E. The Supreme Court

Supreme Court in General

• Being a Constitutional body, it may not be abolished by law.
• In GENERAL, its members may only be removed through impeachment. (PHIL. CONST., art. XI, § 2.)
• Members of the Supreme Court may now be removed from office through a petition for quo warranto. Although Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution provides for removal of Supreme Court members by impeachment, quo warranto may separately challenge an impeachable officer’s title to office on grounds rendering the appointment invalid. A quo warranto petition is predicated on grounds distinct from those of impeachment. The former questions the validity of a public officer's appointment while the latter indicts him for the so-called impeachable offenses without questioning his title to the office he holds. (Republic v. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, June 19, 2018)
• Jurisdiction
• Congress cannot deprive the Supreme Court of its original jurisdiction or of the appellate jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution. (PHIL. CONST., art. VIII, §§ 2, 5(1)–(2).)
• Congress may not increase the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction without its advice or concurrence (PHIL. CONST., art. VI, § 30.)
• Congress cannot deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases provided for in the Constitution (PHIL. CONST., art. VIII, § 2.) and may only do the following:
• Define enforceable and demandable rights; prescribing remedies for violations of such rights Determine the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide controversies or disputes arising from legal rights (Lopez v. Roxas, G.R. No. L-25716,1966)
• It has administrative supervision over all inferior courts and personnel. (PHIL. CONST., art. VIII, § 6.)
• It has exclusive power to discipline or dismiss judges/ justices of inferior courts. (PHIL. CONST., art. VIII, § 11.)
• The Court alone may initiate the Rules of Court. (PHIL. CONST., art. VIII, § 5(5).)
• The Court alone may order temporary detail of judges. (PHIL. CONST., art. VIII, § 5(3).)
• The Court can appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary. (PHIL. CONST., art. VIII, § 5(6).)

Summary of privileged documents or communications not subject to disclosure:

• Court actions such as the result of the raffle of cases and the actions taken by the Court on each case included in the agenda of the Court’s session on acts done material to pending cases, except where a party litigant requests information on the result of the raffle of the case, pursuant to Rule 7, Section 3 of the Rules of Court of the Supreme Court (IRSC);
• Court deliberations or the deliberations of the Members of the court sessions on cases and matters pending before the Court;
• Court records which are “pre-decisional” and “deliberative” in nature;
• Confidential Information secured by justices, judges, court officials and employees in the course of their official functions mentioned in the 2 preceding enumerations, are privileged even after their term of office;
• Records of cases that are still pending for decision are privileged materials that cannot be disclosed, except only for pleadings, orders and resolutions that have been made available by court to the general public.
• The principle of comity or inter-departmental courtesy demands that the highest officials of each department be exempt from the compulsory processes of the other departments;
• These privileges belong to the Supreme Court as an institution, not to any justice or judge in his or her individual capacity. Since the Court is higher than the individual justices or judges, no sitting or retired justice or judge, not even the Chief Justice, may claim exception without the consent of the Court.

What criticisms are allowed by the court?

Criticisms shall be bona fide and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. A wide chasm exists between fair criticism, on the one hand, and abuse and slander of courts and the judges thereof, on the other [In Re: Almacen, G.R. No. 27654 (1970)].