EFFECTS OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAWS

We recognize two (2) views as regards the effects of the declaration if unconstitutionality of laws, to wit;

1.) Orthodox View; and

2.) Modern View.

These two concepts are applied in the case of De Castro vs JBC, in which the constitutionality of the
composition of the Judicial Bar Council was questioned for having two (2) representatives from Congress
in violation of Sec. 8, Art. VII of the Constitution. The Court held that it is indeed unconstitutional and as
a general rule, an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; imposes no duties; affords no
protection; and in legal contemplation, it is inoperative as if it had not been enacted at all. This rule,
however, is not absolute. In the interest of fair play under the operative fact doctrine, actions prior to
the declaration of unconstitutionality are legally recognized. They are not nullified.

IS PARTIAL CONSTITUTIONALITY POSSIBLE?

YES.

In accordance with the doctrine of separation of powers, courts hesitate to declare a law totally
unconstitutional and, as much as possible, will salvage the valid portions thereof.

Nevertheless, a declaration of partial unconstitutionality will only be valid under two conditions, to wit;

1.) The legislature is willing to retain the valid portions even if the rest of the statute is declared
illegal; and
2.) That the valid portions can stand independently as a separate statute.

Note: Legislative willingness to retain valid portion is expressed in the separability

clause. This usually provides “if for any reason any section or provison of this Act is
declared invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of the Act shall not be affected by
such declaration.

But even without this, it has been held that the valid portion shall continue to be in
effect for as long as it can stand independently, and without affecting the purpose of the
enactment of the law or the will of the legislators.

Case:

Bar Flunkers Case was declared partly unconstitutional. The law was sustained insofar as
it amended the Rules of Court prospectively. But portion thereof which retroactively
reduced the passing average in the bar examinations was declared unconstitutional for
being an encroachment upon the judicial functions.

SEC. 5 – POWERS OF THE SUPREME COURTS

The SC shall have the following powers:

(1) Exercise Original Jurisdiction over cases affecting:
a. Ambassadors
b. Other public ministers & consuls
c. Petition on certiorari
d. Mandamus
e. Prohibition
f. Quo warranto
g. Habeas corpus

(2) Exercise appellate jurisdiction, on appeal or certiorari, final judgements or orders of lower
courts in:
a. All cases involving the constitutionality of treaties, international & executive agreements, or
laws, presidential decrees, proclamations, instructions, orders, ordinances, other
regulations;
b. All cases involving the legality of taxes, imposts, assessments or tolls, and other penalties
imposed in relation thereto;
c. All cases with issues of jurisdiction;
d. All cases whose penalty involves reclusion perpetua, or higher;
e. All cases which involves a mere question of law

(3) Assign judges temporarily to other stations as public interest may require. Such temporary
assignment shall not exceed 6 months without the consent of the concerned judge.

Notes: The constitution vesting such authority to the SC and no longer in the executive
authority bolsters the independence of the Judiciary. This prevent the rigodon de jueces
wherein judges are transferred at will to suit the motivations of the chief executive.

(4) May order change of venue or place of trial to avoid miscarriage of justice.

In People vs. Gutierrez, the venue of the trial was transferred from Ilocos Sur to Baguio
City, because the witnesses for the prosecution were unwilling to testify for fear of
retaliation from the accused or their followers in the place where the offense was
allegedly committed. The said witnesses lost their inhibitions and gave the needed
testimony that led to the conviction of the defendants. It was the consenus that such
conviction would not have been possible had the case been tried in the regular venue.

The Court, ordered the transfer on the basis of what is considered its inherent authority,
rejecting the argument that venue in criminal cases was jurisdictional.

