Está en la página 1de 76

UPDATE: Philippine Legal Research

By Milagros Santos-Ong
Milagros Santos-Ong is the Director of the Library Services of the
Supreme Court of the Philippines . She is the author of Legal Research
and Citations (Rexl Book Store) a seminal book published in numerous
editions and a part-time professor on Legal Research in some law schools
in the Metro-Manila.
Published March 2015 (Previous updates on March 2006, December 2007,
June 2009, and March 2012) See the archive version!

Table of Contents
1.
Introduction
2.
Political Structure
3.
Government Structure
3.1.
Executive Branch
3.2.
Legislative Department
3.3.
Judicial System
3.4.
Constitutional Commissions
3.5.
Local Governments
3.6.
Other Government Agencies
4.
Legal System
4.1.
Nature of the Philippine Legal System
4.2.
Sources of Law
5.
Philippine Legal Research
5.1.
Research of Statute law
5.2.
Research of Case Law
6.
Legal Profession and Legal Education
6.1.
Law Schools
6.2.
Bar Associations
7.
Law Librarians Association
Part 2: Philippine Legal Information Resources and Citations
1. Introduction
The Philippines is an archipelago of 7,107 islands with a land area of
299,740 sq. kilometers. It is surrounded by the Pacific Ocean on the East,
South China Sea on the North and the West and the Celebes Sea on the
South. This comprises the National Territory of the Philippines. Article I of
the 1987 Constitution provides that the "national territory comprises the
Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein

and all other territories which the Philippines has sovereignty or


jurisdiction."
Laws enacted by Congress defined the baselines of the territorial sea of the
Philippine archipelago. As early as 1935, the baselines have been defined
in the 1935 Constitution. This was followed by Republic Act No. 3046 as
amended by Republic Act No.5446. Republic Act No. 9522, approved on
March 10, 2000 amended both laws and defined the archipelagic baselines
as Regime of Islands (section 2) This definition is consistent with Art.121
of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), where
the Philippines took an active part. Rodolfo Severino, in his article
Clarifying the New Philippines Baseline Law (Republic Act No. 9522)
stated that the purpose of the law is mainly to amend the existing baselines
act and to define the archipelagic baselines of the Philippines. It does not
extend the baselines to Spratlys or to Scarborough Shoal, both of which
China and Vietnam claim in their territory, while the Philippines claims a
part of what are called Spratlys and all of Scarborough Shoal . Protest
made by China remains. The constitutionality of the law was question at
the Supreme Court in the case Magallona, et. al vs. Ermita, et. al., G.R. No.
187167. The decision upholding the constitutionality of the law was
penned by Justice Antonio T. Carpio on July 16, 2011. The petitioners of
the case were professors of law, law students and a legislator. The
petitioners filed the case in their capacities as citizens of the Philippines,
taxpayers and legislators. Noteworthy to mention are the two grounds
invoked by the petitioners in questioning the constitutionality of the
law:1). RA 9522 reduces the Philippine maritime territory, and logically,
the reach of the Philippine states sovereign power, in violation of Article 1
of the 1987 Constitution and 2) RA 9522 opens the countrys waters
landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and aircrafts,
undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security, contravening
the countrys nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources, in
violation of relevant constitutional provisions.
Justice Antonio T. Carpio in his speech before Philippine Women Judges
Association, entitled Protecting the Nations Marine Wealth in the West
Philippine Sea, March 6, 2014, provided an illustration of the baselines
defined by Republic Act Nos. 5446 and 9522.

The Philippines claim to the Spratlys and the historic claim to Sabah
remain unresolved. The Philippines is now confronted with conflicting
claims in the South China Sea which is governed by the 1982 United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which entered into
force in 1994. The Philippines and China who are claimants to the South
China seas are among the 165 countries that have ratified the UNCLOS.
Chinas claim is based on the 9-dashed line which covers a total area
almost 90% of the South China Sea. In a speech delivered by Senior
Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio entitled, The Rules of Law in the West
Philippine Sea Dispute, he stated that Chinas 9-dash claim encroaches on
80% on the Philippines 200-nm exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and 100%
of its 150-nm extended continental shelf (ECS) facing the South China sea
what the Philippines call West Philippine sea. Chinas 9-dash line claim
has similar effects on the EEZs and ECSs of Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and
Indonesia facing the South China Sea.
Justice Antonio T. Carpios speech before Philippine Women Judges
Association, entitled Protecting the Nations Marine Wealth in the West
Philippine Sea, March 6, 2014 includes the illustration on the 9-Dashed
Lines.

Senior Justice Antonio Carpio stated that maritime dispute in the West
Philippine Sea could be more easily resolved if all the claimant States
agreed on two things: first, on the applicable law to govern the maritime
dispute, and second, on the historical facts on the West Philippine Sea.
David Rosenberg in his article, The Paradox of the South China Sea
Disputes, considers the nine-dash line claim as the most controversial
maritime territorial claim. Rosenberg traced the history as claim as far
back as December 1914 when Hu Jinjie, a Chinese cartographer, published
a map with a line around only the Pratas and Paracels, entitled The
Chinese Territorial Map Before the Qianglong-Jiaqing Period of the Qing
Dynasty (AD 17361820) until 1953 when the two dotted line portion in
the Gulf of Tonkin was deleted by Premier Zhou Enlais approval. Chinese
maps published since 1953 have shown the nine-dotted line in the South
China Sea.
The Philippines however has its own version on historical claims based on
historical maps available at the United States Library of Congress, National
Library of Australia. The Philippine historical claim can be seen in a
cartographic exhibit entitled Historical Truths and Lies, Scarborough
Schoal in Ancient Maps , which was based on the June 2014 of Senior
Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio. The first map in this cartographic
exhibit was published in 1734 by Jesuit Pedro Murillo. It is considered the

"mother of all Philippine maps."


Caption: "Carta Hydrographica Y Chorographica de las Yslas Filipinas"
(8407x7734) (U.S. Library of Congress (Catalog No. 2013585226; Digital
ID g8060 ct003137)
This territorial dispute has both political and economic implications for the
Philippines, China and also to Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia.
There was even a headline stating Is the South China Sea on the Brink of
War? As a measure to resolve the controversy, the Philippines has used
the legal remedy in as much as China and the Philippines are parties to the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea or UNCLOS.
The Philippines filed a formal claim before an arbitration tribunal
constituted under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention of the
Law of the Sea entitled In the Matter of an Arbitration between The
Republic of the Philippines (applicant) and The Peoples Republic of China
(Respondent), 24 August 2013 (PCA Case No. 2013-19. Full text of the
Rules of Procedure of the case is available in the Permanent Court of
Arbitration. Further details can be found here , here , and here .
The Filipino culture was molded over more than a hundred ethnic groups
consisting of 91% Christian Malay, 4% Muslim Malay, 1.5% Chinese and
3% others. As of the August 2007 national census , the population of the
Philippines has increased to 88.57 million and is estimated to reach 92.23
million in 2009. The census is scheduled to be undertaken this 2009.
Filipino ( Tagalog) is the national language (1987 Constitution, Art. XIV,
sec. 6) of the Philippines. However, Filipino and English are the official
languages for the purpose of communication and instruction (Art. XIV, sec
7). Optional use of the national language, Filipino ( Tagalog ) is allowed.
Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 16-2010 allowed the optional
use and on a per case basis, the use of Filipino ( Tagalog ) in court
proceedings in view to the difficulties encountered in the use of Filipino as
manifested by the Presiding Judges and the court stenographers of some
courts. This Circular provides that in appropriate cases as may be
determined by the Presiding Judge and without objection of the parties,
the above-mentioned courts may use Filipino in the hearing and resolution
of motions, or in the conduct of mediation, pre-trial conference, trial, and
in any other court proceedings. Existing translations of laws and rules may
be used freely, and technical terms in English or Latin need not be
translated literally into Filipino. Republic Act No. 10157, known as the
Kindergarten Education Act utilizes the mother tongue-based multilingual

education (MTB-MLE) method as the primary medium of instruction for


teaching and learning in the kindergarten level (sec.5). Section 5, likewise
specifically provides that the Department of Education must include in its
teaching strategies the childs understanding of English, which is the
official language.
There are several dialects or regional languages (spoken and written)
throughout the different islands of the country, but there are eight major
dialects, which include Bicolano, Cebuano, Hiligaynon or Ilongo,
Ilocano, Pampango, Pangasinense, Tagalog, and Waray .
There are two major religions of the country: Christianity and Islam.
Christianity, more particularly Catholicism, is practiced by more than 80%
of the population. It was introduced by Spain in 1521. The Protestant
religion was introduced by American missionaries.
Aglipay , or the Philippine Independent Church, and the Iglesia ni Kristo
are two Filipino independent churches or religious organizations. Other
Christian religious organizations like the El Shaddai, Ang Dating Daan ,
and Jesus is Lord' have been established. Members of the Iglesia ni
Kristo and the El Shaddai are increasing and their membership has
exented worldwide. These independent churches and religious
organizations are having a great influence to the nation, especially during
elections.
The Constitution of the Philippines specifically provides that the separation
of Church and State is inviolable. (Constitution (987), Art. II, sec.6).
However, religion has a great influence in the legal system of the
Philippines. For the Muslim or Islamic religion, a special law, the Code of
Muslim Personal Laws (Presidential Decree no. 1083), was promulgated
and special courts were established, the Sharia courts, a separate bar
examination for the Muslim or Islamic community is being conducted.
The Catholic Church has affected the present political system. A priest had
to take leave as a priest when he was elected governor of a province in
Region 3. A movement was even started to be able to choose the President
of the Philippines and other government officials in the May 2009 national
election. The Church stand on major issues have affected the passage of
bills pending in Congress and such as the Reproductive Health Bill (Senate
Bill No. 2865 and House Bill No. 4244) which was approved by both
House of Congress on December 19, 2012. After the passage of the law,
religious organizations and individuals questioned the constitutionality of
the law in the consolidated case of Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No.
204819, April 08, 2014.

The other bill still pending in Congress is Divorce, etc. The Philippines is
considered as the only country that does not allow Divorce. However,
annulment of marriage is recognized.
2. Political Structure
The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. The present political
structure of the Philippines was defined by the 1987 Constitution, duly
ratified in a plebiscite held on February 2, 1987 and proclaimed ratified on
February 11, 1987. There is a move now in Congress, which was started at
the House of Representatives to revise/amend the present Constitution.
One of the major problems to be resolved by both Houses of Congress is
the mode or method in revising/amending the present 1987 Constitution.
A much debated proposed amendment is the term extension for the
President.
The 1987 Constitution provides that the Philippines is a democratic and
republican state where sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them (Article II, section 1).
3. Government Structure
The government structure differs as one goes through the history of the
Philippines, which may be categorized as follows: a) Pre-Spanish; b).
Spanish period; c). American period; d). Japanese period; e). Republic; and
f). Martial Law Period
a) Pre-Spanish (before 1521)
The Barangays or independent communities were the unit of government
structures before Spain colonized the Philippines. The head of each
barangay was the Datu . The Datus were called Cabeza de Barangay
during the Spanish period. He governs the barangays using native rules,
which are customary and unwritten. There were two codes during this
period: the Maragtas Code issued by Datu Sumakwel of Panay Island and
the Code of Kalantiao issued by Datu Kalantiano in 1433. The existence of
these codes is questioned by some historians.
Just like many ancient societies, trial by ordeal was practiced.
b) Spanish period (1521-1898)
The Spanish period can be traced from the time Magellan discovered the
Philippines when he landed on Mactan Island (Cebu) on March 16, 1521.
Royal decrees, Spanish laws, and/or special issuances of special laws for
the Philippines were extended to the Philippines from Spain by the Spanish
Crown through the councils. The chief legislator is the governor-general

who exercises legislative functions by promulgating executive decrees,


edicts or ordinances with the force of law. The Roya l Audencia, or Spanish
Supreme Court, in the Philippines also exercised legislative functions when
laws are passed in the form of autos accordados . Melquiades Gamb oa , in
his book entitled An Introduction to Philippine Law (7th ed, 1969),
listed the most prominent laws in this period: Fuero Juzgo, Fuero Real,
Las Siete Partidas, Leyes de Toros, Nueva Re copi lacion de las Leyes de
Indias and the Novisima Recopilacion . Some of these laws were also in
force in other Spanish colonies. Laws in force at the end of the Spanish
rule in 1898 are as follows: Codigo Penal de 1870, Ley Provisional para la
Aplicaciones de las Dispociciones del Codigo Penal en las Islas Filipinas,
Ley de Enjuciamento Criminal, Ley de Enjuciameniento Civil, Codigo de
Comercio, Codigo Civil de 1889, Ley Hipotecaria, Ley de Minas, Ley
Notarial de 1862 , Railway Law of 1877, Law of Foreigners for Ultramarine
Provinces and the Code of Military Justice. Some of these laws remained
in force even during the early American period and/or until Philippine laws
were promulgated.
In between the Spanish and the American period is what Philippine
historians consider the first Philippine Republic. This was when General
Emilio Aguinaldo proclaimed the Philippine Independence in Kawit ,
Cavite on June 12, 1898. The Malolos Congress also known as Assembly of
the Representatives, which can be considered as revolutionary in nature,
was convened on September 15, 1898. The first Philippine Constitution,
the Malolos Constitution was approved on January 20, 1899. General
Emilio Aguinaldo was the President and Don Gracio Gonzaga as the Chief
Justice. A Republic, although with de facto authority, was in force until the
start of the American Sovereignty when the Treaty of Paris was signed on
December 10, 1898.
c) American period (1898-1946)
The start of this period can be traced after the Battle of Manila Bay when
Spain ceded the Philippines to the United States upon the signing of the
Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898. A military government was
organized with the military governor as the chief executive exercising
executive, legislative and judicial functions. Legislative function was
transferred to the Philippine Commission in 1901, which was created by
the United States President as commander-in-chief of the Armed forces
and later ratified by the Philippine Bill of 1902. This same Bill provided for
the establishment of the First Philippine Assembly, which convened on
October 16, 1907. The Jones law provided for the establishment of a
bicameral legislative body on October 16, 1916, composed of the Senate and
the House of Representatives.

