ARTICLE VIII – THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

1. Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in
such other courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the 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 in
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
government.

a. What is judicial power?

Read: Badua vs. CBA, February 14, 1991

Read:
1. Sanidad vs. Comelec, 73 SCRA 333 Political questions are neatly associated with the
wisdom, not the legality of a particular act. Where the vortex of the controversy refers to
the legality or validity of the contested act, the matter is definitely justiciable or non-
political)
2. Javellana vs. Exec. Secretary, 50 SCRA 30
3. Tanada vs. Cuenco, 103 Phil. (Political questions are questions to be answered
by the people in their sovereign capacity or in regard to which full discretionary authority
is vested to the executive or legislative branch of the government).
4. Gonzales vs. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 774 (When the crux of the problem deals with the
validity of an act, it is justifiable.
c. Cases on judicial power in general
1) LOPEZ VS. ROXAS, 17 SCRA 756
2) SANTIAGO VS. BAUTISTA, 32 SCRA 188
3) RADIOWEALTH VS. AGRACADA, 86 Phil. 429
4) NOBLEJAS VS. TEEHANKEE, 23 SCRA 405
5) LINA VS. PURISIMA, 82 SCRA 244
6) GARCIA VS. MACARAIG,39 SCRA 106

4. 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
jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
No law shall be passed reorganizing the judiciary when it undermines the security of
tenure of its members.

