Sie sind auf Seite 1von 12

1

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of
tenure of its Members.
File No. 6
Power to hear and decide a case and execute decision
thereof.

IV. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT


CASES

1. JUDICIAL POWER • On 2 February 1987, the New Constitution took effect. Sec. 30, Art. VI, thereof
provides: "No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and
Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower
concurrence."
courts as may be established by law.
On 8 May 1987, the President promulgated E.O. No. 172 creating the Energy
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
Regulatory Board to replace the Board of Energy. Under Sec. 10 thereof, "[a] party
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
adversely affected by a decision, order or ruling of the Board . . . may file a petition
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
to be known as petition for review with the Supreme Court."
of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
On 27 February 1991, the Supreme Court promulgated Circular No. 1-91, par. (1)
Duty of courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
of which specifically provides that the proper mode of appeal from any quasi-
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave
judicial agency, including ERB, is by way of a petition for review with the Court of
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
Appeals.
branch or instrumentality of government (Sec. 1, par.2, Art VII).
It is very patent that since Sec. 10 of E.O. No. 172 was enacted without the advice
Expanded jurisdiction
and concurrence of this Court, this provision never became effective, with the
result that it cannot be deemed to have amended the Judiciary Reorganization Act
Effect on the political question doctrine of 1980. Consequently, the authority of the Court of Appeals to decide cases from
the Board of Energy, now ERB, remains (Diaz vs. CA, GR L-109698, Dec. 5, 1994).
A ‘Political Question’ is one the resolution of which has been vested by the Constitution
exclusively in either the people, in the exercise of their sovereign capacity, or in which
full discretionary authority has been delegated to a co-equal branch of the • The Constitution now provides in Art. VI, ? 30 that "No law shall be passed
Government. Thus, while courts can determine questions of legality with respect to increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this
governmental action, they cannot review government policy and the wisdom thereof, Constitution without its advice and concurrence." This provision is intended to
for these questions have been vested by the Constitution in the Executive and give the Supreme Court a measure of control over cases placed under its
Legislative Departments appellate jurisdiction. For the indiscriminate enactment of legislation enlarging its
appellate jurisdiction can unnecessarily burden the Court and thereby undermine
its essential function of expounding the law in its most profound national aspects.
2. JURISDICTION
Indeed, there is no reason why decisions and final orders of the BOI must be
directly appealed to this Court. As already noted in the main decision in this case,
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the the purpose of ? 9 of B.P. Blg. 129 is to provide uniform appeals to the Court of
jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its Appeals from the decisions and final orders of all quasi-judicial agencies, with the
jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof. exception only of those issued under the Labor Code and those rendered by the
Central Board of Assessment Appeals. It is, therefore, regrettable that in the
adoption of the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987 the advice and concurrence
2

of the Supreme Court, as required by the Constitution, had not been obtained in in addition to another court of the same category, both of which belong to a new
providing for the appeal of the decisions and final orders of the BOI directly to the judicial district formed by the addition of another Court of First Instance to the old
Supreme Court (First Lepanto Ceramics vs. CA, Gr 110571, Oct. 7, 1994). one, enters into the discharge of the functions of his new office and receives the
corresponding salary, he abandons his old office and cannot claim to be to
repossess it or question the constitutionality of the law by virtue of which his new
appointment has been issued; and, said new appointment having been
3. CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS TO INSURE
disapproved by the Commission on Appointments of the National Assembly,
INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY neither can he claim to continue occupying the office conferred upon him by said
new appointment, having ipso jure ceased in the discharge of the functions
1. SC is a constitutional body; may not be abolished by law; thereof (Zandueta vs. dela Costa, 66 Phil 615).
2. Members are only removable by impeachment;
3. SC may not be deprived of minimum and appellate jurisdiction; • The Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands represents one of the three divisions
appellate jurisdiction may not be increased without its advise or of power in our government. It is judicial power and judicial power only which is
concurrence; exercised by the Supreme Court. Just as the Supreme Court, as the guardian of
constitutional rights, should not sanction usurpations by any other department of
4. SC has administrative supervision over all inferior courts and the government, so should it as strictly confine its own sphere of influence to the
personnel; powers expressly or by implication conferred on it by the Organic Act. The
5. SC has exclusive power to discipline judges / justices of inferior Supreme Court and its members should not and cannot be required to exercise
courts; any power or to perform any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or
connected with the administering of judicial functions. he Supreme Court holds
6. Members of judiciary enjoy security of tenure;
that section 11 of Act No. 1446 contravenes the maxims which guide the operation
7. Members of judiciary may not be designated to any agency of a democratic government constitutionally established, and that it would be
performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions; improper and illegal for the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of
8. Salaries of judges may not be reduced; judiciary enjoys fiscal arbitrators, the decision of a majority of whom shall be final, to act on the petition
autonomy; of the Manila Electric Company. As a result, the members of the Supreme Court
decline to proceed further in the matter
9. SC alone may initiate Rules of Court;
(MERALCO vs. Pasay Transportation, 57 Phil 600).
10. SC alone may order temporary detail of judges; and
11. SC can appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary. • Petitioner's contention is predicated upon the ground that xxx it is illegal for
Justices of the Supreme Court to sit as members of the Presidential Electoral
Tribunal, since the decisions thereof are appealable to the Supreme Court on
a. Justices/judges may not be designated to any agency performing questions of law; that the Presidential Electoral Tribunal is a court inferior to the
non-judicial functions Supreme Court....

