CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

FINALS

ART VIII - JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Sec. 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.

What are the lower courts mentioned?

(1) the lower courts which are mentioned in sec. 2 of the Judicial Reorganization act of 1980 are
the following:
a. Court of Appeals - shall consist of a Presiding Justixe and fifty (50) associate justices;
shall exercise its powers and functions and duties, through 17 divisions, each composed of 3
members.
b. RTC - distributed in 20 judicial regions
c. MTC - established in each metropolitan area
d. MCTC - established in each circuit composing such cities and municipalities as are
grouped together pursuant to law.
(2) The following that are not mentioned:
a. Sandiganbayan - PD 1606
b. Court of Tax Appeals - RA 1125
c. Sharia District Courts - PD 1083 Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines
d. Sharia Circuit Courts - i.d.

Three points to remember:

1. The abuse of discretion, as alleged, must be grave which amounts to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
2. The alleged grave abuse of discretion will have yet to be determined by the courts of justice,
particularly by the Supreme Court.
3. That if indeed it is true that there exists a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction, our courts of justice, particularly the Supreme Court, can check even Congres
and the President of the Republic of the Philippines, or even Constitutional bodies because they
fall within the phrase any branch or instrumentality of the government.

Grave Abuse of Discretion

 where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice
or personal hostility amounting to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the
duty enjoined or not to act at all in contemplation of law (People vs Marave, 11 SCRA 618).

Sec. 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 Sec. 5 thereof.

No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of
its members.

The Congress has the power to create new courts subject to the following limitations:
1. as long as they do not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases in Section 5.
2. as long as they do not pass a law reorganizing the judiciary when it undermines the security of
tenure of its members.

Sec. 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.

Limitation to the Power of Congress

- cannot reduce the appropriations for the judiciary below the amount appropriated for the
previous year and, after approval, the amount appropriated shall be automatically and regularly
released.

Sec. 4. Composition and Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

What are the cases which shall be heard by the Supreme Court En Banc?
1. All cases involving the constitutionality of TIEL (a Treaty, Intl Agreement, Executive
Agreement, Law)
2. All other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc.
3. All cases involving the constitutionality, application or operation of:
a. Presidential Decrees
b. Proclamations
c. Orders
d. Instructions
e. Ordinances
f. and other regulations

Sec. 5 & 6. Powers of the Supreme Court

May Congress diminish the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?
Congress may not the jurisdiction granted by the Constitution itself but it may diminish the
jurisdiction granted by a statute.

Power of Judicial Review or Judicial Supremacy

It is the assertion of the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to the Judiciary by the
Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for
the parties in an actual controversy the right which that instrument secures and guarantees to them.

Requisites of Judicial Review or Inquiry

No constitutional question will be heard and decided by our courts unless the ff. Requisites
are complied with:
1. There must be an actual case or controversy;
2. the question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party;
3. the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and
4. the decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case
itself (Macasino vs. National Housing Authority, 224 SCRA 236). lis mota

What are the limits on the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning pleading,
practice, and procedure and admission to the practice of law?
The Constitution imposes the following limitations and guidelines: (1) they 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) and they shall not diminish, increase, or modify
substantive rights.

Can our Courts decide Political Questions?

Courts have no jurisdiction to pass upon political questions.

Difference between a political question and a justiciable question

POLITICAL QUESTION JUSTICIABLE QUESTION

A political question is a question of policy. It refers to
those questions which, under the Constitution, are
to be decided by the people in their sovereign
authority, or in regard to which full discretionary
authority has been delegated to the legislative or
executive branch of the government. (Tanada vs
Cuenco)
Political Questions are neatly associated with the
wisdom, not the legality of a particular measure.
where the vortex of the controversy refers to the
legality or validity of the contested act, that matter is
definitely justiciable or non-political.
The Supreme Court explained this further in
Sanidad v. COMELEC, thus: What is in the heels of
the Court is not the wisdom of the act of the
incumbent President in proposing amendments to
the Constitution but his constitutional authority to
preform such act to assume the power of the
constituent assembly. Whether the amending
process confers on the President that power to
propose amendments is, therefore, a downright
justiciable question. Should the contrary be formed,
the activation of the President would normally be a
brutun filmed. If the Constitution provides how it will
be amended, the judiciary as the interpreter of that
Constitution, can declare whether the procedure
followed or the authority assumed was valid or not.

