ARTICLE VIII JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Submitted by:

Arreza, Marla Asur, Karyn Mae Avillon, Vima May Castillon, Real Jhon Caubang, Gwena Dale Chua, Carly Jane Cruz, Ma. Sarah Lauren De Castro, Mary Joy Domalaon, Precious Escriba, Joahnna Treshia Formilleza, Jizelle Dea

Javellana, Christopher Libre, Charmaine Jane Longakit, Jessie Neal Madrazo, Vanessa Kate Natividad, Olive Puerto, Karlo Alexie Raya, Jill Sumalinog, Neil John Trujillo, Kris Mee Villanueva, Tracy

ABMC 2A

Submitted to:

Atty. Lara May Goc-ong PS 211 Professor

September 2, 2013

Article VIII Judicial Department |2

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.

Judicial power JUDICIAL POWER is the power to apply the laws to contests or disputes concerning legally recognized rights or duties between the State and private persons, or between individual litigants in cases properly brought before the judicial tribunals. The judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court of the Philippines and lower courts established by law. The Supreme Court, which has a Chief Justice as its head and 14 Associate Justices, occupies the highest tier of the judiciary. The justices serve until the age of 70. The justices are appointed by the president on the recommendation of the Judicial and Bar Council. The sitting Chief Justice is Maria Lourdes Sereno, the 24th to serve in that position. Other court types of courts, of varying jurisdiction around the archipelago, are the following, which can also be categorized into three groups: Lower Collegiate Courts:

Court of Appeals Court of Tax Appeals Sandiganbayan

Regular Courts:

Court of Appeals Regional Trial Courts Metropolitan Trial Courts Municipal Trial Courts Municipal Circuit Trial Courts Municipal Trial Courts in Cities

Muslim Courts

Sharia District Courts Sharia Circuit Courts

Scope of Judicial Power It includes the duty of courts of justice: to settle actual controversies involving demandable and enforceable; and rights which are legally

Article VIII Judicial Department |3

to determine whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction(infra) on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government to pass upon the validity or constitutionality of the laws of the state and the acts of the other departments of the government; to interpret and construe them; and to render authoritative judgment

It likewise includes the incidental powers necessary to the effective discharge of the judicial functions such as the power to punish persons adjudged in contempt. Abuse of discretion It is the failure to take into proper consideration the facts and law relating to a particular matter; an Arbitrary or unreasonable departure from precedent and settled judicial custom. Where a trial court must exercise discretion in deciding a question, it must do so in a way that is not clearly against logic and the evidence. An improvident exercise of discretion is an error of law and grounds for reversing a decision on appeal. It does not, however, necessarily amount to bad faith, intentional wrong, or misconduct by the trial judge. For example, the traditional standard of appellate review for evidence-related questions arising during trial is the "abuse of discretion" standard. Most judicial determinations are made based on evidence introduced at legal proceedings. Evidence may consist of oral testimony, written testimony, videotapes and sound recordings, documentary evidence such as exhibits and business records, and a host of other materials, including voice exemplars, handwriting samples, and blood tests. Before such materials may be introduced into the record at a legal proceeding, the trial court must determine that they satisfy certain criteria governing the admissibility of evidence. At a minimum, the court must find that the evidence offered is relevant to the legal proceedings. Evidence that bears on a factual or legal issue at stake in a controversy is considered relevant evidence. The relevancy of evidence is typically measured by its probative value. Evidence is generally deemed Probative if it has a tendency to make the existence of any material fact more or less probable. Evidence that a murder defendant ate spaghetti on the day of the murder might be relevant at trial if spaghetti sauce was found at the murder scene. Otherwise such evidence would probably be deemed irrelevant and could be excluded from trial if opposing counsel made the proper objection. During many civil and criminal trials, judges rule on hundreds of evidentiary objections lodged by both parties. These rulings are normally snap judgments made in the heat of battle. Courts must make these decisions quickly to keep the proceedings moving on schedule. For this reason, judges are given wide latitude in making evidentiary rulings and will not be over-turned on appeal unless the appellate court finds that the trial judge abused his or her discretion.