Section 12. The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law Pursuant to the Constitution, "the Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme
shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative Court and in such inferior courts as may be established by law. This provision
functions. vests in the judicial branch of the government, not merely some specified or
limited judicial power, but "the" judicial power under our political system, and,
accordingly, the entirety or "all" of said power, except, only, so much as the
Constitution confers upon some other agency, such as the power to "judge all
contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications" of members of the
CASES Senate and those of the House of Representatives which is vested by the
fundamental law solely in the Senate Electoral Tribunal and the House Electoral
• When a judge of first instance, presiding over a branch of a Court of First Instance Tribunal, respectively (Lopez vs. Roxaz, 17 SCRA 756).
of a judicial district by virtue of a legal and valid appointment, accepts another
appointment to preside over the same branch of the same Court of First Instance,
3

• None of these is to be taken as meaning that this Court looks with favor at the Qualifications:
practice of long standing, to be sure, of judges being detailed in the Department
of Justice to assist the Secretary even if it were only in connection with his work a. Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the
of exercising administrative authority over the courts. The line between what a Supreme Court:
judge may do and what he may not do in collaborating or working with other offices
or officers under the other great departments of the government must always be b. Presiding Justice and Associate Justices of the
kept clear and jealously observed, lest the principle of separation of powers on Court of Appeals
which our government rests by mandate of the people thru the Constitution be c. Regional Trial Court Judges
gradually eroded by practices purportedly motivated by good intentions in the d. Metropolitan, Municipal and Municipal Circuit Trial
interest of the public service. The fundamental advantages and the necessity of Court Judges:
the independence of said three departments from each other, limited only by the
specific constitutional precepts on check and balance between and among them,
Tenure of Justices and Judges:
have long been acknowledged as more paramount than the serving of any
temporary or passing governmental conveniences or exigencies. It is thus of
grave importance to the judiciary under our present constitutional scheme of a. Supreme Court – hold office until they reach 70 years of age or become
government that no judge of even the lowest court in this Republic should place incapacitated to discharge their duties (Sec.11, Art. VIII). May be removed only
himself in a position where his actuations on matters submitted to him for action through impeachment.
or resolution would be subject to review and prior approval and, worst still,
reversal, before they can have legal effect, by any authority other than the Court b. Lower Courts – hold office during good behavior until they reach 70 years of
of Appeals or this Supreme Court, as the case may be. Needless to say, this Court age or become incapacitated to discharge their duties (Sec. 11, Art. VIII).
feels very strongly that it is best that this practice is discontinued (Garcia vs.
Macaraig, 39 SCRA 106). Judicial and Bar Council

Composition:
b. Fiscal Autonomy o Ex-officio Chairman

Section 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the Judiciary
- Supreme Court Chief Justice
may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the
previous year and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released. o Ex-officio members - Secretary of Justice
- Representative of Congress
Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the
amount appropriated for the previous year and, after approval shall be o Regular members
automatically and regularly released. (Sec. 3). - Representative of the IBP
- Professor of Law;
- Retired member of SC; and
4. APPOINTMENT TO THE JUDICIARY
- Representative of private sector o Secretary de officio
Appointment and Qualifications - Clerk of the Supreme Court

Procedure in Appointment: Appointment:

1. Appointed by President from among a list of at least 3 nominees prepared by the Regular members shall be appointed by the President for a fouryear term with the
Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. consent of the Commission on Appointments.
2. For lower courts, President shall issue the appointment 90 days from submission
of the list. Powers and Functions of Judicial and Bar Council:
4

