Definition and Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

(Philippine legal overview, updated 23 April 2025)

1. What is the Sandiganbayan? – Its constitutional and statutory identity

The Sandiganbayan is the Philippines’ special anti-graft court, constitutionally mandated to “continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as may be provided by law.” (Art. XI, § 4, 1987 Constitution) citeturn7search6.

Presidential Decree 1486 (11 June 1978) first created the court. citeturn7search5
P.D. 1606 (10 Dec 1978) reorganised it and placed it on the same level as the Court of Appeals, a status retained to this day. citeturn0search1
Republic Acts 7975 (1995), 8249 (1997) and 10660 (2015) successively refined its structure and, critically, its jurisdiction. citeturn3view0turn2view0turn6view0

2. Composition and organisation

After R.A. 10660. The court now sits in seven (7) divisions of three justices each—a Presiding Justice plus 20 Associate Justices (total 21). citeturn9search8turn9search1
A quorum per division is two members; a majority vote decides a case. Sessions are held principally in Quezon City, but divisions regularly hear cases in Cebu (Visayas) and Cagayan de Oro (Mindanao) for accessibility. citeturn3view0

3. Original criminal jurisdiction (as of R.A. 10660, in force 5 May 2015)

The Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over:

Category	Statutory basis	Key coverage
a) Core anti-graft offences	R.A. 3019, R.A. 1379, and Ch. II § 2 Title VII RPC	When any accused is an official Grade 27 or higher or belongs to enumerated “big-fish” positions (regional directors, governors, city mayors, colonels, etc.). citeturn6view0
b) Other felonies “in relation to office”	Same § 4(b)	Any other penal law if committed in relation to office by the same class of officials. citeturn6view0
c) PCGG/Marcos recovery cases	Exec. Orders 1, 2, 14, 14-A (1986)	All civil or criminal actions arising from ill-gotten wealth litigation. citeturn2view0

Monetary threshold introduced by R.A. 10660
Where none of the accused is Grade 27 + and the information (1) alleges no damage/bribery, or (2) alleges damage/bribery ≤ ₱1 million, jurisdiction lies instead with the proper Regional Trial Court (RTC). citeturn6view0

4. Original civil jurisdiction

Civil actions for forfeiture or recovery of ill-gotten wealth under R.A. 1379 or the special E.O. cases above are filed directly in the Sandiganbayan; the civil action is automatically consolidated with the criminal case if one exists (no reservation allowed). citeturn2view0

5. Appellate jurisdiction

The Sandiganbayan exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments of RTCs (and lower courts) in graft-related cases when all accused are below Grade 27/not otherwise covered. citeturn3view0turn6view0

It also issues writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, injunction and habeas corpus in aid of this appellate power. citeturn2view0

6. Interaction with the Ombudsman

Under R.A. 6770 the Office of the Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute all cases cognisable by the Sandiganbayan; the Ombudsman’s Special Prosecutor represents the People before the court. citeturn8search0turn8search1

7. Who exactly falls under Sandiganbayan jurisdiction? – Rules distilled from statute & jurisprudence

Rule	Leading case commentary
Salary-grade rule: officials Grade 27 + are always within, regardless of title.	Serana v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 162059 (30 Jan 2008). citeturn4search0
Enumerated-position rule: governors, mayors, sanggunian members, city/provincial department heads, prosecutors, military colonels, PNP senior superintendents, etc., are included even if below Grade 27.	People v. Go, G.R. 169004 (15 Sept 2010); Inding v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 167304 (25 Aug 2009). citeturn4search3turn4search2
Grade-26-and-below officials generally outside jurisdiction, unless they fit an enumerated position or are charged jointly with higher-ranking co-accused.	People v. Lapid, G.R. 234670-71 (14 Aug 2019). citeturn4search1
P 1 million damage/bribery exception (post-2015) divests Sandiganbayan of cases not meeting the threshold.	People v. Mendoza, G.R. 248701 (06 July 2020); Antonio v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 251177 (15 Sept 2020). citeturn5search3turn5search2

8. Procedure and appeals

Rules applied: Sandiganbayan follows the Rules of Court; it promulgates only internal-allocation rules. citeturn3view0
Appeal route: Decisions are directly appealable to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45). Where the penalty is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or death, review is automatic. citeturn2view0
Speedy trial considerations: The constitutional right to speedy disposition (Art. III §14(2)) is frequently invoked; delays attributable to the prosecution/Ombudsman can result in dismissal (Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, A.M. No. 17-06-02-SC, 2018).

9. Venue and transfer of hearings

While permanently seated in Quezon City, PD 1606 (as amended) authorises divisions to sit anywhere in the Philippines—or even abroad—when “the greater convenience of the accused and witnesses, or other compelling considerations” so require. citeturn2view0

10. Recent reforms and developments (2023-2025)

Backlog-relief measures: The seventh division—fully manned by 2024—has measurably shortened case queues. citeturn9search5
New courthouse: Ground-breaking for a 13-storey “Sandiganbayan Building II” (Oct 2024) signals ongoing institutional expansion. citeturn9search0
Continuing doctrinal clarifications: In Estate of Marcos v. PCGG, G.R. 212330 (2024), the Supreme Court reaffirmed Sandiganbayan’s exclusive competence over ill-gotten-wealth suits, emphasising that any collateral challenges must be filed there first. citeturn0search10

11. Practical significance

Because it centralises prosecutions of senior officials for corruption, the Sandiganbayan is a keystone in the Philippine system of public accountability. The steady tightening of its jurisdiction—from “all public officers” (PD 1486) to the Grade 27 + / “big-fish” focus and the ₱1 million threshold—mirrors policy choices aimed at letting lower courts handle petty graft while keeping the Sandiganbayan free for high-impact cases.

Key take-aways

Definition: A constitutionally recognised special collegiate court, co-equal with the Court of Appeals, dedicated to graft and corruption cases.
Original jurisdiction: Offences under R.A. 3019, R.A. 1379, Title VII RPC and related felonies, when committed by senior or enumerated officials, plus all ill-gotten-wealth suits.
Appellate jurisdiction: Reviews graft cases tried by RTCs against lower-ranking officials.
Monetary filter: Since 2015, cases involving ≤ ₱1 million damage/bribery against non-Grade 27 officials now go to the RTC.
Twenty-one justices sitting in seven divisions ensure nationwide reach and faster disposition.
Ombudsman primacy: No Sandiganbayan case exists without the Ombudsman’s information.

This outline synthesises the full legal framework and the most recent jurisprudence so that practitioners, students, and researchers can accurately determine when, why, and how a case belongs in the Sandiganbayan.