College of Law

Jose Rizal Memorial State University

A LEGAL RESEARCH ON

ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY IN GOOD GOVERNANCE

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of

Law 117 – Legal Research and Thesis Writing

Submitted to:

Judge Rowena Marie S. Carpitanos-Magallanes

Submitted by:

Balladares, Edgar U. Jr.

Bantilan, Roland Ron F.
Bastasa-Dabucon, Sheena Jane D.
Cadorna, Frank Lloyd C.
Digamon, Espe Mae O.
Lesterio, Delfin F.
Marfil, Jodel B.
Osorio, Xal Rose K.
Tangon, Nicollette Ria E.
Racho, Orville E.

November 30, 2019

Table of Contents
 Page

INTRODUCTION

RATIONALE OF THE STUDY

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Judicial Department
Brief History
Judicial Department in the 1987 Constitution
Judicial Power
Judicial Inquiry
Composition
Powers of the Supreme Court
Good Governance

ROLE OF JUDICIARY IN GOOD GOVERNANCE

Illustrative Cases
xxx
Xxx
Xxx
Xxx
Xxx
Xxx

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES
 I. INTRODUCTION

The Judicial Department is one of the three branches of the government of

the Republic of the Philippines. Being a democratic and a republican country,

the Judicial Department is an indispensable branch as it upholds the liberties of

the source of the sovereign power – the citizens of the Philippines.

Being the protector of the rights of the public, the judiciary holds

paramount interest and plays a vital role in ensuring that the other branches and

instrumentalities of the government, in the performance and discharge of their

functions and duties, are still upholding the supremacy of the Constitution of the

Philippines, so that good governance may be promoted in its purest form. As

Isagani Cruz, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, once stated, “timid and

corrupt judges will sap the vigor of popular government; on the other hand, a free

and fearless judiciary will give it strength, endurance and stability”.

Furthermore, integrity and independence are imperative for an impartial

and unbiased judgment to be decreed by the courts of justice. Without such

characteristics, courts will lose the trust accorded to them by the people as the

protector of justice. Regardless of the political intimidation and pressure, the

courts should preserve a free society through the application of laws applied

without fear or favor, for the Philippines is a country governed of laws, and not of

men.
II. RATIONALE OF THE STUDY

The study aims to illustrate the nature, components, and functions

of the Judicial Branch, as a co-equal branch of the government. It seeks to

display the role of the judiciary in upholding and promoting good governance

by playing its role as an indispensable unit in a democratic and republican

state.

III. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The study aims to aid law and non-law students, and other

practitioners of the law, in understanding the importance of the Judicial

Department to enable the other branches of the government to provide good

governance to the public. Upon understanding such, the parties can then

determine the appropriate support needed to uphold the independence and

respect the role of the judiciary.

The research can also be used as a reference or basis for future

researchers related to the present study.

IV. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

A. Judicial Department

Brief History

Before the colonization of the Spaniards, the indigenous Filipinos

were governed with unwritten laws. The laws were derived from customs,

usages, and traditions. No judges or lawyers. However, there were elders

who devoted their time in studying the customs, usages, and traditions of their

tribes, and they were qualified as legal consultants and advisers.

During the early Spanish occupation, Real Audiencia de Manila

(audiencia) was established by King Philip II. The audiencia held judicial and

non-judicial roles such as supervision of ecclesiastical affairs, and fixing of

prices commodities sold by merchants. By 1861, the audiencia ceased to

perform executive and administrative functions and had been restricted to the

administration of justice. Composed of the governor general as the presiding

officer, four oidores or associate justices, a legal adviser, and a chief

constable, it was both a trial and appellate court.

On June 11, 1901, Act No. 136 entitled “An Act Providing for the

Organization of Courts in the Philippine Islands” was passed by the Second

Philippine Commission. The Act abolished the audiencia and formally

established the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands. It also created the

Courts of First Instance and Justices of the Peace Courts throughout the land.

It was composed of a Chief Justice and six judges.