The United States Constitution was recognized until the promulgation of


the Philippine Constitution on February 8, 1935, signed by U.S. President
Franklin Delano Roosevelt on March 23, 1935 and ratified at a plebiscite
held on May 14, 1935.
The organic laws that governed the Philippines during this period were:
President McKinleys Instruction to the Second Philippine Commission on
April 7, 1900; Spooner Amendment of 1901; Philippine Bill of 1902; Jones
Law of 1916 and the Tydings McDuffie Law of May 1, 1934. The later law is
significant for it allowed the establishment of a Commonwealth
government and the right to promulgate its own Constitution. The 1935
Constitution initially changed the legislative system to a
unicameral system. However, the bicameral system was restored pursuant
to the 1940 Constitutional amendment. The Commonwealth government is
considered as a transition government for ten years before the granting of
the Philippine independence. Cayetano Arellano was installed as the first
Chief Justice in 1901. The M ajority of the Justices of the Philippine
Supreme Court were Americans. Decisions rendered by the Supreme Court
of the Philippines were appealed to the United States Supreme Court,
which were reported in the United States Supreme Court Reports.
Manuel L. Quezon and Sergio Osmea were elected as President and VicePresident respectively during the September 14, 1935 elections. In this
election, President Quezon won over General Emilio Aguinaldo and Bishop
Gregorio Aglipay, the President of the First Philippine Republic (1898) and
the head of the Aglipayan church, respectively. This Commonwealth
government went into exile in Washington DC during the Japanese period
from May 13, 1942 to October 3, 1944. President Manuel L. Quezon died
on August 1, 1944 and was succeeded by President Sergio Osmena who
brought back the government to Manila on February 28, 1945.
d) Japanese period (1941-1944)
The invasion of the Japanese forces when Clark Field, an American
military airbase in Pampanga, was bombed on December 8, 1941, marked
the start of the Japanese period, which lasted for three years. A Japanese
Republic was established with Jose P. Laurel as its President. Jose Yulo
was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court decisions
during this period were recognized and are found in the Philippine
Reports, the official publication for Supreme Court decisions . This period
was considered as a military rule by the Japanese Imperial Army. The 1943
Constitution was ratified by a special national convention of the
Kapisanan sa Paglilingkod ng Bagong Pilipinas (KALIBAPI). No
law/statutes, including the 1943 Constitution were recognized after the

war. This period lasted for three years and ended in 1944 with the defeat of
the Japanese forces.
e) Republic period (1946-1972)
July 4, 1946 was the inauguration of Philippine independence. A
Philippine Republic was born. A republic means a government by the
people and sovereignty resides in the entire people as a body politic. The
provisions of the 1935 Constitution defined the government structure,
which provided for the establishment of three co-equal branches of
government. Executive power rests in the President, legislative power in
two Houses of Congress and judicial power in the Supreme Court, and
inferior courts. Separation of powers is recognized.
Efforts to amend the 1935 Constitution started on August 24, 1970 with
the approval of Republic Act No. 6132 where 310 delegates were elected on
November 10, 1970. On June 1, 1971, the delegates of the Constitutional
Convention met. While it was still in session, President Ferdinand E.
Marcos declared Martial Law on September 21, 1972. The Constitutional
Convention completed the draft Constitution on November 29, 1972. It
was submitted for ratification through citizens assemblies on January 17,
1973. This is known as the 1973 Constitution.
f) Martial Law Period (1972-1986).
The Philippine Congress was abolished when Martial Law was declared on
September 21, 1972. The Martial Law period was governed by the 1973
Constitution, which established a parliamentary form of government.
Executive and legislative powers were merged and the Chief Executive was
the Prime Minister who was elected by majority of all members of the
National Assembly (Parliament). The Prime Minister had the power to
advise the President. The President is the symbolic head of state. This
parliamentary government was never implemented due to the transitory
provision of the 1973 Constitution. Military tribunals were also
established. Amendments to the Constitution were made wherein by virtue
of amendment No. 3, the powers of the President and the Prime Minister
were merged into the incumbent President Ferdinand E. Marcos.
Amendment No. 6 authorized President Marcos to continue exercising
legislative powers until Martial law is in effect. Amendment No. 7 provided
for the barangays as the smallest political subdivision and the
sanggunians , or councils. The 1981 amendment introduced the modified
presidential/parliamentary system of government of the Philippines. The
President shall be elected by the people for a term of six years while the
Prime Minister shall be elected by a majority of the Batasang Pambansa

(Parliament) upon the nomination of the President. He was the head of the
Cabinet and had supervision over all the ministries. The President during
this period was Ferdinand E. Marcos and the Prime Minister was Cesar
Enrique Aguinaldo Virata.
Proclamation No. 2045 (1981) lifted Martial Law and abolished mi litary
tribunals. Elections were held on June 16, 1981 and President Marcos was
re-elected into office as President. The constitution was again amended in
1984 and a plebiscite was held on January 27, 1984 pursuant to Batas
Pambansa Blg. 643 (1984). Elections were held on May 14, 1984 for the
183 elective seats in the 200 member of the Batasang Pambansa .
An i mpeachment resolution by 57 members of the opposition was f iled
against President Marcos but was dismissed. A special presidential
election, popularly known as Snap Election, was called by President
Marcos on November 3, 1985 and was held on February 7, 1986. The
National Movement for Free Elections, or NAMFREL, results showed that
Corazon Aquino led by over a million votes. However, the Batasang
Pambansa declared that Ferdinand E. Marcos and Arturo M. Tolentino
won over Corazon C . Aquino and Salvador H. Laurel as President and
Vice-President, respectively. President Marcos and Vice President Arturo
took their oath before Chief Justice Ramon Aquino at the Malacanang
Palace, Manila. This event led to the People Power revolution, which
ousted President Marcos on February 25, 1986.
g) Republic Revival (1986-present)
The Republic period was revived after the bloodless revolution popularly
known as People Power or the EDSA Revolution.
Corazon C. Aquino and Salvador H. Laurel took their oath of office as 11 th
President and Vice President of the Philippine Republic on February 25,
1986 before Associate Justice Claudio Teehankee at the Club Filipino, San
Juan, Manila. Proclamation No. 1 (1986) was promulgated wherein the
President and the Vice President took power in the name and by the will of
the Filipino people. Proclamation No. 3 (1986) adopted as the Provisional
Constitution or Freedom Constitution, provided for a new government.
A Constitutional Commission was constituted by virtue of Article V of the
Provisional Constitution and Proclamation No. 9 (1986). The
Constitutional Commission, composed of 48 members, was mandated to
draft a Constitution. After 133 days, the draft constitution was submitted
to the President on October 15, 1986 and ratified by the people in a
plebiscite held on February 2, 1987. Under the transitory provision of the

1987 Constitution, the President and Vice President elected in the February
7, 1986 elections were given a six-year term of office until June 30, 1992.
Congressional elections were held on May 11, 1987. The Republican form
of government was officially revived when the 1987 Constitution was
ratified and Congress was convened in 1987. Legislative enactments again
rested in the Congress. Republic Acts were again issued by Congress, the
number of which took off from the last number used before Martial Law
was declared. The numbering of Republic Acts continued from the number
last used before Martial Law (Republic Act No. 6635 (1972) and Republic
Act No. 6636 (1987). The Republic form of government by virtue of the
1987 Constitution was the same type of republican government prior to
Martial law by virtue of the 1935 Constitution with three co-equal
branches: Executive, Legislative and the Judiciary.
The Philippines once again became a Republic by virtue of the 1987
Constitution. The same type of republican form of government prior to
Martial law was established with three co-equal branches were organized,
Executive, Legislative and the Judiciary. Those holding office in these
three co-equal branches are public officers and employees. Constitution
(1987), Article XI, provides for the accountability of public officers. Article
XI, Section 1 , Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees
must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and
justice, and lead modest lives. Public officers in the Executive (President
and Vice President) , Judiciary (Members or Justices of the Supreme
Court) and the Constitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman may be
removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable
violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other
high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and
employees may be removed from office as provided by law, such as the civil
service laws, but not by impeachment (Article XI, Section 2).
The legislative branch is composed of the Senate and the House of
Representatives. It is the legislative branch or Congress, which is involved
in the impeachment process. The House of Representatives has the
exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment though a verified
complaint or resolution of impeachment filed by at least one-third of all
the Members of the House of Representatives, and an Articles of
Impeachment (Article XI, Section 3, (1) (5)). The Senate shall have the
sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When the President
of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall
preside, but shall not vote. The public officer (President and Vice
President, members or Justices of the Supreme Court and the

Constitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman) shall be convicted with


the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate. (Article XI,
Section 3, (6). When the Chief Justice or members of the Judiciary and the
Constitutional Commissions and Ombudsman are on trial, the Senate
President shall preside. Rules of impeachment shall be promulgated by the
Senate. Find further information here , here , and here .
Impeachment (Constitution (1987) Article XI, Sections 2 and 3 has been
filed against a President, two Chief Justices and one Associate Justice and
an Ombudsman. In the case of President Joseph E. Estrada , verified
complaint was filed by 115 members of the House of Representatives led
by the Speaker of the House of Representatives Manuel Villar on
November 13, 2000. Impeachment trial was held December 9, 2000 with
Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. as presiding officer and Senate
President Aquilino Pimentel. The impeachment trial did not end for the
Prosecutors walked out on January 16, 2001 when the impeachment court
did not grant their request to open the second envelope. This lead to what
is called People Power 2, which ended when Vice-President Gloria
Macapal Arroyo took her oath of office as President on January 21, 2001
before Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr., in EDSA where the people
gathered for the People Power 2. The legality of the Arroyo Presidency was
brought to the Supreme Court by President Estrada (Estrada v. Desierto,
G.R. No. 146710-15, March 2, 2001)
On October 23, 2003, an impeachment case was filed against Chief Justice
Hilario G. Davide Jr. but it did not prosper in the House of
Representatives. The question on the impeachment case of Chief Justice
Davide was resolved by the Supreme Court in the case of Francisco, Jr. v.
The House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003). On
May 2011, the House Committee on Justice declared that the impeachment
complaint against incumbent Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo as
sufficient in form and in December 2011, as sufficient in substance. The
impeachment complaint is still pending in the House of Representatives.
December 2011, an impeachment case was filed against Chief Justice
Renato C. Corona by 188 members of the House of Representatives or
more than the required one-third requirement of Article XI, Section 3 of
the 1987 Constitution . Trial started January 16, 2012 with Senate
President Juan Ponce Enrile as Presiding Officer. Chief Justice Renato C.
Corona was found guilty under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment
last May 29, 2012 or after 43 days of trial. The vote of the Senators who
acted as Impeachment Court Judges was 20-3, 20 found him guilty. Chief
Justice Renato C. Corona is the first high ranking government official to be
convicted by an impeachment court.

