Welcome to the Supreme Court of the Philippines
Welcome to the Supreme Court of the Philippines
Welcome to the Supreme Court of the Philippines
READ: Infographics on Bar Bulletin No. 2-2023 Re: Application Requirements for the 2023 Bar Examinations sc.judiciary.gov.ph/files/bar-2023 #WeCanDoIt #HernanDoIt #Bar2023

OCA-OAS

NUMBER OF MALE AND FEMALE JUDGES  IN THE LOWER COURTS FOR 2022
( as  of Decemberr 31, 2022 )
              
              
C  O  U  R  TG  E  N  D  E  R TOTAL
INCUMBENT
JUDGES
 TOTAL
NUMBER OF
VACANCIES
 TOTAL
NUMBER OF
JUDGES
MALE%FEMALE%
           
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT47651%46249% 938 277 1215
           
FAMILY COURT2929%7071% 99 84 183
           
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT5037%8763% 137 32 169
           
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES6523%21577% 280 -19 261
           
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT11841%17159% 289 81 370
           
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT16747%18753% 354 111 465
           
SHARIÁ DISTRICT COURT1100%00% 1 4 5
           
SHARIÁ CIRCUIT COURT1482%318% 17 34 51
           
T   O   T   A   L92043%119557% 2115 604 2719

 

NUMBER OF MALE AND FEMALE PERSONNEL  IN THE LOWER COURTS FOR 2022
( as of December 31, 2022 )
              
              
C  O  U  R  TG  E  N  D  E  R TOTAL
INCUMBENT
PERSONNEL
 TOTAL
NUMBER OF
VACANCIES
 TOTAL
NUMBER OF
PERSONNEL
MALE%FEMALE%
           
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT495938%811062% 13069 4686 17755
           
FAMILY COURT29539%47161% 766 1940 2706
           
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT71744%92556% 1642 677 2319
           
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES114440%169760% 2841 884 3725
           
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT88037%149663% 2376 635 3011
           
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT107438%172862% 2802 928 3730
           
SHARIÁ DISTRICT COURT1951%1849% 37 18 55
           
SHARIÁ CIRCUIT COURT11156%8744% 198 210 408
           
T   O   T   A   L919939%1453261% 23731 9978 33709

NUMBER OF MALE AND FEMALE JUDGES IN THE LOWER COURTS FOR 2021

(as of December 31, 2021)

C  O  U  R  TG  E  N  D  E  R TOTALINCUMBENTJUDGES TOTALNUMBER OFVACANCIES TOTAL NUMBER OFJUDGES
MALE%FEMALE%
           
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT45851%44149% 899 311 1210
           
FAMILY COURT2431%5369% 77 21 98
           
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT4237%7163% 113 56 169
           
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES6935%12665% 195 66 261
           
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT11140%16960% 280 89 369
           
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT17548%19152% 366 101 467
           
SHARIÁ DISTRICT COURT1100%00% 1 4 5
           
SHARIÁ CIRCUIT COURT1583%317% 18 33 51
           
T   O   T   A   L89546%105454% 1949 681 2630

NUMBER OF MALE AND FEMALE PERSONNEL IN THE LOWER COURTS FOR 2021
(as of December 31, 2021)

C  O  U  R  TG  E  N  D  E  R TOTALINCUMBENTJUDGES TOTALNUMBER OFVACANCIES TOTAL NUMBER OFJUDGES
MALE%FEMALE%
           
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT486538%781862% 12683 4993 17676
           
FAMILY COURT23040%34060% 570 861 1431
           
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT69143%90657% 1597 722 2319
           
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES112440%168260% 2806 907 3713
           
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT85937%146463% 2323 679 3002
           
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT106339%168361% 2746 1000 3746
           
SHARIÁ DISTRICT COURT1949%2051% 39 16 55
           
SHARIÁ CIRCUIT COURT11560%7940% 194 214 408
           
T   O   T   A   L93847%106853% 2006 624 2630

NUMBER OF MALE AND FEMALE JUDGES IN THE LOWER COURTS FOR 2020
(as of December 31, 2020)

C  O  U  R  TG  E  N  D  E  R TOTALINCUMBENTJUDGES TOTALNUMBER OFVACANCIES TOTAL NUMBER OFJUDGES
MALE%FEMALE%
           
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT48352%44248% 925 285 1210
           
FAMILY COURT2333%4767% 70 28 98
           
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT4438%7362% 117 52 169
           
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES7436%13064% 204 57 261
           
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT11139%17461% 285 84 369
           
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT18548%19952% 384 83 467
           
SHARIÁ DISTRICT COURT1100%00% 1 4 5
           
SHARIÁ CIRCUIT COURT1785%315% 20 31 51
           
T   O   T   A   L93847%106853% 2006 624 2630

NUMBER OF MALE AND FEMALE PERSONNEL IN THE LOWER COURTS FOR 2020
(as of December 31, 2020)

