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

For the Year 2021

JUVENILE CASES AND FAMILY COURT CASES: JANUARY TO DECEMBER 2021


  VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN & CHILDREN (R.A. 9262)
Pending Beginning CASE INFLOW CASE OUTFLOW Number of Pending Cases
New Cases Filed/Raffled Number of Cases Revived Number of Cases Received From Other Courts/Stations Number of Cases Decided/Resolved Number of Cases Archived Number of Cases Transferred to Other Courts/Stations
NCR 1,766 1,648 332 29 1,248 396 43 2,113
Region 1 512 383 47 6 403 44 4 618
Region 2 524 282 79 3 257 50 4 574
Region 3 1,651 1,122 170 37 1,034 235 18 1,705
Region 4 1,724 797 153 52 801 220 25 1,686
Region 5 549 401 106 26 460 65 22 527
Region 6 519 367 25 3 236 71 12 551
Region 7 739 496 45 38 337 72 20 723
Region 8 240 143 23 0 134 37 0 234
Region 9 537 141 22 0 136 26 0 567
Region 10 567 522 93 7 457 92 7 668
Region 11 609 312 61 4 380 55 4 547
Region 12 319 146 16 0 84 29 0 370
TOTAL 10,256 6,760 1,172 205 5,967 1,392 159 10,883

 

  HUMAN TRAFFICKING (R.A. 9208)
Pending Beginning CASE INFLOW CASE OUTFLOW Number of Pending Cases
New Cases Filed/Raffled Number of Cases Revived Number of Cases Received From Other Courts/Stations Number of Cases Decided/Resolved Number of Cases Archived Number of Cases Transferred to Other Courts/Stations
NCR 115 46 3 5 28 7 9 117
Region 1 36 14 4 0 8 1 1 39
Region 2 17 11 4 0 1 1 0 29
Region 3 63 63 5 11 30 1 8 97
Region 4 129 60 0 8 15 2 6 167
Region 5 13 2 0 0 11 1 0 4
Region 6 31 3 0 0 4 0 0 29
Region 7 104 1 5 2 24 3 6 67
Region 8 25 9 4 0 8 0 0 29
Region 9 21 2 1 0 0 0 0 38
Region 10 38 21 1 1 10 4 1 47
Region 11 33 14 0 0 7 2 0 40
Region 12 6 9 0 1 1 4 0 8
TOTAL 631 255 27 28 147 26 31 711

 

  HUMAN TRAFFICKING (INVOLVING MINORS)
Pending Beginning CASE INFLOW CASE OUTFLOW Number of Pending Cases
New Cases Filed/Raffled Number of Cases Revived Number of Cases Received From Other Courts/Stations Number of Cases Decided/Resolved Number of Cases Archived Number of Cases Transferred to Other Courts/Stations
NCR 270 52 6 3 60 26 2 253
Region 1 15 4 0 0 6 0 0 14
Region 2 26 2 0 0 4 0 0 32
Region 3 113 78 12 2 41 6 4 141
Region 4 102 40 2 7 30 5 0 114
Region 5 30 6 0 1 6 0 2 29
Region 6 25 4 2 0 7 3 1 19
Region 7 45 8 0 8 19 1 1 45
Region 8 29 10 2 0 3 1 0 34
Region 9 24 5 0 0 0 0 0 28
Region 10 46 19 3 3 5 4 16 56
Region 11 32 18 0 2 10 2 4 38
Region 12 14 5 0 0 8 1 0 11
TOTAL 771 251 27 26 199 49 30 814

 

  CHILD ABUSE (R.A. 7610)
Pending Beginning CASE INFLOW CASE OUTFLOW Number of Pending Cases
New Cases Filed/Raffled Number of Cases Revived Number of Cases Received From Other Courts/Stations Number of Cases Decided/Resolved Number of Cases Archived Number of Cases Transferred to Other Courts/Stations
NCR 2,213 2,377 295 51 1,230 677 127 2,928
Region 1 650 660 55 3 448 28 6 1,033
Region 2 405 334 42 4 173 37 3 570
Region 3 2,270 1,745 162 59 1,027 272 47 2,860
Region 4 2,245 1,350 160 137 951 339 48 2,634
Region 5 1,383 703 90 81 688 147 44 1,352
Region 6 848 497 41 38 260 41 17 1,082
Region 7 1,145 615 36 40 422 77 42 1,082
Region 8 488 417 108 0 313 83 1 618
Region 9 695 157 25 0 122 18 0 777
Region 10 823 593 93 28 386 131 18 1,028
Region 11 710 660 79 22 407 71 3 981
Region 12 341 162 7 0 82 33 0 400
TOTAL 14,216 10,270 1,193 463 6,509 1,954 356 17,345

