Introduction

The Philippines is an archipelago of 7,107 islands with a land area of 299,740 sq.
kilometers. It is surrounded by the Pacific Ocean on the East, South China Sea on the
North and the West and the Celebes Sea on the South. This comprises the National
Territory of the Philippines. Article I of the 1987 Constitution provides that the "national
territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced
therein and all other territories which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction."

Laws enacted by Congress defined the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine
archipelago. As early as 1935, the baselines have been defined in the 1935
Constitution. This was followed by Republic Act No. 3046 as amended by Republic Act
No.5446. Republic Act No. 9522, approved on March 10, 2000 amended both laws and
defined the archipelagic baselines as “Regime of Islands” (section 2) This definition is
consistent with Art.121 of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS), where the Philippines took an active part. Rodolfo Severino, in his article
“ Clarifying the New Philippines Baseline Law” (Republic Act No. 9522) stated that the
purpose of the law is mainly to amend the existing baselines act and to ‘define the
archipelagic baselines of the Philippines’. It does not extend the baselines to Spratlys or
to Scarborough Shoal, both of which China and Vietnam claim in their territory, while
the Philippines claims a part of what are called “ Spratlys and all of Scarborough
Shoal .” Protest made by China remains. The constitutionality of the law was question
at the Supreme Court in the case Magallona, et. al vs. Ermita, et. al., G.R. No.
187167. The decision upholding the constitutionality of the law was penned by Justice
Antonio T. Carpio on July 16, 2011. The petitioners of the case were professors of law,
law students and a legislator. The petitioners filed the case in their capacities as citizens
of the Philippines, taxpayers and legislators. Noteworthy to mention are the two
grounds invoked by the petitioners in questioning the constitutionality of the law:”1). RA
9522 reduces the Philippine maritime territory, and logically, the reach of the Philippine
state’s sovereign power, in violation of Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution” and 2) “RA
9522 opens the country’s waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all
vessels and aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security,
contravening the country’s nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources, in
violation of relevant constitutional provisions.”

Justice Antonio T. Carpio in his speech before Philippine Women Judges Association,
entitled “Protecting the Nation’s Marine Wealth in the West Philippine Sea,” March 6,
2014, provided an illustration of the baselines defined by Republic Act Nos. 5446 and
9522.
The Philippines’ claim to the Spratlys and the historic claim to Sabah remain
unresolved. The Philippines is now confronted with conflicting claims in the South
China Sea which is governed by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS) which entered into force in 1994. The Philippines and China who are
claimants to the South China seas are among the 165 countries that have ratified the
UNCLOS.

China’s claim is based on the 9-dashed line which covers a total area almost 90% of the
South China Sea. In a speech delivered by Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio
entitled, “The Rules of Law in the West Philippine Sea Dispute,” he stated that China’s
9-dash claim encroaches on 80% on the Philippines’ 200-nm exclusive economic zone
(EEZ) and 100% of its 150-nm extended continental shelf (ECS) facing the South China
sea – what the Philippines call West Philippine sea. China’s 9-dash line claim has similar
effects on the EEZs and ECSs of Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia facing the
South China Sea.”

Justice Antonio T. Carpio’s speech before Philippine Women Judges Association,

entitled “Protecting the Nation’s Marine Wealth in the West Philippine Sea,” March 6,
2014 includes the illustration on the 9-Dashed Lines.
Senior Justice Antonio Carpio stated that “maritime dispute in the West Philippine Sea
could be more easily resolved if all the claimant States agreed on two things: first, on the
applicable law to govern the maritime dispute, and second, on the historical facts on the
West Philippine Sea.”

David Rosenberg in his article, “The Paradox of the South China Sea Disputes,” considers
the nine-dash line claim as the most controversial maritime territorial claim. Rosenberg
traced the history as claim as far “back as December 1914 when Hu Jinjie, a Chinese
cartographer, published a map with a line around only the Pratas and Paracels, entitled
‘The Chinese Territorial Map Before the Qianglong-Jiaqing Period of the Qing Dynasty
(AD 1736–1820)” until “1953 when the two dotted line portion in the Gulf of Tonkin was
deleted by Premier Zhou Enlai’s approval. Chinese maps published since 1953 have
shown the nine-dotted line in the South China Sea.”

The Philippines however has its own version on historical claims based on historical
maps available at the United States Library of Congress, National Library of Australia.
The Philippine historical claim can be seen in a cartographic exhibit entitled “ Historical
Truths and Lies, Scarborough Schoal in Ancient Maps ,” which was based on the June
2014 of Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio. The first map in this cartographic
exhibit was published in 1734 by Jesuit Pedro Murillo. It is considered the "mother of all
Philippine maps."
 Caption: "Carta Hydrographica Y Chorographica de las Yslas Filipinas" (8407x7734)
(U.S. Library of Congress (Catalog No. 2013585226; Digital ID g8060 ct003137)

This territorial dispute has both political and economic implications for the Philippines,
China and also to Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia. There was even a headline
stating “ Is the South China Sea on the Brink of War? ” As a measure to resolve the
controversy, the Philippines has used the legal remedy in as much as China and the
Philippines are parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea or
UNCLOS.

The Philippines filed a formal claim before an arbitration tribunal constituted under
Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea entitled “In the
Matter of an Arbitration between The Republic of the Philippines (applicant) and The
People’s Republic of China (Respondent), 24 August 2013 (PCA Case No. 2013-19. Full
text of the Rules of Procedure of the case is available in the Permanent Court of
Arbitration. Further details can be found here , here , and here .

The Filipino culture was molded over more than a hundred ethnic groups consisting of
91% Christian Malay, 4% Muslim Malay, 1.5% Chinese and 3% others. As of the
August 2007 national census , the population of the Philippines has increased to 88.57
million and is estimated to reach 92.23 million in 2009. The census is scheduled to be
undertaken this 2009.

Filipino ( Tagalog) is the national language (1987 Constitution, Art. XIV, sec. 6) of the
Philippines. However, Filipino and English are the official languages for the purpose of
communication and instruction (Art. XIV, sec 7). Optional use of the national language,
Filipino ( Tagalog ) is allowed. Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 16-2010
allowed the optional use and on a per case basis, the use of Filipino ( Tagalog) in court
proceedings in view to the difficulties encountered in the use of Filipino as manifested
by the Presiding Judges and the court stenographers of some courts. This Circular
provides that “in appropriate cases as may be determined by the Presiding Judge and
without objection of the parties, the above-mentioned courts may use Filipino in the
hearing and resolution of motions, or in the conduct of mediation, pre-trial conference,
trial, and in any other court proceedings. Existing translations of laws and rules may be
used freely, and technical terms in English or Latin need not be translated literally into
Filipino.” Republic Act No. 10157, known as the Kindergarten Education Act utilizes the
“mother tongue-based multilingual education (MTB-MLE) method as the” primary
medium of instruction for teaching and learning in the kindergarten level
(sec.5). Section 5, likewise specifically provides that the Department of Education must
include in its teaching strategies the “child’s understanding of English, which is the
official language.”

There are several dialects or regional languages (spoken and written) throughout the
different islands of the country, but there are eight major dialects, which
include Bicolano, Cebuano, Hiligaynon or Ilongo,
Ilocano, Pampango, Pangasinense, Tagalog, and Waray .

There are two major religions of the country: Christianity and Islam. Christianity, more
particularly Catholicism, is practiced by more than 80% of the population. It was
introduced by Spain in 1521. The Protestant religion was introduced by American
missionaries.

Aglipay , or the Philippine Independent Church, and the Iglesia ni Kristo are two
Filipino independent churches or religious organizations. Other Christian religious
organizations like the El Shaddai, Ang DatingDaan , and ‘Jesus is Lord' have been
established. Members of the Iglesia ni Kristo and the El Shaddai are increasing and
their membership has exented worldwide. These independent churches and religious
organizations are having a great influence to the nation, especially during elections.

The Constitution of the Philippines specifically provides that the separation of Church
and State is inviolable. (Constitution (987), Art. II, sec.6). However, religion has a great
influence in the legal system of the Philippines. For the Muslim or Islamic religion, a
special law, the Code of Muslim Personal Laws (Presidential Decree no. 1083), was
promulgated and special courts were established, the Shari’a courts, a separate bar
examination for the Muslim or Islamic community is being conducted. The Catholic
Church has affected the present political system. A priest had to take leave as a priest
when he was elected governor of a province in Region 3. A movement was even started
to be able to choose the President of the Philippines and other government officials in
the May 2009 national election. The Church stand on major issues have
affected the passage of bills pending in Congress and such as the Reproductive Health
Bill (Senate Bill No. 2865 and House Bill No. 4244) which was approved by both House
of Congress on December 19, 2012. After the passage of the law, religious organizations
and individuals questioned the constitutionality of the law in the consolidated case of
“Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr.,” G.R. No. 204819, April 08, 2014.
The other bill still pending in Congress is Divorce, etc. The Philippines is considered as
the only country that does not allow Divorce. However, annulment of marriage is
recognized.

2. Political Structure
The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. The present political structure of
the Philippines was defined by the 1987 Constitution, duly ratified in a plebiscite held on
February 2, 1987 and proclaimed ratified on February 11, 1987. There is a move now in
Congress, which was started at the House of Representatives to revise/amend the
present Constitution. One of the major problems to be resolved by both Houses of
Congress is the mode or method in revising/amending the present 1987 Constitution.
A much debated proposed amendment is the term extension for the President.

The 1987 Constitution provides that the Philippines is a democratic and republican state
where sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from
them (Article II, section 1).
3. Government Structure
The government structure differs as one goes through the history of the Philippines,
which may be categorized as follows: a) Pre-Spanish; b). Spanish period; c). American
period; d). Japanese period; e). Republic; and f). Martial Law Period

a) Pre-Spanish (before 1521)

The Barangays or independent communities were the unit of government structures
before Spain colonized the Philippines. The head of each barangay was the Datu . The
Datus were called Cabeza de Barangayduring the Spanish period. He governs the
barangays using native rules, which are customary and unwritten. There were two codes
during this period: the Maragtas Code issued by Datu Sumakwel of Panay Island and the
Code of Kalantiao issued by Datu Kalantiano in 1433. The existence of these codes is
questioned by some historians.

Just like many ancient societies, trial by ordeal was practiced.

b) Spanish period (1521-1898)

The Spanish period can be traced from the time Magellan discovered the Philippines
when he landed on Mactan Island (Cebu) on March 16, 1521. Royal decrees, Spanish
laws, and/or special issuances of special laws for the Philippines were extended to the
Philippines from Spain by the Spanish Crown through the councils. The chief legislator
is the governor-general who exercises legislative functions by promulgating executive
decrees, edicts or ordinances with the force of law. The Roya l Audencia, or Spanish
Supreme Court, in the Philippines also exercised legislative functions when laws are
passed in the form of autos accordados . Melquiades Gamb oa , in his book entitled “ An
Introduction to Philippine Law ” (7th ed, 1969), listed the most prominent laws in this
period: Fuero Juzgo, Fuero Real, Las Siete Partidas, Leyes de Toros, Nueva
Re copi lacion de las Leyes de Indias and the Novisima Recopilacion . Some of these
laws were also in force in other Spanish colonies. Laws in force at the end of the Spanish
rule in 1898 are as follows: Codigo Penal de 1870, Ley Provisional para la Aplicaciones
de las Dispociciones del Codigo Penal en las Islas Filipinas, Ley de Enjuciamento
Criminal, Ley de Enjuciameniento Civil, Codigo de Comercio, Codigo Civil de 1889, Ley
Hipotecaria, Ley de Minas, Ley Notarial de 1862 , Railway Law of 1877, Law of
Foreigners for Ultramarine Provinces and the Code of Military Justice. Some of these
laws remained in force even during the early American period and/or until Philippine
laws were promulgated.
In between the Spanish and the American period is what Philippine historians consider
the first Philippine Republic. This was when General Emilio Aguinaldo proclaimed the
Philippine Independence in Kawit , Cavite on June 12, 1898. The Malolos Congress also
known as Assembly of the Representatives, which can be considered as revolutionary in
nature, was convened on September 15, 1898. The first Philippine Constitution, the
Malolos Constitution was approved on January 20, 1899. General Emilio Aguinaldo was
the President and Don Gracio Gonzaga as the Chief Justice. A Republic, although with de
facto authority, was in force until the start of the American Sovereignty when the Treaty
of Paris was signed on December 10, 1898.

c) American period (1898-1946)

The start of this period can be traced after the Battle of Manila Bay when Spain ceded
the Philippines to the United States upon the signing of the Treaty of Paris on December
10, 1898. A military government was organized with the military governor as the chief
executive exercising executive, legislative and judicial functions. Legislative function
was transferred to the Philippine Commission in 1901, which was created by the United
States President as commander-in-chief of the Armed forces and later ratified by the
Philippine Bill of 1902. This same Bill provided for the establishment of the First
Philippine Assembly, which convened on October 16, 1907. The Jones law provided for
the establishment of a bicameral legislative body on October 16, 1916, composed of the
Senate and the House of Representatives.

