I wish to summarize the salient parts of the 2007 annual report of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, for legal research purposes of the visitors of this blog.
The Supreme Court performs four traditional roles in our system of constitutional government.
First, and most important, it decides actual cases and controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. In so doing, the Court upholds the rule of law, where disputes are settled according to rights and rule and not power and influence.
Second, it checks abuses of discretion of the other great departments of government. This is the power of judicial review, which is the duty of the courts to strike down on constitutional grounds both legislation and executive action. Also, in reviewing actions of the legislative and the executive, the Supreme Court performs not only a checking function but also a legitimating one.
Lastly, the Supreme Court is also a great and highly effective educational institution. Justices, to borrow Dean Rostrow’s phrase, “are inevitable teachers in a vital national seminar.” In explaining the bases in law and in fact of its decisions, the Court points out the principles on which our government stand and the means by which they are given life in our legal system.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution has enlarged the role of the Supreme Court as protector and enforcer of human rights. This enlarged role finds expression in the Court’s expanded rulemaking power.
The most notable accomplishment of the Philippine Supreme Court for the year 2007 was the issuance of the rule on the writ of amparo and the rule on the writ of habeas data. The writ of amparo complements the writ of habeas data in the protection and enforcement of the rights to life, liberty, security, and privacy.
The current Puno Court is composed of Chief Justice Puno, Senior Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez (retired on February 28, 2008), Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Justice Ma. Alicia Austria- Martinez, Justice Renato C. Corona, Justice Conchita Carpio-Martinez, Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr.( retired on April 28,2007), Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna, Justice Dante O. Tinga, Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Justice Cancio C. Garcia (retired on October20,2007), Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura (appointed on January 31,2007), Justice Ruben T. Reyes (appointed on August 2,2007), and Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (appointed on December 3,2007).
From the beginning, Chief Justice Puno moved with what The Washington Post (October1,2007, A16) described as “lightning speed to set up a more independent Judiciary charged with enforcing a new code of legal responsibility.”
With the support of his fellow Justices in the Supreme Court, no less than a Justice of the second-highest court of the land, the Court of Appeals, was dismissed for gross ignorance of the law, the Court’s own security chief suspended for simple neglect of duty, while widespread reports of judicial scams such as the selling of temporary and permanent protection orders and the irregular solemnization and dissolution of marriages caused the preventive suspension of the judges concerned pending investigation.
All in all for 2007, a total of 80 trial court judges, 148 lower court personnel, and 21 Supreme Court personnel have been subjected to disciplinary action.
The Court also banned starting April 1 the spouses of incumbent Justices from working as coterminous employees in the Judiciary “to enforce the letter and the spirit of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary calling for an ethical judiciary that is above suspension…” (AM No.07-3-02-CA, In re: Rule Banning the employment of Spouses of Justices in the SC, CA, Sandiganbayan, and CTA AS Coterminous employees, March 6, 2007)
With regard to erring lawyers, the Court has also approved the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
A total of 131 lawyers were administratively penalized last year.
In 2007 the Supreme Court held a national summit on extrajudicial killings and en force disappearances. One fruit of the summit was the passage of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, the most powerful weapon yet in the judicial arsenal to protect the constitutional rights to life, liberty, and security of our people.(AM No.7-9-12-SC).
Chief Justice Reynato Puno is the 22nd Chief Justice of the Philippines. He is also the concurrent chair of the SC First Division and ex officio chair of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) and the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET). His appointment as chief magistrate by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on December 7, 2006 was a moment that many had anticipated from the time he was sworn in as then the youngest SC Justice at 53 on June 28,1993
Prior to his appointment to the High Court, he served, among others, as Associate Justice of the Intermediate Appellate Court and the Court of Appeals (CA), Deputy Minister of Justice, Assistant Solicitor General, and City Judge of Quezon City. He holds the distinction of being the youngest appointee to the CA at the age of 40.
Chief justice Puno obtained his Bachelor of Science in Jurisprudence and Bachelor of Laws degrees from the University of the Philippines (UP) in 1962. He served as editor-in-chief of The Philippine Collegian. He pursued his post-graduate studies in the United States on full scholarship. He obtained his Master Comparative Laws at the Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, with high distinction and as valedictorian of his class, his Master of Laws at eh University of California, Berkley, California and finished all the academic requirements of the degree of Doctor of Juridical Science at the University of Illinois, Champaign, Urbana, Illinois. In 2005, he became the First Filipino recipient of the Distinguished Global alumnus Award given by the Dedman School of Law, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas. He has been conferred honorary doctorate degrees by eight of our universities and the Hannam University, South Korea.