Article VIII Judicial Department |4

For example, in a Negligence case, a state appellate court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence a posed accidentscene photograph, even though the photograph depicted a model pedestrian blindly walking into the path of the driver's vehicle with the pedestrian's head pointed straight ahead as if she was totally oblivious to the vehicle and other traffic. Gorman v. Hunt, 19 S.W.3d 662 (Ky. 2000). In upholding the trial court's decision to admit the evidence, the appellate court observed that the photograph was only used to show the pedestrian's position relative to the vehicle at the time of impact and not to blame the pedestrian for being negligent. The appellate court also noted that the lawyer objecting to the photograph's admissibility was free to remind the jury of its limited relevance during cross-examination and closing arguments. An appellate court would find that a trial court abused its discretion, however, if it admitted into evidence a photograph without proof that it was authentic. Apter v. Ross, 781 N.E.2d 744 (Ind. App. 2003). A photograph's authenticity may be established by a witness's personal observations that the photograph accurately depicts what it purports to depict at the time the photograph was taken. Ordinarily the photographer who took the picture is in the best position to provide such testimony. Abuse of Discretion is a polite way of saying a trial judge has made such a bad mistake ("clearly against reason and evidence" or against established law) during a trial or on ruling on a motion and that a person did not get a fair trial. A court of appeals will use a finding of this abuse as a reason to reverse the a previous court result. Examples of "abuse of discretion" or judges' mistakes include not allowing an important witness to testify, making improper comments that might influence a jury, showing bias, or making rulings on evidence that deny a person a chance to tell his or her side of the matter. This does not mean a trial or the judge has to be perfect, but it does mean that the judge's actions were so far out of bounds that someone truly did not get a fair trial. Sometimes the appeals courts admit the judge was wrong, but not wrong enough to have influenced the outcome of the trial, often to the annoyance of the losing party. In criminal cases abuse of discretion can include sentences that are grossly too harsh. In a divorce action, it includes awarding alimony way beyond the established formula or the spouse's or life partner's realistic ability to pay.

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.

Article VIII Judicial Department |5

It is vested upon the Congress the power to define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of the various or different courts. However it should not remove or impair or by the word of the constitution "to deprive" the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over cases enumerated by Section 5. It's like saying that the Congress has its powers but it must remember that it has its limitation and that the Supreme Court has its power as well. Also no law should be passed that involves reorganizing the Judiciary if it threatens the security of term of its Members.

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.

The judiciary department has the privilege of the automatic release of funds once they are approved and appropriated by the legislature. Also, the legislative department cant reduce the amount lower than the appropriated budget that is provided for the judiciary department the year before. After the budget if approved, the releasing of funds is necessary to be regular and automatic. It is a violation of the principle of separation of powers of the executive and judiciary, the courts fiscal autonomy and the policy of non-reduction of the judiciarys budget from previous years if they decide to cut the budget short. Also, if they cut the budget, there will be more trial court vacancies. The logic here is that, to lure them to the judiciary department by giving them comparable pays and benefits. Right now, judges receive Php 150,000.00 monthly plus allowances on transportation, housing and other stuffs. So, if they cut the budget, they wont be able to sustain a lot of judges resulting to more vacancies which will slow down law processes. If the budget last year was Php 13 billion, then the budget this year will not be lower than Php 13 billion.

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

Article VIII Judicial Department |6

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.

Composition The Supreme Court is composed of the Chief Justice, together with its 14 Associate Justices. The Supreme Court may sit En Banc or in panels (or divisions) of three, five or seven members. En Banc is a French word which literally means, on the bench. It is used to refer to the hearing of a legal case where all judges of a court will hear the case rather than a selected few.

Cases that are required to be heard by the Supreme Court en banc These include constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law 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.

How many votes are required to decide for a case en banc? Since a Quorum of the Supreme Court is Eight, the votes of at least five are needed and are enough, even if it is a question of constitutionality. Moreover, those who did not take part in the deliberation do not have the right to vote.

How justices come up with a decision in divisions? In cases heard by division or panels, the cases are resolved with the concurrence of the majority who took part in deliberation of the case. 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

Article VIII Judicial Department |7

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.

Foreign dignitaries and their privileges An ambassador is the foreign diplomatic representative of a nation who is authorized to handle political negotiations between his or her country and the country where the ambassador has been assigned. A consul is the commercial agent of a nation, who is empowered only to engage in business transactions, and not political matters in the country where he or she is stationed. The Vienna Treaty on Diplomatic Relations, a 1972 treaty in which the Philippines is also a signatory, states that diplomatic agents are to enjoy diplomatic immunity, which includes the immunity of being summoned into court of any criminal cases which took place in the country of assignment. This immunity also extends to civil cases, except for the actions done outside the duties of a diplomatic agent, and involvement of properties personally owned by the agent. The highest form of punishment that can be applied to diplomatic agents will be the recall of the agent to the represented country. A consul, however, is not covered in the diplomatic immunity. He/she is still under the jurisdiction of the country he/she is assigned, and the consul can be charged of anything under local laws . Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court over petitions for certiorari, etc. The Supreme Court exercises original jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of Writs, etc. a. Certiorari A writ issued from a superior court requiring a lower court to transmit the records of a case to the superior court for the purposes of review. b. Prohibition A writ by which a superior court commands a lower court to desist from further proceedings in an action or matter. c. Mandamus

