THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM

Judicial power rests with the Supreme Court and the lower courts, as may be
established by law (Art. VIII, sec. 1). The judiciary enjoys fiscal autonomy. Its
appropriation may not be reduced by the legislature below the appropriated amount the
previous year, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released. (Art. VIII,
sec. 3). This provision may now face construction or interpretation in line with what the
Secretary of Budget and Management call “ Transparency and Accountability Primordial
to Fiscal Autonomy .” This involves the release of funds of unfilled positions in
agencies enjoying fiscal autonomy such as Congress, Judiciary, Constitutional
Commissions and the Ombudsman. The last annual budget from the government
represents less than one (1%) of the entire budget of the Philippine government. In
1984, President Ferdiand Marcos passed Presidential Decree No. 1949, a special
fund popularly called The Judiciary Development Fund (JDF). It is a special fund
established “to help ensure and guarantee the independence of the Judiciary as
mandated by the Constitution and public policy.” This fund is sourced from the legal
fees collected by the courts and 80% is for the cost of living allowances of the members
and personnel of the Judiciary and 20% is for the acquisition, maintenance and repair
of office equipment and facilities.

The Rules of Court of the Philippines as amended and the rules and regulations issued
by the Supreme Court define the rules and procedures of the Judiciary. These rules and
regulations are in the form of Administrative Matters, Administrative Orders, Circulars,
Memorandum Circulars, Memorandum Orders and OCA Circulars. To inform the
members of the Judiciary, legal profession and the public of these rules and regulations,
the Supreme Court disseminates this rules and regulations to all courts, publishes
important ones in newspapers of general circulation, prints in book or pamphlet form
and now downloads them in theSupreme Court and the Supreme Court E-Library
websites .

Department of Justice Administrative Order No. 162 dated August 1, 1946 provided for
the Canon of Judicial Ethics . Supreme Court of the Philippines promulgated a
new Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary effective June 1, 2004 (A.M.
No. 03-05-01-SC), which was published in two newspapers of general circulation on
May 3, 2004 (Manila Bulletin & Philippine Star) and available on its website and
the Supreme Court E-Library website .

The Supreme Court promulgated on June 21, 1988 the Code of Professional
Responsibility for the legal profession. The draft was prepared by the Committee on
Responsibility, Discipline and Disbarment of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

A Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC) was adopted on April
13, 2004, effective June 1, 2004, published in two newspapers of general circulation
on April 26, 2004 (Manila Bulletin & Philippine Star) and available at the websites.

Supreme Court of the Philippines :

The barangay chiefs exercised judicial authority prior to the arrival of Spaniards in 1521.
During the early years of the Spanish period, judicial powers were vested upon Miguel
Lopez de Legaspi, the first governor general of the Philippines where he administered
civil and criminal justice under the Royal Order of August 14, 1569.

The Royal Audencia was established on May 5, 1583 , composed of a president,

four oidores (justices) and a fiscal. The Audencia exercised both administrative and
judicial functions. Its functions and structure were modified in 1815 when its president
was replaced by a chief justice and the number of justices was increased. It came to be
known as the Audencia Territorial de Manila with two branches, civil and criminal.
Royal Decree issued July 24, 1861 converted it to a purely judicial body wherein its
decisions were appealable to the Supreme Court of the Philippines to the Court of Spain
in Madrid. A territorial Audencia in Cebu andAudencia for criminal cases in Vigan were
organized on February 26, 1898. The Audencias were suspended by General Wesley
Merrit when a military government was established after Manila fell to American forces
in 1898. Major General Elwell S. Otis re-established the Audencia on May 29, 1899 by
virtue of General Order No. 20. Said Order provided for six Filipino members of
the Audencia . Act No. 136 abolished the Audenciaand established the present
Supreme Court on June 11, 1901 with Cayetano Arellano as the first Chief Justice
together with associate justices, the majority of whom were American. Filipinization of
the Supreme Court started only during the Commonwealth, 1935. Administrative Code
of 1917 provided for a Supreme Court with a Chief Justice and eight associate
Justices. With the ratification of the 1935 Constitution, the membership was increased
to 11 with two divisions of five members each. The 1973 Constitution further increased
its membership to 15 with two (2) divisions.

Pursuant to the provisions of the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court is composed of
a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices who shall serve until the age of seventy
(70). The Court may sit En Banc or in its three (3) divisions composed of five members
each. A vacancy must be filled up by the President within ninety (90) days of
occurrence from the list submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council. Constitution
(1987),Article VIII, sec. 4 (2) explicitly provides for the cases that must be heard En
Banc and sec. 4 (3) f or cases that may be heard by divisions.

Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 transferred from the Department of Justice to the
Supreme Court the administrative supervision of all courts and their personnel. This
was affirmed by Constitution(1987), Art. VIII, sec. 6. To effectively discharge this
constitutional mandate, The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) was created under
Presidential Decree No. 828, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 842, and its
functions further strengthened by a Resolution of the Supreme Court En Banc dated
October 24, 1996. Its principal function is the supervision and administration of the
lower courts throughout the Philippines and all their personnel. It reports and
recommends to the Supreme Court all actions that affect the lower court management.
The OCA is headed by the Court Administrator, three (3) Deputy Court Administrators
and three (3) Assistant Court Administrators.
According to the 1987 Constitution , Art. VIII, sec. 5, the Supreme Court exercises the
following powers:
Exercise jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, and over petitions for certiorari , prohibition , mandamus , quo warranto ,
and habeas corpus .

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:

 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.
 All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any
penalty imposed in relation thereto.
 All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
 All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
 All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
 Assign temporarily judges of lower court to other stations as public interest may
require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the
consent of the judge concerned.
 Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
 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 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.
 Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil
Service Law (Sec. 5, id.).

Supreme Court has promulgated the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court ( As
amended in Resolutions dated July 6, 2010, August 3, 2010, January 17, 2012,
September 18, 2012) ), to govern the internal operations of the Court and as a guide to
the exercise of its judicial and administrative functions). The last revision of the Internal
Rules (A.M. No, 10-4-20-SC (Revised)) was in March 12, 2013).

The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court provides that cases may be heard on oral
arguments upon defined issues. The constitutionality of laws, treaties and other
agreements are defined issues. The procedure defined by section 3 is as follows: “The
petitioner shall argue first, followed by the respondent and the amicus curiae , if any.
Rebuttal of oral arguments may be allowed by the Chief Justice or the Chairperson. If
any, the Court may invite amicus curiae. The constitutionality of two significant laws
has been decided after a series of oral arguments. Republic Act No. 10354 –
“Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 or RH LAW too years
before it became a law. One primary consideration is that the Philippines is a
Catholic/Christian country. The constitutionality of the RH law was assailed in the
consolidated case of Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr., (G.R. No. 204819, April 08, 2014). The
Court declared that the law is constitutional. The importance of religion and the
Constitution was laid down at the very start of the decision of Justice Jose Mendoza,
and I quote:

“Freedom of religion was accorded preferred status by the framers of our fundamental
law. And this Court has consistently affirmed this preferred status, well aware that it is
“designed to protect the broadest possibly liberty of conscience, to all each man to
believe as his conscience directs, to profess his beliefs, and to live as he believes he
ought to live, consistent with the liberty of others and with the common good.”

The constitutionality of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No.10175
passed on September 12, 2012 was assailed in the consolidated case of Disini, Jr. v.
The Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014.

The constitutionality of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), an agreement with the
United States, was question in the consolidated case of BAYAN ( Bagong Alyansang
Makabayan ) v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000. Although this case
declared the agreement constitutional, cases involving this agreement are being filed.
The case of Sombilon v. Romulo, G.R. No. 175888, February 11, 2009, pertains to the
custody of defendant Lance Corporal (L/CPL) Daniel Smith, a member of the United
States Visiting Forces who was accused of rape. Another case involving Cpl. Scott
Pemberton, member of the United States Visiting Forces was filed before the Regional
Trial Court of Olongapo City for the murder of a transgender. Cpl. Pemberton was
heavily guarded by both United States and Filipino soldiers and has undergone
mandatory fingerprinting and mug shorts but arraignment has not yet been scheduled.

Another agreement between Philippines and the United States, the Enhanced Defense
Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) has been question in
consolidated petitions pertions. The Supreme Court has started last November 18,
2014 to hold oral arguments on these consolidated petitions.

Recent cases filed in the Supreme Court involve the use of government funds in the two
co-equal branches of government, the Legislature and the Executive. The Belgica v.
Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2003, involves the use of the Priority
Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) by the members of the Legislative Department.
In the decision of Justice Perlas-Bernabe, the concept and the history of the pork barrel
system was discussed. The Araullo v. Aquino III, G. R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014 on the
other hand assailed the constitutionality of the Disbursement Acceleration Program
(DAP), National Budget Circular (NBC) No. 541, and related issuances of the
Department of Budget and Management (DBM) implementing the DAP of the
Executive Department. The Supreme Court decided that use of the Priority
Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of the Legislative Department and the
Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) of the Executive Department are both
unconstitutional. Plunder cases relating to the use of the Priority Development
Assistance Fund (PDAF) have been filed by the Office of the Ombudsman at the
Sandiganbatan against three incumbent Senators, Senators Juan Ponce Enrile,
Ramon Revilla, Jr. and Jose P. Ejercito-Estrada. All the three incumbent Senators are
under detention.

