JUDICIARY

Introduction
PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY
• Independent status – specialized positions not being open for popular elections
• Traditionally not enjoyed much attention compared to the two other branches of government
• Supreme Court – have been receiving attention since 1986 as a result of its growing role in political and economic matters
• Estrada impeachment trial and People Power 2 – Many considered the judiciary as the only remaining branch of government
that still enjoyed some level of public confidence.
• Supreme Court’s decision to declare Gloria Macapagal Arroyo the rightful president after People Power 2 added to the
judiciary’s growing role in political manner.
• Impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario Davide also boosted its growing judicial activism
Critics for judiciary includes:
• Supreme Court’s increasing rulings on economic issues is scaring off foreign investors
• That the judiciary should not decide on political issues such as the legality of the presidency
• Politicizes appointments to the courts, thereby affecting its independence; charges of graft and corruption, and incompetence
within the courts
• Ineffeciency and delay in judicial administration
JUDICIARY in Democratic Setting
• Judiciary - is a branch of government empowered to decide legal disputes
• Judges – function is to adjudicate on the meaning of law in the sense that they interpret or “construct” law
• Such role is important in stated with codified constitutions where it extends to the interpretation of the constitution itself
• Allowing judges to arbitrate in disputes between major institutions of government or between the state and the individual
JUDICIARY in liberal-democratic systems
• In liberal-democratic systems, one of the chief characteristics of the judiciary is that judges are strictly independent and non-
political actors.
• Judicial independence – constitutional principle that states that there should be strict separation between the judiciary and
other branches of government; application of the separation of power principle
• Judiciary is not merely an institution but a political one as well.
• Judges play a vital role in the conflict resolution and the maintenance of state authority-both political activities.
Two controversial questions that have to do with the political significance of the judiciary:
FIRST, are judges political in that political considerations or pressures shape their action?
Judges may be political in two senses: They may be subject to external bias or internal bias.
• External bias – comes from the influence of the political groups exert on the judiciary. It must be kept at bay by respect for the
principle of judicial independence.
• Internal bias – comes from the prejudices and sympathies of judges themselves, particularly from those that intrude into the
process of judicial decision making. Bias may creep in through the values and the culture of the judiciary.
SECOND, do judges make policy in the sense that they encroach upon the proper responsibilities of politicians?
The image of judges as simple appliers of law is a myth. No law, legal term, or legal principle has a single, self-evident
meaning. In practice, judges impose meanings on law through a process of construction that force them to choose among a number of
possible meanings or interpretations. Thus, every law can be considered as judge-made law. However, the range of discretion available
to judges and the significance of the laws that they accord with meaning vary considerably. There are two crucial factors: the clarity and
detail with which the law is specified, and the existence of codified or written constitution.

JUDICIAL REVIEW
• proclaimed in Britain as early as the 17th century but the philosophy of court power only received its modern significance in the
US in 1803 with the case of Marbury vs. Madison.
• It is the power of the judiciary to review and possibly to invalidate laws, decrees, and the actions of the other branches of
government.
• Stems from the existence of a codified constitution that allows the court to strike as “unconstitutional” such actions deemed
incompatible with the constitution.
• It seen as a cornerstone of liberal constitutionalism as it ensures a “government of laws.”
• More modest form is found in the uncodified system like that of United Kingdom where it is restricted to the review of executive
actions in light of ordinary law using the principle of ultra vires (beyond the power) to determine whether the executive has
acted outside its powers.
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
• opposite of the more conservative judicial restraint
• refers to the willingness of judges to venture beyond narrow legal decisions so as to influence public policy
Factors explaining “judicialization” of politics:
1. The increasing reliance on regulation as a mode of governing, a system more open to judicial challenge than a taxing,
spending, and war-making government;
2. Interest groups, political parties, and rights-conscious groups throughout the democratic world becoming more willing than
before to bring their struggles to the judicial arena
3. International conventions like the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights that give judges an extra lever they can utilize
to break away from judicial restraint
JUDICIARY in Nonliberal Democratic Systems
• In nonliberal democratic systems, there is no pretense of judicial independence, neutrality, or impartiality.
1
 • In authoritarian countries ruled by single parties, the military, the clergy, or royal families who consider themselves as
representing the “will of the people,” the courts may be the virtual servants of their leaders and the latter’s ideologies.
• With the downfall of numerous authoritarian regimes and the rise of new democracies since the 1980’s, the consolidation of
the new democracies becomes important and urgent
• Keys to this is the entrenchment of a democratic constitution, establishment of the rule of law, and institutionalization of an
independent and strong judiciary.

