 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Supreme Court of the Philippines" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(March 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| Supreme Court | |
|---|---|
| Kataas-taasang Hukuman (Filipino) | |
 Seal | |
 The facade of the Supreme Court Building on Padre Faura Street, Ermita, Manila | |
 Interactive map of Supreme Court | |
| 14°34′47″N120°59′04″E / 14.5798°N 120.9844°E /14.5798; 120.9844 | |
| Established | June 11, 1901; 124 years ago (1901-06-11) |
| Jurisdiction | Philippines |
| Location | Padre Faura Street,Ermita,Manila |
| Coordinates | 14°34′47″N120°59′04″E / 14.5798°N 120.9844°E /14.5798; 120.9844 |
| Motto | Batas at Bayan (Law and Nation) |
| Composition method | Presidential appointment from the shortlist of candidates submitted by theJudicial and Bar Council |
| Authorized by | Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution of the Philippines |
| Appeals from | |
| Judge term length | No fixed term; mandatory retirement upon reaching the age of 70 |
| Number of positions | 15 |
| Annual budget | ₱38.767 billion(2021)[1] |
| Website | sc |
| Chief Justice of the Supreme Court | |
| Currently | Alexander Gesmundo |
| Since | April 5, 2021 |
 |
|---|
 Philippines portal |
TheSupreme Court (Filipino:Kataas-taasang Hukuman),[2] colloquially referred to as theKorte Suprema (also used in formal writing), is the highest court in the Philippines. It was established by theTaft Commission in June 11, 1901, through the enactment of Act No. 136,[3] which abolished theReal Audiencia of Manila, the predecessor of the Supreme Court.[4][5][6]
The Supreme Court compound is located in what was formerly a part of theUniversity of the Philippines Manila campus.[7] It occupies the corner ofPadre Faura Street andTaft Avenue inErmita,Manila, with the main building sited directly in front ofPhilippine General Hospital's cancer institute.
Prior to the conquest of Spain, the islands of the Philippines were composed of independentbarangays, each of which is a community composed of 30 to 100 families. Typically, a barangay is headed by adatu or a local chief who exercises all functions of government: executive, legislative and judicial; he is also the commander-in-chief in times of war. Each barangay has its own laws. Laws may be oral laws, which are the traditions and customs of the locality handed down from generation to generation, or written laws as promulgated by thedatu, who is typically aided by a group of elders. In a confederation of barangays, the laws are promulgated by a superiordatu with the aid of the inferiordatus.[8]
In a resolution of dispute, thedatu acts as a judge while a group of elders sits as a jury. If a dispute is betweendatus or between members of different barangays, the dispute is settled through arbitration with some otherdatus or elders, from other barangays, serving as arbiters or mediators. All trials are held publicly. When adatu is in doubt as to who between the parties is guilty, the parties are subject totrial by ordeal, this is a common practice in criminal cases. An accused who was innocent was perceived to be always successful in such ordeals. These pre-Hispanic people believed that the deities or gods would aid the innocent accused to survive the ordeal.[8]
In the royal order of August 14, 1569,Miguel López de Legazpi was confirmed as theGovernor andCaptain-General of the Philippines. He was empowered to administercivil andcriminal justice in the islands. Under the same order, Legazpi had original and appellate jurisdiction in all suits and constituted in his person all authority of a department of justice, with complete administrative and governmental control of all judicial offices. In subsequentcédulas and royal orders, it was made the responsibility of all officials to enforce all laws and ordinances issued for the benefits of the locals. This often failed to occur. In a 1583 letter written byBishopDomingo de Salazar toKing Philip II, Bishop Salazar noted different acts of oppression and injustice committed against the native Filipinos and said that the decrees of the King, which were designed to protect them, were generally disregarded by the Governor-General and his subordinates.[9]