Article VIII Judicial Department |8

An order by a superior court commanding a lower court, a board or a corporation to perform a certain act which is its or his duty to do. d. Quo warranto An action by the government to recover an office or franchise from an individual unlawfully holding it. An example for this is the petition for Quo warranto VS. Jovito Palparan. e. Habeas Corpus A writ issued in order to bring somebody who has been detained into court, usually for a decision on whether the detention is lawful.

Section 5. (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.

Exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: a. Cases of great public Interest b. Elevation of the cases to supreme court i. By appeal ii. By Certiorari

Section 5. (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.

Reassignment of judges: (1) Assignment temporary

Article VIII Judicial Department |9

o Under the provision, temporary assignments of judges of lower courts may be made only by the Supreme Court. (2) Assignment permanent o If the transfer is a permanent one, it can only be affected with the consent of the judge and by extension of a new appointment by the President. (3) Assignment within the same region o The station of the judge is the region where he is assigned by law to hold regular sessions. Therefore, there is no need for the Supreme Court or the President to approve the reassignment to another branch of the same region.

Section 5. (4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

An example of this is the transfer of Andal Jrs case to Quezon City. According to Davanadera, they have to transfer the hearing due to security reasons. Also, the witnesses were hesitant about the hearing conducted in Cotabato because they were afraid for their and their families lives.

Section 5. (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.

Rule-making power of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court has been obligated by the Constitution with full legislative authority to promulgate the Rules of Court concerning the following: 1. Protection and enforcement of constitutional rights 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

A r t i c l e V I I I J u d i c i a l D e p a r t m e n t | 10

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain disapproved by the Supreme Court. Pleading Practice of law Procedure Admission to the practice of law or to the bar Integrated bar (the inclusion in the Roll of Attorneys) Legal assistance to the underprivileged

effective

unless

Limitations on the rule-making power of the Supreme Court 1. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases; 2. They shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade; 3. They shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Substantive Laws are laws which create, define, and regulate rights concerning life, liberty, or property, or the power of agencies and instrumentalities for the administration of public affairs. Some of these substantive laws include the Philippine Constitution, Civil Code, Code of Commerce, Insurance Code, Corporation Code, National Internal Revenue Code and the Revised Penal Code. Substantive rights are basic human rights possessed by people in an ordered society and include rights granted by natural law as well as substantive law. Substantive rights involve a right to the substance of being human (life, liberty, happiness), rather than a right to a procedure to enforce that right, which is defined by procedural law. More of these substantive rights are provided under Article III (Bill of Rights) of the same Constitution. Procedural laws are the part of law which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their violation. Procedural law is governed by the Rules of Court promulgated by the Supreme Court and by special laws. Procedural rights, meanwhile, are the remedies or means by which an aggrieved party, whose rights have been violated, may bring the case to trial. These procedural rights include: access to information, participation in decision-making, access to justice and judicial review, substantive redress and non-interference with international petition (where applicable).

Section 5. (6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.

This subsection talks about the safeguards of independence that is appointed to all officials and employees with the Civil Service Law. In the previous constitutions, the Judiciary is subject to the administrative supervision of the

A r t i c l e V I I I J u d i c i a l D e p a r t m e n t | 11

president, through his/her alter ego in the Department of Justice. The lack of independence in the exercise of administrative supervision by the Judiciary led to many cases being politically influenced.

Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have the administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.

The judicial branch of government is made up of the Supreme Court and several other lower courts established by law. Only the Supreme Court, however, is a constitutional court - its creation being provided by the Constitution under Section1, Article VIII. Its duty is to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable (Art. VIII Sec. 1 (2)). Since the Supreme Court is the highest court in the Philippines, it has the legitimate power to supervise all other courts like the Court of Appeals which consists of a Presiding Justice and fifty Associate Justice who shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines; the Regional Trial Courts that shall exercise original jurisdiction; the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.

Section 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 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. (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.

