Sc.judiciary.gov.ph

**Supreme Court of the Philippines (SC)** website is sc.judiciary.gov.ph.

**@SCPh\_PIO** The redesigned and improved Supreme Court website is now up! Check it out at: , http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph (April 10, 2019)

## History

**A CONSTITUTIONAL History of the Supreme Court OF**
THE PHILIPPINES

The Supreme Court of the Philippines is the progeny
of the tribunal established by **Act No. 136** of the Philippine Commission
on June 11, 1901. There is no umbilical cord joining the Supreme Court to the *Real*
Audiencia de Manila *set up by the Spaniards or the* Audiencia Territorial
de Manila *constituted by Major General Elwell Otis. These* audiencias,
however, serve as backdrops and proper perspectives in retelling the history of
the present Supreme Court.

***The Judicial System of the Pre-Spanish Filipinos***

When the Spanish colonizers first arrived in the
Philippine archipelago, they found the indigenous Filipinos without any written
laws. Mainly, the laws enforced were derived from customs, usages and
tradition. These laws were believed to be God-given and were orally transmitted
from generation to generation.

A remarkable feature of these customs and
traditions was that they were found to be very similar to one another
notwithstanding that they were observed in widely dispersed islands of the
archipelago. There were no judges and lawyers who were trained formally in the
law, although there were elders who devoted time to the study of the customs,
usages and traditions of their tribes to qualify them as consultants or
advisers on these matters.
The unit of government of the indigenous Filipinos was the *barangay*,
which was a family-based community of 30 to 100 families, occupying a *pook*
(“locality” or “area”) Headed by a chieftain called a *datu* who exercised
all functions of government—executive, legislative, and judicial—a *barangay*
was not only a political but also a social and economic organization.  In
the exercise of his judicial authority, the *datu* acted as a judge *(hukom)*
in settling disputes and deciding cases in his *barangay*.

***The Judicial System Under the Spanish Regime***

During the early Spanish occupation, King Philip II
established the *Real Audiencia de Manila* which was given not only
judicial but legislative, executive, advisory, and administrative functions as
well. Composed of the incumbent governor general as the *presidente*
(presiding officer), four *oidores* (equivalent to associate justices), an
*asesor* (legal adviser), an *alguacil mayor* (chief constable),
among other officials, the *Real Audiencia de Manila* was both a trial and
appellate court. It had exclusive original, concurrent original and exclusive
appellate jurisdictions.

Initially, the *Audiencia* was given a
non-judicial role in the colonial administration, to deal with unforeseen
problems within the territory that arose from time to time—it was given the
power to supervise certain phases of ecclesiastical affairs as well as
regulatory functions, such as fixing of prices at which merchants could sell
their commodities. Likewise, the *Audiencia* had executive functions, like
the allotment of lands to the settlers of newly established pueblos. However,
by 1861, the *Audiencia* had ceased to perform these executive and
administrative functions and had been restricted to the administration of
justice.

When the *Audiencia Territorial de Cebu* was
established in 1886, the name of the *Real Audiencia de Manila* was
changed to *Audiencia Territorial de Manila*.

***The Judicial System During the American Occupation***

As expected, the subsequent occupation by the
Americans of the Philippine Islands in the late 1890s after Spain’s defeat in
the Spanish-American War paved the way for considerable changes in the control,
disposition, and governance of the Islands.

The judicial system established during the regime
of the military government functioned as an instrument of the executive—not of
the judiciary—as an independent and separate branch of government.
Secretary of State John Hay, on May 12, 1899, proposed a plan for a colonial
government of the Philippine Islands which would give Filipinos the largest
measure of self-government. The plan contemplated an independent judiciary
manned by judges chosen from qualified locals and Americans.

On May 29, 1899, General Elwell Stephen Otis,
Military Governor for the Philippines, issued **General Order No. 20**,
reestablishing the *Audiencia Teritorial de Manila* which was to apply
Spanish laws and jurisprudence recognized by the American military governor as
continuing in force.

