Supreme Court | Jurisdiction of Courts | JURISDICTION

Below is a comprehensive discussion of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, with focus on the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions as well as rules and jurisprudential guidelines. The goal is to present, as meticulously and directly as possible, the essentials of “all there is to know” on the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Philippine remedial law.

I. CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

  1. Article VIII (Judicial Department), 1987 Constitution

    • Section 1 vests judicial power in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes:
      1. The duty of courts to settle actual controversies involving legally demandable and enforceable rights; and
      2. The duty of courts to determine whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government.
    • Section 5 enumerates the powers of the Supreme Court, which include both its original and appellate jurisdiction, as well as administrative and rule-making powers.

  2. Article VIII, Section 5 — Powers of the Supreme Court.
    The Supreme Court exercises the following key powers:

    • (1) Original Jurisdiction over:
      1. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
      2. Other cases required by law to be heard originally by the Supreme Court.
    • (2) Appellate Jurisdiction over:
      1. Cases appealed from lower collegiate courts (Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals) or from the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) in proper instances.
      2. Cases in which only questions of law are involved, or in some instances, both questions of law and fact (as provided by the Constitution, law, or rules).
    • (3) Rule-making Power to promulgate rules concerning:
      1. The protection and enforcement of constitutional rights.
      2. Pleadings, practice, and procedure in all courts.
      3. The admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged.
    • (4) Administrative Supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.
    • (5) Power of Discipline and oversight over members of the Bar (lawyers), the Bench (judges and justices of lower courts), and court personnel.

II. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

A. Petitions for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus

  • The Supreme Court has concurrent original jurisdiction with the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) and the Court of Appeals (CA) over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against:
    • Tribunals, boards, and officers exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions (certiorari).
    • Proceedings or acts that are without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion (prohibition).
    • Unlawful neglect of a duty enjoined by law, or unlawful exclusion from the exercise of an office (mandamus).

Although concurrent, the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts generally requires litigants to first file these special civil actions in the lower courts or the Court of Appeals unless special and compelling reasons justify direct recourse to the Supreme Court (e.g., questions of transcendental importance, time constraints, or national interest).

B. Petitions for Habeas Corpus

  • The Supreme Court also has original and concurrent jurisdiction with the CA and RTCs over petitions for habeas corpus.
  • Habeas corpus is a writ directed to a person detaining another, commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place, and to show the authority for such detention.

C. Petitions for Quo Warranto

  • The Supreme Court has original but concurrent jurisdiction with the CA and RTCs in quo warranto proceedings.
  • A quo warranto petition is brought against a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds a public office or position.

D. Other Instances Provided by Law

  • Congress may, by law, vest additional original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court. For instance, under certain special laws, the Supreme Court may directly take cognizance of petitions involving the constitutionality of acts of Congress or executive issuances if it deems the matter to be of such paramount importance.

Note: While the Supreme Court has this extensive concurrent original jurisdiction, it exercises it with great discretion and consistent with the principle that it is primarily a court of last resort. Direct resort is discouraged unless there are exceptional, compelling, and special reasons.

III. APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

A. Review of Decisions of Lower Collegiate Courts

  1. Court of Appeals (CA)

    • Decisions of the CA can be elevated to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
    • The review is discretionary—the Supreme Court may deny or grant due course. Generally, only questions of law can be raised under Rule 45.

  2. Sandiganbayan

    • Decisions of the Sandiganbayan (which handles corruption cases against public officials) are appealable to the Supreme Court via Rule 45.
    • Again, the review by the Supreme Court is discretionary and is usually confined to questions of law, except in cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, in which case the appeal is mandatory.

  3. Court of Tax Appeals (CTA)

    • Decisions of the CTA (in division or en banc) may also be appealed to the Supreme Court through a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, subject to the same standards on questions of law.

B. Review of Decisions of Regional Trial Courts (RTCs)

  • The Supreme Court, as a rule, does not take direct appeals from the RTCs, unless otherwise provided by law or the Rules.
  • Generally, decisions from the RTCs first go to the CA. Nevertheless, certain circumstances allow a direct appeal from RTC to the Supreme Court, such as:
    • When the law expressly provides direct appeal (rare and specific instances).
    • Certain criminal cases imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua or higher (although in modern practice, these are first under automatic review by the Court of Appeals, except in those covered by the Judiciary Reorganization Acts or Supreme Court circulars).

C. Special Civil Actions

  • Decisions of the CA, Sandiganbayan, or CTA on special civil actions (e.g., certiorari, prohibition, mandamus) may be elevated to the Supreme Court via a Rule 45 petition, again focusing on issues of law or grave abuse of discretion resulting in lack or excess of jurisdiction.

D. Questions of Law vs. Questions of Fact

  • The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Its appellate jurisdiction ordinarily focuses on legal issues.
  • A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy arises as to what the law is on a certain set of facts; a question of fact arises when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsity of the facts.
  • Exceptions permitting a factual review by the Supreme Court are narrowly interpreted (e.g., conflicting factual findings of lower courts, findings unsupported by evidence, the case falling under recognized exceptions, etc.).

IV. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OVER ALL COURTS

  1. Article VIII, Section 6, 1987 Constitution vests in the Supreme Court the administrative supervision over all courts and their personnel.
  2. The Supreme Court, through the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), oversees:
    • The effective and efficient functioning of the trial courts.
    • The discipline of judges and personnel, including suspension, dismissal, or other sanctions for administrative offenses.

