminal cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.

 Cases where only an error or question of law is involved.

o The Supreme Court does not have the power to review decisions of administrative
bodies, except in cases where those decisions result in final judgments from lower
courts (e.g., Ruffy v. Chief of Staff).

o Death Penalty Cases: If the death penalty is imposed, the trial court must forward the
records of the case to the Supreme Court for automatic review. However, if the penalty
imposed is only reclusion perpetua, the accused must appeal the decision or else the
judgment becomes final (People v. Redulosa, Garcia v. People).

 Limitations on Expanding Appellate Jurisdiction:

o The Constitution prohibits any law from expanding the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court without its advice and concurrence (Article VI, Section 30). For instance,
in Fabian v. Desierto, the Court declared unconstitutional a provision of Republic Act No.
6770 that allowed appeals to the Supreme Court in administrative cases without its
concurrence.

 Review of Sandiganbayan Decisions: The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over Sandiganbayan cases
is limited to questions of law (Republic v. Sandiganbayan). A question of law exists when the
issue concerns the application or interpretation of the law, rather than the factual determination
of evidence.

 Temporary Assignment of Judges: The Court can temporarily assign judges from lower courts to
other stations if public interest requires it. However, such assignments cannot exceed six months
without the consent of the judge concerned.

 Change of Venue: The Supreme Court has the power to change the venue or place of trial to
avoid a miscarriage of justice. This authority ensures fair trials and prevents local influences
from affecting the judicial process (People v. Gutierrez).
 Rule-Making Power

The Supreme Court has the exclusive power to promulgate rules regarding the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, admission
to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged (Article
VIII, Section 5(5)).

Limitations on Rule-Making Power:

The rules must provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases.

The rules must be uniform across courts of the same grade.

The rules must not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.

In Primicias v. Ocampo, it was established that substantive rights like trial by assessors cannot be
repealed by the Supreme Court. Similarly, in First Lepanto Ceramics v. Court of Appeals,
procedural changes, such as transferring the venue of appeals to the Court of Appeals, were
deemed acceptable as long as substantive rights were not altered.

Creation of Special Divisions: In Re: Request for Creation of a Special Division (A.M. No. 02-1-09-
SC), the Supreme Court created a Special Division in the Sandiganbayan to handle the plunder
case against former President Joseph Estrada, demonstrating its rule-making authority to adapt
court structures for specific cases.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)

The Supreme Court's rule-making power includes the authority to regulate the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP), the mandatory national organization of lawyers.

Compulsory Membership: Every lawyer in the Philippines is required to be a member of the IBP,
and payment of membership dues is compulsory, regardless of the lawyer’s type of practice (In
Re: Integration of the Bar of the Philippines).

Enforcement of Discipline: The Supreme Court has the power to enforce disciplinary actions on
lawyers. The practice of law is considered a privilege, not a property right, and is subject to the
Court’s regulatory power (In Re: Atty. Marcial Edillon).

Writs for the Protection of Constitutional Rights

The Supreme Court has promulgated special rules on writs to protect constitutional rights,
including the Writ of Amparo and the Writ of Habeas Data.

Writ of Amparo:

The Writ of Amparo is designed to protect individuals whose rights to life, liberty, and security
are violated or threatened by unlawful acts or omissions, whether by public officials or private
entities. This writ is particularly relevant in cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced
disappearances (Azcuna, The Writ of Amparo).
 The Supreme Court promulgated the Rule on the Writ of Amparo in 2007 (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC).
The rule allows courts to issue interim reliefs, such as protection orders, inspection orders, and
witness protection orders.

However, the writ cannot be used as a substitute for appeal or certiorari (Tapuz v. Del Rosario).

Writ of Habeas Data:

The Writ of Habeas Data protects the right to informational privacy and allows individuals to
control the flow of personal information. It is available when a person’s privacy in life, liberty, or
security is violated by unlawful acts of public officials or private entities.

The Supreme Court promulgated the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data in 2008 (A.M. No. 08-1-
16-SC).

Exclusive Rule-Making Power (vs. Congress)

The 1987 Constitution grants the Supreme Court the exclusive power to promulgate rules of
pleading, practice, and procedure, removing the power from Congress to repeal, alter, or
supplement such rules. This was reaffirmed in Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, where the Court
declared that Congress no longer shares this power with the Judiciary.

