JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Administrative Supervision Over Lower Courts | The Supreme Court | JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Topic: Administrative Supervision Over Lower Courts

(Political Law and Public International Law > XI. Judicial Department > E. The Supreme Court > 3. Administrative Supervision Over Lower Courts)

The administrative supervision of the Supreme Court over lower courts refers to the Constitutional authority vested in the Supreme Court to oversee, regulate, and discipline judges and court personnel in the lower judiciary. This supervisory power is critical for maintaining the integrity, efficiency, and independence of the judicial system.

Constitutional Basis

Article VIII, Section 6 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution vests in the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and their personnel. This provision underlines the role of the Supreme Court in ensuring that the lower courts remain free from political influence, maintain proper judicial decorum, and operate efficiently in dispensing justice.

Article VIII, Section 11 further grants the Supreme Court the power to discipline or remove judges of lower courts, either motu proprio (on its own initiative) or upon complaint of a party. This provision ensures that judges who exhibit misconduct or inefficiency can be held accountable.

Scope of Administrative Supervision

  1. Lower Courts Covered: The lower courts include:

    • Regional Trial Courts (RTCs)
    • Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs)
    • Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs)
    • Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs)
    • Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs)
    • Shari'a District Courts and Shari'a Circuit Courts

  2. Court Personnel:

    • The Supreme Court's administrative supervision extends to both judges and employees in these lower courts, ensuring that everyone in the judiciary adheres to proper conduct, follows legal standards, and respects judicial independence.

Administrative Supervision Functions

The Supreme Court’s administrative supervision over lower courts primarily involves:

  1. Issuance of Guidelines, Circulars, and Orders: The Court may issue Administrative Circulars and Office Orders governing the operations, procedures, and conduct of judges and personnel in the lower courts.

  2. Investigation and Disciplinary Proceedings: Through the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), the Supreme Court investigates complaints against lower court judges and employees. The OCA conducts fact-finding investigations, makes recommendations, and submits reports to the Supreme Court for final decision-making.

  3. Disciplinary Actions: The Supreme Court may impose a range of disciplinary measures on erring judges and court employees, including:

    • Reprimand
    • Suspension
    • Fines
    • Dismissal from service

    The Code of Judicial Conduct, as well as jurisprudence, serves as the basis for determining misconduct, violations of judicial ethics, or inefficiency.

  4. Case Management and Court Efficiency Monitoring:

    • The Supreme Court monitors the performance of lower courts to ensure timely and efficient adjudication of cases.
    • Through the OCA, it evaluates the caseload, disposition rates, and backlogs of courts and implements corrective measures where necessary.

  5. Assignment and Reassignment of Judges:

    • The Supreme Court has the authority to assign or reassign judges to specific courts or branches to address issues of vacancies or imbalance in caseloads.
    • The OCA assists in the reassignment process, ensuring that the redistribution of judicial resources aligns with the needs of the judiciary.

Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)

The Office of the Court Administrator plays a pivotal role in the exercise of the Supreme Court's administrative supervision over lower courts. Established under the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (B.P. Blg. 129), the OCA serves as the administrative arm of the Supreme Court.

  1. Duties of the OCA:

    • Conduct administrative investigations.
    • Monitor court operations and performance.
    • Recommend the appointment, promotion, or discipline of court personnel.
    • Ensure the efficient administration of justice by overseeing the daily operations of courts.

  2. Reports to the Supreme Court:

    • The OCA submits periodic reports on the status and performance of lower courts, bringing any issues of inefficiency, misconduct, or corruption to the Supreme Court's attention for appropriate action.

Accountability of Judges and Court Personnel

  1. Grounds for Disciplinary Action Against Judges:

    • Gross Ignorance of the Law: Failure to adhere to well-established legal principles or procedural rules.
    • Gross Misconduct: Involves unethical behavior, dishonesty, or abuse of authority.
    • Incompetence or Inefficiency: Consistent failure to resolve cases within prescribed timelines, leading to backlogs or delays.
    • Partiality or Corruption: Bias in rendering decisions or engagement in corrupt practices.

  2. Disciplinary Proceedings: Complaints against judges or court personnel can be initiated by:

    • Private individuals or litigants who allege misconduct or inefficiency.
    • Motu proprio investigations by the Supreme Court, based on reports from the OCA or other sources.

    The process involves:

    • Filing of a complaint.
    • Conduct of a preliminary investigation by the OCA.
    • Submission of findings to the Supreme Court.
    • The Supreme Court’s decision, which may include dismissal, acquittal, or the imposition of sanctions.

  3. Appeals: Decisions made by the Supreme Court regarding administrative cases are final and executory, with no further appeal possible, consistent with the Court’s constitutional mandate.

Jurisprudence on Administrative Supervision

Key rulings that illustrate the Supreme Court’s supervisory powers include:

  1. In Re: Judge Raul C. de Leon – The Court emphasized that judges should exhibit utmost diligence, competence, and integrity in the discharge of their judicial functions.

  2. Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Flores – The Supreme Court held that even minor infractions of court procedures could lead to disciplinary measures to preserve the sanctity and efficiency of the judiciary.

  3. OCA vs. Judge Nitafan – Reinforced the principle that the administrative supervision of lower courts is intended to protect the public trust in the judiciary.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's administrative supervision over lower courts ensures that the judiciary functions with independence, integrity, and efficiency. The Court’s mandate under the Constitution is to preserve public confidence in the judicial system by disciplining erring judges and personnel, managing court resources effectively, and overseeing the timely administration of justice across all levels of the judiciary. The role of the Office of the Court Administrator is instrumental in facilitating this supervision, ensuring that every level of the judiciary adheres to high standards of competence and accountability.

