3. En Banc and Division Cases

E. The Supreme Court

• Composition, Powers, and Functions
• Power to Promulgate Rules
• En Banc and Division Cases
• Administrative Supervision Over Lower Courts

Constitutional Provisions

> 1987 CONST., art. VIII, sec. 4

SECTION 4. (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in divisions of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.

(2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.

(3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case, without the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc.

> 1987 CONST., art. VIII, sec. 5

SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.

(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:

(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.

(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.

(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.

(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.

(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge concerned.

(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.

> 1987 CONST., art. VIII, sec. 11 SECTION 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.

> 1987 CONST., art. VIII, sec. 6 SECTION 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.

> 1987 CONST., art. VI, sec. 30 SECTION 30. No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence.

Primus Inter Pares

Literally, first among equals; the maxim indicates that a person is the most senior of a group of people sharing the same rank or office. The phrase has been used to describe the status, condition or role of the Chief Justice in many supreme courts around the world.

Hearing Of Cases In The Supreme Court (PHIL. CONST., art. VIII, § 4(1).)

• Divisions of 3, 5, or 7 members
• En Banc

Any vacancy should be filled within 90 days from the occurrence thereof.

EN BANC AND DIVISION CASES

En banc (PHIL. CONST., art. VIII, § 4(2).)

The Supreme Court hears the following en banc:

• Cases involving the constitutionality of a law, international agreement, executive agreement, or treaty.
• Cases involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, orders, proclamations, ordinances, other regulations, or instructions.
• Cases required to be heard en banc under the Rules of Court, including appeals from the Sandiganbayan and the Constitutional Commissions.
• Cases heard by a division when the required concurrence of three Members is not obtained.
• Cases in which the Court modifies or reverses a doctrine or principle of law laid down by the Court en banc or in division.
• Administrative cases involving the discipline or dismissal of lower-court judges.
• Election contests involving the President or Vice-President.

A case required to be heard en banc is decided by a majority of the Members who actually took part in deliberating on its issues and voted on them. A doctrine or principle of law laid down by the Court en banc or in division may be modified or reversed only by the Court sitting en banc.

Division (PHIL. CONST., art. VIII, § 4(3).)

A division decides a case or resolves a matter with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in deliberating on its issues and voted on them. At least three such Members must concur. If the required number is not obtained in deciding a case, the case is decided en banc.

Cases are “decided,” while matters, including motions, are “resolved.” This distinction follows the rule of reddendo singula singulis. Only a case is referred to the Court en banc when the required votes for its decision are not obtained; the same rule does not apply to a motion for reconsideration that fails to obtain three votes. If a division is tied on a case, it has rendered no decision and must refer the case to the Court en banc. If the division has already decided the case and is tied on a motion for reconsideration, its decision stands and the motion is lost. (Fortich v. Corona, G.R. No. 131457, Aug. 19, 1999)

The Supreme Court en banc does not sit as an appellate court over its divisions and has no appellate jurisdiction over them. A division is not inferior to the Court en banc; it sits as the Court itself. A division’s resolution denying a motion to refer a division case to the Court en banc is final and cannot be appealed to the Court en banc. (Apo Fruits v. CA, G.R. No. 164195, 2008)

Procedural rule-making (PHIL. CONST., art. VIII, § 5(5).)

The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court (IRSC) prohibits the disclosure of:

• Result of the raffle of cases;
• Actions taken by the Court on each case included in the agenda of the Court’s session;
• Deliberations of the Members in court sessions on cases and matters pending before it;
• The privilege against disclosure of these kinds of information/communication is known as deliberative process privilege

Cases decided by COMELEC subject to judicial review:

Decisions or determinations by COMELEC in the exercise of its administrative (not quasi-judicial) power may be questioned in an ordinary civil action before the trial court. (Filipinas Engineering & Machine Shop v. Ferrer, G.R. No. L-31455, Feb. 28, 1985).

• The Court has no power to review on certiorari an interlocutory order or even a final resolution issued by a DIVISION of the COMELEC. The Court can only review a final decision or resolution of the COMELEC en banc (Cagas vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 194139, Jan. 24, 2012).
• COMELEC has jurisdiction to determine the presence of “probable cause” in election cases. The finding of probable cause and the prosecution of election offenses rests in the COMELEC’s sound discretion (Baytan v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 153945, Feb. 4, 2003).
• The Chief State Prosecutor, who may have been designated by the COMELEC to prosecute a criminal action, merely derives his authority from the COMELEC. It is beyond his power to oppose the appeal made by COMELEC (Comelec v. Silva, G.R. No. 129417, Feb. 10, 1998).

In a proper petition under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy, the COMELEC may receive evidence and resolve whether a material representation concerning a candidate’s qualifications was false. The limits discussed in Poe-Llamanzares must not be treated as a categorical bar to that authority.

• The provisions in Article IX-C, Section 2, enumerating the powers and functions of COMELEC does not have the same exactitude of the provisions of Art. VI, Sec. 17, which provides for the HRET and SET, or that of Art. VII, Sec. 4, which provides that the SC en banc shall be the sole judge of all contests regarding the Presidency and VicePresidency. These tribunals have jurisdiction over the question of qualifications of the President, VP, Senators, and the HoR.
• Article IX-C, Sec. 2 of the Constitution does not make the COMELEC the sole judge of the contests assigned to those tribunals; it may nevertheless resolve candidate-qualification issues within its jurisdiction in a proper proceeding, including a petition under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code alleging a material false representation in a certificate of candidacy.
• A COMELEC rule or resolution cannot supplant or vary the legislative enactments that distinguish the grounds for disqualification from those of ineligibility, and the appropriate proceedings to raise the said grounds. (Fermin v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179695, Dec. 18, 2008)
• Insofar as the qualification of a candidate is concerned, Rule 25 and Rule 23 of the COMELEC rules do not themselves supplant the statutory grounds and procedures for determining qualification issues; Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code permits the COMELEC to resolve a properly pleaded claim of material false representation.
• A prior proceeding establishing the facts of qualification is not a universal prerequisite. In a proper Section 78 proceeding, the COMELEC may receive evidence and determine whether a material representation in the certificate of candidacy was false.
• The certificate of candidacy may be cancelled or denied due course under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code upon a finding, in a proper proceeding, of a material false representation regarding a candidate’s qualifications; a prior determination by another authority is not invariably required.
• In Poe’s case, the Court rejected the COMELEC’s cancellation of her certificate of candidacy on the qualification issues presented; that ruling does not categorically prevent the COMELEC from deciding a properly pleaded Section 78 petition. (Poe-Llamanzares v. Comelec et al, G.R. Nos. 221697 & 221698- 700, March 8, 2016)

The COMELEC’s power to motu proprio deny due course to a certificate of candidacy is subject to the candidate’s opportunity to be heard. Under Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution, “the state shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service.” (PHIL. CONST. art. II, § 26). This, however, does not guarantee a constitutional right to run for or hold public office. To run for public office is a mere privilege subject to limitations imposed by law, such as prohibition on nuisance candidates. To minimize logistical confusion caused by nuisance candidates, their COC’s may be denied due course by the COMELEC, through motu proprio or upon verified petition of an interested party, subject to an opportunity to be heard. (Timbol v Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 206004, Feb. 24, 2015)

Guidelines in determining whether or not a matter is of transcendental importance:

• The character of the funds or other assets involved in the case;
• The presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public respondent agency or instrumentality of the government; and
• The lack of any other party with a more direct and specific interest in the questions being raised (Chamber of Real Estate and Builders’ Association, Inc. v. Energy Regulatory Commission, et al., G.R. No. 174697, July 8, 2010).