Function; Continuing Constitutional Convention (2000)
One Senator remarked that the Supreme Court is a continuing Constitutional Convention. Do you agree?
Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I do not agree that the Supreme Court is a continuing Constitutional Convention. The criticism is based on the assumption that in exercising its power of judicial review the Supreme Court Is not merely interpreting the Constitution but is trying to remake the Government on the basis of the personal predilections of the Members of the Supreme Court, this is a power that properly belongs to the people and their elected representatives. The Supreme Court cannot decide cases merely on the basis of the letter of the Constitution. It has to interpret the Constitution to give effect to the intent of its framers and of the people adopting it. In Interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court has to adopt it to the ever-changing circumstances of society. When the Supreme Court strikes down an act of the Legislative or the Executive Department, it is merely discharging its duty under the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
To a certain extent, the Supreme Court is a continuing Constitutional Convention. When a case is brought in court involving a constitutional issue. It becomes necessary to interpret the Constitution, Since the Supreme Court is supreme within its own sphere, its interpretation of the Constitution will form part of the law of the land.
Judicial Independence; Safeguard (2000)
No I. Name at least three constitutional safeguards to maintain judicial independence. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The following are the constitutional safeguards to maintain judicial independence:
1) The Supreme Court is a constitutional body and cannot be abolished by mere legislation.
2) The members of the Supreme Court cannot be removed except by impeachment.
3) The Supreme Court cannot be deprived of its minimum jurisdiction prescribed in Section 5, Article X of the Constitution.
4) The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court cannot be increased by law without its advice and concurrence.
5) Appointees to the Judiciary are nominated by the Judicial and Bar Council and are not subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
6) The Supreme Court has administrative supervision over all lower courts and their personnel.
7) The Supreme Court has exclusive 8) power to discipline Judges of lower courts.
32 of 96 9) The Members of the Judiciary have security of
tenure, which cannot be undermined by a law reorganizing the Judiciary.
10) Members of the Judiciary cannot be designated to any agency performing quasi-Judicial or administrative functions.
11) The salaries of Members of the Judiciary cannot be decreased during their continuance in office.
12) The Judiciary has fiscal autonomy.
13) The Supreme Court has exclusive power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure.
14) Only the Supreme Court can temporarily assign judges to other stations.
15) It is the Supreme Court who appoints all officials and employees of the Judiciary. (Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 1995 ed. (pp. 229-31.)
Judicial Review; Legal Standing (2010)
The Poverty Alleviation and Assistance Act was passed to enhance the capacity of the most marginalized families nationwide. A financial assistance scheme called
―conditional cash transfers‖ was initially funded 500 million pesos by Congress. One of the provisions of the law gave the joint-congressional oversight committee authority to screen the list of beneficiary families initially determined by the Secretary of Department of Social Welfare and Development pursuant to the Department implementing rules. MangPandoy, a resident of smokey Mountain in Tondo, questioned the authority of the Committee.
(a) Does Mang Pandoy have legal standing to question the law?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
On the assumption that Mang Pandoy is a beneficiary of the financial legal assistance, he has legal standing to question the law. He may be prejudiced by the improper screening of the beneficiary families. (Province of Batangas vs. Romulo, 492 SCRA 736 [2004]). Besides, since the implementation of the law will require the expenditure of public funds, as a tax payer Mang Pandoy has legal standing to question the law. (Cruz vs.
Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, 347 SCRA 128).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes. Mang Pandoy has legal standing to question the law as a taxpayer and a citizen. As a taxpayer he has to show that there will be an illegal disbursement of public funds. As a citizen he must show that the issue involved is of transcendental importance.
Judicial Review; Issues of Transcendental Importance (2014)
In keeping with the modern age of instant and incessant information and transformation, Congress passed Cybercrime Prevention Act to regulate access to and use of the amenities of the cyberspace. While ostensibly the law is intended to protect the interests of society, some of its provisions were also seen as impermissibly invading and impairing widely cherished liberties of the people particularly the freedom of expression. Before the law
could even be implemented, petitions were filed in the Supreme Court questioning said provisions by people who felt threatened, for themselves as well as for the benefit of others who may be similarly affected but not minded enough to challenge the law. The Solicitor General countered that there is no basis for the exercise of the power of judicial review since there has yet been no violation of the law, and therefore, there is no actual case or controversy to speak of, aside from the fact that the petitioners have no locus standi since they do not claim to be in imminent danger of being prosecuted under the law. Can the Court proceed to decide the case even if the law has not yet become effective? (4%) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Supreme Court can proceed to decide the case even if the law has not yet become effective. Since the petitions filed sought to nullify the Cybercrime Prevention Act, because it violated several provisions of the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court became duty-bound to settle the dispute (Tañada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18 [1997]).
