Supreme Court of the Philippines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Supreme Court of the Philippines
Kataas-taasang Hukuman ng Pilipinas
Seal of the Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines.svg
Seal of the Supreme Court of the Philippines
Established June 11, 1901
Country Philippines
Location Manila
Baguio (summer)
Coordinates 14°34′46″N 120°59′3″E / 14.57944°N 120.98417°E / 14.57944; 120.98417Coordinates: 14°34′46″N 120°59′3″E / 14.57944°N 120.98417°E / 14.57944; 120.98417
Composition method Presidential appointment from the list of preferred nominees made by the Judicial and Bar Council
Authorized by Constitution of the Philippines
Judge term length At most thirty years
(retirement at the age 70)
Number of positions 15
Website sc.judiciary.gov.ph
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines
Currently Maria Lourdes Sereno
Since August 24, 2012
Coat of arms of the Philippines.svg
This article is part of a series on the
politics and government of
the Philippines
Constitution

The Supreme Court of the Philippines (Filipino: Kataas-taasang Hukuman ng Pilipinas, colloquially in (Spanish: Korte Suprema), is the highest court in the Philippines. The court consists of 14 associate justices and 1 Chief Justice. Pursuant to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has "administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof".[1]

The Supreme Court complex, which was formerly the part of the UP Manila campus,[2] occupies the corner of Padre Faura Street and Taft Avenue in Manila, with the main building directly fronting the Philippine General Hospital. Until 1945, the Court held office within Cavite.

Constitutional role[edit]

Composition[edit]

A person must meet the following requirements in order to be appointed to the Supreme Court: (1) natural-born citizenship, (2) at least 40 years old ; (3) must have been for fifteen years or more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.[3] An additional constitutional requirement, though less precise in nature, is that a judge "must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence."[4] Upon a vacancy in the Court, whether for the position of Chief Justice or Associate Justice, the President fills the vacancy by appointing a person from a list of at least 3 nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council.[5]

Beginning with the 1935 Constitution, Supreme Court Justices are obliged to retire upon reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70.[6] Some Justices had opted to retire before reaching the age of 70, such as Florentino Feliciano, who retired at 67 to accept appointment to the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization and Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez who retired at 68 due to health reasons.[7] The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines provides that: "Section 11, Article VIII. The Members of the Supreme Court xxx shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office."[4] Since, 1901, it was only incumbent Associate Justice Alicia Austria-Martinez who resigned for health reasons. Thus, on September, 2008, Austria-Martinez, citing health reasons, filed a letter to the Court through Reynato Puno, tendering her resignation effective April 30, 2009, or 15 months before her compulsory retirement on December 19, 2010. In the October 1 Judicial and Bar Council's en banc deliberations, Reynato Puno ruled: “The court merely noted it. We don’t have to approve it... it is her right.”[8] During the JBC hearing, a JBC member said "Austria-Martinez had wanted to retire earlier because of health reasons. We were told she had health problems even when she was in the CA.”[9] Retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines Artemio Panganiban stated: "I am saddened that Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez has opted to retire early from the Supreme Court due to 'health reasons.' She is not bedridden. Neither is she physically or mentally incapacitated, but she has chosen to retire on April 30, 2009 because she felt she could no longer cope with the heavy caseload."[10]

Functions[edit]

The powers of the Supreme Court are defined in Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. These functions may be generally divided into two – judicial functions and administrative functions. The administrative functions of the Court pertain to the supervision and control over the Philippine judiciary and its employees, as well as over members of the Philippine bar. Pursuant to these functions, the Court is empowered to order a change of venue of trial in order to avoid a miscarriage of justice and to appoint all officials and employees of the judiciary.[11] The Court is further authorized to promulgate the rules for admission to the practice of law, for legal assistance to the underprivileged, and the procedural rules to be observed in all courts.[12]

The more prominent role of the Court is located in the exercise of its judicial functions. Section 1 of Article VIII contains definition of judicial power that had not been found in previous constitutions. The provision states in part that:

Judicial power includes the duty of courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.

The definition reaffirms the power of the Supreme Court to engage in judicial review, a power that had traditionally belonged to the Court even before this provision was enacted. Still, this new provision effectively dissuades from the easy resort to the political question doctrine as a means of declining to review a law or state action, as was often done by the Court during the rule of President Ferdinand Marcos.[13] As a result, the existence of “grave abuse of discretion” on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government is sufficient basis to nullify state action.

