art. viii notes

8/13/2019 Art. VIII Notes

1/4

ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 5Political Questions-Political questions are "questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in theirsovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative orexecutive branch of the government."-The Constitution does not accept everything that is said in Baker v. Carr.-The judiciary should not hide behind the political questions doctrine.Cases for Political QuestionsDaza v. Singson-Raul Daza of the Liberal Party was replaced by Luis Singson of Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino in theCommission of Appointments due to the reorganization of the latter's political party in the House ofRepresentatives. Petitioner contends his replacement is unconstitutional under Art. VI, Sec. 18.-The issue is justiciable rather than political, and involves the legality and not the wisdom of the actcomplained of.-House of Representatives may change the composition of the COA to reflect at any time the changes thatmay transpire in the political alignments of its membership.Santiago v. Guingona-After the election of Senate President (Marcelo Fernan), the dispute for the position of minority leaderbetween Sen. Francisco Tatad and Sen. Teofisto Guingona arose. Petitioner contends that Tatad, the losingSenate President nominee, should be the minority leader instead of Guingona who was elected by sevenLakas-NUCD-UMDP members. Moreover, such usurpation of power by Guingona was said to beunconstitutional under Art. VI, Sec. 16(1).-There is nothing in the Constitution that states the process of electing a minority leader, hence there is noconstitutional violation.Effect of Declaration of Unconstitutionality-Before an act is declared unconstitutional it is an "operative fact" which can be the source of rights andduties.-While declaration of unconstitutionality made by the SC constitutes a precedent binding on all, a similardecision of an inferior court binds only the parties in the case.Cases for Rule-making PowerBustos v. Lucero-Petitioner contends that Sec. 11 of the Rules of Court infringes on Art. VIII, Sec. 13 of the Constitution as itmakes possible the curtailment of the right of an accused in a preliminary investigation.-Contested provision of the Rules of Court is an adjective or procedural law, not a substantive law. Moreover,preliminary investigation is not an essential part of due process of law, hence the curtailment of the right of

an accused in a preliminary investigation is not repugnant to the Constitution.

In re: Cunanan-Due to the varying difficulties of the bar examination through the years, the Supreme Court decided to admitbar candidates who obtained a certain percentage in the exam depending on the year they took the same.Unsuccessful candidates who obtained an average of a few percentage lower than those admitted agitatedin Congress. The passing general average was lowered by law to 70 percent from 1946.-The disputed law is not a legislation; it is a judgment.-The authority and responsibility over the admission, suspension, disbarment, and reinstatement of attorneysand their supervision remain vested in the SC.-It is the primary and inherent prerogative of the SC to admit those who are qualified to practice law.Javellana v. DILG-Atty. Erwin Javellana was elected City Council of Bago City, Negros Occidental. City Engineer ErnestoDivinagracia filed Adminsitrative Case No. C-10-90 against Javellana for engaging in the practice of law


2/4

while being an incumbent member of the city council without securing authority from the Regional Director ofDLG.-Javellana prays that DLG Circular Nos. 80-38 and 90-81, and Section 90 of the New LGC be declared nulland void for going against Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5) of the Constitution.-DLG circulars and the LGC provision are not contrary to the Constitution. Neither trenches upon the SC'spower and authority to prescribe rules on the practice of law. They simply prescribe rules of conduct forpublic officials.Cases for Review of Death PenaltyPeople v. Mateo-SC assumed direct appellate review of criminal cases in which the penalty is death, reclusion perpetua, orlife imprisonment (Art. VIII, Sec. 5(2(d))).-The Constitution requires mandatory review by the SC, but does not proscribe intermediate review.-The SC now deems it wise and compelling to provide in these cases a review by the CA before the case iselevated to the SC.-SC has the power to amend rules of procedure.Bar Integration-Integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification of the entire lawyer population of the country.This requires membership and financial support.Cases for Bar IntegrationIn re: Petition to Disqualify Atty. De Vera-The petition was filed by Attys. Garcia, Velez, and Ravanera to disqualify De Vera from being electedGovernor of Eastern Mindanao in the 16th IBP Regional Governors' elections. De Vera argues that the SChas no jurisdiction over the controversy because the elections is governed by the IBP By-Laws which areexclusively regulated and administered by the IBP.-The Constitution vests the supervision of the IBP to the SC. Moreover, the IBP By-Laws recognizes the SC'spower of supervision over the IBP.ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 6Supervision of CourtsMaceda v. Vasquez-Napoleon Abiera alleged that Bonifacio Sanz Maceda falsified his Certificate of Service. The former filed apetition against the latter for the offense at the Office of the Ombudsman. Maceda contends that theOmbudsman has no jurisdiction over the case. The jurisdiction is rather vested in the SC which has thepower of control and supervision over lower courts.-Art. VIII, Sec. 6 exclusively vests in the SC the administrative supervision over all lower courts and courtpersonnel. Thus, the Ombudsman should first refer the matter to the SC.People v. Gacott, Jr.-Judge Eustaquio Gacott, Jr. filed a motion for reconsideration alleging that only the full court, and not adivision thereof (Second Division), can administratively punish him.-It was not intended that all administrative disciplinary cases be heard and decided by the court en banc.-Only when the penalty imposed does not exceed suspension of more than one year or a fine of 10,000pesos, or both that the administrative matter may be decided in division.Judge Caoibes, Jr. v. Ombudsman-The case involves two members of judiciary who were entangled in a fight over a piece of furniture.-The Ombudsman cannot determine for itself and by itself whether a criminal complaint against a judge, orcourt employee, involves an administrative matter. It should refer all cases against judges and courtpersonnel to the SC.-Only the SC can oversee the judges' and court personnel's compliance with all laws, and take administrativeaction against them if they commit any violation thereof.