V. RULE-MAKING POWER

  1. Constitutional Grant (Article VIII, Section 5[5])
    • The Supreme Court has the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts; the admission to the practice of law; the Integrated Bar; and legal assistance to the underprivileged.
  2. Limitations and Characteristics of Rules
    • Must not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.
    • Must remain consistent with the separation of powers and constitutional provisions.
  3. Promulgation of Rules of Court
    • The Rules of Court are issued by the Supreme Court and have the force and effect of law.
    • The Supreme Court continuously revises these rules via Administrative Matters, Circulars, or En Banc resolutions.

VI. POWER TO ADMIT AND DISCIPLINE LAWYERS (LEGAL ETHICS)

  1. Admission to the Bar
    • The Supreme Court, through the Bar Examination Committee, admits applicants to the Philippine Bar upon compliance with required qualifications and successful passing of the Bar Examinations.
  2. Disciplinary Power Over Lawyers
    • The Supreme Court has exclusive power to discipline and even disbar attorneys.
    • Complaints for misconduct or unethical behavior are filed with the Supreme Court or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), but the final decision on sanctions rests with the Supreme Court.

VII. EXPANDED JUDICIAL POWER (GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION)

  • Under Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, the judiciary has the power to determine if any governmental branch or instrumentality has acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. This broadens the scope of judicial review, effectively allowing the Supreme Court (and lower courts) to check not just judicial acts but also legislative and executive actions that are alleged to have been carried out in a capricious or whimsical manner.

VIII. MODES OF ELEVATION TO THE SUPREME COURT

  1. Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45, Rules of Court)

    • This is the main mode of appeal to the Supreme Court from lower courts’ judgments.
    • Raises only questions of law.
    • The Supreme Court has discretion to grant or deny the petition.

  2. Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Commission on Audit (COA), Commission on Elections (COMELEC), and Commission on the Ombudsman

    • Constitutional commissions are generally subject to judicial review for grave abuse of discretion under Rule 65, but if it is an appeal from final orders or decisions, it may be brought before the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65.

  3. Special Civil Actions (Rule 65)

    • Actions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus directly filed with the Supreme Court if compelling and exceptional circumstances exist.
    • Raises the existence of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by a tribunal, board, or officer.

  4. Rule 64

    • Governs the review of judgments and final orders of the Commission on Elections and Commission on Audit via Petition for Certiorari to the Supreme Court.

IX. PRINCIPLES GUIDING SUPREME COURT JURISDICTION

  1. Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts

    • Even if the Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction, direct invocation is generally disfavored absent a special or compelling reason (e.g., national interest, exigency, urgency, or issues of transcendental importance).

  2. Final Arbiter of Legal and Constitutional Questions

    • The Supreme Court’s decisions are binding on all lower courts.
    • As the court of last resort, its interpretations of law and the Constitution are final and executory.

  3. Transcendental Importance

    • The Supreme Court sometimes takes immediate cognizance of certain cases that present issues of paramount public interest, even if lower courts have concurrent jurisdiction.

  4. Not a Trier of Facts

    • The Supreme Court’s function is primarily to resolve questions of law. Factual issues are left to the trial courts and appellate courts, except under well-recognized exceptions.

  5. Grave Abuse of Discretion Correctible by Certiorari

    • The Supreme Court will exercise its certiorari jurisdiction to correct any branch or instrumentality of government for an act done with grave abuse of discretion.

X. SELECTED JURISPRUDENTIAL GUIDELINES

  1. People v. Sandiganbayan and related cases: Clarifies the appellate route from Sandiganbayan decisions to the Supreme Court.
  2. Republic v. Sereno: Illustrates quo warranto as an original action before the Supreme Court involving public office.
  3. Dumlao v. COMELEC, Angara v. Electoral Commission: Leading cases on the expanded judicial review and the duty of the Supreme Court to determine grave abuse of discretion.
  4. En Banc vs. Division Cases
    • The Supreme Court typically sits En Banc in cases involving constitutionality of treaties, international or executive agreements, or where the required number of votes for a particular action is specified by the Constitution.
    • It may sit in divisions of three, five, or seven justices for other cases, as provided by its internal rules.

XI. RELATION TO LEGAL ETHICS AND LEGAL FORMS

  1. Legal Ethics

    • The Supreme Court regulates the practice of law through the Code of Professional Responsibility (soon replaced by the “Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability”), and related jurisprudence.
    • It is also the final disciplining authority for lawyers under the principle that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with public interest.

  2. Legal Forms

    • Rules of Court provide standard forms for petitions, motions, and other pleadings.
    • The Supreme Court, through circulars and administrative matters, prescribes updated formats (e.g., Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping, Notice of Appeal, Petition for Review on Certiorari, etc.).
    • Practitioners must ensure compliance with form and substance requirements to avoid dismissal of actions or petitions.

XII. KEY TAKEAWAYS

  1. The Supreme Court is the court of last resort in the Philippine judicial system, wielding original, concurrent, and appellate jurisdiction in matters set forth by the Constitution and laws.
  2. It exercises a broad supervisory and administrative authority over all courts, personnel, and members of the bar.
  3. Discretionary review (especially under Rule 45) underscores that the Court selects only those cases with compelling legal issues, ensuring that it focuses on the most significant questions of law.
  4. Its rule-making power is both extensive and exclusive, limited only by the requirement that it cannot diminish or increase substantive rights.
  5. The Supreme Court’s expanded certiorari jurisdiction under Article VIII, Section 1 ensures a robust check on government actions that may constitute grave abuse of discretion.

Final Note

The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Philippine law, both original and appellate, is anchored primarily on the 1987 Constitution and fleshed out by the Rules of Court, statutes, and jurisprudence. Through its role as the final arbiter, the Court ensures the uniform application and interpretation of the law, protects constitutional rights, disciplines the legal profession, and upholds the rule of law.

This completes the overview of “all there is to know” in a foundational sense about the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the Philippines under Remedial Law, with intersections into Legal Ethics and Legal Forms.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login