1. Recommend appointees to the Judiciary; 2. All cases required to be heard en banc under the Rules of Court.
2. Recommend appointees to the Office of the Ombudsman and his 5 deputies;
3. May exercise such other functions as may be assigned by the Supreme Court (Sec. 3. Appeals from Sandiganbayan; and from the Constitutional Commissions.
8, Art. VIII)
4. All cases involving the constitutionality, application or operation of:
5. SUPREME COURT a. Presidential decrees
b. Proclamations
Section 4. (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen
Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in division of three, five, or c. Orders
seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence d. Instructions
thereof. e. Ordinances; and
f. Other regulations.
(2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive
agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other
cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including 5. Cases heard by a division where required majority of 3 was not obtained.
those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees,
proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be 6. Cases where SC modifies or reverses a doctrine or principle of law laid down by
decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the SC en banc or by a division.
the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
7. Administrative cases to discipline or dismiss judges of lower courts; and
(3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the
concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations
8. Election contests for President and Vice-President.
on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case without the concurrence
of at least three of such Members. When the required number is not obtained, the case
shall be decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by Cases heard by division
the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed 1. Must be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the members who took part
except by the court sitting en banc. in the deliberations and voted thereon.

a. Composition 2. Majority vote in a division should be at least 3 members.


o Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices may set en banc 2. Temporarily assign lower court judges to other stations in the public interest.
or in its discretion, in division of 3, 5, or 7 members.
o Any vacancy shall be filled within 90 days from Note: Temporarily assignment shall not exceed 6 months without the
occurrence thereof. consent of the judge concerned.

b. En Banc & Division cases 4. Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
Cases required to be heard en banc:
5. Promulgate rules concerning:
1. All cases involving constitutionality of a /an: i. The protection and enforcement of constitutional rights; ii.
a. Treaty Pleading, practice and procedure in all courts;
b. International or executive agreement or iii. Admission to the practice of law; iv.
The Integrated Bar; and
c. Law
v. Legal assistance to the underprivileged.
5

CASES (b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment,
or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.
• The intention of the framers to draw a distinction between cases, on the one hand, (c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
and matters, on the other hand, such that cases are "decided" while matters, (d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion
which include motions, are "resolved". Otherwise put, the word "decided" must perpetua or higher.
refer to "cases"; while the word "resolved" must refer to "matters", applying the (e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
rule of reddendo singula singulis. This is true not only in the interpretation of the
above-quoted Article VIII, Section 4(3), but also of the other provisions of the
Constitution where these words appear. 3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public
interest may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six
months without the consent of the judge concerned.
With the aforesaid rule of construction in mind, it is clear that only cases are
referred to the Court en banc for decision whenever the required number of votes
is not obtained. Conversely, the rule does not apply where, as in this case, the 4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
required three votes is not obtained in the resolution of a motion for
reconsideration. Hence, the second sentence of the aforequoted provision
speaks only of "case" and not "matter". The reason is simple. The above-quoted
5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the
Article VIII, Section 4(3) pertains to the disposition of cases by a division. If there
admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance
is a tie in the voting, there is no decision. The only way to dispose of the case then
to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and
is to refer it to the Court en banc. On the other hand, if a case has already been
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform
decided by the division and the losing party files a motion for reconsideration, the
for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify
failure of the division to resolve the motion because of a tie in the voting does not substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasijudicial
leave the case undecided. There is still the decision which must stand in view of bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
the failure of the members of the division to muster the necessary vote for its
reconsideration. Quite plainly, if the voting results in a tie, the motion for
reconsideration is lost. The assailed decision is not reconsidered and must 6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the
therefore be deemed affirmed (Fortich vs. Corona, Gr. No. 131457, August 19, Civil Service Law.
1999).
Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and
the personnel thereof.
c. Powers Original Jurisdiction Appellate Jurisdiction

Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other


public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.

2) 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:
(a) 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.
6