The Supreme Court website includes the petitions, oral arguments, audio recording and
advisories of landmark decisions like those previously mentioned.

The Supreme Court has adopted and promulgated the Rules of Court for the protection
and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleadings and practice and procedure in all
courts, and the admission in the practice of law. In line with this mandate of the Rules
of Court and extrajudicial killing and disappearances, the Supreme Court passed two
important Resolutions: the Rule on the Writ of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC), approved
on September 25, 2007 and effective on October 24, 2007, and the Rule on the Writ of
Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-1-16--SC), approved on January 22, 2008 and effective
February 2, 2008. The “ Writ of Amparo is a remedy available to any person whose
right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful
act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity. This
writ shall cover extrajudicial killing and enforced disappearances or threats. (sec.1)” The
Writ of Habeas data on the other hand “is a remedy available to any person whose right
to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or any private individual or entity engaged in
the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family,
home and correspondence of the aggrieved party” (section 1).

Writ of Kalikasan , a resolution on Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M.

No. 09-6-8-SC) was approved on April 13, 2010 and was to take effect on April 29,
2010, fifteen (15) days following its publication in a newspaper of general circulation.
This rule covers civil and criminal actions brought before the Regional Trial Courts,
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts involving
the enforcement or violations on the existing environmental and other related laws and
regulations, conservation, development, preservation, protection and utilization of the
environment and natural resources, promulgated during the American period such as
Act No. 3572 approved on November 26, 1929 until the present Republic such as
Republic Act No. 9637 approved on May 13, 2009. The Courts designated to try
these cases are called “Green Courts.”

A Writ of Kalikasan was issued with a Temporary Environmental Protection Order

(TEPO) was issued by the Supreme Court in the case of “West Tower Condominium
Corporation, On Behalf of the Residents off West Tower Condo., And In
Representation of Barangay Bangkal, And Others, Including Minors and Generations
Yet Unborn vs. First Philippine Industrial Corporation, First Gen Corporation And Their
Respective Board of Directors and Officers, John Does and Richard Does,” G.R. No.
194239, May 31, 2011. The case of Abrigo v. Swift, G.R. No. 206510, September 16,
2014, was filed when the USS Guardian ran aground on the northwest side of South
Shoal of the Tubbataha Reefs. Tubataha Reefs is declared as a Nature Park by law
(Republic Act No. 10067, approved April 6, 2010) and a World Heritage Site by the
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). A Writ of
Kalikasan petition with prayer for the Temporary Environmental Protection Order
(TEPO) under Rule 7 of A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, otherwise known as the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases (Rules) was filed for violations of environmental
laws and regulations. This case however takes into consideration involves international
responsibility. The USS Guardian was allowed to enter Philippine waters by pursuant
to the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) and “as a treaty privilege should be considered
as an act jure imperii .” The petition was dismissed. The Court stated and I quote:

“The Court defers to the Executive Branch on the matter of compensation and
rehabilitation measures through diplomatic channels. Resolution of these issues
impinges on our relations with another State in the context of common security interests
under the VFA. It is settled that “[t]he conduct of the foreign relations of our government
is committed by the Constitution to the executive and legislative—“the political”--
departments of the government, and the propriety of what may be done in the exercise
of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision.”

The Supreme Court has promulgated what can be considered as a landmark decision at
the start of 2015. The Risos-Vidal v. Commission on Elections and Joseph E. Estrada,
G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015, penned by Associate Justice Teresita L De Castro,
dismissed the disqualification case against the former President and now the elected
Mayor of Manila. The former President was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of
plunder. President Arroyo granted former President Estrada executive clemency or
pardon on October 25, 2007 on the grounds that the government has a policy to pardon
convicts who are 70 and above and that Estrada has already been on house of arrest
for 6 years. This disqualification case’ main contention was on this pardon extended
by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The Supreme Court En Banc voted 11-3 and
one abstention. Majority of the justices characterized the pardon as absolute and this
restored Estrada’s qualification to stand as candidate in the last mayoral election. This
decision upheld Estrada’s contention that President Arroyo’s pardon “restored his full
civil and political rights, including the right to seek public elective office.”

Amendments are promulgated through the Committee on Revision of Rules the Court
also issues administrative rules and regulations in the form of court issuances found in
the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court E-Library websites .