Example:
1. The calling of the Snap presidential elections
on Feb 7, 1986 by the Batasang Pambansa
(Phil. Bar Association v. Comelec)
2. The authority of the Senate to punish and detain
a witness for contempt is within its discretionary
power and authority it is therefore a political
question. For this reason, the SC refused to
order the release of the witness.
the determination of whether or not the appointee
has the prescribed qualifications
The determination of whether or not a suspension
for disorderly behavior is supported by the required
2/3 votes
The determination of constitutionality or legality of
an act

2 Effects of a statute which is declared unconstitutional (schools of thought)

1. Orthodox View
- article 7, CC, When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former
shall be void and the latter shall govern. Under this view, the unconstitutional act, whether
legislative or executive, confers no rights, imposes no duties and affords no protection. Any
attempted exercise of power in violation of its provisions is to extent unwarranted and null
(Fernandez vs. Cuerva)
2. Operative Fact Doctrine (check Bernas)

Is the power of judicial review exclusively vested in the SC?

NO. Inferior courts have the power of judicial review but whatever its judgment may be appealed to
the SC for final determination of the issue involved and which is raised as a ground of appeal.

Rule on the Writ of Amparo (Amparo is a Mexican word for protection) Sec. 5(5) of art. 8
What is the rationale?
It is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security has been violated or is
threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a
private individual or entity.
Aside from the writ of amparo, what are the rules which the Sc may promulgate to give teeth and
strength to writ of amparo?
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA - will compel the government and military officials to allow families of
victims of enforced disappearances access to official documents by invoking the right of truth. the
said writ has been used in solving the problem of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances in
Latin American countries under military dictatorship.

Sec. 7 General qualifications of every member of the Judiciary

Sec 8 The Judicial and Bar Council

Function
It 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.
Who supervises? The Supreme Court
Composition:
1. Chief Justice as the ex officio Chairman
2. Sec of Justice as ex officio member
3. Rep of Congress as ex officio member
4. Rep of Integrated Bar
5. A professor of Law
6. A Retired member of the SC
7. Rep of Private Sector
(sec 8(1), art 8)

It has been said that the judicial and bar council is intended to minimize, if not remove, the exercise
of political influence in the appointment of judges and justices, is this a reality? Explain.
In reality, however, the influence of the politicians is still being felt especially in the appointment of
judges and justices of lower courts.
Strictly speaking, the President has the discretion to appoint justices of the Supreme Court. In fact,
experience shows that even the practitioners and academia's have been appointed to the SC and they
have even became Chief Justices. The only consolation is these appointees are known to be brilliant
lawyers and are of proven competence, integrity, probity and independency.

Sec. 9. Procedure in the appointment of Justices and Judges

Is there a difference between the period of the appointment of Supreme Court Justices and the
judges of the lower courts?
Yes. In the Supreme Court, any vacancy shall be filled within 90 days from the occurrence thereof
(sec. 4, Art. 8). for the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointment within ninety days
from the submission of the list (sec 9, art 8).
Sec. 10. Salary
Are the salaries of Judges subject to income tax?
The imposition of income tax on the salaries of judges were declared unconstitutional in Perfecto v.
Meer on the ground that to do so would result in the reduction of the compensation. And yet, in
Nitafan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, it was held that the salaries of judges may be subject
to income tax.

Sec. 11 Security of Tenure

Supreme Court Justices and Lower Court Judges: shall hold office during good behavior until they
reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. This
also means that justices of the SC shall continue in office as long as they are not guilty of any
offense which is a constitutional ground for impeachment, or until they reach the age of seventy
(70) years.

Can statutory courts be abolished by Congress?

The Supreme Court held that statutory courts may be abolished by Congress as long as the abolition
is done in good faith.
In the early case of Ocampo v. Secretary of Justice, the SC ruled that the right of judges to his full
tenure does not depend alone upon his good conduct, but also upon the discretion of Congress wen
it decides to exercise its power to create, reorganize or even abolish courts, if this necessary for the
attainment of public good.