1. Cases affecting Over final judgments and orders in the with having violated Rule 1.02, Canon 1 and Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of
ambassadors, other public following: Judicial Conduct.
ministers and consuls. 1. All cases involving the
NOTE: This refers to foreign constitutionality or validity of any:
ambassadors, etc., stationed in treaty, international or executive
• It must be borne in mind that the resolution of the administrative charge of unduly
delaying the disposition of the said criminal case involves the determination of
the agreement, law, presidential
decree, proclamation, order, whether, in resolving the alarms and scandals case, petitioner-judge acted in
Philippines.
instruction, ordinance, or, accordance with the guidelines provided in the Rules of Court and in the
regulation; Administrative Circulars in pursuance of the ideals embodied in the Code of
2. Petitions for certiorari, Judicial Conduct. Such is clearly an administrative matter. Unquestionably, this
prohibitions, mandamus, quo 2. All cases involving the legality of Court is mandated of the 1987 Constitution to assume under section 6, Article VIII
any: tax, impost, toll, assessment
warranto, and habeas corpus. of the 1987 Constitution to assume administrative supervision over all courts and
or any penalty imposed in relation
the personnel thereof (Dolalas vs. Office of the Ombudsman, GR 118808, Dec. 24,
thereto;
1996).
3. All cases in which the jurisdiction
of any lower court is in issue.
4. Criminal cases where the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua or ii) Rule-making powers
higher; and
5. All cases where ONLY errors or Promulgates rules concerning: protection and enforcement of constitutional rights;
questions of law pleading, practice and procedures in all courts; admissions to the practice of law;
Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and legal assistance to the underprivileged.

Limitation on rule making power

i) provide a simplified and


inexpensive
procedure for speedy disposition of cases;
ii) uniform for all courts in the same
are involved. grade.
iii) Shall not
i) Administrative Supervision diminish,
increase or modify
o Administrative supervision over all courts substantive rights.
and the personnel thereof.
o Mere division of the SC may discipline a judge of the
lower court. CASES
o The SC is required to decide a case en banc only
when the dismissal of a judge is involved. • Reservation must be made to institute separately all civil actions for the recovery of
civil liability, otherwise they will be deemed to have been instituted with the
criminal case. Such civil actions are not limited to those which arise "from the
CASES offense charged," as originally provided in Rule III before the amendment of the
Rules of Court in 1988. In other words the right of the injured party to sue
separately for the recovery of the civil liability whether arising from crimes ( ex
• The complaint against petitioner-judge before the Office of the Ombudsman is
delicto) or from quasi delict under Art. 2176 of the Civil Code must be reserved
basically administrative in nature. In essence, petitioner-judge is being charged
otherwise they will be deemed instituted with the criminal action.
7

Thus Rule III, ?1 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly provides: iv)Writ of Amparo

Sec. 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. ? When a criminal action is The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to
instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.
his right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal
action.
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats
thereof.
Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised
Penal Code, and damages under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the accused.
v) Equipoise Doctrine vi)
There are statements in some cases implying that Rule III, ??1 and 3 are beyond
the rule making power of the Supreme Court under the Constitution. A careful Decisions of the Court
examination of the cases, however, will show that approval of the filing of separate
civil action for damages even though no reservation of the right to institute such
civil action had been reserved rests on considerations other than that no
1. Reached in consultation before being assigned to a member for the writing of the
reservation is needed (Maniago vs. CA, 253 SCRA 674).
opinion.

iii) Mandatory Review of Death Penalty


Cases
2. A Certification to this effect must be signed

3. Members of the SC who took no part, or who dissented or abstained must state the
reasons therefore.
CASES
NOTE: This procedure shall also be observed by all lower collegiate
• It is apparent from these provisions that the judgment of conviction and sentence courts (CA, CTA, and the Sandiganbayan)
thereunder by the trial court does not, in reality, conclude the trial of the accused.
Such trial is not terminated until the Supreme Court has reviewed the facts and
the law as applied thereto by the court below. The judgment of conviction entered
on the trial is not final, can not be executed, and is wholly without force or effect CASES
until the cause has been passed upon by the Supreme Court. In a sense the trial
court acts as a commissioner who takes the testimony and reports thereon to the • The petitioners complain that there was no analysis of their testimonial evidence or
Supreme Court with his recommendation. While in practice he enters a judgment of their 21 exhibits, the trial court merely confining itself to the pronouncement
of conviction and sentences the prisoner thereunder, in reality, until passed upon that the sheriff's sale was valid and that it had no jurisdiction over the derivative
by the Supreme Court, it has none of the attributes of a final judgment and suit. There was therefore no adequate factual or legal basis for the decision that
sentence. It is a mere recommendation to the Supreme Court, based upon the could justify its review and affirmance by the Court of Appeals. This Court does
facts on the record which are presented with it. This is meant in no sense to detract not agree. The questioned order is an over-
from the dignity and power of Courts of First Instance (People vs. Esparas, GR simplification of the issues, and violates both the letter and spirit of Article VIII,
120034, Aug. 20, 1996). Section 14, of the Constitution.

