e@eaq © wm & OO x (2) Administrative Supervision of Courts “Sec. 6, 'The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.” This provision is one of the most significant innova- tions in the 1973 Constitution that have been retained in the new Charter. The previous set-up placed the power of administrative supervision over courts in the Department of Justice, which determined such matters 0: e oe a 2 a 2 ° a a e@eaq OOmm FOCOm- RFT BL 560 PHILIPPINE PoLiTicaL LAW as detail of judges, payment of their salaries, grant of their vacation and sick leaves, appointment or transfer of their personnel, purchase of equipment and the like. ‘This impaired the independence of judges who tended to defer to the pressures and suggestions of the executive department in exchange for favorable action on their requests and administrative problems. Realizing this, and responding to popular clamor for a change in this arrangement, the Constitutional Convention of 1971 decided to transfer the power of administrative supervi- sion over all courts and their personnel to the Supreme: . ose $289 C04m OO RT Os «@> rr sion over all courts and their personnel to the Supreme s Court. a In Re: Request of Philippine Center for Investigative a Journalism for the 2008 SALNs and Personal Data 2 Sheets of Court of Appeals Justices," it was declared > that “by virtue of its constitutional power of administra- a i tive supervision over all courts and court personnel, ie from the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals down a to the lowest municipal trial court clerk, it is only the A Supreme Court that can oversee the judges’ and court F personnel’s compliance with all Idws, and take the a proper administrative action against them if they com- 2 mit any violation thereof. No other branch of govern- Seen one 889 C0 =m 890 KR PTleZ > mit any violation thereof. No other branch of govern- G ment may intrude into this power, without running 2 afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers.” Accordingly, in Caoibes v. Ombudsman,” the a Court, citing Maceda v. Vasquez," stressed that the 5 “Ombudsman cannot dictate to, and bind the Court, to 5 its findings that a case before it does or does not have k i administrative implications. To do so is to deprive the a Court of the exercise of its administrative prerogatives ° 2 ““ AM, No. 09-8-07-CA, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 27, a *” 413 Phil. 717 (2001), 7 "221 SCRA 464 (1993).e@eaq © =m OO x ‘Tue JUDICIAL DePARTMENT and to arrogate unto itself a power not constitutionally sanctioned. This is a dangerous policy which impinges, fas it does, on judicial independence.” Indeed, the “Om- budsman is duty bound to have all cases against judges and court personnel filed before it referred to the Su- preme Court for determination as to whether an admin- istrative aspect is involved therein. This rule should hold true regardless of whether an administrative case based on the act subject of the complaint before the Om- budsman is already pending with the Court. For, aside bo O an would not know of @O88Q O08 wm OOO m- FT EL based on the act subject ot the compiaine peiure we Gune budsman is already pending with the Court. For, aside from the fact that the Ombudsman would not know of this matter unless he is informed of it, he sbould give due respect for and recognition of the administrative authority of the Court, because in determining whether an administrative matter is involved, the Court passes | upon not only administrative liabilities but also admin- istrative concerns.” ‘This power of the Supreme Court has been charac- terized as exclusive.* In Fuentes v. Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao,™ the Supreme Court likewise made it clear that —