The 'Supreme Court of the Philippines' (
Filipino: ''Kataas-taasang Hukuman ng Pilipinas'') 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".
[1]
The Supreme Court complex occupies the corner of
Padre Faura Street and
Taft Avenue in
Manila, with the main building directly fronting the
Philippine General Hospital. Until
1945, the Court held office within
Intramuros.
Constitutional role
Composition
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.
[2] An additional constitutional requirement, though less precise in nature, is that a Justice “must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.”
[3] 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.
[4]
Beginning with the 1935 Constitution, Supreme Court Justices are obliged to retire upon reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70.
[5] Just a few 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 Body of the
World Trade Organization.
Functions
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.
[6] 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.
[7]
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 question doctrine 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.
[8] 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.
Cases
The Court is authorized to sit either
en banc or 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”.
[9] 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.
Appellate review
Far and away the most common mode by which a case reaches the Supreme Court is through an
appeal from a decision rendered by a lower court. Appealed cases generally originate from
lawsuits or
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
Sandiganbayan and 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".
[10] 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.
Original jurisdiction
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
mandamus may be availed of only if "there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law".
[11]
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 warranto and
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"
[12]
History
Supreme Court Building,
Manila 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
barangay chiefs. During the early years of the Spanish regime, these powers were vested upon
Miguel López de Legazpi, the first
governor-general of the Philippines. He administered civil and
criminal justice under the Royal Order of
August 14,
1569.
The present Supreme Court was preceded by the
Royal Audiencia, a collegial body established on
May 5,
1583 and 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 justice and 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.
On
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
American period
The Supreme Court of the Philippines was officially established on
June 11,
1901 through the passage of Act No. 136, otherwise known as the
Judiciary Law of 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 Peace courts. Other courts were subsequently established.
The judicial structure introduced by Act No. 136 was reaffirmed by the
US Congress with the passage of the
Philippine Bill of
1902. The
Administrative Code of
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 Philippines in 1935.
Claro M. Recto and
Jose P. Laurel were 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 banc or 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 Marcos in
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.”
Extrajudicial Killings Summit
The 22nd PUNO Supreme Court is set to hold a National Consultative Summit on extrajudicial killings on July 16 and 17, 2007 at the Manila Hotel. Invited representatives from the three branches of the government will participate (including the AFP, the PNP, CHR, media, academe, civil society and other stakeholders). Puno will give the keynote speech and closing remarks. Puno searches for major solutions to solve forced disappearances. During the first day of the summit, the speakers will present their respective papers comprising significant inputs from their respective sectors, while on the second day, the participants will break out into 12 groups (chaired by a Justice) and take part in a workshop. Local and international observers (the diplomatic corps and representatives from various international organizations) will be accredited. Puno informed that "the summit highlight will be a plenary session where each of the 12 groups shall report to the body their recommended resolutions. The reports and proposals will be synthesized and then transmitted to the concerned government agencies for appropriate action". On the other hand, the earlier slated Malacañang-sponsored Mindanao Peace and Security Summit (July 8-10, 2007 at Cagayan de Oro City), would focus on how to make the anti-terror law, or the Human Security Act (HSA) of 2007, more acceptable to the public. It will probably steal the thunder from Puno's own summit on extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances.
[13][14]
On July 16, 2007, Justices, activists, militant leaders, police officials, politicians and prelates attended the Supreme Court's two-day summit at the Manila Hotel in Manila City to map out ways to put an end to the string of extrajudicial killings in the country. Bayan was set to launch their "silent protest", but expressed support for the high court's initiative. Director Geary Barias, chief of the police's anti-killings Task Force Usig, Sen. Panfilo Lacson, Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim, Caloocan Bishop Deogracias Yñiguez, reelected party-list Representatives Satur Ocampo (Bayan Muna) and Crispin Beltran (Anakpawis) graced the affair. SC Chief Justice Reynato Puno said that the "National Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial Killings and Forced Disappearances: Searching for Solutions," would help stop the murders. Delegates were given 12 to 15 minutes each to share their insights and knowledge about the matter. Yniguez scored the government for failing to actively pursue investigations on the hundreds of killings, and the Catholic Church was alarmed that victims have been denied of their "fundamental right" to live. Based on Yniguez-church's count, the number of victims of extrajudicial killings reached 778, while survivors of "political assassinations," was pegged at 370. He also noted 203 "massacre" victims, 186 people who involuntarily disappeared, 502 tortured, and others who were illegally arrested. Yniguez similarly criticized the government's alleged insistence to implement its Oplan Bantay Laya I and II, the military's counter-insurgency operation-plans which militants have said consider legal people's organizations as targets. Meanwhile, Bayan urged the Supreme Court to "check serious threats to civil liberties and basic freedoms" including the anti-terror law or the Human Security Act of 2007, which took effect on July 15 despite protests from leftist groups. Vice President Teofisto Guingona Jr. will join Bayan and other leftist groups as petitioners in their formal pleading before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the law. Human rights lawyer Atty. Edre Olalia of the International Association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL) will serve as lead counsel. Bayan chair Carol Araullo said the respondents will include members of the Anti-Terrorism Council headed by Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita and Raul Gonzalez. Earlier, CBCP president Angel Lagdameo pointed out at least 5 provisions of the law that may threaten civil liberties: Sec. 19 allows detentions of mere suspects for more than three days in the event of an actual or terrorist attack, while Section 26 allows house arrest despite the posting of bail, and prohibits the right to travel and to communicate with others; Sec. 39 allows seizure of assets while Sec. 7 allows surveillance or wiretapping of suspects; Sec. 26 allows the investigation of bank deposits and other assets.
