ARTICLE VIII - JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT General Rule: Judicial Power is not exercised to address mot questions.

“A moot case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of

Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such other supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value.
courts as may be established by law. Generally, courts decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on ground of mootness.”

HOWEVER, Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if:

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies 1. There is a grave violation of the Constitution
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
2. The exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess
involved
of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.
3. When the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to
guide the bench, the bar, and the public
Judicial Power
4. The case is capable of repetition yet evading review.
 Is the measure of the allowable scope of judicial action

 Has been defined in jurisprudence as “the right to determine actual controversies

Grave Abuse of Discretion
arising between adverse litigants, duly instituted in courts of proper jurisdiction.”
 As Sinon v. Civil Service Commission put it:
 It is the “authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving the rights
that are enforceable and demandable before the courts of justice or the redress of  By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of
wrongs for violation of such rights. judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be
patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal
 There can be no occasion for the exercise of judicial power unless real parties come to
to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as
court for the settlement of actual controversy and unless the controversy is such that
where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason or
it can be settled in a manner that binds the parties by the application of existing laws.
hostility.

 A broad definition of grave abuse of discretion is found in Infotech Foundation, et al v.

Intrinsic limit on Judicial Power COMELEC which says that there is grave abuse of discretion

1
 1. When an act is done contrary to the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence ordinance, executive order or regulation to determine any question of construction or
validity arising under the instrument, executive order or regulation or statute and for
2. When it is executed whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily out of malice, ill will or
a determination of his rights or duties thereunder.
personal bias.
 Requisites:
 The abuse of discretion must be grave, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary
or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and must be so patent 1. There must be a justiciable controversy
and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a
2. The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse
duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law,
3. The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the
 The Court has used this authority to check even independent bodies such as Electoral
controversy
Tribunal, political parties and the HoR and administrative agencies. Similarly, it is “well
within the power and jurisdiction of the Court to inquire whether the Senate or its 4. The issue involved must be ripe for judicial determination

officials committed a violation of the Constitution or gravely abused their discretion in

the exercise of their functions and prerogatives. For as the constitutional text says, the
Court can check the actuation of “any branch or instrumentality of the Government.” Advisory Opinion vs. Declaratory Judgment

 DJ involves real parties with real conflicting legal interest; AO is a response to legal
issue posed in the abstract in advance of any actual case in which it may be presented.
Advisory Opinions
 AO binds no one; DJ is a final one and is forever binding on the parties.
Courts are not concerned with the wisdom or morality of laws, but only in the
interpretation and application of the law. Judges should refrain from expressing irrelevant  AO not a judicial act; JD is

opinions in their decisions which may only reflect unfavorable upon their competence and
the propriety of their judicial actuation.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the
jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its

Declaratory Relief jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.

 RPC: Action for declaratory relief as an action by any person interested under a deed,
will contract or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute,

2
No law shall be passed reorganizing the judiciary when it undermines the security of 3. The definition, prescription, and apportionment of jurisdiction
tenure of its members.
>In general these 3 processes, except for the conferment of additional jurisdiction upon an
already existing court, occur simultaneously.

Role of the Legislature  When Congress creates a court it also concomitantly determines the jurisdiction of
that court, and simultaneously, too, by operation of the Constitution, that court
 Although judicial power is vested in the judiciary, the proper exercise of power
becomes one of the repositories of judicial power.
requires prior legislative action
 The authority to create courts also includes the authority ti abolish courts, however,
1. Defining such enforceable and demandable rights and prescribing remedies
may not use the power to abolish as a subterfuge for removing unwanted judges.
for violation of such rights
 A new provision has been added: “No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary
2. Determining the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide controversies or
when it undermines the security of tenure of its Members.”
disputes arising from legal rights

 Since judicial power involves the application of law to actual controversies, its exercise
presupposes the existence of an applicable law. Unless there is an applicable law, Section 3. The judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the judiciary may
courts are without power to settle controversies. not be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year
and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released.
 Aside from creating judicially demandable rights, the Congress also creates courts and
determines which court or courts shall have jurisdiction oer various types of
controversies.
Monsod proposed what is now Section 3. He said that the judiciary “should not be exempt
 Jurisdiction is the authority of a court to exercise judicial power in a specific case and from the budgetary process of submitting and justifying its budget, except that upon
is, of course, a prerequisite of a judicial power, which is the totality of powers a court approval, it should be automatically and regularly released.”
exercises when it assumes jurisdiction and hears and decides a case.

 Sections 1 & 2 set down 3 distinct processes:

Section 4. (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and 14 associate
1. The vesting of judicial power justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in divisions of 3, 5 or 7 members. Any
vacancy shall be filled within 90 days from the occurrence thereof.
2. The creation of courts

3
 5. Administrative cases where the vote is for the dismissal of a judge of a lower court or
otherwise to discipline such a one
(2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive
agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court EN BANC, including those 6. Election contests for President or Vice President
involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees,
 Each division of the Court is considered not a body inferior to the Court en banc, and
proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided
sits veritable as the Court en banc itself. The only constraint is that any doctrine or
with the concurrence of a majority of the members who actually took part in the
principle of law laid down by the Court, either rendered en banc or in division, may be
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
overturned or reversed only by the Court sitting en banc.

(3) Cases or matters heard by a divisions hall be decided or resolved with the concurrence
LIMKETKAI SONS MILLING, INC. vs. CA (GR. NO. 118509 September 5, 1996)
of a majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues
in the case and voted thereon, and in no case, without the concurrence of at least 3 of FACTS: Involved in the instant case is the Motion of petitioner Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc.,

such members. When the required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en for reconsideration of the Court's resolution of March 29, 1996, which set aside the Court's

banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court en banc or in December 1, 1995 decision and affirmed in toto the Court of Appeals' decision dated

division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc. August 12, 1994.

By command of the Constitution the following cases have to be heard and decided en banc: It is argued, albeit erroneously, that the case should be referred to the Court En Banc as the
doctrines laid down in Abrenica v. Gonda and De Garcia, 34 Phil. 739, Talosig v. Vda. de
1. All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive
Nieba, 43 SCRA 473, and Villonco Realty Co. v. Bormaheco, Inc., et al., 65 SCRA 352, have
agreement, or law
been modified or reversed. A more circumspect analysis of these cases vis-a-vis the case at
2. Cases involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, bench would inevitably lead petitioner to the conclusion that there was neither reversal
proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations nor modification of the doctrines laid down in the Abrenica, Talosig and Villonco cases.

3. Cases heard by a division when the required majority in the division is not obtained

4. Cases where the SC modifies or reverses a doctrine or principle of law previously laid What petitioner bewails the most is the present composition of the Third Division which
down in either en banc or in division deliberated on private respondents' motions for reconsideration and by a majority vote

4
reversed the unanimous decision of December 1, 1995. More specifically, petitioner
questions the assumption of Chief Justice Narvasa of the chairmanship of the Third Division
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public
and arrogantly rams its idea on how each Division should be chaired, i.e., the
ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
First Division should have been chaired by Chief Justice Narvasa, the Second Division by Mr. warranto, and habeas corpus.
Justice Padilla, the next senior Justice, and the Third Division by Mr. Justice Regalado, the
third in line.
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari as the law or the
Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
ISSUE: Whether or not the contention of petitioner as to the composition

of the third division meritorious.