The Philippine Judiciary from the Pre-Spanish to the Pre-Martial Law Period
• Conflict resolution during the pre-Spanish period
– Datu
• Has the judicial authority
• Act as judge in both civil claims and criminal cases
• Punishes criminals and lay down laws

– Arbiters
• From another village or barangays
• To avoid tribal wars between 2 chieftains, arbiters are appointed to decide the case.
• Chosen from the ranks of old man well versed in custom law and tradition and who were known as fair and just men.
Techniques Employed to Resolve Disputes
• Mediation and conciliation
– Most common
– Payment of fines to settle cases

• Arbitration
– Was resorted when parties could not agree on the fine and mode of payment

• Adjudication

• During Trials
– Arguments are presented
– Witnesses (for evidence)
– Public trial
– If result was inconclusive, the litigants were required to submit to a trail by ordeal

• Barangays have written and unwritten laws.

• Early judicial system was participatory in the sense that the witnesses and even the judges had personal stakes in the
outcome of the case.

Spanish Period
• Institutionalization or the attempt to have a nationally recognized judicial system began

• Governor-general: had absolute judicial as well as executive and legislative powers.

• Royal Audiencia (May 5, 1583)

– Predecessor of the present day Supreme Court
– Did not take away the judicial authority of the governor-general
Members of the Royal Audiencia
• 3 oidores(auditors)

• A fiscal (prosecuting attorney)

• Counselor at law

• Clerk of court

• Some attorneys
2
• Chaplain

• Agent of the treasury

Members of the Royal Audiencia
• A Spanish porter
• A sacristan
• A major damo
• 4 indio porters
• A lawyer and an attorney to the poor
• A warden of the court
– A lieutenant
– A servant
– A constable
• Regent (1776)

• Audiencia
– Had authority to try cases of appeals from gobernadores, alcalde mayores, and other magistrates of the provinces
– Had jurisdiction over all criminal cases arising within 5 leagues from the city of Manila.

• Audiencia Territorial de Manila

– Branches:
• Civil (sola de lo civil)
• Criminal (sola de lo criminal)
• Royal Decree (July 4, 1861)
– Converted the audiencia to a purely judicial body
• Territorial Audiencia (Feb. 26, 1886)
– Organized in Cebu, followed by an audiencia for criminal cases in vigan

Malolos Congress
• Civil courts was one of the major accomplishments of the young republic

• Corte Suprema de Justicia or Supreme Court of Justice

– Established to exercise appellate jurisdiction over such tribunals as may be created by law
– Highest court which has jurisdiction over the entire territory of the republic and resided in the capital

• Tribunal
– Sala de gobyerno
• Presidente del tribunal
• Presidentes de sala
• Procurator general(Chief Justice)
– 3 sala de jusicia
• De lo civil (civil cases)
• De lo criminal (criminal suits)
• De guerra marina
American Period
• General Meritt (Aug. 14, 1898)
– Appointed a provost-marshall-governor for manila and deputy provost marshalls for the outlying districts. They were tasks to
arrest military as well as civil offenders.
– Suspension of the criminal jurisdiction of the Audiencia and other Spanish courts in Manila

3
• General orders 18 ( Sept. 24,1898)
– Expand the jurisdiction of the military courts
– Place the civil courts in a state of suspension
– Vested military commission and the provost courts with general jurisdiction to try all crimes and offenses committed by the
inhabitants and not triable by court martial

• General orders 20 (May 29, 1899)

– Reestablish the Audiencia territorial in Manila as the Supreme Court of the Philippines with Cayetano Arellano as its Chief
Justice
• General orders 21 (June 5)
– Reestablishing the courts of first instance in the province of Manila and the justice of the peace courts
• General orders 29
– Set new standards for the admission and practice of law
– Abolish the Spanish Procurador
• General orders 58
– Amend the provisions of the Spanish criminal code of procedure