The Audiencia was composed of a presiding officer
and eight members organized into two divisions: the *sala de lo civil* or
the civil branch, and the *sala de lo criminal* or the criminal branch.

It was General Otis himself who personally selected
the first appointees to the Audiencia. Cayetano L. Arellano was appointed
President (equivalent to Chief Justice) of the Court, with Manuel Araullo as
president of the *sala de lo civil* and Raymundo Melliza as president of
the *salo de lo criminal*. Gregorio Araneta and Lt. Col. E.H. Crowder were
appointed associate justices of the civil branch while Ambrosio Rianzares,
Julio Llorente, Major R.W. Young and Captain W.E. Brikhimer were designated
associate justices of the criminal branch. Thus, the reestablished *Audiencia*
became the first agency of the new insular government where Filipinos were
appointed side by side with Americans.

***The Establishment of the Supreme Court of the***
Philippines

On June 11, 1901, the Second Philippine Commission
passed Act No. 136 entitled “An Act Providing for the Organization of Courts in
the Philippine Islands” formally establishing the Supreme Court of the
Philippine Islands and creating Courts of First Instance and Justices of the
Peace Courts throughout the land. The judicial organization established by the
Act was conceived by the American lawyers in the Philippine Commission and was
patterned in its basic structures after similar organizations in the United
States.

The Supreme Court created under the Act was
composed of a Chief Justice and six Judges. Five members of the Court could
form a quorum, and the concurrence of at least four members was necessary to
pronounce a judgment.
Act No. 136 abolished the *Audiencia* established under General Order No.
20 and declared that the Supreme Court created by the Act be substituted in its
place. This effectively severed any nexus between the present Supreme Court and
the *Audiencia.*

The Anglo-American legal system under which the
Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands was expected to operate was entirely
different from the old Spanish system that Filipinos were familiar with.
Adjustments had to be made; hence, the decisions of the Supreme Court during
its early years reflected a blend of both the Anglo-American and Spanish
systems. The jurisprudence was a gentle transition from the old order to the
new.

***The Supreme Court During the Commonwealth***

Following the ratification of the 1935 Philippine
Constitution in a plebiscite, the principle of separation of powers was adopted
not by express and specific provision to that effect, but by actual division of
powers of the government—executive, legislative, and judicial—in different
articles thereof.

As in the United States, the judicial power was
vested by the 1935 Constitution “in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts
as may be established by law.” It devolved on the Judiciary to determine
whether the acts of the other two departments were in harmony with the
fundamental law.

The Court during the Commonwealth was composed of
“a Chief Justice and ten Associate Justices, and may sit *en banc* or in
two divisions, unless otherwise provided by law.”

***The Supreme Court of the Second Republic***

After the Japanese occupation during the Second
World War and the subsequent independence from the United States, **Republic**
Act No. 296 **or the Judiciary Act of 1948 was enacted. This law grouped**
together the cases over which the Supreme Court could exercise exclusive
jurisdiction to review on appeal, *certiorari* or writ of error.

***The Supreme Court Under the 1973 Constitution***

The declaration of Martial Law through Proclamation
No. 1081 by former President Ferdinand E, Marcos in 1972 brought about the
transition from the 1935 Constitution to the 1973 Constitution. This transition
had implications on the Court’s composition and functions.

This period brought in many legal issues of
transcendental importance and consequence. Among these were the legality of the
ratification of a new 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. Writ large also during
this period was the relationship between the Court and the Chief Executive who,
under Amendment No. 6 to the 1973 Constitution, had assumed legislative powers
even while an elected legislative body continued to function.

The 1973 Constitution 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.