Cases[edit]

The Court is authorized to sit either en banc or in divisions of 3, 5 or 7 members. Since the 1970s, the Court has constituted itself in 3 divisions with 5 members each. A majority of the cases are heard and decided by the divisions, rather than the court en banc. However, the Constitution requires that the Court hear en banc “[a]ll cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, as well as “those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations”.[5] The Court en banc also decides cases originally heard by a division when a majority vote cannot be reached within the division. The Court also has the discretion to hear a case en banc even if no constitutional issue is involved, as it typically does if the decision would reverse precedent or presents novel or important questions.

Appellate review[edit]

Far and away the most common mode by which a case reaches the Supreme Court is through an appeal from a decision rendered by a lower court. Appealed cases generally originate from lawsuits or criminal indictments filed and tried before the trial courts. These decisions of the trial courts may then be elevated on appeal to the Court of Appeals, or more rarely, directly to the Supreme Court if only “questions of law” are involved. Apart from decisions of the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court may also directly review on appeal decisions rendered by the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals. Decisions rendered by administrative agencies are not directly appealable to the Supreme Court, they must be first challenged before the Court of Appeals. However, decisions of the Commission on Elections may be elevated directly for review to the Supreme Court, although the procedure is not, strictly speaking, in the nature of an appeal.

Review on appeal is not as a matter of right, but "of sound judicial discretion and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor".[14] In the exercise of appellate review, the Supreme Court may reverse the decision of lower courts upon a finding of an "error of law". The Court generally declines to engage in review the findings of fact made by the lower courts, although there are notable exceptions to this rule. The Court also refuses to entertain cases originally filed before it that should have been filed first with the trial courts.

Original jurisdiction[edit]

The other mode by which a case reaches the Supreme Court is through an original petition filed directly with the Supreme Court, in cases where the Constitution establishes “original jurisdiction” with the Supreme Court. Under Section 5(1), Article VIII of the Constitution, these are “cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and corpus”. Resort to certiorari, prohibition and mandamus may be availed of only if "there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law".[15]

However, notwithstanding this grant of original jurisdiction, the Court has, through the years, assigned to lower courts such as the Court of Appeals the power to hear petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus. As a result, the Court has considerable discretion to refuse to hear these petitions filed directly before it on the ground that such should have been filed instead with the Court of Appeals or the appropriate lower court. Nonetheless, cases that have attracted wide public interest, or where a speedy resolution is of the essence, have been accepted for decision by the Supreme Court without hesitation.

In cases involving the original jurisdiction of the Court, there must be a finding of "grave abuse of discretion" on the part of the respondents to the suit to justify favorable action on the petition. The standard of "grave abuse of discretion", a markedly higher standard than "error of law", has been defined as "a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction"[16]

Current Justices[edit]

Name Born Alma Mater Date of Appointment Date of Retirement Appointing President

Sereno
Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno
(Chief Justice)

July 2, 1960
(Age 54)
University of the Philippines College of Law August 13, 2010
August 25, 2012(as a Chief Justice)
July 2, 2030 Benigno Aquino III


Antonio T. Carpio
(Senior Associate Justice)

October 26, 1949
(Age 64)
in Davao City
University of the Philippines College of Law October 26, 2001 October 26, 2019 Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo


Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.

August 8, 1948
(Age 65)
in Pasay
University of the Philippines College of Law March 31, 2006 August 8, 2018 Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo


Teresita De Castro

October 8, 1948
(Age 65)
University of the Philippines College of Law December 3, 2007 October 8, 2018 Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo


Arturo D. Brion

December 29, 1946
(Age 67)
in Manila
Ateneo de Manila Law School March 17, 2008 December 29, 2016 Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo


Diosdado M. Peralta

March 27, 1952
(Age 62)
University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law January 14, 2009 March 27, 2022 Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo


Lucas P. Bersamin

October 18, 1949
(Age 64)
University of the East College of Law April 3, 2009 October 18, 2019 Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo


Mariano C. del Castillo

July 29, 1949
(Age 65)
Ateneo de Manila Law School July 29, 2009 July 29, 2019 Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo


Martin Villarama, Jr.

