This memorandum is written for the purpose of addressing the following inquiry:

Is the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning procedure in all courts under
Article VIII, Section 5 exclusive? Specifically, does Article VIII, Section 5 prohibit Congress
from enacting laws providing for the mode of appeal and the period to avail a particular mode
before the courts, e.g. an appeal of a decision rendered by a lower court or quasi-judicial body?

DISCUSSION

The Power of the Supreme Court and its History

The 1987 Constitution vests the Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules concerning
the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and produce in all
courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged. In the two previous Constitutions, such power was treated differently as it was
previously shared with Congress. There was a textualized power sharing scheme as to the
enactment of judicial rules which grants the Legislature the power to interfere such powers
vested in the Supreme Court. This is a valid intervention, a permissible act as it was clearly
stated in the previous Constitution itself. Congress had a concurrent power to repeal, alter or
supplement such rules prior to the enactment of the present Constitution therefore, it will not
constitute as an encroachment on their part.

Both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions provided that Rules of Court promulgated by the
Supreme Court may be repealed, altered, or supplemented by the Legislature. The 1987
Constitution is clear in not providing those similar provisions that now brings us to the question,
are Rules of Court therefore beyond the reach of Congress? The Original Committee Report said
that it is only a valid exercise if it was given advice and concurrence by the Supreme Court.
Moreover, Commissioner Roberto Concepcion strongly argued that legislature cannot know
more about court dynamics than the Supreme Court does. Justice Puno also added in the case of
an obiter dictum, Echegaray v. The Secretary of Justice, that Congress has no longer the power
to amend the Rules of Court. At the end, they consolidated matters in previous deliberations that
it would be in consonance with the principle of checks and balances. Under this principle, one
department is allowed to resist encroachments upon its prerogatives or to rectify mistakes or
excesses committed by the other departments. The theory is that the ends of the government are
better achieved through the exercise by its agencies of only the powers assigned to them, subject
to reversal in proper cases by those constitutionally authorized. (Philippine Political Law,
Justice Isagani Cruz, 2015.) For instance, as for the judiciary in general, it has the power to
declare an invalid act done by the Congress, the President and his subordinates, or the
Constitutional Commissions.

The matter came up again in relation to Rule 67 of the Rules of Court as opposed to
Republic Act 8974 which concerns to the entry of an expropriated property which produces an
issue of the satisfaction of payments. As a proposed answer was given, the Court said that since
expropriation involves both procedural and substantive matters, the substantive aspect is always
subject to legislation.
 In matters of authority to promulgate rules concerning the Integrated Bar as well as the
admissions to practice of law, there has been a question earlier between the authority to
promulgate rules concerning admission to the practice of law and the actual admission to practice
through the application of these rules. As to the former, it is a legislative or quasi-legislative and
in it the Legislature has been given a revisory role subordinate to the role of the Supreme Court
while the latter is by tradition, a judicial function and the legislature exercises no such role.
Another questioned matter is the authority of the Court to regulate admission to the Bar and the
practice of law as distinct from the authority of the Congress to regulate the behavior of public
officers. It has been said that the two can co-exist. It has been said that, the law must be seen not
as a rule on the practice of law but as a rule on the conduct of officials intended to prevent
conflict of interest.

Obviously, the present Constitution creates a judiciary that is stronger and supreme on its
sphere, some provisions are deleted for clarity, for a more effective and efficient administration
of justice and to serve the best interest of the public welfare. It is only just to let it on the hands
where justice will be properly administered. Noteworthy, it should not be arbitrary and despotic
one, to be exercised at the pleasure of the court, or from passion, prejudice or personal hostility,
but it is the duty of the court to exercise and regulate it by a sound and judicial discretion. The
present Constitution is now clear that the Supreme Court has the exclusive powers in
promulgating rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
practice, and produce in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and
legal assistance to the underprivileged. Apparently, the power to promulgate such rules
pertaining to the above-mentioned is said to be eminently judicial as the 1987 Constitution
insulated the rule-making power of courts by omitting in the previous Constitutions the
valid interference of Congress to alter judicial rules. Our present Constitution removed the
provision that grants the Congress subsidiary and corrective power. Hence, as one of the
safeguards of this Courts institutional independence, the power to promulgate rules of pleading,
practice and procedure is now the courts exclusive domain.

In addition, the authority provided in Article VIII, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution, is a
traditional power of the Supreme Court that in effect places the hands of the Supreme Court the
totality of the administration of justice and thus contemplates to a more independent judicial
body. As judicial power is very broad and complex, there arise the auxiliary acts stemmed in that
power in order to do justice. One concrete example of this one is the creation of Writ of Amparo.

The nature of such power under the 1987 Constitution and applicable cases; Compared to
US format

As explicitly stated in Article VIII, Sec. 5 of the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court
shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and produce 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. The Supreme Court is not allowed to promulgate rules that
can alter substantive rights, as stated above, so it calls for the distinction between substantive
rights as oppose to remedial or procedural rights.

As in the earlier case of Bustos v. Lucero, substantive is, one which creates, defines and
regulates rights, or which regulates the rights and duties which give rise to a cause of action or
that part of the law which courts are established to administer while procedural is, one which
prescribes a method of enforcing rights or by obtaining a redress of an invasion.

