- Supreme Court of the Philippines
The Supreme Court of the Philippines (Filipino: "Kataas-taasang Hukuman ng Pilipinas" or "Korte Suprema") is the country's highest judicial court, as well as the court of last resort. The court consists of 14 Associate Justices and 1 Chief Justice. Pursuant to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has "administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof". [ See [http://www.gov.ph/aboutphil/a8.asp Section 6, Article VIII, Constitution] ]
The Supreme Court complex occupies the corner of
Padre FauraStreet and Taft Avenue in Manila, with the main building directly fronting the Philippine General Hospital. Until 1945, the Court held office within Intramuros.
A person must meet the following requirements in order to be appointed to the Supreme Court: (1)
natural-born citizenship, (2) at least 40 years old; (3) must have been for fifteen years or more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines. [ See [http://www.gov.ph/aboutphil/a8.asp Section 7(1), Article VIII, Constitution] ] An additional constitutional requirement, though less precise in nature, is that a Justice "must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence." [ See [http://www.gov.ph/aboutphil/a8.asp Section 7(3), Article VIII, Constitution] ] Upon a vacancy in the Court, whether for the position of Chief Justice or Associate Justice, the President fills the vacancy by appointing a person from a list of at least 3 nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council. [ See [http://www.gov.ph/aboutphil/a8.asp Section 9, Article VIII, Constitution] ]
Beginning with the 1935 Constitution, Supreme Court Justices are obliged to retire upon reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70. [Changed to 65 during 1973-1978, but since restored to 70.] Some Justices had opted to retire before reaching the age of 70, such as
Florentino Feliciano, who retired at 67 to accept appointment to the Appellate Bodyof the World Trade Organization. The 1987 Constitution of the Philippinesprovides that: "Section 11, Article VIII. The Members of the Supreme Court xxx shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office." [http://www.chanrobles.com/article8.htm] Since, 1901, it was only incumbent Associate Justice Alicia Austria-Martinezwho resigned for health reasons. Thus, on September, 2008, Austria-Martinez, citing health reasons, filed a letter to the Court thru Reynato Puno, tendering her resignationeffective April 30, 2009, or 15 months before her compulsory retirement on December 19, 2010. In the October 1 Judicial and Bar Council's en bancdeliberations, Reynato Punoruled: “The court merely noted it. We don’t have to approve it... it is her right.” [ [http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news2_oct1_2008 manilastandardtoday.com, Justice Austria-Martinez wants early retirement] ] During the JBC hearing, a JBC member said "Austria-Martinez had wanted to retire earlier because of health reasons. We were told she had health problems even when she was in the CA.” [ [http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/09/30/08/exclusive-sc-justice-alicia-martinez-retire-early abs-cbnnews.com, Exclusive: SC Justice Alicia Martinez to retire early] ] Retired Chief Justice of the Philippines Artemio Panganibanstated: "I am saddened that Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez has opted to retire early from the Supreme Court due to 'health reasons.' She is not bedridden. Neither is she physically or mentally incapacitated, but she has chosen to retire on April 30, 2009 because she felt she could no longer cope with the heavy caseload." [ [http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20081004-164632/A-libertarian-decision-a-decent-jurist opinion.inquirer.net, With Due Respect - A libertarian decision; a decent jurist] ]
The powers of the Supreme Court are defined in Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. These functions may be generally divided into two – judicial functions and administrative functions. The administrative functions of the Court pertain to the supervision and control over the Philippine judiciary and its employees, as well as over members of the Philippine bar. Pursuant to these functions, the Court is empowered to order a change of venue of trial in order to avoid a miscarriage of justice and to appoint all officials and employees of the judiciary. [ See [http://www.gov.ph/aboutphil/a8.asp Sections 5(4) & (5), Article VIII, Constitution] ] The Court is further authorized to promulgate the rules for admission to the practice of law, for legal assistance to the underprivileged, and the procedural rules to be observed in all courts. [ See [http://www.gov.ph/aboutphil/a8.asp Sections 5(5), Article VIII, Constitution] ]
The more prominent role of the Court lies in the exercise of its judicial functions. Section 1 of Article VIII contains definition of judicial power that had not been found in previous constitutions. The provision states in part that:: "Judicial power includes the duty of courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government."