The United States Constitution was recognized until the promulgation of the Philippine
Constitution on February 8, 1935, signed by U.S. President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt on March 23, 1935 and ratified at a plebiscite held on May 14, 1935.

The organic laws that governed the Philippines during this period were: President
McKinley’s Instruction to the Second Philippine Commission on April 7, 1900; Spooner
Amendment of 1901; Philippine Bill of 1902; Jones Law of 1916 and the Tydings
McDuffie Law of May 1, 1934. The later law is significant for it allowed the establishment
of a Commonwealth government and the right to promulgate its own Constitution. The
1935 Constitution initially changed the legislative system to a
unicameral system. However, the bicameral system was restored pursuant to the 1940
Constitutional amendment. The Commonwealth government is considered as a
transition government for ten years before the granting of the Philippine
independence. Cayetano Arellano was installed as the first Chief Justice in
1901. The M ajority of the Justices of the Philippine Supreme Court were Americans.
Decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of the Philippines were appealed to the United
States Supreme Court, which were reported in the United States Supreme Court Reports.

Manuel L. Quezon and Sergio Osmeña were elected as President and Vice-President
respectively during the September 14, 1935 elections. In this election, President Quezon
won over General Emilio Aguinaldo and Bishop Gregorio Aglipay, the President of the
First Philippine Republic (1898) and the head of the Aglipayan church, respectively. This
Commonwealth government went into exile in Washington DC during the Japanese
period from May 13, 1942 to October 3, 1944. President Manuel L. Quezon died on
August 1, 1944 and was succeeded by President Sergio Osmena who brought back the
government to Manila on February 28, 1945.

d) Japanese period (1941-1944)

The invasion of the Japanese forces when Clark Field, an American military airbase in
Pampanga, was bombed on December 8, 1941, marked the start of the Japanese period,
which lasted for three years. A Japanese Republic was established with Jose P. Laurel as
its President. Jose Yulo was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court
decisions during this period were recognized and are found in the Philippine Reports,
the official publication for Supreme Court decisions . This period was considered as a
military rule by the Japanese Imperial Army. The 1943 Constitution was ratified by a
special national convention of the Kapisanan sa Paglilingkod ng Bagong
Pilipinas (KALIBAPI). No law/statutes, including the 1943 Constitution were
recognized after the war. This period lasted for three years and ended in 1944 with the
defeat of the Japanese forces.

e) Republic period (1946-1972)

July 4, 1946 was the inauguration of Philippine independence. A Philippine Republic
was born. A republic means a government by the people and sovereignty resides in the
entire people as a body politic. The provisions of the 1935 Constitution defined the
government structure, which provided for the establishment of three co-equal branches
of government. Executive power rests in the President, legislative power in two Houses
of Congress and judicial power in the Supreme Court, and inferior courts. Separation of
powers is recognized.

Efforts to amend the 1935 Constitution started on August 24, 1970 with the approval of
Republic Act No. 6132 where 310 delegates were elected on November 10, 1970. On June
1, 1971, the delegates of the Constitutional Convention met. While it was still in session,
President Ferdinand E. Marcos declared Martial Law on September 21, 1972. The
Constitutional Convention completed the draft Constitution on November 29, 1972. It
was submitted for ratification through citizens’ assemblies on January 17, 1973. This is
known as the 1973 Constitution.

f) Martial Law Period (1972-1986).

The Philippine Congress was abolished when Martial Law was declared on September
21, 1972. The Martial Law period was governed by the 1973 Constitution, which
established a parliamentary form of government. Executive and legislative powers were
merged and the Chief Executive was the Prime Minister who was elected by majority of
all members of the National Assembly (Parliament). The Prime Minister had the power
to advise the President. The President is the symbolic head of state. This parliamentary
government was never implemented due to the transitory provision of the 1973
Constitution. Military tribunals were also established. Amendments to the Constitution
were made wherein by virtue of amendment No. 3, the powers of the President and the
Prime Minister were merged into the incumbent President Ferdinand E.
Marcos. Amendment No. 6 authorized President Marcos to continue exercising
legislative powers until Martial law is in effect. Amendment No. 7 provided for
the barangays as the smallest political subdivision and the sanggunians , or
councils. The 1981 amendment introduced the modified presidential/parliamentary
system of government of the Philippines. The President shall be elected by the people for
a term of six years while the Prime Minister shall be elected by a majority of the Batasang
Pambansa (Parliament) upon the nomination of the President. He was the head of the
Cabinet and had supervision over all the ministries. The President during this period
was Ferdinand E. Marcos and the Prime Minister was Cesar Enrique Aguinaldo Virata.

Proclamation No. 2045 (1981) lifted Martial Law and abolished mi litary
tribunals. Elections were held on June 16, 1981 and President Marcos was re-elected
into office as President. The constitution was again amended in 1984 and a plebiscite
was held on January 27, 1984 pursuant to Batas Pambansa Blg. 643 (1984). Elections
were held on May 14, 1984 for the 183 elective seats in the 200 member of the Batasang
Pambansa .

An i mpeachment resolution by 57 members of the opposition was f iled against

President Marcos but was dismissed. A special presidential election, popularly known
as Snap Election, was called by President Marcos on November 3, 1985 and was held on
February 7, 1986. The National Movement for Free Elections, or NAMFREL, results
showed that Corazon Aquino led by over a million votes. However, the Batasang
Pambansa declared that Ferdinand E. Marcos and Arturo M. Tolentino won over
Corazon C . Aquino and Salvador H. Laurel as President and Vice-President,
respectively. President Marcos and Vice President Arturo took their oath before Chief
Justice Ramon Aquino at the Malacanang Palace, Manila. This event led to the People
Power revolution, which ousted President Marcos on February 25, 1986.

g) Republic Revival (1986-present)

The Republic period was revived after the bloodless revolution popularly known as
People Power or the EDSA Revolution.

Corazon C. Aquino and Salvador H. Laurel took their oath of office as 11 th President and
Vice President of the Philippine Republic on February 25, 1986 before Associate Justice
Claudio Teehankee at the Club Filipino, San Juan, Manila. Proclamation No. 1 (1986)
was promulgated wherein the President and the Vice President took power in the name
and by the will of the Filipino people. Proclamation No. 3 (1986) adopted as the
Provisional Constitution or Freedom Constitution, provided for a new government.

A Constitutional Commission was constituted by virtue of Article V of the Provisional

Constitution and Proclamation No. 9 (1986). The Constitutional Commission,
composed of 48 members, was mandated to draft a Constitution. After 133 days, the
draft constitution was submitted to the President on October 15, 1986 and ratified by the
people in a plebiscite held on February 2, 1987. Under the transitory provision of the
1987 Constitution, the President and Vice President elected in the February 7, 1986
elections were given a six-year term of office until June 30, 1992. Congressional
elections were held on May 11, 1987. The Republican form of government was officially
revived when the 1987 Constitution was ratified and Congress was convened in
1987. Legislative enactments again rested in the Congress. Republic Acts were again
issued by Congress, the number of which took off from the last number used before
Martial Law was declared. The numbering of Republic Acts continued from the number
last used before Martial Law (Republic Act No. 6635 (1972) and Republic Act No. 6636
(1987). The Republic form of government by virtue of the 1987 Constitution was the same
type of republican government prior to Martial law by virtue of the 1935 Constitution
with three co-equal branches: Executive, Legislative and the Judiciary.

The Philippines once again became a Republic by virtue of the 1987 Constitution. The
same type of republican form of government prior to Martial law was established with
three co-equal branches were organized, Executive, Legislative and the Judiciary. Those
holding office in these three co-equal branches are public officers and employees.
Constitution (1987), Article XI, provides for the accountability of public officers. Article
XI, Section 1 , “Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all
times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity,
loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.” Public
officers in the Executive (President and Vice President) , Judiciary (Members or
Justices of the Supreme Court) and the Constitutional Commissions and the
Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of,
culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high
crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be
removed from office as provided by law, such as the civil service laws, but not by
impeachment (Article XI, Section 2).

The legislative branch is composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. It is
the legislative branch or Congress, which is involved in the impeachment process. The
House of Representatives has the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment
though a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment filed by at least one-third of
all the Members of the House of Representatives, and an Articles of Impeachment
(Article XI, Section 3, (1) – (5)). The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide
all cases of impeachment. When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. The public officer
(President and Vice President, members or Justices of the Supreme Court and the
Constitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman) shall be convicted with the
concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate. (Article XI, Section 3,
(6). When the Chief Justice or members of the Judiciary and the Constitutional
Commissions and Ombudsman are on trial, the Senate President shall preside. Rules of
impeachment shall be promulgated by the Senate. Find further information here , here ,
and here .

Impeachment (Constitution (1987) Article XI, Sections 2 and 3 has been filed against
a President, two Chief Justices and one Associate Justice and an Ombudsman. In the
case of President Joseph E. Estrada ,verified complaint was filed by 115 members of the
House of Representatives led by the Speaker of the House of Representatives Manuel
Villar on November 13, 2000. Impeachment trial was held December 9, 2000 with Chief
Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. as presiding officer and Senate President Aquilino
Pimentel. The impeachment trial did not end for the Prosecutors walked out on January
16, 2001 when the impeachment court did not grant their request to open the second
envelope. This lead to what is called “People Power 2,” which ended when Vice-
President Gloria Macapal Arroyo took her oath of office as President on January 21,
2001 before Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr., in EDSA where the people gathered
for the People Power 2. The legality of the Arroyo Presidency was brought to the
Supreme Court by President Estrada (Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15, March 2,
2001)

On October 23, 2003, an impeachment case was filed against Chief Justice Hilario G.
Davide Jr. but it did not prosper in the House of Representatives. The question on the
impeachment case of Chief Justice Davide was resolved by the Supreme Court in the case
of Francisco, Jr. v. The House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261, November 10,
2003). On May 2011, the House Committee on Justice declared that the impeachment
complaint against incumbent Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo as sufficient in form
and in December 2011, as sufficient in substance. The impeachment complaint is still
pending in the House of Representatives. December 2011, an impeachment case was
filed against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona by 188 members of the House of
Representatives or more than the required one-third requirement ofArticle XI, Section
3 of the 1987 Constitution . Trial started January 16, 2012 with Senate President Juan
Ponce Enrile as Presiding Officer. Chief Justice Renato C. Corona was found guilty
under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment last May 29, 2012 or after 43 days of
trial. The vote of the Senators who acted as Impeachment Court Judges was 20-3, 20
found him guilty. Chief Justice Renato C. Corona is the first high ranking government
official to be convicted by an impeachment court.

In March 2011, 212 members of the House of Representatives led by House Speaker
Feliciano Belmonte voted to impeach the Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez and to
transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. The 7-year term of office
of Ombudsman Gutierrez was supposed to end December 2012. Ombudsman Gutierrez
resigned before the impeachment trial by the Senate.
3.1. Executive Branch
The President is vested with the executive power. (Art. VII, sec. 1, 1987 Constitution).
The President is both the Chief of State (head of government) and the Commander-in-
Chief of all the Armed Forces of the Philippines (Art. VII, sec. 18). Since 1898 when the
First Philippine Republic was established, the Philippines has had fifteen (15) Presidents
from Emilio Aguinaldo to Benigno S. Aquino III.

The Executive Branch also includes the Vice-President and the Secretaries of Heads of
the Executive Departments and other Cabinet officials

Both the President and the Vice-President are elected by direct vote of the Filipino people
for a term of six years. The President is not eligible for a re-election while the Vice
President cannot serve for more than two terms. Congress is empowered to promulgate
rules in the canvassing of certificates of election. The Supreme Court sitting en banc is
the sole judge of all election contests relating to their election, returns and qualifications
(Art VII, sec. 4). The Supreme Court en banc thus acts as the Presidential Electoral
Tribunal. The Supreme Court promulgated the 2005 Rules on the Presidential
Tribunal (A.M. No. 05-11-06-SC).Both may be removed from office by impeachment
(Art. XI sec. 2) to be initiated by the House of Representatives (Art. XI, sec, 3) and tried
and decided by the Senate (Art. XI, sec, 3 (6)). The Cabinet members are nominated by
the President, subject to the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments (Art. VII,
sec, 16) which consists of the President of the Senate, as ex- officio Chairman, twelve
Senators and twelve members of the House of Representatives (Art. VI, sec. 1).

Cabinet members are nominated by the President, subject to the confirmation of the
Commission on Appointments (Art. VII, sec, 16), which consists of the President of the
Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators and twelve members of the House of
Representatives (Art. VI, sec. 1).