(5) I. May promulgate rules concerning:

a. Protection and enforcement of constitutional rights
 - Pursuant ot this authority, the SC promulgated on Oct. 24, 2007 the Amparo Rule.
This is in light of the prevalence of EJKs and enforced disappearances. It was an
exercise, for the first time of the court’s expanded power to promulgate rules to
protect the people’s constitutional rights.
b. Admission to the practice of law
- In re Cunanan, the Court declared that in the judicial system from which ours has
been derived, the act of admitting, suspending, disbarring, and reinstating attorneys
at law in the practice of the profession is concededly judicial.
- In re Garcia, wherein the Spanish lawyer petitioner is invoking his right to practice
law in the Philippines without taking the bar examination on the basis of a treaty
between the PH and Spain of which provided that the nationals of both countries
who shall have obtained degree or diplomas to practice the liberal profession in
either contracting states shall be deemed competent to exercise said professions in
the territory of the other, subject to the laws and regulations of the latter. It is
clear, therefore, that the privileges provided in the treaty invoked by the petitioner
are made expressly subject to the laws and regulations of the contracting state. The
treaty could have not been intended to modify the laws and regulations governing
admission to the practice of law in the PH, for the reason that the Executive
Department may not encroach upon the constitutional prerogative of the SC to
promulgate rules for admission to the practice of law in the PH.

c. Integrated Bar
- Erases doubts as to the constitutionality of the IBP, particularly in light of the right of
association, which included the right not to join any association. Compulsory
membership therein was expressly sustained in In re Edillon, where a lawyer was
disbarred for refusing to pay his annual dues to the IBP.

d. Legal assistance to the underprivileged.

- In line with the social justice policy.

e. Simplified, inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases

- A remedy against the worsening problem of delay in the administration of justice.
Reiterated in the Bill of Rights (Art. III, Sec.16) and underlines the reglementary
periods for resolving cases under Art. VIII, Sec, 15.
-

II. Limitations of the rule-making power

1. The rules must be uniform for all courts of the same grade
2. The rule must not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights
3.

III. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
disapproved by the Supreme Court.
 In De Guzman vs People, PD 1606 was challenged on the ground, inter alia, that it
authorized the Sandiganbayan to promulgate its own rules of procedure in violation of
the rule-making power of the Supreme Court. The Court held that this provision was not
invalid because such rules were subject to approval by the Supreme Court. The rules of
procedure of special court and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
disapproved by the Supreme Court.

(6) Appointment of Court Pesonnel

- Must be in accordance with the civil service law.
- Before, the appointing power of SC extends only to its own officials and employees.
Now, the power extends to all officials and employees of the judiciary itself. This
further removed the influence of the political departments, especially the president.

Sec. 6. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF COURTS

- The SC shall have administrative supervision over ALL courts and the personnel
thereof.
- Previous set-up (before the 1973 Constitution) placed power of supervision in the
DOJ. This includes details of judges, payment of salaries, granting of leaves,
purchase of equipment and the like. This impair the independence of the judges
who tended to defer to the pressures and suggestions of the executive department.
- This power of the Supreme Court is characterized as exclusive. (Garcia vs Miro)

- In Re: Request of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism for the 2008
SALNs and PDS of the Court of Appeals Justice, the Court declared that by virtue of
its constitutional power of administrative supervision over all courts and court
personnel, it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges’ and court
personnel’s compliance with all laws, and take the proper administrative action
against them if they commit any violation thereof. No other branch of the
government may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the doctrine of
separation of powers.

In CSC vs Andal, it was held that in case of a violation of a violation of the Civil
Service Law by a court personnel, the standard procedure is for the CSC to bring its
complaint against a judicial employee before the Office of the Court Administrator
of the Supreme Court.

The foregoing rues, howver, does not preclude the Ombudmans from taking
cognizance of criminal cases or purely criminal aspect of cases, against judges ,
especially when the administrative aspect thereof had been duly endorsed or
referred to the Supreme Court for adjudication. Thus, in Gracia vs Miro, the Court
 rejected the plea of the judge to have the case of RIR to Homicide filed against him,
an offense which was in no way related to the exercise of his duties as judge, be
dismissed on the ground that the same had not been referred to the SC first.

May lawyers be subjected to the SC disciplinary authority?

Yes. As lawyers occupy what may be termed as a quasi-judicial office since he is in

fact an officer of the court, a lawyer performs official functions that are akin to
those of judges. As such, administrative case filed against one may be likened to
administrative cases against judges considering that he is a part of the quasi-judicial
system of our government.

SEC. 11. TENURE OF JUDGES

- Member of the SC and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior
until they reach the age of 70 or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of his
office.
- The SC En Banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order
their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the
deliberations of the issues of the case and voted thereon.