As a result of these developments, the firstreal audiencia (which is theReal Audiencia of Manila) or high court was established in the Philippines through the royal decree of May 5, 1583. The decree stated that "the court is founded in the interests of good government and the administration of justice, with the same authority and preeminence as each of the royal audiencias in the town ofValladolid and the city ofGranada.[9] The audiencia was composed of a president, threeoidores or auditors, a fiscal or prosecuting attorney, and the necessary auxiliary officials, such as the court's secretaries and clerks.[8][9] The first president was Governor-Captain GeneralSantiago de Vera.[9]
TheReal Audiencia of Manila had a jurisdiction coveringLuzon and the rest of the archipelago. It was given an appellate jurisdiction over all civil and criminal cases decided by the governors,alcaldes mayores and other magistrates of the islands. Theaudiencia may only take cognizance of a civil case in its first instance when, on account of its importance, the amount involved and the dignity of the parties might be tried in a superior court; and of criminal cases which may arise in the place where theaudiencia might meet. The decisions of the audiencia in both civil and criminal cases were to be executed without any appeal, except in civil cases were the amount was so large as to justify an appeal to the King; such appeal to the King must be made within one year. All cases were to be decided by a majority vote, and in case of a tie, an advocate was chosen for the determination of the case.[9]
Theaudiencia would later on be dissolved through the royalcédula of August 9, 1589. Theaudiencia would later on be reestablished through the royal decree of May 25, 1596, and on May 8, 1598, it had resumed its functions as a high court. By its reestablishment, theaudiencia was composed of a president as represented by the governor, four associate justices, prosecuting attorney with the office of protector of the Indians, the assistant prosecuting officers, a reporter, clerk and other officials.[9] By a royal order of March 11, 1776, theaudiencia was reorganized; it consisted of the president, a regent, the immediate head of theaudiencia, fiveoidores or associate justices, two assistant prosecuting attorneys, five subordinate officials, and two reporters. It had also been allowed to perform the duties of a probate court in special cases. When the high court is acting as administrative or advisory body, theaudiencia acted under the name ofreal acuerdo. Later on the governor-general was removed as the president of theaudiencia and thereal acuerdo was abolished by virtue of the royal decree of July 4, 1861.[9] The same royal decree converted the court to a pure judicial body, with its decisions appealable to the Supreme Court of Spain.[10] By the royal decree of October 24, 1870, theaudiencia was branched into two chambers; these two branches were later renamed assala de lo civil andsala de lo criminal by virtue of royal decree of May 23, 1879.[9]
On February 26, 1886, the territorialaudiencia ofCebu was established through a royal decree, and covers the jurisdiction of the islands of Cebu,Negros,Panay,Samar,Paragua,Calamianes,Masbate,Ticao,Leyte,Jolo andBalabac, including the smaller and adjacent islands of aforementioned islands. By January 5, 1891, a royal decree had established the territorialaudiencias of Manila and Cebu. By virtue of a royal decree, the territorial audiencia in Cebu continued until May 19, 1893 when it ceased to be territorial; itsaudiencia for criminal cases, however, was retained.[9] From the same royal decree, theaudiencia in Vigan was established and covers criminal cases in Luzon andBatanes. These courts decisions are not considered final as they are still appealable to theAudiencia Territorial of Manila and those of the audiencia to theSupreme Court of Spain.[8] Theseaudiencias would still continue to operate even until the outbreak of the Filipino rebellion in 1896.[9]
From the start of occupation by United States forces on August 13, 1898, theaudiencias of Cebu and Vigan ceased to function; the judges had fled for safety. The following day,Wesley Merritt, the first AmericanMilitary Governor, ordered the suspension of the territorial jurisdiction of the colonialReal Audiencia of Manila, and of other minor courts in the Philippines. All trials of committed crimes and offenses were transferred to the jurisdiction of thecourt-martial or military commissions of the United States.