En Banc and Division Cases | The Supreme Court | JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Topic: Political Law and Public International Law > XI. Judicial Department > E. The Supreme Court > 2. En Banc and Division Cases

I. Constitutional Basis

The Supreme Court of the Philippines, as the highest judicial body, is mandated by the 1987 Philippine Constitution under Article VIII, Section 4(1) to sit either en banc or in divisions of three, five, or seven justices. This provision ensures the efficient discharge of its functions while safeguarding the integrity and consistency of judicial decisions.

II. En Banc Cases

A. Definition

The term en banc refers to the Supreme Court sitting as a full body, with all the justices participating. It is reserved for cases that are deemed of significant importance or those that require the collective wisdom of the entire court.

B. Instances When the Supreme Court Sits En Banc

Pursuant to the Constitution and Rule 2, Section 2 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court (A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC), the following cases must be decided by the Court en banc:

  1. Cases involving the constitutionality of treaties, international or executive agreements, laws, presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations.

    • This is a manifestation of the principle of judicial review, ensuring that no law or executive action violates the Constitution.

  2. Cases involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of the Court’s own rules.

    • Ensures that the internal rules of the Supreme Court comply with the Constitution and maintain judicial independence.

  3. Cases that involve the discipline, disbarment, or suspension of members of the bar or judges.

    • These cases affect the integrity of the judiciary and the legal profession, necessitating the full participation of the Supreme Court.

  4. Election contests involving the President and Vice-President under Article VII, Section 4 of the Constitution.

    • As the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), the Supreme Court exercises original jurisdiction over these cases. These involve the highest offices of the land, warranting full Court deliberation.

  5. Cases where the penalty of reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death is imposed.

    • Given the gravity of such cases, a decision from the entire Court is required.

  6. Cases involving the constitutionality of laws or rules concerning the judiciary, or other cases determined by the Court to be of sufficient importance to merit en banc consideration.

  7. Administrative cases involving the Supreme Court or its officials.

    • These cases affect the Court’s ability to function and must be handled by the full Court.

  8. All other cases or matters as the Court may deem appropriate.

    • This is a catch-all provision allowing the Court flexibility to take on significant cases en banc when it sees fit.
C. Powers and Jurisdiction of the Court Sitting En Banc
  • As the full Court, the Supreme Court en banc exercises its complete authority over cases requiring its full wisdom and resources.
  • The en banc's decision, unless overturned by constitutional amendments or reconsidered by the Court itself, is final and executory.

III. Division Cases

A. Definition

A division case refers to matters decided by one of the divisions of the Supreme Court, consisting of either three, five, or seven justices. This system is designed for efficiency, ensuring that the Court can address a large volume of cases without unduly burdening the full bench.

B. Constitutional and Legal Basis

The Constitution permits the Supreme Court to sit in divisions to expedite the resolution of cases. The Court is divided into three divisions, with each justice being a member of one of these divisions.

C. Jurisdiction of Divisions

  1. Ordinary Appeals

    • Cases where a final judgment from a lower court or tribunal is brought before the Supreme Court for review.

  2. Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus

    • Petitions involving errors of jurisdiction, such as those questioning the lower court’s or tribunal’s overreach or failure to exercise its jurisdiction.

  3. Other Civil and Criminal Cases

    • Cases not classified as en banc cases, including most civil, criminal, and administrative matters.

  4. Taxation, Labor, and Election Law Cases

    • Routine cases involving specialized areas of law.
D. Referral to the Court En Banc

In instances where a division of the Court is confronted with a legal question that has not yet been settled by the Court en banc or when there are conflicting rulings by different divisions, the matter may be referred to the Court en banc for resolution.

E. Internal Rules on Division Cases

The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court provide that:

  • Each division shall have a quorum of three justices.
  • A unanimous vote of three justices is required to promulgate a decision. If there is no unanimity, the case is referred to a larger composition, usually five justices.
  • If the majority decision of the division still cannot be reached, the case may be referred to the Court en banc for final adjudication.

IV. Stare Decisis in En Banc and Division Cases

A. Binding Nature of En Banc Decisions
  • En banc decisions of the Supreme Court are considered binding precedents. These decisions must be followed by all courts within the judicial hierarchy, including the Supreme Court divisions. They serve as primary authority in subsequent cases.
B. Effect of Division Decisions
  • Decisions by divisions, although authoritative, are not as weighty as en banc rulings. However, they are binding unless overturned by an en banc ruling or overruled by future decisions from the same or higher authorities.
C. Conflicting Decisions
  • If divisions of the Supreme Court issue conflicting rulings, the matter is typically elevated to the en banc for resolution. The en banc ruling will then resolve the conflict and provide a uniform interpretation of the law.

V. Significance of En Banc and Division Deliberations

The division of the Supreme Court into en banc and divisions is integral to its functioning, allowing it to handle both routine and highly significant cases effectively. The en banc system is reserved for the most pressing legal questions, while the divisions handle a broader array of cases. This structure enables the Court to maintain its efficiency while ensuring that vital constitutional issues receive the full attention of the highest judicial body in the country.

The en banc mechanism further strengthens the principle of judicial review and maintains the integrity of the constitutional system, as it ensures that all major decisions, particularly those concerning the Constitution and the separation of powers, receive the wisdom and input of the full Court. In contrast, the division system allows for more expeditious resolution of less complex matters, which is essential for a highly burdened judicial system such as that of the Philippines.

This comprehensive overview addresses the constitutional and procedural framework governing en banc and division cases in the Philippine Supreme Court, providing a clear understanding of when and how these bodies operate and their respective jurisdictions.

Powers | Judicial and Bar Council | Appointments to the Judiciary | JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

XI. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

D. Appointments to the Judiciary

2. Judicial and Bar Council (JBC)

b. Powers

The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) is a constitutionally created body under the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Its primary function is to assist the President in the appointment of members of the Judiciary. Under Section 8, Article VIII of the Constitution, the JBC is tasked with recommending appointees to the judiciary to ensure transparency, meritocracy, and insulation from political influence. The Council plays a pivotal role in maintaining the integrity and independence of the judicial branch.