It is a requirement of due process that the parties to a litigation be informed of how


it was decided, with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the
conclusions of the court. The court cannot simply say that judgment is rendered
in favor of X and against Y and just leave it at that without any justification
whatsoever for its action. The losing party is entitled to know why he lost, so he
8

may appeal to a higher court, if permitted, should he believe that the decision CASES
should be reversed. A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts
and the law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was • The finality of a judgment does not mean that the Court has lost all its powers nor the
reached and is especially prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to pinpoint case. By the finality of the judgment, what the court loses is its jurisdiction to
the possible errors of the court for review by a higher tribunal. amend, modify or alter the same. Even after the judgment has become final the
court retains its jurisdiction to execute and enforce it. There is a difference
It is important to observe at this point that the constitutional provision does not between the jurisdiction of the court to execute its judgment and its jurisdiction to
apply to interlocutory orders, such as one granting a motion for postponement or amend, modify or alter the same. The former continues even after the judgment
quashing a subpoena, because it "refers only to decisions on the merits and not has become final for the purpose of enforcement of judgment; the latter
to orders of the trial court resolving incidental matters.” The order in the case at terminates when the judgment becomes final. The power to control the execution
bar does not come under either of the above exceptions. As it is settled that an of its decision is an essential aspect of jurisdiction. It cannot be the subject of
order dismissing a case for insufficient evidence is a judgment on the merits, 6 it substantial subtraction for our Constitution vests the entirety of judicial power in
is imperative that it be a reasoned decision clearly and distinctly stating therein one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be estabished by law. To
the facts and the law on which it is based. It may be argued that a dismissal based be sure, the most important part of a litigation, whether civil or criminal, is the
on lack of jurisdiction is not considered a judgment on the merits and so is not process of execution of decisions where supervening events may change the
covered by the aforecited provision. There is no quarrel with this established circumstance of the parties and compel courts to intervene and adjust the rights
principle. However, the rule would be applicable only if the case is dismissed on of the litigants to prevent unfairness. It is because of these unforeseen,
the sole ground of lack of jurisdiction and not when some other additional ground supervening contingencies that courts have been conceded the inherent and
is invoked necessary power of control of its processes and orders to make them
(Nicos Industrial Corp. vs. CA, 206 SCRA 127). conformable to law and justice.It bears repeating that what the Court restrained
temporarily is the execution of its own Decision to give it reasonble time to check
• The challenge hurried against this Court's decision as violative of the 1987 its fairness in light of supervening events in Congress as alleged by petitioner.
Constitution due to lack of certification by the Chief Justice that the conclusions The Court, contrary to popular misimpression, did not restrain the effectivity of a
of the Court were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to a law enacted by Congress (Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, GR 132601, Jan.
member for the writing of the opinion of the Court, is bereft of basis. The 17, 1999).
certification requirement refers to decisions in judicial, not administrative cases.
From the very beginning, resolutions/decisions of the Court in administrative
cases have not been accompanied by any formal certification. In fact, such a d. Tenure of Justices/Judges
certification would be a superfluity in administrative cases, which by their very
nature, have to be deliberated upon considering the collegiate composition of this Section 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold
Court. office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become
incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall
But even if such a certification were required, it is beyond doubt that the have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote
conclusions of the Court in its decision were arrived at after consultation and of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues
deliberation. The signatures of the members who actually took part in the in the case and voted thereon.
deliberations and voted attest to that. Besides, being a per curiam decision, or an
opinion of the Court as a whole, there is no ponente although any member of the a. Supreme Court – hold office until they reach 70 years of age or become
Court may be assigned to write the draft. In such cases, a formal incapacitated to discharge their duties (Sec.11, Art. VIII). May be removed only
certification is obviously not required (Prudential Bank vs. Castro, 158 SCRA through impeachment.
646). b. Lower Courts – hold office during good behavior until they reach 70 years of age
or become incapacitated to discharge their duties (Sec. 11, Art. VIII).

vii) Power to control execution of decision No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security
of tenure of its members (Sec. 2, Art. VIII).
9

CASES However, We agree with petitioner that in the absence of any administrative
action taken against him by this Court with regard to his certificates of service,
• The Batasang Pambansa is expressly vested with the authority to reorganize inferior the investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into the
courts and in the process to abolish existing ones. The abolition of an office within Court's power of administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel, in
the competence of a legitimate body if done in good faith suffers from no infirmity. violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.