(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question;
HELD: NO. We need only to stress that the change in the membership of the three divisions
of the Court was inevitable by reason of Mr. Justice Feliciano's retirement. Such
reorganization is purely an internal matter of the Court to which petitioner certainly has no
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any
business at all. In fact, the current "staggered" set-up in the chairmanships of the Divisions
penalty imposed in relation thereto;
is similar to that adopted in 1988. In that year, the Court's Third Division was likewise
chaired by then Chief Justice Fernan, while the First and Second Divisions were headed by
the next senior Justices — Justices Narvasa and Melencio-Herrera, respectively.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue;

Suffice it to say that the Court with its new membership is not obliged to follow blindly a
decision upholding a party's case when, after its re-examination, the same calls for a
rectification. "Indeed", said the Court in Kilosbayan, Inc. vs. Morato, et al., 250 SCRA 130, (d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher;

136, "a change in the composition of the Court could prove the means of undoing an

erroneous decision". (e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

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

5
(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may 2. SC has APPELLATE jurisdiction over final judgments and orders in the following:
require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed 6 months without the consent of
a. All cases involving the constitutionality or validity of any:
the judge concerned.
 treaty

 international or executive agreement

(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
 law

 presidential decree
(5) 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  proclamation

Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a
 order
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be
uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase or modify  instruction

substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall  ordinance, or
remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
 regulation;

b. All cases involving the legality of any:

(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the judiciary in accordance with the civil service
 tax
law
 impost

 assessment or
Powers of the Supreme Court
 toll or
1. SC has ORIGINAL jurisdiction over
 any penalty imposed in relation thereto;
a. Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls.
c. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue
Note: This refers to foreign ambassadors, etc., stationed in the Philippines.
d. Criminal cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher; and
b. Petitions for certiorari, prohibiton, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
6
 e. All cases where ONLY errors or questions of law are involved. 6. Appoint ALL officials and employees of the Judiciary, in accordance with Civil Service Law.

3. Temporarily assign lower court judges to other stations in the public interest. 7. Exercise administrative supervision over ALL courts and the personnel thereof.

Note: Temporary assignment shall not exceed 6 months without the consent of
the judge concerned.
Decisions of the Supreme Court:
4. Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
1. Reached in consultation before being assigned to a member for the writing of the
5. Promulgate rules concerning: opinion.

a. The protection and enforcement of constitutional rights; 2. A certification to this effect must be signed by the Chief Justice and attached to the
record of the case and served upon the parties
b. Pleading, practice and procedure in all courts;
3. Members of the SC who took no part, or who dissented or abstained must state the
c. Admission to the practice of law;
reasons therefore.
d. The Integrated Bar; and
Note: This procedure shall also be observed by all lower collegiate courts (CA, CTA, and
e. Legal assistance to the underprivileged. the Sandiganbayan).

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Definition

Limitations on Rule Making Power 1. Judicial Review is the power of the SC to declare a law, treaty, ordinance etc.
unconstitutional.
 It should provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases. 2. Lower courts may also exercise the power of judicial review, subject to the appellate
jurisdiction of the SC.
 It should be uniform for all courts of the same grade.

3. Only SC decisions are precedent, and thus, only SC decisions are binding on all.
 It should not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.

7
 PACU VS. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION 97 PH1LS 806 [1955]

Requisites Code: [A R S Co R] FACTS: The petitioning colleges and universities request that Act No. 2706 as amended, be
declared unconstitutional. This act is entitled "An Act Making the Inspection and
Recognition of Private Schools and Colleges Obligatory for the Secretary of Public
1. An ACTUAL CASE calling for the exercise of judicial power Instruction."

2. The question involved must be RIPE FOR ADJUDICATION, i.e. the government act must
have had an adverse effect on the person challenging it.
Petitioners contend that the right of a citizen to own and operate a school is guaranteed by
3. The person challenging the governmental act must have ‘STANDING’, i.e. a personal the Constitution, and any law requiring to own and operate a school is guaranteed by the
and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct Constitution, and any law requiring previous governmental approval or permit before such
injury as a result of its enforcement.
person could exercise said right, amounts to censorship, a practice abhorrent to our system
4. The question of Constitutionality must be raised in the first instance, or at the earliest of laws and government. Petitioners, obviously refer Sec. 3e of the Act which provides that
opportunity. before a private school maybe opened to the public it must first obtain a permit from the
Secretary of Education.
5. Resolution of the issue of constitutionality is unavoidable or is the very lis mota.

The Solicitor General on the other hand pints out that none of petitioners has caused to
Effect of a declaration of unconstitutionality:
present this issue because all of them have permits to operate and are actually operating
1. Prior to the declaration that a particular law is unconstitutional, it is considered as an by virtue of their permits. And they do not assert the Secretary has threatened to revoke
‘operative fact’ which at that time had to be complied with. their permits.

2. Thus, vested rights may have been acquired under such law before it was declared
unconstitutional.
ISSUE: Whether there exists an actual case or controversy.
3. These rights are not prejudiced by the subsequent declaration that the law is
unconstitutional.

8
HELD: There is no actual case or controversy. Mere apprehension that the Secretary of Office (PCSO) and the Philippine Gaming Management Corporation (PGMC) in connection
Education might under the law withdraw permit of one the petitioners does not constitute with the on- line lottery system, also known as "lotto."
a judicial controversy.

Pursuant to Section 1 of its charter, the PCSO decided to establish an on- line lottery system
"Courts will not pass upon the constitutionality of a law upon the complaint of one who for the purpose of increasing its revenue base and diversifying its sources of funds. The
fails to show that he is injured by its operation." Office of the President approved the award of the contract to, and entered into the so
called "Contract Of Lease" with, respondent PGMC for the installation, establishment and
operation of the on-line lottery and telecommunication systems required and/or
"The power of the courts to declare a law unconstitutional arises only when the interest of authorized under the said contract.
litigants the use of that judicial authority for their protection against actual interference, a
hypothetical threat being insufficient".
Petitioners, question the legality and validity of the Contract of Lease in the light of Section
1 of R.A. No. 1169, as amended by B.P. Blg. 42, which prohibits the PCSO from holding and
An action, like this, is brought for a positive purpose, nay, to obtain actual and positive conducting lotteries "in collaboration, association or joint venture with any person,
relief. Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest association, company or entity, whether domestic or foreign."
therein, however, intellectually solid the problem maybe. This is especially true when the
issues reach constitutional dimensions, for them comes into play regard for the courts duty
to avoid decision of constitutional issues unless avoidance becomes evasion. The petitioners also point out that paragraph 10 of the Contract of Lease requires or
authorizes PGMC to establish a telecommunications network that will connect all the
KILOSBAYAN VS. GUINGONA, JR. G.R. NO. 113375, 5 MAY 1994
municipalities and cities in the territory. However, PGMC cannot do that because it has no

franchise from Congress to construct, install, establish, or operate the network pursuant to
FACTS: Section 1 of Act No. 3846, as amended. Moreover, PGMC is a 75% foreign-owned or
controlled corporation and cannot, therefore, be granted a franchise for that purpose
This is a special civil action for prohibition and injunction, with a prayer for a temporary
because of Section 11, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, which requires that for a
restraining order and preliminary injunction, which seeks to prohibit and restrain the
corporation to operate a public utility, at least 60% of its capital must be owned by
implementation of the "Contract of Lease" executed by the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes

9
Filipino citizens. Furthermore, since "the subscribed foreign capital" of the PGMC "comes to 2.YES. A careful analysis and evaluation of the provisions of the contract and a
about 75%, as shown by paragraph EIGHT of its Articles of Incorporation," it cannot lawfully consideration of the contemporaneous acts of the PCSO and PGMC indubitably disclose
enter into the contract in question because all forms of gambling — and lottery is one of that the contract is not in reality a contract of lease under which the PGMC is merely an
them — are included in the so-called foreign investments negative list under the independent contractor for a piece of work, but one where the statutorily proscribed
collaboration or association , in the least, or joint venture , at the most, exists between the
Foreign Investments Act (R.A. No. 7042) where only up to 40% foreign capital is allowed.
contracting parties.

ISSUES:
The only contribution the PCSO would have is its franchise or authority to operate the
1. Whether or not petitioners have the Locus standi to file the petition at bench.
on-line lottery system; with the rest, including the risks of the business, being borne by the
2. Whether or not the challenged Contract of Lease violates or contravenes the exception proponent or bidder PGMC (which represents and warrants that it has access to “all
in Section 1 of R.A. No. 1169, as amended by B.P. Blg. 42, which prohibits the PCSO from managerial and technical expertise” to promptly and effectively carry out the terms of the
holding and conducting lotteries "in collaboration, association or joint venture with"
contract..
another.

