Political Law Part VIII: Article VIII – The Judicial Department
POLITICAL LAW PART VIII
ARTICLE VIII – THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
1. Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such other courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.
a. What is judicial power?
Read: Badua vs. CBA, February 14, 1991
b. Restrictions to the exercise of judicial power
Political question doctrine
1) JAVELLANA VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, 50 SCRA 30
2) DE LA LLANA VS. ALBA, 112 SCRA 294
3) ALMARIO VS. ALBA, 127 SCRA 69 (When the question deals with the necessity, expediency and wisdom of a particuar act, the same is political and not justiciable)
4. Read again ENRILE VS. JUDGE SALAZAR, June 5, 1990
b-1. Definition of political question
1. Sanidad vs. Comelec, 73 SCRA 333 Political questions are neatly associated with the wisdom, not the legality of a particular act. Where the vortex of the controversy refers to the legality or validity of the contested act, the matter is definitely justiciable or non-political)
2. Javellana vs. Exec. Secretary, 50 SCRA 30
3. Tanada vs. Cuenco, 103 Phil. (Political questions are questions to be answered by the people in their sovereign capacity or in regard to which full discretionary authority is vested to the executive or legislative branch of the government).
4. Gonzales vs. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 774 (When the crux of the problem deals with the validity of an act, it is justifiable.
c. Cases on judicial power in general
1) LOPEZ VS. ROXAS, 17 SCRA 756
2) SANTIAGO VS. BAUTISTA, 32 SCRA 188
3) RADIOWEALTH VS. AGRACADA, 86 Phil. 429
4) NOBLEJAS VS. TEEHANKEE, 23 SCRA 405
5) LINA VS. PURISIMA, 82 SCRA 244
6) GARCIA VS. MACARAIG,39 SCRA 106
4. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
No law shall be passed reorganizing the judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its members.
3. Section 3. The judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. 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.
4. Section 4. (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and 14 associate justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in divisions of 3, 5 or seven members. Any vacancy shall be filled within 90 days from the occurrence thereof.
(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, 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.
(3) Cases or matters heard by a divisions hall 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 3 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 en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc.
1) VARGAS VS. RILLORAZA, 80 Phil. 297
2) VIR-JEN SHIPPING VS. NLRC, 125 SCRA 577
3. JANDUSAY VS. CA, 172 SCRA 376
To be decided by the Supreme Court en banc
1. Involving the constitutionality of any law, treaty, etc.;
2. When there is conflict of the decisions of 2 or more divisions of the Supreme Court;
3. When a case is referred to by the division to the banc and the same was accepted by the latter;
4. In death penalty cases;
1. Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question;
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto;
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue;
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher;
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed 6 months without the consent of the judge concerned.
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading , practice , and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the judiciary in accordance with the civil service law.
(READ: Maniago vs. CA, 253 SCRA on the limitation of the Rules…not to diminish, increase or modify substantive rights.
a. What is the power of judicial review? What are its requisites?
DISOMANGCOP VS. HON. SIMEON DATUMANONG, 444 SCRA 203
Requisites for the exercise of judicial power.
The following are the requisites for the exercise of judicial power:
a. There must be before the court a case calling for the exercise of judicial review;
b. The question before the court must be ripe for judicial adjudication;
c. The person challenging the validity of the act must have standing to challenge;
d. The question of constitutionality must have been raised at the earliest opportunity; and
e. The issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.
– Distinguish judicial power from judicial review.
1. Fernandez vs. Torres, 209 SCRA 677
1-a. Santos III vs. Northwest Airlines, 210 SCRA 256
1-c) ANGARA VS. ELECTORAL COMMISSION, 63 Phil. 139
2) DUMLAO VS. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392
3. NEPA VS. ONGPIN, 171 SCRA 657
4. Allied Broadcasting Center vs. Rep., Oct. 18, 1991
5. Lagamy vs. CA, 199 SCRA 501
a-1. Functions of Judicial Review
1) legitimizing function
2) checking function
3) symbolic or educational function
aa. SALONGA VS. PANO, 134 SCRA 438
bb. JAVIER VS. COMELEC, 144 SCRA 194
b. On personality to sue
Is there a difference as to the “personality” requirement if the law being questioned involves disbursement of public funds and on the other hand, if it does not .
Standing to question the validity of an Executive Order which does not involve disbursement of public funds; Requisites before the President may issue executive Orders in furtherance of police power.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL. VS. SOUTHWING HEAVY INDUSTRIES, 482 SCRA 673
On December 12, 2002, President Arroyo issued EO 156 entitled “PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND DIRECTIONS FOR THE MOTOR VEHICLE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AND ITS IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES.”