The definition reaffirms the power of the Supreme Court to engage in judicial review, a power that had traditionally belonged to the Court even before this provision was enacted. Still, this new provision effectively dissuades from the easy resort to the
political questiondoctrine as a means of declining to review a law or state action, as was often done by the Court during the rule of President Ferdinand Marcos. ["See" J. Bernas, "The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary" (1996 ed.), at 831] As a result, the existence of “grave abuse of discretion” on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government is sufficient basis to nullify state action.
The Court is authorized to sit either
en bancor in divisions of 3, 5 or 7 members. Since the 1970s, the Court has constituted itself in 3 division with 5 members each. Majority of the cases are heard and decided by the divisions, rather than the court "en banc". However, the Constitution requires that the Court hear "en banc" “ [a] ll cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, as well as “those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations”. [ See [http://www.gov.ph/aboutphil/a8.asp Section 9, Article VIII, Constitution] ] The Court en banc also decides cases originally heard by a division when a majority vote cannot be reached within the division. The Court also has the discretion to hear a case en banc even if no constitutional issue is involved, as it typically does if the decision would reverse precedent or presents novel or important questions.
Far and away the most common mode by which a case reaches the Supreme Court is through an
appealfrom a decision rendered by a lower court. Appealed cases generally originate from lawsuitsor criminal indictments filed and tried before the trial courts. These decisions of the trial courts may then be elevated on appeal to the Court of Appeals, or more rarely, directly to the Supreme Court if only “questions of law” are involved. Apart from decisions of the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court may also directly review on appeal decisions rendered by the Sandiganbayanand the Court of Tax Appeals. Decisions rendered by administrative agencies are not directly appealable to the Supreme Court, they must be first challenged before the Court of Appeals. However, decisions of the Commission on Elections may be elevated directly for review to the Supreme Court, although the procedure is not, strictly speaking, in the nature of an appeal.
Review on appeal is not as a matter of right, but "of sound judicial discretion and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor". [See [http://www.chanrobles.com/courtofappealsprocedure.htm#RULE%2045 Section 6, Rule 45, 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure] ] In the exercise of appellate review, the Supreme Court may reverse the decision of lower courts upon a finding of an "error of law". The Court generally declines to engage in review the findings of fact made by the lower courts, although there are notable exceptions to this rule. The Court also refuses to entertain cases originally filed before it that should have been filed first with the trial courts.
The other mode by which a case reaches the Supreme Court is through an original petition filed directly with the Supreme Court, in cases where the Constitution establishes “original jurisdiction” with the Supreme Court. Under Section 5(1), Article VIII of the Constitution, these are “cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus”. Resort to
certiorari, prohibition and mandamusmay be availed of only if "there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law". ["See" [http://www.chanrobles.com/specialcivilactions.htm#RULE%2065 Sections 1, 2, & 3, Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure] ]
However, notwithstanding this grant of original jurisdiction, the Court has, through the years, assigned to lower courts such as the Court of Appeals the power to hear petitions for
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warrantoand habeas corpus. As a result, the Court has considerable discretion to refuse to hear these petitions filed directly before it on the ground that such should have been filed instead with the Court of Appeals or the appropriate lower court. Nonetheless, cases that have attracted wide public interest, or where a speedy resolution is of the essence, have been accepted for decision by the Supreme Court without hesitation.
In cases involving the original jurisdiction of the Court, there must be a finding of "grave abuse of discretion" on the part of the respondents to the suit to justify favorable action on the petition. The standard of "grave abuse of discretion", a markedly higher standard than "error of law", has been defined as "a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction" ["See, e.g.," [http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/140274.htm "Toh v. CA"] , G.R. No. 140274, November 15, 2000.]