 

  RAPE (R.A. 8353)
Pending Beginning CASE INFLOW CASE OUTFLOW Number of Pending Cases
New Cases Filed/Raffled Number of Cases Revived Number of Cases Received From Other Courts/Stations Number of Cases Decided/Resolved Number of Cases Archived Number of Cases Transferred to Other Courts/Stations
NCR 570 428 54 24 254 66 33 675
Region 1 867 179 48 10 270 25 16 734
Region 2 314 216 49 8 141 11 16 402
Region 3 710 331 79 93 330 43 38 784
Region 4 2,569 825 99 38 505 162 134 2,790
Region 5 593 342 135 49 256 47 85 524
Region 6 995 554 86 11 290 70 19 1,255
Region 7 1,127 272 64 87 193 28 92 1,235
Region 8 469 203 86 13 226 42 17 467
Region 9 356 90 15 1 49 16 29 362
Region 10 804 319 97 10 319 104 19 623
Region 11 1,032 431 106 40 289 88 28 1,292
Region 12 383 286 77 27 201 44 0 519
TOTAL 10,789 4,476 995 411 3,323 746 526 11,662

 

  RAPE (WITH MINOR VICTIMS &/OR ACCUSED)
Pending Beginning CASE INFLOW CASE OUTFLOW Number of Pending Cases
New Cases Filed/Raffled Number of Cases Revived Number of Cases Received From Other Courts/Stations Number of Cases Decided/Resolved Number of Cases Archived Number of Cases Transferred to Other Courts/Stations
NCR 1,599 1,329 192 42 635 404 65 2,068
Region 1 987 561 113 0 545 55 8 1,392
Region 2 798 575 160 4 513 40 5 982
Region 3 3,790 1,257 167 66 1,370 255 73 3,548
Region 4 2,823 1,286 285 187 876 391 29 3,402
Region 5 1,834 870 259 106 948 188 41 1,928
Region 6 857 495 98 17 315 123 24 1,007
Region 7 908 578 59 71 347 102 19 1,068
Region 8 554 364 119 0 306 74 1 655
Region 9 1,183 319 95 7 250 41 6 1,301
Region 10 907 786 108 5 351 101 8 1,357
Region 11 887 699 122 32 453 139 18 1,129
Region 12 407 232 69 0 82 63 1 561
TOTAL 17,534 9,351 1,846 537 6,991 1,976 298 20,398

 

  ADULTERY / CONCUBINAGE
Pending Beginning CASE INFLOW CASE OUTFLOW Number of Pending Cases
New Cases Filed/Raffled Number of Cases Revived Number of Cases Received From Other Courts/Stations Number of Cases Decided/Resolved Number of Cases Archived Number of Cases Transferred to Other Courts/Stations
NCR 133 68 16 2 47 13 2 133
Region 1 56 41 9 1 49 1 1 59
Region 2 71 45 11 2 54 3 1 74
Region 3 147 85 18 8 84 11 5 151
Region 4 128 90 13 0 60 12 4 157
Region 5 40 39 6 2 29 6 1 52
Region 6 43 23 1 0 13 1 1 52
Region 7 77 32 5 0 31 2 0 84
Region 8 26 4 3 0 14 5 0 14
Region 9 17 16 4 0 18 2 0 19
Region 10 30 32 10 0 41 2 1 33
Region 11 73 41 8 5 44 7 1 74
Region 12 13 13 9 6 29 1 0 18
TOTAL 854 529 113 26 513 66 17 920

 

  ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
Pending Beginning CASE INFLOW CASE OUTFLOW Number of Pending Cases
New Cases Filed/Raffled Number of Cases Revived Number of Cases Received From Other Courts/Stations Number of Cases Decided/Resolved Number of Cases Archived Number of Cases Transferred to Other Courts/Stations
NCR 347 362 35 0 257 48 2 433
Region 1 93 79 6 0 84 6 0 77
Region 2 55 77 19 2 59 4 0 89
Region 3 225 239 14 18 208 10 4 264
Region 4 330 275 31 11 238 46 3 347
Region 5 95 79 10 3 80 14 5 87
Region 6 52 68 6 1 46 4 0 73
Region 7 98 104 4 2 78 5 0 127
Region 8 68 60 3 0 52 6 8 63
Region 9 42 45 11 0 47 6 1 44
Region 10 30 65 6 0 62 3 4 32
Region 11 121 70 7 4 72 11 5 114
Region 12 23 23 3 5 13 3 2 27
TOTAL 1,579 1,546 155 46 1,296 166 34 1,777

