Constitutional-Law-1-File-No-6.pdf PDF

Preview

Summary

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I File No. 6 IV. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 1. JUDICIAL POWER Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving right...

Description

Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Constitutional-Law-1-File-No-6.pdf Riva Vivienne Joy Parejo

Related papers

Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I File No. 6

IV. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 1. JUDICIAL POWER Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower 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 excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. Duty of 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 government (Sec. 1, par.2, Art VII). Expanded jurisdiction Effect on the political question doctrine A ‘Political Question’ is one the resolution of which has been vested by the Constitution exclusively in either the people, in the exercise of their sovereign capacity, or in which full discretionary authority has been delegated to a co-equal branch of the Government. Thus, while courts can determine questions of legality with respect to governmental action, they cannot review government policy and the wisdom thereof, for these questions have been vested by the Constitution in the Executive and Legislative Departments

2. JURISDICTION 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. 

Power to hear and decide a case and execute decision thereof.

CASES • On 2 February 1987, the New Constitution took effect. Sec. 30, Art. VI, thereof provides: "No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence." On 8 May 1987, the President promulgated E.O. No. 172 creating the Energy Regulatory Board to replace the Board of Energy. Under Sec. 10 thereof, "[a] party adversely affected by a decision, order or ruling of the Board . . . may file a petition to be known as petition for review with the Supreme Court." On 27 February 1991, the Supreme Court promulgated Circular No. 1-91, par. (1) of which specifically provides that the proper mode of appeal from any quasi-judicial agency, including ERB, is by way of a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. It is very patent that since Sec. 10 of E.O. No. 172 was enacted without the advice and concurrence of this Court, this provision never became effective, with the result that it cannot be deemed to have amended the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. Consequently, the authority of the Court of Appeals to decide cases from the Board of Energy, now ERB, remains (Diaz vs. CA, GR L-109698, Dec. 5, 1994). • The Constitution now provides in Art. VI, ? 30 that "No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence." This provision is intended to give the Supreme Court a measure of control over cases placed under its appellate jurisdiction. For the indiscriminate enactment of legislation enlarging its appellate jurisdiction can unnecessarily burden the Court and thereby undermine its essential function of expounding the law in its most profound national aspects.

Indeed, there is no reason why decisions and final orders of the BOI must be directly appealed to this Court. As already noted in the main decision in this case, the purpose of ? 9 of B.P. Blg. 129 is to provide uniform appeals to the Court of Appeals from the decisions and final orders of all quasi-judicial agencies, with the exception only of those issued under the Labor Code and those rendered by the Central Board of Assessment Appeals. It is, therefore, regrettable that in the adoption of the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987 the advice and concurrence of the Supreme Court, as required by the Constitution, had not been obtained in providing for the appeal of the decisions and final orders of the BOI directly to the Supreme Court (First Lepanto Ceramics vs. CA, Gr 110571, Oct. 7, 1994).

3. CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS TO INSURE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY 1.

SC is a constitutional body; may not be abolished by law; 2. Members are only removable by impeachment; 3. SC may not be deprived of minimum and appellate jurisdiction; appellate jurisdiction may not be increased without its advise or concurrence; 4. SC has administrative supervision over all inferior courts and personnel; 5. SC has exclusive power to discipline judges / justices of inferior courts; 6. Members of judiciary enjoy security of tenure; 7. Members of judiciary may not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions; 8. Salaries of judges may not be reduced; judiciary enjoys fiscal autonomy; 9. SC alone may initiate Rules of Court; 10. SC alone may order temporary detail of judges; and 11. SC can appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary.

a. Justices/judges may not be designated to any agency performing non-judicial functions Section 12. The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.

CASES •

When a judge of first instance, presiding over a branch of a Court of First Instance of a judicial district by virtue of a legal and valid appointment, accepts another appointment to preside over the same branch of the same Court of First Instance, in addition to another court of the same category, both of which belong to a new judicial district formed by the addition of another Court of First Instance to the old one, enters into the discharge of the functions of his new office and receives the corresponding salary, he abandons his old office and cannot claim to be to repossess it or question the constitutionality of the law by virtue of which his new appointment has been issued; and, said new appointment having been disapproved by the Commission on Appointments of the National Assembly, neither can he claim to continue occupying the office conferred upon him by said new appointment, having ipso jure ceased in the discharge of the functions thereof (Zandueta vs. dela Costa, 66 Phil 615).

•

The Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands represents one of the three divisions of power in our government. It is judicial power and judicial power only which is exercised by the Supreme Court. Just as the Supreme Court, as the guardian of constitutional rights, should not sanction usurpations by any other department of the government, so should it as strictly confine its own sphere of influence to the powers expressly or by implication conferred on it by the Organic Act. The Supreme Court and its members should not and cannot be required to exercise any power or to perform any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or connected with the administering of judicial functions. he Supreme Court holds that section 11 of Act No. 1446 contravenes the maxims which guide the operation of a democratic government constitutionally established, and that it would be improper and illegal for the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, the decision of a majority of whom shall be final, to act on the petition of the Manila Electric Company. As a result, the members of the Supreme Court decline to proceed further in the matter (MERALCO vs. Pasay Transportation, 57 Phil 600).