C  O  U  R  TG  E  N  D  E  R TOTALINCUMBENTPERSONNEL TOTALNUMBER OFVACANCIES TOTAL NUMBER OFPERSONNEL
MALE%FEMALE%
           
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT475338%762362% 12376 5300 17676
           
FAMILY COURT18942%26158% 450 981 1431
           
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT68744%88756% 1574 745 2319
           
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES111640%167860% 2794 919 3713
           
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT87637%147463% 2350 652 3002
           
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT106139%164861% 2709 1037 3746
           
SHARIÁ DISTRICT COURT1948%2152% 40 15 55
           
SHARIÁ CIRCUIT COURT11861%7740% 195 213 408
           
T   O   T   A   L881939%1366961% 22488 9862 32350

NUMBER OF MALE AND FEMALE JUDGES IN THE LOWER COURTS FOR 2019
(as of December 31, 2019)

C  O  U  R  TGENDER TOTAL
INCUMBENT
JUDGES
 TOTAL
NUMBER OF
VACANCIES
 TOTAL NUMBER
OF JUDGES
MALE%FEMALE%
           
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT46956%39544% 864 346 1210
           
FAMILY COURT1327%3573% 48 50 98
           
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT4839%7561% 123 46 169
           
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES8141%12859% 209 52 261
           
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT11645%15755% 273 96 369
           
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT17352%17848% 351 116 467
           
SHARIÁ DISTRICT COURT1100%00% 1 4 5
           
SHARIÁ CIRCUIT COURT2386%314% 26 25 51
           
T   O   T   A   L92451%97149% 1895 735 2630

NUMBER OF MALE AND FEMALE PERSONNEL IN THE LOWER COURTS FOR 2019
(as of December 31, 2019)

C  O  U  R  TG  E  N  D  E  R TOTAL
INCUMBENT
PERSONNEL
 TOTAL
NUMBER OF
VACANCIES
 TOTAL NUMBER OF
PERSONNEL
MALE%FEMALE%
           
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT463438%743562% 12069 5607 17676
           
FAMILY COURT18949%25751% 446 985 1431
           
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT68744%86956% 1556 763 2319
           
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES112640%170060% 2826 887 3713
           
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT87336%149464% 2367 635 3002
           
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT108138%168062% 2761 985 3746
           
SHARIÁ DISTRICT COURT2050%2250% 42 13 55
           
SHARIÁ CIRCUIT COURT12260%7940% 201 207 408
           
T   O   T   A   L873239%1353661% 22268 10082 32350

NUMBER OF MALE AND FEMALE JUDGES IN THE LOWER COURTS FOR 2018
(as of December 31, 2018)

COURTGENDER TOTAL INCUMBENT JUDGES TOTAL NUMBER OF VACANCIES TOTAL NUMBER OF JUDGES
MALE%FEMALE%
           
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT46756%36344% 830 339 1169
           
FAMILY COURT1327%3573% 48 0 48
           
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT4439%7061% 114 50 164
           
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES8641%12559% 211 46 257
           
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT11745%14355% 260 107 367
           
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT18052%16548% 345 122 467
           
SHARIÁ DISTRICT COURT1100%00% 1 4 5
           
SHARIÁ CIRCUIT COURT1986%314% 22 29 51
           
T  O  T  A  L92751%90449% 1831 697 2528

NUMBER OF MALE AND FEMALE PERSONNEL IN THE LOWER COURTS FOR 2018
(as of December 31, 2018)

COURTGENDER TOTAL INCUMBENT PERSONNEL TOTAL NUMBER OF VACANCIES TOTAL NUMBER OF PERSONNEL
MALE%FEMALE%
           
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT463238%745062% 12082 5044 17126
           
FAMILY COURT7749%8051% 157 524 681
           
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT59844%77556% 1373 880 2253
           
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES113540%169660% 2831 823 3654
           
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT85636%151864% 2374 612 2986
           
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT108938%174962% 2838 908 3746
           
SHARIÁ DISTRICT COURT2250%2250% 44 11 55
           
SHARIÁ CIRCUIT COURT12660%8340% 209 199 408
           
T  O  T  A  L853539%1337361% 21908 9001 30909

TOTAL NUMBER OF MALE & FEMALE JUDGES
(First and Second Level Courts)
As of 31 DECEMBER 2018

