judicial power

section 1 duty, when all elements present, no discretion to exercise power or not actual controversies, can not pose mere involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, can not go to court without claim being anchored on some right created by law (constitution, statutory provision, inherent claim)

correlate with section 2, how does congress influence courts rights which courts... congress will define, prescribe, apportion jurisdiction of courts, what cases decided by waht courts, law ang mu.fix

jurisdiction, meaning? authority to hear and decide case controversy, courts have power to resolve, traditional idea of judicial power

section 5, certain cases that congress can not add/remove from certain courts without its approval and concurrence

paragraph 1, "original" jurisdiction, comes to court at first instance

two kinds of original jurisdiction, comes to you at first instance, you are only court to decide taht concurrent jurisdiction, comes to you at first instance, but there are also other courts that can decide that

ambassadors (local or foreign (qualify if you can sue diplomatic offcials from foreign countries)), other public ministers if na ra'i urgency

paragraph 2, apellate jusrisdicion, decided by some other lower court

law can not be passed na to reduce appelate juris of sc without advise and concurrence of court

irreducible juris of sc,

expanded concept, grave abuse of discretion what is grave abuse of discretion how does it differ from the grave abuse of discretion from rules of court, rule 65 higher court to look at decisions of lower court done wih grave abuse of dicretion, reach is limited to courrts

but in consti, not only lower couerts but actions pud on any branch or instrumentality of government

how has the court exercised expanded certiorari juris pros and cons with vesting courts with this how cases are decided, req in consti

review determinig constitutionality judicial power, not necessarily constitutionality, actual case, controversy, abuse of discre

before automatic review sa asc, now,

pp vs mateo appeal judgement of lower court convicting to penalty of rec perp to death intermediate review by ca as subordinate court before elevating to sc, declog, decongest (many more years) section 5, paragraph 2? nothing precludes requirement of going to lower court before bringong matter up to sc

fabian vs diserto passed law not asking for sc advise, appelate sa omb, declared unconstitutional

electoral tribunal martial law

traditional aspect of courts settling actual contriversies

change, grave abuse of discretion product of martial law what is grave abuse of discre, patent disregard of law virtual refusal to apply law, capricious, whimsical, arbitrary what it is really, courts to determine

boi vs garcia bnpp

any branch or instrumentality bureau of investments, goccs, exec, legis

before higher courts can review abuse of discretion, juris by lower courts now, extended to branch and instrumentalitites

boi, sc no transfer of plant issues of policies, if elected, semblance of will of pp not elected, indirect confimity sa pp

counter-majoritarian courts, overriding will of those elected? panganiban, cj, liberty and prosperity liberty, case comes to court dealing with issue on lib, judicial activism (strictest judicial policies) policies dealing with economic implication, isssues of eceonomic policies judicial restriant like boi vs garcia, can not transfer investors pulled out investments bataan labugal, foeign comp invest 16 b p is phils to be allowed to extract minerals, mining exec said ok ra, can be done with restraint, granted, unless showing na grave abuse

req of how courts may decide, whther exer traditional or exp power

cases to be decided en banc no lower than three ang mu concurr sso maj sa div 3 is 3 section 4 (2), (3)

how will they decide, form required?

sec 13, 14 reachesd in consultationdelib of all members, certification of cj, req na if mu.dissent, write separate opinion, why, decisions change

state law on which decision is based and facts clearly and distinctly in decision three reasons, aprise parties of the reason of the court for deciding that way want other party to know for assailing decision on appeal or motion for recon

section 15

provision, feature in constitution would you liked changed, reexamined or consider as strength of government cite facts, reason of position

powers of president

emergency power delegated to pres, comes from congress, if so given what kind of power? needed to carry out declared national policy

power over foreign affairs ratify treaties, president senate concurs bureau of immig, deporatation president can admit aliens in exer of such power, appoints ambass, ministers, consuls power to deport aliens

power over leg moral in character speak at openning of each reg session sense sona, outline to cong,recommend wwhat to be passed as law, priority measures of his/her administration

judicial structure section 1, judicial power shall be vested in one SC and in such lower courts as may be established by law

sc, constitutionally created

sandiganbayan, constitutionally created? no constitutionally mandated, need to pass law

sc, composed of chief justice, 14 associate justices constitution allows sc to be divided into divisions of 3, 5, 7

but only one sc, how to reconcile this with fact nga na'i division remaisn and functions as one body sc, decisions of div, deci of court itself improper na file motion to appeal en banc, not appelate within sc itself

vacancy, filled 90 days from occurence thereof de castro vs jbc, sc, ban on midnight appointments not extend to judiciary sense of urgency (but not legal basis) prohibition in article 7 ra intent of frameers, na full memebrs at all times what is prevented is mass midnight appointment, di dao mu.happen og sa sc kai 15 ra ka members

counter arguement od dissenting opinion cj, purposes ra of administration senior justice acts as cj, until mka.appoint og cj arrangement nga na sa article 7, weakest only exception, practically useless dao ang sec 15, art 7

qualifications of sc justices to be appointed

natural born cit 40 years of age engaed in 15 yrs or more as judge or engaged in practice of law law professor, dean, cayetano vs monsod, before, lawyer, courtroom application of some legal knowledge advicer od several multinational companies, legal advicer wanted to be appointed somewhere

dissent of cruz

opinions of authorities of legal ethics teaching, di dao practice of law no atty-client relationship but no sc decision pa

section 7 (3) competence, integrity, probity and independence insulated form politics (apponted by pres, not confirmed by comission on apointments)

constitutional requirement, for sc justices and judges of lower courts

salaries, section 10 fetaures in constitution that ensure judicial independence

fixed by law, salary of justices, judges during theri continuance in office, their salary shall not be decreased

issue on taxes, gov, decreasing salaries

priviledges guarantee of security of tenure unresoveld issue sa wordings sa consti shall, right to hold office, can not be removed during good behavior until they reach 70 or become incapacitated

can they be removed? yes, wa'i good behavior, mandatory retirement for justices, judges, 70

can law be passed to change age of retirement, no, kai na mn sa consti

contriversy when there is judicial reorganization section 2, no law shall be passed reorganizing the judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its members

example, 20 rtcs in cebu city but high filing fees, gaMAI na lng mu.file of case reduce number of rtc, reorganize

security of tenure, removal from office, office is there, occupant is removed sc, but if reorganize, abolition of office man, so not violation of security of tenure, kai no removal

is reorganization, unconstitutional "undermines" reorganize, abolish office, so ma.wa ang occupant violated sec of tenure, can argue na no but word use is not violates man, but undermines, need not directly violate, comes within prohibition