[15]
Puno SC summit called for truce, talks with insurgents, as the two-day summit ended: "Let us rather engage in the conspiracy of hope…and hope for peace." Puno said he would forward the summit's recommendation to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the Senate and House of Representatives. "In the clash of arms, the laws are silent. We need to reduce violence, create conditions conducive to less violence based on the rule of law," Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales said in the report. One group recommended that Republic Act 9372 or the Human Security Act be declared unconstitutional. All the groups agreed that insurgency is not only a military but also a political problem and said a ceasefire would be a sign of the government’s goodwill and sincerity in forging genuine peace agreements with all rebel groups. They also recommended the use of the third-party approach to peace negotiations. Among the other recommendations of the summit are: -- for the Supreme Court to reexamine the case of Umil v. Ramos, which said rebellion and related crimes are continuing offenses, thus allowing the warrantless arrest of suspects; to carefully study the possibility of creating a new offense for the killings and assaults on journalists, judges and activities, akin to the law penalizing violence against woman and children; the establishment of sanctuaries where victims and witnesses can take refuge; for the President to certify and the Senate to ratify the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court, and Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention, which addresses the issue of making civilian populations or individual civilians the object of attacks; the enactment of a law addressing and accurately defining extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances; a study on the use of the writ of Amparo for greater protection of Constitutional rights, and a more creative and resourceful application of the writ of habeas corpus; suspending the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty in cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearance; studying whether the government can continue invoking its immunity from suspension in cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances; allowing petitioners for the writ of habeas corpus to seek court orders to search the premises of police and military camps and stations in the presence of a representative from the Commission on Human Rights; requiring the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) to take DNA samples of unidentified cadavers for preservation in the Philippine National Police laboratory; the adoption of international standards of command responsibility; the enhancement of moral, ethical and constitutional values that put a premium on tolerance and the rule of law.
The CPP, however said that the abuses will continue “so long as the mastermind remains in power." “Extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances will continue as long as the mastermind remains in power and enforces a deliberate state terrorist policy that sets the stage for gross violations of human rights." CPP spokesman Gregorio “Ka Roger" Rosal said that the New People’s Army (NPA) and people’s courts are conducting their own investigations and are intensifying efforts to investigate and resolve particular cases of extra-judicial killings and abductions. Rosal cited the case of Capt. Patrick Baesa, an intelligence officer under the notorious 901st Infantry Battalion, who was meted out revolutionary punishment last November 2006. Baesa, who was based in Irosin, Albay, was responsible for organizing the death squads which carried out the killings of Max Frivaldo, Ding Uy, Rei Mon Guran and Barangay Chairman Neal Futalan.“But ultimately it is the Arroyo regime and its top security and military officials who should be punished for these heinous crimes," he said. Further, former vice president Teofisto Guingona and BAYAN petitioned the Court to declare the Human Security Act (HSA) unconstitutional. The 89-page petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for temporary restraining order against the implementation of the anti-terror law. Other petitioners were Gabriela, Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas, Movement of Concerned Citizens for Civil Liberties, state workers' group COURAGE, Kadamay, Solidarity of Cavite Workers, League of Filipino Students, HEAD, Anakbayan, Pamalakaya, Alliance of Concerned Teachers, Migrante and AGHAM.