REGION NO. OF MALE & FEMALE JUDGES 
RTC MALERTC FEMALERTC Male PercentageRTC Female Percentage MALE FC  FEMALE FC FC Male PercentageFC Female PercentageMeTC MALEMeTC FEMALEMeTC Male PercentageMeTC Female PercentageMTCC MALEMTCC FEMALEMTCC Male PercentageMTCC Female Percentage
NCRJ10312845%55%51131%69%517840%60%0%0%
REGION 1332458%42%0%0%0%0%41029%71%
REGION II31  586%14%0%0%0%0%5456%44%
REGION III374247%53%21115%85%0%0%101343%57%
REGION IV393453%47%61332%68%0%0%101934%66%
REGION V301271%29%0%0%0%0%3730%70%
REGION VI282553%47%0%0%0%0%141450%50%
REGION VII492467%33%0%0%0%0%92328%72%
REGION VIII231070%30%0%0%0%0%6275%25%
REGION IX211264%36%0%0%0%0%7188%13%
REGION X221658%42%0%0%0%0%71630%70%
REGION XI272552%48%0%0%0%0%4931%69%
REGION XII11858%42%0%0%0%0%4544%56%
 45436555%45%133527%73%517840%60%8312340%60%
REGION NO. OF MALE & FEMALE JUDGES 
MTC MALEMTC FEMALEMTC Male PercentageMTC Female PercentageMCTC MALEMCTC FEMALEMCTC Male PercentageMCTC Female PercentageSDC MALESDC FEMALESDC Male PercentageSDC FeMale PercentageSCC MALESCC FEMALESCC Male PercentageSCC Female Percentage
NCRJ0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
REGION 1171947%53%202149%51%0%0%0%0%
REGION II71433%67%201754%46%0%0%0%0%
REGION III212051%49%81338%62%0%0%0%0%
REGION IV253045%55%92328%72%0%0%0%0%
REGION V171455%45%13959%41%0%0%0%0%
REGION VI31023%77%211264%36%0%0%0%0%
REGION VII5363%38%161257%43%0%0%0%0%
REGION VIII81535%65%231659%41%0%0%0%0%
REGION IX1517%83%6843%57%0%0%5271%29%
REGION X4357%43%171357%43%0%0%0%0%
REGION XI5742%58%101245%55%0%0%0%0%
REGION XII2340%60%15575%25%1100%0%15194%6%
 11514345%55%17816153%47%10100%0%20387%13%
 MALEFEMALEMaleFemale Percentage
     
RTC45436555%45%
FC133527%73%
MeTC517840%60%
MTCC8312340%60%
MTC11514345%55%
MCTC17816153%47%
SDC1 –100%0%
SCC20387%13%
 91590850%50%
     
TOTAL NUMBER OF JUDGES1,823   

NUMBER OF MALE AND FEMALE JUDGES IN THE LOWER COURTS FOR 2017
(as of December 31, 2017)

COURTGENDER TOTAL INCUMBENT JUDGES TOTAL NUMBER OF VACANCIES TOTAL NUMBER OF JUDGES
MALE%FEMALE%
           
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT48758%36042% 847 322 1169
           
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT4241%6059% 102 62 164
           
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES9041%12859% 218 39 257
           
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT12947%14553% 274 93 367
           
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT19154%16646% 357 110 467
           
SHARIÁ DISTRICT COURT1100%00% 1 4 5
           
SHARIÁ CIRCUIT COURT2589%311% 28 23 51
           
T  O  T  A  L96553%86247% 1827 653 2480

NUMBER OF MALE AND FEMALE PERSONNEL IN THE LOWER COURTS FOR 2017
(as of December 31, 2017)

COURTGENDER TOTAL INCUMBENT PERSONNEL TOTAL NUMBER OF VACANCIES TOTAL NUMBER OF PERSONNEL
MALE%FEMALE%
           
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT444938%723662% 11685 5441 17126
           
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT57344%73456% 1307 946 2253
           
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES107739%167261% 2749 905 3654
           
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT84136%151564% 2356 630 2986
           
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT110138%178662% 2887 859 3746
           
SHARIÁ DISTRICT COURT2152%2248% 43 12 55
           
SHARIÁ CIRCUIT COURT13162%8238% 213 195 408
           
T  O  T  A  L819339%1304761% 21240 8988 30228

TOTAL NUMBER OF MALE & FEMALE JUDGES
(First and Second Level Courts)
As of 31 DECEMBER 2017