Pre-Hispanic and Hispanic periods
In the years prior to the official establishment of the Supreme Court, institutions exercising judicial power were already in existence. Before the
Spaniards came, judicial authority “in its primitive form” was in the hands of barangaychiefs. During the early years of the Spanish regime, these powers were vested upon Miguel López de Legazpi, the first governor-generalof the Philippines. He administered civil and criminal justiceunder the Royal Order of August 14, 1569.
The present Supreme Court was preceded by the
Royal Audiencia, a collegial body established on May 5, 1583and composed, of a president, four "oidores" (justices), and a fiscal, among others. It was the highest tribunal in the Philippines, below only the " Consejo de Indias" of Spain. However, this body also exercised administrative functions, not just judicial functions.
The "Audiencia"’s functions and structure underwent substantial modifications in 1815 when its president was replaced by a
chief justiceand the number of justices was increased. It then came to be known as the "Audiencia Territorial de Manila" with two branches, civil and criminal, later renamed "sala de lo civil" and "sala de lo criminal". "The Audiencia" was converted to a purely judicial body by a Royal Decree issued on July 4, 1861, but its decisions were appealable to the Supreme Court of Spain sitting in Madrid.
February 26, 1886, a territorial "Audiencia" was organized in Cebu, followed by an "Audiencia" for criminal cases in Vigan. However, the pre-eminence of the Supreme Court as the sole interpreter of the law was unknown during the Spanish regime.
Unlike the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court during the period of American rule, the decisions of the Royal Audiencia are
The Supreme Court of the Philippines was officially established on
June 11, 1901through the passage of Act No. 136, otherwise known as the Judiciary Lawof the Second Philippine Commission. By virtue of that law, judicial power in the Philippine Islands was vested in the Supreme Court, Courts of First Instance and Justice of the Peacecourts. Other courts were subsequently established.
The judicial structure introduced by Act No. 136 was reaffirmed by the
US Congresswith the passage of the Philippine Billof 1902. The Administrative Codeof 1917 ordained the Supreme Court as the highest tribunal with nine members: a chief justice and eight associate justices.
From 1901 to 1935, although a Filipino was always appointed chief justice, the majority of the members of the Supreme Court were Americans. Complete Filipinization was achieved only with the establishment of the
Commonwealth of the Philippinesin 1935. Claro M. Rectoand Jose P. Laurelwere among the first appointees to replace the American justices. With the ratification of the 1935 Constitution in a plebiscite held on May 14, 1935, the membership in the Supreme Court increased to 11: a chief justice and ten associate justices, who sat "en banc" or in two divisions of five members each.
An independent Philippines
Under the 1973 Constitution, the membership of the Supreme Court was increased to 15. The justices sat
en bancor in divisions. The 1973 Constitution also vested in the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all lower courts which heretofore was under the Department of Justice.
After the overthrow of President
Ferdinand Marcosin 1986, President Corazon C. Aquino, using her emergency powers, promulgated a transitory charter known as the “Freedom Constitution” which did not affect the composition and powers of the Supreme Court. The Freedom Charter was replaced by the 1987 Constitution which is the fundamental charter in force in the Philippines at present. Section 1 Article VIII of the Constitution vests the judicial power “in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.”