In March 2011, 212 members of the House of Representatives led by House


Speaker Feliciano Belmonte voted to impeach the Ombudsman Merceditas
Gutierrez and to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. The
7-year term of office of Ombudsman Gutierrez was supposed to end
December 2012. Ombudsman Gutierrez resigned before the impeachment
trial by the Senate.
3.1. Executive Branch
The President is vested with the executive power. (Art. VII, sec. 1, 1987
Constitution). The President is both the Chief of State (head of
government) and the Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (Art. VII, sec. 18). Since 1898 when the First Philippine
Republic was established, the Philippines has had fifteen (15) Presidents
from Emilio Aguinaldo to Benigno S. Aquino III.
The Executive Branch also includes the Vice-President and the Secretaries
of Heads of the Executive Departments and other Cabinet officials
Both the President and the Vice-President are elected by direct vote of the
Filipino people for a term of six years. The President is not eligible for a reelection while the Vice President cannot serve for more than two terms.
Congress is empowered to promulgate rules in the canvassing of
certificates of election. The Supreme Court sitting en banc is the sole
judge of all election contests relating to their election, returns and
qualifications (Art VII, sec. 4). The Supreme Court en banc thus acts as the
Presidential Electoral Tribunal. The Supreme Court promulgated the 2005
Rules on the Presidential Tribunal (A.M. No. 05-11-06-SC). Both may be
removed from office by impeachment (Art. XI sec. 2) to be initiated by the
House of Representatives (Art. XI, sec, 3) and tried and decided by the
Senate (Art. XI, sec, 3 (6)). The Cabinet members are nominated by the
President, subject to the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments
(Art. VII, sec, 16) which consists of the President of the Senate, as exofficio Chairman, twelve Senators and twelve members of the House of
Representatives (Art. VI, sec. 1).
Cabinet members are nominated by the President, subject to the
confirmation of the Commission on Appointments (Art. VII, sec, 16), which
consists of the President of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve
Senators and twelve members of the House of Representatives (Art. VI, sec.
1).
The President exercises control over all the executive departments, bureaus

and offices (Art. VI, sec, 17).


Office of the Solicitor General .
Its mandate and function as found in its website is that it is the law firm
of the Republic of the Philippines. It is tasked to represent the People of the
Philippines,
the
Philippine
Government,
its
Agencies
and
Instrumentalities, Officials and Agents (especially before appellate courts)
in any litigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer. Its mission is
to promote and protect the interest of the Republic of the Philippines and
its people in legal proceedings and matters requiring the services of a
lawyer.
3.2. Legislative Department
Legislative power is vested in the Congress of the Philippines, consisting of
the Senate and the House of Representatives (Art. VI, sec. 1). History has
provided that the legislative structure has undergone numerous changes.
A brief history of the Philippine legislature is available at the House of
Representative website and at the Senate .
The Senate of the Philippines is composed of twenty four (24) Senators
who are elected at large by qualified voters who serve for a term of not
more than six (6) years. No Senator may be elected for more than two
consecutive terms. (Art VI, sec. 4). The Senate is led by the Senate
President, Pro Tempore, Majority Leader and the Minority Leader. The
Senate President is elected by majority vote of its members. There are
thirty six (36) permanent committees and five (5) oversight committees.
The sole judge of contests relating to election, returns and qualifications of
members of the Senate rests with the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET),
which is composed of nine members, three of whom are Justices of the
Supreme Court and six members of the Senate. (Art. VI, sec. 17). The
Senate Electoral Tribunal has approved on November 12, 2003 its Revised
Rules.
The House of Representatives is composed of not more than two hundred
fifty (250) members, elected by legislative districts for a term of three
years. No representative shall serve for more than three consecutive terms.
The party-list representatives who come from registered national, regional
and sectional parties and organizations, shall constitute twenty percent
(20%) of the total number of representatives. The election of party-list
representatives was by virtue of the Republic Act No. 7941, which was
approved on March 3, 1995. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court
penned by Justice Antonio T. Carpio on April 21, 2009, Barangay

Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v.


Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 17971) and Bayan Muna, Advocacy for
Teacher Empowerment Through Action, Cooperation and Harmony
Towards Educational Reforms, Inc. and Abono (G.R. No. 179295),
Republic Act No. 7941 was declared unconstitutional with regards to the
two percent threshold in the distribution of additional party-list seats. The
Court in this decision provided a procedure in the allocation of additional
seats under the Party-List System. Major political parties are disallowed
from participating in party-list elections . Another case on the party-list
elections, pursuant to Republic Act No. 7941 COMELEC Resolutions Nos.
9366 and 9531, was filed by the 52 party-list groups who were disqualified
by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to participate in the May 13,
2013 election. The consolidated case is Atong Paglaum, Inc., Represented
by its President, Mr. Alan Igot v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No.
203766, April 2, 2013) was penned by Justice Antonio T. Carpio. This case
enumerated the six parameters in determining as to who may participate in
party-list elections.
The officials of the House of Representatives are the Speaker of the House,
Deputy Speaker for Luzon, Deputy Speaker for Visayas, Deputy Speaker for
Mindanao, Majority Leader, and Minority Leader. They are elected by a
majority vote of members. There are fifty seven (57) standing committees
and sixteen (16) special committees of the House of Representatives. The
sole judge of contests relating to election, returns and qualifications of
members of the House of Representatives rests with the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) which is composed of nine
members, three of whom are Justices of the Supreme Court and six
members of the Senate.(Art. VI, sec. 17). The House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal adopted its 1998 Internal Rules on March 24, 1998.
3.3. Judicial System

Organizational Chart of the whole Judicial System and those of each type of
Court is available in 2002 Revised Manual of Clerks of Court. Manila:
Supreme Court, 2002. Organizational Chart was amended due to the
passage of Republic Act No. 9282 (law elevating the Court of Tax Appeals
to the level of a collegiate court)
Judicial power rests with the Supreme Court and the lower courts, as may
be established by law (Art. VIII, sec. 1). The judiciary enjoys fiscal

autonomy. Its appropriation may not be reduced by the legislature below


the appropriated amount the previous year, after approval, shall be
automatically and regularly released. (Art. VIII, sec. 3). This provision
may now face construction or interpretation in line with what the Secretary
of Budget and Management call Transparency and Accountability
Primordial to Fiscal Autonomy . This involves the release of funds of
unfilled positions in agencies enjoying fiscal autonomy such as Congress,
Judiciary, Constitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman. The last
annual budget from the government represents less than one (1%) of the
entire budget of the Philippine government. In 1984, President Ferdiand
Marcos passed Presidential Decree No. 1949, a special fund popularly
called The Judiciary Development Fund (JDF). It is a special fund
established to help ensure and guarantee the independence of the
Judiciary as mandated by the Constitution and public policy. This fund is
sourced from the legal fees collected by the courts and 80% is for the cost
of living allowances of the members and personnel of the Judiciary and
20% is for the acquisition, maintenance and repair of office equipment
and facilities.
The Rules of Court of the Philippines as amended and the rules and
regulations issued by the Supreme Court define the rules and procedures of
the Judiciary. These rules and regulations are in the form of Administrative
Matters, Administrative Orders, Circulars, Memorandum Circulars,
Memorandum Orders and OCA Circulars. To inform the members of the
Judiciary, legal profession and the public of these rules and regulations, the
Supreme Court disseminates this rules and regulations to all courts,
publishes important ones in newspapers of general circulation, prints in
book or pamphlet form and now downloads them in the Supreme Court
and the Supreme Court E-Library websites .
Department of Justice Administrative Order No. 162 dated August 1, 1946
provided for the Canon of Judicial Ethics . Supreme Court of the
Philippines promulgated a new Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary effective June 1, 2004 (A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC), which was
published in two newspapers of general circulation on May 3, 2004
(Manila Bulletin & Philippine Star) and available on its website and the
Supreme Court E-Library website .
The Supreme Court promulgated on June 21, 1988 the Code of
Professional Responsibility for the legal profession. The draft was
prepared by the Committee on Responsibility, Discipline and Disbarment
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

A Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC) was


adopted on April 13, 2004, effective June 1, 2004, published in two
newspapers of general circulation on April 26, 2004 (Manila Bulletin &
Philippine Star) and available at the websites.
Supreme Court of the Philippines :
The barangay chiefs exercised judicial authority prior to the arrival of
Spaniards in 1521. During the early years of the Spanish period, judicial
powers were vested upon Miguel Lopez de Legaspi, the first governor
general of the Philippines where he administered civil and criminal justice
under the Royal Order of August 14, 1569.
The Royal Audencia was established on May 5, 1583 , composed of a
president, four oidores (justices) and a fiscal. The Audencia exercised both
administrative and judicial functions. Its functions and structure were
modified in 1815 when its president was replaced by a chief justice and the
number of justices was increased. It came to be known as the Audencia
Territorial de Manila with two branches, civil and criminal. Royal Decree
issued July 24, 1861 converted it to a purely judicial body wherein its
decisions were appealable to the Supreme Court of the Philippines to the
Court of Spain in Madrid. A territorial Audencia in Cebu and Audencia for
criminal cases in Vigan were organized on February 26, 1898. The
Audencias were suspended by General Wesley Merrit when a military
government was established after Manila fell to American forces in 1898.
Major General Elwell S. Otis re-established the Audencia on May 29, 1899
by virtue of General Order No. 20. Said Order provided for six Filipino
members of the Audencia . Act No. 136 abolished the Audencia and
established the present Supreme Court on June 11, 1901 with Cayetano
Arellano as the first Chief Justice together with associate justices, the
majority of whom were American. Filipinization of the Supreme Court
started only during the Commonwealth, 1935. Administrative Code of 1917
provided for a Supreme Court with a Chief Justice and eight associate
Justices. With the ratification of the 1935 Constitution, the membership
was increased to 11 with two divisions of five members each. The 1973
Constitution further increased its membership to 15 with two (2) divisions.
Pursuant to the provisions of the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court is
composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices who shall
serve until the age of seventy (70). The Court may sit En Banc or in its
three (3) divisions composed of five members each. A vacancy must be
filled up by the President within ninety (90) days of occurrence from the
list submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council. Constitution (1987),Article
VIII, sec. 4 (2) explicitly provides for the cases that must be heard En Banc

and sec. 4 (3) f or cases that may be heard by divisions.


Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 transferred from the Department of
Justice to the Supreme Court the administrative supervision of all courts
and their personnel. This was affirmed by Constitution(1987), Art. VIII,
sec. 6. To effectively discharge this constitutional mandate, The Office of
the Court Administrator (OCA) was created under Presidential Decree No.
828, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 842, and its functions further
strengthened by a Resolution of the Supreme Court En Banc dated October
24, 1996. Its principal function is the supervision and administration of
the lower courts throughout the Philippines and all their personnel. It
reports and recommends to the Supreme Court all actions that affect the
lower court management. The OCA is headed by the Court Administrator,
three (3) Deputy Court Administrators and three (3) Assistant Court
Administrators.
According to the 1987 Constitution , Art. VIII, sec. 5, the Supreme Court
exercises the following powers:
Exercise jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari , prohibition ,
mandamus , quo warranto , and habeas corpus .
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:

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.
All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or
any penalty imposed in relation thereto.
All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or
higher.
All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
Assign temporarily judges of lower court to other stations as public interest
may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months
without the consent of the judge concerned.
Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
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 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.
Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the
Civil Service Law (Sec. 5, id.).
Supreme Court has promulgated the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court
( As amended in Resolutions dated July 6, 2010, August 3, 2010, January
17, 2012, September 18, 2012) ), to govern the internal operations of the
Court and as a guide to the exercise of its judicial and administrative
functions). The last revision of the Internal Rules (A.M. No, 10-4-20-SC
(Revised)) was in March 12, 2013).
The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court provides that cases may be heard
on oral arguments upon defined issues. The constitutionality of laws,
treaties and other agreements are defined issues. The procedure defined
by section 3 is as follows: The petitioner shall argue first, followed by the
respondent and the amicus curiae , if any. Rebuttal of oral arguments may
be allowed by the Chief Justice or the Chairperson. If any, the Court may
invite amicus curiae. The constitutionality of two significant laws has been
decided after a series of oral arguments. Republic Act No. 10354
Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 or RH LAW
too years before it became a law. One primary consideration is that the
Philippines is a Catholic/Christian country. The constitutionality of the
RH law was assailed in the consolidated case of Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr.,
(G.R. No. 204819, April 08, 2014). The Court declared that the law is
constitutional. The importance of religion and the Constitution was laid
down at the very start of the decision of Justice Jose Mendoza, and I
quote:
Freedom of religion was accorded preferred status by the framers of our
fundamental law. And this Court has consistently affirmed this preferred
status, well aware that it is designed to protect the broadest possibly
liberty of conscience, to all each man to believe as his conscience directs, to
profess his beliefs, and to live as he believes he ought to live, consistent
with the liberty of others and with the common good.
The constitutionality of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic
Act No.10175 passed on September 12, 2012 was assailed in the
consolidated case of Disini, Jr. v. The Secretary of Justice, G.R. No.
203335, February 18, 2014.