REGION NO. OF MALE & FEMALE JUDGES 
RTC MALERTC FEMALERTC Male PercentageRTC Female Percentage MALE FC  FEMALE FC FC Male PercentageFC Female PercentageMeTC MALEMeTC FEMALEMeTC Male PercentageMeTC Female PercentageMTCC MALEMTCC FEMALEMTCC Male PercentageMTCC Female Percentage
NCRJ11413446%54%51131%69%415841%59%0%0%
REGION 1272057%43%0%0%0%0%41029%71%
REGION II29585%15%0%0%0%0%5456%44%
REGION III414448%52%21115%85%0%0%101343%57%
REGION IV453457%43%61332%68%0%0%101934%66%
REGION V311370%30%0%0%0%0%3730%70%
REGION VI302654%46%0%0%0%0%151452%48%
REGION VII512765%35%0%0%0%0%102330%70%
REGION VIII231462%38%0%0%0%0%6275%25%
REGION IX211264%36%0%0%0%0%7188%13%
REGION X231758%43%0%0%0%0%81633%67%
REGION XI282949%51%0%0%0%0%4931%69%
REGION XII14864%36%0%0%0%0%4544%56%
 47738355%45%133527%73%415841%59%8612341%59%
REGION NO. OF MALE & FEMALE JUDGES 
MTC MALEMTC FEMALEMTC Male PercentageMTC Female PercentageMCTC MALEMCTC FEMALEMCTC Male PercentageMCTC Female PercentageSDC MALESDC FEMALESDC Male PercentageSDC FeMale PercentageSCC MALESCC FEMALEMTC Male PercentageSCC Female Percentage
NCRJ0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
REGION 1192049%51%202149%51%0%0%0%0%
REGION II71433%67%201754%46%0%0%0%0%
REGION III232053%47%  81338%62%0%0%0%0%
REGION IV283147%53%102330%70%0%0%0%0%
REGION V181456%44%13959%41%0%0%0%0%
REGION VI31023%77%221265%35%0%0%0%0%
REGION VII5363%38%171259%41%0%0%0%0%
REGION VIII  81535%65%231659%41%0%0%0%0%
REGION IX  1  517%83%  7  847%53%0%0%5 271%29%
REGION X  5  363%38%181358%42%0%0%0%0%
REGION XI5742%58%101245%55%0%0%0%0%
REGION XII2  340%60%15  575%25%1100%0%   18 195%5%
 12414546%54%18316153%47%10100%0%23388%12%
 MALEFEMALEMaleFemale Percentage
     
RTC47713478%22%
FC133527%73%
MeTC415841%59%
MTCC8612341%59%
MTC12414546%54%
MCTC18316153%47%
SDC1100%0%
SCC23388%12%
 94865959%41%
     
TOTAL NUMBER OF JUDGES1,607   

SEX – DISAGGREGATED DATA ON MALE AND FEMALE JUDGES OF FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
(as of Decemberr 31, 2016)

 C O U R TMALE%FEMALE% TOTAL INCUMBENT JUDGES TOTALNUMBER OFVACANCIES TOTAL NUMBER OF JUDGES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT47959%33941% 818 351 1169
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT4643%6157% 107 57 164
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES9145%11255% 203 54 257
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT14152%13248% 273 94 367
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT18954%15946% 348 119 467

SHARIA DISTRICT COURT

1100%00% 1 4 5

SHARIA CIRCUIT COURT

2589%311% 28 23 51
TOTAL97255%80645% 1778 702 2480

SEX – DISAGGREGATED DATA ON MALE AND FEMALE PERSONNEL OF FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
(as of December 31, 2016)

 C O U R TMALE%FEMALE% TOTAL INCUMBENT PERSONNEL TOTALNUMBER OFVACANCIES TOTAL NUMBER OF PERSONNEL
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT442938%719462% 11623 5503 17126
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT54943%73257% 1281 972 2253
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES111340%168860% 2801 853 3654
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT84935%155365% 2402 584 2986
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT114338%186062% 3003 743 3746

SHARIA DISTRICT COURT

2352%2148% 44 11 55

SHARIA CIRCUIT COURT

13462%8338% 217 191 408
TOTAL824039%1313161% 21371 8857 30228

DATA ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES FOR FEMALE AND MALE JUDGES FOR THE YEAR 2016

 SECOND LEVEL COURT JUDGES

 FEMALE JUDGESMALE JUDGESTOTAL
Cases Filed60107167
Complaint Dismissed5983142
Admonished123
Benefits Forfeited000
Censured000
Dismissed From Service022
Fined31316
Reprimanded336
Suspended213

FIRST LEVEL COURT JUDGES

 FEMALE JUDGESMALE JUDGESTOTAL
Cases Filed233962
Complaint Dismissed254368
Admonished213
Benefits Forfeited000
Censured000
Dismissed From Service112
Fined2810
Reprimanded202
Suspended011

