Supreme Court of the Philippines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Philippines
This article is part of the series: Politics and government of the Philippines
Government
Political history · Constitution
Executive
President (list) Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo 2001 – 2010 Vice President (list) Noli de Castro 2004 – 2010 Prime Minister defunct Executive Departments (list)
Legislative 14th Congress 2007 – 2010 Senate House President Manuel Villar, Jr. Speaker Prospero Nograles
Judiciary
Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno Court of Appeals · Sandiganbayan Court of Tax Appeals · Ombudsman
Elections
Commission on Elections Chairman: Jose Melo Elections: 2010 | 2004 | 1998 | 1992 | 1986 | All Referenda: 1987 | 1984 | 1981
Political parties Lakas-CMD NPC Liberal Nacionalista UNO BAYAN PDP-LABAN PMP Others
Administrative divisions Capital Regions Provinces Cities Municipalities Barangays Foreign relations Government Website Human rights
Other countries · Atlas  Politics portal view • talk • edit

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".^[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.

Contents 1 Constitutional role 1.1 Composition 1.2 Functions 2 Cases 2.1 Appellate review 2.2 Original jurisdiction 3 Current Justices 4 History 4.1 Pre-Hispanic and Hispanic periods 4.2 American period 4.3 An independent Philippines 4.4 Writ of Amparo 4.5 Language 4.6 Judicial corruption 5 The Philippine Court System 6 See also 7 External links 8 Notes

[edit] Constitutional role

[edit] 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] 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 Body of the World Trade Organization.

[edit] Functions

See also: Judicial review in the Philippines

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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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]

[edit] Current Justices

Name	Date of Appointment	Date of Birth	Date of Retirement	Appointing President
Reynato S. Puno Chief Justice	December 8, 2006 (as Chief Justice)	May 17, 1940	May 16, 2010	Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (as Chief Justice)
	June 28, 1993 (as Associate Justice)			Fidel V. Ramos (as Associate Justice)
Leonardo A. Quisumbing Associate Justice	January 27, 1998	November 6, 1939	November 5, 2009	Fidel V. Ramos
Consuelo Ynares-Santiago Associate Justice	April 6, 1999	October 5, 1939	October 4, 2009	Joseph Ejercito Estrada
Antonio T. Carpio Associate Justice	October 26, 2001	October 26, 1949	October 25, 2019	Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez Associate Justice	April 12, 2002	December 19, 1940	December 18, 2010	Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
Renato C. Corona Associate Justice	April 9, 2002	October 15, 1948	October 14, 2018	Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
Conchita Carpio-Morales Associate Justice	September 3, 2002	June 19, 1941	June 18, 2011	Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
Adolfo S. Azcuna Associate Justice	October 24, 2002	February 16, 1939	February 15, 2009	Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
Dante O. Tinga Associate Justice	July 7, 2003	May 11, 1939	May 10, 2009	Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
Minita Chico-Nazario Associate Justice	July 14, 2004	December 5, 1939	December 4, 2009	Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. Associate Justice	March 31, 2006	August 8, 1948	August 7, 2018	Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura Associate Justice	January 22, 2007	June 13, 1941	June 12, 2011	Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
Ruben T. Reyes Associate Justice	July 25, 2007	January 3, 1939	January 2, 2009	Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
Teresita Leonardo-de Castro Associate Justice	December 3, 2007	October 8, 1948	October 7, 2018	Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
Arturo D. Brion Associate Justice	March 17, 2008	December 29, 1946	December 28, 2016	Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo

[edit] History

[edit] 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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.”

[edit] Writ of Amparo

The Supreme Court approved the Writ of Amparo on September 25, 2007.^[13] 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."^[14][15]

The Resolution and the Rule on the Writ of Amparo gave legal birth to Puno's brainchild.^[16][17][18] No filing or legal fees is required for Amparo which takes effect on October 24. Puno also stated that the court will soon issue rules on the writ of Habeas Data and 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).^[19]

The 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 writ failed to protect non-witnesses, even if they too face threats.^[20]

Habeas Data

On 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.^[21]

On 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.^[22]

[edit] Language

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 City regional trial courts in Bulacan will use Filipino, to promote the national language. Twelve 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.^[23]

[edit] Judicial corruption

On January 25, 2005, and on December 10, 2006, Philippines Social Weather Stations released the results of its 2 surveys on corruption in the judiciary; it published that: a) like 1995, 1/4 of lawyers said 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 Sandiganbayan justices and 2% in reference to Supreme Court justices [Table 15].^[24][25]

The September 14, 2008, Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) survey, ranked the Philippines 6th (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 Kong and Singapore have 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).^[26][27]

In the September 23, 2008 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (global survey ranking 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.^[28][29][30] 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."^[31]

[edit] 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
• Sandiganbayan
• Court of Tax Appeals

[edit] See also

• 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)

[edit] 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
• www.gmanews.tv, List of 15 JUDGES KILLED SINCE 1999
• www.manilatimes.net, Manila Times List of 15 JUDGES KILLED SINCE 1999
• Inquirer.net, SC issues circular urging fines, not jail, for libel NUJP to Congress: Decriminalize libel

[edit] Notes

The Puno Court
Reynato S. Puno (2006-present)
March 17, 2008– present:	L. Quisumbing | C. Ynares-Santiago | A. Carpio | A. Austria-Martinez | R. Corona | C. Carpio-Morales | A. Azcuna | D. Tinga | M. Chico-Nazario | P. Velasco, Jr. | A. Nachura| R. Reyes | T. Leonardo-de Castro | A. Brion

v • d • e  Philippines topics History Prehistoric Datu · Code of Kalantiaw · Sulu Sultanate · Maguindanao Sultanate Spanish colonial period Battle of Mactan · Manila Galleon · Spanish East Indies · New Spain · Philippine revolts against Spain · Philippine Revolution · Philippine Declaration of Independence · First Republic · Philippine-American War American colonial period Tydings-McDuffie Act · Philippine Commonwealth · World War II · Second Republic · Battle of Bataan · Battle of Corregidor · Battle of Leyte Gulf Third Republic Hukbalahap Martial law era Proclamation No. 1081 · New People's Army · First Quarter Storm Fifth Republic People Power Revolution · EDSA Revolution of 2001 · EDSA III · 2006 state of emergency in the Philippines Geography Administrative divisions · Regions · Provinces · Cities · Municipalities · Barangays · Bays · Islands · Lakes · Mountains · Peninsulas · Rivers · Volcanoes · Water supply and sanitation Government and politics President · Congress (Senate · House) · Supreme Court · Political parties (Lakas-CMD · KAMPI · LDP · NPC · NP · LP · PDP-LABAN · UNO) · Elections · Liberalism · Foreign relations · Human rights Economy Companies · Central Bank · Philippine peso · Stock Exchange Demographics Filipino people · Ethnic groups · Religion · Languages Culture Arts · Cinema · Cuisine · Education · Flag · Literature · Music · Public holidays · Sport · Basketball · Martial arts · Olympics Portal