The constitutionality of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), an


agreement with the United States, was question in the consolidated case of
BAYAN ( Bagong Alyansang Makabayan ) v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570,
October 10, 2000. Although this case declared the agreement
constitutional, cases involving this agreement are being filed. The case of
Sombilon v. Romulo, G.R. No. 175888, February 11, 2009, pertains to the
custody of defendant Lance Corporal (L/CPL) Daniel Smith, a member of
the United States Visiting Forces who was accused of rape. Another case
involving Cpl. Scott Pemberton, member of the United States Visiting
Forces was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City for the
murder of a transgender. Cpl. Pemberton was heavily guarded by both
United States and Filipino soldiers and has undergone mandatory
fingerprinting and mug shorts but arraignment has not yet been scheduled.
Another agreement between Philippines and the United States, the
Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) has been question in
consolidated petitions pertions. The Supreme Court has started last
November 18, 2014 to hold oral arguments on these consolidated petitions.
Recent cases filed in the Supreme Court involve the use of government
funds in the two co-equal branches of government, the Legislature and the
Executive. The Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 208566, November 19,
2003, involves the use of the Priority Development Assistance Fund
(PDAF) by the members of the Legislative Department. In the decision of
Justice Perlas-Bernabe, the concept and the history of the pork barrel
system was discussed. The Araullo v. Aquino III, G. R. No. 209287, July 1,
2014 on the other hand assailed the constitutionality of the Disbursement
Acceleration Program (DAP), National Budget Circular (NBC) No. 541, and
related issuances of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM)
implementing the DAP of the Executive Department. The Supreme Court
decided that use of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of
the Legislative Department and the Disbursement Acceleration Program
(DAP) of the Executive Department are both unconstitutional. Plunder
cases relating to the use of the Priority Development Assistance Fund
(PDAF) have been filed by the Office of the Ombudsman at the
Sandiganbatan against three incumbent Senators, Senators Juan Ponce
Enrile, Ramon Revilla, Jr. and Jose P. Ejercito-Estrada. All the three
incumbent Senators are under detention.
The Supreme Court website includes the petitions, oral arguments, audio
recording and advisories of landmark decisions like those previously
mentioned.

The Supreme Court has adopted and promulgated the Rules of Court for
the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleadings and
practice and procedure in all courts, and the admission in the practice of
law. In line with this mandate of the Rules of Court and extrajudicial
killing and disappearances, the Supreme Court passed two important
Resolutions: the Rule on the Writ of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC),
approved on September 25, 2007 and effective on October 24, 2007, and
the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-1-16--SC), approved on
January 22, 2008 and effective February 2, 2008. The Writ of Amparo
is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security
is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity. This writ
shall cover extrajudicial killing and enforced disappearances or threats.
(sec.1) The Writ of Habeas data on the other hand is a remedy available
to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or
threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee,
or any private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or
storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party (section 1).
Writ of Kalikasan , a resolution on Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC) was approved on April 13, 2010 and was to
take effect on April 29, 2010, fifteen (15) days following its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation. This rule covers civil and criminal
actions brought before the Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts involving the
enforcement or violations on the existing environmental and other related
laws and regulations, conservation, development, preservation, protection
and utilization of the environment and natural resources, promulgated
during the American period such as Act No. 3572 approved on November
26, 1929 until the present Republic such as Republic Act No. 9637
approved on May 13, 2009. The Courts designated to try these cases are
called Green Courts.
A Writ of Kalikasan was issued with a Temporary Environmental
Protection Order (TEPO) was issued by the Supreme Court in the case of
West Tower Condominium Corporation, On Behalf of the Residents off
West Tower Condo., And In Representation of Barangay Bangkal, And
Others, Including Minors and Generations Yet Unborn vs. First Philippine
Industrial Corporation, First Gen Corporation And Their Respective Board
of Directors and Officers, John Does and Richard Does, G.R. No. 194239,
May 31, 2011. The case of Abrigo v. Swift, G.R. No. 206510, September 16,
2014, was filed when the USS Guardian ran aground on the northwest

side of South Shoal of the Tubbataha Reefs. Tubataha Reefs is declared as


a Nature Park by law (Republic Act No. 10067, approved April 6, 2010)
and a World Heritage Site by the United Nations Educational Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO). A Writ of Kalikasan petition with prayer
for the Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) under Rule 7
of A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, otherwise known as the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases (Rules) was filed for violations of environmental
laws and regulations. This case however takes into consideration involves
international responsibility. The USS Guardian was allowed to enter
Philippine waters by pursuant to the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)
and as a treaty privilege should be considered as an act jure imperii . The
petition was dismissed. The Court stated and I quote:
The Court defers to the Executive Branch on the matter of compensation
and rehabilitation measures through diplomatic channels. Resolution of
these issues impinges on our relations with another State in the context of
common security interests under the VFA. It is settled that [t]he conduct
of the foreign relations of our government is committed by the Constitution
to the executive and legislativethe political--departments of the
government, and the propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this
political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision.
The Supreme Court has promulgated what can be considered as a
landmark decision at the start of 2015. The Risos-Vidal v. Commission on
Elections and Joseph E. Estrada, G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015,
penned by Associate Justice Teresita L De Castro, dismissed the
disqualification case against the former President and now the elected
Mayor of Manila. The former President was convicted by the
Sandiganbayan of plunder. President Arroyo granted former President
Estrada executive clemency or pardon on October 25, 2007 on the grounds
that the government has a policy to pardon convicts who are 70 and above
and that Estrada has already been on house of arrest for 6 years. This
disqualification case main contention was on this pardon extended by
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The Supreme Court En Banc voted 113 and one abstention. Majority of the justices characterized the pardon as
absolute and this restored Estradas qualification to stand as candidate in
the last mayoral election. This decision upheld Estradas contention that
President Arroyos pardon restored his full civil and political rights,
including the right to seek public elective office.
Amendments are promulgated through the Committee on Revision of
Rules the Court also issues administrative rules and regulations in the form
of court issuances found in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court E-

Library websites .
Draft personnel manual (A.M. No. 00-6-01-SC) was been submitted to the
Court En
Banc for action on March 29, 2011. In a Resolution of the Court En Banc
dated January
31, 2012, the Human Resource Manual formerly referred to as Personnel
Manual, was approved.
The Judicial and Bar Council was created by virtue of Constitution(1987),
Art. VIII, sec. 8. under the supervision of the Supreme Court. Its principal
function is to screen prospective appointees to any judicial post. It is
composed of the Chief Justice as ex-officio Chairman, the Secretary of
Justice and representatives of Congress as ex-officio members, a
representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired member
of the Supreme Court and a representative of the private sector as
members. The Judicial and Bar Council has promulgated on October 31,
2000 its Rules (JBC-009) in the performance of its function. The Supreme
Court opined that in the case of Jardeleza v. Sereno, The Judicial And Bar
Council and Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 213181, August 19, 2014, that the
application of Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 to petitioner violated the
petitioners constitutionally guaranteed right to due process and having
garnered a majority vote of the JBC Members, declare that the petitioner
be deemed included in the short list submitted by respondent JBC to the
President. The Supreme Court further stated the need to respect to the
interpretation and application of Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009.
The JBC conducts live public interviews and has set guidelines for vacancy
in the Chief Justice, Associate Justices of the Supreme Court and Appellate
Courts. JBC Resolution No. 007 provides for wider publicity of notice of
opening of nomination and list of applicants for judicial positions.
The Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) is the training school for
justices, judge, court personnel, lawyers and aspirants to judicial posts. It
was originally created by the Supreme Court on March 16, 1996 by virtue of
Administrative Order No. 35-96 and was institutionalized on February 26,
1998 by virtue of Republic 8557. It is an important component of the
Supreme Court for its important mission on judicial education it to p
rovide opportunities to develop judicial competence, instill sound values,
and form constructive attitudes in its continuing pursuit of judicial
excellence. No appointee to the Bench may commence the discharge his
adjudicative function without completing the prescribed course in the
Philippine
Judicial

Academy (http://philja.judiciary.gov.ph/programs.html)
Its
organizational structure and administrative set-up are provided for by the
Supreme Court in its En Banc resolution (Revised A.M. No. 01-1-04-SCPHILJA). It has development partners . The PHILJA Training Center is
situated at Brgy. Silang, Crossing East, Tagaytay City.
The Philippine Mediation Center was organized pursuant to Supreme
Court En banc Resolution A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA, dated October 16,
2001, and in line with the objectives of the Action Program for Judicial
Reforms (APJR) to decongest court dockets, among others, the Court
prescribed guidelines in institutionalizing and implementing the mediation
program in the Philippines. The same resolution designated the Philippine
Judicial Academy as the component unit of the Supreme Court for CourtAnnexed Mediation and other Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
Mechanisms, and established the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC).
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Office was organized to implement
the rules on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for members of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (B.M. No. 850 dated October 2, 2001
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)). The purpose of the
MCLE is to ensure that throughout the career of the members of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, they keep abreast with law and
jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the
standards of the practice of law. Members of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines who are not exempt from the MCLE must complete thirty six
(36) hours of continuing legal education every three (3) years (B.M. No.
850, Rule 2, sec. 2). Exemptions from the MCLE requirement are under
Rule 7, sec. 1-2. It holds office in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines main
office at Julio Vargas St., Ortigas Center, Mandaluyong City.

Court of Appeals :
Commonwealth Act No. 3 (December 31, 1935), pursuant to the
Constitution (1935), Art. VIII, sec. 1, established the Court of Appeals. It
was formally organized on February 1, 1936 and was composed of eleven
justices with Justice Pedro Concepcion as the first Presiding Justice. Its
composition was increased to 15 in 1938 and further increased to 17 in 1942
by virtue of Executive Order No. 4. The Court of Appeals was regionalized
in the later part of 1944 when five District Courts of Appeal were organized
for Northern, Central and Southern Luzon, for Manila and for Visayas and
Mindanao. It was abolished by President Osmena in 1945, pursuant to
Executive Order No. 37 due to the prevailing abnormal conditions .

However, it was re-established on October 4, 1946 by virtue of Republic


Act No. 52 with a Presiding Justice and fifteen (15) Associate Justices. Its
composition was increased by the following enactments: Republic Act No.
1605 to eighteen (18); Republic Act No. 5204 to twenty-four (24);
Presidential Decree No. 1482 to one (1) Presiding Justice and thirty-four
(34) Associate Justices; Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 to fifty (50); Republic Act
No. 8246 to sixty-nine (69). With Republic Act No. 8246, the Court of
Appeals in Cebu, and Cagayan de Oro were established. With Republic Act
8246, the 69 Justices are divided in twenty three divisions throughout the
Philippines: Luzon (Manila- 1-17 th Division), Visayas (Cebu- 18 th -20 th
Division) and Mindanao (Cagayan de Oro- 21 st -23 rd Division). The 2009
Internal Rules of Procedure of the Court of Appeals was approved by the
Supreme Court En Ban in a Resolution (A.M. No. 09-11-11-CA) dated
December
15,
2009.
(http://ca.judiciary.gov.ph/images/references_corner/2009irca.pdf)
Batas Pambansa Blg . 129 changed t he name of the Court of Appeals to
Intermediate Appellate Court. Executive Order No. 33, issued by President
Corazon C. Aquino on July 28, 1986, brought back its name to Court of
Appeals.
Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by Executive Order No.
33 and Republic Act No. 7902 provides for the jurisdiction of the Court
of Appeals as follows:

Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari


habeas corpus, and quo warrant, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether
or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgment of
Regional Trial Courts; and
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions,
resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial
agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, the
Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission,
except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines
under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act,
and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the
fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
In the case of St. Martin Funeral Home v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998 (356 Phil. 811), the
decision and resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission now

initially reviewable to the Court of Appeals through a petition of Certiorari


under Rule 65. Prior to this decision, it was directly to the Supreme Court.
Criminal cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life
imprisonment or death were automatically elevated to the Supreme Court.
With the case of People v. Mateo, G.R. No. 147678-87, July 4, 2004 (433
SCRA 640), the Supreme Court allowed the Court of Appeals to conduct an
intermediate review of the case before it is elevated to the Supreme Court.
As per the Resolution of the Supreme Court (A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC), the
Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over petitions for freeze orders on any
money instrument, property or proceeds involving the Anti-Money
Laundering cases (Republic Act No. 9160). Jurisdiction for Writs of
Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC dated October 24, 2007) and Writs of
Habeas data (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC dated February 2, 2008) rests with the
Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court, acting on the recommendation of the Committee on
Revision of the Rules of Court, resolved to approve the 2002 Internal Rules
of the Court of Appeals (A.M. No. 02-6-13-CA) and amended by a
resolution of the Court En Banc on July 13, 2004 (A.M. No. 03-05-03SC).
Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9372 otherwise known as the Human
Security Act of 2007, the Chief Justice issued Administrative Order No.
118-2007, designating the First, Second and Third Divisions of the Court of
Appeals to handle cases involving the crimes of terrorism or conspiracy to
commit terrorism and all other matters incident to the said crimes
emanating from the Metropolitan Manila and Luzon. For those emanating
from Visayas, all divisions of the Court of Appeals stationed in Cebu are
designated to handle these cases while the Court of Appeals stationed in
Cagayan De Oro will handle cases from Mindanao.
Sandiganbayan :
The Anti-Graft Court, or Sandiganbayan, was created to maintain integrity,
honesty and efficiency in the bureaucracy and weed out misfits and
undesirables in government service Constitution (1973), Art. XIII, sec. 5
and Constitution (1987), Art. XI, sec. 4. It was restructured by
Presidential Decree No. 1606 as amended by Republic Act No. 8249. It is
composed of a Presiding Justice and fourteen (14) Associate Justices still in
five Divisions of three (3) Justices each.
As per Republic Act No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over
cases involving the violations of the following:

Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019, as amended,
Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Sec. 2, Title VII, Book II of the
Revised Penal Code), of a government official occupying the following
positions in the government whether in a permanent, acting or interim
capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense;
Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional
director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade '27' and higher, of the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No.
6758);
Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade'27'and up
under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989; cralaw
Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution;
Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice
to the provisions of the Constitution; and
All other national and local officials classified as Grade'27'and higher under
the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.
Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes
committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection
a) of this section in relation to their office.
Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive
Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
The Supreme Court, acting on the recommendation of the Committee on
Revision of the Rules of Court, resolved with modification the Revised
Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan on August 28, 2002 (A.M. No. 02-607SB)
Court of Tax Appeals :
Created by Republic Act No. 1125 on June 16, 1954, it serves as an appellate
court to review tax cases. It had three judges and one Division. Under
Republic Act No. 9282 , its jurisdiction has been expanded where it now
enjoys the same level as the Court of Appeals. This law has doubled its
membership, from three to six justices, one (1) Presiding Justice and five
(5) Associate Justices. There are now two (2) Divisions with three Justices
per division. Republic Act Number 9503 enacted on June 12, 2008 and
effective July 5, 2008 further expanded its composition to one (1)
Presiding Justice and eight (8) Associate Justices in three (3) Divisions. A
decision of a division may be appealed to the En Banc. The en Banc
decision may be appealed by verified petition for certiorari to the Supreme

Court.
T he Supreme Court acting on the recommendation of the Committee on
Revision of the Rules of Court resolved to approve the Revised Rules of the
Court of Tax Appeals (A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA) and amended by a
resolution of the Court En Banc on November 22, 2005 .
The Court of Tax Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by
appeal pursuant to Republic Act No. 1125 are the following:

Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving


disputed, assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other
charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising
under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by
the Bureau of Internal Revenue;
Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for
customs duties, fees, or other money charges; seizure, detention or release
of property affected; fines, forfeitures or other penalties imposed in
relation thereto; or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other
laws administered by the Bureau of Customs;
Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to him
automatically for review from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs
which are adverse to the Government under Section 2315 of the Tariff and
Customs Code;
Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry in the case of nonagricultural product, commodity or article, and the Secretary of Agriculture
in the case of agricultural product, commodity or article, involving
dumping and countervailing duties under Section 301 and 302,
respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, and safeguard measures
under R.A. No. 8800, where either party may appeal the decision to
impose or not to impose said duties;
The expanded appellate jurisdiction of the under Republic Act No. 9282
are follows;
all criminal offenses arising from violations of the National Internal
Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by
the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs;
Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax
cases;
Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and taxation of
real property originally decided by the provincial or city board of
assessment appeals;
Collection of internal revenue taxes and customs duties the assessment of

which have become final.


Under Republic Act No. 9282, the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals
include civil tax cases and cases that are criminal in nature, as well as local
tax cases, property tax and collection of taxes.
Regional Trial Courts:
They are called the second level courts and are divided into thirteen (13)
judicial regions: National Capital Region (Metro Manila) and the twelve
(12) regions of the country, which are divided into several branches. The
jurisdictions are defined in sec. 19-23 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as
amended by Republic Act No. 7671. The Supreme Court designates certain
branches of regional trial courts as special courts to handle exclusively
criminal cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban
land reform cases that do not fall under the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial
bodies. The Supreme Court issues resolutions designating specific
branches of the Regional Trial Courts as special courts for heinous crimes,
dangerous drugs cases, commercial courts and intellectual property rights
violations. Special rules are likewise promulgated. A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC is
a resolution of the Court En Banc on the Rules of Procedure on Corporate
Rehabilitation. The Interim Rules was promulgated in November 2000
and December 2008 affects special commercial courts. Some Regional
Trial Courts are specifically designated to try and decide cases formerly
cognizable by the Securities and Exchange Commission (A.M. No. 00-11030SC).
Some branches of the Regional Trial Courts have been designated as family
courts (A.M. No. 99-11-07) because the family courts to be established
pursuant to Republic Act No. 8369 of the Family Court Law of 1997 have
not yet been organized. Pursuant to Republic Act No. 8369, the Family
Court Law of 1997, some branches of the Regional Trial Courts have been
designated as family courts (A.M. No. 99-11-07).
The Regional Trial Courts jurisdictions are defined as follows:
Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in Civil Cases as follows:

All civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of


pecuniary estimation;
All civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of real property, or
any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved
exceeds twenty thousand pesos (P 20,000.00) or, civil actions in Metro
Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P 50,000.00)
except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or
buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the MeTCs,

MTCs, and MCTCs;


All actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or
claim exceeds one hundred thousand pesos (P 100,000.00) or, in Metro
Manila, where such demand or claim exceeds two hundred thousand pesos
(P 200,000.00);
All matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of
the estate exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P 100,000.00) or, in
probate matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds Two
hundred thousand pesos (P 200,000.00);
All actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;
All cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person
or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
All civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court of
Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and
All other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses and costs or the value of
the property in controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P
100,000.00) or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand,
exclusive of the above-mentioned items exceeds Two hundred pesos (P
200,000.00) (Sec. 19, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Rep. Act
No. 7691).
Exercise original jurisdiction in other cases as follows:

The issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto ,


habeas corpus, and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their
respective regions; and
Actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls.
They shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs, and
MCTCs in their respective territorial jurisdiction.
Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities
(MTCC), Municipal Trial Courts (MTC) and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
(MCTC):
These are called the first level courts established in each city and
municipality. Their jurisdiction is provided for by section 33, 35 of Batas
Pambansa Blg 129. Their jurisdiction has been expanded by special laws
namely Republic Act Nos. 9276, 9252, 9305, 9306, and 9308.
MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs, and MCTCs shall exercise original jurisdiction in
Civil Cases as provided for in section 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 is as

follows:

Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings,


testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper
cases, where the value of the personal property, estate or amount of the
demand does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P 100,000.00) or,
in Metro Manila where such personal property, estate or amount of the
demand does not exceed Two hundred thousand pesos (P 200,000.00),
exclusive of interests, damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation
expenses, and costs the amount of which must be specifically alleged:
Provided, That interests, damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees,
litigation expenses and costs shall be included in the determination of the
filing fees. Provided further, That where there are several claims or causes
of action between the same or different parties embodied in the same
complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in
all the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions;

Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful


detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the
question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of ownership in
his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without
deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved
only to determine the issue of possession; and

Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed
value of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand
pesos (P 20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such
assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P 50,000.00)
exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation
expenses and costs: Provided, That in cases of land not declared for
taxation purposes the value of such property shall be determined by the
assessed value of the adjacent lots (Sec. 33, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129).
Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 provides that the Supreme Court
may designate MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs, and MCTCs to hear and determine
cadastral or land registration cases where the value does not exceed one
hundred thousand pesos (P100, 000.00). Their decision is can be
appealed in the same manner as the Regional Trial Courts.
The MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs, and MCTCs are empowered to hear and decide
petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or applications for bail in criminal

cases in the province or city in the absence of the Regional Trial Court
Judges.
The Supreme Court approved on September 9, 2008 the Rule of Procedure
for Small Claims Cases (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC) which took effect on October
1, 2008 after its publication in two newspapers of general circulation.
Forty four (44) first level courts (Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC),
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC), Municipal Trial Courts (MTC)
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC) were designated to hear small
claims cases. On February 16, 2010, a Resolution of the Court En Banc
was approved amending provisions of the Rule of Procedure for Small
Claims Cases (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC). In March of 2010, all the first Level
Courts in the country, except Sharia courts were empowered to hear small
claims cases. Small claims courts are also called Peoples Courts cases
are readily resolve for al courts are required to decide the matter at the first
hearing. Lawyers are not allowed in hearings. Thus, the procedure is
considered inexpensive. These first level courts try small claims cases for
payment of money where the value of the claim does not exceed One
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100, 000.00) exclusive of interest and costs.
These courts shall apply the rules of procedure provided in A.M. No. 08-87-SC in all actions which are: (a) purely civil in nature where the claim or
relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for payment or reimbursement of
sum of money, and (b) the civil aspect of criminal actions, either filed
before the institution of the criminal action, or reserved upon the filing of
the criminal action in court, pursuant to Rule 111 of the Revised Rules Of
Criminal Procedure.
Sharia Courts:
These special courts were created by sec. 137 of Presidential Decree No.
1083 or the Code of Muslim Personal Laws. The judges should possess all
the qualifications of a Regional Trial Court Judge and should also be
learned in Islamic law and jurisprudence. Articles 143, 144, and 155 of
Presidential Decree No. 1083 provide the jurisdiction of the said courts as
follows:

Sharia D istrict Courts (SDC) as provided for in paragraph (1), Article 143
of Presidential Decree No. 1083, shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the
following cases:
All cases involving custody, guardianship, legitimacy, paternity and
filiations arising under the Code;
All cases involving disposition, distribution and settlement of the estates of
deceased Muslims, probate of wills, issuance of letters of administration or
appointment of administrators or executors regardless of the nature or

aggregate value of the property;


Petitions for the declaration of absence and death and for the cancellation
or correction of entries in the Muslim Registries mentioned in Title VI of
Book Two of the Code;
All actions arising from customary contracts in which the parties are
Muslim, if they did not specified which law shall govern their relations; and
All petitions for mandamus, prohibition, injunction, certiorari, habeas
corpus, and all other auxiliary writs and processes in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction.
The SDC in concurrence with existing civil courts shall have original
jurisdiction over the following cases (paragraph (2) of Article 143):

Petitions by Muslims for the constitution of family home, change of name


and commitment of an insane person to any asylum:
All other personal and real actions not mentioned in paragraph (1) (d)
wherein the parties involved are Muslims except those for forcible entry
and unlawful detainer, which shall fall under the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the MTCs;
All special civil actions for interpleader or declaratory relief wherein the
parties are Muslims or the property involved belongs exclusively to
Muslims.
Article 144 of Presidential Decree No. 1083 provides that the SDC within
shall have appellate jurisdiction over all cases tried in the Sharia Circuit
Courts (SCC) within their territorial jurisdiction.
Article 155 of Presidential Decree No. 1083 provides that the SCCs have
exclusive original jurisdiction over:

All cases involving offenses defined and punished under the Code;
All civil actions and proceedings between parties who are Muslims or have
been married in accordance with Article 13 of the Code involving disputes
relating to:
Marriage;
Divorce recognized under the Code;
Betrothal or breach of contract to marry;
Customary dower (mahr);
Disposition and distribution of property upon divorce;
Maintenance and support, and consolatory gifts (muta); and
Restitution of marital rights; and
All cases involving disputes to communal properties.
Rules of procedure are provided for in articles 148 and 158. En Banc

Resolution of the Supreme Court in 183, provided the special rules of


procedure in the Sharia courts ( Ijra-at-Al Mahakim Al Shariaa).
Sharia courts and personnel are subject to the administrative supervision
of the Supreme Court. Appointment of judges, qualifications, tenure, and
compensation are subject to the provisions of the Muslim Code
(Presidential Decree No. 1083. SDCs and SCCs have the same officials and
other personnel as those provided by law for RTCs and MTCs, respectively.
Quasi-Courts or Quasi-Judicial Agencies:
Quasi-judicial agencies are administrative agencies, more properly
belonging to the Executive Department, but are empowered by the
Constitution or statutes to hear and decide certain classes or categories of
cases.
Quasi-judicial agencies, which are empowered by the Constitution, are the
Constitutional Commissions: Civil Service Commission, Commission on
Elections and the Commission on Audit.
Quasi-judicial agencies empowered by statutes are: Office of the President.
Department of Agrarian Reform, Securities and Exchange Commission,
National Labor Relations Commission, National Telecommunication
Commission, Employees Compensation
Commission, Insurance
Commission, Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, Philippine
Atomic Energy Commission, Social Security System, Government Service
Insurance System, Bureau of Patents, Trademark and Technology,
National Conciliation Mediation Board, Land Registration Authority, Civil
Aeronautics Board, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, National
Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, Agricultural
Inventions Board and the Board of Investments. When needed, t he
Supreme Court issues rules and regulations for these quasi-judicial
agencies in the performance of their judicial functions. Republic Act No.
8799, known as the Securities Regulation Code, reorganized the
Securities and Exchange Commission (Chapter II) and provided for its
powers and function (sec.5). Specifically provided for in these powers and
function is the Commissions jurisdiction over all cases previously provided
for in sec. 5, Pres. Decree No. 902-A (sec. 5.2). The Supreme Court
promulgated rules of procedure governing intra-corporate controversies
under Republic Act No. 8799 (A.M. No. 01-2-04-SC).
Decisions of these quasi-courts can be appealed to the Court of Appeals
except those of the Constitutional Commissions: Civil Service Commission,
Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit, which can be
appealed by certiorari to the Supreme Court (Art. IX-A, sec. 7).