Certain provisions of the contract confirm the indispensable role of the PGMC in the pursuit,
HELD: operation, conduct, and management of the On-Line Lottery System. They exhibit and
demonstrate the parties' indivisible community of interest in the conception, birth and
1. YES. In line with the liberal policy of this Court on locus standi, ordinary taxpayers,
growth of the on-line lottery, and, above all, in its profits, with each having a right in the
members of Congress, and even association of planters, and non-profit civic organizations
were allowed to initiate and prosecute actions before this Court to question the formulation and implementation of policies related to the business and sharing, as well, in
constitutionality or validity of laws, acts, decisions, rulings, or orders of various government the losses — with the PGMC bearing the greatest burden because of its assumption of
agencies or instrumentalities. We find the instant petition to be of transcendental expenses and risks, and the PCSO the least, because of its confessed unwillingness to bear
expenses and risks. In a manner of speaking, each is wed to the other for better or for
importance to the public. The issues it raised are of paramount public interest and of a
category even higher than those involved in many of the aforecited cases. worse. In the final analysis, however, in the light of the PCSO's RFP and the above
highlighted provisions, as well as the "Hold Harmless Clause" of the Contract of Lease, it is
even safe to conclude that the actual lessor in this case is the PCSO and the subject matter
10
thereof is its franchise to hold and conduct lotteries since it is, in reality, the PGMC which
operates and manages the on-line lottery system for a period of eight years. (In effect, the
RULING:
PCSO leased out its franchise to PGMC which actually operated and managed the same.)
1. The power of judicial review is set forth in Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, to
wit:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED and the challenged Contract of Lease
Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts
is hereby DECLARED contrary to law and invalid.
as may be established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
IBP VS ZAMORA G.R. No. 141284 August 15 2000 involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether
or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
Re:Judicial Review; Civilian supremacy clause
on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

When questions of constitutional significance are raised, the Court can exercise its power
FACTS: of judicial review only if the following requisites are complied with, namely: (1) the
existence of an actual and appropriate case; (2) a personal and substantial interest of the
Invoking his powers as Commander-in-Chief under Sec 18, Art. VII of the Constitution,
party raising the constitutional question; (3) the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the
President Estrada, in verbal directive, directed the AFP Chief of Staff and PNP Chief to
earliest opportunity; and (4) the constitutional question is the lis mota of the case.
coordinate with each other for the proper deployment and campaign for a temporary
period only. The IBP questioned the validity of the deployment and utilization of the
Marines to assist the PNP in law enforcement.
2. The deployment of the Marines does not constitute a breach of the civilian supremacy
clause. The calling of the Marines in this case constitutes permissible use of military
assets for civilian law enforcement. The participation of the Marines in the conduct of
ISSUE:
joint visibility patrols is appropriately circumscribed. It is their responsibility to direct and
1. WoN the President's factual determination of the necessity of calling the armed forces is manage the deployment of the Marines. It is, likewise, their duty to provide the necessary
subject to judicial review. equipment to the Marines and render logistical support to these soldiers. In view of the

2. WoN the calling of AFP to assist the PNP in joint visibility patrols violate the foregoing, it cannot be properly argued that military authority is supreme over civilian

constitutional provisions on civilian supremacy over the military. authority. Moreover, the deployment of the Marines to assist the PNP does not unmake

11
the civilian character of the police force. Neither does it amount to an “insidious incursion” All the Members of Congress,” convening the Congress into a Constituent Assembly to
of the military in the task of law enforcement in violation of Section 5(4), Article XVI of the amend the 1987 Constitution. In essence, both petitions seek to trigger a justiciable
Constitution. controversy that would warrant a definitive interpretation by this Court of Section 1, Article
XVII, which provides for the procedure for amending or revising the Constitution. The
G.R. No. 187883 June 16, 2009
petitioners contend that the House Resolution contradicts the procedures set forth by the
ATTY. OLIVER O. LOZANO and ATTY. EVANGELINE J. LOZANO-ENDRIANO, Petitioners, 1987 Constitution regarding the amendment or revision of the same as the separate voting
of the members of each House (the Senate and the House of Representatives) is deleted
– versus –
and substituted with a vote of three-fourths of all the Members of Congress (i.e., ¾ of the
SPEAKER PROSPERO C. NOGRALES, Representative, Majority, House of Representatives, “members of Congress” without distinction as to which institution of Congress they belong
Respondents to).

x––––––––––––––––––––––x Issue:

G.R. No. 187910 Whether the court has the power to review the case of the validity of House Resolution No.

LOUIS “BAROK” C. BIRAOGO, Petitioner 1109.

– versus

SPEAKER PROSPERO C. NOGRALES, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Congress of Held:

the Philippines, Respondents. No. The Supreme Court cannot indulge petitioners’ supplications. While some may
interpret petitioners’ moves as vigilance in preserving the rule of law, a careful perusal of
their petitions would reveal that they cannot hurdle the bar of justiciability set by the Court
Facts:
before it will assume jurisdiction over cases involving constitutional disputes.

The two petitions, filed by their respective petitioners in their capacities as concerned
citizens and taxpayers, prayed for the nullification of House Resolution No. 1109 entitled “A
Resolution Calling upon the Members of Congress to Convene for the Purpose of The Court’s power of review may be awesome, but it is limited to actual cases and

Considering Proposals to Amend or Revise the Constitution, Upon a Three-fourths Vote of controversies dealing with parties having adversely legal claims, to be exercised after full
opportunity of argument by the parties, and limited further to the constitutional question
12
raised or the very lis mota presented. The “case-or-controversy” requirement bans this anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all. The House has not yet performed a positive act
court from deciding “abstract, hypothetical or contingent questions,” lest the court give that would warrant an intervention from this Court.
opinions in the nature of advice concerning legislative or executive action

As in the case of Tan v. Macapagal, as long as any proposed amendment is still unacted on
An aspect of the “case-or-controversy” requirement is the requisite of “ripeness.” In the by it, there is no room for the interposition of judicial oversight. Only after it has made
United States, courts are centrally concerned with whether a case involves uncertain concrete what it intends to submit for ratification may the appropriate case be instituted.
contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all. Until then, the courts are devoid of jurisdiction
Another approach is the evaluation of the twofold aspect of ripeness: first, the fitness of
the issues for judicial decision; and second, the hardship to the parties entailed by
withholding court consideration. In our jurisdiction, the issue of ripeness is generally A party will be allowed to litigate only when he can demonstrate that (1) he has personally

treated in terms of actual injury to the plaintiff. Hence, a question is ripe for adjudication suffered some actual or threatened injury because of the allegedly illegal conduct of the

when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging government; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and (3) the injury is

it. An alternative road to review similarly taken would be to determine whether an action likely to be redressed by the remedy being sought. In the cases at bar, petitioners have not

has already been accomplished or performed by a branch of government before the courts shown the elemental injury in fact that would endow them with the standing to sue. Locus

may step in. standi requires a personal stake in the outcome of a controversy for significant reasons. It
assures adverseness and sharpens the presentation of issues for the illumination of the
Court in resolving difficult constitutional questions. The lack of petitioners’ personal stake
In the present case, the fitness of petitioners’ case for the exercise of judicial review is in this case is no more evident than in Lozano’s three-page petition that is devoid of any
grossly lacking. In the first place, petitioners have not sufficiently proven any adverse injury legal or jurisprudential basis.
or hardship from the act complained of. In the second place, House Resolution No. 1109
only resolved that the House of Representatives shall convene at a future time for the
purpose of proposing amendments or revisions to the Constitution. No actual convention Neither can the lack of locus standi be cured by the claim of petitioners that they are

has yet transpired and no rules of procedure have yet been adopted. More importantly, no instituting the cases at bar as taxpayers and concerned citizens. A taxpayer’s suit requires

proposal has yet been made, and hence, no usurpation of power or gross abuse of that the act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived

discretion has yet taken place. In short, House Resolution No. 1109 involves a from taxation. It is undisputed that there has been no allocation or disbursement of public

quintessential example of an uncertain contingent future event that may not occur as funds in this case as of yet.