 DATA ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES FOR FEMALE and MALE JUSTICES FOR THE YEAR 2016

COURT OF APPEALS

 FEMALE JUSTICESMALE JUSTICESTOTAL
Cases Filed141933
Complaint Dismissed639

SANDIGANBAYAN

 FEMALE JUSTICESMALE JUSTICESTOTAL
Cases Filed011
Complaint Dismissed022

COURT OF TAX APPEALS

NONE

DATA ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES FOR FEMALE AND MALE SHARI’A JUDGES FOR THE YEAR 2016

 SHARI’A DISTRICT COURT

NONE

SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURT

 FEMALE JUSTICESMALE JUSTICESTOTAL
Cases Filed022
Complaint Dismissed011

SEX-DISAGGREGATED DATA ON MALE AND FEMALE JUDGES OF FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
(As of December 31, 2015)

 C O U R TMALE%FEMALE% TOTAL INCUMBENT JUDGES TOTAL NUMBER VACANCIES TOTAL NUMBER OF COURTS
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT49860%32039% 818 351 1169
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT4246%4954% 91 73 164
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT-IN-CITIES9648%10552% 201 56 257
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT14552%13147% 276 91 367
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT19356%15344% 346 121 467
SHARIA DISTRICT COURT1100%00% 1 4 5
SHARIA CIRCUIT COURT2589%311% 28 23 51
TOTAL100057%76143% 1761 719 2280

SEX-DISAGGREGATED DATA ON MALE AND FEMALE PERSONNEL OF FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
(As of December 31, 2015)

 C O U R TMALE%FEMALE% TOTAL INCUMBENT JUDGES TOTAL NUMBER VACANCIES TOTAL NUMBER OF PERSONNEL
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT452238%735362% 11867 5259 17126
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT53342%72958% 1251 1002 2253
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT-IN-CITIES124444%179364% 2804 850 3654
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT89736%161964% 2518 468 2986
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT117338%191262% 3077 669 3746
SHARIA DISTRICT COURT2655%2145% 47 8 55
SHARIA CIRCUIT COURT13763%8137% 219 189 408
TOTAL853239%1350862% 21783 8445 30228

SEX-DISAGGREGATED DATA ON MALE AND FEMALE JUDGES OF FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
(As of December 31, 2014)

 C O U R TMALE%FEMALE% TOTAL INCUMBENT JUDGES TOTAL NUMBER VACANCIES TOTAL NUMBER OF COURTS
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT50163%29837% 799 370 1169
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT3844%4856% 86 78 164
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT-IN-CITIES9149%9651% 187 70 257
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT14654%12246% 268 99 367
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT19659%13841% 334 133 467
SHARIA DISTRICT COURT00%00% 0 5 5
SHARIA CIRCUIT COURT2589%311% 28 23 51
TOTAL99759%70541% 1702 778 2480

SEX-DISAGGREGATED DATA ON MALE AND FEMALE PERSONNEL OF FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
(As of December 31, 2014)

 C O U R TMALE%FEMALE% TOTAL INCUMBENT JUDGES TOTAL NUMBER VACANCIES TOTAL NUMBER OF PERSONNEL
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT454438%735262% 11896 5230 17126
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT49741%70669% 1203 1066 2269
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT-IN-CITIES110040%162960% 2729 925 3654
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT89836%162564% 2523 463 2986
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT119238%194262% 3134 612 3746
SHARIA DISTRICT COURT2755%2245% 49 6 55
SHARIA CIRCUIT COURT14164%7936% 220 188 408
TOTAL839939%1335561% 21754 8490 30244

SEX-DISAGGREGATED DATA ON MALE AND FEMALE JUDGES OF FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
(As of December 31, 2013)

 C O U R TMALE%FEMALE% TOTAL INCUMBENT JUDGES TOTAL NUMBER VACANCIES TOTAL NUMBER OF COURTS
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT54165.00%29335.00% 834 170 1004
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT3547.00%4053.00% 75 35 110
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT-IN-CITIES9651.00%9249.00% 188 39 227
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT14355.00%11845.00% 261 114 375
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT19460.00%13140.00% 325 143 468
SHARIA DISTRICT COURT00%00% 0 5 5
SHARIA CIRCUIT COURT2690.00%310.00% 29 22 51
TOTAL103560.00%67740.00% 1712 528 2240

SEX-DISAGGREGATED DATA ON MALE AND FEMALE PERSONNEL OF FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
(As of December 31, 2013)