Below is a detailed examination of the powers of the JBC:

1. Primary Function: Recommendation of Nominees

The principal function of the JBC is to submit a list of at least three (3) nominees to the President for every vacancy in the judiciary. The positions covered include:

  • Justices of the Supreme Court
  • Judges of lower courts (Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts)
  • Members of the Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals, and Sandiganbayan
  • Other judicial positions created by law

The JBC ensures that those nominated possess the necessary qualifications as mandated by the Constitution and relevant laws. The President is mandatorily bound to appoint only from the list submitted by the JBC. This power is crucial in ensuring that political considerations do not unduly influence judicial appointments.

2. Screening of Applicants

The JBC has the authority to screen and evaluate applicants for judicial positions. This involves:

  • Application and Nomination Process: Individuals aspiring for judicial office may apply or be nominated by third parties. The JBC opens applications and nominations for every vacant position.
  • Public Interviews: The JBC conducts public interviews of the applicants, allowing both transparency and public scrutiny.
  • Psychological and Medical Examinations: The JBC subjects applicants to thorough psychological, psychiatric, and medical examinations to assess their fitness for the role.
  • Background Investigation: The JBC conducts an investigation of each applicant's background, including any pending criminal or administrative cases, character, and ethical standards.
  • Public Comments: The JBC also invites the public to submit any opposition, complaint, or comment on the applicants, ensuring that the selection process is inclusive and takes into account public sentiment.

3. Setting of Standards and Criteria

The JBC has the discretion to set criteria for the selection of judicial appointees, including:

  • Integrity, Competence, and Independence: The JBC gives high importance to the ethical integrity, legal competence, and independence of the applicants.
  • Seniority: For positions like the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, seniority among incumbent justices can also be considered, though it is not determinative.
  • Qualifications: The JBC ensures that applicants meet the constitutional qualifications for the judiciary, such as natural-born citizenship, age, and years of legal practice or judicial experience.

The JBC evaluates each applicant against these standards, considering factors like legal expertise, knowledge of jurisprudence, work ethic, and judicial temperament.

4. Investigative Powers

In the performance of its screening duties, the JBC has the power to investigate any allegations or complaints against applicants. This power includes:

  • Conducting hearings or meetings where witnesses may be presented
  • Issuing subpoenas and requiring the submission of documents pertinent to its investigation
  • Resolving and dismissing baseless or unfounded complaints

This investigative power allows the JBC to maintain the highest standards in the selection of nominees by ensuring that applicants are free from any allegations of misconduct or unfitness.

5. Rule-Making Power

The JBC has the authority to promulgate its internal rules of procedure for the effective performance of its functions. The JBC's Rules of Procedure, as currently implemented, outline its processes for accepting applications, conducting interviews, handling complaints, and submitting the shortlist to the President.

The JBC's rule-making power is essential for providing a clear and transparent framework for its operations, ensuring that its processes are fair, systematic, and aligned with its constitutional mandate.

6. Administrative Powers

In addition to its primary function of nominating judges, the JBC has the power to manage its administrative affairs, including:

  • The appointment of its own personnel
  • Management of its budget and resources
  • Overseeing its internal operations to ensure the efficient discharge of its duties

The JBC is an autonomous constitutional body and, as such, it operates independently from other government departments or agencies, including the Judiciary and the Executive.

7. Quasi-Judicial Powers

While primarily a recommending body, the JBC exercises certain quasi-judicial functions in relation to the evaluation and selection of candidates, particularly in:

  • Resolving oppositions and complaints: The JBC may act on formal oppositions to an applicant’s candidacy by weighing evidence and making determinations based on its investigation.
  • Disqualification of Applicants: The JBC has the power to disqualify candidates from being considered for judicial office based on findings of misconduct, lack of qualifications, or other reasons.

8. Submission of Shortlist to the President

After completing its evaluation process, the JBC submits a list of at least three (3) nominees for each vacancy to the President. The President is constitutionally required to choose from this list when making judicial appointments. Failure of the President to select from the list would constitute a breach of constitutional protocol, as the JBC's role is designed to prevent the arbitrary appointment of judges.

9. Independent Functioning

The JBC operates independently of both the Executive and Judicial branches. While it assists the President in judicial appointments, it is not subject to the President’s direct control or supervision. Similarly, the Supreme Court, while headed by the Chief Justice who serves as the ex-officio chairman of the JBC, does not exercise control over its functions.

10. Composition and Role in Ensuring Judicial Independence

The composition of the JBC as prescribed by Article VIII, Section 8(1) of the Constitution ensures a balanced and diverse body. It is composed of:

  • The Chief Justice as ex-officio chairman
  • The Secretary of Justice as ex-officio member
  • A representative from Congress (alternating between a Senator and a House member)
  • A representative of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
  • A professor of law
  • A retired member of the Judiciary
  • A representative of the private sector

This composition ensures that the JBC reflects a broad spectrum of interests and perspectives, while preventing the dominance of any one sector or branch of government. This design reinforces the principle of judicial independence and insulates the judiciary from political influence.

Conclusion

The JBC plays a critical role in ensuring that appointments to the judiciary are based on merit, integrity, competence, and independence. Its powers, including the ability to screen applicants, investigate complaints, and recommend nominees, are essential to preserving the impartiality and integrity of the judicial branch. By limiting the President’s choice to a shortlist of vetted candidates, the JBC acts as a safeguard against the politicization of the judiciary, ensuring that judges are chosen based on their qualifications rather than political affiliations or connections.

Composition | Judicial and Bar Council | Appointments to the Judiciary | JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) - Composition

1. Constitutional Basis The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) was established under Article VIII, Section 8 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. It is a body designed to depoliticize and professionalize the selection process of judicial officers, ensuring the appointment of competent, moral, and independent individuals to the judiciary. Its primary function is to recommend appointees to the judiciary to the President of the Philippines.