April 14, 1946
(Age 68)
Manuel L. Quezon University November 6, 2009 April 14, 2016 Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo


Jose P. Perez

December 14, 1946
(Age 67)
University of the Philippines College of Law December 26, 2009 December 14, 2016 Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo


Jose C. Mendoza

August 13, 1947
(Age 66)
San Beda College of Law January 4, 2010 August 13, 2017 Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo


Bienvenido L. Reyes

July 6, 1947
(Age 67)
San Beda College of Law August 20, 2011 July 6, 2017 Benigno Aquino III


Estela Perlas-Bernabe

May 14, 1952
(Age 62)
Ateneo de Manila Law School September 16, 2011 May 14, 2022 Benigno Aquino III

Leonen
Marvic M.V.F. Leonen

December 29, 1962
(Age 51)
University of the Philippines College of Law November 21, 2012 December 29, 2032 Benigno Aquino III
Vacant

Categorization[edit]

Former Supreme Court Justices of the Philippines[edit]

Name Born Term As SC Justices Chief Justices
Roberto A. Abad May 22, 1944 August 7, 2009 – May 22, 2014 Reynato Puno AND Renato C. Corona AND Maria Lourdes Sereno
Maria Lourdes Sereno July 2, 1960 August 13, 2010 – August 25, 2012 Renato C. Corona
Conchita Carpio-Morales June 19, 1941 August 26, 2002 – June 19, 2011 Hilario Davide, Jr. AND Artemio Panganiban AND Reynato Puno AND Renato C. Corona
Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura June 13, 1941 February 7, 2007 - June 13, 2011 Reynato Puno AND Renato C. Corona
Renato C. Corona October 15, 1948 April 9, 2002 – May 17, 2010 Hilario Davide, Jr. AND Artemio Panganiban AND Reynato Puno
Minita V. Chico-Nazario December 5, 1939 February 10, 2004 – December 5, 2009 Hilario Davide, Jr. AND Artemio Panganiban AND Reynato Puno
Leonardo A. Quisumbing November 6, 1939 January 20, 1998 - November 6, 2009 Hilario Davide, Jr. AND Artemio Panganiban AND Reynato Puno
Consuelo Ynares-Santiago October 5, 1939 April 6, 1999 – October 5, 2009 Hilario Davide, Jr. AND Artemio Panganiban AND Reynato Puno
Dante O. Tiñga May 11, 1939 July 4, 2003 - May 11, 2009 Hilario Davide, Jr. AND Artemio Panganiban AND Reynato Puno
Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez December 19, 1940 April 9, 2002 – April 30, 2009 Hilario Davide, Jr. AND Artemio Panganiban AND Reynato Puno
Adolfo S. Azcuna February 16, 1939 October 17, 2002 - February 16, 2009 Hilario Davide, Jr. AND Artemio Panganiban AND Reynato Puno
Ruben T. Reyes January 3, 1939 August 2, 2007 – January 3, 2009 Reynato Puno
Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez February 28, 1938 December 22, 2000 – February 27, 2008 Hilario Davide, Jr. AND Artemio Panganiban AND Reynato Puno
Cancio C. Garcia October 30, 1937 October 7, 2004 - October 30, 2007 Hilario Davide, Jr. AND Artemio Panganiban AND Reynato Puno
Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. April 28, 1937 August 26, 2002 – April 28, 2007 Hilario Davide, Jr. AND Artemio Panganiban AND Reynato Puno
Reynato S. Puno May 17, 1940 June 28, 1993 – December 7, 2006 Hilario Davide, Jr. AND Artemio Panganiban
Artemio V. Panganiban December 7, 1936 October 5, 1995 – December 19, 2005 Hilario Davide, Jr.
Santiago M. Kapunan August 12, 1932 January 5, 1994 - August 12, 2004 Hilario Davide, Jr.
Jose C. Vitug July 15, 1934 June 28, 1993 - July 15, 2004 Hilario Davide, Jr.
Josue N. Bellosillo November 13, 1933 March 3, 1992 - November 13, 2003 Hilario Davide, Jr.
Vicente V. Mendoza April 5, 1933 June 7, 1994 - April 5, 2003 Hilario Davide, Jr.
Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes September 25, 1931 January 5, 1999 - September 25, 2002 Hilario Davide, Jr.
Sabino R. De Leon Jr. June 9, 1932 October 12, 1999 - June 9, 2002 Hilario Davide, Jr.
Jose A.R. Melo, JR. May 30, 1932 August 10, 1992 - May 30, 2002 Hilario Davide, Jr.
Arturo B. Buena March 25, 1932 January 5, 1999 - March 25, 2002 Hilario Davide, Jr.
Bernardo P. Pardo February 11, 1932 September 30, 1998 - February 11, 2002 Hilario Davide, Jr.
Fidel P. Purisima October 28, 1930 January 19, 1998 - October 26, 2001 Hilario Davide, Jr.
Flerida Ruth Pineda-Romero August 1, 1929 October 21, 1991 - August 1, 1999 Hilario Davide, Jr.
Antonio M. Martinez February 2, 1929 November 10, 1997 - February 2, 1999 Hilario Davide, Jr.