Under Section 3.1 of the said EO, THE IMPORTATION INTO THE COUNTRY, INCLUSIVE OF FREEPORT, OF ALL TYPES OF USED MOTOR VEHICLES IS PROHIBITED.
The private respondent, which has a business of importing all kinds of used motor vehicles questioned the constitutionality of said EO.
I s s u e s:
1. Does the private respondent have the personality to sue or to question the constitutionality of EO 156?
2. Does the President have the authority to promulgate EO to promote police power like in this case?
3. Is EO 156 constitutional?
1. The private respondent has the personality to sue to question the constitutionality of an administrative issuance because it will sustain a direct injury as a result of its enforcement. Respondents would suffer a direct injury if said EO will be implemented because in its Certificate of Registration , it is allowed import/trade used motor vehicles and spare parts. Clearly, it would suffer prejudice if importation of all motor vehicles, not only used cars will be prohibited.
2. The President is authorized to issue an executive order provided it complies with the following requisites:
a. Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature;
b. It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure;
c. It must be within the scope of the authority given by the legislature; and
d. It must be reasonable.
There is no question that no less than Art. VI, Section 28  of the Constitution authorizes Congress to in turn authorize the President by law, within specified limits, and subject to such restrictions and limitations, to fix tariff rates, import and export quotas…”. Likewise, the Tariff and Customs Code likewise delegates to the President similar powers.
3. Is the EO prohibiting the importation of all motor vehicles, not only used cars constitutional? In this case, while the first two requisites are present, the 3rd is not. This is so because it is not within the powers of the President to prohibit the importation of other vehicles, not only cars, even in the Freeport Zones like Subic which is allowed by RA 7227. The EO therefore is ultra vires or beyond the limits of the authority conferred on the President because it tries to supplant or modify the Constitution, its enabling statute and other existing laws.
The 4th requisite is not also present because the same is unreasonable since it likewise prohibit the entry of used motor vehicles into the Freeport which is owed by law, RA 7227.
1) PASCUAL VS. SEC. OF PUBLIC WORKS, 110 Phil. 331
2) SANIDAD VS. COMELEC, 73 SCRA 333
3) DUMLAO VS. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392
3-a. Read again NEPA VS. ONGPIN, 171 SCRA 57
4. Kilosbayan vs. Guingona, May 5, 1994
Read this very carefully because it changes the original concept of personality to sue when public funds are involved or not.
2. TATAD VS. GARCIA, April 6, 1995, 243 SCRA 436 (Even though no public funds are involved and that petitioner is not directly injured by the contract, he has the personality to question the same if it involves national interest)
3. BUGNAY CONSTRUCTION VS. LARON, 170 SCRA 240 (If the contract is for local consumption only, and that the petitioner is not directly injured by the said contract which does not involve the disbursement of public funds, the petitioner has no personality to sue)
c. May inferior courts also exercise the power of judicial review in the light of the requirement of Section 4(2) of Article VIII?
Read: YNOT VS. IAC, March 20, 1987
d. Three views on the effects of declaration of unconstitutionality of a law
1) NORTON VS. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 US 425
2) SHEPPARD VS. BARREN, 194 US 553
3) DE AGBAYANI VS. PNB, 38 SCRA 429
4) REPUBLIC VS. HEREDA, 119 SCRA 411
5) REPUBLIC VS. CFI, 120 SCRA 151
e. Transfer of venue in criminal cases
1) PEOPLE VS. GUTIERREZ, 36 SCRA 172
2) PEOPLE VS. SOLA, 103 SCRA 393
3) PEOPLE VS. PILOTIN, 65 SCRA 635
f. Rule making power; note the limitations
1) BUSTOS VS. LUCERO, 81 Phil. 648
2) NUNEZ VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, 111 SCRA 433
g. On admission to the bar
Read: 1. IN RE CUNANAN, 94 Phil. 534
2. ZALDEVAR VS. GONZALES, Oct. 7, 1988 Re: Indefinite suspension imposed on RAUL GONZALES)
g-1. May law students practice law before the courts? Requisites?
Circular No. 19, issued by the Supreme Court on December 19, 1986
h. On the integration of the bar
Read: IN RE EDILLON, 84 SCRA 554
6. Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.
Read: DE GUZMAN VS. PEOPLE, 119 SCRA 337
4. Sections 7. (1) No person shall be appointed member of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court unless he is a natural born citizen of the Philippines. A member of the Supreme Court must be at least 40 years of age, and must have been for 15 years or more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.
(2) The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts, but no person may be appointed judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines and a member of the Philippine Bar.
(3) A member of the judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence.
Section 8. A judicial and bar Council—composition—Chief Justice, Secretary of Justice, Representative of Congress, Integrated Bar, Professor of Law, retired justice and representative of the private sector..