Draft personnel manual (A.M. No. 00-6-01-SC) was been submitted to the Court
En
Banc for action on March 29, 2011. In a Resolution of the Court En Banc dated
January
31, 2012, the Human Resource Manual formerly referred to as Personnel Manual, was
approved.
The Judicial and Bar Council was created by virtue of Constitution(1987), Art. VIII, sec.
8. under the supervision of the Supreme Court. Its principal function is to screen
prospective appointees to any judicial post. It is composed of the Chief Justice as ex-
officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice and representatives of 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 as members. The
Judicial and Bar Council has promulgated on October 31, 2000 its Rules (JBC-009) in
the performance of its function. The Supreme Court opined that in the case of
Jardeleza v. Sereno, The Judicial And Bar Council and Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 213181,
August 19, 2014, that the application of Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 to petitioner
violated the petitioners’ constitutionally guaranteed right to due process and having
garnered a majority vote of the JBC Members, declare that the petitioner be deemed
included in the short list submitted by respondent JBC to the President. The Supreme
Court further stated the need to “ respect to the interpretation and application of Section
2, Rule 10 of JBC-009.”

The JBC conducts live public interviews and has set guidelines for vacancy in the
Chief Justice, Associate Justices of the Supreme Court and Appellate Courts. JBC
Resolution No. 007 provides for wider publicity of notice of opening of nomination and
list of applicants for judicial positions.

The Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) is the “training school for justices, judge,
court personnel, lawyers and aspirants to judicial posts.” It was originally created by
the Supreme Court on March 16, 1996 by virtue of Administrative Order No. 35-96 and
was institutionalized on February 26, 1998 by virtue of Republic 8557. It is an important
component of the Supreme Court for its important mission on judicial education it to
p rovide opportunities to develop judicial competence, instill sound values, and form
constructive attitudes in its continuing pursuit of judicial excellence. No appointee to the
Bench may commence the discharge his adjudicative function without completing the
prescribed course in the Philippine Judicial
Academy (http://philja.judiciary.gov.ph/programs.html) Its organizational structure and
administrative set-up are provided for by the Supreme Court in its En Banc resolution
(Revised A.M. No. 01-1-04-SC-PHILJA). It has development partners . The PHILJA
Training Center is situated at Brgy. Silang, Crossing East, Tagaytay City.

The Philippine Mediation Center was organized “pursuant to Supreme Court En banc
Resolution A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA, dated October 16, 2001, and in line with the
objectives of the Action Program for Judicial Reforms (APJR) to decongest court
dockets, among others, the Court prescribed guidelines in institutionalizing and
implementing the mediation program in the Philippines. The same resolution designated
the Philippine Judicial Academy as the component unit of the Supreme Court for Court-
Annexed Mediation and other Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mechanisms, and
established the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC).”

Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Office was organized to implement the rules on
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for members of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (B.M. No. 850 dated October 2, 2001 – “Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education (MCLE)). The purpose of the MCLE is “to ensure that throughout” the career
of the members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, “they keep abreast with law and
jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of the
practice of law.” Members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines who are not exempt
from the MCLE must complete thirty six (36) hours of continuing legal education every
three (3) years (B.M. No. 850, Rule 2, sec. 2). Exemptions from the MCLE requirement
are under Rule 7, sec. 1-2. It holds office in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines main
office at Julio Vargas St., Ortigas Center, Mandaluyong City.

Court of Appeals :
Commonwealth Act No. 3 (December 31, 1935), pursuant to the Constitution (1935),
Art. VIII, sec. 1, established the Court of Appeals. It was formally organized on
February 1, 1936 and was composed of eleven justices with Justice Pedro Concepcion
as the first Presiding Justice. Its composition was increased to 15 in 1938 and further
increased to 17 in 1942 by virtue of Executive Order No. 4. The Court of Appeals was
regionalized in the later part of 1944 when five District Courts of Appeal were organized
for Northern, Central and Southern Luzon, for Manila and for Visayas and Mindanao. It
was abolished by President Osmena in 1945, pursuant to Executive Order No. 37 due
to the prevailing abnormal conditions . However, it was re-established on October 4,
1946 by virtue of Republic Act No. 52 with a Presiding Justice and fifteen (15) Associate
Justices. Its composition was increased by the following enactments: Republic Act No.
1605 to eighteen (18); Republic Act No. 5204 to twenty-four (24); Presidential Decree
No. 1482 to one (1) Presiding Justice and thirty-four (34) Associate Justices; Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129 to fifty (50); Republic Act No. 8246 to sixty-nine (69). With Republic
Act No. 8246, the Court of Appeals in Cebu, and Cagayan de Oro were established.
With Republic Act 8246, the 69 Justices are divided in twenty three divisions
throughout the Philippines: Luzon (Manila- 1-17 th Division), Visayas (Cebu- 18 th -
20 th Division) and Mindanao (Cagayan de Oro- 21 st -23 rd Division). The 2009 Internal
Rules of Procedure of the Court of Appeals was approved by the Supreme Court En
Ban in a Resolution (A.M. No. 09-11-11-CA) dated December 15, 2009.
(http://ca.judiciary.gov.ph/images/references_corner/2009irca.pdf)
Batas Pambansa Blg . 129 changed t he name of the Court of Appeals to Intermediate
Appellate Court. Executive Order No. 33, issued by President Corazon C. Aquino on
July 28, 1986, brought back its name to Court of Appeals.

Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by Executive Order No. 33 and
Republic Act No. 7902 provides for the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals as follows:

 Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari habeas

corpus, and quo warrant, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid
of its appellate jurisdiction;
 Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgment of Regional
Trial Courts; and
 Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions,
orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies,
 instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees Compensation
Commission and the Civil Service Commission, except those falling within the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution,
the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as
amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third
paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the
Judiciary Act of 1948.

In the case of St. Martin Funeral Home v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R.
No. 130866, September 16, 1998 (356 Phil. 811), the decision and resolutions of the
National Labor Relations Commission now initially reviewable to the Court of Appeals
through a petition of Certiorari under Rule 65. Prior to this decision, it was directly to
the Supreme Court.

Criminal cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or
death were automatically elevated to the Supreme Court. With the case of People v.
Mateo, G.R. No. 147678-87, July 4, 2004 (433 SCRA 640), the Supreme Court allowed
the Court of Appeals to conduct an intermediate review of the case before it is elevated
to the Supreme Court.

As per the Resolution of the Supreme Court (A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC), the Court of
Appeals has jurisdiction over petitions for freeze orders on any money instrument,
property or proceeds involving the Anti-Money Laundering cases (Republic Act No.
9160). Jurisdiction for Writs of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC dated October 24, 2007)
and Writs of Habeas data (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC dated February 2, 2008) rests with the
Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court, acting on the recommendation of the Committee on Revision of the
Rules of Court, resolved to approve the 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals
(A.M. No. 02-6-13-CA) and amended by a resolution of the Court En Banc on July 13,
2004 (A.M. No. 03-05-03-SC).

Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9372 otherwise known as the Human Security Act of
2007, the Chief Justice issued Administrative Order No. 118-2007, designating the First,
Second and Third Divisions of the Court of Appeals to handle cases involving the
crimes of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism and all other matters incident to
the said crimes emanating from the Metropolitan Manila and Luzon. For those
emanating from Visayas, all divisions of the Court of Appeals stationed in Cebu are
designated to handle these cases while the Court of Appeals stationed in Cagayan De
Oro will handle cases from Mindanao.

Sandiganbayan :
The Anti-Graft Court, or Sandiganbayan, was created to maintain integrity, honesty and
efficiency in the bureaucracy and weed out misfits and undesirables in government
service Constitution (1973), Art. XIII, sec. 5 and Constitution (1987), Art. XI, sec. 4. It
was restructured by Presidential Decree No. 1606 as amended by Republic Act No.
8249. It is composed of a Presiding Justice and fourteen (14) Associate Justices still in
five Divisions of three (3) Justices each.
As per Republic Act No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over cases involving
the violations of the following:

 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019, as amended,
Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Sec. 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised
Penal Code), of a government official occupying the following positions in the
government whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the
commission of the offense;
 “Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and
higher, otherwise classified as Grade '27' and higher, of the Compensation and
Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758);
 Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade'27'and up under
the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989; cralaw
 Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;
 Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution; and
 All other national and local officials classified as Grade'27'and higher under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.

Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by
the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a) of this section in relation
to their office.

Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1,
2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.”

The Supreme Court, acting on the recommendation of the Committee on Revision of

the Rules of Court, resolved with modification the Revised Internal Rules of the
Sandiganbayan on August 28, 2002 (A.M. No. 02-6-07—SB)

Court of Tax Appeals :

Created by Republic Act No. 1125 on June 16, 1954, it serves as an appellate court to
review tax cases. It had three judges and one Division. Under Republic Act No. 9282 ,
its jurisdiction has been expanded where it now enjoys the same level as the Court of
Appeals. This law has doubled its membership, from three to six justices, one (1)
Presiding Justice and five (5) Associate Justices. There are now two (2) Divisions with
three Justices per division. Republic Act Number 9503 enacted on June 12, 2008 and
effective July 5, 2008 further expanded its composition to one (1) Presiding Justice and
eight (8) Associate Justices in three (3) Divisions. A decision of a division may be
appealed to the En Banc. The en Banc decision may be appealed by verified petition
for certiorari to the Supreme Court.
T he Supreme Court acting on the recommendation of the Committee on Revision of the
Rules of Court resolved to approve the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (A.M.
No. 05-11-07-CTA) and amended by aresolution of the Court En Banc on November 22,
2005 .