 C O U R TMALE%FEMALE% TOTAL INCUMBENT JUDGES TOTAL NUMBER VACANCIES TOTAL NUMBER OF PERSONNEL
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT466339.00%739761.00% 12060 2615 14675
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT48241.00%67859.00% 1160 372 1532
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT-IN-CITIES108240.00%159660.00% 2678 532 3210
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT93136.00%168764.00% 2618 441 3059
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT121138.00%200162.00% 3212 541 3753
SHARIA DISTRICT COURT2652.00%2448.00% 50 5 55
SHARIA CIRCUIT COURT14765.00%8035.00% 227 181 408
TOTAL584239.00%1346361.00% 22005 4687 26692

SEX-DISAGGREGATED DATA ON MALE AND FEMALE JUDGES OF FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
(As of December 31, 2012)

 C O U R TMALE%FEMALE% TOTAL INCUMBENT JUDGES TOTAL NUMBER VACANCIES TOTAL NUMBER OF COURTS
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT53866.00%26934.00% 807 161 968
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT3144.00%4056.00% 71 35 106
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT-IN-CITIES9755.00%7845.00% 175 54 229
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT14656.00%11244.00% 258 120 378
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT18464.00%10436.00% 288 179 467
SHARIA DISTRICT COURT00%00% 0 5 5
SHARIA CIRCUIT COURT2590.00%310.00% 28 24 52
TOTAL102163.00%60637.00% 1627 578 2205

SEX-DISAGGREGATED DATA ON MALE AND FEMALE PERSONNEL OF FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
(As of December 31, 2012)

 C O U R TMALE%FEMALE% TOTAL INCUMBENT JUDGES TOTAL NUMBER VACANCIES TOTAL NUMBER OF PERSONNEL
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT468739.00%740561.00% 12092 2014 14106
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT44641.00%63159.00% 1077 405 1482
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT-IN-CITIES107240.00%157760.00% 2649 579 3228
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT95136.00%171864.00% 2669 413 3082
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT123738.00%205062.00% 3287 474 3761
SHARIA DISTRICT COURT2550.00%2550.00% 50 5 55
SHARIA CIRCUIT COURT14965.00%8135.00% 230 178 408
TOTAL856739.00%1384761.00% 22054 4068 26122

SEX-DISAGGREGATED DATA ON MALE AND FEMALE JUDGES OF FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
(As of December 31, 2011)

 C O U R TMALE%FEMALE% TOTAL INCUMBENT JUDGES TOTAL NUMBER VACANCIES TOTAL NUMBER OF COURTS
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT52967.00%26233.00% 791 177 968
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT3753.00%3347.00% 70 36 106
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT-IN-CITIES10458.00%7442.00% 178 51 229
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT15056.00%11942.00% 269 105 374
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT19664.00%10634.00% 300 166 466
SHARIA DISTRICT COURT00%00% 0 5 5
SHARIA CIRCUIT COURT2690.00%310.00% 29 22 51
TOTAL104064.00%59736.00% 1637 562 2199

SEX-DISAGGREGATED DATA ON MALE AND FEMALE PERSONNEL OF FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
(As of December 31, 2011)

 C O U R TMALE%FEMALE% TOTAL INCUMBENT JUDGES TOTAL NUMBER VACANCIES TOTAL NUMBER OF PERSONNEL
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT472936.00%856364.00% 13292 1868 15160
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT44842.00%63158.00% 1079 441 1520
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT-IN-CITIES111141.00%156859.00% 2679 549 3228
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT97336.00%172164.00% 2694 358 3052
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT124837.00%212563.00% 3373 365 3738
SHARIA DISTRICT COURT2550.00%2550.00% 50 5 55
SHARIA CIRCUIT COURT14664.00%8336.00% 229 179 408
TOTAL868037.00%1471663.00% 23396 3765 27161

 

GENDER DISTRIBUTION OF JUSTICE SECTOR PERSONNEL

  POSITION GROUP200820092010
MaleFemaleTotalMaleFemaleTotalMaleFemaleTotal
Metropolitan Trial Courts         
Judges3237693563469373774
Court Personnel4195881007434558992431547978
Sub-Total45162510767905921061468 584 1052
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities MTCC         
Judges125671921126117310467171
Court Personnel108713342421113714082545114714242571
Sub-Total1212140116131249146927181251  14912472
Municipal Trial Courts MTC         
Judges178110288187115302172166288
Court Personnel109618852981134915942943127215542826
Sub-Total1274199532691536170932451444  16703114
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts MCTC         
Judges209103312214108322205113318
Court Personnel122521933418122321763399122521863411
Sub-Total143422963730147322843721143022993729
Sharia Circuit Courts SCC         
Judges303332923130232
Court Personnel149942431499424314697243
Sub-Total179972761789627417699275
Regional Trial Courts RTC         
Judges542228770527223780572247819
Court Personnel452969031143245266893114194529689311422
Sub-Total507171311220250537116121995101714012241
Sharia District Courts SDC         
Judges000000000
Court Personnel212243192443192443
Sub-Total21224319244319 2443
Grand Total964213567232091026213290232619889 1330723196