 

  DRUGS CASES (INVOLVING MINORS)
Pending Beginning CASE INFLOW CASE OUTFLOW Number of Pending Cases
New Cases Filed/Raffled Number of Cases Revived Number of Cases Received From Other Courts/Stations Number of Cases Decided/Resolved Number of Cases Archived Number of Cases Transferred to Other Courts/Stations
NCR 928 475 41 102 495 44 74 936
Region 1 68 27 0 4 41 0 1 70
Region 2 50 37 1 2 36 0 1 56
Region 3 426 122 11 76 205 16 44 369
Region 4 315 215 12 27 126 19 16 367
Region 5 20 11 0 2 12 0 1 19
Region 6 100 37 4 11 20 14 3 122
Region 7 192 228 3 31 183 9 25 230
Region 8 23 8 0 0 10 0 0 21
Region 9 143 9 0 2 18 1 0 129
Region 10 81 68 9 6 41 8 16 101
Region 11 151 137 5 39 68 5 28 229
Region 12 42 12 0 0 15 2 0 37
TOTAL 2,539 1,386 86 302 1,270 118 209 2,686

 

  ALL OTHER CHILD & FAMILY CASES (CRIMINAL)
Pending Beginning CASE INFLOW CASE OUTFLOW Number of Pending Cases
New Cases Filed/Raffled Number of Cases Revived Number of Cases Received From Other Courts/Stations Number of Cases Decided/Resolved Number of Cases Archived Number of Cases Transferred to Other Courts/Stations
NCR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Region 1 82 42 4 0 39 4 0 83
Region 2 76 39 12 3 43 4 0 80
Region 3 7 3 0 13 2 0 0 21
Region 4 389 57 3 11 42 5 0 394
Region 5 37 33 2 0 24 3 0 75
Region 6 30 19 1 0 15 2 0 33
Region 7 160 35 6 3 25 4 7 88
Region 8 55 33 5 0 21 3 0 64
Region 9 55 16 2 0 18 5 0 66
Region 10 193 93 9 3 53 13 1 233
Region 11 77 58 6 11 54 16 1 87
Region 12 17 18 0 0 5 1 0 30
TOTAL 1,178 446 50 44 341 60 9 1,254

 

  CUSTODY OF MINOR
Pending Beginning CASE INFLOW CASE OUTFLOW Number of Pending Cases
New Cases Filed/Raffled Number of Cases Revived Number of Cases Received From Other Courts/Stations Number of Cases Decided/Resolved Number of Cases Archived Number of Cases Transferred to Other Courts/Stations
NCR 153 55 2 2 57 1 3 142
Region 1 30 14 0 0 17 1 1 31
Region 2 3 2 0 0 1 1 0 3
Region 3 58 26 1 1 41 0 1 48
Region 4 43 25 2 0 24 1 1 44
Region 5 7 11 0 3 8 0 0 10
Region 6 16 11 2 0 8 1 0 21
Region 7 37 13 1 3 16 1 3 34
Region 8 1 5 0 1 1 0 1 5
Region 9 12 2 0 0 1 0 0 14
Region 10 5 4 0 0 5 0 0 6
Region 11 15 5 0 4 7 0 3 13
Region 12 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 1
TOTAL 383 173 8 14 189 6 13 372

 

  ADOPTION
Pending Beginning CASE INFLOW CASE OUTFLOW Number of Pending Cases
New Cases Filed/Raffled Number of Cases Revived Number of Cases Received From Other Courts/Stations Number of Cases Decided/Resolved Number of Cases Archived Number of Cases Transferred to Other Courts/Stations
NCR 280 113 13 1 112 10 1 284
Region 1 288 68 14 2 95 13 0 267
Region 2 64 15 0 0 18 1 0 59
Region 3 252 60 6 2 109 5 1 214
Region 4 198 48 2 1 54 4 1 190
Region 5 47 14 0 1 21 1 1 40
Region 6 223 43 7 0 43 8 1 224
Region 7 198 69 3 5 51 7 5 187
Region 8 94 14 1 0 27 1 0 85
Region 9 68 18 2 0 12 1 0 73
Region 10 74 20 11 0 27 6 0 71
Region 11 89 34 2 0 53 1 1 71
Region 12 36 9 1 0 7 0 0 40
TOTAL 1,911 525 62 12 629 58 11 1,805