Section 2, Article VIII of the Constitution vests in the National Assembly the power Article VIII, section 6 of the 1987 Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme
to define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts, subject Court administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the
to certain limitations in the case of the Supreme Court. No question of law is Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals down to the lowest municipal trial court
involved. If such were the case, certainly the Supreme Court could not have its clerk. By virtue of this power, it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the
say prior to the action taken by either of the two departments. Even then, it could judges' and court personnel's compliance with all laws, and take the proper
do so but only by way of deciding a case where the matter has been put in issue. administrative action against them if they commit any violation thereof. No other
Neither is there any intrusion into who shall be appointed to the vacant positions branch of government may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the
created by the reorganization. That remains in the hands of the Executive to whom doctrine of separation of powers.
it properly belongs (De la Llana vs. Alba, 112 SCRA 294).
The Ombudsman cannot justify its investigation of petitioner on the powers
But does the doctrine in de la Llana still stand considering that Sec. 2 of the granted to it by the Constitution, for such a justification undermines the
Constitution says: “no law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it independence of the judiciary (Maceda vs. Ombudsman, GR 102781, April 22,
undermines the security of its Members?” According to Bernas, it must still 1993).
stand because de la Llana precisely says that the reorganization was done in
a manner that did no violence to security of tenure. • The Court is fully aware that not every error or mistake of a judge in the
performance of his duties is subject to censure. But where, as in the present case,
the error could have been entirely avoided were it not for public respondent's
e. Removal and Discipline irresponsibility in the performance of his duties, it is but proper that respondent
judge be reprimanded and his order of dismissal set aside for grave ignorance of
the law. For, respondent judge's error is not a simple error in judgment but one
Disciplinary action against judges of lower courts : Only the SC en banc has amounting to gross ignorance of the law which could easily undermine the
jurisdiction to discipline or dismiss judges of lower courts. public's perception of the court's competence.
Disciplinary action / dismissal : Majority vote of SC Justices who took part in the
deliberations and voted therein. The responsibility to keep abreast with the changes in the law espoused in Canon
Only by IMPEACHMENT SC Justices can be removed. They cannot be disbarred 5 above is applicable with equal force to counsel for private respondents, Atty.
while they hold office. Elvira T. Bermejo who first raised the issue at hand before the trial court. By
insisting upon the authority of an already abolished Anti-Dummy Board, counsel
displayed blatant irresponsibility, not to mention ignorance of the law.
CASES
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the order of respondent judge dated March
18, 1994 dismissing Criminal Case No. 11529 is hereby ANNULLED AND SET
• Petitioner contends that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over his case since ASIDE and the aforesaid criminal case is REINSTATED. Respondent judge is
the offense charged arose from the judge's performance of his official duties, hereby REPRIMANDED AND FINED in the amount of P10,000.00 for gross
which is under the control and supervision of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, ignorance of the law with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or a similar
the investigation of the Ombudsman constitutes an encroachment into the offense shall merit serious consequences. Atty. Elvira T. Bermejo is likewise
Supreme Court's constitutional duty of supervision over all inferior courts. The REPRIMANDED AND FINED P10,000.00 for ignorance of the law and for her failure
Court held that a judge who falsifies his certificate of service is administratively to observe candor, fairness and good faith before this Court, with a stern warning
liable to the Supreme Court for serious misconduct and inefficiency under Section that a repetition of the same or a similar offense will be dealt with more severely
1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, and criminally liable to the State under the by this Court (People vs. Gacott, 246 SCRA 52).
Revised Penal Code for his felonious act.
10