SEX-DISAGGREGATED DATA ON MALE AND FEMALE JUDGES OF FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
(As of December 31, 2007)

 C O U R TMALE%FEMALE% TOTAL INCUMBENT JUDGES TOTAL NUMBER VACANCIES TOTAL NUMBER OF COURTS
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT57271%23429% 806 148 954
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT3651%3549% 71 24 95
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT-IN-CITIES11967%5933% 178 34 212
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT17360%11640% 289 98 387
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT22870%10030% 328 142 470
SHARIA DISTRICT COURT00%00% 0 5 5
SHARIA CIRCUIT COURT3397%13% 34 4 38
TOTAL116168%64632% 1706 466 2161

SEX-DISAGGREGATED DATA ON MALE AND FEMALE PERSONNEL OF FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
(As of December 31, 2007)

 C O U R TMALE%FEMALE% TOTAL INCUMBENT JUDGES TOTAL NUMBER VACANCIES TOTAL NUMBER OF PERSONNEL
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT460239.66%700360.34% 11605 1896 13501
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT41641.64%58358.36% 999 170 1169
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT-IN-CITIES111744.41%139855.59% 2515 428 2843
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT108037%185363% 2943 251 3194
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT120036%216364% 3363 473 3836
SHARIA DISTRICT COURT2045.46%2454.54% 44 11 55
SHARIA CIRCUIT COURT13464.42%7435.58% 208 95 303
TOTAL866939.66%1310860.44% 21677 3324 26001

SEX-DISAGGREGATED DATA ON MALE AND FEMALE JUDGES OF FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
(As of December 31, 2006)

 C O U R TMALE%FEMALE% TOTAL INCUMBENT JUDGES TOTAL NUMBER VACANCIES TOTAL NUMBER OF COURTS
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT56671.65%22428.36% 790 164 954
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT3452.31%3147.69% 65 30 95
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT-IN-CITIES11070.00%4830.00% 158 54 212
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT16063%9437% 254 133 387
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT16870.60%7029.40% 238 232 470
SHARIA DISTRICT COURT00%00% 0 5 5
SHARIA CIRCUIT COURT2790.43%13.57% 28 10 38
TOTAL106669.60%46830.60% 1633 628 2161

SEX-DISAGGREGATED DATA ON MALE AND FEMALE PERSONNEL OF FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
(As of December 31, 2006)

 C O U R TMALE%FEMALE% TOTAL INCUMBENT JUDGES TOTAL NUMBER VACANCIES TOTAL NUMBER OF PERSONNEL
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT460239.55%703460.45% 11636 1865 13501
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT43142.13%59257.87% 1023 146 1169
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT-IN-CITIES100242.84%133757.16% 2339 604 2943
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT109637%185363% 2949 245 3194
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT131227.97%337972.03% 4691 855 3836
SHARIA DISTRICT COURT2147.73%2352.27% 44 11 55
SHARIA CIRCUIT COURT15266.09%7833.91% 230 73 303
TOTAL861637.60%1429662.40% 22512 2799 26001

Email Us

Please include your name, contact number, email address, and the subject in your email.

Please read our Privacy Notice for the terms on the collection of your personal information.

[formidable id=1]

By using this Query Form, you agree to the collection of personal data. For more information, you may refer to our Privacy Notice.

Privacy Notice for the Supreme Court website

Statement of Commitment to Data Privacy and Security

The Supreme Court of the Philippines respects your privacy and your data privacy rights, as well as employs reasonable measures to protect your personal data in accordance with Republic Act No. 10173 or the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (DPA), its Implementing Rules and Regulations, and the various issuances of the National Privacy Commission (NPC) (collectively, the Data Privacy Regulations).

Brief Service Description and Its General Purpose

Use of the Supreme Court Website

The Supreme Court website serves as the online repository of Supreme Court information, references, and resources accessible to the public. By agreeing to use the Supreme Court website, you agree to the collection, use, disclosure, processing, and storage of your non-personal identification information to enable the Supreme Court to monitor the website’s engagement.

What personal data do we collect?