In the case of Baguio Market Vendors Multi-Purpose Cooperative vs. Hon. Iluminada
Cabato-Cortes, GR No. 165922, there are two material discussions that lead us to the
development how the Supreme Court obtained the exclusive authority to promulgate rules
concerning judicial rules and procedures. It has been said that prior to the enactment of the
present Constitution, the two previous enactments vested a right to Congress to alter, repeal and
supplement rules that are believed to be only enjoyed by the Supreme Court. As stated in the
rulings in the case at bar, Until the 1987 Constitution took effect, our two previous
constitutions textualized a power sharing scheme between the legislature and this Court in
the enactment of judicial rules. Therefore granting the legislative body the concurrent power to
repeal, alter or supplement such rules. The present Constitution deleted the provision that grants
the Congress subsidiary and corrective power. It molded an even stronger and more independent
judiciary. Among others, it enhanced the rule making power of this Court. We can see that
Congress had a prior right with regard to alteration, repeal and even supplement on such rules
but due to the recent enactment of our Constitution, it has been settled that it would be best to
rest it in the hands of the Supreme Court to have the exclusive authority on that matter. In the
case at bar, OSG and OCAT lean in favor of the exclusivity of the Rules of Court as it the
power to impose judicial fees is eminently judicial and (2) the 1987 Constitution insulated the
Courts rule-making powers from Congress interference by omitting in the 1987 Constitution
the provision in the 1973 Constitution allowing Congress to alter judicial rules. The ruling of
this case was in the side of Judge Cortes because as the present Constitution provides, the
Supreme Court obtained the exclusiveness of authority or power to promulgate rules concerning
judicial rules and procedures as the provisions that let the Congress enjoy prior to 1987
Constitution was already been omitted.

Also in St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130866, it is stated that while we
do not wish to intrude into the Congressional sphere on the matter of the wisdom of a law, on
this score we add the further observations that there is a growing number of labor cases being
elevated to this Court which, not being a trier of fact, has at times been constrained to remand
the case to the NLRC for resolution of unclear or ambiguous factual findings; that the Court of
Appeals is procedurally equipped for that purpose, aside from the increased number of its
component divisions; and that there is undeniably an imperative need for expeditious action on
labor cases as a major aspect of constitutional protection to labor. In this premise what is only
pointed out was the doctrine of hierarchy of courts and not for intrusion to the wisdom of the
Legislature. In addition to this, Therefore, all references in the amended Section 9 of B.P. No.
129 to supposed appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court are interpreted and hereby
declared to mean and refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule 65. Consequently, all such
petitions should henceforth be initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the
doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the appropriate forum for the relief desired. The
judiciary only implement what will be best to attain the speedy disposition of cases and at the
same time ensure to the public that justice will be served in an effective and efficient manner as
possible. The Judiciary exercised here its authority to promulgate rules concerning procedures
(mode of appeal belonging to lower courts, special courts, tribunals).

The United States also has explanations as to the limitations of power between the rule-
making power (Court) and the Powers over Process (Legislature/Congress). It is settled earlier
that courts due to its vast and broad scope of judicial power, it attaches incidental acts that will
aid the courts for the administration of justice. However, United States jurisprudence said that
this power (judicial power) too is derived from the statutes and cannot go beyond
them. Conceding, in 1934, the limited competence of legislative bodies to establish a
comprehensive system of court procedure, and acknowledging the inherent power of courts to
regulate the conduct of their business, Congress authorized the Supreme Court to prescribe
rules for the lower federal courts not inconsistent with the Constitution and statutes. Their
operation being restricted, in conformity with the proviso attached to the congressional
authorization, to matters of pleading and practice, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure thus
judicially promulgated neither affect the substantive rights of litigants nor alter the
jurisdiction of federal courts and the venue of actions therein and, thus circumscribed, have been
upheld as valid. (JUSTIA US LAW, http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-3/13-rule-
making-power.html, Limitations to this Power, Rule-Making Power and Powers Over Process)

As for United States laws and related jurisprudence concerning the subjected inquiry of
this research, it can be similarly treated to the rulings in local jurisprudence as the two main
departments are supreme in their respective spheres of governance. Congress as to the wisdom of
the law, enactment of laws etc. and the courts to the authority of promulgating rules in the
manner that it does not violate the other as well as the proper and speedy administration of
justice to the people.

Interestingly, is the power of Congress to pass a law concerning the jurisdiction of courts,
which effectively delves into the mode of appeals of decisions rendered by the lower courts
or quasi-judicial body an intrusion into the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate
rules on procedures?

No. It has been provided under Article VIII, Sec.5 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
that The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection
and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and produce 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. If Congress may pass a law that
will concern the jurisdiction of courts and will change the rules of procedure of special courts
and quasi-judicial bodies, it is explicitly stated under our Constitution that it shall remain
operative and effective unless there is a disapproval of the Supreme Court. As also earlier stated,
that no law shall be passed unless there is an advice and concurrence of the Supreme Court thus,
without approval of the Supreme Court it would not be considered valid and effective.

CONCLUSION

We can say that it is true that the power to promulgate rules concerning in matters
mentioned earlier is vested in the Supreme Court, it is also clear for us that Congress may pass a
law concerning jurisdiction of courts as well as that of the Supreme Court. However, it will be
wrong to interpret that in passing a law, Congress exercises power to promulgate rules of
procedure. Congress acts as the wisdom of the law as they were the ones who are behind those
enactments, the true spirit and intendment of the law. As previously discussed, it shall only
remain effective if the court has been silent about it and no disapproval has been made by the
Supreme Court. Apparently, jurisdiction is a matter of law in which courts takes cognizance.
Since time immemorial, it has been the courts primordial function to society, to be the
administrator of justice and to promulgate rules which are necessary that may be in the form of
express or implied grant of authority by law.

PS:

BAKIT SILA MAY ISSUE HAHAHAHA PA-REVIEW NA LANG PO MASTER KA

NAMAN DITO HAHAHAHA THANK YOU ATTY! ^_^