Since it is alleged that the Cybercrime Prevention Act violates various provisions of the Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right against unreasonable searches and seizure, the issues raised are of paramount public interest, of transcendental importance and with far-reaching constitutional implications, that justify dispensation with locus standiand exercise of the power of judicial review by the Supreme Court (Chavez v. Gonzales, 545 SCRA 441 [2008]). Jurisprudence provides that locus standiis not required when the action was filed to prevent a chilling effect on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and overbreadth.
Judicial Power; Trial by Jury (2008)
Congress enacted law establishing the right to trial by jury of an accused charged with a felony or offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
The law provides for the qualifications of prospective jury members, the guidelines to be observed by the Judge and the lawyers in jury selection including the grounds for challenging the selection of jury members, and the methodology for jury deliberations. Is the law constitutional? Explain fully. (7%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The law is unconstitutional because the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts is vested only in the Supreme Court.
Congress cannot encroach to the prerogatives of the Judiciary particularly those expressly given by the Constitution. The interference of Congress of such power would be struck down because it violates the separation of powers.
Judicial Power; Declaration of Unconstitutionality Cannot Be Reversed by Enactment of Law (2014) In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., 582 SCRA 254 (2009), the Supreme Court declared as violative of the Equal Protection Clause the 5th paragraph of §10 R.A. No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos
33 of 96 Act of 1995) for discriminating against illegally dismissed
OFWs who still had mo re than a year to their contract compared to those who only had less than a year remaining. The next year, Congress enacted R.A. No 10222, an amendment to the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act, which practically reinstated the provision struck down in Serrano.
Seamacho, an overseas seafarer who still had two years remaining on his contract when he was illegally terminated, and who would only be entitled to a maximum of six-month’s pay under the reinstated provision, engages you as his counsel. How are you to argue that the new law is invalid insofar as it brings back to the statute books a provision that has already been struck down by the Court? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will argue that since Section 10 of Republic Act No.
8042 has already been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, its nullity cannot be cured by reincorporation or reenactment of the same or a similar law or provision. Once a law has been declared unconstitutional, it remains unconstitutional unless circumstances have so changed as to warrant a reverse conclusion (Sameer Overseas Placement Agency v.
Cabiles, G.R. No. 170139, August 5, 2014).
Judicial Functions; National Labor Relations Commission (2013)
In her interview before the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), Commissioner Annie Amorsolo of the National Labor Relations Commission claims that she should be given credit for judicial service because as NLRC Commissioner, she has the rank of a Justice of the Court of Appeals; she adjudicates cases that are appealable to the Court of Appeals; she is assigned car plate No. 10;
and she is, by law, entitled to the rank, benefits and privileges of a Court of Appeals Justice.
If you are a member of the JBC, would you give credit to this explanation? (6%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, I will not give credence to the explanation of Commissioner Annie Amorsolo. Her ranking merely means that she has the same salary and benefits as a Justice of the Court of Appeals. However, she is not actually a Justice of the Court of Appeals. The National Labor Relations is not a court. She does not perform judicial functions (Noblejas v. Teehankee, 23 SCRA 405).
Supreme Court En Banc; Promulgation of Decision (2014)
The Court had adopted the practice of announcing its decision in important, controversial or interesting cases the moment the votes had been taken among the justices, even as the final printed decision and separate opinions are not yet available to the public. In a greatly anticipated decision in a case of wide-ranging ramifications, the voting was close – 8 for the majority, while 7 were for the other side. After the Court had thus voted, it issued a press release announcing the result, with the advice that the printed copy of the decision,
together with the separate opinions, were to be issued subsequently. The following day, however, one of the members of the Court died. The Court then announced that it would deliberate anew on the case since apparently the one who died belonged to the majority.
Citizens for Transparency, a group of civic-spirited professionals and ordinary citizens dedicated to transparency and accountability in the government, questioned the act of the Court. The petitioners claimed the decision had already been validly adopted and promulgated. Therefore, it could no longer be recalled by the Court. At the same time, the group also asked the Court to disclose to the public the original decision and the separate opinions of the magistrates, together with what they had deliberated on just before they came up with the press release about the 8-7 decision. (6%) (A) Was the announced 8-7 decision already validly promulgated and thus not subject to recall?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The decision cannot be deemed to have been promulgated simply because of the announcement of the voting in a press release, because the decision has not yet been issued and filed with the Clerk of Court. Until the decision is filed with the Clerk of Court, the Justices still have control over the decision and they can still change their votes (Limkaichong v. Commission on Elections, 594 SCRA 434 [2009]).
(B) If the decision was not yet finalized at the time when the justice died, could it still be promulgated?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(B) The decision can no longer be promulgated if the Justice who belonged to the majority died, for lack of a majority vote. The vote he cast is no longer valid, as he was no longer an incumbent member of the Supreme Court (Lao v. To-Chip, 158 SCRA 243 [1988]).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER FOR:
(B) The decision can be promulgated even if the Supreme Court en banc is equally divided, if after the case was again deliberated upon, no majority decision was reached. If the case is an original action, it should be dismissed. If it is an appealed case, the decision appealed from should be affirmed if it is a civil case. If it is a criminal case, the accused should be acquitted ( Section 7, Rule 56 of the Rules of Court; Section 3, Rule 125, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure).