 Administrative Supervision and Power of Appointment

Power of Appointment: The Supreme Court is responsible for appointing all officials and
employees of the Judiciary, following Civil Service Law (Article VIII, Section 5(6)).

Administrative Supervision: The Supreme Court has administrative supervision over all
lower courts and their personnel (Article VIII, Section 6). This ensures that judges and court
employees are held accountable and that the operations of the Judiciary are conducted
efficiently.

o In Fuentes v. Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao, the Supreme Court ruled that the
Ombudsman cannot investigate or initiate criminal or administrative cases against a
judge without first endorsing the matter to the Supreme Court, respecting the Judiciary’s
autonomy and the doctrine of separation of powers.

 Annual Report -The Supreme Court is required to submit an annual report on the operations
and activities of the Judiciary to the President and Congress within 30 days from the opening of
each regular session of Congress (Article VIII, Section 16).

Consultations and Decisions of the Supreme Court (Sections 13 & 14, Article VIII of the Philippine
Constitution)

The Constitution imposes specific requirements for how the Supreme Court (and lower collegiate
courts) must reach decisions and issue rulings. These rules ensure transparency, accountability, and
legal clarity in judicial decisions. The following are key provisions regarding how the Supreme Court
consults, decides, and provides reasons for its rulings:
1. Consultation Requirement

Before a case is assigned to a member of the Court for the writing of the opinion, the justices
must first consult on the conclusions of the case. This process ensures that the decisions made
reflect collective deliberation rather than individual viewpoints.

 Certification by the Chief Justice: A certification signed by the Chief Justice is required to
confirm that the consultation has occurred. This process applies not only to the Supreme
Court but also to lower collegiate courts.

 Exemption for Administrative Cases: The consultation requirement does not apply to
administrative cases, as ruled in Prudential Bank v. Castro.

 Tie Votes: In cases where the votes are equally divided, and a majority vote is not obtained,
the petition is dismissed (Rule 56, Section 7, Rules of Civil Procedure). This was illustrated in
Cruz v. Secretary, DENR.

2. Decision-Making and Written Opinions

The Supreme Court is constitutionally mandated to issue decisions that are clear, concise, and
based on established facts and applicable law.

 Clear and Distinct Statements of Facts and Law: Decisions must state clearly and distinctly
the facts and the legal principles on which they are based. This ensures transparency and
accountability in the judicial process.

o Exceptions for Minute Resolutions: The requirement to state facts and law does not
apply to minute resolutions dismissing petitions for writs such as habeas corpus,
certiorari, or mandamus, as long as a legal basis for the dismissal is provided
(Mendoza v. CFI, Borromeo v. Court of Appeals). This rule also applies to
administrative cases (Prudential Bank v. Castro).

o Memorandum Decisions: The Supreme Court allows memorandum decisions, which

adopt by reference the findings of fact and conclusions of law of lower courts.
However, to be valid, the referenced decision must be directly accessible, and the
memorandum decision must provide clear access to the facts and law being adopted
(Solid Homes v. Laserna).

o Complete Recital of Evidence Not Required: A decision need not recite all the
evidence presented but must clearly outline the factual and legal basis supporting
the ruling. The decision must include the nature of the case, a summary of the
facts, applicable laws and jurisprudence, and the Court's conclusions on the issues.

 Sin Perjuicio Judgments: Decisions that consist only of the dispositive

portion (i.e., the final ruling without explanation) are invalid. For example, in
Dizon v. Judge Lopez, such a decision was held to violate the constitutional
requirement for clarity in decisions.

o Failure to Explain Correlation of Facts: In cases like People v. Baring and De Vera v.
Judge Dames, the Court emphasized the importance of explaining how the facts,
 evidence, and law correlate to the conclusions reached. A failure to do so may cast
doubt on the legitimacy of the decision.

3. Petitions for Review and Motions for Reconsideration

When the Court denies a petition for review or motion for reconsideration, it must provide the
legal basis for its denial.

 Adequate Legal Basis for Denial: In Fr. Martinez v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court
ruled that it is sufficient to note that a motion for reconsideration raises no new issues if
those points have already been considered and ruled upon.

 "Lack of Merit" as Sufficient Explanation: The Supreme Court has ruled that a declaration of
"lack of merit" is a sufficient legal basis for denying a petition for review or motion for
reconsideration (Prudential Bank v. Castro). In Komatsu Industries v. Court of Appeals, it was
held that a minute resolution that states legal grounds such as the petition raising only
factual questions or showing no reversible error is sufficient compliance with the
constitutional requirement.