**This provision also intends to bolster the judges’ independence.

**This grants them security of tenure until they reach the age of 70.
Before that, they cannot be removed except for cause, which includes
inability to discharge duties of their office.

** There is no need to ingratiate themselves with, or to yield to the

importunings of, their superiors or of the other departments to ensure
their continued incumbency.

Does a law abolishing a court undermines the judges’ security of tenure?

No. In Ocampo vs Secretary of Justice, the SC held that the power of Congress under Sec. 1, Art. VIII of
the Constitution to create, reorganize or even abolish courts inferior to the SC is plenary. The security of
tenure is not a personal privilege of any particular judge; the right of a judge to his full tenure is not
dependent alone upon his good conduct, but also upon the contingency that the legislature may, for the
public good, in establishing the courts, from time to time consider his office unnecessary and abolish it.
Tenure of office presupposes the existence of the office. Petitioners were not removed from office for a
removal implies that the office exists after the ouster. In this case, nothing remained of the office after
its abolition. **decision rendered obsolete

Yes. Pursuant to Sec. 2(2), Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution, “no law shall be passed reorganizing the
judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its members”.
SEC. 13. CONSULTATIONS OF COURT

- The Supreme Court, in deciding cases, is required to reach its conclusions after an
exchange of ideas and full deliberations among its members. Cases are not assigned
fro decision by individual members whose finding are then adopted as the
judgement of the full Court of division. This seeks to provide for the most exhaustive
deliberation before a conclusion is reached.
 Once agreement is arrived at by the required majority. A member is
then assigned as the ponente of the Court.
 Any member who dissents is required to state the reasons thereof.
 A member may write his/her separate concurring opinions.
 Those who failed to participate in the deliberation or abstains must also
explain the reason thereof.
- Requirement of consultation is also now applicable to CA, Sandiganbayan and CTA.
- Certification is intended as an added guaranty that a consultation was had.
- A decision without promulgation is not a decision at all (Limkaichong vs COMELEC)

SEC. 14. COURT DECISIONS

- No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing clearly and distinctly
the facts and bases thereof.
*a requirement of due process that parties shall be well-informed of the facts
an basis of the decisions rendered
- No petition for review and MR of a decision shall be refused due course or denied
without stating the legal basis therefor.

Sec. 10. SALARIES OF JUDGES

- Salary of CJ and AJs of the SC and judges of the lower courts shall be fixed by law.
- It shall not be decreased during the continuance of their office. But may be
increased.

In Perfecto vs Meer and Endencia vs David, the imposition of taxes on the

salaries of judges was unconstitutional because it would result in the reduction
of their compensation. This rule is now deleted in the new constitution.

In Nitafan vs Commissioner if Internal Revenue, the SC held that the salaries if

judges, should also be subjected to income tax.

SEC. 15. PERIODS FOR DECISION

One of the problems sought to be corrected by the new Constitution is the backlog of cases that has
long plagued our courts of juctice. Sec. 15 provides that all cases filed after the effectivity of this
Constitution must eb deided or resolved within 24 months from date of submission for the SC, and,
unless reduced by the SC, 12 months for all lower courts, and 3 months for all lower courts.

When is a case deemed submitted for final resolution?

Upon filing of the last pleading, brief, or memoramdum required by the Rules of Court or by the court
itself.

What happens upon expiration and is still not decided?

A certification signed by the CJ or the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy thereof
attached to the record of the case or matter, served upon the parties stating the reason why a decision
or resolution has not been rendered or issued within said period.

The court nonetheless still has to decide or resolve the case or matter before it.

However, despite the expiration of the applicabe mandatory period, the court, without prejudice to such
responsibility as may have been incurred as a consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case or
matter submitted thereto for determination without further delay.

SEC. 16. SUBMISSION OF ANNUAL REPORTS

- Within 30 days from the opening of regular sessions, shall submit to the president
and congress annual report on the operations and activities of the judiciary.
**can serve as basis of appropriate legislation and government policies
intended to improve administration of justice and strengthen independence of
the judiciary.

-xxx-