Qualifications of Supreme Court and lower collegiate courts justices Member of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court must be a naturalborn citizen of the Philippines. Moreover, 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. Collegiate Courts: Sandiganbayan Court of Tax Appeals

A r t i c l e V I I I J u d i c i a l D e p a r t m e n t | 12

The practice of law is defined as follows: Whoever, (1) In a representative capacity appears as an advocate or draws papers, pleadings or documents, or performs any act in connection with proceedings pending or prospective before a court or a body, board, committee, commission or officer constituted by law or having authority to take evidence in or settle or determine controversies in the exercise of the judicial power of the state or any subdivision thereof; or (2) For a consideration, reward or pecuniary benefit, present or anticipated, direct or indirect, advises or counsels another as to secular law, or draws or procures or assists in the drawing of a paper, document or instrument affecting or relating to secular rights; or (3) For a consideration, reward or pecuniary benefit, present or anticipated, direct or indirect, does any act in a representative capacity in behalf of another tending to obtain or secure for such other the prevention or the redress of a wrong or the enforcement or establishment of a right; or (4) As a vocation, enforces, secures, settles, adjusts or compromises defaulted, controverted or disputed accounts, claims or demands between persons with neither of whom he is in privity or in the relation of employer and employee in the ordinary sense; is practicing law

Qualifications for other court judges may be set by Congress, but not for Supreme Court Congress is allowed to modify qualifications of lower collegiate court judges, or even adding them, but not to remove any qualification specified under the Constitution. However, qualifications for being a Justice of the Supreme Court cannot be altered by Congress as it is given under the limitations of the power of Congress.

How to check whether a judicial agent is of proven competence and integrity, among others According to the Judicial and Bar Council, justices and judges shall be evaluated according to: 1. Competence, to be measured by a. Educational preparation b. Experience c. Performance

A r t i c l e V I I I J u d i c i a l D e p a r t m e n t | 13

d. Other accomplishments 2. Integrity, by means of: a. Evidence of integrity b. Background check c. Testimony of parties d. Anonymous testimonies 3. Probity and independence 4. Sound physical, mental, and emotional condition, by means of a. Medical documents b. Psychological/psychiatric tests

Section 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court 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. (2) 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) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex officio of the Council and shall keep a record of its proceedings. (4) The regular Members of the Council shall receive such emoluments as may be determined by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall provide in its annual budget the appropriations for the Council. (5) 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.

As stated in Article VIII section 8, the President appoints a Judicial and Bar Council by a non-political process of election and appointment with the consent of the Commission on Appointments in Congress. However, this power

A r t i c l e V I I I J u d i c i a l D e p a r t m e n t | 14

of the Congress to confirm the appointments to the judiciary was sometimes a source of horse trading and political haggling. The Judicial Bar and Council 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 which shall serve for four years, a professor of law for three years, a retired Member of the Supreme Court for two years, and a representative of the private sector for one year. The regular members of the Council shall be appointed for a term of four years. Although it is not mentioned by the constitution as a qualification, a member of the council must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence. For every vacancy, the president shall appoint from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council. The president cannot appoint someone whose name is not listed but he can ask for additional nominees. Such appointments need no confirmation from the Commission on Appointments. Section 8 of Article 8 also states that the Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex officio of the Council and shall keep a record of its proceedings, the regular Members of the Council shall receive such emoluments as may be determined by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall provide in its annual budget the appropriations for the Council and 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.

Section 9. 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. For the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointments within ninety days from the submission of the list.

Section 10. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and of judges of lower courts, shall be fixed by law. During their continuance in office, their salary shall not be decreased.

Section 10 of Article VIII talks about the distribution of salary for the Justices of our Supreme Court. Php 240,000.00 will initially be given annually to the Chief Justice and Php 204,000.00 to the associate justices until the Congress provides otherwise. According to the Prohibition against reduction, the

A r t i c l e V I I I J u d i c i a l D e p a r t m e n t | 15

compensation is fixed by law and is effective down to the lower courts. The purpose of this prohibition is to assure judicial independence. This is to guarantee that judges need not fear that their salary be reduced if they render an unpopular or controversial decision.

Section 11. 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. 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.

This section emphasizes two important points: Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts retires at the age of seventy (70). The Supreme Court has the power to discipline judges of lower courts or order their dismissal by the vote of the majority of its members.

Tenure of Office of Members of the Judiciary 1.) Importance of security of tenure Section 11 insures the security of tenure of the members of the Supreme Court and the judges of lower courts. They shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy (70) years or become incapacitated, physically or mentally, to discharge the duties of their office. Security of tenure dependent upon good behavior has long been considered as an indispensable guarantee to keep judicial independence, the cornerstone of all systems of effective administration of justice.