History[edit]

Supreme Court Building, Manila

Pre-Hispanic and Hispanic periods[edit]

In the years prior to the official establishment of the Supreme Court, institutions exercising judicial power were already in existence. Before the Spaniards came, judicial authority “in its primitive form” was in the hands of barangay chiefs. During the early years of the Spanish government, these powers were vested upon Miguel López de Legazpi, the first governor-general of the Philippines. He administered civil and criminal justice under the Royal Order of August 14, 1569.

The present Supreme Court was preceded by the Real Audiencia, a collegial body established on May 5, 1583 and composed, of a president, four oidores (justices), and a fiscal, among others. It was the highest tribunal in the Philippines, below only the Council of the Indies of Spain. However, this body also exercised administrative functions, not just judicial functions.

The Audiencia’s functions and structure underwent substantial modifications in 1815 when its president was replaced by a chief justice and the number of justices was increased. It then came to be known as the Audiencia Territorial de Manila with two branches, civil and criminal, later renamed sala de lo civil and sala de lo criminal. The Audiencia was converted to a purely judicial body by a Royal Decree issued on July 4, 1861, but its decisions were appealable to the Supreme Court of Spain sitting in Madrid.

On February 26, 1886, a territorial Audiencia was organized in Cebu, followed by an Audiencia for criminal cases in Vigan. However, the pre-eminence of the Supreme Court as the sole interpreter of the law was unknown during the Spanish regime.[17]

American period[edit]

The Supreme Court of the Philippines was officially established on June 11, 1901 through the passage of Act No. 136, otherwise known as the Judiciary Law of the Second Philippine Commission. By virtue of that law, judicial power in the Philippine Islands was vested in the Supreme Court, Courts of First Instance and Justice of the Peace courts. Other courts were subsequently established.

The judicial structure introduced by Act No. 136 was reaffirmed by the US Congress with the passage of the Philippine Bill of 1902. The Administrative Code of 1917 ordained the Supreme Court as the highest tribunal of the Philippines with nine members: a chief justice and eight associate justices. Its decisions could be further appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.[17]

Commonwealth and independence[edit]

From 1901 to 1935, although a Filipino was always appointed chief justice, the majority of the members of the Supreme Court were Americans. Complete Filipinization was achieved only with the establishment of the Commonwealth of the Philippines in 1935. Claro M. Recto and Jose P. Laurel were among the first appointees to replace the American justices. With the ratification of the 1935 Constitution in a plebiscite held on May 14, 1935, the membership in the Supreme Court increased to 11: a chief justice and ten associate justices, who sat en banc or in two divisions of five members each.

Article V of the Treaty of Manila (1946) abolished the U.S. Supreme Court's appellate authority over the Supreme Court of the Philippines, but provided that Philippine appeals pending before the U.S. Supreme Court would be allowed to run to completion.[17]

Under the 1973 Constitution, the membership of the Supreme Court was increased to 15. The justices sat en banc or in divisions. The 1973 Constitution also vested in the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all lower courts which heretofore was under the Department of Justice.

After the overthrow of President Ferdinand Marcos in 1986, President Corazon C. Aquino, using her emergency powers, promulgated a transitory charter known as the “Freedom Constitution” which did not affect the composition and powers of the Supreme Court. The Freedom Charter was replaced by the 1987 Constitution which is the fundamental charter in force in the Philippines at present. Section 1 Article VIII of the Constitution vests the judicial power “in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.”