3/4

ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 7In re: JBC v. Judge Quitain-Judge Quitain failed to disclose that he was administratively charged and dismissed from the service forgrave misconduct by the President. His dismissal from the service is a clear proof of his lack of the requiredqualifications.Kilosbayan v. Ermita-Upon retirement of Associate Justice Callejo from the SC, the Executive Secretary declared theappointment of Gregory Ong to fill the vacancy. Petitioners claim that Ong is a Chinese citizen, hence shouldbe disqualified from assuming the position of Associate Justice.-Although Ong was appointed from among the list of nominees screened by the JBC, he is nonetheless anaturalized Filipino based on his birth certificate.ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 8In re: Inquiry into the 1989 Elections of the IBP-The provision providing for one member of the JBC to be from the IBP attracted so many lawyers to theposition of IBP president to the point of excessive politization. The elections was later nullified by the SC. ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 9 AND 10Salary of Justices and JudgesNitafan v. Commission of Internal Revenue-Petitioners seek to prohibit the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Financial officer of the SC frommaking any deduction of withholding taxes from their salaries. According to the petitioners any tax withheldfrom their salaries constitutes a decrease which is contrary to Art. VIII, Sec. 10.-The Constitutional Commission deleted the express grant of exemption from taxes. The salaries of Justicesand Judges are properly subject to the general income tax law. This is in accordance with the principle ofuniformity of taxation and the principle of equal protection of the law.ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 11Security of TenureVargas v. Rilloraza-Section 14 of the People's Court Act sates that any Justice who held any position under the PhilippineExecutive Commission or the Philippine Republic may not vote in any case falling under Section 13. It alsostates that in the instance when the SC members fall short of members to constitute a quorum, the Presidentmay designate Judges of First Instance, Judges-at-Large of First Instance, or Cadastral Judges as Justicesof SC.-The provision is repugnant to the constitution because it infringes on the security of tenure of SC Justicesand place constitutionally unqualified lower court judges in their stead. It is violative of the organic law. -A mere designation does not satisfy the constitutional requirement of appointment.

De La Llana v. Alba-Petitioners allege that BP Blg. 129 entitled "An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary, Appropriating Funds Thereforand for Other Purposes" ignores and disregards the security of tenure provision of the Constitution becausethe said act abolishes certain offices.-In accordance with the need for major reform in the judicial system to make the disposal of cases moreefficient, reallocate jurisdiction, and revise procedures.-The abolition of an office within the competence of a legitimate body if done in good faith suffers from noinfirmity. It is a well-known rule that valid abolition of offices is neither removal nor separation of theincumbents.


4/4

ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 12In re: Judge Manzano-Judge Manzano was designated member of the Ilocos Norte Provincial Committee on Justice. The Courtfinds such designation contrary to Art. VIII, Sec. 12 because the committee performs administrativefunctions.ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 13Certification-The lack of certification would only serve as evidence of failure to observe certification requirements andmay be basis for holding the official responsible for the omission. The absence of certification would notinvalidate the decision.

art. viii notes

Documents