2.) Retirement age The retirement age in the 1973 Constitution was reduced from the original seventy (70) to sixty-five (65) years which is the retirement age of other nonelective government officials and employees, and restored again to seventy (70). The reduction was obviously intended to afford members the judiciary ample time to enjoy the benefits of their retirement from the service and to give opportunity to comparatively younger men to occupy the Bench. On the other hand, it will deprive the country of the services of members of the judiciary who have acquired experience, wisdom and expertise in their work but are still

A r t i c l e V I I I J u d i c i a l D e p a r t m e n t | 16

capable physically and mentally to discharge the duties of their office although past the age of sixty-five (65). In fact, many retirees have remained hale and healthy and mentally sharp years after retiement at 70.

3.) Termination of right to hold office The Constitution provides for the impeachment of the members of the Supreme Court. (Art. XI, Sec. 2.) As for judges of lower courts, Congress has the power to prescribe the procedure and the causes for their removal. Congress may also validly provide for the process of determining the incapacity of a judge to discharge the duties of his office.

4.) Abolition of office It is well-known rule that valid abolition of offices is neither removal nor seperation of the incumbents. Removal from office is to be distinguished from termination by virtue of the abolition of the office. In case of removal, there is an office with an occupant who would thereby lose his position. After the abolition of an office, there is in law no occupant. Thus, the question of any impairment of security of tenure does not raise. This ruling does not apply to the judiciary. Section 2 expressly provides that no law shall be passed reorganizing the judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure. The prohibition seeks to prevent the use of such law, under the guise of reorganization, to remove members of the judiciary who refuse to kowtow to the powers that be.

Meaning of good behavior Good behavior is conduct authorized by law. So, mere mistake or error of judgment is not a breach of good behavior, within the meaning of the Constitution, to justify expulsion from office. (1) With reference to the members of the Supreme Court, it implies that they have not committed any of the offenses which are grounds for impeachment. (see Art. XI, Sec. 2.) (2) As regards judges of lower courts, the determination by the Supreme Court as to whether there has been a deviation or not from the requirement of good behavior is conclusive since it alone has the power to order their dismissal. Aside from the grounds for impeachment, judges may be removed from office for gross ignorance of the law, incompetence, and immorality (e.g, maintaining a mistress).

A r t i c l e V I I I J u d i c i a l D e p a r t m e n t | 17

Disciplining or dismissal of judges of lower courts The present Constitution gives to the Supreme Court the power to discipline judges of lower courts, including justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandinganbayan. By a vote of a majority of the member who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, it can order their dismissal.

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.

In the past administration, members of the judiciary were sometimes designated to executive positions in the government, at the same time retaining their rank or seniority as such members. This practice is no longer possible under the new Constitution. Article VIII, Section 8 prohibits the designation by the President of members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law to any agency performing quasi-judicial and/or administrative functions. The following reasons may be given for the prohibition: (1) Such designation violates the doctrine of separation of powers between the judicial and executive branches of the government; (2) It may compromise the independence of the members in the performance of their judicial functions; and (3) With so many cases pending in courts, the practice will result in further delay in their disposition. The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals particularly, which are already burdened with heavy load of cases, could never reduce, much less eliminate, the backlog in their dockets if their members could be assigned to non-judicial agencies.

Section 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 of the opinion of the Court. A certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties. Any Member who took no part, or

A r t i c l e V I I I J u d i c i a l D e p a r t m e n t | 18

dissented, or abstained from a decision or resolution, must state the reason therefor. The same requirements shall be observed by all lower collegiate courts.

Procedure in rendering decisions Section 13 prescribes the manner by which the conclusions of the Supreme Court and all lower collegiate courts in any case submitted to them for decision shall be arrived at. It requires the issuance of a certification of compliance by the Chief Justice or the Presiding Judge, and copies of such documents must be furnished to the parties. It shall not include the identity of the member to whom the case has been assigned. This procedure has been placed to avoid the practice of assigning a case to a justice for study and decision by him alone, and the other justices signing the decision for formality purposes. Every justice is obliged to take part in the consideration and decision-making process whether the court sits en banc or in division. After which, one judge is assigned to write an opinion about the case.