Writ of Amparo[edit]

The Supreme Court approved the Writ of Amparo on September 25, 2007.[18] The writ of amparo (Spanish for protection) strips the military of the defense of simple denial. Under the writ, families of victims have the right to access information on their cases—a constitutional right called the "habeas data" common in several Latin American countries. The rule is enforced retroactively. Chief Justice Puno stated that "If you have this right, it would be very, very difficult for State agents, State authorities to be able to escape from their culpability."[19][20]

The Resolution and the Rule on the Writ of Amparo gave legal birth to Puno's brainchild.[21][22][23] No filing or legal fees is required for Amparo which takes effect on October 24. Puno also stated that the court will soon issue rules on the writ of Habeas Data and the implementing guidelines for Habeas Corpus. The petition for the writ of amparo may be filed "on any day and at any time" with the Regional Trial Court, or with the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court. The interim reliefs under amparo are: temporary protection order (TPO), inspection order (IO), production order (PO), and witness protection order (WPO, RA 6981).[24]

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has criticized the Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data for being insufficient, saying further action must be taken, including enacting laws for protection against torture, enforced disappearance, and laws to provide legal remedies to victims. AHRC said the writ failed to protect non-witnesses, even if they too face threats.[25]

Habeas Data

On August 30, 2007, Puno vowed to institute the writ of habeas data as a new legal remedy to the extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. Puno explained that the writ of amparo denies to authorities defense of simple denial, and habeas data can find out what information is held by the officer, rectify or even the destroy erroneous data gathered.[26]

On January 22, 2008, the Supreme Court En Banc approved the rules for the writ of Habeas Data ("to protect a person’s right to privacy and allow a person to control any information concerning them"), effective on February 2, the Philippines’ Constitution Day.[27]

Language[edit]

Since the courts' creation, English had been used in court proceedings. But for the first time in Philippine judicial history, or on August 22, 2007, three Malolos City regional trial courts in Bulacan will use Filipino, to promote the national language. Twelve stenographers from Branches 6, 80 and 81, as model courts, had undergone training at Marcelo H. del Pilar College of Law of Bulacan State University College of Law following a directive from the Supreme Court of the Philippines. De la Rama said it was the dream of Chief Justice Reynato Puno to implement the program in other areas such as Laguna, Cavite, Quezon, Nueva Ecija, Batangas, Rizal and Metro Manila.[28]

Judicial corruption[edit]

On January 25, 2005, and on December 10, 2006, Philippines Social Weather Stations released the results of its two surveys on corruption in the judiciary; it published that: a) like 1995, 1/4 of lawyers said many/very many judges are corrupt. But (49%) stated that a judges received bribes, just 8% of lawyers admitted they reported the bribery, because they could not prove it. [Tables 8-9]; judges, however, said, just 7% call many/very many judges as corrupt[Tables 10-11];b) "Judges see some corruption; proportions who said - many/very many corrupt judges or justices: 17% in reference to RTC judges, 14% to MTC judges, 12% to Court of Appeals justices, 4% i to Shari'a Court judges, 4% to Sandiganbayan justices and 2% in reference to Supreme Court justices [Table 15].[29][30]

The September 14, 2008, Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) survey, ranked the Philippines 6th (6.10) among corrupt Asian judicial systems. PERC stated that "despite India and the Philippines being democracies, expatriates did not look favourably on their judicial systems because of corruption." PERC reported Hong Kong and Singapore have the best judicial systems in Asia, with Indonesia and Vietnam the worst: Hong Kong's judicial system scored 1.45 on the scale (zero representing the best performance and 10 the worst); Singapore with a grade of 1.92, followed by Japan (3.50), South Korea (4.62), Taiwan (4.93), the Philippines (6.10), Malaysia (6.47), India (6.50), Thailand (7.00), China (7.25), Vietnam's (8.10) and Indonesia (8.26).[31][32]

In the September 23, 2008, Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (global survey ranking countries in terms of perceived corruption), the Philippines dropped to 141st, down 10 places from 2007, among 180 countries surveyed. It scored a 2.3 in the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), lower than 2007's 2.5, on a scale where 10 is the highest possible grade.[33][34][35] Vincent Lazatin, TAN executive director, said: “We are compared to our nearest neighbors Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam, with Vietnam seen as eventually overtaking us in a few years. The difference is that (in other countries) when business sets aside money to grease the wheels, they know that they will get what they paid for. In the Philippines, there is no certainty."[36]

“Bantay Korte Suprema”[edit]