***The Supreme Court Under the Revolutionary***
Government

Shortly after assuming office as the seventh
President of the Republic of the Philippines after the successful People Power
Revolution, then President Corazon C. Aquino declared the existence of a
revolutionary government under Proclamation No. 1 dated February 25, 1986.
Among the more significant portions of this Proclamation was an instruction for
“all appointive officials to submit their courtesy resignations beginning with
the members of the Supreme Court.”The call was unprecedented, considering the
separation of powers that the previous Constitutions had always ordained, but
understandable considering the revolutionary nature of the post-People Power
government. Heeding the call, the members of the Judiciary—from the Supreme
Court to the Municipal Circuit Courts—placed their offices at the disposal of
the President and submitted their resignations. President Corazon C, Aquino
proceeded to reorganize the entire Court, appointing all 15 members.

On March 25, 1986, President Corazon Aquino,
through Proclamation No. 3, also abolished the 1973 Constitution and put in place
a Provisional “Freedom” Constitution. Under Article I, section 2 of the Freedom
Constitution, the provisions of the 1973 Constitution on the judiciary were
adopted insofar as they were not inconsistent with Proclamation No. 3.

Article V of Proclamation No. 3 provided for the
convening of a Constitutional Commission composed of fifty appointive members
to draft a new constitution; this would be implemented by Proclamation No. 9.
The output of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 was submitted to the people
for ratification, under  Filipino people then ratified the Constitution
submitted to them by the Constitutional Commission on February 2, 1987.

***The Supreme Court Under the 1987 Constitution***

As in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, the 1987
Constitution provides that “[t]he judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme
Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.” (Art. VII, Sec.
1). The exercise of judicial power is shared by the Supreme Court with all the
courts below it, but it is only the Supreme Court’s decisions that are vested
with precedential value or doctrinal authority, as its interpretations of the
Constitution and the laws are final and beyond review by any other branch of
government.

Unlike the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, however,
the 1987 Constitution defines the concept of judicial power. Under paragraph 2
of Section 1, Article VIII, “judicial power” includes not only the “duty of the
courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable” but also “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.”
This latter provision dilutes the effectivity of the “political question”
doctrine which places specific questions best submitted to the political wisdom
of the people beyond the review of the courts.

Building on previous experiences under former
Constitutions, the 1987 Constitution provides for specific safeguards to ensure
the independence of the Judiciary. These are found in the following provisions:

* The grant to the Judiciary of fiscal autonomy. “Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year, and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released.” (Art. VIII, Sec. 3).

* The grant to the Chief Justice of authority to augment any item in the general appropriation law for the Judiciary from savings in other items of said appropriation as authorized by law. (Art. VI, Sec. 25[5])

* The removal from Congress of the power to deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 of Article VIII.

* The grant to the Court of the power to appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law (Art. VIII, Sec. 5[6])

* The removal from the Commission of Appointments of the power to confirm appointments of justices and judges (Art. VIII, Sec. 8)

* The removal from Congress of the power to reduce the compensation or salaries of the Justices and judges during their continuance in office. (Art. VIII, Sec. 10)

* The prohibition against the removal of judges through legislative reorganization by providing that “(n)o law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its members.

 (Art. VIII, Sec. 2)

* The grant of sole authority to the Supreme Court to order the temporary detail of judges. (Art. VIII, Sec. 5[3])

* The grant of sole authority to the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of procedure for the courts. (Art. VIII, Sec. 5[5])

* The  prohibition against designating members of the Judiciary to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative function. (Art. VIII, Sec. 12)

The grant of administrative supervision over the lower courts and its personnel in the Supreme Court. (Art. VIII, Sec. 6)
The Supreme Court under the present Constitution is
composed of a Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices.
The members of the Court are appointed by the President from a list prepared by
the Judicial and Bar Council of at least three nominees for every vacancy. This
new process is intended to “de-politicize” the courts of justice, ensure the
choice of competent judges, and fill existing vacancies without undue delay.

## Sources

* The Philippine Judiciary Foundation, 2011. *The History of the Supreme Court.*
* Supreme Court of the Philippines, Manila.
* The 1935 Constitution.
* The 1973 Constitution.
* The 1986 Freedom Constitution
* The 1987 Constitution.

## Trivia

* https://twitter.com/SCPh\_PIO/status/1116161336327622656