Requirement in case of non-participation, dissent or abstention Any Supreme Court or lower collegiate justice who did not take participation in the decision (either by mere absence, or intentional abstinence) or have opposing view shall state the reason of its act. When a justice abstains from the decision-making process, he may cause the results of the process be different from expected. Abstained votes could complicate the process, especially when the tallies for the yeas and nays have tied. If a justice meanwhile has an opposing view from the rest, he/she must be able to explain the bases for the view. This way, justices opinions are given regard and merit. It gives the justices another perspective for their decision, and it may, by value of merit, be considered as the new decision.

A r t i c l e V I I I J u d i c i a l D e p a r t m e n t | 19

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.

In Section 14, the Constitution gives the courts the obligation that it must clearly state the bases of its decisions: the facts, statutes and other related documents that support their verdict. Decisions are the judgments or verdicts of the court on cases, after the positions of the involved parties are presented, including evidences, testimonies and claims using existing statutes. The Constitution requires all courts to state both the factual and legal bases of its decisions to ensure transparency and utmost objectivity of the decision given by court. If these bases are not strictly stated, any involved party may raise it to a higher court, which also delays the delivery of justice. As cited in Supreme Court jurisprudence from a case brought up by NICOS Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals judge Victorino Evangelista in 1992: It is a requirement of due process that the parties to a litigation be informed of how it was decided, with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court. The court cannot simply say that judgment is rendered in favor of X and against Y and just leave it at that without any justification whatsoever for its action. The losing party is entitled to know why he lost, so he may appeal to a higher court, if permitted, should he believe that the decision should be reversed. A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based leave the parties in the dark as to how it was reached and is especially prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to pinpoint the possible errors of the court for review by a higher tribunal. However, with regards to petitions for review and motions for reconsideration, only a sufficient legal basis is to be stated as to why the petition was rejected for the courts to save time. In contrast, when a motion is approved, the courts need not to explicitly mention how it came up with such decision.

A r t i c l e V I I I J u d i c i a l D e p a r t m e n t | 20

Section 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts. (2) A case or matter 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. (3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case or matter, and served upon the parties. The certification shall state why a decision or resolution has not been rendered or issued within said period. (4) 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.

Maximum Periods for Rendition of Decisions 1. From date of submission for decision or resolution The various courts must decide or resolve case or matter submitted thereto within the following periods from the date of submission. a) Supreme Court within (24) months b) The Court of Appeals and other collegiate appellate courts (12) months unless reduced by the Supreme Court c) Lower Courts (3) months unless reduced by the Supreme Court 2. Where no decision or resolution has been rendered or issued If the period has elapsed a certification that has been signed by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge must be issued a copy of which is required to be attached to the record of the case, and be served upon the parties,

A r t i c l e V I I I J u d i c i a l D e p a r t m e n t | 21

stating the reasons why a decision has not been issued within the said period.

Time Limitations Mandatory 1. Purpose The time limitations established above are mandatory. They are intended to ease up the clogging of court dockets and implement the right of party litigants to speedy justice under the familiar aphorism that justice delayed is justice denied. 2. Consequence of violation - Violation of Section 15 by the Supreme Court will constitute culpable violation of the Constitution, a ground for impeachment of the members of the Supreme Court.

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.

Annual report The Supreme Court shall submit an annual report to the President and Congress for the two bodies to be guided as to how the Judiciary functioned during the past twelve months. It will also aid the president to properly allocate the funds the Judiciary needs for the next year, and for Congress to create more court branches for them to accommodate more cases at the same time.

Most recent Annual Report available for publishing The 2011 Annual Report included the names and backgrounds of the Chief Justices and Justices and the officials of the Supreme Court. It contained the highlights of the Calendar Year (CY) 2013 Budget Proposals of the Supreme Court of the Philippines and the Lower Courts SCPLC). The 2011 Supreme Court Reform Projects were also included. In 2011, the Court sought to improve already established judicial reform programs by either adding new components or enhancing aspects of the original programs to provide better judicial services to the public. The attached institutions namely the Philippine Judicial Academy, Judicial and Bar Council and the Presidential Electoral Tribunal were discussed as well as the 2011 Supreme Court significant decisions and rules wherein the Court flexed its constitutional rule making

A r t i c l e V I I I J u d i c i a l D e p a r t m e n t | 22

power concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all courts. The Annual report further comprised the significant accomplishments of Supreme Court Committees and Technical Working Groups and the significant rulings which stated that the Supreme Court in 2011 continued to discipline the erring members of the Bench and the Bar as well as court personnel who violated the norms of public accountability or diminished the faith of the people in the Judiciary. The employees welfare and benefits were even highlighted.