• June 11, 1901: birth of present-day Supreme Court

• Act 136 ( the Judicial Law)

– The Taft Commission vested judicial power in one Supreme Court

• New Supreme Court

– Composed of:
• One chief justice
• Six associate justice
– must be citizens of the US or the Philippine Island
– 30 yrs of age or over
– Had for at least 5yrs been in active law practice or held public office requiring the law degree

• They were appointed by the Commission and held office at its pleasure

• Cayetano Arellano: first chief justice

• William Howard Taft

– Head of the Philippine Commission
– Do not trust the Filipinos to be capable of handling the awesome power of the judicial review

• Philippine Bill of 1902

– Provided that the power of the judicial review during the colonial era was lodged not only in the American-dominated Philippine
Supreme Court but also in the US Federal Supreme Court. These two courts used judicial review to protect American interest.

• 1930
– A very conservative judiciary
– Philippine legislature tried to increase the number of justices from 11 to 15
– But this was foiled by the US senate
The 1935 Constitution and the Commonwealth Period
• Tydings-McDuffie Law
– The Philippines was to establish a commonwealth government for a period of ten years before the grant of formal
independence.

4
– Filipinos were required to draft and formulate their own constitution.
The 1935 Constitution
• the provisions to the judiciary can be found in Article 8

• Judicial power was vested in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts may be vested by law

• Supreme Court- Composed of:

– Chief Justice
– 10 associate justices

• They may sit en banc or in 2 divisions

• Commonwealth Act 3 reduced the number of associate justices to six.

• The supreme court bowed down to the power of National Assembly
• A noteworthy provision on the judiciary was the inclusion of the sections dealing with the institution of the judicial review.
• Unlike US Constitution, the Philippine charter had an explicit provision giving to the judiciary the power to review the
constitutionality of any law or executive order.

• Commonwealth Act 3 (Dec. 1935)

– Change the face of the judiciary
– Change the composition of the Supreme Court and created and intermediate appellate court to be known as the Court of
Appeals, between the Supreme Court and the inferior courts.

Commonwealth Era
• Quasi-judicial bodies
– agencies with regulatory and adjudicatory functions
• Court of Industrial Relations: handled labor cases

The Japanese Occupation

• Japanese military occupation
• The country is placed in martial law and the courts were placed under military jurisdiction
• Occupation forces set up a civil government and even called for the drafting of a new constitution
• 1943 constitution
• Judicial power was vested in one Supreme Court and such other inferior courts as may be created by law
• Same framework as the 1935 constitution except the composition of the Supreme Court was reduced to 7 (1 chief justice and
6 associate justices)
• Justices are appointed by the president with the assistance of the cabinet
• Court of appeals was retained but divided into 5 districts
The Judiciary from 1946 to 1972
• President Manuel Roxas
• Supreme Court was reconstituted to its composition under the 1935 Constitution
• Composed of 1 chief justice and 10 associate justices
• No Court of Appeals at the onset of the Third Republic
• Republic Act 52 revived the Court of Appeals in 1946 with 15 justices
• This period is characterized by the Court’s restraint in exercising judicial review.

• Moderating factors may have contributed to the court’s tendency to restrict itself from asserting itself against the other two
branches:
– The Supreme Court was never divided along ideological lines due to the country’s pragmatic political culture
– Members of the Supreme Court have always been recruited from the same dominant class within the Philippine political
system

5
– The Philippines has always had a strong presidency since the inauguration of the 1935 Constitution
– Filipinos as Asians are more collective in making decisions rather than individualistic; judges in collegiate courts are
predisposed towards consensus rather than self-assertion.

• Judicial independence remained limited

• 1935 Constitution states that the appointments in the judiciary made by the president had to be approved by the Commission
on Appointments of Congress

THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY DURING MARTIAL LAW

President Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law in 1972. Under Marco’s consitutuional authoritarianism, all pretense of
judicial independence was lost.
Article 10 of the 1973 Constitution vested judicial power in the supreme Court and such inferior courts as may be vested by
law. The Supreme Court was composed of one chief justice and fourteen associate justices. but beacause President Marcos was the
sole appointing authority (cogress having been closed), he made use of this power to solidify his personal rule. Marcos made a
mockery of the secruty of tenure not only by requiring judges to reorganizations to justify periodic remoival of judges critical of his
regime.