13
 G.R. No. 193036

The possible consequence of House Resolution No. 1109 is yet unrealized and does not REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, REP. RODOLFO B. ALBANO, JR., REP. SIMEON A. DATUMANONG,
infuse petitioners with locus standi and REP. ORLANDO B. FUA, SR.

vs.

The rule on locus standi is not a plain procedural rule but a constitutional requirement EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR. and DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND
derived from Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, which mandates courts of justice to MANAGEMENT SECRETARY FLORENCIO B. ABAD
settle only “actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
FACTS:
enforceable.”
Pres. Aquino signed E. O. No. 1 establishing Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 (PTC)
Moreover, while the Court has taken an increasingly liberal approach to the rule of locus
dated July 30, 2010.
standi, evolving from the stringent requirements of “personal injury” to the broader
“transcendental importance” doctrine, such liberality is not to be abused. It is not an open
invitation for the ignorant and the ignoble to file petitions that prove nothing but their
PTC is a mere ad hoc body formed under the Office of the President with the primary task
cerebral deficit.
to investigate reports of graft and corruption committed by third-level public officers and
employees, their co-principals, accomplices and accessories during the previous
administration, and to submit its finding and recommendations to the President, Congress
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petitions are dismissed.
and the Ombudsman. PTC has all the powers of an investigative body. But it is not a
G.R. No. 192935 December 7, 2010 quasi-judicial body as it cannot adjudicate, arbitrate, resolve, settle, or render awards in
disputes between contending parties. All it can do is gather, collect and assess evidence of
LOUIS “BAROK” C. BIRAOGO
graft and corruption and make recommendations. It may have subpoena powers but it has
vs. no power to cite people in contempt, much less order their arrest. Although it is a
fact-finding body, it cannot determine from such facts if probable cause exists as to warrant
THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010
the filing of an information in our courts of law.

x – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -x

14
Petitioners asked the Court to declare it unconstitutional and to enjoin the PTC from
performing its functions. They argued that:
1] E.O. No. 1 does not arrogate the powers of Congress because the President’s executive
power and power of control necessarily include the inherent power to conduct
investigations to ensure that laws are faithfully executed and that, in any event, the
(a) E.O. No. 1 violates separation of powers as it arrogates the power of the Congress to
Constitution, Revised Administrative Code of 1987, PD No. 141616 (as amended), R.A. No.
create a public office and appropriate funds for its operation.
9970 and settled jurisprudence, authorize the President to create or form such bodies.

(b) The provision of Book III, Chapter 10, Section 31 of the Administrative Code of 1987
2] E.O. No. 1 does not usurp the power of Congress to appropriate funds because there is
cannot legitimize E.O. No. 1 because the delegated authority of the President to
no appropriation but a mere allocation of funds already appropriated by Congress.
structurally reorganize the Office of the President to achieve economy, simplicity and
efficiency does not include the power to create an entirely new public office which was
hitherto inexistent like the “Truth Commission.”
3] The Truth Commission does not duplicate or supersede the functions of the Ombudsman
and the DOJ, because it is a fact-finding body and not a quasi-judicial body and its functions
do not duplicate, supplant or erode the latter’s jurisdiction.
(c) E.O. No. 1 illegally amended the Constitution and statutes when it vested the “Truth
Commission” with quasi-judicial powers duplicating, if not superseding, those of the Office
of the Ombudsman created under the 1987 Constitution and the DOJ created under the
4] The Truth Commission does not violate the equal protection clause because it was validly
Administrative Code of 1987.
created for laudable purposes.

(d) E.O. No. 1 violates the equal protection clause as it selectively targets for investigation
ISSUES:
and prosecution officials and personnel of the previous administration as if corruption is
their peculiar species even as it excludes those of the other administrations, past and 1. WON the petitioners have legal standing to file the petitions and question E. O. No. 1;

present, who may be indictable.

2. WON E. O. No. 1 violates the principle of separation of powers by usurping the powers of
Congress to create and to appropriate funds for public offices, agencies and commissions;

Respondents, through OSG, questioned the legal standing of petitioners and argued that: 3. WON E. O. No. 1 supplants the powers of the Ombudsman and the DOJ;
15
4. WON E. O. No. 1 violates the equal protection clause.

Locus standi is “a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question.” In private

suits, standing is governed by the “real-parties-in interest” rule. It provides that “every
RULING:
action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.”
The power of judicial review is subject to limitations, to wit: (1) there must be an actual Real-party-in interest is “the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment
case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (2) the person challenging the in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.”
act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject act or issuance; otherwise
stated, he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has
sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement; (3) the question of Difficulty of determining locus standi arises in public suits. Here, the plaintiff who asserts a
constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the issue of “public right” in assailing an allegedly illegal official action, does so as a representative of
constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case. the general public. He has to show that he is entitled to seek judicial protection. He has to
make out a sufficient interest in the vindication of the public order and the securing of
relief as a “citizen” or “taxpayer.
1. The petition primarily invokes usurpation of the power of the Congress as a body to
which they belong as members. To the extent the powers of Congress are impaired, so is
the power of each member thereof, since his office confers a right to participate in the The person who impugns the validity of a statute must have “a personal and substantial
exercise of the powers of that institution. interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result.” The
Court, however, finds reason in Biraogo’s assertion that the petition covers matters of
transcendental importance to justify the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court. There are
Legislators have a legal standing to see to it that the prerogative, powers and privileges constitutional issues in the petition which deserve the attention of this Court in view of
vested by the Constitution in their office remain inviolate. Thus, they are allowed to their seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents
question the validity of any official action which, to their mind, infringes on their
prerogatives as legislators.
The Executive is given much leeway in ensuring that our laws are faithfully executed. The
powers of the President are not limited to those specific powers under the Constitution.
With regard to Biraogo, he has not shown that he sustained, or is in danger of sustaining, One of the recognized powers of the President granted pursuant to this
any personal and direct injury attributable to the implementation of E. O. No. 1. constitutionally-mandated duty is the power to create ad hoc committees. This flows from

16
the obvious need to ascertain facts and determine if laws have been faithfully executed.
The purpose of allowing ad hoc investigating bodies to exist is to allow an inquiry into
Equal protection requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated
matters which the President is entitled to know so that he can be properly advised and
alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. It requires public bodies and
guided in the performance of his duties relative to the execution and enforcement of the
institutions to treat similarly situated individuals in a similar manner. The purpose of the
laws of the land.
equal protection clause is to secure every person within a state’s jurisdiction against
intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by the express terms of a
statue or by its improper execution through the state’s duly constituted authorities.
2. There will be no appropriation but only an allotment or allocations of existing funds
already appropriated. There is no usurpation on the part of the Executive of the power of
Congress to appropriate funds. There is no need to specify the amount to be earmarked for
There must be equality among equals as determined according to a valid classification.
the operation of the commission because, whatever funds the Congress has provided for
Equal protection clause permits classification. Such classification, however, to be valid must
the Office of the President will be the very source of the funds for the commission. The
pass the test of reasonableness. The test has four requisites: (1) The classification rests on
amount that would be allocated to the PTC shall be subject to existing auditing rules and
substantial distinctions; (2) It is germane to the purpose of the law; (3) It is not limited to
regulations so there is no impropriety in the funding.
existing conditions only; and (4) It applies equally to all members of the same class.

3. PTC will not supplant the Ombudsman or the DOJ or erode their respective powers. If at
The classification will be regarded as invalid if all the members of the class are not similarly
all, the investigative function of the commission will complement those of the two offices.
treated, both as to rights conferred and obligations imposed.
The function of determining probable cause for the filing of the appropriate complaints
before the courts remains to be with the DOJ and the Ombudsman. PTC’s power to
investigate is limited to obtaining facts so that it can advise and guide the President in the
Executive Order No. 1 should be struck down as violative of the equal protection clause.
performance of his duties relative to the execution and enforcement of the laws of the
The clear mandate of truth commission is to investigate and find out the truth concerning
land.
the reported cases of graft and corruption during the previous administration only. The
intent to single out the previous administration is plain, patent and manifest.