 It was during the Marcos’ regime when the judiciary was

bombarded with many legal issues of transcendental importance and

consequence. Among these were the legality of the ratification of the 1973

Constitution, the assumption of the totality of the government authority by the

then President Marcos, and the power to review the factual basis for a

declaration of Martial Law by the Chief Executive. The 1973 Constitution also

increased the number of the members of the Supreme Court from 11 to 15,

with a Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices. The Justices of the Court

were appointed by the President alone, without the consent, approval, or

recommendation of any other body or officials, which clearly impaired the

independence of the judicial department.

Judicial Department in the 1987 Constitution

The Supreme Court is a constitutional body. It cannot be abolished

nor its membership or the manner of meetings be changed by mere

legislation. The lower courts, namely the Court of Appeals, Regional Trials

Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit

Trial Courts, Court of Tax Appeals, Sandiganbayan, the Shaira courts of the

Muslims, together with the Supreme Court, make up the judicial department

of the Philippine Government.

Judicial Power

In the 1987 Constitution, as in the 1935 and 1973 Constitution, the

judicial power is still vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as

may be established by law. This is expressly conferred by the 1987

Constitution in Section 1 of Article 8, which states:

“Sec. 1: The judicial power shall be vested in one

Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established

by law.

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 a grave abuse of discretion amounting to

lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or

instrumentality of the government.”

The second provision of Section 1 is a modification which increased

the jurisdiction of the court to review cases which tackle “political questions”

or questions concerning the discretion or wisdom of the other branches of the

government. The empowerment of the court to take cognizance of political

questions was due to the fact that numerous mischief or evil committed during

the Marcos’ regime were hidden and blanketed by invoking the “political

question” doctrine, which put the cases beyond the jurisdiction of judicial

inquiry. However, not every abuse of discretion can be the subject of the
 Court’s inquiry. It must be a “grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or

excess of jurisdiction.” As Sinon v. Civil Service Commission1 defines grave

abuse of discretion as:

“By grave abuse of discretion is meant such

capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent

to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent

and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a

virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all

in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an

arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or

hostility.”

Furthermore, in the case of Infotech Foundation, et al. v. COMELEC 2, it states

the court ruled that there is a grave abuse of discretion when an act is done

contrary to the Constitution, the law or jurisdprudence or when it is executed

whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily out of malice, ill will or personal bias.

Judicial Inquiry

Judicial inquiry is one of the functions of the courts of justice – to test the

validity of the acts of the other branches in order to determine if the acts are still

in consonance with the Constitution. Nevertheless, when the courts are faced

with questions that are political in nature, it deals with such questions with great
1
Sinon v. Civil Service Commission, 215 SCRA 410, 416-17 (1992)
2
Infotech Foundation, et al. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 159139, January 13, 2004
caution as abuse of such power may also impair the doctrine of separation of

powers, which recognizes the different branches of the government as supreme

in their own constitutional sphere. But, it was emphasized by the Supreme Court

that whenever they perform judicial inquiry over acts which are upon the

discretion of the other branches, it is upholding the supremacy of the Constitution

and not imposing their own supremacy over the other co-equal branch. In

addition, no constitutional question will be heard and decided by the courts

unless there is compliance with what are known as the requisites of judicial

inquiry:

1. There must be an actual case or controversy. An actual case or

controversy involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of

opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution. It must

be definite and concrete, real and substantive controversy. As

illustrated in the case of Pormento vs. Estrada3, petitioner

assailed the candidacy of Joseph “Erap” Ejercito Estrada for

presidency on the May 10, 2010 elections, as he was already

elected President of the Republic of the Philippines in the

national elections held on May 11, 1998. The petition contends

that it is a direct violation of the Constitutional mandate that a

president is not entitled for reelection. However, before the

court was able to decree its judgment on the case, it was

declared as moot and academic since the private respondent

3
Pormento vs. Estrada and COMELEC, G.R. No. 191988, August 31, 2010
 did not win the elections, and was not elected as the president.

The court ruled that it may only adjudicate actual, ongoing

controversies. In other words, when a case is moot, it becomes

non-justiciable, except when there is a grave violation of the

Constitution, the exceptional character of the situation and the

paramount public interest is involved, when the constitutional

issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to

guide the bench, the bar, and the public, and finally, if the case

is capable of repetition yet evading review.