Among other honors, he was chosen as one of the Ten Outstanding Young Men in the Philippines in 1977, Araw ng Maynila Awardee as Outstanding Jurist in 1987, and Outstanding Alumnus, UP College of Law in 1997, and Ulirang Ama Awardee in 2005. This 2008, in UP’s centennial year, he bested other distinguished alumni of the state University when he was conferred the University of the Philippines Alumni Association (UPAA) Most Distinguished Alumnus. He was recognized for his achievements in the field of law and for his leadership in projects “which contribute to the welfare of Filipinos and to the larger society.”
Barring partisan politicking at the Office of the President, I anticipate that the next Chief Justice in 2010 will be Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, considering that many of his seniors in the Court will retire next year (2009) and he is only 58 years old now. (When I was a college councilor of UP Manila in 1971-73, he was the president of the UP Student Council. When I was a section editor of the UP Philippine Collegian in 1974-35, he was the managing editor thereof).
Born in Davao City, Philippines, Justice Carpio was sworn in as member of the Supreme Court on October 26, 2001. Justice Carpio obtained his law degree from the College of Law of the University of the Philippines (UP) where he graduated valedictorian and cum laude in 1975. He placed sixth in the 1975 Bar Examinations. He earned his undergraduate degree in Economics from Ateneo de Manila University in 1970.
In his student days, Justice Carpio was chairman of the Editorial Board of the Philippine Law Journal of the UP College of Law. He was Editor-in-Chief of the Guidon, the school paper of Ateneo de Manila University. He also served as Managing Editor of the Philippine Collegian, the school paper of the University of the Philippines. Fresh out of law school, Justice Carpio went into private practice until 1992. He was a Professorial Lecturer of the UP College of Law from 1983 until 1992 when he was appointed Chief Presidential Legal Counsel, Office of the President of the Philippines. In 1997, he was Executive Director of the ASEAN Business Law program of the UP College of Law.
In 2007 the budges of the Court was 9, 119, 375 Billion Pesos. In 2008, it was 9, 9996, 109 Billion Pesos. For 2009, its proposed budges is 17, 732, 209 Billion Pesos. It amounts to one percent (1%) of the budget of the national government of the Republic of the Philippines.
In 2007, the first one trillion-plus peso budget in the history of the Philippine government was passed. Php1.126 trillion was allocated for government spending for the year 2007, of which Php 9.355 billion was allotted to the Philippine Judiciary. This amount is 0.83% of the total national budget. While the figure represents a Php 1.83 billion increase over the Judiciary’s 2006 budget, its percentage of the national budget has essentially remained constant since 2005.
A total of 29,637 people, including judges and non-judicial staff, are employed by the Supreme Court and the lower courts compromising of the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs), Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs), Shari’a Circuit Courts (SCC), Regional Trial Courts (RTCs), and Shari’a District Courts (SDCs).
Personal Services accounted for 79.6% of the SC budget, with a total allotment of Php7.45 billion; Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses, Php 1.37 billion; Capital Outlay, Php 534.4 million
At the of 2006, the vacancy rate of the positions for judges and justices was at 25.2%, with 569 vacancies among the 2,258 positions available. In 2007, the JBC focused on programs to reduce not only the vacancy rate, but improve the quality of the nominations.
At the end of 2006, our lower courts had a total of 714,782 pending cases. By December 31,2007, that number stood at 675,368, a decrease of 39,414 pending cases. The decrease is significant considering that 324,521 new cases were filed in 2007.
Despite the limitations brought about by the Judiciary’s limited physical, financial, and human resources, in 2007 it disposed of 416,979 cases as follows: 273,299 cases were decided or resolved; 119,790 were archived; and 23,890 were transferred to other courts.
In 2007, the High Tribunal disposed of more than half of its cases ----8,303 cases, a case disposal rate of 51.2%.
The judicial reform partners (funders) of the Supreme Court in 2007 were the Asian Development Bank (ADB), Australian Agency for International Development (Aus AID), Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), European Commission (EC), United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) through the Asia Foundation (TAF), American Bar Association – Rule of Law Initiative (ABA- ROLI), and the Rule of law Initiative and Effectiveness (ROLE), and the World Bank (WB).
New partnerships were likewise established with the Belgian Development Cooperation (BDC), Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Hanna Seidel Foundation (HSF), Korea International Cooperation (SDC), and the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA).
The first mobile court (“Justice on Wheels”) has been operational since December 20, 2004. The second mobile court was deployed to Tagbilaran City, Bohol in a turnover ceremony on October 13,2006. The third mobile court was deployed in the province of Rizal and Bulacan for court – annexed mediation in September and December 2007, the mobile courts posted an average mediation success rate of 97%.