Writ of Amparo
The Supreme Court approved the Writ of Amparo on
September 25, 2007. [ [http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=90626 Inquirer.net, SC approves use of writ of amparo] ] The writ of amparo (Spanish for protection) strips the military of the defense of simple denial. Under the writ, families of victims have the right to access information on their cases -- a constitutional right called the "habeas data" common in several Latin American countries. The rule is enforce retroactively. Chief Justice Puno stated that "If you have this right, it would be very, very difficult for State agents, State authorities to be able to escape from their culpability." [ [http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=83222 Inquiret.net, Military can’t shrug off killings--Chief Justice] ] [ [http://www.gmanews.tv/story/56476/SC-ready-with-writ-of-amparo-by-September---Puno ABS-CBN Interactive, SC ready with writ of amparo by Sept - Puno] ]
The Resolution and the Rule on the Writ of Amparo gave
legalbirth to Puno's brainchild. [ [http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/RULE.pdf Supremecourt.gov.ph, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO] ] [ [http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/A.M.%20No.%2007-9-12-SC.pdf S.C. Resolution, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO] ] [ [http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/news/courtnews%20flash/2007/09/09250701.php Supremecourt.gov.ph, SC Approves Rule on Writ of Amparo] ] No filingor legal feesis required for Amparo which takes effect on October 24. Puno also stated that the court will soon issue rules on the writ of Habeas Dataand the implementing guidelines for Habeas Corpus. The petition for the writ of amparo may be filed "on any day and at any time" with the Regional Trial Court, or with the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court. The interim reliefs under amparo are: temporary protection order (TPO), inspection order (IO), production order (PO), and witness protection order (WPO, RA 6981). [ [http://www.gmanews.tv/story/61889/SC-approves-rule-on-writ-of-amparo-vs-extralegal-killings GMA NEWS.TV, SC approves rule on writ of amparo vs extralegal killings] ]
Asian Human Rights Commission(AHRC) has criticized the Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data for being insufficient, saying further action must be taken, including enacting laws for protection against torture, enforced disappearance, and laws to provide legal remedies to victims. AHRC said the writfailed to protect non-witnesses, even if they too face threats. [ [http://www.gmanews.tv/story/62409/Writ-of-amparo-not-enough--Hong-Kong-rights-group GMA NEWS.TV, Writ of amparo not enough – Hong Kong rights group] ]
August 30, 2007, Puno vowed to institute the "writ of habeas data" as a new legal remedy to the extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. Puno explained that the "writ of amparo" denies to authorities defense of simple denial, and "habeas data" can find out what information is held by the officer, rectify or even the destroy erroneous data gathered. [ [http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=85617 Inquirer.net, Habeas data: SC’s new remedy vs killings, disappearances] ]
January 22, 2008, the Supreme Court En Banc approved the rules for the writ of Habeas Data("to protect a person’s right to privacy and allow a person to control any information concerning them"), effective on February 2, the Philippines’ Constitution Day. [ [http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080122-114091/Supreme-Court-okays-rules-of-habeas-data newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews, Supreme Court okays rules of ‘habeas data’] ]
Since the courts' creation, English had been used in court proceedings. But for the first time in Philippine judicial history, or on
August 22 2007, three Malolos Cityregional trial courts in Bulacanwill use Filipino, to promote the national language. Twelve stenographersfrom Branches 6, 80 and 81, as model courts, had undergone training at Marcelo H. del Pilar College of Law of Bulacan State UniversityCollege of Law following a directive from the Supreme Court of the Philippines. De la Rama said it was the dream of Chief Justice Reynato Punoto implement the program in other areas such as Laguna, Cavite, Quezon, Nueva Ecija, Batangas, Rizaland Metro Manila. [ [http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/news/view_article.php?article_id=84080 Inquirer.net, 3 Bulacan courts to use Filipino in judicial proceedings] ]
January 25, 2005, and on December 10, 2006, Philippines Social Weather Stationsreleased the results of its 2 surveys on corruption in the judiciary; it published that: a) like 1995, 1/4 of lawyerssaid many/very many judges are corrupt. But (49%) stated that a judges received bribes, just 8% of lawyers admitted they reported the bribery, because they could not prove it. [Tables 8-9] ; judges, however, said, just 7% call many/very many judges as corrupt [Tables 10-11] ;b) "Judges see some corruption; proportions who said - many/very many corrupt judges or justices: 17% in reference to RTC judges, 14% to MTC judges, 12% to Court of Appeals justices, 4% i to Shari'a Court judges, 4% to Sandiganbayanjustices and 2% in reference to Supreme Court justices [Table 15] . [ [http://www.sws.org.ph/pr061210.htm www.sws.org.ph, New Diagnostic Study Sets Guideposts for Systematic Development of the Judiciary] ] [ [http://www.sws.org.ph/pr050125.htm www.sws.org.ph, New SWS Study of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession Sees Some Improvements, But Also Recurring Problems] ]