The President exercises control over all the executive departments, bureaus and offices
(Art. VI, sec, 17).

Office of the Solicitor General .

Its mandate and function as found in its website is that it is “the law firm of the Republic
of the Philippines. It is tasked to represent the People of the Philippines, the Philippine
Government, its Agencies and Instrumentalities, Officials and Agents (especially before
appellate courts) in any litigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer.” Its
mission is “to promote and protect the interest of the Republic of the Philippines and its
people in legal proceedings and matters requiring the services of a lawyer.

3.2. Legislative Department

Legislative power is vested in the Congress of the Philippines, consisting of the Senate
and the House of Representatives (Art. VI, sec. 1). History has provided that the
legislative structure has undergone numerous changes. A brief history of the Philippine
legislature is available at the House of Representative website and at the Senate .

The Senate of the Philippines is composed of twenty four (24) Senators who are elected
at large by qualified voters who serve for a term of not more than six (6) years. No
Senator may be elected for more than two consecutive terms. (Art VI, sec. 4). The Senate
is led by the Senate President, Pro Tempore, Majority Leader and the Minority
Leader. The Senate President is elected by majority vote of its members. There are thirty
six (36) permanent committees and five (5) oversight committees. The sole judge of
contests relating to election, returns and qualifications of members of the Senate rests
with the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET), which is composed of nine members, three of
whom are Justices of the Supreme Court and six members of the Senate. (Art. VI, sec.
17). The Senate Electoral Tribunal has approved on November 12, 2003 its Revised
Rules.

The House of Representatives is composed of not more than two hundred fifty (250)
members, elected by legislative districts for a term of three years. No representative shall
serve for more than three consecutive terms. The party-list representatives who come
from registered national, regional and sectional parties and organizations, shall
constitute twenty percent (20%) of the total number of representatives. The election of
party-list representatives was by virtue of the Republic Act No. 7941, which was approved
on March 3, 1995. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court penned by Justice Antonio
T. Carpio on April 21, 2009, Barangay Association for National Advancement and
Transparency (BANAT) v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 17971) and Bayan Muna,
Advocacy for Teacher Empowerment Through Action, Cooperation and Harmony
Towards Educational Reforms, Inc. and Abono (G.R. No. 179295), Republic Act No. 7941
was declared unconstitutional with regards to the two percent threshold in the
distribution of additional party-list seats. The Court in this decision provided a
procedure in the allocation of additional seats under the Party-List System. Major
political parties are disallowed from participating in party-list elections . Another case
on the party-list elections, pursuant to Republic Act No. 7941 COMELEC Resolutions
Nos. 9366 and 9531, was filed by the 52 party-list groups who were disqualified by the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to participate in the May 13, 2013 election. The
consolidated case is Atong Paglaum, Inc., Represented by its President, Mr. Alan Igot
v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 203766, April 2, 2013) was penned by Justice
Antonio T. Carpio. This case enumerated the six parameters in determining as to who
may participate in party-list elections.

The officials of the House of Representatives are the Speaker of the House, Deputy
Speaker for Luzon, Deputy Speaker for Visayas, Deputy Speaker for Mindanao, Majority
Leader, and Minority Leader. They are elected by a majority vote of members. There
are fifty seven (57) standing committees and sixteen (16) special committees of the
House of Representatives. The sole judge of contests relating to election, returns and
qualifications of members of the House of Representatives rests with the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) which is composed of nine members, three
of whom are Justices of the Supreme Court and six members of the Senate.(Art. VI, sec.
17). The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal adopted its 1998 Internal Rules
on March 24, 1998.

3.3. Judicial System

Organizational Chart of the whole Judicial System and those of each type of Court is
available in 2002 Revised Manual of Clerks of Court. Manila: Supreme Court,
2002. Organizational Chart was amended due to the passage of Republic Act No. 9282
(law elevating the Court of Tax Appeals to the level of a collegiate court)

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 the Supreme 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 websiteand 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 theIntegrated 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 and Audencia 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 Audencia and 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 .

3.4. Constitutional Commissions

Civil Service Commission - Act No. 5 (1900) established the Philippine civil service and
was reorganized as a Bureau in 1905. It was established in the 1935
Constitution. Republic Act No. 2260 (1959) converted it from a Bureau into the Civil
Service Commission. Presidential Decree No. 807 further redefined its role. Its present
status is provided for in the 1987 Constitution, Art. IX-B and reiterated by the provision
of the 1987 Administrative Code (Executive Order No. 292).

Commission on Elections - It is the constitutional commission created by a 1940

amendment to the 1935 Constitution whose primary function is to manage to maintain
its authority and independence in the conduct of elections. The COMELEC exercises
administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial powers. Its membership increased to nine
with a term of nine years by the 1973 Constitution. It was however decreased to seven
with a term of seven years without re-appointment by the 1987 Constitution.

Commission on Audit - Article IX, sec, 2 of the 1987 Constitution provided the powers
and authority of the Commission on Audit, which is to examine, audit and settle all
accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of and expenditures or uses of funds and
property owned or held in trust by or pertaining to the Government including
government owned and controlled corporations with original charters.

3.5. Local Governments

Article X of the 1987 Constitution provides for the territorial and political subdivisions
of the Philippines as follows: province, cities, municipalities and barangays . The 1991
Local Government Code or Republic Act No. 7160, as amended by Republic Act No.
9009, provides the detail that implements the provision of the Constitution. The
officials, namely, the governor, city mayor, city vice mayor, municipal mayor, municipal
vice-mayor and punong barangay are elected by their respective units. (1991 Local
Government Code, Title II, Chapter 1, sec. 41 (a)). The regular members of
the sangguniang panlalawigan (for the province), sangguniang panglunsod (for
cities), sangguniang bayan (municipalities) are elected by districts while
the sangguniang barangay are elected at large.

Each territorial or political subdivision enjoys local autonomy as defined in the

Constitution. The President exercises supervision over local Governments.
Each region is composed of several provinces while each province is composed of a
cluster of municipalities and component cities (Local Government Code, Title IV,
Chapter 1, sec. 459). The Provincial government is composed of the governor, vice-
governor, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan and other appointed officials.

The city consists of more urbanized and developed barangays which are created,
divided, merged, abolished or its boundary altered by law or act of Congress, subject to
the approval of majority votes cast by its residents in a plebiscite conducted by the
Comelec (Local Government Code, Title III, Chapter 1, sec. 448-449). A City may be
classified either as a component or highly urbanized. The city government is composed
of the mayor, vice-mayor, members of the sangguniang panlunsod (which is composed
of the president of the city chapter of the liga ng mga barangay , president of
the panlungsod ng mga pederasyon ng mga sangguniang kabataan and the sectoral
representatives) and other appointed officials.

The municipality consists of a group of barangays which is created, divided, merged,

abolished or its boundary altered by law or act of Congress, subject to the approval of
majority votes casts in a plebiscite conducted by the Comelec (Local Government
Code, Title II, Chapter 1, sec. 440-441). The municipal government is composed of the
mayor, vice-mayor, sangguniang members (which are composed of president of the
municipal chapter of the liga ng mga barangay , president of the pambayang
pederasyon ng mga sangguniang kabataan and the sectoral representatives) and other
appointed officials. In order for a municipality to be converted into cities, a law or act of
Congress must be passed by virtue of the provisions of the Local Government Code and
the Constitution. A plebiscite must be conducted to determine if a majority of the people
in the said municipality are in favor of converting the municipality into a city. Although
laws have been passed, their constitutionality can be question in the Supreme
Court. This can be seen in the November 18, 2008 decision penned by Justice Antonio
T. Carpio. The League of Cities of the Philippines, City of Iloilo, and City of Calbayog filed
consolidated petitions questioning the constitutionality of the Cityhood Laws and
enjoined the Commission on Elections and the respondent municipality from conducting
plebiscites. The Cityhood Laws were declared as unconstitutional for they violated
sections 6 and 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution. The Cityhood laws referred to in
this case are: Republic Acts 9389, 9390, 9391, 9392, 9293, 9394, 9398, 9404, 9405,
9407, 9408, 9409, 9434, 9435, 9436 and 9491. (League of Cities of the Philippines (CP)
represented by LCP National President Jerry P. Trenas v. Commission on Elections, G.R.
No. 176951, 177499, 178056, November 18, 2008). Acting on an appeal, Justice Antonio
T. Carpio on August 24, 2010 sustained the earlier decision declaring the Cityhood Laws
unconstitutional. On appeal, the Court in a decision on February 15, 2011, penned by
Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, reversed the two previous decisions of the Court and declared
the Cityhood laws constitutional. Justice Bersamin sustained this decision on April 12,
2011 and the finally on June 28, 2011.

The Barangay is the smallest local government unit which is created, divided, merged,
abolished or its boundary altered by law or by an ordinance of the sangguniang
panlalawigan or sangguniang panlunsod , subject to the approval of majority votes
casts in a plebiscite conducted by the Comelec (Local Government Code, Title I, Chapter
1, sec. 384-385)

The Philippines is divided into the following local government units:

 Region I (ILOCOS REGION)

 Region II (CAGAYAN VALLEY)
 Region III (CENTRAL LUZON)
 Region IV (CALABARZON & MIMAROPA)
 Region V (BICOL REGION)
 Region VI (WESTERN VISAYAS)
 Region VII (CENTRAL VISAYAS)
 Region VIII (EASTERN VISAYAS)
 Region IX (ZAMBOANGA PENINSULA)
 Region X (NORTHERN MINDANAO)
 Region XI (DAVAO REGION)
 Region XII (SOCCSKSARGEN)
 Region XIII (CARAGA)
 Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindano (ARMM)
 Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR)
 National Capital Region (NCR)

The Caraga Administrative Region (Region XIII) was created by Republic Act No. 7901,
which was passed by both houses of Congress and approved by the President on February
23, 1995. It is composed of the provinces of Agusan del Norte, Agusan del Sur, Surigao
del Norte, Surigao del Sur, and the cities of Butuan and Surigao.
The Cordillera Administrative Region was created by President Corazon C. Aquino by
virtue of Executive Order No. 220 on July 15, 1987. It includes the provinces of Abra,
Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao and Kalinga-Apayao. Republic Act No. 6766, which
was approved on October 23, 1989. Republic Act No. 6766 providing for an Organic Act
for the Cordillera Autonomous Region was passed Congress and took effect on October
23, 1989. A plebiscite was called but it failed to get the majority affirmative vote on
January 30, 1990. Another law, Republic Act No. 8438, establishing the Cordillera
Autonomous Region was passed by Congress on December 22, 1997. Another plebiscite
was held on March 7, 1998 among the people of the region. Again, it failed to gain the
majority approval of the Cordillera people. Efforts in Congress are being made for the
passage of another law.

The Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) was created by Republic Act No.
6734 and further strengthened by Republic Act No. 9054. Republic Act No. 6734 was
passed by both houses of Congress on February7, 2001 and lapsed into law without the
signature of the President in accordance with Article VI, Section 27 (1) of the
Constitution on March 31, 2001. The ARMM has its seat of government in Muslim
Mindanao. It is composed of four provinces, Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu and
Tawi-Tawi. It is guided by its own Constitution and Organic Act. It has its own
Legislative, Executive and Administration of Justice (Judicial) department of
government.

In the case of Disomangcop v. Datumanong, G.R. No. 149848, November 25,

2004, touch on the fate of the autonomy for Muslim Mindanao. In this decision Justice
Tinga stated “we have the overwhelming support of the Bangsa Moro and the Cordillera
Constitution. By this we mean meaningful an authentic regional autonomy. We propose
that we have a separate Article on the autonomous regions for the Bangsa Moro and the
Cordillera people clearly spelled out in the Constitution, instead of prolonging the agony
of...”

This ARMM will be replaced by the Bangsang Moro basic law according to the Chief
Peace Negotiator Marvic Leonen. The Philippine Government and the Moro Islamic
Liberation have agreed to form the transition commission to craft the basic
Bangsamoro Basic Law. Framework of Agreement of the Bangsa Moro was drafted in
2012. Annex of Power Sharing was signed in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on December 8,
2013 between Prof. Miriam Coronel- Ferrer as the GPH Panel Chair and Mohaher Iqbal
as the MILF Panel Chair, in the presence of the Malaysian Facilitator Tengku Dato’ Ab
Ghafar Tengku Mohamed.

3.6. Other Government Agencies

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (Central Bank) is considered as a constitutional office
in the official Philippine government directory .
The Commission on Appointment is an independent constitutional body separate and
distinct from the Legislative. Its members are members of both house of Congress. It
aims to “acts as a restraint against the abuse of the appointing power of the President by
approving only those who are fit and qualified to ensure the efficient and harmonious
functioning of the government.” This mandate and the government officials who need
the Commission’s confirmation are provided in the Constitution (1987), Article VII, sec.
16. The members of the judiciary are not covered by the Commission on Appointments
for the are under the Judicial and Bar Council.

