JURISDICTION

JURISDICTION DEFINED
The authority by which the court takes cognizance and decide cases, WHERE TO FILE THESE PETITION; RULES
the legal right by which judges exercise their authority. 1. The petition shall be filed not later than 60 days from notice of the
judgment or resolution.
JUDICIAL POWER 2. In case a motion for new trial is timely filed, the 60-day period shall be
Under the Constitution JP shall be vested in the SC and in such other counted from notice of the denial of the said motion
courts established by law. 3. The petition shall be filed to the SC. If it relates to the acts or
omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or
Judicial power includes the duty of the court to settle actual person, in the RTC exercising jurisdiction over the territorial sea as
controversy involving rights which are demandable and enforceable, and to defined by the SC.
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting 4. It may also be filed in the CA
to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. 5. It may be filed in the Sandigangbayan if it is in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction.
If the issue presented to the SC is justiciable rather than political 6. If it involves acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, unless
where it involves the legality and not the wisdom of the act complained. But even otherwise provided by the ROC, the petition shall be filed in and
if the question were political in nature, it would still come within the Courts cognizable in the CA.
power to review, under the expanded jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution.
REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL POWER ALEL
When the issue pertains to the constitutionality of the act, it is 1. Actual case
deemed as justiciable controversy, subject to review by the SC. It is not merely a 2. Person challenging must have locus standi
right but a duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. This duty to adjudicate by 3. Raised at the earliest opportunity
the SC remains to assure that the supremacy of the Constitution is upheld. 4. The issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case
ACTUAL CASE AND CONTROVERSY
THE COURTS THAT EXERCISE JURISDITION This requirement involves a conflict of legal rights. The case must be
Under BP 129, the following are different lower courts: ripe and not moot and academic. There must be a justiciable controversy.
1. CA
2. RTC Justiciable controversy- a definite and a concrete dispute touching
3. MTC legal relations of the parties having adverse legal interests which may be resolved
4. MeTC by court.
5. MCTC
Exception to the mootness rule are as follows: GPFR
POWERS OF THE SC 1. When there is grave violation of the Constitution
Under the Constitution the SC has the power to exercise original 2. When there is a paramount public interest involved
jurisdiction over cases affecting the ambassadors, other public ministers, and 3. When the issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to
consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto guide the bench, the bar and the public
and habeas corpus. 4. When the case is capable of repetition yet evading review

RULE 65 SECTION 1 PETITION FOR CERTIORARI LOCUS STANDI

When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial Locus Stadi has been defined as personal and substantial interest in
functions has acted without or in excess its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse the case and the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, governmental act that is being challenged
or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a
person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging 1. WHEN SUING AS CITIZEN, the interest of the petitioner assailing the
the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or constitutionality of a statute must be direct and personal. He must
modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such show that not only the law or act of the government is invalid, but
incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. also that he sustained an injury as a result.
2. WHEN SUING AS A TAXPAYER he is allowed to sue where there is a
RULE 65 SECTION 2 PROHIBITION claim that public funds are illegally disbursed, or that public money is
When the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or being deflected to any improper purpose, or that there is a wastage of
person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or
without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion unconstitutional law.
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other 3. WHEN SUING AS LEGISLATOR, he is allowed to sue to question the
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person validity of any official action which he claims infringes his prerogatives
aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the as a legislator.
facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the
respondent to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified Exception to the rule is that:
therein, or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may Although the person suing has no legal standing, the case can still be
require reviewed if:
1. Issues is paramount of public interest; or
RULE 65 SECTION 3 MANDAMUS 2. Issues of transcendental importance
When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully 3. Case is filed at the earliest opportunity
neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty 4. The issue of constitutionality is the very lis mota of the case
resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the
use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL SUPREMACY
no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the When the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it
person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging does not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality
the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and
respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting
do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an
the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to
respondent. them. It was held that the Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of
checks and balances to secure coordination in the workings of the various
departments of the Government. The judiciary in turn, with the SC as the final
 JURISDICTION
arbiter, effectively checks the departments in the exercise of its power to Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide petitions
determine the law, and hence to declare executive and legislative acts void if for a writ of habeas corpus or applications for bail in criminal cases in the
violative to the Constitution. province or city where the absent Regional Trial Judges sit.