The regular members—term of 4 years—Commission on Appointments—
Sec. 9. The members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower court shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.
For the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointments within 90 days from the submission of the list.
1. UY vs. Judge Capulong, April 7, 1993
2. Court Administrator vs. Judge Gines
Exec. Order No.216, July 10, 1987, creating the Judicial and Bar council
8. Section 10. The salary of the Chief Justice and the associate justices of the Supreme Court, and the judges of the lower courts shall be fixed by law. During their continuance in office, their salary shall not be decreased.
a. See Sec. 17, Art. XVIII
b. Read: 1) NITAFAN VS. COMMISSIONER, 152 SCRA 284
2) PERFECTO VS. MEER, 85 Phil. 552
3) ENDENCIA VS. DAVID, 93 Phil. 696
9. Section 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of the lower court shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of 70 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 majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
Read: 1) OCAMPO VS. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, 51 O.G. 147
2) DE LA LLANA VS. ALBA, 112 SCRA 294
10. Section 12. The members of the Supreme Court and other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.
1) GARCIA VS. MACARAIG, 39 SCRA 106
2) MANILA ELECTRIC VS. PASAY TRANSPORTATION, 57 Phil. 60
3) LOPEZ VS. ROXAS, 17 SCRA 756
4) IN RE: JUDGE RODOLFO MANZANO, October 5, 1988
11. Sections 13. The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in division shall be reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a member for the writing o f the opinion o f the court. A certification to this effect signed by the CJ—-Any member who took no part or dissented…must state the reason therefor. The same procedure in all lower collegiate courts.
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.
1) AIR FRANCE VS. CARRASCOSO, 18 SCRA 155
2) VDA DE ESPIRITU VS. CFI, 47 SCRA 354
3) BUSCAYNO VS. ENRILE, 102 SCRA 7
4) MANGCA VS. COMELEC, 112 SCRA 273
5) VALLADOLID VS. INCIONG, 121 SCRA 205
6) NAPOLCOM VS. LOOD, 127 SCRA 757
7) NUNAL VS. CA, 169 SCRA 356
8) Mangelen vs. CA, 215 SCRA 230
Requirement that the decision shall state clearly and distinctly state the law and the facts on which it is based.
BEDRUZ VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, 484 SCRA 452
A trial court’s omission to specify the offense committed, or the specific provision of the law violated, is not in derogation of the constitutional requirement that every decision must clearly and distinctly state the law and the facts on which it was based or the factual and legal bases for the conclusions reached by the trial court as long as the legal basis can be inferred from the discussion in the decision.
Further, the requirement that the “decision shall state clearly and distinctly state the law and the facts on which it is based” applies only to a decision of a court of justice covered by Art. VIII of the Constitution], not the Office of the Ombudsman.
GERMAN MACHINERIES CORPORATION VS. ENDAYA, 444 SCRA 329
When Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution shall be complied with by the courts.
Section 14, Art. VIII of the Constitution provides that “no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
This constitutional provision applies only to cases submitted for decision, i.e., given due course and after the filing of briefs or memoranda and/or other pleadings, BUT NOT WHERE A RESOLUTION IS ISSUED DENYING DUE COURSE TO THE PETITION AND STATING THE LEGAL BASIS THEREFOR like “the petition raised are factual or there is no reversible error in the respondent’s court decision”, there is sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement.
In this case , the Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition for Certiorari filed by the petitioner on the grounds that the factual issues had already been passed upon by the NLRC, and since its factual findings are in agreement with that of the Labor Arbiter, the same are binding and conclusive upon the Court of Appeals. This complies with the constitutional requirement under Section 14, Art. VIII of the Constitution
12. Section 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within 24 months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and unless reduced by the Supreme Court, 12 months for all lower collegiate courts, and 3 months for all other lower courts.
(2) A case shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself.
(4) Even after the lapse—-the court shall still decide without further delay.
Section 16. The Supreme Court shall, within 30 days from the opening of each regular session of the Congress, submit to the President and the Congress an annual report on the operations and activities of the judiciary.
1) CORPUS VS. CA 98 SCRA 424
2) MALACORA VS. CA, 117 SCRA 435
3) MARCELINO VS. CRUZ, 121 SCRA 51
4) DE ROMA VS. CA, 152 SCRA 205
5) Administrative Circular No. 1, issued by the Supreme Court thru CHIEF JUSTICE CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE on January 28, 1988, particularly par. 11 thereof.
13. Section 16
Political Law Reviewer by Atty. Larry D. Gacayan
College of Law, University of the Cordilleras
Posted on May 9, 2011, in Political Law and tagged Political Law Part VIII: Article VIII - The Judicial Department. Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.