THE SUPREME COURT AND THE MARTIAL LAW: BOWING TO MARTIAL RULE
The case of Planas vs. Commision on Elections- revealed the individual sympathies of the justices during the early years of despotic
rule. In this case, Presidential Decree (PD) 73, scheduling a plebiscite for the ratification of what came to be the 1973 Constitution, was
challenged on the ground that the people had no opportunity to study the draft and therefore were in no position to vote intelligently.

January 15, 1973- proposed constitution was subnitted for the ratification through open voting.

January 17- the justices received a copy of Proclamation 1102 declaring that the Constitution had been ratified by an overwhelming
majority of all the votes cast by all Barangays throughout the Phillipines and had thereby come into effect.

Javellana vs. Executive Secretary- the first issue tackled in this case was whether or not the constitutional ratification was subject to
judicial review. Six justices voted affirmative. They reasoned out that under the 1935 Constitution, Article 15, Section 1, a valid
ratification could be had only if it is participated in by qualified and duly registered voters.

As for the issue of t5he people’s acquiescence,

• 4 justices held that the people had accepted the 1973 constitutipon.

• 2 justices took the diametrically opposed view since there could be no free expression under a regime of martial law.

• 3 justices declined to vote, saying that there were no means of knowing with judicial certainty wheter the pwople had
indeed accepted the Constitution.

On the last issue of whether the proposed constitution was in force and effect,
• 4 justices voted in the affirmative.

• 4 other justices refused to vote on the ground that they could not affirm with utmost certainty whether or not the
people had really acquiesced to the charter.

Aquino vs. Enrile- in this case, Marcos crirics led by Benigno Aquino Jr. questioned their detention on the ground that the declaration
of Martial Law was illegal. The Court dismissed their petitions.six justices held that the question was political and hence beyond the
scope of judicial scrutiny. Four justices held that the issue was whithin the judiciary’s jurisdiction but that there was factual basis for the
declaration of martial law.
Aquino vs. Commission on Elections- this time, aquino questioned Marcos’s right to call a referendum and issue presidential
decrees and the proclamations despite his lack of title to the office of the president of the philippines.
Aquino vs. Military Commission No.2- dismiised Aquino’s petition, holding that the crestion of the military tribunals was within the
broad authority of the commander-in-chief ‘’compatible with the imperative requirements of the emergency” as well as due process.

Other cases decided by the Court tend to show that it fabors the executive over the rights of the people.

6
Sanidad vs. Commossion on Elections- in this case, a presidential decree proposing constitutional amendments was questioned on
the ground that it violated the amending process prescribed in the 1973 constitution.
De Llana vs. Commission on Elections- Marcos was once again sustained by the Court, saying that Marcos’s decision to call a
referendum on whether he should continue in office after the organization of the Interim Batasang Pambansa was “presidential
prerogative”.

Legaspi vs. Secretary of Finance- in that case, a presidential decree granting a tax amnesty was questioned.
PONENTE- Described as a “product of our own genius,’ thereby attributing to all the people the lust for power of a single man.

Garcia-Padilla vs. Enrile- the Supreme Court affirmed the characterization of the crime of subversion as a continuing offense. This
means that a person who has accused of subversion may be arrested anytime., even in his sleep, without a warrant of arrest. The
decision also reversed the doctrine in Lansang vs. Garcia and restored the rule that the suspension of the privelege of the writ of
habeas corpus and/or the proclamation of martial law.

The court held:

In times of emergency, the president takes absolute command for the very life of the Nation and its Government, which,
incidentally, includes the courts, is in grave peril. In so doing the president is answerable only to his conscience, the people
and to God. For their part, in giving him their own loyalty with utmost patriotism, the President will not fail them.

RESPECT FO INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY

To be fair, the Supreme Court has also made decisions that could be categorized as respectful of individual liberty.
Morales vs. Enrile and People vs. “Galit’”- the court enumerated and emphasized the right of an accused person during custodial
investigation.
Salonga vs. Hermoso- recognized the person’s right to travel.
Reyes vs. Bagatsing- the Supreme Court upheld the people’s right to assembly.
Villar vs. Technological Institute of the Philippines- affirmed the freedom of the students to complain against school policies.
Babst vs. National Intelligence Board- saw the Court take the cudgels for the petitioner.

