JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

The highest court of the land is the Supreme Court. It was not affected by the Judiciary Law (BP 129) which reorganized the judiciary in 1983. Being a constitutional court, its jurisdiction is found in the fundamental law itself. The SC is both an original and appellate court. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT Article VIII, Section 5 , paragraph 1 of the 1987 Constitution enumerates the ORIGINAL jurisdiction of the SC: Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: [1] Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto , and habeas corpus. Now, it is still premature for us to discuss now what do you mean by certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto because that is discussed exhaustively in the study of Special Civil Actions. But you are more acquainted with habeas corpus. It is a special proceeding. If you are illegally detained, you can le a petition for habeas corpus directly before the SC because it has original jurisdiction. So that is the rst provision in the Constitution dealing with the jurisdiction of the SC. However, the SC is not only an original court, it is also an appellate court. APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT The appellate jurisdiction is found in Section 5, Paragraph (2), Article VIII 1987 Constitution: 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 an error or question of law is involved.

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. So if the RTC in a certain civil case declares the law as unconstitutional since it has the power to do so, the same has to be appealed directly to the SC. It cannot pass through the CA because the SC has exclusive appellate jurisdiction regarding the matter. b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto. This is related to the legality of tax cases whether a tax or tax penalty is legal or not. However, whatever decision the lower court gives, it has to be appealed directly to the SC.

(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue EXAMPLE: The RTC or the MTC says it has jurisdiction or it has no jurisdiction over a case. The aggrieved party, it if wants to raise that joint, it must go to the SC. When the issue is purely jurisdiction, the SC shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction. Now, when the law says all cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue, the cases involve 100% pure jurisdiction as an issue. There are no factual issues involved. If the issue of jurisdiction is mixed with a factual issue, the appeal should be in the CA without prejudice to the ling of the same with the SC later. So, this is 100% issue of jurisdiction. No factual issue is involved. (d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher. We will not dwell on this. This is more on Criminal Procedure. We are only interested in civil cases. (e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved. Take note that ONLY an error or question of law is involved. So, if there is a mixed question of law and a question of fact, appeal must be led with the CA. You only go to the SC if the appeal is 100% legal. That applies to both criminal and civil cases. QUESTIONS OF LAW and QUESTIONS OF FACT The best example of questions of law where the issues are purely legal are classroom problems. The question is: Who is right? A or B? Reasons. You apply the law. But as to what happened, the facts are already given. Based on these facts who is correct? Yun ang tinatawag na question of law. Pero if the facts are still vague, that is not a question of law, that is a question of fact. Example: Lyle led a case against Aivy to collect an unpaid loan. According to Lyle, Aivy borrowed money from him and its already overdue and she has not paid. Aivy admits she borrowed money from Lyle but says she has already paid. Now, the question in the exam: Who is telling the truth? My golly! How can you answer the question who is telling the truth? In other words, I have to hear them. Yun ang tinatawag na question of fact what happened, pinag-aawayan pa. When you go to SC in civil cases, you are not there to ask the SC to determine who is telling the truth. You are asking who is right under the law. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS DEALING WITH THE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT Article IX, Section 7, paragraph (a), 1987 Constitution: Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote x x x. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof. The COMELEC, COA and the CSC act also as courts of justice. They have powers to decide certain cases within their jurisdiction. Election cases, sa COMELEC man yan ba. Claims against the government COA. Or disallowance on disbursement by government ofcers or removal from government service CSC. Now, according to Section 7, any decision, order or ruling of these commissions may be brought to the SC on certiorari, etc. So you will see that the decisions of the constitutional commissions are reviewable by the SC.