On October 7, 1898, the civil courts throughout the islands, which were constituted under Spanish laws prior to August 13, were permitted to resume their civil jurisdiction, subject to supervision by the American military government. In January 1899, the civil jurisdiction of theaudiencia in Manila was suspended. It was restored in May 29, 1899 after it was reestablished as theSupreme Court of the Philippine Islands underGeneral Order No. 40. The criminal jurisdiction was also restored to the newly reformed civil high court.[9]
On June 11, 1901, the current Supreme Court was officially established through enactment of Act No. 136, otherwise known as theJudiciary Law of the SecondPhilippine Commission.[11] The said law reorganized the judicial system and vested the judicial power to the Supreme Court, Courts of First Instance andJustice of the Peace courts. The said law also provided for the early composition of the said High Court, having one chief justice and six associate justices—all appointed by the commission.[8][9] ThePhilippine Organic Act of 1902 and theJones Act of 1916, both passed by theU.S. Congress, ratified the jurisdiction of the courts vested by Act No. 136. The Philippine Organic Act of 1902 further provides that the chief justice of the Supreme Court and its six associate justices shall be appointed by thepresident of the United States with the consent and advice of theU.S. Senate.[8]
The enactment of the Administrative Code of 1917 made the Supreme Court the highest tribunal. It also increased the total membership of the Supreme Court, having one chief justice and eight associate justices.[12]
With the establishment of theCommonwealth of the Philippines through the ratification of the1935 Constitution, the Supreme Court's composition was increased to eleven, with one chief justice and ten associate justices.[n] The 1935 Constitution provided for the independence of the judiciary, the security of tenure of its members, prohibition on diminution of compensation during their term of office, and the method of removal of the justices throughimpeachment. The Constitution also transferred the rule-making of the legislature to the Supreme Court on the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, court procedures, and admission to the practice of law.[8]
Within the briefJapanese occupation of the Philippines, the Court remained with no substantial changes in its organizational structure and jurisdiction. However, some acts and outlines of the Court were required to be approved first by the military governor of theImperial Japanese Force.[8] In 1942,José Abad Santos—the fifth chief justice of the Supreme Court—was executed by Japanese troops after refusing to collaborate with the Japanese military government. He was captured on April 11, 1942 in the province ofCebu and was executed on May 7, 1942 in the town ofMalabang inLanao del Sur.[13]
After the end of the Japanese occupation during World War II, Philippines was granted its independence on July 4, 1946 from the United States. The grant of independence was made through theTreaty of Manila of 1946. In the said treaty, it provides that:
ARTICLE V. –The Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America agree that all cases at law concerning the Government and people of the Philippines which, in accordance with section 7 (6) of the Independence Act of 1934, are pending before the Supreme Court of the United States of America at the date of the granting of the independence of the Republic of the Philippines shall continue to be subject to the review of the Supreme Court of the United States of America for such period of time after independence as may be necessary to effectuate the disposition of the cases at hand. The contracting parties also agree that following the disposition of such cases the Supreme Court of the United States of America will cease to have the right of review of cases originating in the Philippine Islands.[o]
In effect of the treaty, the United States Supreme Court ceased to have appellate power to review cases originating from the Philippines after its independence, with exception of those cases pending before the United States Supreme Court filed prior to the country's independence.
On June 17, 1948, the Judiciary Act of 1948 was enacted. The law grouped cases together over which the high court could exercise its exclusive jurisdiction to review on appeal,certiorari, or writ of error.[5]
In 1973, the 1935 Constitution was revised and was replaced by the 1973 Constitution. Under the said Constitution, the membership of the court was increased to its current number, which is fifteen.[p] All members are said to be appointed by the President alone, without consent, approval, or recommendation of a body or officials.[q] The 1973 Constitution also vested in the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all lower courts which heretofore was under theDepartment of Justice.[14]
The martial law period brought in many legal issues of transcendental importance and consequence: some of which were thelegality of the ratification of the 1973 Constitution, the assumption of the totality of government authority by President Marcos, the power to review the factual basis for a declaration of Martial Law by the Chief Executive.[5]