Other Judicial Procedures:


Katarungang Pambarangay - Presidential Decree No. 1508, or the
Katarungang Pambarangay Law, took effect December 11, 1978, and
established a system of amicably settling disputes at the barangay l evel.
Rules and procedures were provided by this decree and the Local
Government Code, Title I, Chapter 7, sec. 339-422). This system of
amicable settlement of dispute aims to promote the speedy administration
of justice by easing the congestion of court dockets. The Court does not
take cognizance of cases filed if they are not filed first with the
Katarungang Pambarangay.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) System - Republic Act No. 9285
institutionalized the use of an alternative dispute resolution system, which
serves to promote the speedy and impartial administration of justice and
unclog the court dockets. This act shall be without prejudice to the
adoption of the Supreme Court of any ADR system such as mediation,
conciliation, arbitration or any combination thereof. The Chairperson of
the Sub-Committee on the Rules on Alternative Dispute Resolution
recommended the Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution
(A.M. No. 07-11-08-SC) to the Supreme Court En Banc and it was
approved on October 30, 2009. The Department of Justice on the other
hand promulgated Department Circular No. 98 - Implementing Rules
and Regulations of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004
(Republic Act No. 9285) on December 4, 2009. The Supreme Court on
June 22, 2010 approved the Rules on Court-Annexed Family Mediation,
amending the Rules on Court Annexed Mediation and the corresponding
Code of Ethical Standards for Mediators. (A.M. No. 10-4-16-SC).
The Supreme Court by virtue of an En Banc Resolution dated October 16,
2001 (Administrative Matter No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA), designated the
Philippine Judicial Academy as the component unit of the Supreme Court
for court-referred or court-related mediation cases and alternative dispute
resolution mechanism and establishing the Philippine Mediation Center.
Muslin law provides its own arbitration Council called The Agama
Arbitration Council.
Aside from the three co-equal branches, the other offices in government
are the government financial institutions and government-owned and
controlled corporations .
3.4. Constitutional Commissions
Civil Service Commission - Act No. 5 (1900) established the Philippine civil

service and was reorganized as a Bureau in 1905. It was established in the


1935 Constitution. Republic Act No. 2260 (1959) converted it from a
Bureau into the Civil Service Commission. Presidential Decree No. 807
further redefined its role. Its present status is provided for in the 1987
Constitution, Art. IX-B and reiterated by the provision of the 1987
Administrative Code (Executive Order No. 292).
Commission on Elections - It is the constitutional commission created by a
1940 amendment to the 1935 Constitution whose primary function is to
manage to maintain its authority and independence in the conduct of
elections. The COMELEC exercises administrative, quasi-judicial and
judicial powers. Its membership increased to nine with a term of nine
years by the 1973 Constitution. It was however decreased to seven with a
term of seven years without re-appointment by the 1987 Constitution.
Commission on Audit - Article IX, sec, 2 of the 1987 Constitution provided
the powers and authority of the Commission on Audit, which is to examine,
audit and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of and
expenditures or uses of funds and property owned or held in trust by or
pertaining to the Government including government owned and controlled
corporations with original charters.
3.5. Local Governments
Article X of the 1987 Constitution provides for the territorial and political
subdivisions of the Philippines as follows: province, cities,
municipalities and barangays . The 1991 Local Government Code or
Republic Act No. 7160, as amended by Republic Act No. 9009,
provides the detail that implements the provision of the
Constitution. The officials, namely, the governor, city mayor, city vice
mayor, municipal mayor, municipal vice-mayor and punong
barangay are elected by their respective units. (1991 Local
Government Code, Title II, Chapter 1, sec. 41 (a)). The regular
members of the sangguniang panlalawigan (for the province),
sangguniang panglunsod (for cities), sangguniang bayan
(municipalities) are elected by districts while the sangguniang
barangay are elected at large.
Each territorial or political subdivision enjoys local autonomy as defined in
the Constitution. The President exercises supervision over local
Governments.
Each region is composed of several provinces while each province is
composed of a cluster of municipalities and component cities (Local
Government Code, Title IV, Chapter 1, sec. 459). The Provincial

government is composed of the governor, vice-governor, members of


the sangguniang panlalawigan and other appointed officials.
The city consists of more urbanized and developed barangays which are
created, divided, merged, abolished or its boundary altered by law or
act of Congress, subject to the approval of majority votes cast by its
residents in a plebiscite conducted by the Comelec (Local Government
Code, Title III, Chapter 1, sec. 448-449). A City may be classified
either as a component or highly urbanized. The city government is
composed of the mayor, vice-mayor, members of the sangguniang
panlunsod (which is composed of the president of the city chapter of
the liga ng mga barangay , president of the panlungsod ng mga
pederasyon ng mga sangguniang kabataan and the sectoral
representatives) and other appointed officials.
The municipality consists of a group of barangays which is created,
divided, merged, abolished or its boundary altered by law or act of
Congress, subject to the approval of majority votes casts in a plebiscite
conducted by the Comelec (Local Government Code, Title II, Chapter
1, sec. 440-441). The municipal government is composed of the
mayor, vice-mayor, sangguniang members (which are composed of
president of the municipal chapter of the liga ng mga barangay ,
president of the pambayang pederasyon ng mga sangguniang
kabataan and the sectoral representatives) and other appointed
officials. In order for a municipality to be converted into cities, a law
or act of Congress must be passed by virtue of the provisions of the
Local Government Code and the Constitution. A plebiscite must be
conducted to determine if a majority of the people in the said
municipality are in favor of converting the municipality into a city.
Although laws have been passed, their constitutionality can be
question in the Supreme Court. This can be seen in the November 18,
2008 decision penned by Justice Antonio T. Carpio. The League of
Cities of the Philippines, City of Iloilo, and City of Calbayog filed
consolidated petitions questioning the constitutionality of the
Cityhood Laws and enjoined the Commission on Elections and the
respondent municipality from conducting plebiscites. The Cityhood
Laws were declared as unconstitutional for they violated sections 6
and 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution. The Cityhood laws referred
to in this case are: Republic Acts 9389, 9390, 9391, 9392, 9293, 9394,
9398, 9404, 9405, 9407, 9408, 9409, 9434, 9435, 9436 and 9491.
(League of Cities of the Philippines (CP) represented by LCP National
President Jerry P. Trenas v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
176951, 177499, 178056, November 18, 2008). Acting on an appeal,

Justice Antonio T. Carpio on August 24, 2010 sustained the earlier


decision declaring the Cityhood Laws unconstitutional. On appeal, the
Court in a decision on February 15, 2011, penned by Justice Lucas P.
Bersamin, reversed the two previous decisions of the Court and
declared the Cityhood laws constitutional. Justice Bersamin sustained
this decision on April 12, 2011 and the finally on June 28, 2011.
The Barangay is the smallest local government unit which is created,
divided, merged, abolished or its boundary altered by law or by an
ordinance of the sangguniang panlalawigan or sangguniang
panlunsod , subject to the approval of majority votes casts in a
plebiscite conducted by the Comelec (Local Government Code, Title I,
Chapter 1, sec. 384-385)
The Philippines is divided into the following local government units:

Region I (ILOCOS REGION)


Region II (CAGAYAN VALLEY)
Region III (CENTRAL LUZON)
Region IV (CALABARZON & MIMAROPA)
Region V (BICOL REGION)
Region VI (WESTERN VISAYAS)
Region VII (CENTRAL VISAYAS)
Region VIII (EASTERN VISAYAS)
Region IX (ZAMBOANGA PENINSULA)
Region X (NORTHERN MINDANAO)
Region XI (DAVAO REGION)
Region XII (SOCCSKSARGEN)
Region XIII (CARAGA)
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindano (ARMM)
Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR)
National Capital Region (NCR)
The Caraga Administrative Region (Region XIII) was created by Republic
Act No. 7901, which was passed by both houses of Congress and approved
by the President on February 23, 1995. It is composed of the provinces of
Agusan del Norte, Agusan del Sur, Surigao del Norte, Surigao del Sur, and
the cities of Butuan and Surigao.
The Cordillera Administrative Region was created by President Corazon C.
Aquino by virtue of Executive Order No. 220 on July 15, 1987. It includes
the provinces of Abra, Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao and KalingaApayao. Republic Act No. 6766, which was approved on October 23, 1989.

Republic Act No. 6766 providing for an Organic Act for the Cordillera
Autonomous Region was passed Congress and took effect on October 23,
1989. A plebiscite was called but it failed to get the majority affirmative
vote on January 30, 1990. Another law, Republic Act No. 8438,
establishing the Cordillera Autonomous Region was passed by Congress on
December 22, 1997. Another plebiscite was held on March 7, 1998 among
the people of the region. Again, it failed to gain the majority approval of
the Cordillera people. Efforts in Congress are being made for the passage of
another law.
The Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) was created by
Republic Act No. 6734 and further strengthened by Republic Act No.
9054. Republic Act No. 6734 was passed by both houses of Congress on
February7, 2001 and lapsed into law without the signature of the President
in accordance with Article VI, Section 27 (1) of the Constitution on March
31, 2001. The ARMM has its seat of government in Muslim Mindanao. It is
composed of four provinces, Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu and TawiTawi. It is guided by its own Constitution and Organic Act. It has its own
Legislative, Executive and Administration of Justice (Judicial) department
of government.
In the case of Disomangcop v. Datumanong, G.R. No. 149848, November
25, 2004, touch on the fate of the autonomy for Muslim Mindanao. In this
decision Justice Tinga stated we have the overwhelming support of the
Bangsa Moro and the Cordillera Constitution. By this we mean meaningful
an authentic regional autonomy. We propose that we have a separate
Article on the autonomous regions for the Bangsa Moro and the Cordillera
people clearly spelled out in the Constitution, instead of prolonging the
agony of...
This ARMM will be replaced by the Bangsang Moro basic law according to
the Chief Peace Negotiator Marvic Leonen. The Philippine Government
and the Moro Islamic Liberation have agreed to form the transition
commission to craft the basic Bangsamoro Basic Law. Framework of
Agreement of the Bangsa Moro was drafted in 2012. Annex of Power
Sharing was signed in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on December 8, 2013
between Prof. Miriam Coronel- Ferrer as the GPH Panel Chair and
Mohaher Iqbal as the MILF Panel Chair, in the presence of the Malaysian
Facilitator Tengku Dato Ab Ghafar Tengku Mohamed.
3.6. Other Government Agencies
The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (Central Bank) is considered as a
constitutional office in the official Philippine government directory .

The Commission on Appointment is an independent constitutional body


separate and distinct from the Legislative. Its members are members of
both house of Congress. It aims to acts as a restraint against the abuse of
the appointing power of the President by approving only those who are fit
and qualified to ensure the efficient and harmonious functioning of the
government. This mandate and the government officials who need the
Commissions confirmation are provided in the Constitution (1987),
Article VII, sec. 16. The members of the judiciary are not covered by the
Commission on Appointments for the are under the Judicial and Bar
Council.
The Commission on Human Rights was created as an independent office
for cases of violation of the human rights (1987 Constitution, Art. XIII, sec.
17), Article XIII, sec. 18 whose mission is committee to ensure the
primacy of all human rights to their protection, promotion and fulfillment,
on the basis of equality and non-discrimination, in particular for those who
are marginalized and vulnerable. It is composed of a Chairperson and four
(4) members.
Office of the Ombudsman :
Constitution (1987), Article XI, sec. 12 and Republic Act No. 6770, sec. 13 ,
provide that the mandate of the Office of the Ombudsman is to act
promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against officers or
employees of the Government, or of any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled
corporations, and enforce their administrative, civil and criminal liability
in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient
service by the Government to the people . Republic Act No. 677, sec. 15
provides that priority is given to complaints filed against high ranking
government officials and/or those occupying supervisory positions and
those complaints involving grave offenses as well as complaints involving
large sums of money and/or properties.
It is composed of the
Ombudsman and six (6) deputies.
The President, Vice President, members of the Supreme Court,
Constitutional Commission and the Ombudsman may be removed from
office by impeachment for conviction of violations of the Constitution,
treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes or betrayal of
public trust. (Art. XI, sec. 2). The House of Representatives has the
exclusive power to initiate (Art. XI, sec. 3 (1)) while the Senate has the sole
power to try and decide impeachments cases (Art. XI, sec. 3(6)). All other
public officials and employees may be removed by law (Art. XI, sec. 2 the

Civil Service Law).


4.