2. Composition of the Judicial and Bar Council The JBC is composed of seven (7) members as provided under Section 8(1), Article VIII of the Constitution. These are:

  1. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Ex-Officio Chairman):

    • The Chief Justice serves as the head of the JBC in an ex-officio capacity, meaning they do not hold this position by appointment but by virtue of their role as the head of the judiciary.

  2. Secretary of Justice (Ex-Officio Member):

    • As a member of the executive branch, the Secretary of Justice sits as an ex-officio member. This position ensures that the executive branch is represented in the selection process of judicial nominees.

  3. Representative of Congress (Ex-Officio Member):

    • The 1987 Constitution originally provided for only one representative from Congress. However, subsequent interpretation and practice allowed both the Senate and the House of Representatives to each have a representative in the JBC, making Congress effectively have two representatives. This practice was the subject of controversy, leading to conflicting interpretations of the Constitution regarding the number of congressional representatives allowed in the JBC.

  4. Representative of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP):

    • The IBP is the official organization of Philippine lawyers. It nominates a member who represents the bar. This ensures that the legal profession has a voice in the selection of judicial candidates.

  5. Professor of Law Representative:

    • The JBC includes an academic representative, typically a distinguished law professor, to provide an educational perspective on judicial appointments.

  6. Retired Justice of the Supreme Court Representative:

    • A retired justice of the Supreme Court is included to offer insights based on their judicial experience, ensuring that past judicial wisdom plays a role in selecting future justices.

  7. Private Sector Representative:

    • The private sector representative is usually a lawyer from private practice or the business sector, ensuring that there is input from non-governmental stakeholders in the process.

3. Terms of Members

  • According to Article VIII, Section 8(2) of the Constitution, the regular members of the JBC serve for a term of four (4) years, without reappointment.
  • However, ex-officio members serve as long as they hold their respective offices (e.g., the Chief Justice, Secretary of Justice, and Congressional Representatives).

4. Powers and Functions of the Judicial and Bar Council

  • Recommendation of Nominees: The JBC submits a list of at least three (3) nominees for each vacancy in the judiciary to the President, from which the President is required to appoint one. The President is constitutionally mandated to make appointments from this list.

  • Vetting Process: The JBC is responsible for screening applicants and nominees to the judiciary. This process includes the publication of the names of applicants, conducting public interviews, reviewing their qualifications, and receiving feedback from the public. The JBC uses rigorous standards to evaluate the integrity, competence, independence, and moral fitness of the candidates.

  • Confidential Deliberations: While the JBC conducts public interviews and accepts public feedback, its final deliberations on the candidates are conducted in confidence. This ensures that the council can freely discuss the merits and demerits of each candidate without external pressures.

5. Representation of Congress: The Debate

  • The original provision of the 1987 Constitution under Section 8(1) only provided for "a representative of Congress," leading to a debate on whether this should mean one representative for both the Senate and the House, or one representative from each chamber.
  • In 2013, the Supreme Court addressed this in Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council (G.R. No. 202242, July 17, 2013), where it ruled that only one representative from Congress should sit as a member of the JBC, to adhere to the original intent of the Constitution.
  • The ruling caused friction, as previously, both the Senate and the House of Representatives sent one representative each to the JBC. After the ruling, the legislature alternates the representation between the Senate and the House of Representatives.

6. Quorum and Decision-Making

  • Section 8(1) of Article VIII of the Constitution is silent on the issue of a quorum. The JBC, however, follows its own rules of procedure, which require the presence of a majority of its members to constitute a quorum for its meetings and decision-making processes.
  • Decisions on the list of nominees to be submitted to the President are usually made by a majority vote.

7. Safeguards and Impartiality

  • Anti-political safeguards: The composition of the JBC was designed to prevent undue political influence in judicial appointments by balancing the executive, legislative, and judicial powers and including representatives from the legal profession, academe, and the private sector.

  • Independence: By incorporating non-governmental members (IBP representative, law professor, and private sector representative), the JBC ensures that independent and impartial perspectives guide the selection of judicial candidates.

8. Challenges and Issues

  • Executive Influence: There have been concerns that the executive branch, by virtue of the President’s power of appointment and the inclusion of the Secretary of Justice in the JBC, still holds considerable influence over judicial appointments.
  • Public Scrutiny: While the JBC strives for transparency, there are critiques that its processes, particularly the final deliberations, are not entirely open to the public, potentially diminishing the perception of transparency.

9. Appointment Process

  • Once the JBC has finalized its list of nominees, it submits this list to the Office of the President. The President is constitutionally obligated to make an appointment from the list within 90 days from the occurrence of the vacancy, as required by Section 9, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.

  • Appointment to the Supreme Court: The appointment process for vacancies in the Supreme Court is particularly crucial, given the significance of the Court’s role in constitutional and political questions. The same JBC process applies, but the vetting of candidates may involve more rigorous scrutiny due to the weight of the position.

Conclusion The Judicial and Bar Council is a critical institution that ensures a merit-based, depoliticized process for the selection of judges in the Philippines. Through its diverse composition, the JBC incorporates inputs from multiple sectors of society, balancing governmental and independent interests in its recommendations for judicial appointments. However, the debates around its composition, especially the representation of Congress, and concerns over transparency and executive influence, continue to shape the discourse on its role in the judicial system.

Qualifications of Members | Appointments to the Judiciary | JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Qualifications of Members of the Judiciary in the Philippines

Under the Philippine Constitution and relevant laws, the qualifications for appointments to the judiciary are clearly delineated for different courts. These qualifications ensure that members of the judiciary possess the necessary legal knowledge, experience, competence, integrity, and independence to adjudicate cases impartially. Below is a detailed breakdown of the qualifications required for the members of the judiciary, with specific attention to the Supreme Court and lower courts.