(C) If the decision was still being finalized, should the Court release to the public the majority decision and the separate opinions as originally announced, together with their deliberations on the issues?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(C) The Supreme Court should not release to the public the majority opinion and the separate opinions, as well as its deliberations. They are part of its confidential internal deliberations (Limkaichong v. Commission on Elections, 594 SCRA 434 [2009]).
Political Question: Separation of Powers (2004) (b) SDO was elected Congressman. Before the end of his first year in office, he inflicted physical injuries on a colleague, ET, in the course of a heated debate. Charges
34 of 96 were filed in court against him as well as in the House
Ethics Committee. Later, the House of Representatives, dividing along party lines, voted to expel him. Claiming that his expulsion was railroaded and tainted by bribery, he filed a petition seeking a declaration by the Supreme Court that the House gravely abused its discretion and violated the Constitution. He prayed that his expulsion be annulled and that he should be restored by the Speaker to his position as Congressman. Is SDO's petition before the Supreme Court justiciable? Cite pertinent issues for consideration. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
While under Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution the Supreme Court may inquire whether or not the decision to expel SDO is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the petition should be dismissed. In Alejandrino v.
Quezon (46 Phil. 83 [1924]), the Supreme Court held that it could not compel the Senate to reinstate a Senator who assaulted another Senator and was suspended for disorderly behavior, because it could not compel a separate and co-equal department to take any particular action. In Osmeña v. Pendatun (109 Phil. 863 [1960]), it was held that the Supreme Court could not interfere with the suspension of a Congressman for disorderly behavior, because the House of Representatives is the judge of what constitutes disorderly behavior. The assault of a fellow Senator constitutes disorderly behavior.
Political Question; To Settle Actual Controversies (2004)
(a) The 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions commonly provide that "Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law." What is the effect of the addition in the 1987 Constitution of the following provision: "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 grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government"?
Discuss briefly, citing at least one illustrative case. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The effect of the second paragraph of Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution is to limit resort to the political question doctrine and to broaden the scope of judicial inquiry into areas which the Judiciary, under the previous Constitutions, would have left to the political departments to decide. If a political question is involved, the Judiciary can determine whether or not the official whose action is being questioned acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction (Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668 [1989]); (Daza v.
Singson, 180 SCRA 496 [1989]). Thus, although the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to decide election contests involving members of the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court nullified the removal of one of its members for voting in favor of the protestant, who belonged to a different party. (Bondoc v. Pineda, 201 SCRA 792 [1991]).
Operative Fact Doctrine (2010) Define/Explain.
(a) Doctrine of operative facts SUGGESTED ANSWER:
DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACTS –The general rule is that an unconstitutional law is void. It produces no rights, imposes no duties and affords no protection.
However, the doctrine of operative fact is an exception to the general rule and it only applies as a matter of equity and fair play.
Under the doctrine of operative fact, the unconstitutional law remains unconstitutional, but the effects of the unconstitutional law, prior to its judicial declaration of nullity, may be left undisturbed as a matter of equity and fair play.
It can never be invoked to validate as constitutional an unconstitutional act.
Supervision; Courts & its Personnel (2005)
(2) Pedro Masipag filed with the Ombudsman a complaint against RTC Judge Jose Palacpac with violation of Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment in Criminal Case No. 617. Judge Palacpac filed a motion with the Ombudsman to refer the complaint to the Supreme Court to determine whether an administrative aspect was involved in the said case. The Ombudsman denied the motion on the ground that no administrative case against Judge Palacpac relative to the decision in Criminal Case No. 617 was filed and pending in his office. State with reasons whether the Ombudsman's ruling is correct.
(4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Ombudsman's ruling is not correct. Under Section 6, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is the Supreme Court which is vested with exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel. Prescinding from this premise, the Ombudsman cannot determine for itself and by itself whether a criminal complaint against a judge, or court employee, involves an administrative matter. The Ombudsman is duty bound to have all cases against judges and court personnel filed before it, referred to the Supreme Court for determination as to whether an administrative aspect is involved therein. (Judge Jose Caoibes v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 132177, July 19, 2001)
Rule-making Power; Fiscal Autonomy (2014)
Congress enacted a law exempting certain government institutions providing social services from the payment of court fees. Atty. Kristopher Timoteo challenged the constitutionality of the said law on the ground that only the Supreme Court has the power to fix and exempt said entities from the payment of court fees.
Congress, on the other hand, argues that the law is constitutional as it has the power to enact said law for it was through legislative fiat that the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and the Special Allowance for Judges and Justices (SAJJ), the funding of which are
35 of 96 sourced from the fees collected by the courts, were
created. Thus, Congress further argues that if it can enact a law utilizing court fees to fund the JDF and SAJJ,
created. Thus, Congress further argues that if it can enact a law utilizing court fees to fund the JDF and SAJJ,