3. Section 3. The judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the judiciary
may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous
year and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released.
4. Section 4. (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and 14
associate justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in divisions of 3, 5 or seven
members. Any vacancy shall be filled within 90 days from the occurrence thereof.
(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
involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees,
proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided
with the concurrence of a majority of the members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
(3) Cases or matters heard by a divisions hall be decided or resolved with the concurrence
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 such
members. When the required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc:
Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court en banc or in
division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc.
Read:
1) VARGAS VS. RILLORAZA, 80 Phil. 297
2) VIR-JEN SHIPPING VS. NLRC, 125 SCRA 577
 3. JANDUSAY VS. CA, 172 SCRA 376
To be decided by the Supreme Court en banc
1. Involving the constitutionality of any law, treaty, etc.;
2. When there is conflict of the decisions of 2 or more divisions of the Supreme
Court;
3. When a case is referred to by the division to the banc and the same was accepted
by the latter;
4. In death penalty cases;
1. Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, and habeas corpus.
(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:
(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;
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any
penalty imposed in relation thereto;
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue;
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher;
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may
require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed 6 months without the consent of the
judge concerned.
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
(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 Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall
provide a 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
substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall
remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the judiciary in accordance with the civil
service law.
(READ: Maniago vs. CA, 253 SCRA on the limitation of the Rules…not to diminish,
increase or modify substantive rights.
a. What is the power of judicial review? What are its requisites?
DISOMANGCOP VS. HON. SIMEON DATUMANONG, 444 SCRA 203
Requisites for the exercise of judicial power.
The following are the requisites for the exercise of judicial power:
a. There must be before the court a case calling for the exercise of judicial review;
b. The question before the court must be ripe for judicial adjudication;
c. The person challenging the validity of the act must have standing to challenge;
d. The question of constitutionality must have been raised at the earliest
opportunity; and
e. The issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.
– Distinguish judicial power from judicial review.
Read:
1. Fernandez vs. Torres, 209 SCRA 677
1-a. Santos III vs. Northwest Airlines, 210 SCRA 256
1-c) ANGARA VS. ELECTORAL COMMISSION, 63 Phil. 139
2) DUMLAO VS. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392
3. NEPA VS. ONGPIN, 171 SCRA 657
4. Allied Broadcasting Center vs. Rep., Oct. 18, 1991
5. Lagamy vs. CA, 199 SCRA 501
a-1. Functions of Judicial Review
1) legitimizing function
2) checking function
3) symbolic or educational function
Read:
aa. SALONGA VS. PANO, 134 SCRA 438
bb. JAVIER VS. COMELEC, 144 SCRA 194
b. On personality to sue
Is there a difference as to the “personality” requirement if the law being questioned
involves disbursement of public funds and on the other hand, if it does not .
Standing to question the validity of an Executive Order which does not involve
disbursement of public funds; Requisites before the President may issue executive Orders
in furtherance of police power.
 EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL. VS. SOUTHWING HEAVY INDUSTRIES,
482 SCRA 673
Ynares-Santiago, J
On December 12, 2002, President Arroyo issued EO 156 entitled “PROVIDING FOR A
COMPREHENSIVE INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND DIRECTIONS FOR THE MOTOR
VEHICLE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AND ITS IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES.”
Under Section 3.1 of the said EO, THE IMPORTATION INTO THE COUNTRY,
INCLUSIVE OF FREEPORT, OF ALL TYPES OF USED MOTOR VEHICLES IS
PROHIBITED.
The private respondent, which has a business of importing all kinds of used motor
vehicles questioned the constitutionality of said EO.
I s s u e s:
1. Does the private respondent have the personality to sue or to question the
constitutionality of EO 156?
2. Does the President have the authority to promulgate EO to promote police power
like in this case?
3. Is EO 156 constitutional?
Held:
1. The private respondent has the personality to sue to question the constitutionality
of an administrative issuance because it will sustain a direct injury as a result of its
enforcement. Respondents would suffer a direct injury if said EO will be implemented
because in its Certificate of Registration , it is allowed import/trade used motor vehicles
and spare parts. Clearly, it would suffer prejudice if importation of all motor vehicles, not
only used cars will be prohibited.
2. The President is authorized to issue an executive order provided it complies with
the following requisites:
a. Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature;
b. It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure;
c. It must be within the scope of the authority given by the legislature; and
d. It must be reasonable.
There is no question that no less than Art. VI, Section 28 [2] of the Constitution
authorizes Congress to in turn authorize the President by law, within specified limits, and
subject to such restrictions and limitations, to fix tariff rates, import and export
quotas…”. Likewise, the Tariff and Customs Code likewise delegates to the President
similar powers.
3. Is the EO prohibiting the importation of all motor vehicles, not only used cars
constitutional? In this case, while the first two requisites are present, the 3 rd is not. This is
so because it is not within the powers of the President to prohibit the importation of other
vehicles, not only cars, even in the Freeport Zones like Subic which is allowed by RA
7227. The EO therefore is ultra vires or beyond the limits of the authority conferred on
the President because it tries to supplant or modify the Constitution, its enabling statute
and other existing laws.
The 4th requisite is not also present because the same is unreasonable since it likewise
prohibit the entry of used motor vehicles into the Freeport which is owed by law, RA
7227.
Read:
1) PASCUAL VS. SEC. OF PUBLIC WORKS, 110 Phil. 331
2) SANIDAD VS. COMELEC, 73 SCRA 333
3) DUMLAO VS. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392
3-a. Read again NEPA VS. ONGPIN, 171 SCRA 57
4. Kilosbayan vs. Guingona, May 5, 1994
Read this very carefully because it changes the original concept of personality to sue