The Commission on Human Rights was created as an independent office for cases of
violation of the human rights (1987 Constitution, Art. XIII, sec. 17), Article XIII, sec. 18
whose mission is “committee to ensure the primacy of all human rights to their
protection, promotion and fulfillment, on the basis of equality and non-discrimination,
in particular for those who are marginalized and vulnerable. It is composed of
aChairperson and four (4) members.

Office of the Ombudsman :

Constitution (1987), Article XI, sec. 12 and Republic Act No. 6770, sec. 13 , provide that
the mandate of the Office of the Ombudsman is to “act promptly on complaints filed in
any form or manner against officers or employees of the Government, or of any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations, and enforce their administrative, civil and criminal liability in
every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service by the
Government to the people .” Republic Act No. 677, sec. 15 provides that priority is
given to complaints filed against high ranking government officials and/or those
occupying supervisory positions and those complaints involving grave offenses as well
as complaints involving large sums of money and/or properties. It is composed of the
Ombudsman and six (6) deputies.

The President, Vice President, members of the Supreme Court, Constitutional

Commission and the Ombudsman may be removed from office by impeachment for
conviction of violations of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other
high crimes or betrayal of public trust. (Art. XI, sec. 2). The House of Representatives
has the exclusive power to initiate (Art. XI, sec. 3 (1)) while the Senate has the sole power
to try and decide impeachments cases (Art. XI, sec. 3(6)). All other public officials and
employees may be removed by law (Art. XI, sec. 2 the Civil Service Law).

4. Legal System

4.1. Nature of the Philippine Legal System

The Philippine legal system may be considered as a unique legal system because it is a
blend of civil law (Roman), common law (Anglo-American), Muslim (Islamic) law and
indigenous law. Like other legal systems, there are two main sources of law.

4.2. Sources of Law

There are two primary sources of the law:

Statutes or statutory law - Statutes are defined as the written enactment of the will of
the legislative branch of the government rendered authentic by certain prescribed forms
or solemnities are more also known as enactment of congress. Generally, they consist
of two types, the Constitution and legislative enactments. In the Philippines, statutory
law includes constitutions, treaties, statutes proper or legislative enactments, municipal
charters, municipal legislation, court rules, administrative rules and orders, legislative
rules and presidential issuance.

Jurisprudence - or case law - is cases decided or written opinion by courts and by persons
performing judicial functions. Also included are all rulings in administrative and
legislative tribunals such as decisions made by the Presidential or Senate or House
Electoral Tribunals. Only decisions of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
are available in print as House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal Reports, volume 1
(January 28, 1988-October 3, 1990) to present. They will be available electronically at
the Supreme Court E-Library and as a separate CD.

For Muslim law, the primary sources of Shariah are Quran, Sunnaqh,
Ijma and Qiyas . Jainal D. Razul in his book Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the
Muslin Law of the Philippines (1984) further stated there are new sources of Muslim law,
which some jurists rejected such as Istihsan or juristic preference; Al-Masalih, Al
Mursalah or public interest ; Istidlal (custom) and Istishab . (deduction based on
continuity or permanence).

Classification of Legal Sources:

Classification by Authority:

“Authority is that which may be cited in support of an action, theory or hypothesis.”

Primary Authority is the only authority that is binding on the courts. These are the two
sources of law which includes the Constitution, legislative statutes or those passed by
Congress, decisions of the Supreme Court , appellate courts, lower court and other quasi-
judicial agencies, Executive issuances or Presidential issuances, treaties entered into by
the Philippines, ordinances, rules and regulations of government agencies. They are the
actual law or those promulgated by the three branches of government: Legislative,
Executive and Judiciary.

The legislature promulgates statutes, namely: Act, Commonwealth Act, Republic Act,
and Batas Pambansa. The Executive promulgates presidential issuances (Presidential
Decrees, Executive Orders, Memorandum Circular, Administrative Orders,
Proclamations, etc.), rules and regulations through its various departments, bureaus and
agencies. The Judiciary promulgates judicial doctrines embodied in decisions.
We however need to clarify that the Presidential Decrees or law issued by President
Ferdinand E. Marcos during Martial Law and Executive Orders issued by Aquino
President Corazon C. Aquino before the opening Congress in July 1987 can be classified
as legislative-executive acts, there being no legislature during these two periods.

Primary Authority or sources may be further subdivided into the following:

 Mandatory primary authority is law created by the jurisdiction in which the law
operates like the Philippines;
 Persuasive mandatory authority is law created by other jurisdictions but which
have persuasive value to our courts e.g. Spanish and American laws and
jurisprudence. These sources as used specially when there are
no Philippine authorities available or when the Philippine statute or
jurisprudence under interpretation is based on either the Spanish or American
law.

It is in this regard that the collections of law libraries in the Philippines include United
States court reports, West’s national reporter system, court reports of England and
international tribunal, important reference materials such as the American
Jurisprudence, Corpus Juris Secundum, Words and Phrases and different law
dictionaries. Some of these law libraries subscribe to the Westlaw and/or
LexisNexis . The Supreme Court, University of the Philippines, University of Santo
Tomas and a number of prominent law libraries also have a Spanish collection where a
great number of our laws originated.

Secondary authority or sources are commentaries or books, treatise, writings, journal

articles that explain, discuss or comment on primary authorities. Also included in this
category are the opinions of the Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange
Commission or circulars of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas . These materials are not
binding on courts but they have persuasive effect and/or the degree of
persuasiveness. With regards to commentaries or books, treatise, writings, journal
articles, the reputation or expertise of the author is a consideration. Some of the authors
of good reputation and considered experts in the field are Chief Justice Ramon C.
Aquino and Justice Carolina Grino Aquino on Revised Penal Code or Criminal
Law, Senator Arturo M. Tolentino on Civil law, Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando and
Fr. Joaquin Bernas on Constitutional Law, Prof. Perfecto Fernandez on Labor Law,
Vicente Francisco, Chief Justice Manuel Moran on Remedial Law, and Justice Vicente
Abad Santos and Senator Jovito Salonga on International Law, etc. A list of these
materials by subject are found in GlobaLex - Part 2: Philippine Legal Information
Resources and Citations - A.v Treatise/Annotations/Commentaries, etc.

Classification by Source:

It is important for legal research experts to know the source where the materials were
taken from. One has to determine whether they came from primary (official) sources or
secondary (unofficial sources). Primary and secondary sources for the sources of law are
found in Part 2: Philippine Legal Information Resources and Citations
- A.v Treatise/Annotations/Commentaries, etc.

Primary sources are those published by the issuing agency itself or the official repository,
the Official Gazette. The Official Gazette online was launched by the Office of the
President in July 2010. This online version is maintained and managed by the
Presidential Communications Development and Strategic Management Office. . Thus,
for Republic Acts and other legislative enactments or statutes, the primary sources are
the Official Gazette published by the National Printing Office and the Laws and
Resolutions published by Congress. For Supreme Court decisions, the primary sources
are the Philippine Reports , the individually mimeographed Advance Supreme Court
decisions and the Official Gazette . Publication of Supreme Court decisions in
the Official Gazette is selective. The publication of the Philippine Reports by the
National Printing Office ceased in 1960s. It was only in 1983 when the publication of
the Philippine Reports was revived by then Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando who
requested then President Ferdinand E. Marcos to take charge of its publication with
special appropriation in the Judiciary’s annual budget. However, when the Supreme
Court took over the printing in 1983, the delay in printing covered more than twenty (20)
years. The last volume printed was volume 126 (June 1967). The Philippine Reports is
up-to-date and almost complete from 1901. The volumes are to be printed cover June
1991-December 1994. Online, the Supreme Court E-Library is complete and updated as
soon as the decisions have been certified by the Chief Justice. The Supreme Court E-
Library includes the citation of the Philippine Reports where each case is found
whenever it is available.

The Secondary Sources are the unofficial sources and generally referred to as those
commercially or institutionally published in print or online.

Some of the Secondary sources of statutes are the Vital Legal Documents , published by
the Central Book Supply, contains a compilation of Presidential Decrees (1973). The
second edition contains Republic Acts. Prof. Sulpicio Guevara published three books,
which contain s the full text of legislative enactments or laws namely: a ). Public Laws
Annotated (7 vols.), compilation of all laws from 1901 to 1935, b).Commonwealth Acts
Annotated (3vos.), compilation of laws from 1935-1945 c). The Laws of the First
Philippine Republic (The Laws of Malolos) 1898-1899 . For the Supreme Court
decisions, Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA), a secondary source, published by
the Central Book Supply is more updated and popular in the legal community than
the Philippine Reports, the primary and official source. The SCRA was published
because of the delay in the printing of the Philippines and the need of the Philippine legal
profession for Supreme Court decision. Citations in commentaries or books, treatise,
writings, journal articles, pleading and even court decisions show SCRA’s popular
acceptance. The general rule is that in the absence of a primary source, the secondary
source may be cited. This was the primary rationale for the SCRA’s popularity. SCRA is
now available online (including tablet and iPad) by subscription.
With the advent of the new information technology, electronic or digitized sources are
popular sources and effective sources of legal information for the following reasons: a)
no complete and updated legal information available; b) the search engines utilizing the
electronic or digitized method facilitate research, and c) no complete and update
manually published search tools for statute and case law. These electronic sources
started with CD ROMS and now online or electronic libraries. The popular use of
online/electronic libraries was due to the advent of the iPads, iPods, tablet and
notebooks and internet with Wi-Fi connection. Online access is either through Open
access or subscription basis. Open access for law is used for both the government and
the private sector. The Chan Robles Law Firm Library and Arellano Law
Foundation Lawphil use open access in their electronic libraries, which contains the
full-text of all sources of Philippine legal information, case law and statute
law. Chanrobles.com has also in its database the full text of United States decisions and
materials on important legal events such as Impeachment proceedings, bar
examinations. Chan Robles conducts online bar review program.

Official or government online source for full-text for all legal sources and related
materials in the Official Gazette online , launched in July 2010. It contains the issuances
of all the executive departments, which are found also in the websites of the different
executive departments. They aim (as reflected in their website) to include the issuances
of the legislative and the judiciary. The Supreme Court E-Library is an electronic
library (online and CD Rom for decisions updated quarterly) for all Philippine legal
information, case law and statute law. Access however is limited to the Justices, judges
and court attorneys of the Supreme Court and law schools (by request) through their law
librarians. Decisions and issuances of the Supreme Court and its Offices and the
Appellate Courts are found in the Judiciary portal .
CD Asia online contains full-text of Supreme Court decisions and statutes, available on
a subscription basis. Subscription may be made solely for court decisions or statutes or
for both. Central Books’ eSCRA is another database which can be accessed online
with the use of desktops, laptops, notebooks, and iPads. Law Juan , iPad app is a
new source for full-text statutes and Supreme Court decisions available by
subscription.

By using Google search, some of this legal information may be retrieved.

The established policy is that in case of conflict between the printed and electronic
sources, the printed version coming from the issuing government agency prevails.

Legal research for statute law in the Philippines benefited remarkably from the use of
the latest technology due to two major problems: a) no complete and updated published
or printed search tools or law finders for statute law and b) no complete compilation of
statute law from 1901-present were available. Problems of the publication of
compilations of statute law or the existence of the full-text of Presidential Decrees was
that brought about to the Supreme Court in the Tanada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. 63915,
April 24, 1985 (220 Phil 422), December 29, 1986 (146 SCRA 446) case was resolved by
the use of the latest technology. The Tanada v. Tuvera, case that was first decided before
the bloodless revolution popularly known as People Power or the EDSA Revolution and
modified in the December 29, 1986 or after the People Power or the EDSA Revolution
resolved the publication requirement for the effectivity of laws as provided for in Section
2 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. This was resolved by Executive Order No. 200, s.
1987 that provides that laws become effective fifteen (15) days after publication in
the Official Gazette or in two newspapers of general circulation.

Still, to be resolved i s how to classify sources published in the

newspapers. Will Executive Order No. 200, s. 1987, these resources as primary and
secondary source. However, in case of conflict between those published in the
newspapers and the Official Gazette , the rule is following the Official Gazette.

The existence, availability and access to local ordinances issued by the local
governments in the Philippines remains a problem for the City of Manila is the one with
a compilation. However all government agencies have started to use the latest
technology in their operations and some of them are available online.

In finding the law, our ultimate goal is to locate mandatory primary authorities, which
have bearing on the legal problem at hand. If these authorities are scarce or nonexistent,
our next alternative is to find any relevant persuasive mandatory authority. If our search
is still negative, the next alternative might be secondary authorities. There are however
instances where the secondary authorities, more particularly the commentaries made by
experts of the field, take precedence over the persuasive mandatory authorities. With
the availability of both, using both sources is highly recommended.