4. Court finds difficulty in upholding the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 1 in view
of its apparent transgression of the equal protection clause enshrined in Section 1, Article
III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution.
17
Arroyo administration is but just a member of a class, that is, a class of past administrations. XPN: Courts, in the exercise of sound discretion, may determine the time when a question
It is not a class of its own. Not to include past administrations similarly situated constitutes affecting constitutionality of a statute should be presented,
arbitrariness which the equal protection clause cannot sanction. Such discriminating
Another rule: The Court will not touch the issue of unconstitutionality unless it really is
differentiation clearly reverberates to label the commission as a vehicle for vindictiveness
unavoidable or it s the very lis mota.
and selective retribution. Superficial differences do not make for a valid classification.

Political Question
The PTC must not exclude the other past administrations. The PTC must, at least, have the
authority to investigate all past administrations.  As Justice Concepcion said in Tanada v. Cuenco, political questions are those
questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their
sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been
The Constitution is the fundamental and paramount law of the nation to which all other delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government.
laws must conform and in accordance with which all private rights determined and all
 Baker v Carr guidelines for determining whether a question is political or not
public authority administered. Laws that do not conform to the Constitution should be
stricken down for being unconstitutional. >Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is

-found textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a political

department;
WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED. Executive Order No. 1 is hereby declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it is violative of the equal protection clause of the - or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it;

Constitution.
-or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for

Other requisites for judicial review non-judicial discretion;

People vs Vera - or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing
lack of the respect due coordinate branched of the government
As a general rule, the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest
opportunity, so that if not raised by the pleadings, ordinarily it may not be raised at the trial, Or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made;

and if not raised in the trial court, it will not be considered on appeal.
Or the potentiality of embarassment from multifarious pronouncements by various
departments on one question
18
 exercise of their profession while dentists, engineers, architects, teachers, opticians,
morticians and others are not so restricted (RA 7160, Sec. 90 (b-l]).
JAVELLANA VS. DILG GRN 102549, AUGUST 10, 1992

FACTS:
ISSUE: Whether or not the questioned memorandum circulars and Section 90 of the Local
Petitioner Atty. Erwin B. Javellana was an elected City Councilor of Bago City, Negros
Government Code unconstitutional.
Occidental. In 1989, City Engineer Ernesto C. Divinagracia sued Javellana for: (1) violation of
Department of Local Government (DLG) Memorandum Circular No. 80-38 in relation to DLG

Memorandum Circular No. 74-58 and of Section 7, paragraph b, No. 2 of Republic Act No. HELD: NO. As a matter of policy, this Court accords great respect to the decisions and/or
6713," and (2) for oppression, misconduct and abuse of authority. actions of administrative authorities not only because of the doctrine of separation of
powers but also for their presumed knowledgeability and expertise in the enforcement of
laws and regulations entrusted to their jurisdiction With respect to the present case, we
Divinagracia's complaint alleged that Javellana has continuously engaged in the practice of find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent, Department of Interior and
law without securing authority for that purpose, as required; that petitioner, as counsel for Local Government (DILG), in issuing the questioned DLG Circulars Nos. 80-38 and 90-81 and
Antonio Javiero and Rolando Catapang, sued Divinagracia for "Illegal Dismissal and in denying petitioner's motion to dismiss the administrative charge against him.
Reinstatement with Damages" putting him in public ridicule; and that Javellana also
appeared as counsel in several cases without prior authority of the DLG Regional Director.
In the first place, complaints against public officers and employees relating or incidental to
the performance of their duties are necessarily impressed with public interest for by
Petitioner filed this petition for certiorari praying that DLG Memoramdum Circulars Nos. express constitutional mandate, a public office is a public trust. The complaint for illegal
80-38 and 90-81 and Section 90 of the new Local Government Code (RA 7160) be declared
dismissal filed by Javiero and Catapang against City Engineer Divinagracia is in effect a
unconstitutional and null and void because:
complaint against the City Government of Bago City, their real employer, of which
petitioner Javellana is a councilman.

(1) they violate Article VIII, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution

(2) They constitute class legislation, being discriminatory against the legal and medical Hence, judgment against City Engineer Divinagracia would actually be a judgment against
professions for only sanggunian members who are lawyers and doctors are restricted in the the City Government. By serving as counsel for the complaining employees and assisting

19
them to prosecute their claims against City Engineer Divinagracia, the petitioner violated Petitioner Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda seeks the review of the following orders of the
Memorandum Circular No. 74-58 (in relation to Election 7[b-2) of RA 6713) prohibiting a office of the Ombudsman:

government official from engaging in the private practice of his profession, if such practice 1.) The order dated September 18, 1991 denying ex parte motion refer to
would represent interests adverse to the government. Petitioner's contention that Section
the SC filed by the Petitioner and
90 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81
2.) The order dated November 22, 1951 denying the petitioner's motion for
violate Article VIII, Section 5 of the Constitution is completely off tangent. Neither the
statute nor the circular trenches upon the Supreme Court's power and authority to reconsideration and directing petitioners to file his counter affidavit and

prescribe rules on the practice of law. The Local Government Code and DLG Memorandum
other controverting evidences.
Circular No. 90-81 simply prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to avoid conflicts of
interest between the discharge of their public duties and the private practice of

their profession, in those instances where the law allows it. In his affidavit-complaint, respondent Napoleon Abiera asserts that petitioner falsely
certified that all civil and criminal cases which have been submitted for decision or
Section 90 of the Local Government Code does not discriminate against lawyers and
determination for a period of 90 days have been determined and decided on or before
doctors. It applies to all provincial and municipal officials in the professions or engaged in
January 31, 1998 where in truth and in fact, petitioner knew that no decision had been
any occupation. Section 90 explicitly provides that sanggunian members .may practice
rendered in the cases that have been submitted for decision. Respondent Abiera further
their professions, engage in any occupation, or teach in schools except during session hours.
alleged that petitioner similarly falsified his certificate of service.
" If there are some prohibitions that apply particularly to lawyers, it is because of all the
professions, the practice of law is more likely than others to relate to, or affect, the area of
public service. Petitioner counters that he had been granted by this court an extension of 90 days to
decide said cases, and that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the case since the
Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and
offense charged arose from the judge's performance of his official duties, which is under
the personnel thereof.
control of this Court.
MACEDA VS. VASQUEZ 221 SCRA 464 [1993]

FACTS:

20
ISSUE: Whether the Office of the Ombudsman could entertain criminal complaints for the The Ombudsman cannot justify it's investigation of petitioner on the powers granted to it
alleged falsification of a judge's certification submitted to the supreme court to the SC, and by Constitution, for such a justification not only runs counter to the specific mandate of the
assuming that it can, whether a referral should be made first to the SC. constitution grating supervisory powers to SC overall courts and their personnel, but
likewise undermines the independence of the judiciary.

HELD: The Court disagrees with the first part if the petitioners basic argument, there is
nothing in the decision in Orap that would restrict it only to offenses committed by a judge Thus, the Ombudsman should first refer the matter of petitioner's certificate of service to
unrelated to his official duties. A judge who falsifies his certificate is administratively liable this court for determination of whether said certificate reflected the true status of his
to the SC for serious misconduct and inefficiency under Sec. 1 Rule 140 of the rules of Court pending case load, as the Court has the necessary records to make such determination. The

and criminally liable to the state under the revised Penal Code for his felonious Act. Ombudsman cannot compel this court, as one of the three branches of government, to
submit its records, or to allow its personnel to testify on this matter, as suggested by public
respondent Abiera in his affidavit complaint. The rationale for the foregoing
However, we agree with petitioner that in the absence of any administrative action taken pronouncement is evident in this case. Administratively, the question before us is this,
against him by this Court with regard to his certificate of service, the investigation being should a judge, having been granted by this court an extension of time to decide before
conducted by the Ombudsman over all courts and its personnel, in violation of the doctrine
him, report these cases in his certificate of service. As this question had not yet been raised
of separation of powers. these cases less resolved by, this Court how could be the Ombudsman resolve the present
criminal complaint that requires the resolution of this question.