2. The question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper

party. A person is deemed to be a proper party if he has

sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a

result of the act complained of. Generally, suits may be filed by

a taxpayer if the act complained of directly involves the illegal

disbursement of public funds derived from taxation; legislators if

the suit involves claims that the official action complained of

infringes upon their prerogatives as legislators; and ordinary

citizens if it involves the assertion of a public right and with a

showing that the issue raised by them are of transcendental

importance which must be settled immediately. In the case of

Oposa vs. Factoran4, the Supreme Court in granting the petition

ruled that the petitioners, all minors, had the legal standing to

file the case based on the concept of “intergenerational

4
Oposa et al. vs. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993
 responsibility”. Their right to a healthy environment carried with

it an obligation to preserve that environment for the succeeding

generations. Therefore, the Court recognized the legal standing

of the petitioners to sue on behalf of future generations.

3. The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest

possible opportunity. The rule is that the question must be

raised at the pleadings. Otherwise, the failure to do so

constitutes a waiver or the issue might become moot or

moribund.

4. The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to

the determination of the case itself. Thus, if a case can be

decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional

question, the other a question of statutory construction or

general law, the Court will decide only the latter 5. The court will

uphold the presumption of constitutionality of such law, as it

would give courtesy to the legislative department, which, the

court believes, is knowledgeable of the provisions of the

Constitution, and that when they enacted the questioned

statute, they intended it to be in line with the Constitution.

However, when it is alleged that a law or an act is unconstitutional, the

court may waive the compliance of the requisites mentioned above, for in such

5
Demetria vs. Alba, G.R. No. 71977, February 27, 1987
case, it is now the duty of the court to pass upon the constitutionality of the

assailed law or act.

It should be also noted that the lower courts are also possessed with the

power of judicial review, as there is no provision in the Constitution that judicial

review is exclusively granted to the Supreme Court. But, since majority vote of

the Supreme Court en banc is required to declare a law unconstitutional, the

lower courts must keep in mind, as cited in People vs. Vera6, “that a becoming

modesty of inferior courts demands conscious realization of the position they

occupy in the interrelation and operation of the integrated judicial system of the

nation.” Additionally, a declaration of constitutionality by the lower court is only

binding between the parties, but a declaration of the Supreme Court becomes a

precedent which is binding on all.

Composition

Section 4 (1) of Article 8 provides:

“Section 4 (1): The Supreme Court shall be composed

of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en

banc or in its discretion, in divisions of three, five, or seven

Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the

occurrence thereof.”

6
People vs. Vera, 65 Phil. 56 (1937)
 In the case of De Castro vs. Judicial and Bar Council 7, it was declared that

the president may provide appointments in the vacancy of the judiciary even if it

is within the two (2) months immediately before the next election and up to the

end of his term. The court ruled that if the framers of the Constitution intended to

extend the prohibition prescribed in Section 15, Article VII to the appointment of

members of the Supreme Court, it can easily do so. However, it is not the case.

Hence, the prohibition does not cover appointments to the Supreme Court.

Article 8, Section 9 provides that the Members of the Supreme Court and

judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least

three nominations from the Judicial and Bar Council, the body tasked to screen

applicants to a vacant office in the Supreme Court. Such appointments need no

confirmation from the legislative department’s Commission on Appointments.

The appointees will hold office during good behavior until the age of seventy (70)

years or when they become incapacitated to discharge their functions. The

members may not also be removed unless by impeachment. Furthermore, it is

the Supreme Court who has exclusive power to discipline judges of lower courts.

Section 7 also provides the qualifications of a Member of the Supreme

Court and any lower collegiate court. One must be a natural-born citizen of the

Philippines, and for the member of the Supreme Court, must be at least forty-

years of age and must have been a judge of a lower court or engaged in the

practice of law in the Philippines for at least fifteen (15) years. These

qualifications are exclusive, and may not be expanded or limited by an ordinary

7
De Castro vs. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010
legislative act. However, for the judges of the lower courts, the Congress may

prescribed through the enactment of a law for the minimum qualifications needed

to be met by the applicant. But, no person may be appointed unless he is a

citizen of the Philippines and a member of the Philippine Bar. It should be noted

that while Members of the Supreme Court and other lower collegiate courts are

required to be natural-born citizens, the applicants for the lower courts only need

to be a citizen, subject to the additional requirements deemed reasonable and

necessary by the Congress.