The year 2007 posted many gains for the Committee on Justice on Wheels (JOW Committee). From January to June, the mobile courts hears 83 cases in the Regional Trial Courts of Valenzuela, Pasig, and Muntinlupa and 26 cases in the Bohol Trial Courts.
In August 2007, the Chief Justice approved the Mobile Court – Annexed Mediation (MCAM) program which the JOW Committee implemented together with the Philippine Judicial Academy. Under MCAM, mobile court buses were stationed at Bulacan and Rizal to undertake court – annexed mediation as these provinces lack Philippine Mediation Centers.
By the end of 2007, the mobile courts posted an average mediation success rate of 97%, with 199 out of 201 cases for mediation successfully mediated in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, while 258 out of 280 mediated cases met similar success in Taytay and Antipolo, Rizal.
In 2007, the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) conducted public interviews at the Supreme Court for 14 applicants to the Supreme Court, 79 applicants to the Court of Appeals, and eight applicants to the Ombudsman. Likewise, it held panel interviews of 72 applicants to the lower courts. While interviews are generally conducted in Manila, some interviews and psychiatric evaluations of applicants were also held in the provinces, particularly in Cebu City and Davao City. All in all, the JBC has processed a total of 2,225 applications, which do not include applications turned down during first preliminary evaluations.
As of December 31,2007, the JBC has succeeded in bringing down to 452 the total number of vacancies or 19.76 percent of the 2,287 total number of judicial positions.
The creation of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), which is under the administrative supervision of the Supreme Court, was an innovation in the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Its principal mandate is to recommend to the President at least three nominees for every vacant judicial position as well as vacant positions of Ombudsman and Deputy Ombudsman.
Under the leadership of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, the Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court drafted the following Rules which were subsequently approved by the Supreme Court En Banc:
1. Re: Revised Upgrading Schedule of the Legal Fees in the Supreme Court and the Lower Courts under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, which was formulated by the Ad Hoc Committee on Legal Fees and upon SC approval was pilot test in the National Capital Region and in the cities of Cebu, Mandaue, and Lapu-Lapu;
2. Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials;
3. Prescribing Guidelines on the Conduct of Election of Judges’ Associations;
4. Resolution Adopting the Guidelines in the Implementation of Section 1, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended;
5. Rule on Children Charged under Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002;
6. Rule on the Writ of Amparo as amended; 7. Rule on DNA Evidence; and
8. Amendments to Rules 41,45,58, and 65 of the Rules of Court.
To address threats to the security of justices and judges, the Committee on Security drafted the following memorandum orders and circulars subsequently approved for implementation by the Chief Justice:
1. Administrative Circular No.29-2007, the Creation of Provincial Committees on Security and Providing for the Composition Thereof, establishing Committees of Security in each of the judicial regions nationwide;
2. Memorandum Circular No. 10-2007, providing An Interim Security Procedure to Improve the Security for Justices and Judges, directing justices and judges to contact the Task Force Judiciary Protection under Deputy Court Administrator Reuben P. Dela Cruz upon receipt of threats to their security; and Memorandum Order No. 42-2007, Providing An Interim Security Protocol for the First-and Second- Level Courts, crafting a list of security measures designed to prevent and/or minimize the threat of attack against judges and employees of the lower courts.
By the end of 2007, the Committee on Security has neared the completion of a security Manual for the Judiciary with the help of the National Bureau of Investigation and the Rule of Law Effectiveness Project of the United States Agency for International Development.
The Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ) is a special allowance equivalent to the 100 percent individual basic monthly salaries under the Salary Standardization Law, granted to justices, judges and other Judiciary officials holding similar rank. Created in 2003 by RA 9227, An Act Granting a Special Allowance for Justices, Judges, and those Holding Ranks Equivalent to Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court, the SAJ was implemented over the span of four years, spreading uniformly the special allowance in amounts equivalent to 25 percent of the basic salaries covered for each installment.
As provided by RA 9227, the surplus from the collections in excess of the amount needed to fund the special allowances granted to justices, judges, and all other positions in the Judiciary with the equivalent rank of justices of the Court of Appeals and judges of the Regional Trial Court may be used by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to grant additional allowances exclusively to other court personnel not covered by the benefits granted under the said law.
Funding for the SAJ is derived from the legal fees originally prescribed, imposed, and collected under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court prior to the promulgation of the amendments under PD 1949, Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) Decree, and increase in 1989 current fees and new fees which may be imposed by the Supreme Court after effectivity of RA 9227 on November 11,2003.