I. Constitutional Basis

The qualifications for members of the judiciary in the Philippines, particularly for the Supreme Court and other lower courts, are primarily provided in the 1987 Constitution and supplementary statutory laws. Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, titled "Judicial Department," governs the rules on appointments, composition, and qualifications of judicial members.

II. Qualifications for the Supreme Court

Article VIII, Section 7(1) of the 1987 Constitution provides the qualifications for appointment to the Supreme Court:

  1. Natural-Born Citizen – The appointee must be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, meaning the individual did not have to perform any act to acquire Philippine citizenship.

  2. At Least 40 Years of Age – At the time of appointment, the individual must be at least forty (40) years of age. This ensures maturity and experience in the legal profession.

  3. Fifteen Years of Legal Experience – The appointee must have at least fifteen (15) years of experience as a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines. This emphasizes the need for extensive legal expertise and competence in dealing with judicial matters. The term "practice of law" encompasses a wide range of legal activities, such as working as a legal counsel, prosecutor, professor of law, or holding legal advisory positions in the government.

  4. Proven Competence, Integrity, Probity, and Independence – These are the ultimate qualifications for a judicial appointment:

    • Competence refers to the appointee's ability to understand and apply the law.
    • Integrity demands that the candidate's character be beyond reproach and that they have consistently demonstrated honesty in their professional and personal life.
    • Probity refers to the moral uprightness of the candidate, ensuring they adhere to high ethical standards.
    • Independence implies that the appointee must be free from improper influences, be they political, economic, or otherwise, to ensure fair and impartial justice.

III. Qualifications for Lower Courts

The Constitution also grants Congress the power to define the qualifications of judges for the lower courts. These include judges in the Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Shari’a Courts, and other courts established by law.

  1. Court of Appeals:

    • The qualifications for appointment to the Court of Appeals are similar to those of the Supreme Court, albeit with fewer years of required experience.
    • Must be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.
    • Must be at least 40 years of age.
    • Must have ten (10) years of experience as a judge of a lower court or in the practice of law in the Philippines.
    • Must possess competence, integrity, probity, and independence.

  2. Regional Trial Courts (RTC):

    • For appointment to the RTC, the requirements are slightly lower:
    • Must be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.
    • Must be at least 35 years of age.
    • Must have ten (10) years of legal experience either as a judge of a lower court or in legal practice.
    • Must have proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.

  3. Municipal Trial Courts (MTC) and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC):

    • Must be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.
    • Must be at least 30 years of age.
    • Must have five (5) years of legal experience.
    • Must demonstrate competence, integrity, probity, and independence.

  4. Shari’a Courts:

    • The qualifications for Shari’a District Court and Shari’a Circuit Court judges are provided under Presidential Decree No. 1083 or the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines.
    • For Shari’a District Court, the appointee must be learned in Islamic law and jurisprudence, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, and must have passed the special Bar examination for Shari’a Courts.
    • For Shari’a Circuit Courts, the qualifications are less stringent but still require familiarity with Islamic law and a legal background.

IV. Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) Involvement

Article VIII, Section 8 of the Constitution establishes the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), which plays a critical role in the appointment process. The JBC is tasked with recommending appointees to the judiciary. Before the President appoints members of the Supreme Court or lower courts, the JBC must vet and nominate at least three (3) candidates for each vacancy.

The JBC's evaluation process ensures that only those who meet the qualifications, especially in terms of integrity, probity, and independence, are recommended for judicial positions. This process minimizes political interference in judicial appointments and enhances the judiciary's independence.

V. Restrictions on Appointments

Article VIII, Section 7(2) of the Constitution provides that members of the judiciary must not:

  • Engage in the practice of law or any other profession.
  • Participate in business activities or engage in any political office while holding judicial office.
  • They are also prohibited from holding any other government position unless expressly authorized by law.

These restrictions safeguard the judiciary's independence and ensure that justices and judges dedicate their time and effort solely to their judicial duties.

VI. Tenure and Retirement

Judicial officers, including members of the Supreme Court, hold office until they reach the age of seventy (70) or become incapacitated to discharge their duties. The Constitution provides for their retirement age, and they may also be removed from office through impeachment.

VII. Impeachment and Removal

Members of the Supreme Court, as well as other impeachable officers under Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers), may be removed from office by impeachment. Grounds for impeachment include:

  1. Culpable violation of the Constitution;
  2. Betrayal of public trust;
  3. Graft and corruption;
  4. Other high crimes.

VIII. Other Relevant Statutory Laws and Jurisprudence

Other laws, such as the Judiciary Reorganization Act (Batas Pambansa Blg. 129), and subsequent jurisprudence also provide additional guidelines and interpretations for the qualifications and appointment of judges in the Philippines.

In jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has continuously upheld the requirements of competence, integrity, probity, and independence as cornerstones of judicial appointments, reinforcing the idea that the judiciary must remain impartial and free from any form of corruption or undue influence.

Conclusion

The qualifications for appointment to the judiciary in the Philippines are stringent and are designed to ensure that only individuals of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence can serve. The constitutional and statutory requirements aim to maintain a strong, independent judiciary capable of upholding justice and the rule of law in the country. The involvement of the Judicial and Bar Council further enhances the merit-based selection process, reducing political interference and ensuring that the judicial system remains impartial and credible.

Judicial Independence and Fiscal Autonomy | JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND FISCAL AUTONOMY UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW

I. JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE

Judicial Independence is the concept that the judiciary must be able to decide cases free from external pressures and interference from the executive, legislative, or any other entity, ensuring that it can exercise its judicial powers impartially and without fear or favor.

In the Philippines, judicial independence is enshrined in the Constitution and reinforced through various laws, jurisprudence, and institutional practices.