The Judicial and Bar Council was created by the 1987 Constitution with

the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary. In this way,

the selection of the appointees to the Supreme Court are “de-politicize” by only

limiting the prerogative of the President, having the appointing power, to select

appointees from the nominations of the Council. The Council is composed of the

Chief Justice as Chairman, Clerk of the Supreme Court as Secretary, Secretary

of Justice, and representative from the Congress, all acting as ex officio

members. In addition, the regular members of the Council are a representative

of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court,

and a representative of the private sector. The regular members shall have a

term of four (4) years, and their appointment is subject to the confirmation of the

Commission on Appointments.

The Supreme Court, by the command of the Constitution, is also required

to hear the following cases en banc: 1.) all cases involving the constitutionality of

a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law; 2.) all cases which under
the Rules of Court may be required to be heard en banc; 3.) all cases involving

the constitutionality, application or operation of presidential decrees,

proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations; 4.) cases

heard by a division when the required majority in the division is not obtained; 5.)

cases where the Supreme Court modifies or reverses a doctrine or principle of

law previously laid down either en banc or in division; 6.) administrative cases

involving the discipline or dismissal of judges of lower courts; 7.) election

contests for President or Vice-President. Other than those enumerated above,

the Supreme Court may hear it in division. Currently, the Supreme Court has five

(5) divisions, with three (3) members each.

When the Supreme Court sits en banc, cases are decided by a vote of a

majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues

in the case and voted thereon. Since the quorum of the Supreme Court is eight

(8), five (5) votes are enough to decide on a case. Consequently, all members of

the Supreme Court are accorded with one (1) vote. Hence, in deciding cases, no

one is deemed to be superior above everyone else, not even the Chief Justice.

However, in settling internal administrative issues, the Chief Justice is supreme

above all the other members of the Supreme Court.

Powers of the Supreme Court

The powers of the Supreme Court, as enumerated under Section 5 of

Article VIII, can be classified into judicial powers or auxiliary administrative

powers. Section 5(1) and (2) are judicial powers while Sections 5(3) to (6) and

Section 6 are auxiliary administrative powers. It should be noted that one of the

safeguards of the independence of the judiciary is that the Supreme Court may

not be deprived of its minimum original or appellate jurisdiction, and that the latter

may not be increased by law without its advice and concurrence.

The following are judicial powers of the Supreme Court:

1. Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors,

other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for

certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas

corpus. Under international law, Philippines has no jurisdiction

over consuls and diplomats. However, when such immunity is

waived expressly or impliedly, the Supreme Court can take

cognizance of cases against them. Furthermore, when a

tribunal, board, corporation, persons, or officer, has acted

without or in excess of his or its jurisdiction , or with grave abuse

of discretion, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and

adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person

aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition for certiorari or

prohibition, in the proper court alleging the facts with certainty

and pray that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying

(certiorari), or to command the defendant to desist (prohibition),

the proceedings, and or granting such incidental reliefs as law

and justice may require. On the other hand, a petition for

 mandamus may be filed to pray for a judgment be rendered

commanding the defendant, immediately or at some other

specified time, to do the act required to be done to protect the

rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the

petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent.

Quo warranto may also be filed as an action for usurpation of

office and writ of habeas corpus may also be direct to command

the person to produce the body of those who are illegally

detained.

The Supreme Court has a concurrent original jurisdiction with

the lower courts. Hence, the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts

in our judicial system must be followed unless there are special

reasons to alleviate the case directly to the Supreme Court.