Classification by Character:
This refers to the nature of the subject treated in books. This classification categorizes
books as: a) Statute Law Books, b) Case Law Books or Law Reports, c) a combination of
both and d) “Law Finders.”

Law Finders refer to indexes, citators, encyclopedias, legal dictionaries, thesauri or

digests. A major problem in the Philippines is that there are no up-to-date Law
Finders. Federico Moreno’s Philippine Law Dictionary , the only available Philippine
law dictionary was last published in 1988, and, Jose Agaton Sibal’s Philippine Legal
Thesaurus , which is likewise considered a dictionary, was published in 1986. Foreign
law dictionaries like Blacks’ Law Dictionary, Words and Phrases are used as alternate.
To search for legal information, legal researchers go online virtual libraries such as the
Supreme Court E-Library , Chan Robles Virtual Library , Arellano’s lawphil , CD Asia
online and the different databases in CD-ROM format from CD Asia Technologies Asia
Inc. The databases developed by CD Asia include not only the compilation of Laws
(statutes) and Jurisprudence, but also include a compilation of legal information that
are not available in printed form such as Opinions of the Department of Justice,
Securities and Exchange Commission and Bangko Sentral (Central Bank) rules and
regulations. Search engines used in these databases answer for the lack of complete and
updated indexes of legal information. In this regard, effective legal research can be
conducted with one cardinal rule in mind: "ALWAYS START FROM THE LATEST." The
exception to this is when the research has defined or has provided a SPECIFIC period.

5. Philippine Legal Research

5.1. Research of Statute law

Statute laws are the rules and regulations promulgated by competent authorities;
enactments of legislative bodies (national or local) or they may be rules and regulations
of administrative (departments or bureau) or judicial agencies. Research of statutory law
does not end with consulting the law itself. At times, it extends to the intent of each
provision or even the words used in the law. In this regard, the deliberations of these
laws must be consulted. The deliberation of laws, except Presidential Decrees and other
Martial law issuances are available.

Constitution:
The different Constitutions of the Philippines are provided in some history books such
as Gregorio F. Zaide’s Philippine Constitutional History and Constitutions of Modern
Nations (1970) and Founders of Freedom; The History of Three Constitution by a
seven-man Board. The Philippine legal system recognizes the following
Constitutions: Malolos, 1935, 1943, 1973, Provisional or Freedom and 1987
Constitutions. The 1943 Constitution was effective only during the Second World War
while the Provisional Constitution was effective only from the time President Corazon
became President until the 1987 Constitution was ratified and proclaimed by President
Aquino by virtue of Proclamation No. 58, February 11, 1987.

Majority of printed publications provide the 1935, 1973 and the 1987 Constitutions only.
The online sources ( E-library , Chan Robles , LawPhil , CD Asia , Law Juan ) however
have the full-text of all Constitutions of the Philippines: Malolos, 1935, 1943 of
Japanese, 1973, Provisional or Freedom Constitution and 1987. The books of Senator
Ambrosio Padilla ( The 1987 Constitutions of the Republic of the Philippines . vol. 3,
pp779-863) and Carmelo Sison provide a comparative presentation of the provisions
of the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions.

Text of the Malolos Constitution is available in some history books such as Gregorio F.
Zaide’s Philippine Constitutional History and Constitutions of Modern Nations , p. 176
(1970) and online. ( E-library , Chan Robles , CD Asia , Law Juan ).

The Constitutional Convention proceedings provide for the intent and background of
each provision of the Constitution. Sources for the 1934-
1935 Constitutional Convention are: 10 volumes of the Constitutional Convention
Record by the House of Representatives (1966), Salvador Laurel's seven volumes book
entitled Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention (1966); 6 volumes of
the Philippine Constitution, Origins, Making, Meaning and Application by the
Philippine Lawyers Association with Jose Aruego as one of its editors (1970) and Journal
of the Constitutional convention of the Philippines by Vicente Francisco.

Proceedings of the 1973 Constitutional Convention were never published. A photocopy

and softcopy of the complete compilation is available at the Filipiniana Reading Room
of the National Library of the Philippines.

Journals (3 volumes) and Records (5 volumes) of the Constitutional Convention of 1986

were published by the Constitutional Commission. This publication does not have an
index. This problem was remedied when CD Technologies Asia Inc. came out with a CD-
ROM version, which facilitated research for it has a search engine.

The proceedings and text of the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions are
electronically available at the Supreme Court E-Library.

Commentaries or interpretations on the constitution, decisions of the Supreme Court

and other courts, textbooks or treaties, periodical articles of the different Constitution
are available. (Part 2: Philippine Legal Information Resources and Citations
- A.v Treatise/Annotations/Commentaries, etc. A.v.10 Political Law

Treaties and other International Agreements:

A treaty is an agreement or a contract between two (bilateral) or more (multilateral)

nations or sovereigns, entered into by agents appointed (generally the Secretary of
Foreign Affairs or ambassadors) for the purpose and duly sanctioned by supreme powers
of the respective countries. Treaties that do not have legislative sanctions are executive
agreements which may or may not have legislative authorization, and which have limited
execution by constitutional restrictions.

In the Philippines, a treaty or international agreement shall not be valid and effective
unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all members of the Senate (Constitution,
Article VII, section 21). Those without the concurrence of the Senate are considered as
Executive Agreements.

The President of the Philippines may enter into international treaties or agreements as
the national welfare and interest may require, and may contract and guarantee foreign
loans on behalf of the Republic, subject to such limitations as may be provided by
law. During the time of Pres. Marcos, there was the so-called Tripoli Agreement.

The official text of treaties is published in the Official Gazette, Department of Foreign
Affairs Treaty Series (DFATS), United Nations Treaty Series (UNTS ) or the University
of the Philippines Law Center'sPhilippine Treaty Series ( PTS). To locate the latest
treaties, there are two possible sources: Department of Foreign Affairs and the Senate of
the Philippines. There is no complete repository of all treaties entered into by the
Philippines. There is a selective publication of treaties in the Official Gazette . The
DFATS was last published in the 1970s while the PTS's last volume, vol. 8 contains
treaties entered into until 1981.With the UN Treaty Series, which used to be available
only in UN depository libraries in the country and its United Nation Information Center
in Makati in now available online through the United Nations website . Electronically,
major law libraries use the Treaties and International Agreements Researchers Archives
(TIARA), WESTLAW , LEXIS , other online sources via the Internet.

A formal Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Supreme Court and the
Department of Foreign Affairs was signed at the Supreme Court for the digitization
of full-text of all the treaties entered into by the Philippines from 1946-2010. The
MOA provided that the Department of Foreign Affairs will supply the official treaties and
the Supreme Court Library Services will produce the CD Rom version with search
engine of the treaties. CD-ROM containing all these treaties was launched last June
2010 at the Department of Foreign Affairs. Online version is found in the Supreme Court
E-Library . Also launched last June 2010 was the Philippine Treaties Index 1946-2010
by the Foreign Service Institute.

For tax treaties, Eustaquio Ordoño has published a series on the Philippine tax
treaties. Other sources of important treaties are appended in books on the subject or law
journals such as the American Journal of International Law or the Philippine Yearbook
of International Law.

Statutes Proper:

Legislative Enactments:

Statutes are enactments of the different legislative bodies since 1900 broken down as
follows:

 4,275 ACTS - Enactments from 1900-1935

 733 Commonwealth Acts - Enactments from 1935-1945
 2034 Presidential Decrees - Enactments from 1972-1985
 884 Batas Pambansa. – Enactments from 1979-1985
 10650 Republic Acts - Enactments from 1946-1972, 1987-December 2014

Republic Act No. 10650 is the “Act Expanding Access to Educational Services by the
Institutionalizing Open Distance Learning in Levels of the Tertiary Education.

The above figures clearly show that during Martial Law, both President Marcos and
the Batasang Pambansa (Parliament) were issuing laws at the same time - Presidential
Decrees by President Marcos and Batas Pambansa by the Philippine Parliament.

During Martial Law, aside from Presidential Decrees, the President promulgated other
issuances namely: 57 General Orders, 1,525 Letters of Instruction, 2,489 Proclamations,
832 Memorandum Order, 1,297 Memorandum Circular, 157 Letter of Implementation,
Letter of Authority, Letters of Instruction, 504 Administrative Order and 1,093
Executive Orders. Complete compilation of Presidential Decrees and all Martial
Issuances are available at present in the Malacanang Records and Archives. Efforts are
being made by Malacanang to make them available through the Official Gazette online.

As previously stated, the Presidential Decrees issued by Pres. Marcos during Martial Law
and the Executive Orders issued by Pres. Aquino before the opening of Congress may
be classified as both executive and legislative acts for there was no legislature during
those two periods.

Laws passed by the new 1987 Congress started from Rep. Act No. 6636, as the last
Republic Act promulgated by Congress before Martial Law was Rep. Act No. 6635.

The following are the Philippine codes adopted from 1901 to present:

 Administrative Code of 1987 ( Executive Order No. 292)

 Child and Youth Welfare Code (Pres. Decree No. 603)
 Civil Code (Rep. Act No. 386)
 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Code
 Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Rep. Act o. 6713)
 Cooperative Code (Rep. Act No. 9520)
 Corporation Code (Batas Blg. 68)
 Family Code (Executive Order No. 209)
 Fire Code (Rep. Act No. 9514)
 Fisheries Code (Rep. Act No. 8550)
 Forest Reform Code (Pres. Decree No. 705)
 Insurance Code (Pres/ Decree No. 1460)
 Intellectual Property Code (Rep. Act No. 8293)
 Labor Code (Pres. Decree No. 442)
 Land Transportation and Traffic Code (Rep. Act No. 4136)
 Local Government Code (Rep. Act No. 7160)
 Muslim Code of Personal Laws ( Pres. Decree No. 1083)
 National Building Code (Pres. Decree No. 1096)
 National Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and Supplements
(Executive Order No. 51 s. 1986)
 National Internal Revenue Code (Pres. Decree No. 1158)
 Omnibus Election Code (Batas Blg 881)
 Philippine Environment Code (Pres. Decree No. 1152)
 Revised Penal Code (Act no. 3815)
 Sanitation Code (Pres. Decree No. 856)
 State Auditing Code
 Tariff and Customs Code (Pres. Decree No. 1464)
 Water Code (Pres. Decree No. 1067)
The Senate has prepared the entire legislature process and has enumerated the types of
legislation. This procedure is pursuant to the Constitution and recognized by both
Houses of Congress. The House of Representatives has provided a diagram of the
procedure on how a bill becomes a law.

SOURCE: Congressional Library; House Printing Division, Administrative Support

Bureau, July 1996.
Presidential Issuances

Administrative acts, orders and regulations of the President touching on the

organization or mode of operation of the government, re-arranging or adjusting districts,
divisions or parts of the Philippines, and acts and commands governing the general
performance of duties of public officials and employees or disposing of issues of general
concern are made effective by Executive Orders. Those orders fixing the dates when
specific laws, resolutions or orders cease to take effect and any information concerning
matters of public moment determined by law, resolution or executive orders, take the
form of executive Proclamation.

Executive Orders and Proclamations of the Governor-General were published annually

in a set Executive Orders and Proclamations. Thirty three (33) volumes were published
until 1935 by the Bureau of Printing. Administrative Acts and Orders of the President
and Proclamations were published. Only a few libraries in the Philippines have these
publications for a majority of them was destroyed during World War II. There are copies
available at the Law Library of Congress, Cincinnati Law Library Association (who
offered to donate them to the Supreme Court of the Philippines) and some at the Library
of the Institute of South East Asian Studies in Singapore.

In researching for Proclamations, Administrative Orders, Executive Orders and

Memorandum Orders & Circulars of the President, the year it was promulgated is a must
or needed. If no year is available, the President and/or the Executive Secretary issuing
it must be stated. As a new President is sworn in, all the Presidential issuances start with
No. 1. The only exception was Executive Orders issued by President Carlos Garcia after
he assumed the Presidency because President Magsaysay died in a plane crash. He
continued the number started by President Magsaysay. When President Garcia was
elected President, he started his Executive Order No. 1.

To look for the intent of Republic Acts, we have to go through the

printed Journals and Records of both houses of Congress, which contain their
deliberation. To facilitate the search, the House Bill No. or Senate Bill No. or both found
on the upper left portion of the first page of the law is important. The problem for this
research is the availability of the complete printed Journals and Records of both houses
of Congress. The solution to this problem is the Archives of the House of Representatives
and the Senate. For the recent laws, the deliberations are available online from the
websites of the the House of Representatives and thePhilippine Senate . The Batasang
Pambansa has likewise published it proceedings. There are no available proceedings for
the other laws Acts, Commonwealth Act and Presidential Decrees.