  1. Constitutional Guarantee:

    • The 1987 Philippine Constitution specifically protects judicial independence in several provisions:
      • Article VIII, Section 1 states that "judicial power includes the duty of courts... to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and 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 the Government."
      • Article VIII, Section 2 provides that "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."

  2. Key Elements of Judicial Independence:

    • Tenure Security (Article VIII, Section 11): Justices and judges hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of 70, or unless they become incapacitated to discharge their duties. This provision ensures that they cannot be arbitrarily removed or unduly influenced by political or external forces.
    • Disciplinary Proceedings (Article VIII, Section 11): While justices and judges can be disciplined, they can only be removed from office through impeachment, with removal for other officials done in accordance with existing laws or by the Supreme Court itself in appropriate cases.
    • Appointment Process (Article VIII, Section 9): Appointments to the judiciary are made by the President from a list of nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), a constitutional body independent from the legislature and executive. The JBC ensures that appointees are of high moral integrity and competence.
    • Financial Independence: As detailed below under fiscal autonomy, the judiciary must be financially independent to prevent manipulation by other branches through budgetary constraints.

  3. Institutional Safeguards:

    • Judicial and Bar Council (JBC): The JBC ensures that appointees to the judiciary meet strict standards of competence, integrity, and independence, reducing political influence in the appointment process.
    • Immunity from Suit: Judges are not subject to civil, criminal, or administrative liability for decisions made in the regular course of judicial duties, provided that these decisions are made in good faith and within their jurisdiction. This immunity is essential to ensure that judges can make decisions without fear of personal liability.

II. FISCAL AUTONOMY

Fiscal Autonomy refers to the judiciary's financial independence from other branches of government. Fiscal autonomy is critical to safeguarding judicial independence because financial control can lead to undue influence.

  1. Constitutional Provision (Article VIII, Section 3):

    • The Constitution guarantees that the judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. It further mandates that appropriations for the judiciary cannot be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year, and once the appropriations are approved, they must be automatically and regularly released.

  2. Implications of Fiscal Autonomy:

    • Non-reduction of Budget: This constitutional provision ensures that the judiciary's budget is not subject to political pressures through reductions or manipulations. The legislature cannot diminish the appropriations for the judiciary to exercise control or as a form of political retaliation.
    • Automatic and Regular Release of Funds: After the judiciary's budget is approved, the funds must be automatically and regularly released. This ensures that the judiciary can operate smoothly without needing to depend on the executive for the release of its budget.

  3. Application and Case Law:

    • Cases on Judicial Fiscal Autonomy:
      • In Bengzon v. Drilon (208 SCRA 133, 1992), the Supreme Court emphasized that the judiciary’s fiscal autonomy means that it enjoys full discretion on how to use its funds, without interference from other branches. The Court stressed that the regular release of funds must be automatic, and no prior condition can be imposed before its release.
      • In Judicial and Bar Council v. de Castro (G.R. No. 191002, April 20, 2010), the Supreme Court held that the judiciary's fiscal autonomy ensures that it has sufficient resources to perform its duties without external interference. The case reiterated that judicial fiscal autonomy is part of judicial independence.
      • In The Judiciary v. DBM (G.R. No. 158791, October 19, 2007), the Supreme Court further explained the scope of fiscal autonomy and its impact on ensuring that the judiciary is financially capable of performing its constitutionally mandated functions without dependency on other branches.

  4. Fiscal Autonomy of Other Constitutional Bodies:

    • Aside from the judiciary, the 1987 Constitution also guarantees fiscal autonomy to other bodies such as the Civil Service Commission (CSC), Commission on Audit (COA), and the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The common theme across these bodies is the recognition that financial dependence on the executive or legislative branches could compromise their constitutional duties and independence.

  5. Limitations and Challenges:

    • Budgetary Constraints: While fiscal autonomy protects the judiciary from budgetary reductions, it does not mean that the judiciary is immune to challenges posed by limited national resources. Budgetary requests are still subject to approval by Congress, which may limit the judiciary’s request based on the country’s overall fiscal condition.
    • Executive Control: Delays in the actual release of funds have been an issue in the past, as the executive branch exercises control over the release of funds. Such delays, though unconstitutional, can sometimes affect judicial operations.

  6. Practical Effects of Fiscal Autonomy:

    • The judiciary can control the management and allocation of its funds, including the compensation of its personnel, improvements to infrastructure, and modernization of the judicial system. This autonomy ensures that the judiciary has the resources it needs to maintain an effective and independent system of justice.

III. CONCLUSION

The principles of judicial independence and fiscal autonomy are cornerstones of the rule of law in the Philippines. Judicial independence is necessary for maintaining impartiality and fairness in the judicial system, while fiscal autonomy is essential to protect the judiciary from political and financial manipulation. These twin principles are enshrined in the 1987 Constitution and are upheld by jurisprudence, guaranteeing that the judiciary can fulfill its role as a co-equal branch of government without interference from the executive and legislative branches.

Judicial Review | JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

XI. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

B. Judicial Review

Judicial review is the power of the courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative acts, executive orders, or administrative regulations, and to strike them down if they are found to be in violation of the Constitution. In the Philippines, the power of judicial review is an essential feature of constitutional law, allowing courts, especially the Supreme Court, to safeguard the supremacy of the Constitution. It is derived from the principle of checks and balances within the framework of separation of powers.

1. Constitutional Basis

The power of judicial review in the Philippines is implied in several provisions of the 1987 Constitution:

  • Article VIII, Section 1: Vests judicial power in the Supreme Court and such lower 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 excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government."

This provision expands the traditional scope of judicial review by allowing courts to address not only issues of legality but also whether government actions involve "grave abuse of discretion."