After the overthrow ofPresidentFerdinand Marcos in 1986, PresidentCorazon 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 1987Constitution which is the fundamental charter in force in the Philippines at present.Under the current Constitution, it retained and carried the provision in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions that "judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law." However, unlike the previous Constitutions, the current Constitution expanded the Supreme Court's judicial power by defining it in the second paragraph of Section 1, Article VIII as:
SECTION 1. — xxxJudicial power includes the duty of the 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.[r]
The definition, in effect, diluted thepolitical question doctrine, that it is best to submit specific questions or issues specific questions to the political wisdom of the people, and thus, as a result, are beyond the review of the courts.[5]
Furthermore, the present Constitution provided for safeguards to ensure the independence of the Judiciary. It also provided for theJudicial and Bar Council, a constitutionally-created body that recommends appointees for vacancies that may arise in the composition of the Supreme Court and other lower courts.[5]
The SC Public Information Office announced the opening on March 1, 2024 the creation of aOne-stop shop housing the Judicial Records office, Fiscal Management and Budget Office and the Office of the Bar Confidant. It is a part of the Supreme Court's Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations.Alexander Gesmundo also inaugurated inTawi-Tawi the "Remote Hearing and Equal Access to Law and Justice" (REAL Justice) program of the 2004 Justice on Wheels. The new program consists of 3 parts—"the deployment of retrofitted buses to the territorial jurisdiction of courts which are difficult to reach, the providing alternative modes of transportation in order to bring technology to far-flung areas that could not be reached by buses and the use of the buses as mobile courts where bail procedures can be conducted on days when the court is not in session, "so that those who are arrested would be able to post bail when necessary,"Marvic Leonen said.[15][16]
According to the Constitution, for a person to be appointed to the Supreme Court, he must be:
An additional constitutional requirement, though less precise in nature, is that a judge "must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence."[e]
Pursuant toArticle VIII of the1987 Constitution of the Philippines, the Court is composed of thechief justice and of the fourteenassociate justices,[a] all of whom are appointed by thepresident from a list of nominees made by theJudicial and Bar Council.[b] An appointment to the Supreme Court needs no confirmation of theCommission on Appointments as the nomination is already vetted by theJudicial and Bar Council, a constitutionally-created body which recommends appointments within the judiciary.[b][c]
Upon a vacancy in the Court, whether for the position ofchief justice orassociate justice, thepresident fills the vacancy by appointing a person from a list of at least 3 nominees prepared by theJudicial and Bar Council.[b]
The 1987Constitution of the Philippines provides that:
"SECTION 11.The Members of the Supreme Court xxxshall hold office during good behavior until they reached the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office."[g]
Supreme Court justices are obliged to retire upon reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70.[f] Some justices have opted to retire before reaching the age of 70, such as Florentino Feliciano, who retired at 67 to accept appointment to theAppellate Body of theWorld Trade Organization andAlicia Austria-Martinez who retired at 68 for health reasons.[17][18]
Since 1901,Associate Justice Austria-Martinez was one of the first to opt for an early retirement from the service. In September 2008, Justice Martinez, citing health reasons, filed a letter with the Court through Chief JusticeReynato Puno, informing her colleagues of her intention to avail of earlyretirement effective April 30, 2009, or 15 months before her compulsory retirement on December 19, 2010.[19] This was followed by JusticeMartin Villarama Jr., who also retired prior to the age of 70 in January 2016 for health reasons.[20]
.jpg)
(2018-11-26).jpg)
The Supreme Court currently meets at the Supreme Court Main Building alongPadre Faura Street, between theDepartment of Justice and theUniversity of the Philippines Manila's Rizal Hall.
The Court first met in 1901 at theAyuntamiento de Manila inPlaza Roma,Intramuros with the Salas De Sessiones serving as the Session Hall. The Court eventually transferred to theOld Legislative Building together withPhilippine Legislature in 1941 under Chief JusticeJosé P. Laurel.
DuringWorld War II, the Court temporarily transferred to Mabini Hall of theMalacañang Palace due to the destruction of the Old Legislative Building and the Ayuntamiento.
In 1951, the Court transferred back to what is now the Court's Old Building, originally built to house of School of Fine Arts and Conservatory of Music of the University of the Philippines. The façade of this building displays the busts of the first nine chief justices of the Supreme Court and the statues ofLady Justice andMoses at its entrance. The Court transferred to its current address in 1991, after theDepartment of Foreign Affairs, which previously occupied the edifice, transferred to the old headquarters of theAsian Development Bank alongRoxas Boulevard,Pasay City, as the latter has relocated toMandaluyong City.
The current main building of the Supreme Court was designed by the Filipino architect Antonio Toledo in accordance with the1905 Burnham Plan of Manila. It originally housed the library of theUniversity of the Philippines Manila. The four pillars at the façade represent the four levels of the hierarchy of the judiciary. The bronze seated figures of chief justicesCayetano Arellano andJosé Abad Santos guard each side of the entrance to the Court. Upon entering the building, the main lobby features the logo of the Court in the middle. To the right is the Dignitaries' Lounge and to the left is the Division Hearing Room. The second floor houses the portrait gallery of chief justices and the session hall, as well as the offices of the chief justice and 2 most senior associate justices.[21]
Since 1948, the Supreme Court has held its summer sessions inBaguio during the whole month of April.[22]
The Court is currently in the planning process for its eventual transfer to its new and permanent site. After initially inking a deal with BCDA to move to a complex in the plannedBonifacio Capital District inTaguig,[23] it instead went for a bigger 25 hectare complex it received from San Miguel Aerocity, Inc. via the Department of Transportation. The new site is near the futureNew Manila International Airport inBulakan, Bulacan, and will also house its relevant appellate courts: the Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals, and the Sandiganbayan.[24]
Since the courts' creation, English had been used in court proceedings. But for the first time in Philippine judicial history on August 22, 2007, threeMalolos City regional trial courts inBulacan announced that will use onlyFilipino in court proceedings to promote the national language. Twelvestenographers from Branches 6, 80 and 81, as model courts, had undergone training at Marcelo H. del Pilar College of Law ofBulacan State University College of Law following a directive from the Supreme Court of the Philippines. Chief JusticeReynato Puno envisioned to implement the policy in other areas such asLaguna,Cavite,Quezon,Nueva Ecija,Batangas,Rizal, andMetro Manila.[25]
Spanish has also been used in court proceedings, particularly in the years prior to Philippine independence, with a number of cases having decisions written in the language. Although Spanish is no longer used in the court system, the language has influenced existingPhilippine legal terminology.
The wording of the session opening announcement, below, is similar to that used by theSupreme Court of the United States. However, several key passages from the U.S. Supreme Court are omitted, including "are admonished to draw near and give their attention" and "God save (name of country) and this Honorable Court." The prewar Philippine Supreme Court tried to inject these passages, but were prohibited from doing so by the American colonial government in Manila. Notable in the Philippine version of the chant is the use of the more familiar term "hear ye" over the archaicLaw French termoyez.
The honorable, the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the Philippines. Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye! All persons having business before the honorable Supreme Court of the Philippines shall give their attention, for the Court is now in session.[26]
After the announcement, the chief justice bangs thegavel, and typically, first calls theclerk of court, who describes the first case on the calendar and calls the attorneys who will be making oral arguments to speak.[26]
The powers of the Supreme Court are defined in Article VIII of the1987 Constitution. These functions may be generally divided into two—judicial functions andadministrative 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 thePhilippine 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.[h] 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.[h]
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 judicial power is vested in "one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law."[i] This judicial power is exercised through the judiciary's primary role of adjudication, which includes the "duty of the 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."[i]
The definition reaffirms the power of the Supreme Court to engage injudicial 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 thepolitical question doctrine as a means of declining to review a law or state action, as was often done by the Court during the rule ofPresidentFerdinand Marcos.[27] 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.
The other mode by which a case reaches the Supreme Court is through an original petition filed directly with the Supreme Court, in cases that theConstitution establishes "original jurisdiction" with the Supreme Court. Under Section 5(1), Article VIII of the Constitution, they are "cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus." Resort tocertiorari,prohibition andmandamus may be availed of only if "there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."[j]
However, notwithstanding the grant of original jurisdiction, the Court has, through the years, assigned to lower courts such as theCourt of Appeals the power to hear petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,quo warranto andhabeas 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 for which 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."[k]
Far and away the most common mode by which a case reaches the Supreme Court is through anappeal from a decision rendered by a lower court. Appealed cases generally originate fromlawsuits orcriminal indictments filed and tried before the trial courts. These decisions of the trial courts may then be elevated on appeal to theCourt 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 theSandiganbayan and theCourt 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 theCommission 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".[l] 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.
The Supreme Court has the exclusive power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, andprocedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Any 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. (Art. VIII, §54(5))
The Supreme Court approved the Writ of Amparo on September 25, 2007.[28] 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."[29][30]
The Resolution and the Rule on the Writ of Amparo gavelegal birth to Puno's brainchild.[31][32][33] Nofiling orlegal fees is required for Amparo which took effect on October 24, 2007. Puno also stated that the court will soon issue rules on the writ ofhabeas data and the implementing guidelines forHabeas 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 theSandiganbayan, 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).[34]
TheAsian Human Rights Commission said thatamparo and habeas data need to be complemented by laws to further protect human rights, since the writs in themselves are not enough to address torture,enforced disappearance, and extrajudicial killings, and do not include protection for non-witnesses.[35]
On August 30, 2007, Puno vowed to institute thewrit of habeas data as a new legal remedy to theextrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. Puno explained that thewrit of amparo denies to authorities defense of simple denial, andhabeas data can find out what information is held by the officer, rectify or even the destroy erroneous data gathered.[36]
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.[37]
The Court is authorized to sit eitheren banc or in divisions of three, five or seven members. Since 1987, the Court has divided itself into 3 divisions with 5 members each. A majority of the cases are heard and decided by the divisions, rather than the Courten banc. However, the Constitution requires that the Court hearen 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". The Courten 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 caseen banc even if no constitutional issue is involved, as it typically does if the decision would reverse precedent or presents novel or important questions.