Question: Must disciplinary cases be heard by the Supreme Court en banc? its own particular value to the citizens in securing the independence of the
judiciary in crises; and in the establishment of the compensation upon a
Answer: The text of Sec. 11 yields the reading that decisions on disciplinary cases permanent foundation whereby judicial preferment may be prudently accepted by
must all be arrived at Court en banc. However, People vs. Gacott (GR No. 116049, July those who are qualified by talent, knowledge, integrity and capacity, but are not
13, 1995) ruled, contrary, that a decision en banc is needed only when the penalty to possessed of such a private fortune as to make an assured salary an object of
be imposed is dismissal of a judge, disbarment of a lawyer, suspension of either for personal concern. On the other hand, the members of the judiciary relinquish their
more than one year, or a fine not exceeding 10,000 pesos. This is done for a speedy position at the bar, with all its professional emoluments, sever their connection
disposition of cases, which is one of the purposes for allowing the Court to rule in with their clients, and dedicate themselves exclusively to the discharge of the
divisions. onerous duties of their high office. So, it is irrefutable that they guaranty against
a reduction of salary by the imposition of a tax is not an exemption from taxation
in the sense of freedom from a burden or service to which others are liable. The
exemption for a public purpose or a valid consideration is merely a nominal
f. Salaries exemption, since the valid and full consideration or the public purpose promoted
is received in the place of the tax (Perfecto vs. Meer, 85 Phil 552). As in the United
States during the second period, the Court held that salaries of judges are not
Section 10. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of the included in the word "income" taxed by the Income Tax Law. Two paramount
Supreme Court, and of judges of lower courts, shall be fixed by law. During their circumstances may additionally be indicated, to wit: First, when the Income Tax
continuance in office, their salary shall not be decreased. Law was first applied to the Philippines 1913, taxable "income" did not include
salaries of judicial officers when these are protected from diminution; and
second, when the Philippine Constitutional Convention approved (in 1935) the
Salaries of SC Justices and judges of lower courts shall be
prohibition against diminution off the judges' compensation, the Federal principle
fixed by law.
was known that income tax on judicial salaries really impairs them.
Cannot be decreased during their continuance in office, but
can be increased.
Indeed the exemption of the judicial salary from reduction by taxation is not really a
Members of the judiciary are NOT exempt from payment of gratuity or privilege. Xxx The exemption of the judicial compensation from
income tax. reduction is not in any true sense a gratuity, privilege or exemption. It is
essentially and primarily compensation based upon valuable consideration. The
covenant on the part of the government is a guaranty whose fulfillment is as much
as part of the consideration agreed as is the money salary. The undertaking has
its own particular value to the citizens in securing the independence of the
CASES
judiciary in crises; and in the establishment of the compensation upon a
permanent foundation whereby judicial preferment may be prudently accepted by
• As in the United States during the second period, the Court held that salaries of those who are qualified by talent, knowledge, integrity and capacity, but are not
judges are not included in the word "income" taxed by the Income Tax Law. Two possessed of such a private fortune as to make an assured salary an object of
paramount circumstances may additionally be indicated, to wit: First, when the personal concern. On the other hand, the members of the judiciary relinquish their
Income Tax Law was first applied to the Philippines 1913, taxable "income" did position at the bar, with all its professional emoluments, sever their connection
not include salaries of judicial officers when these are protected from diminution; with their clients, and dedicate themselves exclusively to the discharge of the
and second, when the Philippine Constitutional Convention approved (in 1935) the onerous duties of their high office. So, it is irrefutable that they guaranty against
prohibition against diminution off the judges' compensation, the Federal principle a reduction of salary by the imposition of a tax is not an exemption from taxation
was known that income tax on judicial salaries really impairs them. in the sense of freedom from a burden or service to which others are liable. The
exemption for a public purpose or a valid consideration is merely a nominal
Indeed the exemption of the judicial salary from reduction by taxation is not really a exemption, since the valid and full consideration or the public purpose promoted
gratuity or privilege. Xxx The exemption of the judicial compensation from is received in the place of the tax (Perfecto vs. Meer, 85 Phil 552).
reduction is not in any true sense a gratuity, privilege or exemption. It is
essentially and primarily compensation based upon valuable consideration. The • The Legislature cannot lawfully declare the collection of income tax on the salary
covenant on the part of the government is a guaranty whose fulfillment is as much of a public official, specially a judicial officer, not a decrease of his salary, after
as part of the consideration agreed as is the money salary. The undertaking has
11