Legal System

4.1. Nature of the Philippine Legal System


The Philippine legal system may be considered as a unique legal system
because it is a blend of civil law (Roman), common law (Anglo-American),
Muslim (Islamic) law and indigenous law. Like other legal systems, there
are two main sources of law.
4.2. Sources of Law
There are two primary sources of the law:
Statutes or statutory law - Statutes are defined as the written enactment of
the will of the legislative branch of the government rendered authentic
by certain prescribed forms or solemnities are more also known as
enactment of congress. Generally, they consist of two types, the
Constitution and legislative enactments. In the Philippines, statutory
law includes constitutions, treaties, statutes proper or legislative
enactments, municipal charters, municipal legislation, court rules,
administrative rules and orders, legislative rules and presidential
issuance.
Jurisprudence - or case law - is cases decided or written opinion by courts
and by persons performing judicial functions. Also included are all
rulings in administrative and legislative tribunals such as decisions
made by the Presidential or Senate or House Electoral Tribunals.
Only decisions of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal are
available in print as House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
Reports, volume 1 (January 28, 1988-October 3, 1990) to present.
They will be available electronically at the Supreme Court E-Library
and as a separate CD.
For Muslim law, the primary sources of Shariah are Quran, Sunnaqh, Ijma
and Qiyas . Jainal D. Razul in his book Commentaries and
Jurisprudence on the Muslin Law of the Philippines (1984) further
stated there are new sources of Muslim law, which some jurists
rejected such as Istihsan or juristic preference; Al-Masalih, Al
Mursalah or public interest ; Istidlal (custom) and Istishab .
(deduction based on continuity or permanence).
Classification of Legal Sources:

Classification by Authority:
Authority is that which may be cited in support of an action, theory or
hypothesis. Primary Authority is the only authority that is binding on
the courts. These are the two sources of law which includes the
Constitution, legislative statutes or those passed by Congress,
decisions of the Supreme Court , appellate courts, lower court and
other quasi-judicial agencies, Executive issuances or Presidential
issuances, treaties entered into by the Philippines, ordinances, rules
and regulations of government agencies. They are the actual law or
those promulgated by the three branches of government: Legislative,
Executive and Judiciary.
The legislature promulgates statutes, namely: Act, Commonwealth Act,
Republic Act, and Batas Pambansa. The Executive promulgates
presidential issuances (Presidential Decrees, Executive Orders,
Memorandum Circular, Administrative Orders, Proclamations, etc.),
rules and regulations through its various departments, bureaus and
agencies. The Judiciary promulgates judicial doctrines embodied in
decisions.
We however need to clarify that the Presidential Decrees or law issued by
President Ferdinand E. Marcos during Martial Law and Executive
Orders issued by Aquino President Corazon C. Aquino before the
opening Congress in July 1987 can be classified as legislativeexecutive acts, there being no legislature during these two periods.
Primary Authority or sources may be further subdivided into the following:

Mandatory primary authority is law created by the jurisdiction in which the


law operates like the Philippines;
Persuasive mandatory authority is law created by other jurisdictions but
which have persuasive value to our courts e.g. Spanish and American laws
and jurisprudence. These sources as used specially when there are no
Philippine authorities available or when the Philippine statute or
jurisprudence under interpretation is based on either the Spanish or
American law.
It is in this regard that the collections of law libraries in the Philippines
include United States court reports, Wests national reporter system, court
reports of England and international tribunal, important reference
materials such as the American Jurisprudence, Corpus Juris Secundum,
Words and Phrases and different law dictionaries. Some of these law

libraries subscribe to the Westlaw and/or LexisNexis . The Supreme


Court, University of the Philippines, University of Santo Tomas and a
number of prominent law libraries also have a Spanish collection where a
great number of our laws originated.
Secondary authority or sources are commentaries or books, treatise,
writings, journal articles that explain, discuss or comment on primary
authorities. Also included in this category are the opinions of the
Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission or circulars of
the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas . These materials are not binding on
courts but they have persuasive effect and/or the degree of persuasiveness.
With regards to commentaries or books, treatise, writings, journal articles,
the reputation or expertise of the author is a consideration. Some of the
authors of good reputation and considered experts in the field are Chief
Justice Ramon C. Aquino and Justice Carolina Grino Aquino on Revised
Penal Code or Criminal Law, Senator Arturo M. Tolentino on Civil law,
Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando and Fr. Joaquin Bernas on
Constitutional Law, Prof. Perfecto Fernandez on Labor Law, Vicente
Francisco, Chief Justice Manuel Moran on Remedial Law, and Justice
Vicente Abad Santos and Senator Jovito Salonga on International Law,
etc. A list of these materials by subject are found in GlobaLex - Part 2:
Philippine Legal Information Resources and Citations A.v
Treatise/Annotations/Commentaries, etc.
Classification by Source:
It is important for legal research experts to know the source where the
materials were taken from. One has to determine whether they came from
primary (official) sources or secondary (unofficial sources). Primary and
secondary sources for the sources of law are found in Part 2: Philippine
Legal
Information
Resources
and
Citations
A.v
Treatise/Annotations/Commentaries, etc.
Primary sources are those published by the issuing agency itself or the
official repository, the Official Gazette. The Official Gazette online was
launched by the Office of the President in July 2010. This online version is
maintained and managed by the Presidential Communications
Development and Strategic Management Office. . Thus, for Republic Acts
and other legislative enactments or statutes, the primary sources are the
Official Gazette published by the National Printing Office and the Laws
and Resolutions published by Congress. For Supreme Court decisions, the
primary sources are the Philippine Reports , the individually
mimeographed Advance Supreme Court decisions and the Official

Gazette . Publication of Supreme Court decisions in the Official Gazette is


selective. The publication of the Philippine Reports by the National
Printing Office ceased in 1960s. It was only in 1983 when the publication
of the Philippine Reports was revived by then Chief Justice Enrique M.
Fernando who requested then President Ferdinand E. Marcos to take
charge of its publication with special appropriation in the Judiciarys
annual budget. However, when the Supreme Court took over the printing
in 1983, the delay in printing covered more than twenty (20) years. The
last volume printed was volume 126 (June 1967). The Philippine Reports is
up-to-date and almost complete from 1901. The volumes are to be printed
cover June 1991-December 1994. Online, the Supreme Court E-Library is
complete and updated as soon as the decisions have been certified by the
Chief Justice. The Supreme Court E-Library includes the citation of the
Philippine Reports where each case is found whenever it is available.
The Secondary Sources are the unofficial sources and generally referred to
as those commercially or institutionally published in print or online.
Some of the Secondary sources of statutes are the Vital Legal Documents ,
published by the Central Book Supply, contains a compilation of
Presidential Decrees (1973). The second edition contains Republic Acts.
Prof. Sulpicio Guevara published three books, which contain s the full text
of legislative enactments or laws namely: a ). Public Laws Annotated (7
vols.), compilation of all laws from 1901 to 1935, b). Commonwealth Acts
Annotated (3vos.), compilation of laws from 1935-1945 c). The Laws of
the First Philippine Republic (The Laws of Malolos) 1898-1899 . For the
Supreme Court decisions, Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA), a
secondary source, published by the Central Book Supply is more updated
and popular in the legal community than the Philippine Reports, the
primary and official source. The SCRA was published because of the delay
in the printing of the Philippines and the need of the Philippine legal
profession for Supreme Court decision. Citations in commentaries or
books, treatise, writings, journal articles, pleading and even court decisions
show SCRAs popular acceptance. The general rule is that in the absence of
a primary source, the secondary source may be cited. This was the primary
rationale for the SCRAs popularity. SCRA is now available online
(including tablet and iPad) by subscription.
With the advent of the new information technology, electronic or digitized
sources are popular sources and effective sources of legal information for
the following reasons: a) no complete and updated legal information
available; b) the search engines utilizing the electronic or digitized method
facilitate research, and c) no complete and update manually published

search tools for statute and case law. These electronic sources started with
CD ROMS and now online or electronic libraries. The popular use of
online/electronic libraries was due to the advent of the iPads, iPods, tablet
and notebooks and internet with Wi-Fi connection. Online access is either
through Open access or subscription basis. Open access for law is used for
both the government and the private sector. The Chan Robles Law Firm
Library and Arellano Law Foundation Lawphil use open access in their
electronic libraries, which contains the full-text of all sources of Philippine
legal information, case law and statute law. Chanrobles.com has also in its
database the full text of United States decisions and materials on important
legal events such as Impeachment proceedings, bar examinations. Chan
Robles conducts online bar review program.
Official or government online source for full-text for all legal sources and
related materials in the Official Gazette online , launched in July 2010. It
contains the issuances of all the executive departments, which are found
also in the websites of the different executive departments. They aim (as
reflected in their website) to include the issuances of the legislative and the
judiciary. The Supreme Court E-Library is an electronic library (online
and CD Rom for decisions updated quarterly) for all Philippine legal
information, case law and statute law. Access however is limited to the
Justices, judges and court attorneys of the Supreme Court and law schools
(by request) through their law librarians. Decisions and issuances of the
Supreme Court and its Offices and the Appellate Courts are found in the
Judiciary portal .
CD Asia online contains full-text of Supreme Court decisions and statutes,
available on a subscription basis. Subscription may be made solely for
court decisions or statutes or for both. Central Books eSCRA is another
database which can be accessed online with the use of desktops, laptops,
notebooks, and iPads. Law Juan , iPad app is a new source for full-text
statutes and Supreme Court decisions available by subscription.
By using Google search, some of this legal information may be retrieved.
The established policy is that in case of conflict between the printed and
electronic sources, the printed version coming from the issuing
government agency prevails.
Legal research for statute law in the Philippines benefited remarkably from
the use of the latest technology due to two major problems: a) no complete
and updated published or printed search tools or law finders for statute
law and b) no complete compilation of statute law from 1901-present were
available. Problems of the publication of compilations of statute law or the

existence of the full-text of Presidential Decrees was that brought about


to the Supreme Court in the Tanada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. 63915, April 24,
1985 (220 Phil 422), December 29, 1986 (146 SCRA 446) case was
resolved by the use of the latest technology. The Tanada v. Tuvera, case
that was first decided before the bloodless revolution popularly known as
People Power or the EDSA Revolution and modified in the December 29,
1986 or after the People Power or the EDSA Revolution resolved the
publication requirement for the effectivity of laws as provided for in
Section 2 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. This was resolved by
Executive Order No. 200, s. 1987 that provides that laws become effective
fifteen (15) days after publication in the Official Gazette or in two
newspapers of general circulation.
Still, to be resolved i s how to classify sources published in the
newspapers. Will Executive Order No. 200, s. 1987, these resources as
primary and secondary source. However, in case of conflict between those
published in the newspapers and the Official Gazette , the rule is following
the Official Gazette.
The existence, availability and access to local ordinances issued by the
local governments in the Philippines remains a problem for the City of
Manila is the one with a compilation. However all government agencies
have started to use the latest technology in their operations and some of
them are available online.
In finding the law, our ultimate goal is to locate mandatory primary
authorities, which have bearing on the legal problem at hand. If these
authorities are scarce or nonexistent, our next alternative is to find any
relevant persuasive mandatory authority. If our search is still negative, the
next alternative might be secondary authorities. There are however
instances where the secondary authorities, more particularly the
commentaries made by experts of the field, take precedence over the
persuasive mandatory authorities. With the availability of both, using both
sources is highly recommended.
Classification by Character:
This refers to the nature of the subject treated in books. This classification
categorizes books as: a) Statute Law Books, b) Case Law Books or Law
Reports, c) a combination of both and d) Law Finders.
Law Finders refer to indexes, citators, encyclopedias, legal dictionaries,
thesauri or digests. A major problem in the Philippines is that there are no
up-to-date Law Finders. Federico Morenos Philippine Law Dictionary ,

the only available Philippine law dictionary was last published in 1988,
and, Jose Agaton Sibals Philippine Legal Thesaurus , which is likewise
considered a dictionary, was published in 1986. Foreign law dictionaries
like Blacks Law Dictionary, Words and Phrases are used as alternate. To
search for legal information, legal researchers go online virtual libraries
such as the Supreme Court E-Library , Chan Robles Virtual Library ,
Arellanos lawphil , CD Asia online and the different databases in CD-ROM
format from CD Asia Technologies Asia Inc. The databases developed by
CD Asia include not only the compilation of Laws (statutes) and
Jurisprudence, but also include a compilation of legal information that are
not available in printed form such as Opinions of the Department of
Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission and Bangko Sentral (Central
Bank) rules and regulations. Search engines used in these databases
answer for the lack of complete and updated indexes of legal information.
In this regard, effective legal research can be conducted with one cardinal
rule in mind: "ALWAYS START FROM THE LATEST." The exception to
this is when the research has defined or has provided a SPECIFIC period.
5.