Formerly under the 1935, 1973 and the 1986 Freedom Constitutions, the Court is authorized only to sit eitheren banc or in divisions of two.
On February 24, 2022,Alexander Gesmundo, thechief justice, issued Special Order No. 2871 reorganised the Divisions of the Supreme Court, this was published on the same day and took effect immediately, With him as the chairman of the First Division, and Associate JusticeHernando as its working chair, the other chairmanships were given to Senior Associate JusticeLeonen (2nd Division) andCaguioa (3rd Division),[38] this reorganization came immediately after the appointment of JusticeSingh on May 18, 2022.
| First Division | Second Division | Third Division | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chairperson | A. Gesmundo | Chairperson | M. Leonen | Chairperson | A. Caguioa |
| Working Chairperson | R. Hernando | ||||
| Members |
| Members |
| Members |
|
The Supreme Court consists of a chief justice and fourteen associate justices. Among the current members of the Court,Marvic Leonen is the longest-serving justice, with a tenure of5,182 days (13 years, 11 days) as of November 23, 2025; the most recent justice to enter the court isRaul Villanueva whose tenure began onJune 9, 2025.
| Position | Justice Birthdate and place | Date of Appointment | Date of Retirement (70 years old)[39] | Appointing President | Law School | Previous position or office (Most recent prior to appointment) | Replacing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chief Justice |  Alexander Gesmundo born (1956-11-06)November 6, 1956 (age 69) San Pablo City | April 5, 2021 | November 6, 2026 | Duterte | Ateneo de Manila University | Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines (2017–2021) | Peralta |
| Senior Associate Justice |  Marvic Mario Victor Leonen born (1962-12-29)December 29, 1962 (age 62) Baguio | November 12, 2012 | December 29, 2032 | Aquino III | University of the Philippines Diliman | Chief Peace Negotiator with theMoro Islamic Liberation Front (2010–2012) | Aranal-Sereno |
| Associate Justice |  Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa born (1959-09-26)September 26, 1959 (age 66) Quezon City | January 22, 2016 | September 26, 2029 | Aquino III | Ateneo de Manila University | Acting Secretary of Justice (2015–2016) | Villarama Jr. |
| Associate Justice |  Ramon Paul Hernando born (1966-08-27)August 27, 1966 (age 59) Tuguegarao, Cagayan | October 10, 2018 | August 27, 2036 | Duterte | San Beda University | Associate Justice of theCourt of Appeals (2010–2018) | Martires |
| Associate Justice |  Amy Lazaro-Javier born (1956-11-16)November 16, 1956 (age 69) Manila | March 6, 2019 | November 16, 2026 | Duterte | University of Santo Tomas | Associate Justice of theCourt of Appeals (2007–2019) | Tijam |
| Associate Justice |  Henri Jean Paul Inting born (1957-09-04)September 4, 1957 (age 68) Bansalan, Davao del Sur | May 27, 2019 | September 4, 2027 | Duterte | Ateneo de Davao University | Associate Justice of theCourt of Appeals (2012–2019) | Bersamin |
| Associate Justice |  Rodil Zalameda born (1963-08-02)August 2, 1963 (age 62) Caloocan | August 5, 2019 | August 2, 2033 | Duterte | Ateneo de Manila University | Associate Justice of theCourt of Appeals (2008–2019) | Del Castillo |
| Associate Justice |  Samuel Gaerlan born (1958-12-19)December 19, 1958 (age 66) San Juan, La Union | January 8, 2020 | December 19, 2028 | Duterte | San Beda University | Associate Justice of theCourt of Appeals (2009–2020)[40] | Peralta |
| Associate Justice |  Ricardo Rosario born (1958-10-15)October 15, 1958 (age 67) Quezon City | October 10, 2020 | October 15, 2028 | Duterte | Ateneo de Manila University | Associate Justice of theCourt of Appeals (2005–2020) | Reyes Jr. |
| Associate Justice |  Jhosep Lopez born (1963-02-08)February 8, 1963 (age 62) Manila | January 25, 2021 | February 8, 2033 | Duterte | University of the Philippines Diliman | Associate Justice of theCourt of Appeals (2012–2021) | Baltazar-Padilla |
| Associate Justice |  Japar Dimaampao born (1963-12-27)December 27, 1963 (age 61) Marawi, Lanao del Sur | July 2, 2021 | December 27, 2033 | Duterte | University of the East | Associate Justice of theCourt of Appeals (2004–2021) | Gesmundo |