•

Petitioner's contention is predicated upon the ground that xxx it is illegal for Justices of the Supreme Court to sit as members of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, since the decisions thereof are appealable to the Supreme Court on questions of law; that the

Presidential Electoral Tribunal is a court inferior to the Supreme Court.... Pursuant to the Constitution, "the Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as may be established by law. This provision vests in the judicial branch of the government, not merely some specified or limited judicial power, but "the" judicial power under our political system, and, accordingly, the entirety or "all" of said power, except, only, so much as the Constitution confers upon some other agency, such as the power to "judge all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications" of members of the Senate and those of the House of Representatives which is vested by the fundamental law solely in the Senate Electoral Tribunal and the House Electoral Tribunal, respectively (Lopez vs. Roxaz, 17 SCRA 756). •

None of these is to be taken as meaning that this Court looks with favor at the practice of long standing, to be sure, of judges being detailed in the Department of Justice to assist the Secretary even if it were only in connection with his work of exercising administrative authority over the courts. The line between what a judge may do and what he may not do in collaborating or working with other offices or officers under the other great departments of the government must always be kept clear and jealously observed, lest the principle of separation of powers on which our government rests by mandate of the people thru the Constitution be gradually eroded by practices purportedly motivated by good intentions in the interest of the public service. The fundamental advantages and the necessity of the independence of said three departments from each other, limited only by the specific constitutional precepts on check and balance between and among them, have long been acknowledged as more paramount than the serving of any temporary or passing governmental conveniences or exigencies. It is thus of grave importance to the judiciary under our present constitutional scheme of government that no judge of even the lowest court in this Republic should place himself in a position where his actuations on matters submitted to him for action or resolution would be subject to review and prior approval and, worst still, reversal, before they can have legal effect, by any authority other than the Court of Appeals or this Supreme Court, as the case may be. Needless to say, this Court feels very strongly that it is best that this practice is discontinued (Garcia vs. Macaraig, 39 SCRA 106).

b. Fiscal Autonomy

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.  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. (Sec. 3).

4. APPOINTMENT TO THE JUDICIARY Appointment and Qualifications Procedure in Appointment: 1. Appointed by President from among a list of at least 3 nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. 2. For lower courts, President shall issue the appointment 90 days from submission of the list. Qualifications: a.

Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court: b. Presiding Justice and Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals c. Regional Trial Court Judges d. Metropolitan, Municipal and Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judges: Tenure of Justices and Judges: a. Supreme Court – hold office until they reach 70 years of age or become incapacitated to discharge their duties (Sec.11, Art. VIII). May be removed only through impeachment. b. Lower Courts – hold office during good behavior until they reach 70 years of age or become incapacitated to discharge their duties (Sec. 11, Art. VIII). Judicial and Bar Council Composition: o

Ex-officio Chairman

o -

Supreme Court Chief Justice Ex-officio members Secretary of Justice Representative of Congress Regular members Representative of the IBP

o

- Professor of Law; - Retired member of SC; and - Representative of private sector o Secretary de officio Clerk of the Supreme Court Appointment: 

Regular members shall be appointed by the President for a fouryear term with the consent of the Commission on Appointments.

Powers and Functions of Judicial and Bar Council: 1. Recommend appointees to the Judiciary; 2. Recommend appointees to the Office of the Ombudsman and his 5 deputies; 3. May exercise such other functions as may be assigned by the Supreme Court (Sec. 8, Art. VIII) 5. SUPREME COURT Section 4. (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in division of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety 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, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.

(3) 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. a. Composition o Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices may set en banc or in its discretion, in division of 3, 5, or 7 members. o Any vacancy shall be filled within 90 days from occurrence thereof. b. En Banc & Division cases Cases required to be heard en banc: 1.

All cases involving constitutionality of a /an: a. Treaty b. International or executive agreement or c. Law

2.

All cases required to be heard en banc under the Rules of Court.

3.

Appeals from Sandiganbayan; and from the Constitutional Commissions.

4. All cases involving the constitutionality, application or operation of: a. Presidential decrees b. Proclamations c. Orders d. Instructions e. Ordinances; and f. Other regulations. 5.

Cases heard by a division where required majority of 3 was not obtained.

6.

Cases where SC modifies or reverses a doctrine or principle of law laid down by the SC en banc or by a division.

7.

Administrative cases to discipline or dismiss judges of lower courts; and

8.

Election contests for President and Vice-President.

Cases heard by division 1. Must be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the members who took part in the deliberations and voted thereon. 2. Majority vote in a division should be at least 3 members. 2. Temporarily assign lower court judges to other stations in the public interest. Note: Temporarily 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: i. ii. iii. iv. v.

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.

CASES •

The intention of the framers to draw a distinction between cases, on the one hand, and matters, on the other hand, such that cases are "decided" while matters, which include motions, are "resolved". Otherwise put, the word "decided" must refer to "cases"; while the word "resolved" must refer to "matters", applying the rule of reddendo singula singulis. This is true not only in the interpretation of the above-quoted Article VIII, Section 4(3), but also of the other provisions of the Constitution where these words appear. With the aforesaid rule of construction in mind, it is clear that only cases are referred to the Court en banc for decision whenever the required number of votes is not obtained. Conversely, the rule does not apply where, as in this case, the required three votes is not obtained in the resolution of a motion for reconsideration. Hence, the second sentence of the aforequoted provision speaks only of

"case" and not "matter". The reason is simple. The above-quoted Article VIII, Section 4(3) pertains to the disposition of cases by a division. If there is a tie in the voting, there is no decision. The only way to dispose of the case then is to refer it to the Court en banc. On the other hand, if a case has already been decided by the division and the losing party files a motion for reconsideration, the failure of the division to resolve the motion because of a tie in the voting does not leave the case undecided. There is still the decision which must stand in view of the failure of the members of the division to muster the necessary vote for its reconsideration. Quite plainly, if the voting results in a tie, the motion for reconsideration is lost. The assailed decision is not reconsidered and must therefore be deemed affirmed (Fortich vs. Corona, Gr. No. 131457, August 19, 1999).

c.

Powers

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 six 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 under-privileged. 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 quasijudicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. (6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judi...