when public funds are involved or not.
2. TATAD VS. GARCIA, April 6, 1995, 243 SCRA 436 (Even though no public
funds are involved and that petitioner is not directly injured by the contract, he has the
personality to question the same if it involves national interest)
3. BUGNAY CONSTRUCTION VS. LARON, 170 SCRA 240 (If the contract is
for local consumption only, and that the petitioner is not directly injured by the said
contract which does not involve the disbursement of public funds, the petitioner has no
personality to sue)
c. May inferior courts also exercise the power of judicial review in the light of the
requirement of Section 4(2) of Article VIII?
Read: YNOT VS. IAC, March 20, 1987
d. Three views on the effects of declaration of unconstitutionality of a law
Read:
1) NORTON VS. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 US 425
2) SHEPPARD VS. BARREN, 194 US 553
3) DE AGBAYANI VS. PNB, 38 SCRA 429
4) REPUBLIC VS. HEREDA, 119 SCRA 411
5) REPUBLIC VS. CFI, 120 SCRA 151
e. Transfer of venue in criminal cases
Read:
1) PEOPLE VS. GUTIERREZ, 36 SCRA 172
2) PEOPLE VS. SOLA, 103 SCRA 393
3) PEOPLE VS. PILOTIN, 65 SCRA 635
f. Rule making power; note the limitations
Read:
1) BUSTOS VS. LUCERO, 81 Phil. 648
2) NUNEZ VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, 111 SCRA 433
g. On admission to the bar
Read: 1. IN RE CUNANAN, 94 Phil. 534
2. ZALDEVAR VS. GONZALES, Oct. 7, 1988 Re: Indefinite suspension
imposed on RAUL GONZALES)
g-1. May law students practice law before the courts? Requisites?
Read:
Circular No. 19, issued by the Supreme Court on December 19, 1986
h. On the integration of the bar
Read: IN RE EDILLON, 84 SCRA 554
6. Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts
and the personnel thereof.
Read: DE GUZMAN VS. PEOPLE, 119 SCRA 337
4. Sections 7. (1) No person shall be appointed member of the Supreme Court or
any lower collegiate court unless he is a natural born citizen of the Philippines. A member
of the Supreme Court must be at least 40 years of age, and must have been for 15 years or
more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.
(2) The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts, but no
person may be appointed judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines and a
member of the Philippine Bar.
(3) A member of the judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity
and independence.
Section 8. A judicial and bar Council—composition—Chief Justice, Secretary of Justice,
Representative of Congress, Integrated Bar, Professor of Law, retired justice and
representative of the private sector..
The regular members—term of 4 years—Commission on Appointments—
Sec. 9. The members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower court shall be appointed
by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar
Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.
For the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointments within 90 days from the
submission of the list.
a. Read:
1. UY vs. Judge Capulong, April 7, 1993
2. Court Administrator vs. Judge Gines
b. Read:
Exec. Order No.216, July 10, 1987, creating the Judicial and Bar council
8. 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.
a. See Sec. 17, Art. XVIII
b. Read: 1) NITAFAN VS. COMMISSIONER, 152 SCRA 284
2) PERFECTO VS. MEER, 85 Phil. 552
3) ENDENCIA VS. DAVID, 93 Phil. 696
9. 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 to discharge the duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall
have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of
majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the
case and voted thereon.
Read: 1) OCAMPO VS. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, 51 O.G. 147
2) DE LA LLANA VS. ALBA, 112 SCRA 294
10. Section 12. The members of the Supreme Court and other courts established by law
shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative
functions.
Read:
1) GARCIA VS. MACARAIG, 39 SCRA 106
2) MANILA ELECTRIC VS. PASAY TRANSPORTATION, 57 Phil. 60
3) LOPEZ VS. ROXAS, 17 SCRA 756
4) IN RE: JUDGE RODOLFO MANZANO, October 5, 1988
11. Sections 13. The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for
decision en banc or in division shall be reached in consultation before the case is assigned
to a member for the writing o f the opinion o f the court. A certification to this effect
signed by the CJ—-Any member who took no part or dissented…must state the reason
therefor. The same procedure in all lower collegiate courts.
Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly
and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be
refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor.
Read:
1) AIR FRANCE VS. CARRASCOSO, 18 SCRA 155
2) VDA DE ESPIRITU VS. CFI, 47 SCRA 354
3) BUSCAYNO VS. ENRILE, 102 SCRA 7
4) MANGCA VS. COMELEC, 112 SCRA 273
5) VALLADOLID VS. INCIONG, 121 SCRA 205
6) NAPOLCOM VS. LOOD, 127 SCRA 757
7) NUNAL VS. CA, 169 SCRA 356
8) Mangelen vs. CA, 215 SCRA 230
Requirement that the decision shall state clearly and distinctly state the law and the facts
on which it is based.
BEDRUZ VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, 484 SCRA 452
Carpio-Morales, J.
A trial court’s omission to specify the offense committed, or the specific provision of the
law violated, is not in derogation of the constitutional requirement that every decision
must clearly and distinctly state the law and the facts on which it was based or the
factual and legal bases for the conclusions reached by the trial court as long as the legal
basis can be inferred from the discussion in the decision.
Further, the requirement that the “decision shall state clearly and distinctly state the law
and the facts on which it is based” applies only to a decision of a court of justice covered
by Art. VIII of the Constitution], not the Office of the Ombudsman.
GERMAN MACHINERIES CORPORATION VS. ENDAYA, 444 SCRA 329
When Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution shall be complied with by the
courts.
Section 14, Art. VIII of the Constitution provides that “no decision shall be rendered by
any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which
it is based.
This constitutional provision applies only to cases submitted for decision, i.e., given due
course and after the filing of briefs or memoranda and/or other pleadings, BUT NOT
WHERE A RESOLUTION IS ISSUED DENYING DUE COURSE TO THE PETITION
AND STATING THE LEGAL BASIS THEREFOR like “the petition raised are factual or
there is no reversible error in the respondent’s court decision”, there is sufficient
compliance with the constitutional requirement.
In this case , the Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition for Certiorari filed by the
petitioner on the grounds that the factual issues had already been passed upon by the
NLRC, and since its factual findings are in agreement with that of the Labor Arbiter, the
same are binding and conclusive upon the Court of Appeals. This complies with the
constitutional requirement under Section 14, Art. VIII of the Constitution
12. 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.
Read:
1) CORPUS VS. CA 98 SCRA 424
2) MALACORA VS. CA, 117 SCRA 435
3) MARCELINO VS. CRUZ, 121 SCRA 51
4) DE ROMA VS. CA, 152 SCRA 205
5) Administrative Circular No. 1, issued by the Supreme Court thru CHIEF JUSTICE
CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE on January 28, 1988, particularly par. 11 thereof.
13. Section 16