2. Scope of Judicial Review

Judicial review covers both constitutional and legal issues. It allows courts to assess:

  • The constitutionality of laws, treaties, executive orders, presidential decrees, proclamations, rules and regulations.
  • The legality of administrative actions.
  • Compliance with constitutional mandates by the legislative and executive branches.
  • The exercise of "grave abuse of discretion" by any branch or instrumentality of the government.

Judicial review is not limited to laws passed by Congress but extends to:

  • Presidential acts (executive orders, proclamations, administrative orders).
  • Decisions of administrative agencies (subject to appeal via certiorari).
  • Acts of local governments and other political subdivisions.

3. Limitations on the Power of Judicial Review

Although the courts possess broad powers of judicial review, it is subject to certain limitations:

A. Political Question Doctrine

  • Courts refrain from deciding matters that are classified as "political questions" — issues that are fundamentally political in nature and not for judicial determination. These typically involve discretion by the political branches of government, particularly in matters of policy or diplomacy.
  • The scope of this doctrine has been narrowed in the 1987 Constitution by allowing judicial review in cases of "grave abuse of discretion" even in political acts, as provided in Article VIII, Section 1. For example, decisions on martial law or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus may now be reviewed for grave abuse of discretion.

B. Requisites of Judicial Review

Judicial review can only be exercised when specific requisites are present:

  1. Actual Case or Controversy: There must be an actual case or controversy involving rights that are legally demandable and enforceable. Courts cannot issue advisory opinions.
  2. Locus Standi (Legal Standing): The person invoking judicial review must have a direct and personal interest in the case. In some instances, courts relax this requirement in matters of public concern (e.g., taxpayer suits or cases involving environmental rights).
  3. Mootness: Courts do not decide cases that have become moot, unless the issue is capable of repetition yet evading review, or the case involves a matter of public interest that requires resolution.
  4. Ripeness: Courts will not entertain premature cases where the harm being complained of is speculative or hypothetical.

C. Hierarchy of Courts

The principle of hierarchy of courts requires litigants to initially seek redress from the lower courts before resorting to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is a court of last resort and exercises discretionary jurisdiction, particularly in cases of constitutional significance or those affecting the national interest.

D. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Courts generally refrain from intervening in administrative actions unless all available administrative remedies have been exhausted. This doctrine ensures that agencies with specialized expertise are given the first opportunity to address disputes arising under their jurisdiction.

E. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

This doctrine requires courts to defer to the judgment of administrative agencies in matters within the agency's expertise. It allows agencies to resolve issues first, after which judicial review may be sought.

4. Justiciable Controversies (Actual Case or Controversy)

Judicial review cannot be invoked without an actual case or controversy involving opposing legal rights that are ripe for adjudication. This prevents courts from entertaining hypothetical issues or issuing advisory opinions.

  • The controversy must involve legally demandable and enforceable rights. For example, challenges to statutes, presidential proclamations, or administrative orders must involve claims that specific provisions violate constitutional rights.

5. Grave Abuse of Discretion

The 1987 Constitution has expanded judicial review by mandating courts to rule on matters involving "grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction" on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. Grave abuse of discretion refers to arbitrary or despotic exercise of power beyond the bounds of reason.

  • Examples:
    • The Supreme Court invalidating laws that violate constitutional rights, such as those infringing on the right to due process or equal protection.
    • Reviewing acts of the Executive during emergency situations like martial law or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus to ensure they are not arbitrary or despotic.
    • Administrative actions being invalidated when found to be issued with "grave abuse of discretion."

6. Supreme Court’s Expanded Power of Judicial Review (Article VIII, Section 1)

One of the most significant features of the 1987 Constitution is the expanded power of the Supreme Court to review government actions that involve "grave abuse of discretion." This provision is meant to prevent abuse of power and ensure that no branch or agency of the government is beyond judicial scrutiny.

  • Grave Abuse of Discretion has been defined in numerous cases as "whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction." In the landmark case of Angara v. Electoral Commission, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of judicial review in maintaining the balance of power between the branches of government.

This expanded review can be seen in cases like Marcos v. Manglapus, where the Supreme Court reviewed the President’s actions in barring the return of a former president based on national security concerns, ultimately finding no grave abuse of discretion.

7. Judicial Review of Treaties and International Agreements

Under the 1987 Constitution, Article VII, Section 21, no treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate. This constitutional requirement subjects treaties and international agreements to judicial review for compliance with constitutional procedures and protections.

  • Judicial Review of International Law: Courts may review whether an international treaty or agreement violates the Constitution or existing laws. For example, in Bayan Muna v. Romulo, the Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), which involved questions of sovereignty and constitutionality.

8. Judicial Review as a Safeguard of Rights

Judicial review plays a critical role in the protection of constitutional rights. Through its power to interpret the Constitution, the Supreme Court ensures that any governmental action—whether executive, legislative, or administrative—that violates constitutional rights is subject to invalidation.

  • This protective role is seen in cases involving civil liberties, due process, freedom of expression, equal protection, and protection from arbitrary actions of the state.

  • Notably, the Writ of Amparo and the Writ of Habeas Data were judicial innovations introduced by the Supreme Court to protect citizens from extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and violations of privacy rights.

9. Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint

The power of judicial review is accompanied by debates over judicial activism and judicial restraint. Judicial activism refers to a more proactive role by the judiciary in striking down unconstitutional actions and enforcing constitutional rights. Judicial restraint, on the other hand, encourages the courts to defer to the actions of the political branches of government unless there is a clear and unquestionable violation of the Constitution.

  • Landmark Cases: The Philippine Supreme Court has exercised both judicial activism (e.g., nullifying parts of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020) and judicial restraint (e.g., refusing to intervene in issues seen as purely political or discretionary).

10. Key Doctrines in Judicial Review

  • Doctrine of Separation of Powers: Courts ensure that one branch does not encroach on the powers of another.
  • Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all laws and government actions must conform to it.
  • Doctrine of Stare Decisis: Courts should follow precedent, especially on constitutional matters, to maintain consistency and stability in the law.