2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari,

as the law or the rules of court may provide, final judgments and

orders of lower courts in:

a. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of

any treaty, international or executive agreement,

law, presidential decree, proclamation, order,

instruction, ordinance, or regulations is in

question.
 b. All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,

assessment or toll, or any penalty imposed in

related thereto.

c. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower

court is in issue.

d. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposes is

reclusion perpetua or higher.

e. All cases in which only an error or question of law

is involved.

The following are the auxiliary administrative powers of the Supreme

Court:

1. Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as

public interest may require. Such temporary assignment shall

not exceed six months without the consent of the judge

concerned. This power bolsters the independence of the

Supreme Court since the power to transfer the judges is now

assigned to it and no longer in the executive department.

2. Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage

of justice. The power is intended to improve the process of

hearing of cases as external factors might affect the authenticity

of facts from witnesses due to fear or intimidation.

3. Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of

constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all

 courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar,

and legal assistance to the underprivileged. This is known to be

as the “rule-making” power of the Supreme Court. The

limitations on this power are that the rules must be uniform for

all courts of the same grade and that the rules must not

diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. The rules must

also provide for simplified and inexpensive proceedings. This

would meet the constitutional right of individuals to a speedy

disposition of cases. On the other hand, rules of quasi-judicial

bodies and special courts shall remain effective, unless

disapproved by the Supreme Court.

4. Appoint all officials and employees of the judiciary in

accordance with the Civil Service Law.

5. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over

all courts and the personnel thereof.

B. Good Governance

(insert Ate Xal’s part)

V. ROLE OF JUDICIARY IN GOOD GOVERNANCE

The rights and liberties of the Philippine’ citizens are expressly

granted by the state. The main source of these rights is the 1987 Constitution.

In the Constitution, a tribunal body was also expressly established, named as the

Supreme Court of the Philippines, as the final arbiter of cases which involves

rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. The Supreme Court,

together with the lower courts established by law, are the protectors and

guardians of the people.

Just like any other government of other countries, the Philippine

government is far from perfection. Despite the guidelines, principles, and rules

provided by a Constitution, the Philippine government is in a shortfall, since time

immemorial, in narrowing the economic and social gap between the rich and the

poor, for various reasons such as corruption, self-interest, and abuse of power.

Although there are laws that aim to aid the government to provide good

governance, the implementation and administration of these laws are equally

important to accomplish such goal. This is where the judicial department’s role in

good governance comes into picture – to ascertain that the enactment,

implementation, and administration of the laws are in accordance with the

Constitution; that the government holds the law above everything else.

Equipped with judicial and auxiliary administrative powers,

Philippines’ courts of justice are capable of decreeing decisions that are

unrestricted of political influence and intimidation. The Constitution has granted

safeguards to the judiciary’s independence, to ensure that the principle of checks

and balances, as a corollary system of the doctrine of separation of powers, is

done without bias and is not tainted with self-interest.

In the case of (insert cases)

VI. CONCLUSION

When the judiciary are actively executing its role in good

governance, the gap created by the failure of political practice is filled. Through

their proactive attitude in asserting their constitutionally mandated powers, the

judicial branch exercises its authority as the protector of the rule of law. It

warrants that the other branches or instrumentalities of the government are

performing their functions not beyond their authority. By doing such, the judiciary

ensures that executive and legislative powers are consistently monitored, and the

political, civil, and economic rights of the people are maintained and protected.

Because of the separation of powers, other branches of the

government may see it as an intrusion in their autonomous sphere, but the

principle of checks and balances enables the courts of justice to do so, for its

purpose is not to exert dominance and control over the other branches, but to

provide for a precedence that would inculcate in the minds of the leaders of the

Philippines that the Constitution is the source of the supreme power. For only

when the spirit of the law is strictly interpreted and implemented and its

independence is free from the glare of political motives can the courts perform its

purest function: to protect the sovereignty from injustice, no matter what the cost

is.
REFERENCES:

Bernas, J. (2009). The 1987 Philippine Constitution : a reviewer-primer. Manila,

Philippines: Rex Book Store.

Cruz, I. (2014). Philippine Political Law. 927 Quezon Avenue, Quezon City:

Central Book Supply, Inc..

History of The Supreme Court. Retrieved from sc.judiciary.gov.ph