A.

THE JUDICIARY
Read Article VIII, 1987 Constitution, Chapter 12, Cruz
The Supreme Court
A.1. Composition (Sec.4)
A.2. Appointment and Qualifications (Secs.7,8,9)
A.3. Salary (Sec.10)
Art.XVIII, Sec. 17
Endencia vs. David, 93 Phil 696
Nitafan vs. CIR, 152 SCRA 284
A.4. Security of Tenure (Sec.11, Sec.2, para 2)
De la Llana vs. Alba, 112 SCRA 294
A.5. Removal (Sec.11)
Art. XI, Sec.2
A.6. Fiscal Autonomy (Sec.3)
A. Judiciary and independence of the Judiciary
B.1. Judicial Power (traditional definition and concept of expanded
judicial power)
B.1.a (Art. VIII, Sec.1)
Santiago vs. Bautista, 32 SCRA 188
Daza vs. Singson, 180 SCRA 496
Garcia vs Board of Investments, 191 SCRA 288

B2. Judicial Review (test the validity of executive and legislative acts if the
same are in accordance of the constitution; supremacy of the constitution;
concept of judicial restraint and judicial legislation)
How Judicial Review is exercised
a.) Actual Case or Controversy; Ripeness of Controversy; Moot case may
still be decided by the SC to educate the bar and bench, prevent
repeated violation yet escaping review
-PACU vs. Sec. of Education, 97 Phil. 806

-Tan vs. Macapagal 43 SCRA 678

-Dumlao vs. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392
-Ople vs. Torres, 293 SCRA 141
-North Cotabato vs Republic, supra, MILF MOA where the SC
still reviewed despite being moot
b. Legal Standing (requisites; exceptions)
-Oposa vs Factoran, Jr., supra
-Kilosbayan vs. Guingona, Jr. 232 SCRA 110
-Kilosbayan vs. Morato G.R. supra
-Integrated Bar of the Phils. (IBP) vs. Zamora, G.R. NO. 141284,
August 15, 2000
- Joya vs PCGG, G.R. No. 96541, August 24, 1993
-Chavez vs. Public Estate Authority G.R. NO. 133250 July 9, 2002
-Prof. Randolf S. David vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, supra.
i. Requisites for Taxpayers Suit, Lawmakers Suit, Voters
Suit and Concerned Citizens Suit.
-Demetria vs. Alba G.R. NO. 71977, Feb. 27, 1987
-Gonzales vs. Narvasa G.R.NO.140835, Aug. 14, 2000
-Prof. David vs. Arroyo, supra
-Pimentel vs Ermita, 472 SCRA 587

ii. Paramount Importance Doctrine/Transcendental Impt

-Kilosbayan vs. Guingona Jr., supra.
iii.

In On Its Face attack [Facial Challenge) [as

opposed to As Applied attack] of statutes and the
doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth, and
void-for-vaguenes
-Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R.NO. 148560 Nov. 19,
2001

a. The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest

possible opportunity; Exceptions
-Umali vs. Guingona, G.R. NO. 131124, March 21, 1999
b. The decision on the constitutional question must be
determinative of the case itself (constitutional question
must be the very lis mota of the case)

Council,

-Laurel vs. Garcia 187 SCRA 797

-Hacienda Luisita vs Presidential Agrarian

Reform

G.R. No. 171101, 22 November 211)

Effects of Declaration of Unconstitutionality
a. The Orthodox View
b. The Modern View (operative fact doctrine)
-Article 7, New Civil Code of the Phils.
-Serrano de Agbayani vs. PNB, 38 SCRA 42
-Hacienda Luisita vs Presidential Agrarian Reform Council,
G.R. No. 171101, 22 November 211)

Partial Declaration of Unconstitutionality; Conditions

-Salazar vs. Achacoso, 183 SCRA 145
- Ymbong vs Ochoa, supra.

B3. Art. VIII, Sec. 5 (enumeration of the powers of the Supreme Court)
Additional powers found in other Sections/Articles:
a) Article VII, Section 18, par. 3 (power to review sufficiency o the factual basis
of declaration of martial law)
b) Section VII, Section 4, par. 7 (power of Supreme Court to act as Presidential
Electoral Tribunal)
c) Article IX, A, Section 7 (power of Supreme Court to review on certiorari all
decisions of the Constitutional Commissions-CSC-COA-COMELEC)
In re Bermudez, 145 SCRA 160
People vs. Ramos, 88 SCRA 486
People vs. Mateo, G.R. No. 147678-87, July 7, 2004

B.4. Congressional Power over Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Sec. 2, par.1
Art.VI, Sec.30
Villavert vs. Desierto, G.R. No. 133715, Feb. 23, 2000
B.5. Manner of sitting and votes required
Art. VIII, Sec.4

Read Rule 56, Sec.11 and Rule 125, Sec.3 Rules of Court
B.6. Requirement as to decisions (Sec.13-14)
Yao vs. CA, G.R. No. 132428, Oct. 24, 2000
Fr. Martinez vs. CA, G.R. No. 123547, May 21, 2001
b.6.1. Mandatory periods for deciding cases
Art.VIII, Sec.15
Art.VII, Sec.18, par.3
Art. XVIII, Sec.12-14
B.7. Administrative Powers
B.7.1. Supervision of lower courts (Sec.6,11)
Does the Ombudsman have power over judges?
Maceda vs. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 464
Noblejas vs Teehankee, 23 SCRA 405
B.7.2. Temporary assignment of judges (Sec. 5[3])
B.7.3. Change of Venue (Sec.4)
B.7.4. Appointment of officials and employees of judiciary
(Sec5[6])
B.8. Rule Making Powers (Sec5[5]; cannot be changed by Congress unlike
in the previous constitutions; exclusive power to admit to the practice of law, the
Integrated Bar)

New tools to protect constitutional rights:

(based on the rule-making power of the Supreme Court under Article VIII,
Section 5, par. (5) to enforce constitutional rights:
Writ of Amparo (October 24, 2007, part of Remedial Law)
Writ of Habeas Data (AM No.08-1-16-SC, part of Remedial law)
Art.XII, Sec. 14, par.2 (practice of professions shall be limited to Filipino
citizens save in cases prescribed by law.)
In Re: Petition to disqualify Atty. Leonard de Vera on Legal
And Moral grounds from being elected IBP Governor for

2003)

Eastern Mindanao in IBP election(Act. No.6052, Dec

B.9. Prohibition Against Quasi-Judicial or Administrative Works

(Sec.12)
Manila Electric Co. vs. Pasay Trans, 57 Phil 600
In Re Judge Rodolfo Manzano, 166 SCRA 246
B. Report on Judiciary (Sec.16)
C. The Lower Courts
D.1 Qualifications and Appointments (Sec. 7[1][2]. 8[5],9)
SB ng. Taguig vs. Judge Estrella, A.M. No.01-1608-RJT
Jan. 16, 2001
D.2. Salary (Sec.10)
D.3. Congressional Power to Reorganize and security of tenure
(Sec.11,2[2])
De Llana vs. Alba, 112 SCRA 29

D.4. Removal (Sec.11)

D.5. Jurisdiction (Sec.1)
Ynot vs. IAC, 148 SCRA 659
D.6. Preparation of decisions (Sec.14)
D.7. Mandatory period of deciding
Art. VIII, Sec.15
Art. XVIII, Sec 12-14
Marcelino vs. Cruz, 121 SCRA 51
De Roma vs. CA, 152 SCRA 205
D. The Judicial and Bar Council (Sec.8)-Rationale and Composition