The Court of Tax Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal
pursuant to Republic Act No. 1125 are the following:

 Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed,

assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties
imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal
Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue;
 Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for customs
duties, fees, or other money charges; seizure, detention or release of property
affected; fines, forfeitures or other penalties imposed in relation thereto; or other
matters arising under the Customs Law or other laws administered by the Bureau
of Customs;
 Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to him
automatically for review from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs which
are adverse to the Government under Section 2315 of the Tariff and Customs
Code;
 Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry in the case of non-agricultural
product, commodity or article, and the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of
agricultural product, commodity or article, involving dumping and countervailing
duties under Section 301 and 302, respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code,
and safeguard measures under R.A. No. 8800, where either party may appeal
the decision to impose or not to impose said duties;
 The expanded appellate jurisdiction of the under Republic Act No. 9282 are
follows;
 all criminal offenses arising from violations of the National Internal Revenue
Code or Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by the Bureau of
Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs;
 Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases;
 Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and taxation of real
property originally decided by the provincial or city board of assessment appeals;
 Collection of internal revenue taxes and customs duties the assessment of which
have become final.
 Under Republic Act No. 9282, the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals
include civil tax cases and cases that are criminal in nature, as well as local tax
cases, property tax and collection of taxes.

Regional Trial Courts:

They are called the second level courts and are divided into thirteen (13) judicial
regions: National Capital Region (Metro Manila) and the twelve (12) regions of the
country, which are divided into several branches. The jurisdictions are defined in sec.
19-23 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by Republic Act No. 7671. The
Supreme Court designates certain branches of regional trial courts as special courts to
handle exclusively criminal cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian
cases, urban land reform cases that do not fall under the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial
bodies. The Supreme Court issues resolutions designating specific branches of
the Regional Trial Courts as special courts for heinous crimes, dangerous drugs cases,
commercial courts and intellectual property rights violations. Special rules are likewise
promulgated. A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC is a resolution of the Court En Banc on the Rules of
Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation. The Interim Rules was promulgated in
November 2000 and December 2008 affects special commercial courts. Some
Regional Trial Courts are specifically designated to try and decide cases formerly
cognizable by the Securities and Exchange Commission (A.M. No. 00-11-030SC).

Some branches of the Regional Trial Courts have been designated as family
courts (A.M. No. 99-11-07) because the family courts to be established pursuant to
Republic Act No. 8369 of the Family Court Law of 1997 have not yet been organized.
Pursuant to Republic Act No. 8369, the Family Court Law of 1997, some branches of
the Regional Trial Courts have been designated as family courts (A.M. No. 99-11-07).
The Regional Trial Courts’ jurisdictions are defined as follows:

Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in Civil Cases as follows:

 All civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation;
 All civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of real property, or any
interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds
twenty thousand pesos (P 20,000.00) or, civil actions in Metro Manila, where
such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P 50,000.00) except actions for
forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction
over which is conferred upon the MeTCs, MTCs, and MCTCs;
 All actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claim
exceeds one hundred thousand pesos (P 100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila, where
such demand or claim exceeds two hundred thousand pesos (P 200,000.00);
 All matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the
estate exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P 100,000.00) or, in probate
matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds Two hundred
thousand pesos (P 200,000.00);
 All actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;
 All cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or
body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
 All civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court of
Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and
 All other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs or the value of the property in
controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P 100,000.00) or, in such
 other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand, exclusive of the above-
mentioned items exceeds Two hundred pesos (P 200,000.00) (Sec. 19, Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7691).

Exercise original jurisdiction in other cases as follows:

 The issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto , habeas

corpus, and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective
regions; and
 Actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls.
 They shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs, and
MCTCs in their respective territorial jurisdiction.

Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC), Municipal
Trial Courts (MTC) and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC):

These are called the first level courts established in each city and municipality. Their
jurisdiction is provided for by section 33, 35 of Batas Pambansa Blg 129. Their
jurisdiction has been expanded by special lawsnamely Republic Act Nos. 9276,
9252, 9305, 9306, and 9308.

MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs, and MCTCs shall exercise original jurisdiction in Civil Cases
as provided for in section 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 is as follows:

 Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate
and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where
the value of the personal property, estate or amount of the demand does not
exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P 100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where
such personal property, estate or amount of the demand does not exceed Two
hundred thousand pesos (P 200,000.00), exclusive of interests, damages of
whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs the amount of
which must be specifically alleged: Provided, That interests, damages of
whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs shall be included in
the determination of the filing fees. Provided further, That where there are
several claims or causes of action between the same or different parties
embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality
of the claims in all the causes of action arose out of the same or different
transactions;

 Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer:
Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the question of
ownership in his pleadings and the question of ownership in his pleadings and
the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of
ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue
of possession; and
  Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of
the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P
20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does
not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P 50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That in
cases of land not declared for taxation purposes the value of such property shall
be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots (Sec. 33, Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129).

Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 provides that the Supreme Court may
designate MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs, and MCTCs to hear and determine cadastral or land
registration cases where the value does not exceed one hundred thousand pesos
(P100, 000.00). Their decision is can be appealed in the same manner as the Regional
Trial Courts.

The MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs, and MCTCs are empowered to hear and decide petitions
for a writ of habeas corpus or applications for bail in criminal cases in the province or
city in the absence of the Regional Trial Court Judges.

The Supreme Court approved on September 9, 2008 the Rule of Procedure for Small
Claims Cases (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC) which took effect on October 1, 2008 after its
publication in two newspapers of general circulation. Forty four (44) first level courts
(Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC), Municipal
Trial Courts (MTC) and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC) were designated to hear
small claims cases. On February 16, 2010, a Resolution of the Court En Banc was
approved amending provisions of the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases (A.M.
No. 08-8-7-SC). In March of 2010, all the first Level Courts in the country, except
Shari’a courts were empowered to hear small claims cases. Small claims courts are
also called “People’s Courts” cases are readily resolve for al courts are required to
decide the matter at the first hearing. Lawyers are not allowed in hearings. Thus, the
procedure is considered inexpensive. These first level courts try small claims cases for
payment of money where the value of the claim does not exceed One Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P100, 000.00) exclusive of interest and costs. These courts shall
apply the rules of procedure provided in A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC in all actions “which are:
(a) purely civil in nature where the claim or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for
payment or reimbursement of sum of money, and (b) the civil aspect of criminal actions,
either filed before the institution of the criminal action, or reserved upon the filing of the
criminal action in court, pursuant to Rule 111 of the Revised Rules Of Criminal
Procedure.”

Shari’a Courts:
These special courts were created by sec. 137 of Presidential Decree No. 1083 or the
Code of Muslim Personal Laws. The judges should possess all the qualifications of a
Regional Trial Court Judge and should also be learned in Islamic law and jurisprudence.
Articles 143, 144, and 155 of Presidential Decree No. 1083 provide the jurisdiction of
the said courts as follows:

Shari’a D istrict Courts (SDC) as provided for in paragraph (1), Article 143 of
Presidential Decree No. 1083, shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the following cases:
 All cases involving custody, guardianship, legitimacy, paternity and filiations
arising under the Code;
 All cases involving disposition, distribution and settlement of the estates of
deceased Muslims, probate of wills, issuance of letters of administration or
appointment of administrators or executors regardless of the nature or aggregate
value of the property;
 Petitions for the declaration of absence and death and for the cancellation or
correction of entries in the Muslim Registries mentioned in Title VI of Book Two
of the Code;
 All actions arising from customary contracts in which the parties are Muslim, if
they did not specified which law shall govern their relations; and
 All petitions for mandamus, prohibition, injunction, certiorari, habeas corpus, and
all other auxiliary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.

The SDC in concurrence with existing civil courts shall have original jurisdiction over the
following cases (paragraph (2) of Article 143):

 Petitions by Muslims for the constitution of family home, change of name and
commitment of an insane person to any asylum:
 All other personal and real actions not mentioned in paragraph (1) (d) wherein
the parties involved are Muslims except those for forcible entry and unlawful
detainer, which shall fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTCs;
 All special civil actions for interpleader or declaratory relief wherein the parties
are Muslims or the property involved belongs exclusively to Muslims.
Article 144 of Presidential Decree No. 1083 provides that the SDC within shall have
appellate jurisdiction over all cases tried in the Shari’a Circuit Courts (SCC) within their
territorial jurisdiction.