Articles VIII, Sec. 6 of the 1987 Constitution exclusively vests in the SC administrative
supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the presiding Justice of the CA that In fine, where the criminal complaint against a judge or other court employees arises from
can oversee the judge's and court personnel's compliance commit any violation thereof. No their administrative duties, the ombudsman must defer action on said complaints and refer
the same to this Court for determination whether said judge or court employee had acted
other branch of government may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the
within the scope of their administrative duties.
doctrine separation of power.

21
Wherefore, the instant petition is hereby granted. The Ombudsman is hereby directed to **These may not be altered by Congress.
dismiss the complaint filed by the public respondent Atty. Napoleon Abiera and to refer the
same to this court for appropriate action.
CAYETANO VS MONSOD

“Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law,
Sections 7. (1) No person shall be appointed member of the Supreme Court or any lower
legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to
collegiate court unless he is a natural born citizen of the Philippines. A member of the
perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is
Supreme Court must be at least 40 years of age, and must have been for 15 years or more
to give notice or render any kind of service which device or service requires the use in any
a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.
degree of legal knowledge or skill (III ALR 23).”

(2) The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts, but no
Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term “practice of law," particularly
person may be appointed judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines and a
the modern concept of law practice, and taking into consideration the liberal construction
member of the Philippine Bar.
intended by the framers of the Constitution, Atty. Monsod's past work experiences as a
lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a
lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor —
(3) A member of the judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity
verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement — that he has been engaged in the
and independence.
practice of law for at least ten years.

Qualification of Members of the Judiciary (Supreme Court)

Section 8. A judicial and bar Council—composition—Chief Justice, Secretary of Justice,
 Natural born citizens of the Philippines Representative of Congress, Integrated Bar, Professor of Law, retired justice and
representative of the private sector..
 At least 40 years of age

 Must have been for 15 years or more a Judge of a lower court OR engaged in the
practice of law in the Philippines The regular members—term of 4 years—Commission on Appointments—

 And of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence

22
Sec. 9. The members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower court shall be appointed  The principal function of the Council is to recommend to the President appointees to
by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar the Judiciary.
Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.
 From among the nominees the President appoints judges without need for
confirmation by a Commission on Appointments.

For the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointments within 90 days from the  The idea is to forestall as much as possible the influence of partisan politics.
submission of the list.
 The requirement that the regular members be appointed with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments allows a political check on the President;s appointing
authority which otherwise would be the sole political influence on judicial
The Judicial and Bar Council
appointments.
 The Judicial and Bar Council is under the supervision of the SC.
 Appointments to the Judiciary

 President shall appoint from a list of at least 3 nominees for each vacancy, as
 Is under the supervision of the Supreme Court and is composed of: prepared by the JBC.

1. Chief Justice, as ex-officio chairman  No CA confirmation is needed for appointments to the Judiciary.

2. Secretary of Justice, as an ex-officio member  Vacancies in SC should be filled within 90 days from the occurrence of the
vacancy.
3. Representative of Congress, as an ex-officio member

 Vacancies in lower courts should be filled within 90 days from submission to the
4. Representative of the Integrated Bar
President of the JBC list.
5. A professor of law

6. A retired member of the SC; and

Chavez vs. Judicial and Bar Council
7. Private sector representative

Note: The last four re the regular members of the JBC. Regular members are
Facts: In 1994, instead of having only 7 members, an eighth member was added to the JBC
appointed by the President with CA approval. Regular members serve for 4 years, with
as two representatives from Congress began sitting in the JBC – one from the House of
staggered terms.
23
Representatives and one from the Senate, with each having one-half (1/2) of a vote. Then,
the JBC En Banc, in separate meetings held in 2000 and 2001, decided to allow the
Held:
representatives from the Senate and the House of Representatives one full vote each.
Senator Francis Joseph G. Escudero and Congressman Niel C. Tupas, Jr. (respondents)
simultaneously sit in the JBC as representatives of the legislature. It is this practice that
1. Yes. The Courts’ power of judicial review is subject to several limitations, namely: (a)
petitioner has questioned in this petition. Respondents argued that the crux of the
there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (b)
controversy is the phrase “a representative of Congress.” It is their theory that the two
the person challenging the act must have “standing” to challenge; he must have a personal
houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives, are permanent and mandatory
and substantial interest in the case, such that he has sustained or will sustain, direct injury
components of “Congress,” such that the absence of either divests the term of its
as a result of its enforcement; (c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the
substantive meaning as expressed under the Constitution. Bicameralism, as the system of
earliest possible opportunity; and (d) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis
choice by the Framers, requires that both houses exercise their respective powers in the
mota of the case. Generally, a party will be allowed to litigate only when these conditions
performance of its mandated duty which is to legislate. Thus, when Section 8(1), Article VIII
sine qua non are present, especially when the constitutionality of an act by a co-equal
of the Constitution speaks of “a representative from Congress,” it should mean one
branch of government is put in issue.
representative each from both Houses which comprise the entire Congress.

The Court disagrees with the respondents’ contention that petitioner lost his standing to
Issue:
sue because he is not an official nominee for the post of Chief Justice. While it is true that a

1. Are the conditions sine qua non for the exercise of the power of judicial review have “personal stake” on the case is imperative to have locus standi, this is not to say that only

been met in this case? official nominees for the post of Chief Justice can come to the Court and question the JBC
composition for being unconstitutional. The JBC likewise screens and nominates other
members of the Judiciary. Albeit heavily publicized in this regard, the JBC’s duty is not at all
2. Is the JBC’s practice of having members from the Senate and the House of limited to the nominations for the highest magistrate in the land. A vast number of
Representatives making 8 instead of 7 sitting members unconstitutional? aspirants to judicial posts all over the country may be affected by the Court’s ruling. More
importantly, the legality of the very process of nominations to the positions in the Judiciary
is the nucleus of the controversy. The claim that the composition of the JBC is illegal and
3. What is the effect of the Court's finding that the current composition of the JBC is unconstitutional is an object of concern, not just for a nominee to a judicial post, but for all
unconstitutional? citizens who have the right to seek judicial intervention for rectification of legal blunders.

24
 One of the primary and basic rules in statutory construction is that where the words of a
statute are clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and
2. Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides:
applied without attempted interpretation. It is a well-settled principle of constitutional
Section 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the construction that the language employed in the Constitution must be given their ordinary
Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of meaning except where technical terms are employed. As much as possible, the words of
Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the the Constitution should be understood in the sense they have in common use. What it says
Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a according to the text of the provision to be construed compels acceptance and negates the
representative of the private sector. power of the courts to alter it, based on the postulate that the framers and the people
mean what they say. Verba legis non est recedendum – from the words of a statute there
From a simple reading of the above-quoted provision, it can readily be discerned that the
should be no departure.
provision is clear and unambiguous. The first paragraph calls for the creation of a JBC and
places the same under the supervision of the Court. Then it goes to its composition where
the regular members are enumerated: a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor
Applying the foregoing principle to this case, it becomes apparent that the word “Congress”
of law, a retired member of the Court and a representative from the private sector. On the
used in Article VIII, Section 8(1) of the Constitution is used in its generic sense. No particular
second part lies the crux of the present controversy. It enumerates the ex officio or special
allusion whatsoever is made on whether the Senate or the House of Representatives is
members of the JBC composed of the Chief Justice, who shall be its Chairman, the Secretary
being referred to, but that, in either case, only a singular representative may be allowed to
of Justice and “a representative of Congress.”
sit in the JBC.