Administrative Rules and Regulations:

Administrative Rules and regulations are orders, rules and regulations issued by the
heads of Departments, Bureau and other agencies of the government for the effective
enforcement of laws within their jurisdiction. However, in order that such rules and
regulations may be valid, they must be within the authorized limits and jurisdiction of
the office issuing them and in accordance with the provisions of the law authorizing their
issuance. Access to administrative rules and regulations have been facilitated due to
the two developments: a) government agencies, including government owned and
controlled corporations, have their own websites and at the Official Gazette and Official
Gazette online where they include the full-text of their issuances, and b) the National
Administrative Register, which is available in print, CD-Rom and in the Supreme Court
website.

In handling these types of materials, there are two important items needed: a.) Issuing
Agency and b.) Year it was promulgated. This is due to the fact that all Departments,
Bureaus, and other government agencies use the administrative orders, memorandum
orders and memorandum circulars for their administrative rules and regulations and
they start always with number 1 every year. Even the Supreme Court issues
Administrative Orders, Circulars, Memorandum Orders, and Administrative Matters.
 Before the Administrative Code of 1987, these orders, rules and regulations were
selectively published in the Official Gazette . Thus, the only source to be able to get a
copy of the text of these rules and regulations is the issuing government agency itself.

When the 1987 Administrative Code (Executive Order No. 292) was promulgated, all
government agencies including government owned and controlled corporations are
mandated to file three (3) certified copies of their orders, rules and regulations with the
University of the Philippines Law Center's Office of National Administrative Register
which in turn is required to publish quarterly the publication called National
Administrative Register . Aside from the printed copies, the National Administrative
Register is available electronically on CD-ROM (CD Asia Technologies Inc.) and online
at the Supreme Court E-Library . Rules in force on the date on which the Code took
effect, which are not filed within three months from the date not thereafter, shall be the
basis of any sanction against any person or party. Each rule becomes effective 15 days
after the filing, unless a different date is fixed by law or specified in the rule, such as in
cases of imminent danger to public health, safety and welfare, the existence of which
must be expressed in a statement accompanying the rule. The court shall take judicial
notice of the certified copy of each rule duly filed or as published in the bulletin or
codified rules.

University of the Philippines Law Center’s Office of National Administrative Register is

not only tasked to publish this quarterly register but must keep an up-to-date
codification of all rules thus published and remaining in effect together with a complete
index and appropriate tables. Every rule establishing an offense or defining an act,
which pursuant to law is punishable as a crime or subject to a penalty, shall in all cases
be published in full text. Exceptions to the “filing requirement" are Congress, Judiciary,
Constitutional Commission, military establishments in all matters relative to Armed
Forces personnel, the Board of Pardons and Parole and state universities and colleges.
With the use of the latest technology, majority of government agencies including
government owned and controlled corporations maintain their own websites and have
incorporation laws and legislations relevant to their agencies. These developments have
facilitated research for administrative rules and regulations.

As previously stated, there are no up-to-date or complete Statutes finders. As previously

stated, to facilitate legal research, one has to go online to virtual libraries. The primary
source for statutes is: Supreme Court E-Library and the Official Gazette and Official
Gazette online . The secondary sources area: Chan Robles Virtual Law
Library , Arellano Law Foundation’s The Lawphil Project , and CD Asia
Technologiesonline and or CD ROM. Law Juan iPad app (Law) contains only full-text
legislative enactments from 1901, Rules of Court and all the Philippine Constitutions.

5.2. Research of Case Law

 SOURCE: 2002 Revised Manual of Clerks of Court . Manila, Supreme Court, 2002.
Organizational Chart was amended due to the passage of Republic Act No. 9282 (CTA)

Case Law or Judicial decisions are official interpretations or manifestation of law made
by persons and agencies of the government performing judicial and quasi-judicial
functions. At the apex of the Philippine Judicial System is the Supreme Court, or what is
referred to as court of last resort. The reorganization of the Judiciary of 1980 (Batas
Pambansa Bldg. 129) established the following courts:

 Court of Appeals;
 Regional Trial Courts divided into different judicial regions,
 Metropolitan Trial Court;
 Municipal Trial Court in Cities;
 Municipal Trial Courts;
 Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.

The Shariah (Sharia’a ) Circuit and District Courts (Presidential Decree No. 1083),
Court of Tax Appeals (Republic Act No. 1125) and the Sandiganbayan (Presidential
Decree Nos. 1486 and 1606), sec. 4, Art XI of the 1987 Constitution were created by
separate laws.

Conventional decisions are decisions or rulings made by regularly constituted court of

justice. Subordinate decisions are those made by administrative agencies performing
quasi-judicial functions.
One major problem in conducting research on case law is the availability of published or
printed decisions from the Court of Appeals to the rest of the judicial and quasi-judicial
agencies. The Judicial Reform Program of the Supreme Court funded by the World
Bank started to address this problem with the establishment of the Supreme Court E-
Library aims to address this problem and also those from statute law and the digitization
of the decisions of the Supreme Court, and the appellate: Court of Appeals,
Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals. Digitization of the Appellate Courts have
started and are available online from the most recent and will continue until all their first
decision from their creation will be completed. The Reporters Office of the Supreme
Court and the Court of Appeals keep all the original and complete copies of the court
decisions. By original, this means that the keep the decisions with the “original”
signatures of the justices of the Supreme court and Court of Appeals. For the rest of
the Judiciary or the quasi-judicial agencies, copies of their decisions may be taken from
the Legal Office, Office of the Clerks of Court, Records Office or their libraries. There are
no available printed compilations of lower courts decisions. For those of the Appellate
Court, the Court of Appeals has until 1980s only and while the Sandiganbayan has only
one volume. For the Court of Tax Appeals, the compilation is only from 1980 to present
in the CD Asia CD for taxation. The details are in Part 2: Philippine Legal Information
Resources and Citations . A.iv Case Law/ Jurisprudence

Supreme Court Decisions:

Decisions of the Supreme Court are highest source of jurisprudence, source of law. It
is the judgment of this court interprets the law and/or determines whether a law is
constitutional or not. Unconstitutional laws even though it is signed by the President
and passed by both house of congress cannot take effect in the Philippines.

Decisions of the Supreme Court are classified as follows:

"Regular decisions" and extended Resolutions are published in court reports either in
primary or secondary sources. These decisions provide the justice who penned the
decision or ponente and the other justices responsible for promulgating the decision,
whether En Banc or by Division. Separate dissenting and/or concurring opinions are
likewise published with the main decision. These regular and extended resolutions are
available electronically in the Supreme Court website under Decisions and the Supreme
Court E-Library under Decisions.

Unsigned Minute Resolutions are not published. Although they bear the same
force and effect as the regular decisions or extended resolutions, they are issued and
signed by the respective Clerks of Court En Banc or by any of the three (3) Division s
and signed by their respective Clerks of Court. Since these Minutes Resolutions are not
published, the Supreme Court has now incorporated these Minute Resolutions, more
particularly those that resolve a motion for reconsideration or those that explain or
affirm a decision; and (2) Administrative Matters in the Supreme Court E-Library ,
under RESOLUTIONS.

Recently, the Supreme Court website has included these decisions. The Chanrobles has
included Minutes Resolution in its website.

Case Reports in the Philippines such as the Philippine Reports, Supreme Court Reports
Annotated (SCRA) , and the Supreme Court Advance Decisions (SCAD) come in bound
volumes which generally cover a month per volume. The Supreme Court Advance
Decisions (SCAD) has been discontinued. The Official Gazette, Philippine
Reports and the Advance Sheets are the primary source or official repositories of
decisions and extended resolutions of the Supreme Court. The Advance Sheets are
decisions in “reproduced form” or “photocopied “ copy of the actual original decision
which contains the full text, the signatures of the justices and the certification of the Chief
Justice. The original decisions are those which the actual signatures is deposited in the
Reporters Office of the Supreme Court. The Advance Sheets was made available as soon
as a decision is issuance. This was however discontinued because decisions of the
Supreme Court are now available almost immediately upon issuance at the Supreme
Court website . The Official Gazette, Philippine Reports are the other primary source
for Supreme Court decisions. The difference between the two lies in the fact that
the Official Gazette selective compilation while Philippine Reports contains the
complete compilation decisions of the Supreme Court. Original decisions with original
signature of the Justices of the Supreme Court are found in the Office of the Reporter of
the Supreme Court.

There were unpublished decisions of the Supreme Court from 1901 until 1960. The list
and subject field are found at the back of some volumes of the Philippine
Reports . Some of these decisions are cited in treatises or annotations. In view of the
importance of these decisions, the Supreme Court E-Library started to collect these
unpublished decisions and include them in its database.

The availability of some of the unpublished decisions before World War II is a problem
for a number of the original decisions have been burned. So, there is no complete
compilation of the original decisions of the Supreme Court. This problem is being
addressed by the Supreme Court E-Library where are great number of these
unpublished decisions of the Supreme Court before the war were retrieved from different
sources such as the United States National Archives in Maryland, private collection of
former Supreme Court Justices such as Chief Justice Ramon Avancena and Justice
George Malcolm (collection is found in the University of Michigan) and private law
libraries who were able to save some of their collection such as the University of Santo
Tomas, the oldest university in the Philippines. Search for the unpublished decisions still
continues.
The unpublished decisions after the War, the late Judge Nitafan of the Regional Trial
Court of Manila started publishing Supreme Court Unpublished Decision s ; vol. 1
covers decisions from March 1946 to February 1952. However only two volumes were
published due to Judge Nitafan’s untimely death. The Office of the Reporter of the
Supreme Court has these unpublished decisions.

The early volumes, particularly those before the war were originally published in Spanish
in the Jurisprudencia Filipina . They were translated in English to become
the Philippine Reports . Some decisions after the second Philippine independence were
still in the Spanish language. There are a number of decisions now in the Filipino
language. The Philippine Reports until volume 126 (1960's) was published by the Bureau
of Printing, now called the National Printing Office. Printing was transferred to the
Supreme Court in the 1980s due to the need for a complete official publication of the
Court’s decision. The Supreme Court’sPhilippine Reports started with volume 127.

The most popular secondary source is the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA )
and eSCRA and the Lex Libris Jurisprudence CD ROM and CD Asia Online . The online
and CD versions are on subscription basis while the printed SCRA may be purchased
per volume. Two new sources on subscription basis are: a) My Legal Whiz ; Easy
Contextual Legal Research and Law Juan decisions, iPad app.

How can we search for Supreme Court decisions manually?

Topic or Subject Approach: (Please See Complete title of the publication from the
Philippine Legal Bibliography chapter)

 Philippine Digest
 Republic of the Philippine Digest
 Velayo's digest
 Magsino's Compendium
 Supreme Court's unpublished Subject Index
 Martinez's Summary of Supreme Court rulings 1984 to 1997
 UP Law Center's Supreme Court decisions: subject index and digest's
 SC's Case Digest's
 Philippine Law and Jurisprudence
 Castigador’s Citations
 SCRA Quick Index Digest
 Title Approach or Title of the Approach: (Please See Complete title of the
publication from the Philippine Legal Bibliography chapter)
 Philippine Digest - Case Index
 Republic of the Philippines Digest
 Ong, M. Title Index to SC decisions 1946-1978 2v.; 1978-1981 1st Suppl; 1981-
1985, 2nd Suppl; 1986 to present is unpublished but available at the Supreme
Court Library portal
  Ateneo's Index

Manual approach is not possible in majority of law libraries for the above sources
enumerated are no longer available. For those who have these sources, the problem is
the availability of updated indexes. Only the SCRA Quick Index Digest is updated. It is
however delayed by about one year for they have to wait for the last volume of the SCRA
for the year before they could come up with the SCRA Quick Index Digest. In the Title
Approach, the latest is M. Ong Title Index to SC decisions, 2 nd supplement 1981-1985.
The updated Title Index is available at the Supreme Court Library portal but is not yet
available online. Title search made be made through the Lex Libris: Jurisprudence
online.

Electronic application is the source for effective legal research. These sources are as
follows:

 !e-library! A Century & 4 Years of Philippine Supreme Court Decisions 1901-April

2004 . Research & Development Department, Agoo Computer College, Agoo, Lau
Union, Philippines (CD ROM)
 eSCRA . Q.C.: Central Book Supply
 Law Juan . IPad App (Jurisprudence)
 Lex Libris: Jurisprudence. Pasig City: CD Asia Technologies Inc. (CD ROM) and
CD Asia online
 My Legal Whiz ; Easy Contextual Legal Research
( https://www.mylegalwhiz.com/)
 Supreme Court E-Library online
 Supreme Court website

Court of Appeals decisions:

Decisions of the Court of Appeals are merely persuasive on lower courts. They are cited
in cases where there are no Supreme Court decisions in point. In this regard, they are
considered as judicial guides to lower courts and that conclusion or pronouncement they
make can be raised as a doctrine. The Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals is the
repository of all of the Court of Appeals decisions.