[16][17][18]
Filipino Language
Bulacan Courts
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, 3
Malolos City regional trial courts in
Bulacan will use
Filipino, to promote the national language. 12
stenographers from Branches 6, 80 and 81, as model courts, had undergone training at Marcelo H. del Pilar College of Law of
Bulacan State University College of Law following a directive from the
Supreme Court of the Philippines. De la Rama said it was the dream of Chief Justice
Reynato Puno to implement the program in other areas such as
Laguna,
Cavite,
Quezon,
Nueva Ecija,
Batangas,
Rizal and
Metro Manila.
[19]
Current Justices
| Name | Position | Date of Appointment | Date of Birth | Date of Retirement | Appointing President |
|---|
| Hon. REYNATO S. PUNO | Chief Justice | December 7, 2006 | May 17, 1940 | May 17, 2010 | Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo |
| Hon. LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING | Associate Justice | January 27, 1998 | November 6, 1939 | November 6, 2009 | Fidel V. Ramos |
| Hon. CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO | Associate Justice | April 6, 1999 | October 5, 1939 | October 5, 2009 | Joseph E. Estrada |
| Hon. ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ | Associate Justice | December 22, 2000 | February 28, 1938 | February 28, 2008 | Joseph E. Estrada |
| Hon. ANTONIO T. CARPIO | Associate Justice | October 26, 2001 | October 26, 1949 | October 26, 2019 | Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo |
| Hon. MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ | Associate Justice | April 12, 2002 | December 19, 1940 | December 19, 2010 | Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo |
| Hon. RENATO C. CORONA | Associate Justice | April 9, 2002 | October 15, 1948 | October 15, 2018 | Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo |
| Hon. CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES | Associate Justice | September 3, 2002 | June 19, 1941 | June 19, 2011 | Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo |
| Hon. ADOLFO S. AZCUNA | Associate Justice | October 24, 2002 | February 16, 1939 | February 16, 2009 | Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo |
| Hon. DANTE O. TINGA | Associate Justice | July 7, 2003 | May 11, 1939 | May 11, 2009 | Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo |
| Hon. MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO | Associate Justice | July 14, 2004 | December 5, 1939 | December 5, 2009 | Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo |
| Hon. CANCIO C. GARCIA | Associate Justice | October 15, 2004 | October 20, 1937 | October 20, 2007 | Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo |
| Hon. PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. | Associate Justice | March 31, 2006 | August 8, 1948 | August 8, 2018 | Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo |
| Hon. ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA | Associate Justice | January 22, 2007 | June 13, 1941 | June 13, 2011 | Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo |
| Hon. RUBEN T. REYES | Associate Justice | July 25, 2007 | January 3, 1939 | January 3, 2009 | Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo |
The Philippine Court System
Judicial regions
★
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''
★ ''
Sandiganbayan''
★ ''
Court of Tax Appeals''
See also
★
Chief Justice of the Philippines
★
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines
★
Philippines
★
Political History of the Philippines
★
Constitution of the Philippines
External links
★
Philippines: Gov.Ph: About the Philippines – Justice category
★
The Supreme Court of the Philippines – Official website
★
i-site.ph – Personal information on the Justices of the Supreme Court
★
History of the Supreme Court
Notes
1. See Section 6, Article VIII, Constitution
2. See Section 7(1), Article VIII, Constitution
3. See Section 7(3), Article VIII, Constitution
4. See Section 9, Article VIII, Constitution
5. Changed to 65 during 1973-1978, but since restored to 70.
6. See Sections 5(4) & (5), Article VIII, Constitution
7. See Sections 5(5), Article VIII, Constitution
8. ''See'' J. Bernas, ''The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary'' (1996 ed.), at 831
9. See Section 9, Article VIII, Constitution
10. See Section 6, Rule 45, 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
11. ''See" Sections 1, 2, & 3, Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
12. ''See, e.g.,'' ''Toh v. CA'', G.R. No. 140274, November 15, 2000.
13. Inquirer.net, SC slates summit on extrajudicial killings
14. GMA NEWS.TV, Chief Justice unfazed by Palace meet
15. GMA NEWS.TV, Justices, activists, prelates map out ways to end killings
16. GMA NEWS.TV, CPP: SC summit can’t stop mastermind of killings
17. Inquiret.net, Let's engage in a conspiracy of Hope
18. ABS-CBN Interactive, More groups ask Supreme Court to junk antiterror law
19. Inquirer.net, 3 Bulacan courts to use Filipino in judicial proceedings
العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Español