The use of the singular letter “a” preceding “representative of Congress” is unequivocal and
It is worthy to note that the seven-member composition of the JBC serves a practical
leaves no room for any other construction. It is indicative of what the members of the
purpose, that is, to provide a solution should there be a stalemate in voting. This underlying
Constitutional Commission had in mind, that is, Congress may designate only one (1)
reason leads the Court to conclude that a single vote may not be divided into half (1/2),
representative to the JBC. Had it been the intention that more than one (1) representative
between two representatives of Congress, or among any of the sitting members of the JBC
from the legislature would sit in the JBC, the Framers could have, in no uncertain terms, so
for that matter. This unsanctioned practice can possibly cause disorder and eventually
provided.
muddle the JBC’s voting process, especially in the event a tie is reached. The aforesaid
purpose would then be rendered illusory, defeating the precise mechanism which the
Constitution itself createdWhile it would be unreasonable to expect that the Framers

25
provide for every possible scenario, it is sensible to presume that they knew that an odd
composition is the best means to break a voting deadlock.
The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general rule, only applies as a matter
of equity and fair play. It nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing that
the existence of a statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operative
The respondents insist that owing to the bicameral nature of Congress, the word “Congress”
fact and may have consequences which cannot always be ignored. The past cannot always
in Section 8(1), Article VIII of the Constitution should be read as including both the Senate
be erased by a new judicial declaration. The doctrine is applicable when a declaration of
and the House of Representatives. They theorize that it was so worded because at the time
unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid
the said provision was being drafted, the Framers initially intended a unicameral form of
law. Thus, it was applied to a criminal case when a declaration of unconstitutionality would
Congress. Then, when the Constitutional Commission eventually adopted a bicameral form
put the accused in double jeopardy or would put in limbo the acts done by a municipality in
of Congress, the Framers, through oversight, failed to amend Article VIII, Section 8 of the
reliance upon a law creating it.3
Constitution.

Under the circumstances, the Court finds the exception applicable in this case and holds
It is evident that the definition of “Congress” as a bicameral body refers to its primary
that notwithstanding its finding of unconstitutionality in the current composition of the JBC,
function in government – to legislate. In the passage of laws, the Constitution is explicit in
all its prior official actions are nonetheless valid.
the distinction of the role of each house in the process. The same holds true in Congress’
non-legislative powers. An inter-play between the two houses is necessary in the
realization of these powers causing a vivid dichotomy that the Court cannot simply discount.
Jardeleza vs Sereno
This, however, cannot be said in the case of JBC representation because no liaison between
the two houses exists in the workings of the JBC. Hence, the term “Congress” must be GR 213181 August 19, 2014

taken to mean the entire legislative department.

Facts:

Following Justice Abad’s compulsory retirement, the JBC announced the application or

3. As a general rule, an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no recommendations for the position left by the Associate Justice. Jardeleza, the incumbent

duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative as if it has not been Sol-Gen at the time, was included in the list of candidates. However, he was informed

passed at all. This rule, however, is not absolute. Under the doctrine of operative facts, through telephone call from some Justices that the Chief Justice herself – CJ Sereno, will be

actions previous to the declaration of unconstitutionality are legally recognized. They are invoking Sec 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 or the so-called “unanimity rule” against him.

not nullified. This is essential in the interest of fair play. Generally, the rule is that an applicant is included in the shortlist when s/he obtains
26
affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of the JBC. When Section 2, Rule Jardeleza filed for certiorari and mandamus via Rule 65 with prayer for TRO to compel the
10 of JBC-009, however, is invoked because an applicant’s integrity is challenged, a JBC to include him in the list of nominees on the grounds that the JBC and CJ Sereno acted
unanimous vote is required. Jardeleza was then directed to make himself available on with grave abuse of discretion in excluding him, despite having garnered a sufficient
June 30, 2014 before the JBC during which he would be informed of the objections to his number of votes to qualify for the position.
integrity.

Issue: W/N the right to due process is demandable as a matter of right in JBC proceedings
Jardeleza wrote a letter-petition asking the SC to exercise its supervisory power and direct
the JBC to, among others, give Jardeleza a written notice and sworn written statements of
his oppositors or any documents in the JBC hearings, and to disallow CJ Sereno from Yes. While it is true that the JBC proceedings are sui generis, it does not mean that an

participating in the voting process for nominees on June 30, 2014. applicant’s access to the rights afforded under the due process clause is discretionary on
the part of JBC.

During the June 30, 2014 meeting of the JBC, Justice Carpio appeared and disclosed a
confidential information which, to CJ Sereno, characterized Jardeleza’s integrity as dubious. The Court does not brush aside the unique and special nature of JBC proceedings.

Jardeleza demanded that CJ Sereno execute a sworn statement specifying her objections Notwithstanding being “a class of its own,” the right to be heard and to explain one’s self is

and that he be afforded the right to cross-examine her in a public hearing. He also availing. In cases where an objection to an applicant’s qualifications is raised, the

requested deferment of the JBC proceedings, as the SC en banc has yet to decide in his observance of due process neither contradicts the fulfillment of the JBC’s duty to

letter-petition. recommend. This holding is not an encroachment on its discretion in the nomination
process. Actually, its adherence to the precepts of due process supports and enriches the
exercise of its discretion. When an applicant, who vehemently denies the truth of the
However, the JBC continued its deliberations and proceeded to vote for the nominees to be objections, is afforded the chance to protest, the JBC is presented with a clearer
included in the shortlist. Thereafter, the JBC released the shortlist of 4 nominees. It was understanding of the situation it faces, thereby guarding the body from making an unsound
revealed later that there were actually 5 nominees who made it to the JBC shortlist, but 1 and capricious assessment of information brought before it. The JBC is not expected to
nominee could not be included because of the invocation of the “unanimity rule”.. strictly apply the rules of evidence in its assessment of an objection against an applicant.
Just the same, to hear the side of the person challenged complies with the dictates of
fairness because the only test that an exercise of discretion must surmount is that of
soundness.
27
Consequently, the Court is compelled to rule that Jardeleza should have been included in ISSUE: Is the deduction in the said salaries in violation of Sec.10 of Art.VIII?
the shortlist submitted to the President for the vacated position of Associate Justice Abad.
This consequence arose not from the unconstitutionality of Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009
per se, but from the violation by the JBC of its own rules of procedure and the basic tenets HELD: YES. The draft proposal of Sec 10 Art VIII reads as "their salary shall not be

of due process. By no means does the Court intend to strike down the “unanimity rule” as it decreased" and the words "not subjected to income tax" was deleted so as to give

reflects the JBC’s policy and, therefore, wisdom in its selection of nominees. Even so, the substance to equality among the three branches of government.

Court refuses to turn a blind eye on the palpable defects in its implementation and the
ensuing treatment that Jardeleza received before the Council. True, Jardeleza has no vested
right to a nomination, but this does not prescind from the fact that the JBC failed to Thus, the clear intent of the Constitutional Commission was to delete the proposed express

observe the minimum requirements of due process. grant of exemption from payment of income tax to members of the Judiciary. In the course
of deliberations, it was made clear that the salaries of members of the Judiciary would be

subject to general income tax does not fall within their continuance in office.
Section 10. The salary of the Chief Justice and the associate justices of the Supreme Court,
and the judges of the lower courts shall be fixed by law. During their continuance in office,
their salary shall not be decreased. The court disregarded the ruling in Perfecto vs. Meer that declared the salaries of members

NITAFAN VS. COMMISSION OF INTERNAL REVENUE of the Judiciary exempt from payment of income tax and considered such payment as
diminution of their salaries during their continuance in office.
152 SCRA 284 [1987]

FACTS: Petitioners David Nitafan Wenceslao Polo and Maximo Savellano are duly appointed
and qualified Judges of the RTC, NCR Manila. They sought to prohibit and/or perpetually Furthermore, in constructing Sec 10 Art VIII of the 1987 Constitution, it is plain that the

enjoin respondent Commission of Internal Revenue and Finance Office of the SC from Constitution authorizes Congress to pass a law fixing another rate of compensation of

making any deductions of withholding taxes from their salaries. They submit that a tax Justice and Judges but such rate must be higher than that which they are receiving at the

withheld from their compensation as judicial officers constitute a decrease or diminution of time of the enactment, of if lower, it would be applicable only to the appointed after its

their salaries contrary to the provision of Sec.10 of Art.VIII of the Constitution mandating
that "during their continuance in office, their salary shall not be decreased.