The Supreme Court website, other than the Email Form (see separate Privacy Notice – Email Form), does not collect personal data or cookies. The following non-personal identification information, however, are collected and stored by WordPress Statistics, a third-party service, to enable the Supreme Court to monitor the website’s performance through its engagement with visitors:

(a) Browser;

(b) Device; and

(c) Internet Protocol address.

The information collected by WordPress Statistics are limited to the foregoing.

For further understanding, please see the brief discussion on WordPress Statistics below.

Why do we collect your non-personal identification information?

The information collected through WordPress Statistics shall be processed to enable the Supreme Court, not only to effectively manage its website, but also to efficiently disseminate information to the public.

How do we process your non-personal identification information?

Where you have provided us with your non-personal identification information, you agree to our collection, use, disclosure, storage, and other processing for the purposes and in the manner set forth in this Privacy Notice.

WordPress Statistics

The Supreme Court website uses a third-party website, WordPress Statistics, to gather anonymous statistical information from site visitors and analyze the web traffic data. Such data is not shared with any other party. WordPress Statistics collects the following:

  • Browser;
  • Device; and
  • Internet Protocol address.

For more information, you may visit: https://wp-statistics.com/2018/08/16/wp-statistics-gdpr/

How do we protect your non-personal identification information?

The foregoing information, which are encrypted, shall be captured, stored, and retrieved by the Supreme Court through the third-party server, WordPress Statistics, solely for the specific purposes stated in this Privacy Notice, i.e., for reference in helping the Supreme Court in effectively managing its website. The data shall be processed and stored with utmost security and confidentiality.

Only authorized website administrators of the Supreme Court have access to the collected data stored and reported in WordPress Statistics as installed in the Supreme Court website, which in turn are subject to strict security protocols.

How long will we keep your non-personal identification information?

The collected information shall be stored in the Supreme Court website database. The Public Information Office (PIO) directly administers and maintains the database and the Supreme Court website. Only the PIO website administrators and authorized personnel shall be granted access to the database of the Supreme Court website. Sharing of any information that are contained in the said database with unauthorized persons is strictly prohibited.

The non-personal identification information collected by WordPress Statistics is stored in its database and is accessible to the Supreme Court at any time via statistics reports until WordPress Statistics is uninstalled.

In all cases, the information will be stored in a secure manner to ensure its confidentiality, integrity, and availability.

Upon expiration of the period of retention, the information collected through the Supreme Court website shall be disposed of and discarded in a secure manner that would prevent further processing, unauthorized access, or disclosure of your data.

Changes to our Privacy Notice:

The Privacy Notice may be updated from time to time. If material changes are required, any revisions shall be published on the Supreme Court website under the News and Announcements page for your immediate guidance. Therefore, we encourage you to review this Privacy Notice periodically so that you are up to date on our most current policies and practices.

This Privacy Notice was last updated on February 20, 2024.

How do you contact us?

If you have any privacy concerns or questions about your data privacy rights or our Privacy Notice, please contact us through:

JUDICIARY’S DATA PROTECTION OFFICER
Supreme Court of the Philippines
Padre Faura St., Ermita, Manila
Philippines 1000
+63 3 8552 9566
dataprivacy.sc@judiciary.gov.ph

1987Constitution

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 lower courts, 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.

RevolutionaryGovernment

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 50 appointive members to draft a new constitution; this would be implemented by Proclamation No. 9. Under the leadership of retired SC Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma as its President, the Constitutional Commission of 1986 submitted its output of to the people for ratification.

By a vote of 76.30%, the Filipino people then ratified the Constitution submitted to them in a national plebiscite on February 2, 1987.

President Aquino, other civilian officials, and members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, upon the announcement of the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, swore allegiance to the new charter on February 11, 1987 thereby putting an end to the revolutionary government.

1973

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 also 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, and the power to review the factual basis for a declaration of Martial Law by the Chief Executive, among others. Also writ large 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.

Ayuntamiento

The Supreme Court of
the Second Republic

Following liberation from the Japanese occupation at the end of the Second World War and the Philippines’ 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 for review on appeal, certiorari, or writ of error.

SupremeCourt

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 of the 1935 Constitution.

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.”

ArellanoCourt

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, with its basic structures patterned 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.

VillamorHall

The Judicial System During
the American Occupation

After Spain’s defeat in the Spanish-American War in the late 1890s, The subsequent occupation by the Americans of the Philippine Islands 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.

SpanishRegime

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.

Map

The Judicial System of the
Pre-Colonization Filipinos

When the Spanish colonizers first arrived in the Philippine archipelago, they found the indigenous Filipinos without any written laws. The laws enforced were mainly 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 datu who exercised all functions of government—executive, legislative, and judicial—a barangay was not only a political but a social and an 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.

Mobile Menu