The JDF was established in 1984 by PD 1949 for the benefit of the members and personnel of the Judiciary, to help ensure and guarantee the independence of the Judiciary as mandated by the Constitution and public policy and required by the impartial administration of justice. Derived from the increase in legal fees, and from other sources, such as Bar examinations fees, interest on deposit of its income, confiscated bail bonds, income from publications of the Supreme Court Printing Press, and rentals of facilities in the Hall of Justice, the JDF is used to augment the allowances of members and personnel of the Judiciary and to finance the acquisition, maintenance, and repair of office equipment and facilities. PD 1949 provides that at least 80 percent of the JDF shall be used for office equipment and facilities.
The 80 percent of the JDF is given monthly to all qualified employees in proportion to their basic monthly salaries. Employees with a basic monthly salary of less than Php 7,000 are given the biggest share. The JDF allocated for employees of the same salary grade is the same across all courts. Court employees who have rendered at least six months of service in the Judiciary are entitled to the full amount of the allowance, while court personnel who have rendered less than six months of service as of the cut-off date are entitled to the pro-rated amounts of the JDF.
Personal Economic Relief Assistance (PERA) and Additional Compensation Upon assumption of duty, each employee receives these amounts at Php 500 each, or a total of Php 1,000 per month.
The Philippine Judicial System:
Occupying the first level of the hierarchy are the first-level courts comprised of the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), which are created established in Metropolitan Manila; the Municipal Trial Courts (MTCCs), in every city which does not form part of Metropolitan Manila; the Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs) established in each of the other cities or municipalities; and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs), created in each circuit comprising such cities and/ or municipalities as grouped by law.
At the same level are the Shari’a Circuit Courts (SCC). Shari’a Courts have been established in Islamic regions and provinces to interpret and apply the Code of Muslim Personal Laws (PD1083). Their decisions are appealable to the Shari’a Appellate Court, which, however, is yet to be organized.
The second tier consist of the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) established in each of the 13 regions in the Philippines. Each RTC may be single-sala or composed of several branches. RTCs act as trial courts and may receive evidence from the parties of the case. They also exercise appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the MeTCs, MTCCs in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Also at the same level are the Shari’a District Courts (SDC). Their decisions are appealable to the Shari’a Appellate Court.
Since the Shari’a Appellate Court has not yet been organized, decisions of SDCs may be brought to the Supreme Court through a special civil action of certiorari if the issue is one jurisdiction or through petition for review on certiorari as a mode of appeal under Rule 45. (GR No.159210, Macaraig v. Balindog, September 20,2006)
At the third level is the Court of Appeals (CA), which exercise its powers, functions, and duties through 23 Divisions of three members each. The CA's 18th, 19th, and 20th Divisions comprise the CA Visayas, located in Cebu City; while the 21st, 22nd, and 23rd Divisions make up CA Mindanao, situated in Cagayan de Oro City. The CA is assigned to review cases elevated to it from the RTCs as well as quasi-judicial agencies such as the Civil Service Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, National Labor Relations Commission, and the Land Registration Authority.
The CA also reviews cases where sentence is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, as well as decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases. The CA is a collegiate court and may sit en banc only for the purpose of exercising administrative, ceremonial, or other non-adjudicatory functions. Being essentially an appellate court, it generally resolves cases only on the basis of records, but in certain instances, it may also try cases, conduct hearings, and receive evidence.
The Philippine Judicial System also includes two special courts: the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals.
The Sandiganbayan is anti-graft court that tries public officers with a salary grade of 27 and above including their co-accused private persons –charged with criminal cases involving graft and corrupt practices as well corresponding civil cases for the recovery of civil liability. The Sandiganbayan is composed of a Presiding Justice and 14 Associate Justices who sit in five divisions of three Justices each. Like CA, its decisions are directly appealable to the Supreme Court.
Under RA 9503, the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) is composed of a presiding Justice and eight Associate Justices, and may sit en banc or in three divisions of three justices each. Republic Act 9282, which took effect on March 30, 2004, has elevated the status of the CTA to that of the CA. It has exclusive jurisdiction to review on appeal decisions in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees, or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs Code, It also exercises original jurisdictions over all criminal offenses arising from violations of the Tax or Tariff Codes and other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs.
At the apex of the judicial hierarchy is the Supreme Court. It is composed of a Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices who sit En Banc or in three divisions of five members each. It has the power to settle actual controversies involving rights are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentally of the government.
The Supreme Court is considered “the court of last resort” since no more appeals can be made from a judgment or decisions on the merits rendered by this court. A decision of a Supreme Court division is considered a decision of the entire Court. Decisions of the Supreme Court are considered as part of the law of the land.
By:
Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.
lcmlaw@gmail.com