However, Congress amended the Judiciary Law particularly Section 9 on the jurisdiction of the CA by now making decisions of the CSC no longer appealable to the SC directly but appealable to the CA. So based on the present law, out of the three constitutional commissions, the only ones whose decisions are appealable directly to the SC are those of the COMELEC and the COA When that law was passed where the decisions of the CSC are appealable to the CA, rst I was stunned. I said there is something queer here because the CSC is a constitutional body and the CA is not. So why will a decision of a constitutional body be reviewable by a non-constitutional body? And I said parang it might violate the Constitution. Under the Constitution, decisions of the constitutional commissions are appealable to the SC. Does Congress have the power to change that by making it appealable to the CA? So I had to look at the provision again to nd out whether this is possible. But pwede naman pala. You look at the provision, Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law.. Meaning, the decisions are appealable to the SC unless otherwise provided by law. The Constitution itself gave Congress the power to change it. So there is no problem. Article VII, Section 4, last paragraph, 1987 Constitution: The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose. If theres an electoral protest for the President and Vice-President, the matter is not to be decided by the COMELEC but by the SC. This is what is called as the SC acting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal. The only case so far was that led by Defensor-Santiago but which was dismissed, the SC ruled that when she ran for the Senate, she has already technically abandoned her interest for the Presidency. Article VII, Section 18 (3), 1987 Constitution Commander-in-Chief Clause The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing. So, the SC, in an appropriate proceeding led by any citizen review the sufciency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law. Meaning, the SC can inquire into the basis on why martial law is declared. Which therefore abandons the Political Question doctrine laid down in many earlier cases that it is the prerogative of the President to determination, at his discretion, the sufciency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof. So this particular provision of the Constitution came about in 1987 to check the supposed excesses during the time of Marcos, though it came too late. It may well take another 100 years to produce another Marcos. Article VIII, Section 2, 1987 Constitution: 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. Congress may change or even remove the jurisdiction of the RTC or CA. The law can change them because jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. However, Congress does not have the power to lessen or deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction under Section 5, Article VIII. However Article VI, Section 30 states:

No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence. Thus , Congress cannot lessen but it can increase the SCs powers and jurisdiction, PROVIDED it is with the latter's advice and concurrence. The provision under the Ombudsman Law (RA) with regards to the Ombudsmans disciplining power appealable directly to the SC, was declared unconstitutional by the SC because it increased the SCs jurisdiction and was passed without the advise and concurrence of the SC. So more or less, these are the scattered provisions of the Constitution dealing with the SCs jurisdiction. [Note: PLEASE REFER TO THE HANDOUT HEREIN ATTACHED FOR A COMPLETE OUTLINE OF THE SUPREME COURT'S JURISDICTION.] The ORIGINAL EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of the SC refers to petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus as dened in Rule 65 against the following: the CA, the COMELEC, COA, Sandiganbayan, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, NLRC or the Secretary of Labor under the Labor Code. The cases where its original jurisdiction is CONCURRENT with the CA are likewise petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus against the following: the SEC, the CSC, the different boards, tribunals or agencies which replaced the old Public Service Commission (e.g. LTFRB). Also, issuance of writ of certiorari against the RTC and other quasi-judicial agencies, courts, instrumentalities and commissions. CONCURRENT with the RTC are those actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls. This is based on the Judiciary Law and the Constitution. CONCURRENT with the CA and RTC are those involving habeas corpus, quo warranto, and writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against inferior courts and bodies. For example, a petition for mandamus against the MTC of Davao City can be led with the SC, CA, or RTC although the policy of the Supreme Court is that it should be led with the RTC based on the hierarchy of the courts. (Vergara vs. Suelto, 156 SCRA 758) Finally, with the advent of the new law (RA 8249), there is now a CONCURRENCE between the SC and the Sandiganbayan in so far as petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus, injunction and other ancillary writs in aid of the Sandiganbayan's APPELLATE JURISDICTION. b.) APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT: Automatic review of death penalty. So when the RTC imposes the death penalty, whether the accused appeals or not, the case will be elevated to the SC; Ordinary appeal from the RTC direct to the SC. This only applies to criminal cases where the penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed or other offenses which arise out of the same occurrence or committed by the accused on the same occasion; Appeal by Certiorari under Rule 45. When it comes to appeal by Certiorari, there are three types: 3.1.) From the CA or all appeals from the CA are certiorari which is different from the certiorari in Rule 65. 3.2.) From the RTC direct to the SC. Now, this is not ordinary appeal because this only applies to criminal cases. In civil cases, if you want to go directly to the SC, you can do so by appeal by certiorari, provided that the following conditions are met: If no question of fact is involved and the case involves the constitutionality or legality validity of any tax, impost, etc., or jurisdiction of the lower courts is in issue ( Article VIII, section 5 par.(2)

only an error or question of law involved (supra); a judgment rendered upon an award under the Arbitration Law (RA 876) appeal on pure questions of law in cases of appeal to the RTC from inferior courts. So, from the MTC to the RTC ordinary appeal. From the RTC, on pure questions of law, to the SC appeal by certiorari. 3.3.) Appeal from other courts or administrative agencies liked appeal from the Sandiganbayan to the SC, from the Central Board of Assessment Appeal or from the Ombudsman. <

PAGE 10

PAGE 21 JBD