September 14, 2008, Political and Economic Risk Consultancy ( PERC) survey, ranked the Philippines6th (6.10) among corrupt Asian judicial systems. PERC stated that "despite India and the Philippines being democracies, expatriates did not look favourably on their judicial systems because of corruption." PERC reported Hong Kongand Singaporehave the best judicial systems in Asia, with Indonesia and Vietnam the worst: Hong Kong's judicial sytem scored 1.45 on the scale (zero representing the best performance and 10 the worst); Singapore with a grade of 1.92, followed by Japan (3.50), South Korea (4.62), Taiwan (4.93), the Philippines(6.10), Malaysia (6.47), India (6.50), Thailand (7.00), China (7.25), Vietnam's (8.10) and Indonesia (8.26). [ [http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gIkKvk-YnNQ1HVb2n_HUUMhncDLA afp.google.com/article, Hong Kong has best judicial system in Asia: business survey] ] [ [http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/world/09/15/08/hong-kong-has-best-judicial-system-asia-business-survey www.abs-cbnnews.com, Hong Kong has best judicial system in Asia: business survey] ]
September 23, 2008, Transparency InternationalCorruption Perceptions Index ( global surveyranking countries in terms of perceived corruption), the Philippines dropped to 141st, down 10 places from 2007, among 180 countries surveyed. It scored a 2.3 in the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), lower than 2007's 2.5, on a scale where 10 is the highest possible grade. [ [http://www.bworldonline.com/BW092408/content.php?id=002 bworldonline.com, RP drops further in corruption perceptions survey] ] [ [http://www.transparency.org/content/download/36508/574364 transparency.org, Transparency International 2008 Corruption Perceptions Index] ] [ [http://www.transparency.org/news_room/latest_news/press_releases/2008/2008_09_23_cpi_2008_en transparency.org, Persistently high corruption in low-income countries amounts to an “ongoing humanitarian disaster”] ] Vincent Lazatin, TI executive director, said: “We are compared to our nearest neighbors Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam, with Vietnam seen as eventually overtaking us in a few years. The difference is that (in other countries) when business sets aside money to grease the wheels, they know that they will get what they paid for. In the Philippines, there is no certainty." [ [http://www.gmanews.tv/story/96545/RP-still-as-corrupt-as-ever---Transparency-International gmanews.tv, RP still as corrupt as ever - Transparency International] ]
The Philippine Court System
*Court of Appeals
**Regional Trial Courts
***Metropolitan Trial Courts
***Municipal Trial Courts in Cities
***Municipal Trial Courts
***Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
**"Shari'a District Courts"
***"Shari'a Circuit Courts"
*"Court of Tax Appeals"
Chief Justice of the Philippines
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines
Political History of the Philippines
Constitution of the Philippines
Judicial Executive Legislative Advisory and Consultative Council (JELAC)
* [http://www.gov.ph/cat_justice/default.asp Philippines: Gov.Ph: About the Philippines] – Justice category
* [http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph The Supreme Court of the Philippines] – Official website
* [http://www.i-site.ph/Databases/Judiciary/SupremeCourt/personal/scjustices-roster.html i-site.ph] – Personal information on the Justices of the Supreme Court
* [http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/history.htm History of the Supreme Court]
* [http://www.gmanews.tv/story/76673/Priest-judge-slain-as-spate-of-RP-killings-remains-unsolved www.gmanews.tv, List of 15 JUDGES KILLED SINCE 1999]
* [http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2008/jan/16/yehey/top_stories/20080116top4.html www.manilatimes.net, Manila Times List of 15 JUDGES KILLED SINCE 1999]
* [http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080125-114803/SC-issues-circular-urging-fines-not-jail-for-libel Inquirer.net, SC issues circular urging fines, not jail, for libel NUJP to Congress: Decriminalize libel]
* [http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/rulesofcourt/2008/sep/A.M.%20No.%2008-8-7-SC.pdf A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, RULE OF PROCEDURE FOR SMALL CLAIMS CASES, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2008]
* [http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/news/courtnews%20flash/2008/10/10030804.php Small Claims Court Pilot Project Launched]
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.