section 8

Judicial and Bar Council

- takes the place of the Commission on Appointments in the matter of judicial

appointments.
- It is the council that will screen such appointments and not the Commission.

SC clarified in Chavez vs Judicial and Bar Council

- the Congress may have only one representative in the JBC.

INDEPENDENCE of JBC is NOT effective

- Secretary of Justice is under the President’s constitutional control.
- the representatives from the congress usually belongs to the party in power, of
which the President is the actual or titular head.
- the appointive members have no limit on the number of terms they may serve
which means that they will tend to defer to the “suggestions” of the President in
hopes for re-appointment.

(Once appointed upon nomination of the Council, the Judge does not need
confirmation by the Commission on Appointment. The appointment made by the
President may not be checked by the Commission).

Judges
- may not be appointed in an acting or temporary capacity as this undermine the
independence of the judiciary, temporary appointments being essentially
revocable at will. And to prevent impairment of this same goal and discontinue a
notorious practice before.

as stated in section 12, it provides that,

“The members of the Supreme court and of the other courts established by law
shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative
function.”

Judicial power
- power shall be vested in one SC and in such lower courts as may be established
by law.
- dealing with the settlement of disputes, controversies or conflicts involving rights,
duties or prerogatives that are legally demandable and enforceable.
- the duty of the court of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which
are legally demandable and enforceable.
- to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government.
Municipal or metropolitan trial courts and the regional trial courts
- original and exclusive jurisdiction over election contests at the barangay and
municipal levels.

COMELEC, House of Representatives and Senate electoral tribunal

- has exclusive and original jurisdiction at the higher levels. (city, provincial, and
regional, as well as congressional and senatorial).
- empowered to resolve election contest which involve an exercise of judicial
power.
- there decisions are still subject to judicial review-via a petition for certiorari filed
by the proper party-if there is a showing that the decision was rendered with
grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

section 9

“the members of the SC and judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the president
from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the judicial and bar council for every
vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.”

“for the lower courts, the president shall issue the appointment within ninety days from
the submission of the list.”

purpose of the provision

- to de-politicize our courts of justices
- ensure the choice of competent judges
- fill existing vacancies as soon as possible so as not to unduly disrupt judicial
proceedings

reason for 3 nominees for every vacancy

- to give the President enough leeway in the exercise of his discretion when he
makes his appointment.
- if the nominee were limited to only one, the appointment would in effect be made
by the judicial and bar council, with the President performing only the mechanical
act of formalizing the commission.

section 10

“the salary of the chief justice and of the associate justices of the SC and of
judges of lower courts shall be fixed by law. During their continuance in office,
their salary shall not be decreased.”

- the prohibition against diminution of the salaries of judges during their

continuance in office is one of the guarantees to their independence. without this
provision, it would be possible for the congress to exert pressure on the
 members of the judiciary by threatening heir financial security through reduction
of their salaries.

Nitafan vs. Commissioner

- Sc held that the salaries of judges, like those of other government functionaries,
should also be subject to income tax.

The prohibition is against the decrease, not increase, of the salaries of judges.

Section 11

“the members of the SC and judges of lower courts shall hold offce during good
behavior until they reach the age of 70 years or become incapacitated to discharge the
duties if their office. The SC en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower
courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority f the members who actually took
part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.”

intent of the provision

- guarantees them security of tenure until they reach the retirement age of
seventy. (they cannot be remove except for cause, which includes inability to
discharge the duties of their office.)

retirement
- from 70 to 65
- to avoid the problem of senile judges
- give way for fresh blood in the judiciary through the appointment of younger
replacements as old judges retire.
- based on proposition that the older the judge. the less competent he becomes.

removal of judges
- after charges have been filed and proved against them on a proper
administrative proceeding conducted or ordered by the SC.

SC
- has the power to remove judges with the concurrence of a majority of the
members who actually took part in the deliberation and voted on the issues in the
case.

Judges of lower courts

- includes justices of the Sandiganbayan. this rule casts much doubt on the legality
of the presidential decree making them removable only by the legislature through
the process if impeachment.
does abolition of a judicial office violate security of tenure?
- the SC, in Zandueta v. de la Costa and Ocampo vs Secretary of Justice, applied
to abolition of courts the principle used relative to the abolition of civil service
positions. Abolition of office is valid when done in good faith and not for political
or personal reasons. In such a situation properly and logically speaking there is
no removal from office because a removal implies that the office exists after the
ouster.

other disciplinary actions of SC

- suspension, fine and reprimand can be meted out by the SC on erring judges.
- administrative case is also considered as a disciplinary action against the
respondent justice, judge or court official concerned as a member of the Bar.

section 12

“the members of the SC and of other courts established by law shall not be
designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative function.”

Reason of the provision

- undermine the independence of the judiciary, temporary appointments being
essentially revocable at will.
- to prevent impairment of this same goal and discontinue a notorious practice
before.

Judge Manzano was designated member of the Ilocos Norte Provincial Committee on
Justice by the Provincial Governor. The function of the committee is to receive
complaints and make recommendations towards the speedy disposition of cases of
detainees, particularly those eho are poor. May the Judge accept the designation?
- no. the committee performs administrative functions, that is functions which
“involves the regulation and control over the conduct and affairs of individuals for
their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better carry
out the policy of the legislature or such are devolved upon the administrative
agency by the organic law of its existence.”

Section 13

“The conclusion of the SC in any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in

division shall be reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a member for
the writing of the opinion of the Court. A certification to this effect signed by the Chief
Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served
upon the parties. Any member who took no part, or dissented, or abstained from a
decision or resolution must state the reason therefor. The same requirements shall be
observed by all lower collegiate courts.”
Sc
- required to reach its conclusions after an exchange of ideas and full deliberation
among its members.

Judgments
- will not have had the benefit of a thorough discussion in which disparate views or
impressions are carefully considered and subjected to voting by the members of
the Court.

Collegiate court
- to provide for the most exhausted deliberation before a conclusion is reached.

Agreement
- when arrived at by the required majority, a member is assigned as the ponente of
the Court.

Dissent opinion
- should state the reason for his dissent.
- may be useful in future considerations of the same and question and may even
be basis of a new doctrine or ruling that will over-turn the existing precedent.

non participation of justice

- a justice who takes no part no part or abstain must now also explain his non-
participation as it is not permitted for a member to refuse to act except for valid
reasons.

Previous consultation
- SC, CA and other lower collegiate courts like the Sandiganbayan and the court of
Tax Appeals.

Certification
- intended as an added guaranty that the consultation requirement will be complied
with by the court.