Supreme Court of the Philippines

The Supreme Court of the Philippines , is the highest court in the Philippines. It is presided over
by a Chief Justice and is composed of fifteen (15) Justices, including the Chief Justice. Pursuant to
the Constitution, the Supreme Court has "administrative supervision over all courts and the
personnel thereof"

Composition
A person must meet the following requirements in order to be appointed to the Supreme Court:
(1) natural-born citizenship; (2) at least 40 years old; and (3) must have been for fifteen years or
more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines. [3] An additional
constitutional requirement, though less precise in nature, is that a judge "must be a person of proven
competence, integrity, probity, and independence."[4] Upon a vacancy in the Court, whether for the
position of Chief Justice or Associate Justice, thePresident fills the vacancy by appointing a person
from a list of at least 3 nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council.
Beginning with the 1935 Constitution, Supreme Court Justices are obliged to retire upon reaching
the mandatory retirement age of 70.[6] Some Justices had opted to retire before reaching the age of
70, such as Florentino Feliciano, who retired at 67 to accept appointment to the Appellate Body of
the World Trade Organization and Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez who retired at 68 due to health
reasons.[7] The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines provides that: "Section 11, Article VIII. The
Members of the Supreme Court xxx shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of
seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office."[1] Since, 1901, it was
only incumbentAssociate Justice Alicia Austria-Martinez who resigned for health reasons.

Adjudication
The powers of the Supreme Court are defined in Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. These
functions may be generally divided into two judicial functions andadministrative functions. The
administrative functions of the Court pertain to the supervision and control over the Philippine
judiciary and its employees, as well as over members of the Philippine bar. Pursuant to these
functions, the Court is empowered to order a change of venue of trial in order to avoid a miscarriage
of justice and to appoint all officials and employees of the judiciary.[11] The Court is further authorized
to promulgate the rules for admission to the practice of law, for legal assistance to the
underprivileged, and the procedural rules to be observed in all courts. [12]
The more prominent role of the Court is located in the exercise of its judicial functions. Section 1 of
Article VIII contains definition of judicial power that had not been found in previous constitutions. The
judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by
law. [13] This judicial power is exercised through the judiciarys primary role of adjudication, which
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.
Hence, Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution states in part that:Judicial power includes the
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 the
government.

Cases
The Court is authorized to sit either en banc or in divisions of 3, 5 or 7 members. Since the 1970s,
the Court has constituted itself in 3 divisions with 5 members each. A majority of the cases are heard
and decided by the divisions, rather than the court en banc. However, the Constitution requires that
the Court hear en banc[a]ll cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive
agreement, as well as those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential
decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations. [5] The Court en
banc also decides cases originally heard by a division when a majority vote cannot be reached
within the division. The Court also has the discretion to hear a case en banc even if no constitutional
issue is involved, as it typically does if the decision would reverse precedent or presents novel or
important questions.

Appellate review[edit]
Far and away the most common mode by which a case reaches the Supreme Court is through
an appeal from a decision rendered by a lower court. Appealed cases generally originate
from lawsuits or criminal indictments filed and tried before the trial courts. These decisions of the trial
courts may then be elevated on appeal to the Court of Appeals, or more rarely, directly to the
Supreme Court if only questions of law are involved. Apart from decisions of the Court of Appeals,
the Supreme Court may also directly review on appeal decisions rendered by
the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals. Decisions rendered by administrative agencies
are not directly appealable to the Supreme Court, they must be first challenged before the Court of
Appeals. However, decisions of theCommission on Elections may be elevated directly for review to
the Supreme Court, although the procedure is not, strictly speaking, in the nature of an appeal.

Original jurisdiction[edit]
The other mode by which a case reaches the Supreme Court is through an original petition filed
directly with the Supreme Court, in cases where the Constitutionestablishes original jurisdiction
with the Supreme Court. Under Section 5(1), Article VIII of the Constitution, these are cases
affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and corpus. Resort
to certiorari, prohibition and mandamus may be availed of only if "there is no appeal, or any plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law".