Former Philippine Supreme Court Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban was the first Chief Justice produced by my high school and law alma mater, the Far Eastern University (Manila).
A self-made man, who worked while learning law, Chief Justice Panganiban had served for many years in various NGOs under the umbrella of the Business Sector and the Catholic Church to help promote the rule of law in the Philippines.
I had an opportunity to serve with him a few years ago when I was invited to be one of the resource persons in a forum on Judicial Appointments held at the FEU Graduate School auditorium under the joint auspices of the prominent law and justice NGO Kilosbayan, led by former Senate President and former FEU Law Dean Jovito Salonga, and the FEU Administration.
I found Chief Justice Panganiban to be a jolly, cheerful, warm and unassuming man, who loved his alma mater, who knew how to show his respect and debt of gratitude to his former law mentor, Sen. Salonga, and who knew how to adjust the presentation of his lecture to accommodate the level of knowledge of the participating FEU students.
I wish to reproduce in full below the two recent columns of Chief Justice Panganiban which were published in the prominent Philippine Daily Inquirer re: the inner workings of the Philippine Supreme Court, for the information of the foreign lawyers, law students and legal researchers visiting this blog.
Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.
High School, FEU, Valedictorian, 1971
Bachelor of Laws, FEU, cum laude, 1984.
How the SC decides cases (Part 1)
By Artemio V. Panganiban
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 04:20:00 06/21/2009
WITHOUT asking for comment, the Supreme Court correctly threw out the petitions assailing the validity of House Resolution 1109. However, the Court still gave them special treatment by issuing a signed resolution extensively explaining its action. Normally, to show its disdain for utterly unmeritorious and “cerebrally deficient” petitions, it simply dismisses them via one-sentence resolutions. To explain, let me write a primer on how the Court decides cases in the normal course.
Review court
As a rule, the Supreme Court does not take initial cognizance of controversies. It merely reviews decisions of other tribunals; its work consists mainly of affirming, modifying or reversing decisions or orders of lower courts; and of determining whether a lower court, or an agency of the government (including the president and Congress) acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or committed grave abuse of discretion.
On its own, the Supreme Court does not initiate such review. Its authority must be triggered by the filing of a petition by a proper party. In this sense, the Court (and the entire judiciary) is a “passive branch” of the government. It cannot act on a controversy unless asked to do so.
In trial courts, the proceedings are open to the public. But in the Supreme Court the internal deliberations are confidential; only their net results, written in the form of decisions, resolutions, orders and opinions (concurring, dissenting and separate), are released to the public. Emphasizing the sacredness of collegial deliberations, retired Justice Florenz D. Regalado said, “In trial courts, the rule is transparency; but in the Supreme Court, it is confidentiality.”
Collegial decisions
The justices debate and vote independently of each other but they decide collegially. Thus, all court actions are determined during sessions. Except in emergencies, no justice can act individually to bind the Court. Even simple motions for extension of time are calendared and acted upon by the Court as a collegial body.
The agenda of the Court (whether en banc or in division) usually consists of about 150 to 250 items per session. The Court disposes each of them speedily, but the backbreaking job is done in chambers and at home, when the justices study, read, reflect, pray, and write on the matters assigned to them.
Of course, prior to the session, they also need to study the reports of their fellow justices, so they can express concurrence or dissent to, or at least intelligently discuss, the items in the agenda. Nothing is more embarrassing than to be caught unprepared or to be unable to answer questions on matters being reported on.
Verbal discussions are very limited. Contrary to popular misimpressions, justices do not talk too much. Rather, they write a lot. Arguments, reflections and position papers are exchanged every day. When the verbal discussion of a case exceeds five minutes, the chief justice normally postpones further discussions, with the suggestion that members write their opinions, pro and contra, to be distributed a few days prior to the next calendar.
Oral arguments are usually held in the cavernous and rather intimidating hearing hall of the Court in Padre Faura Street. Oral arguments, which are rare, are usually held only in cases involving difficult and complicated questions.
The Court delineates the issues; and the lawyers for each side, who are expected to come extensively prepared, dwell on these issues within the allotted time, normally 20 minutes each. However, the justices may, and usually do, ask questions on any topic or issue. Hence, the allotted time is usually extended.
During oral arguments, the Court sometimes appoints amici curiae (friends of the court) to assist the justices in resolving difficult questions. An invitation to act as amicus curiae is a rare privilege granted only to lawyers of unquestioned stature, competence and lucidity. After the oral arguments, the lawyers are usually required to file written memoranda.
En banc or in division
The Court regularly sits en banc (all members of the Court) and in division (five members each). To grant a motion or petition and to approve a decision or resolution, the concurrence of a majority of those taking part is sufficient. The distribution of the justices to the three divisions is determined by the chief justice, who usually spreads the senior and the junior justices more or less evenly among the three groups.