| Associate Justice |  Jose Midas Marquez born (1966-02-16)February 16, 1966 (age 59) Quezon City | September 27, 2021 | February 16, 2036 | Duterte | Ateneo de Manila University | Court Administrator of the Supreme Court of the Philippines (2009–2021) | Delos Santos |
| Associate Justice |  Antonio Kho Jr. born (1966-06-29)June 29, 1966 (age 59) Jolo, Sulu | February 23, 2022 | June 29, 2036 | Duterte | San Beda University | Commissioner of theCommission on Elections (2018–2022) | Carandang |
| Associate Justice |  Maria Filomena Singh born (1966-06-25)June 25, 1966 (age 59) Quezon City | May 18, 2022 | June 25, 2036 | Duterte | Ateneo de Manila University | Associate Justice of theCourt of Appeals (2014–2022) | Perlas-Bernabe |
| Associate Justice |  Raul Villanueva born (1963-04-15)April 15, 1963 (age 62) Narvacan, Ilocos Sur | June 9, 2025 | April 15, 2033 | Marcos Jr. | University of the Philippines Diliman | Court Administrator of the Supreme Court of the Philippines (2022–2025) | Lopez, M. |
On January 25, 2005, and on December 10, 2006,PhilippinesSocial Weather Stations released the results of its two surveys on corruption in thejudiciary; it published that: a) like 1995, 1/4 oflawyers said many/very manyjudges are corrupt. But (49%) stated that judges received bribes, just 8% of lawyers admitted they reported thebribery, 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% toSandiganbayan justices and 2% in reference to Supreme Court justices [Table 15].[41][42]
The September 14, 2008, Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) survey, ranked thePhilippines 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 reportedHong Kong andSingapore have the best judicial systems inAsia, 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), thePhilippines (6.10), Malaysia (6.47), India (6.50), Thailand (7.00), China (7.25), Vietnam's (8.10) and Indonesia (8.26).[43][44]
In 2014,Transparency InternationalCorruption Perceptions Index (globalsurvey ranking countries in terms of perceived corruption), the Philippines ranked 85th out of 175 countries surveyed, an improvement from placing 94th in 2013. It scored 38 on a scale of 1 to 100in the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI).[45]
The Philippines jumped nine places in the recently publishedWorld Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law Index 2015, making it one of the most improved countries in terms of global rankings. It ranked 51st out of 102 countries on the ROLI, a significant jump from last year when the country ranked 60th out of 99 countries. This makes the Philippines the most improved among ASEAN member nations. "Results showed that the country ranked high in terms of constraints on government powers (39th); absence of corruption (47th), and open government (50th)."
"The Philippines, however, fell to the bottom half of the global rankings in terms of regulatory enforcement (52nd); order and security (58th); criminal justice (66th); fundamental rights (67th), and civil justice (75th)."[46]
"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 7associate 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 presidentJovito Salonga, UP Law deanMarvic Leonen, Senate majority leader andJudicial and Bar Council memberKiko Pangilinan, thePhilippine Bar Association,Artemio Panganiban, and Rodolfo Urbiztondo, of the 48,000-strongIntegrated 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 theJBC." At the BKS launching, thememorandum 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 SCAWconsortium, composed of the Alternative Law Groups,Libertas, Philippine Association of law Schools and the Transparency and Accountability Network, together with the online news magazineNewsbreak, reactivated itself for the JBC selection process of candidates.[47][48][49][50]
The following are select landmark decisions decided by the Supreme Court since 1901:
TheGesmundo Court | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
2021–present | ||||
|  | |||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
Philippines articles | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| History |
| ||||||
| Geography | |||||||
| Politics |
| ||||||
| Economy | |||||||
| Society |
| ||||||