28
approval. It would be strained construction to read into the provision an exemption from
taxation when the true intent of the framers was to make the salaries of the Judiciary
DE LA LLANA vs. ALBA (G.R. No. L-57883 March 12, 1982)
taxable.

Section 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of the lower court shall hold
office during good behavior until they reach the age of 70 years or become incapacitated FACTS: Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 entitled "An

to discharge the duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power Act Reorganizing the Judiciary, Appropriating Funds Therefore and for other Purposes," the

to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of majority of the same being contrary to the security of tenure provision of the Constitution as it separates

members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted from the judiciary Justices and judges of inferior courts from the Court of Appeals to

thereon. municipal circuit courts except the occupants of the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax
Appeals, unless appointed to the inferior courts established by such Act. They likewise
impute lack of good faith in its enactment and characterize as undue delegation of
Security of Tenure in the Judiciary legislative power to the President his authority to fix the compensation and allowances of
the Justices and judges thereafter appointed and the determination of the date when the
 Since the members of the Supreme Court are removable only by impeachment, they
reorganization shall be deemed completed. The Solicitor General maintains that there is no
can be said to have failed to satisfy the requirement of “good behavior” only if they
valid justification for the attack on the constitutionality of the statute, it being a legitimate
are guilty of the offenses which are constitutional grounds for impeachment.
exercise of the power vested in the Batasang Pambansa to reorganize the judiciary, the
 What about disciplinary action short of dismissal?
allegations of absence of good faith as well as the attack on the independence of the
 As the text is constructed, the requirement is that the SC sits en banc in all judiciary being unwarranted and devoid of any support in law.
disciplinary cases

 Peple v. Gacott Jr ruled that a decision en banc is needed only when the penalty
ISSUE: Whether or not BP Blg. 129 is unconstitutional.
to be imposed is dismissal of a judge, disbarment of a lawyer, suspension of
either for more than 1 year, or a fine exceeding 10,000 pesos.

 The SC, in Zandueta v Dela Costa and Ocampo v. Secretary of Justice applied to HELD: Yes. It is constitutional. After an intensive and rigorous study of all the legal aspects
abolition of courts the principle used relative to the abolition of civil service positions. of the case, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, the unconstitutionality of Batas
Abolition of office is valid when done in good faith and not for political or personal Pambansa Blg. 129 not having been shown. It held that the enactment thereof was in
reason. answer to a pressing and urgent need for a major reorganization of the judiciary; that
29
the attendant abolition of the inferior courts which shall cause their incumbents to cease reference, I am enclosing herewith machine copies of Executive Order RF6-04 and the
from holding office does not impair the independence of the judiciary and the security of appointment.
tenure guarantee as incumbent justices and judges with good performance and clean
records can be named anew in legal contemplation without interruption in the continuity
of their service; that the provision granting the President authority to fix the compensation Before I may accept the appointment and enter in the discharge of the powers and
duties of the position as member of the Ilocos (Norte) Provincial Committee on Justice, may I
and allowances of the Justices and judges survives the test of undue delegation of
have the honor to request for the issuance by the Honorable Supreme Court of a Resolution,
legislative power, a standard having been clearly adopted therefor; that the reorganization
as follows:
provided by the challenged Act will be carried out in accordance with the President's
constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and the judiciary's (1) Authorizing me to accept the appointment and to assume and discharge the

commitment to guard constitutional rights. powers and duties attached to the said position;

(2) Considering my membership in the Committee as neither violative of the

Independence of the Judiciary nor a violation of Section 12, Article VIII, or of the second
Section 12. The members of the Supreme Court and other courts established by law shall
paragraph of Section 7, Article IX (B), both of the Constitution, and will not in any way
not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.
amount to an abandonment of my present position as Executive Judge of Branch XIX,
Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, and as a member of the Judiciary; x x x”

IN RE: MANZANO [A.M. NO. 88-7-1861-RTC. OCTOBER 5, 1988.]

FACTS: On 4 July 1988, Judge Rodolfo U. Manzano, Executive Judge, RTC, Bangui, Ilocos ISSUE: Whether or not the designation of Judge Manzano as member of the Provincial
Norte, Branch 19, sent this Court a letter which reads: Committeee on Justice violates the Constitution.

“By Executive Order RF6-04 issued on June 21, 1988 by the Honorable Provincial
Governor of Ilocos Norte, Hon. Rodolfo C. Fariñas, I was designated as a member of the
HELD: Yes. Under the Constitution, the members of the Supreme Court and other courts
Ilocos Norte Provincial Committee on Justice created pursuant to Presidential Executive
established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or
Order No. 856 of 12 December 1986, as amended by Executive Order No. 326 of June 1,
administrative functions (Section 12, Art. VIII, Constitution).
1988. In consonance with Executive Order RF6-04, the Honorable Provincial Governor of
Ilocos Norte issued my appointment as a member of the Committee. For your ready

30
Considering that membership of Judge Manzano in the Ilocos Norte Provincial Committee
on Justice, which discharges administrative functions, will be in violation of the Constitution,
ACCORDINGLY, the aforesaid request of Judge Rodolfo U. Manzano is DENIED.
the Court is constrained to deny his request.

Sections 13. The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for decision
Former Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando in his concurring opinion in the case of Garcia vs.
en banc or in division shall be reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a
Macaraig (39 SCRA 106) ably sets forth: “While the doctrine of separation of powers is a
member for the writing o f the opinion o f the court. A certification to this effect signed
relative theory not to be enforced with pedantic rigor, the practical demands of
by the CJ—-Any member who took no part or dissented…must state the reason therefor.
government precluding its doctrinaire application, it cannot justify a member of the
The same procedure in all lower collegiate courts.
judiciary being required to assume a position or perform a duty non-judicial in character.
That is implicit in the principle. Otherwise there is a plain departure from its command. The
essence of the trust reposed in him is to decide. Only a higher court, as was emphasized by
Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly
Justice Barredo, can pass on his actuation. He is not a subordinate of an executive or
and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
legislative official, however eminent. It is indispensable that there be no exception to the
rigidity of such a norm if he is, as expected, to be confined to the task of adjudication.
Fidelity to his sworn responsibility no leas than the maintenance of respect for the judiciary No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be
can be satisfied with nothing less." refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor.

This declaration does not mean that RTC Judges should adopt an attitude of monastic  Decisions MUST state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
insensibility or unbecoming indifference to Province/City Committee on Justice. As
 Refusal to give due course to petitions for review and motions for reconsideration
incumbent RTC Judges, they form part of the structure of government. Their integrity and
must state the legal basis for such refusal.
performance in the adjudication of cases contribute to the solidity of such structure. As
public officials, they are trustees of an orderly society. Even as non-members of  Memorandum decisions, where the appellate court adopts the findings of fact and law
Provincial/City Committees on Justice, RTC judges should render assistance to said of the lower court, are allowed as long as the decision adopted by reference is
Committees to help promote the landable purposes for which they exist, but only when attached to the Memorandum for easy reference.
such assistance may be reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of their judicial duties.

31
 These rules only apply to courts. They do not apply to quasi-judicial or administrative
bodies nor to military tribunals.

Section 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be
decided or resolved within 24 months from date of submission for the Supreme Court,
and unless reduced by the Supreme Court, 12 months for all lower collegiate courts, and
3 months for all other lower courts.

(2) A case shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last
pleading, brief or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself.

(4) Even after the lapse—-the court shall still decide without further delay.

Section 16. The Supreme Court shall, within 30 days from the opening of each regular
session of the Congress, submit to the President and the Congress an annual report on
the operations and activities of the judiciary.

32