Seniority based on the date of appointment is strictly observed in seating arrangements. En banc, the chief justice sits at the head of the table, with the most senior justice on his right and the next most senior on his left. The third most senior sits next to the first, the fourth most senior sits next to the second, and so on down to the fifteenth who sits at the foot of the table on the chief justice’s left. The seniority rule is observed also in the divisions, with the chairman sitting at the head of the table.
The foregoing seating arrangement is followed also during oral arguments, except that instead of sitting around a table, the justices sit on an elevated crescent-shaped rostrum facing the audience.
The most senior member usually chairs each division. Although the chief justice is also a division chairman, his functions as chair are actually performed by the “working chairman,” who is the next most senior in the division. To be continued next week to show the special treatment to Resolution 1109.
With Due Respect
How the SC decides cases (Part 2)
By Artemio V. Panganiban
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 22:57:00 06/27/2009
THIS IS a continuation of last week’s primer on how the Supreme Court decides litigations.
Sessions and titles. During their internal sessions – those held among themselves
only – the justices wear either business suits or barong Filipino. But they don their all-black working robes during oral arguments, whether en banc or in division, and their maroon-stripped ceremonial robes during official functions other than oral arguments.
The Court sits en banc on Tuesdays, and in division on Mondays and Wednesdays. The justices take turns in leading the opening prayer. Sometimes, the justice who is scheduled to report on the first item in the agenda leads the prayer.
The members of the Court are formally addressed as “Your Honor” or “Mr. Justice” or “Madam Justice” or simply “Justice.” The head is addressed as “Mr. Chief Justice,” or fondly – by the members of the Court – as “Chief” or “CJ.” Various formal resolutions of the Court restrict the use of these titles to current and retired members of the Supreme Court (and the three appellate courts).
Trial magistrates are called “judges.” Only officials belonging to the judiciary are allowed to use the titles “Chief justice,” “Justice” or “Judge.” Hence, officials to whom the law grants judicial ranks and privileges, like the solicitor general and the government corporate counsel, are prohibited from using these appellations.
Three rounds. There are “three rounds” in the Supreme Court. The first usually begins upon the filing of a petition, or a motion for extension of time to file a petition, or a notice of appeal.
The acceptance of any appeal or petition is addressed to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court. With few exceptions, like appeals of decisions imposing life imprisonment, it may summarily dismiss motu proprio worthless petitions. In this way, the Court saves its time and resources for more important cases that are ripe for resolution.
Although the Court has the discretion to deny or dismiss a petition during the “First Round,” in general it does so for (1) procedural errors, like violations of the Rules of Court or Supreme Court circulars; or (2) failure of the petition to demonstrate prima facie a “reversible” error or a grave abuse of discretion, or (3) prematurity. Orders dismissing petitions based on these grounds are known as minute resolutions and are normally couched in standard forms.
Second round. Once a petition passes these procedural and substantive tests, the first round ends. The “Second Round” begins when the Court requires the respondents to file their “comment.” After receipt of the comment, the Court may direct the petitioner(s) to file their “reply.” No pleading may be filed at this stage, unless ordered by the Court.
After this exchange, the Court may grant due course to the petition and ask the parties to file their memoranda. Alternatively, it may issue a resolution denying or dismissing the petition, usually unsigned by the justices but certified by the clerk of court (or deputy clerk of court).
Only the justices are present during the sessions. The minutes of the session are prepared by the division chairman or, in case of en banc sessions, by the chief justice. Some lawyers and litigants wrongly believe that the clerk of court or his/her deputies compose the unsigned resolutions. No, the justices themselves prepare them. They are included in the minutes of the sessions, from which they are excerpted and then sent to the parties.
Third round. If the Court believes that, on the basis of the comment and/or reply, the questions raised in the petition deserve a full-length decision, the second round ends and the Court generally issues a resolution, giving due course to the petition and requiring the parties to submit their respective memoranda.
On rare occasions, oral arguments are held after the Court grants due course to the petition. At the end of the oral arguments, the Court usually requires the parties to submit written memoranda to summarize their arguments or to answer questions raised during the hearing.
After the memoranda are received, the Court deliberates on the report of the justice to whom the petition had been earlier raffled. Once signed by the justices, the decision is promulgated by the clerk of court and then made public. Copies are sent to the parties. The parties have 15 days – with no extension allowed – from receipt of the decision or resolution, within which to file a motion for reconsideration. If no such motion is filed within the prescribed period, the decision becomes final.
Undeserved treatment. Had the Court followed normal procedure, it could have “short shrifted” the plainly unmeritorious petitions against House Resolution 1109 by dismissing them at sight through its usual one-sentence minute resolution saying that they were premature, that the petitioners lacked legal standing and that, in any event, they failed to show – at that point – any grave abuse of discretion.
In other words, it could have simply declined to review them. By showing off a full-length ponencia that is normally issued only after the “three rounds” described above are undertaken, the Court accorded what it said “cerebral deficits” did not deserve: its valuable time and attention. Worse, it may have cornered itself to a precedent that can be invoked by similarly worthless petitions in the future.
In damning the petitions garrulously, the Court relished the gallery more than its own time-tested profundity.
(end)