Sources of Court of Appeals decisions are:

Text:
 Court of Appeals decisions are now being complete online starting from the latest
to 1936.
 Official Gazette (selective publication)
 Court of Appeals Reports which was published by the Court of Appeals until 1980.
Even this publication is not a complete compilation. It is still considered selective
for not all CA decisions are included.
  Court of Appeals Reports (CAR) by Central Book Supply. One volume was
published
 Philippine Law and Jurisprudence
 Reports Office of the Court of Appeals

Subject or Topic Approach:

 Velayo's Digest;
 Moreno's Philippine Law dictionary

Decisions of Special Courts:

Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals do not have published decisions. The
Sandiganbayan has only one volume published; Sandiganbayan Reports vol. 1 covers
decisions promulgated from December 1979 to 1980. Sandiganbayan decisions are now
being made available online starting from the latest to its first decision. The Legal Office
of the Sandiganbayan is the repository of all of its decisions.

Court of Tax Appeals decisions from 1980 to 2004 are found in the Lex Libris
particularly in Taxation CD ROM. Court of Tax decisions are now being complete online
starting from the latest to its first decision.

Decisions of Administrative Agencies, Commissions and Boards:

Laws have been promulgated which grants some administrative agencies to perform
quasi-judicial functions. These functions are distinct from their regular administrative
or regulatory functions where rules and regulations are promulgated. The Securities
Regulations Code (Republic Act No. 8799) signed by President Joseph E. Estrada on
July 19, 2000 affects Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) quasi-judicial
functions. The other agencies performing said functions are National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC), Insurance Commission, Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB), Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), Social Security System (SSS)
and even the Civil Service Commission (CSC). Some of their decisions are published in
the Official Gazette. Some have their own publication such as the SEC and the CSC or
some include them in their own websites. An important source is the National
Administrative Register which is available in printed and CR ROM (CD Asia) and the
Supreme Court E-Library. The 1987 Administrative Code required that all government
including all government owned and controlled corporations must provide the UP. Law
Center with three certified copies (3) of their rules and regulations. In turn the UP. Law
Center is required to publish them. This is done in the National Administrative
Register .

CD Asia Technologies’ Lex Libris series has individual CD ROMs for the Department of
Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (Central
Bank of the Philippines), and the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Included in these
individual CD ROMs are the pertinent laws, their respective issuances as well as Supreme
Court decisions. It CD ROM on Labor (vol. VII) incorporated issuances from the
Department of Labor and Employment and its affiliated agencies and offices. The Trade,
Commerce and Industry CD ROM includes Supreme Court decisions, laws and
issuances of its various agencies such as the Department of Trade and Industry, Board
of Investments, Bureau of Customs, B angko Sentral and the Philippine Stock
Exchange.

6. Legal Profession and Legal Education

Republic Act No. 7662, otherwise known as the Legal Education Reform Act of 1993
created the Legal Education Board, was approved on December 23, 1993 . The Board
shall be composed of a Chairman who shall preferably be a former justice of the Supreme
Court of Court of Appeals and regular members composed of: a representative of each
of the following: Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Philippine Association of Law
Schools (PALS), Philippine Association of Law Professors (PALP), ranks of active law
practitioners and law students’ sector. The Legal Education has replaced
the Commission on Higher Education for legal education. Its primary functions are:

to administer the legal education system

 to supervise the law schools
 to set the standards of accreditation for law schools
 to accredit law schools that meet the standards of accreditation;
 to prescribe minimum standards for law admission and minimum qualifications
and compensation of faculty members;
 to prescribe the basic curricula for the course of study aligned to the requirements
for admission to the Bar,
 to establish a law practice internship
 to adopt a system of continuing legal education.
The 1987 Constitution however provides under Article VIII, sec. 5(5) that it is
the Supreme Court who has the power to promulgate rules concerning the admission to
practice the law. The Supreme Court has promulgated the Rules of Court, Rule 138 as
to the admission of the bar. To be admitted to the bar, there are three requirements:

 must have passed the bar examination which is given annually at four (4)
consecutive Sundays
 must take the lawyer’s oath
 must sign the roll of attorneys at the Supreme Court

The lists of lawyers who are allowed to practice are found in the Rolls of Attorneys of the
Supreme Court and the publication of the Court entitled, Law List . The online version
of the Law List, available in theSupreme Court and Supreme E-Library , includes the
annual lists of additional members of the bar.

Applicants for the annual bar examination must have the following (Rules of Court, Rule
138, sec. 2):
 citizen and resident of the Philippines
  21 years of age
 good moral character (three testimonials of good moral character)
 submission of the required documents such as birth certificate, marriage
certificate, three testimonials of good moral character, official law transcript,
certificate of no derogatory record and certificated from the CHED/LEB and
photos

Academic requirements to qualify to take the bar examinations are provided in Rules of
Court, Rule 138, section 5 and section 6.

Section 5 provides that the applicant should have studied law for four years and have
successfully completed all the prescribed courses. This section was amended by Bar
Matter No. 1153, March 9, 2010 which provides “that they have successfully completed
all the prescribed courses for the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent, in a law
school or university officially recognized by the Philippine Government or by the proper
authority in foreign jurisdiction where the degree has been granted.” Bar Matter No.
1153 further provides that a Filipino citizen who graduated from a foreign law school
shall be allowed to take the bar only upon the submission to the Supreme Court the
required certifications.

Section 6 provides the Pre-Law requirement which is a four year high school course and
a bachelor’s degree in arts or science. This section will be however affected by Republic
Act No. 10533 – Enhanced Basic Education of 2013 which provides a K to 12 Program
which covers Kindergarten and 12 years of basic education (six years of primary
education, four years of Junior High School, and two years of Senior High School.

The Schedule of subjects for the four Sundays of the month is as follows:

First Sunday: A.M. Political and International Law (15%), P.M. Labor Law and Social
Legislation (10%);
Second Sunday: A.M. Civil law (15%), P.M. Taxation (10%);
Third Sunday: A.M. Mercantile Law (15%), P.M. Criminal Law (10%);
Fourth Sunday: A.M. Remedial Law (20%), P.M. Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises
(5%).

The Rules of Court, Rule 138, section 16 provides that those who fail the bar
examinations for three or more times must take a refresher course. The Legal Education
Board has listed the following 88 accredited law schools who can conduct refresher
courses for 2014-2015:

 Adamson University
 Aemilianum College Inc.
 Aklan Colleges, Kalibo Aklan
 Andres Bonifacio College
 Angeles University Foundation
 Aquinas University
 Araullo University
 Arellano University
 Ateneo de Davao University
 Ateneo de Manila University
 Bicol Colleges
 Bukidnon State University
 Bulacan State University
 Cagayan State University
 Central Philippines University
 Centro Escolar University
 Colegio de la Purisima College
 Cor Jesu College
 Cordillera Career Development College
 Dr. V. Orestes Romualdez Educational Foundation
 Eastern Samar State University
 Father Saturnino Urios University
 Far Eastern University
 Far Eastern University-DLSU
 Foundation University
 Holy Name University (formerly DWC-T)
 Isabela State College
 J.H. Cerilles State College
 Jose Rizal Memorial State University
 Jose Rizal University
 Leyte Colleges
 Liceo de Cagayan University
 Lyceum of the Philippines University
 Lyceum Northwestern University
 Manila Law College Foundation
 Manuerl Luis Quezon University
 Mariano Marcos State University
 Mindanao State University
 New Era University
 Northeastern College
 Northwestern University
 Notre Dame University
 Palawan State University
 Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila
 Pan Pacific University of Northern Philippines
 Philippine Christian University
 Philippine Law School
 Polytechnic University of the Philippine
 San Sebastian College-Recoletos
 Saint Louis University
  San Beda College-Alabang
 San Beda College-Mendiola
 San Pablo Colleges
 Siliman University
 Southwestern University
 St. Louis College
 St. Mary’s University
 St. Paul School of Business and Law
 St. Thomas More School of Law and Business
 Sultan Kudarat University
 Tarlac State University
 Universidad de Manila
 University of the Cordilleras
 University of Baguio
 University of Batangas
 University of Cagayan Valley
 University of Cebu
 University of Eastern Philippines
 University of Iloilo
 University of Manila
 University of Mindanao
 University of Negros Occidental-Recoletos
 University of Northern Philippines
 University of Nueva Caceres
 University of Pangasinan
 University of Perpetual Help-Laguna
 University of Perpetual Help-Rizal
 University of San Agustin
 University of San Carlos
 University of San Jose-Recoletos
 University of Sothern Philippines-Foundation
 University of St. La Salle
 University of Santo Tomas
 University of the East
 University of the Philippines
 University of the Visayas
 Western Mindanao State University
 Xavier University

Reforms in the Bar Examinations (Bar Matter No. 1161) was adopted in June 2004 and
effective July 15, 2004, 15 days after it was published in the Manila Bulletin and the
Philippine Star (June 21, 2004). In 2011, new reforms were made as to its coverage and
the application of Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) exam and Essay-Type exams. The
date of the Bar examination was moved to the four (4) Sundays of November.
Special Bar Exams for Shari’a Court lawyers is provided for by virtue of the Court En
Banc Resolution dated September 20, 1983. The exam is given every two years. Although
the exam is conducted by the Supreme Court Office of the Bar Conidant, it is the Office
of Muslim Affairs who certifies as to who are qualified to take the exam. Candidates to
the Sharia’ bar do not need to be degree holder of Bachelor of laws. Those who have
passed the Sharia’ bar or the Sharia lawyers are not considered as full-fledged members
of the Philippine bar for they are authorized to practice only in Sharia courts.

All attorneys whose names are in the Rolls of Attorneys of the Supreme Court who have
qualified for and have passed the bar examinations conducted annually, taken the
attorney’s oath, unless otherwise disbarred must be a member of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines. Bar Matter No. 850 was promulgated by the Resolution of the Supreme
Court En Banc on August 22, 2000, as amended on October 2, 2001, providing for the
rules on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) for Active Members of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The members of the IBP have to complete every
three (3) years at least thirty six (36) hours of continuing legal activities approved by the
MCLE Committee. An IBP member who fails to comply with the said requirement shall
pay a non-compliance fee and shall be listed as a delinquent member of the IBP. A
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Office to implement said MCLE was established
by the Supreme Court by virtue of SC Administrative Order No. 113-2003 which was
approved on August 15, 2005 and effective September 1, 2003 following its publication
in two newspapers of general circulation. Under the Resolution of the Court en Banc
dated September 2, 2008 (Bar Matter No. 1922), the counsel’s MCLE Certificate of
Compliance must be indicated in all pleadings filed with the Courts.

The Supreme Court has the power to discipline the members of the bar by disbarment or
suspension based on the grounds provided in the Rules of Court, Rule 138, sec. 27. Rule
139-B provides that the “proceedings for disbarment, suspension or discipline may
be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
upon the verified complaint of a person.” “ The IBP Board of Governors may, motu
proprio or upon referral by the Supreme Court or by a Chapter Board of Officers, or at
the instance of any person, initiate of any prosecute proper charges against erring
attorneys including those in government service.”