Conclusion

Judicial review in the Philippines is a vital mechanism for maintaining constitutional supremacy and protecting the rights of citizens. The courts, especially the Supreme Court, play a key role in checking the powers of the legislature, executive, and administrative agencies, ensuring that all government actions conform to the Constitution. With the expanded power under the 1987 Constitution, judicial review ensures that no government act is beyond judicial scrutiny, particularly in cases of grave abuse of discretion.

Concept of Judicial Power | JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW > JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT > A. Concept of Judicial Power

I. Definition of Judicial Power

Judicial power is the authority vested in the judiciary by the Constitution to interpret and apply laws, settle justiciable controversies, and ensure the observance of the rule of law within its jurisdiction. The 1987 Philippine Constitution expressly defines judicial power in Article VIII, Section 1, which provides:

"The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law."

Moreover, Section 1(2) further elaborates that:

"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 excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government."

The dual aspect of judicial power is:

  1. Traditional Adjudicatory Power – Settling actual controversies involving rights that are legally demandable and enforceable.
  2. Expanded Power of Judicial Review – The duty to check and determine whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any governmental agency, including the executive and legislative branches.

II. Components of Judicial Power

1. Traditional Adjudicatory Power

The courts have the authority to:

  • Settle actual disputes by determining rights and liabilities of parties involved.
  • Apply existing laws to cases brought before them.
  • Protect the rights of individuals and groups under the law, ensuring the rule of law prevails in society.

In the exercise of this power, courts must determine whether the issues presented involve justiciable controversies. A controversy is justiciable if it is definite, concrete, and involves legally demandable rights, and not merely abstract or hypothetical.

The courts cannot render advisory opinions or decide political questions (before the expanded scope of judicial review) unless there is an actual case or controversy. This ensures that the courts do not overstep their bounds and interfere with matters that are not within their constitutional mandate.

2. Expanded Power of Judicial Review (Grave Abuse of Discretion)

The 1987 Constitution expanded the scope of judicial power to allow courts to review and annul acts of any branch or instrumentality of the government, including the executive and legislative branches, where there is grave abuse of discretion.

  • Grave Abuse of Discretion means capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The abuse must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law.

  • Political Questions Doctrine – Prior to the 1987 Constitution, courts generally refrained from reviewing actions involving political questions, which are issues entrusted by the Constitution to the discretion of the executive or legislative branches. However, with the expanded power, courts now have the authority to review actions previously deemed political if there is grave abuse of discretion involved.

III. Limits of Judicial Power

Despite the broad definition, judicial power is subject to certain limitations:

  1. Constitutional and Statutory Limits – The judiciary can only act within the bounds provided by the Constitution and law. Courts cannot exercise power beyond what is conferred by law.

  2. Jurisdictional Limits – Courts must act within their specific jurisdiction as defined by law. Any ruling made beyond its jurisdiction would be null and void.

  3. Doctrine of Separation of Powers – While judicial power allows for checks and balances, it must respect the separate and co-equal branches of government. It must not unduly interfere with the executive and legislative branches unless grave abuse of discretion is proven.

  4. Doctrine of Judicial Restraint – Courts typically refrain from deciding matters not ripe for judicial determination or where the parties lack standing. They also avoid intruding into areas exclusively delegated to the other branches unless necessary to prevent grave abuse of discretion.

  5. Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy – Courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have the final say in interpreting the Constitution and determining whether laws and executive actions are constitutional. This is anchored in the principle that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

IV. Judicial Review

Judicial review is the power of the courts to assess the constitutionality of legislative acts, executive orders, and other governmental actions. Judicial review arises when a question is brought before a court regarding the validity of an act by the legislative or executive branches.

Requisites for Judicial Review:

  1. Actual Case or Controversy – There must be an actual, bona fide dispute involving real parties.

  2. Legal Standing (Locus Standi) – The party bringing the suit must have a direct and personal interest in the case, and must stand to suffer injury as a result of the challenged action.

  3. Mootness and Ripeness – The issue must be ripe for adjudication and not moot. A case is considered ripe if it has developed into an actual legal dispute. A case is moot if it ceases to be a live controversy due to intervening events.

  4. Hierarchy of Courts – Judicial review should follow the proper judicial hierarchy, with higher courts acting as courts of last resort.

Doctrine of Judicial Review:

  • The exercise of judicial review assumes a presumption of constitutionality for laws and executive actions. Courts will only nullify a law if it is clearly unconstitutional, and the unconstitutionality must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

The Power of Judicial Review in the Philippines includes the ability to:

  • Declare laws unconstitutional.
  • Invalidate executive actions that exceed the powers granted by law.
  • Protect citizens from government overreach and uphold the Bill of Rights.
  • Ensure that all governmental actions conform to the fundamental law of the land.

V. Importance of Judicial Independence

Judicial independence is the cornerstone of judicial power. The judiciary must be free from influence or interference from the executive or legislative branches to function impartially and uphold the rule of law. The Constitution guarantees this by providing for:

  • Security of tenure for justices and judges, who can only be removed by impeachment.
  • Fiscal autonomy, allowing the judiciary to manage its own budget without interference from other branches.
  • Immunity from suits for acts done in the exercise of their judicial functions.

VI. Conclusion

Judicial power, as vested in the judiciary, plays a crucial role in the balance of governmental powers. Through its power to interpret laws and to review the constitutionality of actions by other branches of government, the judiciary serves as the protector of constitutional rights and the rule of law. The expanded power of judicial review grants the courts a more active role in maintaining constitutional supremacy and preventing abuses of power, particularly through the application of the grave abuse of discretion standard. This role is vital to the preservation of democracy and the protection of individual freedoms under the law in the Philippines.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login