The Philippine Judiciary in Post-1986 Politics

In the post-1946 and Marcos eras, political patronage and interference threatened, and in the latter period actually overrode
the independence of the judiciary.
Judicial structure and powers under the 1987 Constitution
The 1987 Constitution established a republican and democratic state. It also set up a presidential system of government in
which power is divided into three branches of government. The judiciary is one of the independent, co-equals and coordinates
branches of government. The charter contains innovative provisions to enhance the independence of the judiciary. These innovations in
the 1987 Constitution are the:
 Security of Tenure

 Fiscal Autonomy

 Creation of the Judicial and Bar Council

 Expanded Power of Judicial Review

 Power to Review the Proclamation of Martial Law and the Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

 Judge of Presidential Elections

The structure, powers, and composition of the judiciary

The present judiciary of the Philippines is composed of the regular courts engaged in the administration of justice.

The Four-Level Integrated Court System in the Philippines

Supreme Court
Review Courts
Court of Appeals

Regional Trial Courts

Trial Courts
MetroTCs, MTCs,
MTCCs, MCTCs

7
The Philippines Expanded or Total Court System

The Supreme Court

 It is the highest court of the land.

 The court of the last resort for no appeal lies from its judgments and final orders.

 Highly independent tribunal, being a creation of the Philippine Constitution.

 Composed of a chief justice and 14 associate justices.

The 1987Constitution mandates that the person to be appointed as a Justice of Supreme Court should be a:

 Natural-born Filipino citizen

 At least 40 yrs old

 Must have been 15 yrs or more a judge of a lower court

 Person of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence

 Have the power to discipline judges of lower court, or order their dismissal by a majority of the members who actually took part
in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.

Court of Appeals (CA)

 Reviews cases appealed to it from the Regional Trial Courts.

 May review questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law.

 It is not created by the Constitution. It is created by virtue of a law enacted by Congress.

 Qualifications of CA justices are the same as those of Supreme Court.

1936- CA was created

1981- Replaced by the Intermediate Appellate Court

1986- Executive order of President Corazon Aquino renamed Intermediate Appellate Court as the CA again.
8
 1988- CA promulgated its own Internal Rules that provide that the Court should be composed of a presiding justice and 51 to
69 associate justices who shall sit in seventeen divisions of three justices each.

1996- Increased the number of justices from 51-69 and the number of divisions from 17- 23

Regional Trial Courts

 Formerly known as the Court of First Instance

 Divide into 3 branches and each branch has its own presiding judge.

 Courts of general jurisdiction

Courts at the first level are the:

 Metropolitan Trial Courts (MetroTCs)- stationed in the cities and municipalities making up the geographical area known as
Metro Manila

 Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs)- stationed in the cities outside of Metro Manila

 Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs)- stationed in every municipality

Special Courts
 The judicial tribunal exercising limited jurisdiction over particular or specialized categories of actions.

o Court of Tax Appeals- is a collegiate court, vested with jurisdiction to review decisions of the Commissioner of
Customs and Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

o Sandiganbayan- known as the Graft Court. It is also collegiate court. It has the jurisdiction to try and decidecriminal
cases involving violations of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Law providing for Forfeiture of Illegally Acquired
Property, Direct Bribery, Indirect Bribery and Corruption of Public Officials.

In some provinces of Mindanao, there are Shari’a Circuit Courts (SCC) and Shari’a District Courts (SDCs). They interpret
and apply the Code of Muslim Personal Laws. The equivalent SCC and the SDC are equivalent in the rank to the MCTC and the RTC,
respectively.
Quasi-Courts
 Administrative agencies that are not courts of justice but are empowered by the Constitution or statute to hear and decide
certain classes or categories of cases.

 Act like courts although strictly speaking, they properly belong to the executive department and not the judiciary

 It is created in order to assist the regular courts in declogging their dockets, especially with regard to cases requiring
specialized skills, training, or knowledge for their proper disposition.