 

  GUARDIANSHIP
Pending Beginning CASE INFLOW CASE OUTFLOW Number of Pending Cases
New Cases Filed/Raffled Number of Cases Revived Number of Cases Received From Other Courts/Stations Number of Cases Decided/Resolved Number of Cases Archived Number of Cases Transferred to Other Courts/Stations
NCR 111 85 4 1 58 1 1 138
Region 1 13 7 0 0 10 1 0 14
Region 2 8 3 0 0 4 0 0 8
Region 3 35 27 2 0 25 1 0 34
Region 4 32 31 0 0 21 0 0 47
Region 5 12 9 0 0 10 0 0 11
Region 6 25 12 2 0 10 1 0 27
Region 7 16 23 1 0 12 1 0 26
Region 8 3 2 0 0 2 0 0 3
Region 9 7 6 0 0 5 1 0 10
Region 10 9 16 4 0 13 2 2 13
Region 11 11 10 0 4 12 0 0 13
Region 12 5 2 0 0 4 0 0 3
TOTAL 287 233 13 5 186 8 3 347

 

  PETITION FOR PROTECTION ORDER
Pending Beginning CASE INFLOW CASE OUTFLOW Number of Pending Cases
New Cases Filed/Raffled Number of Cases Revived Number of Cases Received From Other Courts/Stations Number of Cases Decided/Resolved Number of Cases Archived Number of Cases Transferred to Other Courts/Stations
NCR 119 54 2 5 39 1 3 134
Region 1 7 13 0 0 12 0 0 5
Region 2 7 3 0 0 7 0 0 3
Region 3 16 13 0 2 7 0 2 22
Region 4 32 6 0 1 14 1 3 19
Region 5 16 27 1 0 27 0 0 19
Region 6 41 16 0 1 13 1 1 42
Region 7 33 18 0 2 11 0 2 35
Region 8 64 28 0 0 41 0 0 46
Region 9 13 9 0 0 6 0 0 17
Region 10 18 12 2 4 15 1 3 14
Region 11 32 26 0 0 32 0 1 27
Region 12 9 4 0 0 1 0 0 12
TOTAL 407 229 5 15 225 4 15 395

 

  FAMILY COURT CASES
Pending Beginning CASE INFLOW CASE OUTFLOW Number of Pending Cases
New Cases Filed/Raffled Number of Cases Revived Number of Cases Received From Other Courts/Stations Number of Cases Decided/Resolved Number of Cases Archived Number of Cases Transferred to Other Courts/Stations
NCR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Region 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Region 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Region 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Region 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Region 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Region 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Region 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Region 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Region 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Region 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Region 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Region 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 4

 

  CHILD & FAMILY CASES (CIVIL)
Pending Beginning CASE INFLOW CASE OUTFLOW Number of Pending Cases
New Cases Filed/Raffled Number of Cases Revived Number of Cases Received From Other Courts/Stations Number of Cases Decided/Resolved Number of Cases Archived Number of Cases Transferred to Other Courts/Stations
NCR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Region 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Region 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Region 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Region 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Region 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Region 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Region 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Region 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Region 9 201 18 0 0 4 0 0 224
Region 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Region 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Region 12 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 1
TOTAL 204 20 0 0 5 0 0 225

 

  SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pending Beginning CASE INFLOW CASE OUTFLOW Number of Pending Cases
New Cases Filed/Raffled Number of Cases Revived Number of Cases Received From Other Courts/Stations Number of Cases Decided/Resolved Number of Cases Archived Number of Cases Transferred to Other Courts/Stations
NCR 2,368 883 66 36 887 38 36 2,308
Region 1 822 420 42 6 502 41 22 728
Region 2 540 232 5 2 250 6 5 499
Region 3 1,181 454 22 77 633 17 9 1,015
Region 4 2,144 784 12 21 803 17 47 2,040
Region 5 537 545 16 3 488 22 9 581
Region 6 1,109 365 28 9 368 41 12 1,088
Region 7 1,691 509 25 42 683 17 36 1,475
Region 8 508 233 4 1 265 2 2 487
Region 9 440 138 7 2 137 9 4 418
Region 10 882 470 11 10 507 9 10 858
Region 11 903 320 15 10 341 9 7 895
Region 12 499 197 18 46 196 0 22 541
TOTAL 13,624 5,550 271 265 6,060 228 221 12,933

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