WHAT IS POLITICAL QUESTION? R.A. 7691, March 25, 1994

Political question refers to those which under the Constitution, are to Section 1. Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the
be decide by the people in their sovereign capacity, or on regard to which full "Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980", is hereby amended to read as follows:
discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch
of the government. "Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction.
LAW ON JURISDICTION
Section 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and "(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in criminal cases. – Except in cases falling within the pecuniary estimation;
exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan,
the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial "(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real
Courts shall exercise: property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property
involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000,00) or, for civil actions in
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal ordinances Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00)
committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction; and except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings,
original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of
other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising "(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand
from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value, or or claim exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro
amount thereof: Provided, however, That in offenses involving damage to Manila, where such demand or claim exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos
property through criminal negligence they shall have exclusive original (P200,000.00);
jurisdiction thereof. (as amended by R.A. No. 7691)
"(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross
Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and value of the estate exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal probate matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds Two Hundred
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: thousand pesos (P200,000.00);

(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, "(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;
testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases,
where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does "(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal,
not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila person or body exercising jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body
where such personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) exclusive of interest damages of
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of "(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive
which must be specifically alleged: Provided, That where there are several claims original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court
or causes of action between the same or different parties, embodied in the same of Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and
complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the
causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the "(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages
same or different transactions; of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of
the property in controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00)
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand exclusive of the
detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the question abovementioned items exceeds Two Hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00)."
of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved
without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved Section 2. Section 32 of the same law is hereby amended to read as follows:
only to determine the issue of possession. "Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal Cases. – Except in cases falling within
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the
possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
(P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does
not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of "(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction; and
value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent
lots. (as amended by R.A. No. 7691) "(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine, and
Section 34. Delegated jurisdiction in cadastral and land registration cases. – regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind,
Courts may be assigned by the Supreme Court to hear and determine cadastral or nature, value or amount thereof: Provided, however, That in offenses involving
land registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or opposition, damage to property through criminal negligence, they shall have exclusive
or contested lots the where the value of which does not exceed One hundred original jurisdiction thereof."
thousand pesos (P100,000.00), such value to be ascertained by the affidavit of
the claimant or by agreement of the respective claimants if there are more than Section 3. Section 33 of the same law is hereby amended to read as follows:
one, or from the corresponding tax declaration of the real property. Their "Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
decisions in these cases shall be appealable in the same manner as decisions of Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
the Regional Trial Courts. (as amended by R.A. No. 7691) Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

Section 35. Special jurisdiction in certain cases. – In the absence of all the "(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate
Regional Trial Judges in a province or city, any Metropolitan Trial Judge, proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in
 JURISDICTION
proper cases, where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the 1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal
demand does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction;
Metro Manila where such personal property, estate, or amount of the demand and
does not exceed Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00), exclusive of 2. Exclusive and original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and imprisonment not exceeding 6 years irrespective of the amount of fine
costs, the amount of which must be specifically alleged: Provided, That interest, and regardless of the imposable accessory or other penalties including
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs shall be civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon,
included in the determination of the filing fees: Provided, further, That where irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount thereof: Provided,
there are several claims or causes of actions between the same or different however, that in offenses involving damage to property through
parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the criminal negligence, they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction
totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the thereof.
causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions;
In one case the SC held that reckless imprudence is a single crime. Reckless
"(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful Imprudence is a Single Crime, its Consequences on Persons and Property Are
detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the questions Material Only to Determine the Penalty. The two charges against petitioner,
of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved arising from the same facts, were prosecuted under the same provision of the
without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved Revised Penal Code, as amended, namely, Article 365 defining and penalizing
only to determine the issue of possession; and quasi-offenses. If Reckless imprudence is treated to be a separate crime, the
constitutional right of the accused to be not put twice in jeopardy of punishment
"(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, for the same offense shall be violated.
or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value
of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos VENUE IN CRIMINAL ACTIONS
(P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does In criminal actions venue is jurisdictional. In criminal cases venue is a
not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of matter of jurisdiction.
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That in
cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of such property shall For a valid judgment of a criminal case, the following must be present:
be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots." 1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter
2. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused
Section 4. Section 34 of the same law is hereby amended to read as follows: 3. Jurisdiction over the territory to where the offense was committed.
"Sec. 34. Delegated Jurisdiction in Cadastral and Land Registration Cases. –
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial A criminal case must be filed with the court having territorial jurisdiction
Courts may be assigned by the Supreme Court to hear and determine cadastral or over the offense or any of its essential ingredients. Territory or venue in criminal
land registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or opposition, cases is a matter of jurisdiction and cannot be waived, save in a case where the
or contested lots where the value of which does not exceed One hundred place of trial is transferred by the SC for security reasons. This is sanctioned and
thousand pesos (P100,000.00), such value to be ascertained by the affidavit of allowed no other than the Constitution itself.
the claimant or by agreement of the respective claimants if there are more than
one, or from the corresponding tax declaration of the real property. Their TRANSITORY OFFENSES
decisions in these cases shall be appealable in the same manner as decisions of Transitory offenses are crimes where some acts material and essential
the Regional Trial Courts." to the crimes and requisite to their commission occur in one municipality or
territory and some acts are one in another place.
Section 5. After five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act, the jurisdictional
amounts mentioned in Sec. 19(3), (4), and (8); and Sec. 33(1) of Batas Pambansa CONTINUING OFFINESES
Blg. 129 as amended by this Act, shall be adjusted to Two hundred thousand Continuing offenses are those consummated in one place. Yet by
pesos (P200,000.00). Five (5) years thereafter, such jurisdictional amounts shall nature of the offense, the violation of the law is deemed continuing.
be adjusted further to Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00): Provided,
however, that in the case of Metro Manila, the abovementioned jurisdictional To determine the jurisdiction of a continuing crime, the courts of the
amounts shall be adjusted after five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act to territories where the essential ingredients of the crime took place have the
Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00). concurrent jurisdiction. However, if a court has already acquired jurisdiction, it
JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES may exclude other courts.
JURISDICTION OF COURTS IN CRIMINAL ACTION
As to matters of jurisdiction, in a criminal action, jurisdiction is Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the court
determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of action, unless the has jurisdiction to take cognizance of or to try the offenses allegedly committed
statute expressly provides. therein by the accused.

It was held by jurisprudence that the RTC and not the first level court In all criminal prosecutions, the action shall be instituted and tried
has jurisdiction over the BP BLG 22 case. It is a hornbook doctrine that the in the court of the municipality or territory wherein the offense was
jurisdiction to try criminal action is determined by the law in force at the time of committed or where any one of the essential ingredients took place. The fact
as to where the offense charged was committed is determined by the facts
the institution of action and not during the arraignment of the accused.
alleged in the complaint or information.
Under BP 129: It was held by the SC that The place where the crime was
1. The RTC has exclusive and original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not committed determines not only the venue of the action but is an essential
within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court. Except those cases now element of jurisdiction. It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be
falling under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the acquired by courts in criminal cases, the offense should have been committed
sandingangbayan. or any one of its essential ingredients should have taken place within the
2. The MTC, MeTC, MCTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over all territorial jurisdiction of the court. Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases
offenses punishable with imprisonment of not exceeding four years is the territory where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of or to try
and 2 months, or a fine of not more than 4K, or both. Except those the offense allegedly committed therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot take
cases which fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense allegedly committed
and the Sandingangbayan. outside of that limited territory. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court over
the criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or
Under BP 129 the MeTC, MTC and MCTC in criminal cases shall information. And once it is so shown, the court may validly take cognizance
exercise: of the case. However, if the evidence adduced during the trial shows that the
 JURISDICTION
offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action
for want of jurisdiction.

To reiterate, a court cannot take jurisdiction over a person

charged with an offense allegedly committed outside of that limited territory,
and if the evidence adduced during trial shows that the offense was
committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of
jurisdiction.