F. Tenure of Judges/Justices.

1. Supreme Court Justices

Supreme Court Justices enjoy security of tenure and can only be removed through impeachment as
provided in Article XI, Section 2 of the Constitution. This protection ensures that justices are free
from political pressures and can perform their duties with impartiality.

 Impeachment Process: Justices may only be removed for impeachable offenses, including
culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes,
or betrayal of public trust.

 Special Prosecutor and Security of Tenure: In Re: First Indorsement from Hon. Raul M. Gonzalez
(A.M. No. 88-4-5433, April 15, 1988), the Supreme Court held that the Special Prosecutor
(Tanodbayan) does not have the authority to investigate Supreme Court justices with the intent
of filing criminal charges, as this would violate the justice’s security of tenure. Any conviction
would lead to removal, which could only happen through impeachment.

2. Lower Court Judges

Judges in lower courts hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of 70 years or
become incapacitated (Article VIII, Section 11). They can only be disciplined or removed under
specific conditions and through the proper channels.

 Discipline and Dismissal: The Supreme Court en banc holds the power to discipline judges of
lower courts or order their dismissal, but such action requires the vote of a majority of the
members who took part in the deliberations (Article VIII, Section 11).
 o Disciplinary Procedures: The case People v. Judge Gacott clarified that the Court en banc
is required to hear only cases involving the dismissal of judges. Other administrative
cases do not necessarily need to be decided by the full Court.

o Ombudsman and Separation of Powers: The Ombudsman cannot investigate or initiate

complaints against judges or court employees without referring the case to the Supreme
Court, due to the Supreme Court’s exclusive administrative supervision over the
judiciary. This was reaffirmed in Maceda v. Vasquez and other cases, such as Fuentes v.
Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao.

o Removal Grounds: The Supreme Court has established that the grounds for the removal
of a judge (such as misconduct, neglect, corruption, or incompetence) must be proven
beyond reasonable doubt (Office of the Judicial Administrator v. Pascual). Judges are not
disciplined for every erroneous decision, unless bad faith, malice, or ill motive is clearly
shown (De Vera v. Dames).

3. Reorganization of the Judiciary and Security of Tenure

The Constitution explicitly provides that no law shall be passed reorganizing the judiciary in a
manner that undermines the security of tenure of its members (Article VIII, Section 2).

 Reorganization Laws: In De la Llana v. Alba, the Supreme Court upheld B.P. 129 as a valid
reorganization law, stating that it did not violate the security of tenure of judicial officers.
However, this ruling must be understood in light of the current constitutional protections.

4. Salaries of Judges and Justices

Judges’ and justices’ salaries are fixed by law and cannot be decreased during their tenure (Article
VIII, Section 10). This provision ensures the financial independence of the judiciary.

 Taxation of Salaries: In Nitafan v. Tan, the imposition of income tax on judges' salaries was
upheld as not violating the constitutional prohibition on salary decreases.

5. Periods for Decision

The Constitution mandates strict deadlines for judges and justices to resolve cases submitted to
them, to prevent delays in the administration of justice (Article VIII, Section 15).

 Time Limits:

o The Supreme Court must decide or resolve cases within 24 months from submission.

o Lower collegiate courts must decide within 12 months.

o Other lower courts have 3 months to resolve cases, though the Supreme Court may
reduce these periods.

 Certification Requirement: If a decision is delayed, a certification signed by the Chief Justice or

Presiding Justice must be issued explaining the delay.
 Consequences for Delay: Judges who fail to meet these deadlines without a valid excuse can
face administrative sanctions, as repeated in various rulings, such as Dizon v. Judge Lopez and
Sanchez v. Judge Vestil. Judges may request additional time but must provide reasons for the
delay. Failing to decide within the constitutional period constitutes gross inefficiency, which is
grounds for disciplinary action.

6. Administrative Accountability

Even if a judge fails to meet the constitutional deadlines, the court does not lose jurisdiction over
the case. However, the erring judge may face administrative sanctions for the delay.

 Judicial Accountability: The Supreme Court has emphasized that judges cannot blame court
personnel or other factors, such as delays in the transcription of notes, for their own failure to
decide cases on time (Ricolcol v. Judge Camarista, Gonzales-Decano v. Judge Siapno).