Article 155 of Presidential Decree No. 1083 provides that the SCCs have exclusive
original jurisdiction over:

 All cases involving offenses defined and punished under the Code;
 All civil actions and proceedings between parties who are Muslims or have been
married in accordance with Article 13 of the Code involving disputes relating to:
o Marriage;
o Divorce recognized under the Code;
o Betrothal or breach of contract to marry;
o Customary dower (mahr);
o Disposition and distribution of property upon divorce;
o Maintenance and support, and consolatory gifts (mut’a); and
o Restitution of marital rights; and
  All cases involving disputes to communal properties.

Rules of procedure are provided for in articles 148 and 158. En Banc Resolution of the
Supreme Court in 183, provided the special rules of procedure in the Shari’a courts
( Ijra-at-Al Mahakim Al Sharia’a).
Shari’a courts and personnel are subject to the administrative supervision of the
Supreme Court. Appointment of judges, qualifications, tenure, and compensation are
subject to the provisions of the Muslim Code (Presidential Decree No. 1083. SDCs and
SCCs have the same officials and other personnel as those provided by law for RTCs
and MTCs, respectively.

Quasi-Courts or Quasi-Judicial Agencies:

Quasi-judicial agencies are administrative agencies, more properly belonging to the
Executive Department, but are empowered by the Constitution or statutes to hear and
decide certain classes or categories of cases.

Quasi-judicial agencies, which are empowered by the Constitution, are the

Constitutional Commissions: Civil Service Commission, Commission on Elections and
the Commission on Audit.

Quasi-judicial agencies empowered by statutes are: Office of the President.

Department of Agrarian Reform, Securities and Exchange Commission, National Labor
Relations Commission, National Telecommunication Commission, Employees
Compensation Commission, Insurance Commission, Construction Industry Arbitration
Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Social Security System,
Government Service Insurance System, Bureau of Patents, Trademark and
Technology, National Conciliation Mediation Board, Land Registration Authority, Civil
Aeronautics Board, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, National Electrification
Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, Agricultural Inventions Board and the Board
of Investments. When needed, t he Supreme Court issues rules and regulations for
these quasi-judicial agencies in the performance of their judicial functions. Republic Act
No. 8799, known as the “Securities Regulation Code,” reorganized the Securities and
Exchange Commission (Chapter II) and provided for its powers and function (sec.5).
Specifically provided for in these powers and function is the Commission’s jurisdiction
over all cases previously provided for in sec. 5, Pres. Decree No. 902-A (sec. 5.2). The
Supreme Court promulgated rules of procedure governing intra-corporate controversies
under Republic Act No. 8799 (A.M. No. 01-2-04-SC).

Decisions of these quasi-courts can be appealed to the Court of Appeals except those
of the Constitutional Commissions: Civil Service Commission, Commission on Elections
and the Commission on Audit, which can be appealed by certiorari to the Supreme
Court (Art. IX-A, sec. 7).

Other Judicial Procedures:

Katarungang Pambarangay - Presidential Decree No. 1508, or the Katarungang
Pambarangay Law, took effect December 11, 1978, and established a system of
amicably settling disputes at the barangay l evel. Rules and procedures were provided
by this decree and the Local Government Code, Title I, Chapter 7, sec. 339-422). This
system of amicable settlement of dispute aims to promote the speedy administration of
justice by easing the congestion of court dockets. The Court does not take cognizance
of cases filed if they are not filed first with the Katarungang Pambarangay.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) System - Republic Act No. 9285 institutionalized
the use of an alternative dispute resolution system, which serves to promote the speedy
and impartial administration of justice and unclog the court dockets. This act shall be
without prejudice to the adoption of the Supreme Court of any ADR system such as
mediation, conciliation, arbitration or any combination thereof. The Chairperson of the
Sub-Committee on the Rules on Alternative Dispute Resolution recommended the
Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution (A.M. No. 07-11-08-SC) to the
Supreme Court En Banc and it was approved on October 30, 2009. The Department
of Justice on the other hand promulgated Department Circular No. 98 - Implementing
Rules and Regulations of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 (Republic Act
No. 9285) on December 4, 2009. The Supreme Court on June 22, 2010 approved the
Rules on Court-Annexed Family Mediation, amending the Rules on Court Annexed
Mediation and the corresponding Code of Ethical Standards for Mediators. (A.M. No.
10-4-16-SC).

The Supreme Court by virtue of an En Banc Resolution dated October 16, 2001
(Administrative Matter No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA), designated the Philippine Judicial
Academy as the component unit of the Supreme Court for court-referred or court-related
mediation cases and alternative dispute resolution mechanism and establishing the
Philippine Mediation Center. Muslin law provides its own arbitration Council called The
Agama Arbitration Council.

Aside from the three co-equal branches, the other offices in government are the
government financial institutions and government-owned and controlled corporations .