the Supreme Court has found and decided otherwise. The interpretation and violates the Constitution" in Perfecto vs. Meer, 13 as affirmed in Endencia vs.
application of the Constitution and of statutes is within the exclusive province and David 14 must be declared discarded. The framers of the fundamental law, as the
jurisdiction of the judicial department, and that in enacting a law, the Legislature alter ego of the people, have expressed in clear and unmistakable terms the
may not legally provide therein that it be interpreted in such a way that it may not meaning and import of Section 10, Article VIII, of the 1987 Constitution that they
violate a Constitutional prohibition, thereby tying the hands of the courts in their have adopted (Nitafan vs. CIR, 152 SCRA 284).
task of later interpreting said statute, specially when the interpretation sought
and provided in said statute runs counter to a previous interpretation already
given in a case by the highest court of the land. In the case at bar, Section 13 of
Republic Act 590 interpreted or ascertained the meaning of the phrase “which • The Legislature cannot lawfully declare the collection of income tax on the salary
shall not be diminished during their continuance in office,” found in section 9, of a public official, specially a judicial officer, not a decrease of his salary, after
Article VIII of the Constitution, referring to the salaries of judicial officers. This act the Supreme Court has found and decided otherwise. The interpretation and
of interpreting the Constitution or any part thereof by the Legislature is an application of the Constitution and of statutes is within the exclusive province and
invasion of the well-defined and established province and jurisdiction of the jurisdiction of the judicial department, and that in enacting a law, the Legislature
Judiciary. The Legislature under our form of government is assigned the task and may not legally provide therein that it be interpreted in such a way that it may not
the power to make and enact laws, but not to interpret them. This is more true with violate a Constitutional prohibition, thereby tying the hands of the courts in their
regard to the interpretation of the basic law, the Constitution, which is not within task of later interpreting said statute, specially when the interpretation sought
the sphere of the Legislative department. Allowing the legislature to interpret the and provided in said statute runs counter to a previous interpretation already
law would bring confusion and instability in judicial processes and court given in a case by the highest court of the land. In the case at bar, Section 13 of
decisions. Therefore, the doctrine laid down in the case of Perfecto vs. Meer to Republic Act 590 interpreted or ascertained the meaning of the phrase “which
the effect that the collection of income tax on the salary of a judicial officer is a shall not be diminished during their continuance in office,” found in section 9,
diminution thereof and so violates the Constitution, is reiterated. The Supreme Article VIII of the Constitution, referring to the salaries of judicial officers. This act
Court affirmed the decision, affirming the ruling in Perferto v. Meer and holding of interpreting the Constitution or any part thereof by the Legislature is an
the interpretation and application of laws belong to the Judiciary invasion of the well-defined and established province and jurisdiction of the
(Endencia vs. David, 93 Phil. 696). Judiciary. The Legislature under our form of government is assigned the task and
the power to make and enact laws, but not to interpret them. This is more true with
regard to the interpretation of the basic law, the Constitution, which is not within
• The debates, interpellations and opinions expressed regarding the constitutional the sphere of the Legislative department. Allowing the legislature to interpret the
provision in question until it was finally approved by the Commission disclosed law would bring confusion and instability in judicial processes and court
that the true intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, in adopting it, was to decisions. Therefore, the doctrine laid down in the case of Perfecto vs. Meer to
make the salaries of members of the Judiciary taxable. The ascertainment of that the effect that the collection of income tax on the salary of a judicial officer is a
intent is but in keeping with the fundamental principle of constitutional diminution thereof and so violates the Constitution, is reiterated. The Supreme
construction that the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people Court affirmed the decision, affirming the ruling in Perferto v. Meer and holding
adopting it should be given effect. 10 The primary task in constitutional the interpretation and application of laws belong to the Judiciary
construction is to ascertain and thereafter assure the realization of the purpose (Endencia vs. David, 93 Phil. 696).
of the framers and of the people in the adoption of the Constitution. 11 It may also
be safely assumed that the people in ratifying the Constitution were guided mainly
by the explanation offered by the framers. Besides, construing Section 10, • The debates, interpellations and opinions expressed regarding the constitutional
Articles VIII, of the 1987 Constitution, it is plain that the Constitution authorizes provision in question until it was finally approved by the Commission disclosed
Congress to pass a law fixing another rate of compensation of Justices and that the true intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, in adopting it, was to
Judges but such rate must be higher than that which they are receiving at the time make the salaries of members of the Judiciary taxable. The ascertainment of that
of enactment, or if lower, it would be applicable only to those appointed after its intent is but in keeping with the fundamental principle of constitutional
approval. It would be a strained construction to read into the provision an construction that the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people
exemption from taxation in the light of the discussion in the Constitutional adopting it should be given effect. 10 The primary task in constitutional
Commission. construction is to ascertain and thereafter assure the realization of the purpose
of the framers and of the people in the adoption of the Constitution. 11 It may also
be safely assumed that the people in ratifying the Constitution were guided mainly
With the foregoing interpretation, and as stated heretofore, the ruling that "the
by the explanation offered by the framers. Besides, construing Section 10,
imposition of income tax upon the salary of judges is a dimunition thereof, and so
Articles VIII, of the 1987 Constitution, it is plain that the Constitution authorizes
12

Congress to pass a law fixing another rate of compensation of Justices and


Judges but such rate must be higher than that which they are receiving at the time
of enactment,

or if lower, it would be applicable only to those appointed after its approval. It


would be a strained construction to read into the provision an exemption from
taxation in the light of the discussion in the Constitutional Commission.

With the foregoing interpretation, and as stated heretofore, the ruling that "the
imposition of income tax upon the salary of judges is a dimunition thereof, and so
violates the Constitution" in Perfecto vs. Meer, 13 as affirmed in Endencia vs.
David 14 must be declared discarded. The framers of the fundamental law, as the
alter ego of the people, have expressed in clear and unmistakable terms the
meaning and import of Section 10, Article VIII, of the 1987 Constitution that they
have adopte (Nitafan vs. CIR, 152 SCRA 284).

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen