Supreme Court of the Philippines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Supreme Court of the Philippines

Kataas-taasang Hukuman ng Pilipinas

Korte Suprema ng Pilipinas

Established June 11, 1901; 118 years ago

Country Philippines

Location Padre Faura Street, Ermita, Manila, Metro Manila

14°34′47″N 120°59′04″ECoordinates:
Coordinates
14°34′47″N 120°59′04″E

Motto Batas at Bayan (Law and Nation)

Composition Presidential appointment from the shortlisted

method candidates submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council

Authorized by Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution of the Philippines

Judge term No fixed term; mandatory retirement upon reaching

length the age of 70

No. of 15
positions
 Annual P 30.687 billion (2018)[1]

budget

Website sc.judiciary.gov.ph

Chief Justice

Currently Lucas Bersamin

Since November 28, 2018

The Supreme Court of the Philippines (Filipino: Kataas-taasang Hukuman ng Pilipinas) or referred
to as simply by its colloquial term Korte Suprema, is the highest court in the Philippines. The Court
was established by the second Philippine Commission in June 11, 1901 through the enactment of
Act No. 136, an Act which had abolished the Real Audiencia de Manila.[2][3][4]
The Supreme Court Complex, which was formerly the part of the University of the Philippines
Manila campus,[5] occupies the corner of Padre Faura Street and Taft Avenue in Manila, with the
main building directly fronting the Philippine General Hospital. Until 1945, the Court met in Cavite.

Contents

• 1History
o 1.1Pre-hispanic period
o 1.2Hispanic period
o 1.3American period
o 1.4Commonwealth period
o 1.5Japanese occupation
o 1.6Independence and postwar period
o 1.7Post–EDSA revolution and present
• 2Overview
o 2.1Qualifications
o 2.2Composition and manner of appointment
o 2.3Retirement
• 3Language
• 4Powers and jurisdiction
o 4.1Adjudicatory powers
o 4.2Original jurisdiction
o 4.3Appellate review
o 4.4Rule-making power
▪ 4.4.1Writs of amparo and habeas data
• 5Divisions
• 6Membership
o 6.1Current Justices
o 6.2Court demographics
▪ 6.2.1By law school
▪ 6.2.2By appointing President
▪ 6.2.3By gender
• 7Public perception
 o 7.1Judicial corruption
o 7.2Bantay Korte Suprema
• 8Landmark decision
• 9Notes
• 10References
• 11External links

History[edit]
Pre-hispanic period[edit]
Prior to the conquest of Spain, the islands of the Philippines were composed of
independent barangays, each of which is community composed of 30 to 100 families. Typically, a
barangay is headed by a datu or a local chief who exercises all functions of government—executive,
legislative and judicial; he is also the commander-in-chief in times of war. Each barangay has its own
laws. Laws may be oral laws, which are the traditions and customs of the locality handed down from
a generation to generation, or written laws as promulgated by the datu who is typically aided by a
group of elders. In a confederation of barangays, the laws are promulgated by a superior datu with
the aid of the inferior datus.[6]
In a resolution of dispute, the datu acts as a judge while a group of elders sits as a jury. If a dispute
is between datus or between members of different barangays, the dispute is settled through
arbitration with some other datus or elders, serving as arbiters or mediators, from other barangays.
All trials are held public. When a datu is in doubt if who between the parties are guilty, the trial is
resorted to trial by ordeal—a common practice in criminal cases. An accused who was innocent was
always perceived to be always successful in such ordeals, because the deities or gods of these pre-
hispanic people made the said accused do so.[6]
Hispanic period[edit]
In the royal order of August 14, 1569, Miguel López de Legazpi was confirmed as
the Governor and Captain-General of the Philippines. He was empowered to
administer civil and criminal justice in the islands. Under the same order, Legazpi had original and
appellate jurisdiction in all suits and constituted in his person all authority of a department of justice,
with complete administrative and governmental control of all judicial offices. In
subsequent cédulas and royal orders, it was made the duty of all officials to enforce all laws and
ordinances issued for the benefits of the locals, but these were not made to have been done. In a
1583 letter written by Bishop Domingo de Salazar to King Philip II, Bishop Salazar noted the different
acts of oppression and injustice committed against the native Filipinos and that the decrees of the
King, which were designed to protect them, were generally disregarded by the Governor-General
and his subordinates.[7]
As a result of these developments, the first real audiencia (which is the Real Audiencia of Manila) or
high court was established in the Philippines through the royal decree of May 5, 1583. The decree
stated that "the court is founded in the interests of good government and the administration of
justice, with the same authority and preeminence as each of the royal audiencias in the town
of Valladolid and the city of Granada.[7] The audiencia was composed of a president, three oidores or
auditors, a fiscal or prosecuting attorney, and the necessary auxiliary officials, such as the court's
secretaries and clerks.[6][7] The first president was Governor-Captain General Santiago de Vera.[7]
The Real Audiencia of Manila had a jurisdiction covering Luzon and the rest of the archipelago. It
was given an appellate jurisdiction over all civil and criminal cases decided by the
governors, alcaldes mayores and other magistrates of the islands. The audiencia may only take
cognizance of a civil case in its first instance when, on account of its importance, the amount
involved and the dignity of the parties might be tried in a superior court; and of criminal cases which
may arise in the place where the audiencia might meet. The decisions of the audiencia in both civil
and criminal cases were to be executed without any appeal, except in civil cases were the amount
was so large as to justify an appeal to the King; such appeal to the King must be made within one
year. All cases were to be decided by a majority vote, and in case of a tie, an advocate was chosen
for the determination of the case.[7]
The audiencia would later on be dissolved through the royal cédula of August 9, 1589.
The audiencia would later on be reestablished through the royal decree of May 25, 1596, and on
May 8, 1598, it had resumed its functions as a high court. By its reestablishment, the audiencia was
composed of a president as represented by the governor, four associate justices, prosecuting
attorney with the office of protector of the Indians, the assistant prosecuting officers, a reporter, clerk
and other officials.[7]By a royal order of March 11, 1776, the audiencia was reorganized; it consisted
of the president, a regent, the immediate head of the audiencia, five oidores or associate justices,
two assistant prosecuting attorneys, five subordinate officials, and two reporters. It had also been
allowed to perform the duties of a probate court in special cases. When the high court is acting as
administrative or advisory body, the audiencia acted under the name of real acuerdo. Later on the
governor-general was removed as the president of the audiencia and the real acuerdo was
abolished by virtue of the royal decree of July 4, 1861.[7] The same royal decree converted the court
to a pure judicial body, with its decisions appealable to the Supreme Court of Spain.[8] By the royal
decree of October 24, 1870, the audiencia was branched into two chambers; these two branches
were later renamed as sala de lo civil and sala de lo criminal by virtue of royal decree of May 23,
1879.[7]
On February 26, 1886, the territorial audiencia of Cebu was established through a royal decree, and
covers the jurisdiction of the islands of
Cebu, Negros, Panay, Samar, Paragua, Calamianes, Masbate, Ticao, Leyte, Jolo and Balabac,
including the smaller and adjacent islands of aformentioned islands. By January 5, 1891, a royal
decree had established the territorial audiencias of Manila and Cebu. By virtue of a royal decree, the
territorial audiencia in Cebu continued until May 19, 1893 were it ceased to be territorial;
its audiencia for criminal cases, however, was retained.[7] From the same royal decree,
the audiencia in Vigan was established and covers criminal cases in Luzon and Batanes. These
courts decisions are not considered final as they are still appealable to the Audiencia Territorial of
Manila and those of the audiencia to the Supreme Court of Spain.[6] These audiencias would still
continue to operate even until the outbreak of the Filipino rebellion in 1896.[7]
American period[edit]
From the start of the American occupation on August 13, 1898, the audiencias of Cebu and Vigan
ceased to function as the judges fled for safety. The following day, Wesley Merritt, the first
American Military Governor, ordered the suspension of the territorial jurisdiction of the colonial Real
Audiencia of Manila, and of other minor courts in the Philippines. All trial of committed crimes and
offenses were transferred to the jurisdiction of the court-martial or military commissions of the United
States. On October 7, 1898, the civil courts throughout the islands that were constituted under
Spanish laws prior to August 13 were permitted to resume their civil jurisdiction but subject to
supervision of the American military government. Later on in January 1899, the civil jurisdiction of
the audiencia in Manila was suspended but was restored in May 1899 after it was reestablished as
the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands. The criminal jurisdiction was also restored to the
newly reformed civil high court.[7]
On June 11, 1901, the current Supreme Court was officially established through enactment of Act
No. 136, otherwise known as the Judiciary Law of the Second Philippine Commission.[9] The said law
reorganized the judicial system and vested the judicial power to the Supreme Court, Courts of First
Instance and Justice of the Peace courts. The said law also provided for the early composition of the
said High Court, having one Chief Justice and six Associate Justices—all appointed by the
Commission.[6][7] The Philippine Organic Act of 1902 and the Jones Act of 1916, both passed by
the U.S. Congress, ratified the jurisdiction of the Courts vested by Act No. 136. The Philippine
Organic Act of 1902 further provides that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and its six
Associate Justices shall be appointed by the President of the United States with the consent and
advice of the U.S. Senate.[6]
The enactment of the Administrative Code of 1917 made the Supreme Court the highest tribunal. It
also increased the total membership of the Supreme Court, having one Chief Justice and eight
Associate Justices.[10]
Commonwealth period[edit]
With the establishment of the Commonwealth of the Philippines through the ratification of the 1935
Constitution, the Supreme Court's composition was increased to eleven, with one Chief Justice and
ten Associate Justices.[n] The 1935 Constitution provided for the independence of the judiciary, the
security of tenure of its members, prohibition on diminution of compensation during their term of
office, and the method of removal of the justices through impeachment. The Constitution also
transferred the rule-making of the legislature to the Supreme Court on the power to promulgate rules
concerning pleading, practice, court procedures, and admission to the practice of law.[6]
Japanese occupation[edit]

José Abad Santos, the fifth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Within the brief Japanese occupation of the Philippines, the Court remained with no substantial
changes in its organizational structure and jurisdiction. However, some acts and outlines of the Court
were required to be approved first by the Military Governor of the Imperial Japanese Force.[6] In
1942, José Abad Santos—the fifth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court—was executed by Japanese
troops after refusing to collaborate with the Japanese military government. He was captured on April
11, 1942 in the province of Cebu and was executed on May 7, 1942 in the town
of Parang in Mindanao.[11]
Independence and postwar period[edit]
After the end of the Japanese occupation during World War II, Philippines was granted its
independence on July 4, 1946 from the United States. The grant of independence was made
through the Treaty of Manila of 1946. In the said treaty, it provides that:
ARTICLE V. – The Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America agree that all cases
at law concerning the Government and people of the Philippines which, in accordance with section 7
(6) of the Independence Act of 1934, are pending before the Supreme Court of the United States of
America at the date of the granting of the independence of the Republic of the Philippines shall
continue to be subject to the review of the Supreme Court of the United States of America for such
period of time after independence as may be necessary to effectuate the disposition of the cases at
hand. The contracting parties also agree that following the disposition of such cases the Supreme
Court of the United States of America will cease to have the right of review of cases originating in the
Philippine Islands.[o]
In effect of the treaty, the United States Supreme Court ceased to have appellate power to review
cases originating from the Philippines after its independence, with exception of those cases pending
before the United States Supreme Court filed prior to the country's independence.
In June 17, 1948, the Judiciary Act of 1948 was enacted. The law grouped cases together over
which the high court could exercise its exclusive jurisdiction to review on appeal, certiorari, or writ of
error.[3]
In 1973, the 1935 Constitution was revised and was replaced by the 1973 Constitution. Under the
said Constitution, the membership of the court was increased to its current number, which is
fifteen.[p] All members are said to be appointed by the President alone, without consent, approval, or
recommendation of a body or officials.[q]The 1973 Constitution also vested in the Supreme Court
administrative supervision over all lower courts which heretofore was under the Department of
Justice.[12]
The martial law period brought in many legal issues of transcendental importance and consequence:
some of which were the legality of the ratification of the 1973 Constitution, the assumption of the
totality of government authority by President Marcos, the power to review the factual basis for a
declaration of Martial Law by the Chief Executive.[3]
Post–EDSA revolution and present[edit]
After the overthrow of President Ferdinand Marcos in 1986, President Corazon Aquino, using her
emergency powers, promulgated a transitory charter known as the "Freedom Constitution" which did
not affect the composition and powers of the Supreme Court. The Freedom Charter was replaced by
the 1987 Constitution which is the fundamental charter in force in the Philippines at present. Under
the current Constitution, it retained and carried the provision in the 1935 and 173 Constitutions that
"judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by
law." However, unlike the previous Constitutions, the current Constitution expanded the Supreme
Court's judicial power by defining it in the second paragraph of Section 1, Article VIII as:
SECTION 1. — xxx 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.[r]
The definition, in effect, diluted the of the political question doctrine, that is it is best to submit
specific questions or issues specific questions to the political wisdom of the people, and thus, as a
result, are beyond the review of the courts.[3]
Furthermore, the present Constitution provided for safeguards to ensure the independence of the
Judiciary. It also provided for the Judicial and Bar Council, a constitutionally-created body that that
recommends appointees for vacancies that may arise in the composition of the Supreme Court and
other lower courts.[3]

Overview[edit]
Qualifications[edit]
According to the Constitution, for a person to be appointed to the Supreme Court, he must be:

1. a natural-born citizen of the Philippines;

2. at least forty years of age, and
3. have been for fifteen years or more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law
in the Philippines.[d]
An additional constitutional requirement, though less precise in nature, is that a judge "must be a
person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence."[e]
Composition and manner of appointment[edit]
Pursuant to Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, the Court is composed of
the Chief Justice and of the fourteen Associate Justices,[a] all of whom are appointed by
the President from a list of nominees made by the Judicial and Bar Council.[b] An appointment to the
Supreme Court needs no confirmation of the Commission on Appointments as the nomination is
already vetted by the Judicial and Bar Council, a constitutionally-created body which recommends
appointments within the judiciary.[b][c]
Upon a vacancy in the Court, whether for the position of Chief Justice or Associate Justice,
the President fills the vacancy by appointing a person from a list of at least 3 nominees prepared by
the Judicial and Bar Council.[b]
Retirement[edit]
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines provides that:
"SECTION 11. The Members of the Supreme Court xxx shall hold office during good behavior until
they reached the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their
office."[g]
Supreme Court Justices are obliged to retire upon reaching the mandatory retirement age of
70.[f] Some Justices have opted to retire before reaching the age of 70, such as Florentino Feliciano,
who retired at 67 to accept appointment to the Appellate Body of the World Trade
Organization and Alicia Austria-Martinez who retired at 68 due to health reasons.[13][14]
Since 1901, only Associate Justice Austria-Martinez had resigned for health reasons. In September,
2008, Austria-Martinez, citing health reasons, filed a letter to the Court through Chief
Justice Reynato Puno, tendering her resignation effective April 30, 2009, or 15 months before her
compulsory retirement on December 19, 2010.[15] This was followed by Justice Martin Villarama Jr.,
who resigned in January 2016 due to health reasons.[16]

Language[edit]
Since the courts' creation, English had been used in court proceedings. But for the first time in
Philippine judicial history, or on August 22, 2007, three Malolos Cityregional trial courts
in Bulacan will use Filipino, to promote the national language. Twelve stenographers from Branches
6, 80 and 81, as model courts, had undergone training at Marcelo H. del Pilar College of Law
of Bulacan State University College of Law following a directive from the Supreme Court of the
Philippines. De la Rama said it was the dream of Chief Justice Reynato Puno to implement the
program in other areas such as Laguna, Cavite, Quezon, Nueva Ecija, Batangas, Rizal, and Metro
Manila.[17]

Powers and jurisdiction[edit]

The facade of the Supreme Court Building at Padre Faura Street, Ermita, Manila.

The flag of the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

Adjudicatory powers[edit]
See also: Judicial review in the Philippines
The powers of the Supreme Court are defined in Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. These
functions may be generally divided into two—judicial functions and administrative functions. The
administrative functions of the Court pertain to the supervision and control over the Philippine
judiciary and its employees, as well as over members of the Philippine bar. Pursuant to these
functions, the Court is empowered to order a change of venue of trial in order to avoid a miscarriage
of justice and to appoint all officials and employees of the judiciary.[h] The Court is further authorized
to promulgate the rules for admission to the practice of law, for legal assistance to the
underprivileged, and the procedural rules to be observed in all courts.[h]
The more prominent role of the Court is located in the exercise of its judicial functions. Section 1 of
Article VIII contains definition of judicial power that had not been found in previous constitutions. The
judicial power is vested in “one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by
law."[i] This judicial power is exercised through the judiciary's primary role of adjudication, which
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."[i]
The definition reaffirms the power of the Supreme Court to engage in judicial review, a power that
had traditionally belonged to the Court even before this provision was enacted. Still, this new
provision effectively dissuades from the easy resort to the political question doctrine as a means of
declining to review a law or state action, as was often done by the Court during the rule
of President Ferdinand Marcos.[18] As a result, the existence of "grave abuse of discretion" on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the government is sufficient basis to nullify state action.
Original jurisdiction[edit]
The Session Hall of the Supreme Court.

The other mode by which a case reaches the Supreme Court is through an original petition filed
directly with the Supreme Court, in cases that the Constitution establishes "original jurisdiction" with
the Supreme Court. Under Section 5(1), Article VIII of the Constitution, they are "cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus." Resort to certiorari, prohibition and mandamus may
be availed of only if "there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law."[j]
However, notwithstanding the grant of original jurisdiction, the Court has, through the years,
assigned to lower courts such as the Court of Appeals the power to hear petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus. As a result, the Court has considerable
discretion to refuse to hear these petitions filed directly before it on the ground that such should have
been filed instead with the Court of Appeals or the appropriate lower court. Nonetheless, cases that
have attracted wide public interest or for which a speedy resolution is of the essence have been
accepted for decision by the Supreme Court without hesitation.
In cases involving the original jurisdiction of the Court, there must be a finding of "grave abuse of
discretion" on the part of the respondents to the suit to justify favorable action on the petition. The
standard of "grave abuse of discretion", a markedly higher standard than "error of law", has been
defined as "a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction."[k]
Appellate review [edit]
Far and away the most common mode by which a case reaches the Supreme Court is through
an appeal from a decision rendered by a lower court. Appealed cases generally originate
from lawsuits or criminal indictments filed and tried before the trial courts. These decisions of the trial
courts may then be elevated on appeal to the Court of Appeals, or more rarely, directly to the
Supreme Court if only “questions of law” are involved. Apart from decisions of the Court of Appeals,
the Supreme Court may also directly review on appeal decisions rendered by
the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals. Decisions rendered by administrative agencies
are not directly appealable to the Supreme Court, they must be first challenged before the Court of
Appeals. However, decisions of the Commission on Elections may be elevated directly for review to
the Supreme Court, although the procedure is not, strictly speaking, in the nature of an appeal.
Review on appeal is not as a matter of right, but "of sound judicial discretion and will be granted only
when there are special and important reasons therefor".[l] In the exercise of appellate review, the
Supreme Court may reverse the decision of lower courts upon a finding of an "error of law". The
Court generally declines to engage in review the findings of fact made by the lower courts, although
there are notable exceptions to this rule. The Court also refuses to entertain cases originally filed
before it that should have been filed first with the trial courts.
Rule-making power[edit]
The Supreme Court has the exclusive power to 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. Any such rules
shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be
uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi‐judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
disapproved by the Supreme Court. (Art. VIII, §54(5))
Writs of amparo and habeas data[edit]
Main article: Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data (Philippines)
The Supreme Court approved the Writ of Amparo on September 25, 2007.[19] The writ of amparo
(Spanish for protection) strips the military of the defense of simple denial. Under the writ, families of
victims have the right to access information on their cases—a constitutional right called the "habeas
data" common in several Latin American countries. The rule is enforced retroactively. Chief Justice
Puno stated that "If you have this right, it would be very, very difficult for State agents, State
authorities to be able to escape from their culpability."[20][21]
The Resolution and the Rule on the Writ of Amparo gave legal birth to Puno's
brainchild.[22][23][24] No filing or legal fees is required for Amparo which takes effect on October 24.
Puno also stated that the court will soon issue rules on the writ of Habeas Data and the
implementing guidelines for Habeas Corpus. The petition for the writ of amparo may be filed "on any
day and at any time" with the Regional Trial Court, or with the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals,
and the Supreme Court. The interim reliefs under amparo are: temporary protection order (TPO),
inspection order (IO), production order (PO), and witness protection order (WPO, RA 6981).[25]
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has criticized the Writ of Amparo and Habeas
Data for being insufficient, saying further action must be taken, including enacting laws for protection
against torture, enforced disappearance, and laws to provide legal remedies to victims. AHRC said
the writ failed to protect non-witnesses, even if they too face threats.[26]
On August 30, 2007, Puno vowed to institute the writ of habeas data as a new legal remedy to
the extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. Puno explained that the writ of
amparo denies to authorities defense of simple denial, and habeas data can find out what
information is held by the officer, rectify or even the destroy erroneous data gathered.[27]
On January 22, 2008, the Supreme Court en banc approved the rules for the writ of Habeas
Data ("to protect a person’s right to privacy and allow a person to control any information concerning
them"), effective on February 2, the Philippines’ Constitution Day.[28]

Divisions[edit]
The Court is authorized to sit either en banc or in divisions of three, five or seven members. Since
the 1987, the Court has constituted itself in 3 divisions with 5 members each. A majority of the cases
are heard and decided by the divisions, rather than the court en banc. However, the Constitution
requires that the Court hear en banc "[a]ll cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty,
international or executive agreement, as well as "those involving the constitutionality, application, or
operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other
regulations". The Court en banc also decides cases originally heard by a division when a majority
vote cannot be reached within the division. The Court also has the discretion to hear a case en
banc even if no constitutional issue is involved, as it typically does if the decision would reverse
precedent or presents novel or important questions.
Formerly under the 1935, 1973 and the 1986 Freedom Constitutions, the Court is authorized only to
sit either en banc or in divisions of two.

Membership[edit]
Current Justices[edit]
The Supreme Court consists of a chief justice, currently held by Lucas Bersamin, and fourteen
associate justices. Among the current members of the Court, Antonio Carpio is the longest-serving
justice, with a tenure of 6,437 days (17 years, 228 days) as of June 11, 2019; the most recent justice
to join the court is Henri Jean Paul Inting whose tenure began on May 27, 2019.
Justice Position Appointed by Tenure
Birthdate and place Length of service

Chief Justice Duterte November 26, 2018–present

(197 days)

Lucas P. Bersamin
October 18, 1949(age 69) As
Bangued, Abra Associate Justice
Macapagal– April 3, 2009 – November 26, 2018
Arroyo (9 years, 237 days)

Antonio T. Carpio L
Senior Associate Macapagal– October 26, 2001–present
October 26, 1949(age 69)
Justice Arroyo (17 years, 228 days)
Davao City

Diosdado M. Peralta
Macapagal– January 13, 2009–present P
March 27, 1952 (age 67) Associate Justice
Arroyo (10 years, 149 days)
Laoag City, Ilocos Norte
 Justice Position Appointed by Tenure
Birthdate and place Length of service

Mariano C. del Castillo

July 29, 1949 (age 69) Macapagal– July 29, 2009–present As
Dipolog, Zamboanga del Arroyo (9 years, 317 days)
Norte

Estela M. Perlas–Bernabe
May 14, 1952 (age 67) Aquino III September 16, 2011–present As
(7 years, 268 days)
Plaridel, Bulacan

Mario Victor F. Leonen Chie

December 29, 1962(age 56) Aquino III November 12, 2012–present
(6 years, 211 days)
Baguio City

Francis H. Jardeleza
September 26, 1949(age 69) Aquino III August 19, 2014–present
(4 years, 296 days)
Jaro, Iloilo

Alfredo Benjamin S.
Caguioa Aquino III January 22, 2016–present
(3 years, 140 days)
September 26, 1959(age 59)
 Justice Position Appointed by Tenure
Birthdate and place Length of service

Andres B. Reyes, Jr. July 12, 2017–present Pr

Duterte
May 11, 1950 (age 69) (1 year, 334 days)

Alexander G. Gesmundo August 14, 2017–present A

Duterte
November 6, 1956(age 62) (1 year, 301 days)

Jose C. Reyes Jr.

September 18, 1950(age 68) Duterte August 10, 2018–present As
(305 days)
Tacloban, Leyte

Ramon Paul L. Hernando

August 27, 1966(age 52) Duterte October 10, 2018–present As
(244 days)
Tuguegarao, Cagayan

Rosmari D. Carandang
January 9, 1952(age 67) Duterte November 26, 2018–present As
(197 days)
Taal, Batangas
 Justice Position Appointed by Tenure
Birthdate and place Length of service

March 6, 2019–present
Amy C. Lazaro–Javier As
Duterte
November 16, 1956(age 62)
97 days)

As
Henri Jean Paul B. Inting
September 4, 1957(age 61) Duterte May 27, 2019–present
(15 days)
Davao del Sur

Court demographics[edit]
By law school[edit] By gender[edit]

Law School Total Justices Gender Total Justice

A. Caguioa L. Bersami

M. del Castillo A. Carpio

Ateneo de Manila University 5 A. Gesmundo A. Caguioa

E. Perlas-Bernabe Male 12 M. del Cast

A. Reyes A. Gesmun

R. Carandang R. Hernand
University of the Philippines 4
A. Carpio H. Inting
 F. Jardaleza F. Jardeleza

M. Leonen M. Leonen

R. Hernando D. Peralta
San Beda University 2
J. Reyes A. Reyes

A. Lazaro–Javier J. Reyes
University of Santo Tomas 2
D. Peralta R. Caranda

University of the East 1 L. Bersamin Female 3 A. Lazaro–

Ateneo de Davao University 1 H. Inting E. Perlas–B

By appointing President[edit]

President Total Justices

R. Carandang

A. Gesmundo

R. Hernando
Duterte 7
H. Inting

A. Lazaro–Javier

A. Reyes
 J. Reyes

A. Caguioa

F. Jardaleza
Aquino III 4
M. Leonen

E. Perlas–Bernabe

L. Bersamin

A. Carpio
Macapagal–Arroyo 4
M. del Castillo

D. Peralta

Public perception[edit]
Judicial corruption[edit]
On January 25, 2005, and on December 10, 2006, Philippines Social Weather Stations released the
results of its two surveys on corruption in the judiciary; it published that: a) like 1995, 1/4
of lawyers said many/very many judges are corrupt. But (49%) stated that a judges received bribes,
just 8% of lawyers admitted they reported the bribery, because they could not prove it. [Tables 8-9];
judges, however, said, just 7% call many/very many judges as corrupt[Tables 10-11];b) "Judges see
some corruption; proportions who said - many/very many corrupt judges or justices: 17% in
reference to RTC judges, 14% to MTC judges, 12% to Court of Appeals justices, 4% i to Shari'a
Court judges, 4% to Sandiganbayan justices and 2% in reference to Supreme Court justices [Table
15].[29][30]
The September 14, 2008, Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) survey, ranked
the Philippines 6th (6.10) among corrupt Asian judicial systems. PERC stated that "despite India and
the Philippines being democracies, expatriates did not look favourably on their judicial systems
because of corruption." PERC reported Hong Kong and Singapore have the best judicial systems
in Asia, with Indonesia and Vietnam the worst: Hong Kong's judicial system scored 1.45 on the scale
(zero representing the best performance and 10 the worst); Singapore with a grade of 1.92, followed
by Japan (3.50), South Korea (4.62), Taiwan (4.93), the Philippines(6.10), Malaysia (6.47), India
(6.50), Thailand (7.00), China (7.25), Vietnam's (8.10) and Indonesia (8.26).[31]<[32]
In 2014, Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (global survey ranking countries in
terms of perceived corruption), the Philippines ranked 85th out of 175 countries surveyed, an
improvement from placing 94th in 2013. It scored 38 on a scale of 1 to 100 in the Corruption
Perceptions Index (CPI).[33]
The Philippines jumped nine places in the recently published World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of
Law Index 2015, making it one of the most improved countries in terms of global rankings. It ranked
51st out of 102 countries on the ROLI, a significant jump from last year when the country ranked
60th out of 99 countries. This makes the Philippines the most improved among ASEAN member
nations. "Results showed that the country ranked high in terms of constraints on government powers
(39th); absence of corruption (47th), and open government (50th)."
"The Philippines, however, fell to the bottom half of the global rankings in terms of regulatory
enforcement (52nd); order and security (58th); criminal justice (66th); fundamental rights (67th), and
civil justice (75th)."[34]
Bantay Korte Suprema[edit]
"Watch the Supreme Court" coalition was launched at the Training Center, Ground Floor, Supreme
Court Centennial Bldg on November 17, 2008, "to ensure the fair and honest selection of the
7 Associate Justices of the Supreme Court on 2009." Members of “Bantay Korte Suprema” include
retired Philippine presidents, retired Supreme Court justices, legislators, legal practitioners, the
academe, the business community and the media. former Senate President Jovito Salonga, UP Law
Dean Marvic Leonen, Senate Majority Leader and Judicial and Bar Council member Kiko Pangilinan,
the Philippine Bar Association, Artemio Panganiban, and Rodolfo Urbiztondo, of the 48,000-
strong Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), and the chambers of commerce, witnessed the
landmark event. BKS will neither select nor endorse a candidate, “but if it receive information that
makes a candidate incompetent, it will divulge this to the public and inform the JBC." At the BKS
launching, the memorandum of understanding (MOU) on the public monitoring of the selection of
justices to the SC was signed.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court Appointments Watch (SCAW) coalition of law groups and civil
society to monitor the appointment of persons to judicial positions was also re-launched. The
SCAW consortium, composed of the Alternative Law Groups, Libertas, Philippine Association of law
Schools and the Transparency and Accountability Network, together with the online news
magazine Newsbreak, reactivated itself for the JBC selection process of candidates.[35][36][37][38]

Landmark decision[edit]
The following are select landmark decisions decided by the Supreme Court since 1901:

• Republic v. Sereno (2018), removal of an impeachable official via quo warrantopetition.

• Lagman et al. v. Senate President Pimentel et. al. (2017), validity of second extension of the
proclamation of martial law in the entire Mindanao for one year.
• Knights of Rizal v. DMCI (2017), suspension of the construction, and ultimate demolition of the
condominium building for violating National Cultural Heritage Act.
• Saturnino C. Ocampo, et al. v. Rear Admiral Ernesto C. Enriquez, et al (2016), Constitutional
validity of internment of the remains of President Ferdinand Marcos to the Libingan ng mga
Bayani.
• David v. Poe (2015), eligibility of a foundling for public office.
• League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC (2011), validity of the cityhood laws of sixteen
municipalities.
• Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission (2010), validity of the creation of the Truth Commission.
• Quinto v. COMELEC (2009), incumbent appointive executive officials to stay in office after filing
their certificates of candidacy for election to an elective officials.
• Sema v. COMELEC (2008), power of the autonomous region to create provinces and cities.
• Neri v. Senate (2008), validity of extension of executive privilege to cabinet officials.
• Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. on CA-G.R. SP NO. 103692 (2008),
Irregularities and improprieties committed by the C.A. Justices in connection with the MERALCO
case.
• People v. Estrada (2007), charging the former president for the offense of Plunder.
• Oposa v. Factoran (1993), doctrine of intergenerational responsibility on the environment in the
Philippine legal system.
• Javellana v. Executive Secretary (1974), ratification of the 1973 Constitution.
• People v. Hernandez (1956), rebellion is charged as a single offense rather than complex crime.
• Krivenko v. Register of Deeds (1947), prohibition of foreign acquisition of private or public
agricultural lands, including residential lands.