6.1. Law Schools

The Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court as of July 2014 has listed
the following law schools in the Philippines which have produced bar candidates:

 *Abra Valley Colleges, Taft St., Bangued, Abra

 *Adamson University, San Marcelino St., Manila
 *Aemilianum College Inc., Sorsogon City
 *Aklan Colleges, Kalibo Aklan
 *Andres Bonifacio College, College Park, Dipolog City
 *Angeles University Foundation, Mac Arthur Highway, Angeles City, Pampanga
 *Aquinas University, 2-S King’s Building, JAA Penaranda St., Legaspi City
 *Aquinas University Penablanca Campus, Penablance, Cagayan
 *Araullo University, Bitas, Cabanatuan City
 *Arellano University, Taft Ave., cor. Menlo St, Pasay City
 *Ateneo de Davao University, Jacinto St., Davao City
 *Ateneo de Manila University, Rockwell Drive, Rockwell Center, Makati City
 *Batangas State University (BATSU), Rizal Ave., Batangas City
 *Bicol Colleges, Daraga Albay
 *BIT International College ( formerly Bohol Institute of Technology), Tagbilaran,
Bohol
 *Bukidnon State College, Fortich Street, Malaybalay, Bukidnon
 *Bulacan State University, Mac Arthur Highway, Malolos, Bulacan
 *Cagayan State University, Andrews Campus, Tuguegarao, Cagayan
 *Camarines Norte School of Law, Itomang, Talisay, Camarines Norte
 *Central Philippines University, Jaro, Iloilo City
 *Centro Escolar University- Makati Campus, Buendia Ave., Makati City
 *Christ the King College, Calbayog City, Western Samar
 *City University of Pasay, , Pasadera St., Pasay City
 *Colegio dela Purisima Concepcion, 1 Arzobispo St., Roxas City, Capiz
 *College of Maasim, R. Kangleon Street, Tunga-Tunga, Maasim City
 *Cor Jesus College, Digos, Sacred Heart Ave., Digos City, Davao del Sur
 *Cordillera Career Development College, Buyagan Poblacion, La Trinidad,
Benguet
 *De La Salle University, 2401 Taft. Ave., Manila
 *De La Salle University, 1962 J.P. Laurel, National Highway, Lipa City, Batangas
 Dipolog Medical Center (DMC) College Foundation Inc., Fr. Patangan Road, Sta
Filomena, Dipolog City
 *Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University, San Fernando City , La Union
 *Dr. Vicente Orestes Romualdez Education Foundation Inc., Calanipawan Road,
Calanipawan, Tacloban City, Leyte
 East Central Colleges
 *Eastern Samar State University, Borogan, Eastern Samar
 *Far Eastern University, Nicanor Reyes Sr. St., Sampaloc,Manila
 Far Eastern University-De La Salle Makati, RCBC Bldg, Buendia cor Ayala Ave.,
Makati
 *Father Saturnino Urios University, San Francisco St. cor. J.C. Aquino Avenue,
Butuan City
 Fernandez College of Arts & Technology, Gil Carlos St., Baliuag, Bulacan
 *Foundation University, Dr. Miciano St., Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental
 *Harvadian Colleges, San Fernando City, Pampanga
 *Holy Name University, Corner Lesage & Gallares Streem, Tagbilaran City, Bohol
 International Harvardian University, Shellanger Cmpd., Bagumbayan, Sta. Cruz,
Laguna
 *Isabela State University, Cauayan Campus, San Fabian, Echague, Cauayan City,
Isabela
 *Jose Rizal Memorial State University, Dapitan City, Zamboanga del Norte
 *Jose Rizal University, 80 Shaw Blvd., Mandaluyong City
 *Josefina H. Cerilles State Collage, West Capitol Road, Pagadian City
 *Laguna State Polytechnic University, Barangay Bubukal, Sta. Cruz, Laguna
 *Leyte Colleges, Zamora St., Paterno Street, Tacloban City
 *Liceo de Cagayan University, Rodolfo N. Pelaez Blvd, Carmen, Cagayan de Oro
City, Misamis Oriental
 Luna Goco Colleges, Calapan, Oriental Mindoro
 *Lyceum of the Philippines University, 109. Leviste St., Salcedo Village, Makati
City
 *Lyceum of the Philippines University
 *Lyceum-Northwestern University, Tapuac, District, Dagupan City, Pangasinan
 *Manila Law College Foundation, 641 Sales St., Sta. Cruz, Manila
 *Manuel L. Quezon University, 916 R. Hidalgo St., Quiapo, Manila
 *Manuel S. Enverga University Foundation-Lucena, University Site, Lucena City
 *Mariano Marcos State University, Batac, Ilococ Norte
 Masbate Colleges, Masbate, Masbate
 *Medina Colleges, Gov. Angel N. Medina Sr. Avenue, Carmen Annex, Ozamiz City
 *Mindanao State University-Iligan, Fatima Campus, Fatima, Iligan City
 *Mindanao State University-Marawi, Laurel Avenue, Marawi City
 *Misamis University, Hitarion T. Feliciano Street, ., Ozamis City
 Naval State University-UEP (Fomerly Naval Institute of Technology), Naval,
Biliran
 *Negros Oriental State University, Kagasawan Avenue, Dumaguete City
 *New Era University, No. 9 Central Avenue, St. Joseph Street, New Era, Quezon
City
 *Northeastern College, Maharlika Highway, Santiago City, Isabela
 *Northwestern University, Don Mariano Marcos Avenue, Laoag City
 *Notre Dame University, Notre Dame Ave., Cotabato City
 Our Lady of Mercy College, Borogan, Eastern Samar
 *Pagadian Capitol College, Pagadian City, Zamboanga del Sur
 *Palawan State University, PSU Road, Barangay Tiniguiban, Puerto Princesa,
Palawan
 *Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, Intramuros, Manila
 *Pan Pacific University of North Philippines, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan
 *Philippine Advent College, Ramon Magsaysay, Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte
 *Philippine Cambridge School of Law, Arts, sciences, Business, Economics and
Technology, Paliparan Site, Paliparan III, Dasmarinas, Cavite
 *Philippine Christian University, Pedro Gil cor. Taft Ave., Manila
 *Philippine Law School, 1942 Donado corner San Juan Street,, Pasay City
 Polytechnic College of La Union. La Union
 *Polytechnic University of the Philippines, A Mabini Campus, Anonas Street, Sta.
Mesa, Manila
 *Ramon Magsaysay Technological University, Iba, Zambales
 St. Ferdinand College, Santa Ana, Centro Iligan, Isabela
 *St. Dominic Savio College, Block 1, Lot 6, Mountain Heights Subdivision, Quirino
Highway, Pangarap, Caloocan City
 *Saint Louis College, National Highway, Lingsat, San Fernando City, La Union
 *St. Louis University, A. Bonifacio St., Baguio City
 *St. Mary’s College of Tagum, Inc., National Highway, Tagum
 *St. Mary’s University, San Vidal corner Ponce Street, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
 *St. Paul School of Business and Law, Palo, Leyte
 *St. Thomas More School of Law & Business, Doclotero Avenue, Tagum City
 Samar College, Catbalogan City , Samar
 *San Beda College, 638 Mendiola St., San Miguel, Manila
 *San Beda College-Alabang, 8 Don Manolo Blvd, Alabang Hills, Alabang
 *San Pablo Colleges, Hermanos Belen Street, San Pablo City, Laguna
 *San Sebastian College-Recoletos, C.M. Recto Avenue, Manila
 San Sebastian College-Recoletos, IBP Bldg., Surigao City
 *Silliman University, Hubbard Avenue, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental
 *Southern Bicol Colleges, Mabini St., Masbate City
 *Southwestern University, Villa Aznar, Urgello Street, Cebu City
 *Sultan Kudarat State University, EJC Montilla Street, Tacurong City, Sultan,
Kudarat
 *Tabaco Colleges, 5 Tomas Cabilles Avenue, Tabaco, Albay
 *Tarlac State University, 2/F Tarlac State University Gym, Romulo Avenue, Tarlac
City
 *Universidad de Manila, Cecilia Munos-Palma corner Antonio Villegas St., Mehan
Gardens, Manila
 *University of Baguio, General Luna Road, Baguio City
 *University of Batangas-Batangas City Campus, Batangas City
 *University of Bohol, Ma. Clara Street, Tagbilaran City, Bohol
 *University of Cagayan Valley, College Ave., Tuguegarao City, Cagayan
 *University of Cebu, Gov. Cuenco Avenue, Banilad, Cebu City
 *University of Eastern Philippines, University Town, Catarman, Northern Samar
 *University of Iloilo, Rizal Street, Iloilo City
 *University of La Sallete, Bachelor Street, Santiago City, Isabela
 *University of Manila, 546 Dr. M.V. delos Santos, Manila
 *University of Mindanao, Bolton St., Davao City
 *University of Negros Occidental-Recoletos, Lizares St., Bacolod City
 *University of Northeastern Philippines, San Roque, Iriga City, Camarines Sur
 *University of Northern Philippines, Quirino Boulevard, Vigan, Ilocos Sur
 University of Northwestern Philippines, Mariano Marcos Ave., Laoag City
 *University of Nueva Caceres, J. Hernandez Avenue, Naga City
 *University of Pangasinan, Arellano Street, Dagupan City, Pangasinan
 *University of Perpetual Help-Rizal, Alabang-Zapote Road, Pamplona, Las Pinas
City
 *University of Perpetual Help System, Sto Nino, Binan, Laguna
 *University of Saint La Salle, La Salle Avenue, Bacolod City
 *University of San Agustin, Gen. Luna St., Iloilo City
  *University of San Carlos, P. del Rosario St., Cebu City
 *University of San Jose-Recoletos, P. Del Rosario Street, Cebu City
 *University of Santo Tomas, Espana, Manila
 *University of Southern Philippines Foundation, Salinas Drive, Lahug, Cebu City
 *University of the Cordelleras, Governor Pack Road, Baguio City
 *University of the East, C.M. Recto Avenue, Manila
 *University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City
 *University of the Visayas, D. Jakosalem Corner Colon Street, Cebu City
 Virgen de los Remedios College, Eat Bajac-Bajac, Olongapo City
 *Virgen Milagrosa University Foundation, Martin P. Posadas Avenue, San Carlos
City, Pangasinan
 *Western Leyte College of Ormoc City, Inc., A. Bonifacio Street, Ormoc City
 *Western Mindanao State University, Normal Road, Baliwasan, Zamboanga City
 *Xavier University, Corales Avnue., Cagayan de Oro City

The above list from the Office of the Bar Confidant does not include newly organized
law schools and/or law schools who do not have any graduate to qualify for the
annual bar examination. They however have received accreditation from the Legal
Education Board. These additional law schools are as follows:

 *Asian Development Foundation of Tacloban, Tacloban City, Leyte

 *Ateneo de Zamboanga University, La Purisina St., Zamboanga City
 *Kalinga-Apayao State College, Tabuk City, Kalinga
 *University of Asia and the Pacific, Pearl Drive, Ortigas Center, Pasig City
 *University of Batangas-Lipa City Campus, Lipa City , Batangas
 *Urdaneta City University, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan

The laws schools with asterisk (*) before the name of the law school are the accredited
law school or schools offering Legal Education as of October 2014.

The following educational Association and/or Organizations:

 Philippine Association of Law Deans
 Philippine Association of Law Professors
 Philippine Association of Law Students

6.2. Bar Associations

Integrated Bar of the Philippines :

The official organization for the legal profession is the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP), established by virtue of Republic Act No. 6397. This confirmed the power of the
Supreme Court to adopt rules for the integration of the Philippine Bar. Presidential
Decree 181 (1973) constituted the IBP into a corporate body.

There are now about 50,000 attorneys who composed the IBP. These are the attorneys
whose names are in the Rolls of Attorneys of the Supreme Court who have qualified for
and have passed the bar examinations conducted annually, taken the attorney’s oath,
unless otherwise disbarred. Membership in the IBP is compulsory. The Supreme Court
in its resolution Court En Banc dated November 12, 2002 (Bar Matter No. 1132) and
amended by resolution Court En Banc dated April 1, 2003 (Bar Matter No. 112-2002)
require all lawyers to indicate their Roll of Attorneys Number in all papers and pleadings
filed in judicial and quasi-judicial bodies in additional to the previously required current
Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) and IBP Official Receipt or Life Member Number.

Other Bar Associations:

Philippine Bar Association is the oldest voluntary national organization of lawyers in

the Philippines which traces its roots to the Colegio de Abogados de Filipinas organized
on April 8, 1891. It was formally incorporated as a direct successor of the Colegio de
Abogados de Filipinas on March 27, 1958.
The other voluntary bar associations are the Philippine Lawyers Association, Trial
Lawyers Association of the Philippines, Vanguard of the Philippine Constitution,
PHILCONSA, All Asia Association, Catholic Lawyers Guild of the Philippines, Society of
International Law, WILOCI, Women Lawyers Association of the Philippines
(WLAP), FIDA . The Philippines is also a member of international law associations such
as the ASEAN Law Association , and LAWASIA.

7. Law Librarians Association

The Philippine Group of Law Librarians Inc. (PGLL ) is a national organization of law
librarians from both the government and the private sector organized August 1980
during the 46 th General Congress of the International Federation of Library Associations
and Institutions (IFLA). Now on 35 th year, the PGLL aims to develop the competencies
of law librarians in legal research, management, the information technology and other
fields though it congresses, fora and seminars for improved library services. The PGLL
is sensitive to the latest development in the law library field and has adopted measures
conform to these developments. ASEAN integration is the latest development in the
Asean countries and the PGLL is preparing for it. In 2014, it started its study tour to
notable law libraries in Asia, starting with Malaysia. Other members have observed the
law libraries of Singapore and other Asian countries. In 2015, it will conduct a National
Congress on “Developing the Level of Competencies of Librarians and Information
Professionals Towards Asean Integration” to be held on May 6-8, 2015 wherein the law
librarian of model law library is Asia is invited.

The Association of Special Libraries of the Philippines (ASLP) is a national organization

of special libraries, including law was organized in 1954. Through this association, law
librarians can improve their networking and competencies in other disciplines related to
law.