"Watch the Supreme Court" coalition was launched at the Training Center, Ground Floor, Supreme Court Centennial Bldg on November 17, 2008, "to ensure the fair and honest selection of the 7 Associate Justices of the Supreme Court on 2009." Members of “Bantay Korte Suprema” include retired Philippine presidents, retired Supreme Court justices, legislators, legal practitioners, the academe, the business community and the media. former Senate President Jovito Salonga, UP Law Dean Marvic Leonen, Senate Majority Leader and Judicial and Bar Council member Kiko Pangilinan, the Philippine Bar Association, Artemio Panganiban, and Rodolfo Urbiztondo, of the 48,000-strong Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), and the chambers of commerce, witnessed the landmark event. BKS will neither select nor endorse a candidate, “but if it receive information that makes a candidate incompetent, it will divulge this to the public and inform the JBC." At the BKS launching, the memorandum of understanding (MOU) on the public monitoring of the selection of justices to the SC was signed.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court Appointments Watch (SCAW) coalition of law groups and civil society to monitor the appointment of persons to judicial positions was also re-launched. The SCAW consortium, composed of the Alternative Law Groups, Libertas, Philippine Association of law Schools and the Transparency and Accountability Network, together with the online news magazine Newsbreak, reactivated itself for the JBC selection process of candidates.[37][38][39][40]

Philippine court system[edit]

Judicial regions

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ See Section 6, Article VIII, Constitution
  2. ^ http://www.up.edu.ph/beginnings-university-of-the-philippines-manila/
  3. ^ See Section 7(1), Article VIII, Constitution
  4. ^ See Section 7(3), Article VIII, Constitution
  5. ^ a b See Section 9, Article VIII, Constitution
  6. ^ Changed to 65 during 1973-1978, but since restored to 70.
  7. ^ See
  8. ^ manilastandardtoday.com, Justice Austria-Martinez wants early retirement
  9. ^ abs-cbnnews.com, Exclusive: SC Justice Alicia Martinez to retire early
  10. ^ opinion.inquirer.net, With Due Respect - A libertarian decision; a decent jurist
  11. ^ See Sections 5(4) & (5), Article VIII, Constitution
  12. ^ See Sections 5(5), Article VIII, Constitution
  13. ^ See J. Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (1996 ed.), at 831
  14. ^ See Section 6, Rule 45, 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
  15. ^ See Sections 1, 2, & 3, Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
  16. ^ See, e.g., Toh v. CA, G.R. No. 140274, November 15, 2000.
  17. ^ a b c http://d-arch.ide.go.jp/idedp/IAL/IAL000500_003.pdf
  18. ^ Inquirer.net, SC approves use of writ of amparo
  19. ^ Inquiret.net, Military can’t shrug off killings--Chief Justice
  20. ^ ABS-CBN Interactive, SC ready with writ of amparo by Sept - Puno
  21. ^ Supremecourt.gov.ph, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO
  22. ^ S.C. Resolution, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO
  23. ^ Supremecourt.gov.ph, SC Approves Rule on Writ of Amparo
  24. ^ GMA NEWS.TV, SC approves rule on writ of amparo vs extralegal killings
  25. ^ GMA NEWS.TV, Writ of amparo not enough – Hong Kong rights group
  26. ^ Inquirer.net, Habeas data: SC’s new remedy vs killings, disappearances
  27. ^ newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews, Supreme Court okays rules of ‘habeas data’
  28. ^ Inquirer.net, 3 Bulacan courts to use Filipino in judicial proceedings
  29. ^ www.sws.org.ph, New Diagnostic Study Sets Guideposts for Systematic Development of the Judiciary
  30. ^ www.sws.org.ph, New SWS Study of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession Sees Some Improvements, But Also Recurring Problems
  31. ^ afp.google.com/article, Hong Kong has best judicial system in Asia: business survey
  32. ^ www.abs-cbnnews.com, Hong Kong has best judicial system in Asia: business survey
  33. ^ bworldonline.com, RP drops further in corruption perceptions survey
  34. ^ transparency.org, Transparency International 2008 Corruption Perceptions Index
  35. ^ transparency.org, Persistently high corruption in low-income countries amounts to an “ongoing humanitarian disaster”
  36. ^ gmanews.tv, RP still as corrupt as ever - Transparency International
  37. ^ newsinfo.inquirer.net, SC watchdog launched
  38. ^ supremecourt.gov.ph, LAUNCHING OF BANTAY KORTE SUPREMA
  39. ^ gmanews.tv/story, Group launches ‘Bantay Korte Suprema’ to guard selection of new SC justices
  40. ^ balita.ph, Bantay Korte Suprema launched

External links[edit]