Philippine Legal Research

5.1. Research of Statute law


Statute laws are the rules and regulations promulgated by competent
authorities; enactments of legislative bodies (national or local) or they may
be rules and regulations of administrative (departments or bureau) or
judicial agencies. Research of statutory law does not end with consulting
the law itself. At times, it extends to the intent of each provision or even
the words used in the law. In this regard, the deliberations of these laws
must be consulted. The deliberation of laws, except Presidential Decrees
and other Martial law issuances are available.
Constitution:
The different Constitutions of the Philippines are provided in some history
books such as Gregorio F. Zaides Philippine Constitutional History and
Constitutions of Modern Nations (1970) and Founders of Freedom; The
History of Three Constitution by a seven-man Board. The Philippine legal
system recognizes the following Constitutions: Malolos, 1935, 1943, 1973,
Provisional or Freedom and 1987 Constitutions. The 1943 Constitution
was effective only during the Second World War while the Provisional
Constitution was effective only from the time President Corazon became
President until the 1987 Constitution was ratified and proclaimed by
President Aquino by virtue of Proclamation No. 58, February 11, 1987.
Majority of printed publications provide the 1935, 1973 and the 1987

Constitutions only. The online sources ( E-library , Chan Robles , LawPhil


, CD Asia , Law Juan ) however have the full-text of all Constitutions of
the Philippines: Malolos, 1935, 1943 of Japanese, 1973, Provisional or
Freedom Constitution and 1987. The books of Senator Ambrosio Padilla (
The 1987 Constitutions of the Republic of the Philippines . vol. 3, pp779863) and Carmelo Sison provide a comparative presentation of the
provisions of the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions.
Text of the Malolos Constitution is available in some history books such as
Gregorio F. Zaides Philippine Constitutional History and Constitutions of
Modern Nations , p. 176 (1970) and online. ( E-library , Chan Robles , CD
Asia , Law Juan ).
The Constitutional Convention proceedings provide for the intent and
background of each provision of the Constitution. Sources for the 19341935 Constitutional Convention are: 10 volumes of the Constitutional
Convention Record by the House of Representatives (1966), Salvador
Laurel's seven volumes book entitled Proceedings of the Constitutional
Convention (1966); 6 volumes of the Philippine Constitution, Origins,
Making, Meaning and Application by the Philippine Lawyers Association
with Jose Aruego as one of its editors (1970) and Journal of the
Constitutional convention of the Philippines by Vicente Francisco.
Proceedings of the 1973 Constitutional Convention were never published.
A photocopy and softcopy of the complete compilation is available at the
Filipiniana Reading Room of the National Library of the Philippines.
Journals (3 volumes) and Records (5 volumes) of the Constitutional
Convention of 1986 were published by the Constitutional Commission.
This publication does not have an index. This problem was remedied when
CD Technologies Asia Inc. came out with a CD-ROM version, which
facilitated research for it has a search engine.
The proceedings and text of the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions are
electronically available at the Supreme Court E-Library.
Commentaries or interpretations on the constitution, decisions of the
Supreme Court and other courts, textbooks or treaties, periodical articles of
the different Constitution are available. (Part 2: Philippine Legal
Information
Resources
and
Citations
A.v
Treatise/Annotations/Commentaries, etc. A.v.10 Political Law
Treaties and other International Agreements:

A treaty is an agreement or a contract between two (bilateral) or more


(multilateral) nations or sovereigns, entered into by agents appointed
(generally the Secretary of Foreign Affairs or ambassadors) for the purpose
and duly sanctioned by supreme powers of the respective countries.
Treaties that do not have legislative sanctions are executive agreements
which may or may not have legislative authorization, and which have
limited execution by constitutional restrictions.
In the Philippines, a treaty or international agreement shall not be valid
and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all members of
the Senate (Constitution, Article VII, section 21). Those without the
concurrence of the Senate are considered as Executive Agreements.
The President of the Philippines may enter into international treaties or
agreements as the national welfare and interest may require, and may
contract and guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republic, subject to
such limitations as may be provided by law. During the time of Pres.
Marcos, there was the so-called Tripoli Agreement.
The official text of treaties is published in the Official Gazette, Department
of Foreign Affairs Treaty Series (DFATS), United Nations Treaty Series
(UNTS ) or the University of the Philippines Law Center's Philippine
Treaty Series ( PTS). To locate the latest treaties, there are two possible
sources: Department of Foreign Affairs and the Senate of the Philippines.
There is no complete repository of all treaties entered into by the
Philippines. There is a selective publication of treaties in the Official
Gazette . The DFATS was last published in the 1970s while the PTS's last
volume, vol. 8 contains treaties entered into until 1981.With the UN Treaty
Series, which used to be available only in UN depository libraries in the
country and its United Nation Information Center in Makati in now
available online through the United Nations website . Electronically, major
law libraries use the Treaties and International Agreements Researchers
Archives (TIARA), WESTLAW , LEXIS , other online sources via the
Internet.
A formal Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Supreme Court
and the Department of Foreign Affairs was signed at the Supreme Court
for the digitization of full-text of all the treaties entered into by the
Philippines from 1946-2010. The MOA provided that the Department of
Foreign Affairs will supply the official treaties and the Supreme Court
Library Services will produce the CD Rom version with search engine of the
treaties. CD-ROM containing all these treaties was launched last June

2010 at the Department of Foreign Affairs. Online version is found in the


Supreme Court E-Library . Also launched last June 2010 was the
Philippine Treaties Index 1946-2010 by the Foreign Service Institute.
For tax treaties, Eustaquio Ordoo has published a series on the
Philippine tax treaties. Other sources of important treaties are appended
in books on the subject or law journals such as the American Journal of
International Law or the Philippine Yearbook of International Law.
Statutes Proper:
Legislative Enactments:
Statutes are enactments of the different legislative bodies since 1900
broken down as follows:

4,275 ACTS - Enactments from 1900-1935


733 Commonwealth Acts - Enactments from 1935-1945
2034 Presidential Decrees - Enactments from 1972-1985
884 Batas Pambansa. Enactments from 1979-1985
10650 Republic Acts - Enactments from 1946-1972, 1987-December 2014
Republic Act No. 10650 is the Act Expanding Access to Educational
Services by the Institutionalizing Open Distance Learning in Levels of the
Tertiary Education.
The above figures clearly show that during Martial Law, both President
Marcos and the Batasang Pambansa (Parliament) were issuing laws at the
same time - Presidential Decrees by President Marcos and Batas
Pambansa by the Philippine Parliament.
During Martial Law, aside from Presidential Decrees, the President
promulgated other issuances namely: 57 General Orders, 1,525 Letters of
Instruction, 2,489 Proclamations, 832 Memorandum Order, 1,297
Memorandum Circular, 157 Letter of Implementation, Letter of Authority,
Letters of Instruction, 504 Administrative Order and 1,093 Executive
Orders. Complete compilation of Presidential Decrees and all Martial
Issuances are available at present in the Malacanang Records and
Archives. Efforts are being made by Malacanang to make them available
through the Official Gazette online.
As previously stated, the Presidential Decrees issued by Pres. Marcos
during Martial Law and the Executive Orders issued by Pres. Aquino

before the opening of Congress may be classified as both executive and


legislative acts for there was no legislature during those two periods.
Laws passed by the new 1987 Congress started from Rep. Act No. 6636, as
the last Republic Act promulgated by Congress before Martial Law was
Rep. Act No. 6635.
The following are the Philippine codes adopted from 1901 to present:

Administrative Code of 1987 ( Executive Order No. 292)


Child and Youth Welfare Code (Pres. Decree No. 603)
Civil Code (Rep. Act No. 386)
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Code
Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Rep. Act o.
6713)
Cooperative Code (Rep. Act No. 9520)
Corporation Code (Batas Blg. 68)
Family Code (Executive Order No. 209)
Fire Code (Rep. Act No. 9514)
Fisheries Code (Rep. Act No. 8550)
Forest Reform Code (Pres. Decree No. 705)
Insurance Code (Pres/ Decree No. 1460)
Intellectual Property Code (Rep. Act No. 8293)
Labor Code (Pres. Decree No. 442)
Land Transportation and Traffic Code (Rep. Act No. 4136)
Local Government Code (Rep. Act No. 7160)
Muslim Code of Personal Laws ( Pres. Decree No. 1083)
National Building Code (Pres. Decree No. 1096)
National Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and Supplements
(Executive Order No. 51 s. 1986)
National Internal Revenue Code (Pres. Decree No. 1158)
Omnibus Election Code (Batas Blg 881)
Philippine Environment Code (Pres. Decree No. 1152)
Revised Penal Code (Act no. 3815)
Sanitation Code (Pres. Decree No. 856)
State Auditing Code
Tariff and Customs Code (Pres. Decree No. 1464)
Water Code (Pres. Decree No. 1067)
The Senate has prepared the entire legislature process and has
enumerated the types of legislation. This procedure is pursuant to the
Constitution and recognized by both Houses of Congress. The House of

Representatives has provided a diagram of the procedure on how a bill


becomes a law.

SOURCE: Congressional Library; House Printing Division, Administrative


Support Bureau, July 1996.
Presidential Issuances
Administrative acts, orders and regulations of the President touching on
the organization or mode of operation of the government, re-arranging or
adjusting districts, divisions or parts of the Philippines, and acts and

commands governing the general performance of duties of public officials


and employees or disposing of issues of general concern are made effective
by Executive Orders. Those orders fixing the dates when specific laws,
resolutions or orders cease to take effect and any information concerning
matters of public moment determined by law, resolution or executive
orders, take the form of executive Proclamation.
Executive Orders and Proclamations of the Governor-General were
published annually in a set Executive Orders and Proclamations. Thirty
three (33) volumes were published until 1935 by the Bureau of Printing.
Administrative Acts and Orders of the President and Proclamations were
published. Only a few libraries in the Philippines have these publications
for a majority of them was destroyed during World War II. There are
copies available at the Law Library of Congress, Cincinnati Law Library
Association (who offered to donate them to the Supreme Court of the
Philippines) and some at the Library of the Institute of South East Asian
Studies in Singapore.
In researching for Proclamations, Administrative Orders, Executive Orders
and Memorandum Orders & Circulars of the President, the year it was
promulgated is a must or needed. If no year is available, the President
and/or the Executive Secretary issuing it must be stated. As a new
President is sworn in, all the Presidential issuances start with No. 1. The
only exception was Executive Orders issued by President Carlos Garcia
after he assumed the Presidency because President Magsaysay died in a
plane crash. He continued the number started by President Magsaysay.
When President Garcia was elected President, he started his Executive
Order No. 1.
To look for the intent of Republic Acts, we have to go through the printed
Journals and Records of both houses of Congress, which contain their
deliberation. To facilitate the search, the House Bill No. or Senate Bill No.
or both found on the upper left portion of the first page of the law is
important. The problem for this research is the availability of the complete
printed Journals and Records of both houses of Congress. The solution to
this problem is the Archives of the House of Representatives and the
Senate. For the recent laws, the deliberations are available online from
the websites of the the House of Representatives and the Philippine
Senate . The Batasang Pambansa has likewise published it proceedings.
There are no available proceedings for the other laws Acts, Commonwealth
Act and Presidential Decrees.
Administrative Rules and Regulations:

Administrative Rules and regulations are orders, rules and regulations


issued by the heads of Departments, Bureau and other agencies of the
government for the effective enforcement of laws within their jurisdiction.
However, in order that such rules and regulations may be valid, they must
be within the authorized limits and jurisdiction of the office issuing them
and in accordance with the provisions of the law authorizing their issuance.
Access to administrative rules and regulations have been facilitated due
to the two developments: a) government agencies, including government
owned and controlled corporations, have their own websites and at the
Official Gazette and Official Gazette online where they include the full-text
of their issuances, and b) the National Administrative Register, which is
available in print, CD-Rom and in the Supreme Court website.
In handling these types of materials, there are two important items needed:
a.) Issuing Agency and b.) Year it was promulgated. This is due to the fact
that all Departments, Bureaus, and other government agencies use the
administrative orders, memorandum orders and memorandum circulars
for their administrative rules and regulations and they start always with
number 1 every year. Even the Supreme Court issues Administrative
Orders, Circulars, Memorandum Orders, and Administrative Matters.
Before the Administrative Code of 1987, these orders, rules and
regulations were selectively published in the Official Gazette . Thus, the
only source to be able to get a copy of the text of these rules and regulations
is the issuing government agency itself.
When the 1987 Administrative Code (Executive Order No. 292) was
promulgated, all government agencies including government owned and
controlled corporations are mandated to file three (3) certified copies of
their orders, rules and regulations with the University of the Philippines
Law Center's Office of National Administrative Register which in turn is
required to publish quarterly the publication called National
Administrative Register . Aside from the printed copies, the National
Administrative Register is available electronically on CD-ROM (CD Asia
Technologies Inc.) and online at the Supreme Court E-Library . Rules in
force on the date on which the Code took effect, which are not filed within
three months from the date not thereafter, shall be the basis of any
sanction against any person or party. Each rule becomes effective 15 days
after the filing, unless a different date is fixed by law or specified in the
rule, such as in cases of imminent danger to public health, safety and
welfare, the existence of which must be expressed in a statement
accompanying the rule. The court shall take judicial notice of the certified
copy of each rule duly filed or as published in the bulletin or codified rules.

University of the Philippines Law Centers Office of National


Administrative Register is not only tasked to publish this quarterly register
but must keep an up-to-date codification of all rules thus published and
remaining in effect together with a complete index and appropriate tables.
Every rule establishing an offense or defining an act, which pursuant to law
is punishable as a crime or subject to a penalty, shall in all cases be
published in full text. Exceptions to the filing requirement" are Congress,
Judiciary, Constitutional Commission, military establishments in all
matters relative to Armed Forces personnel, the Board of Pardons and
Parole and state universities and colleges. With the use of the latest
technology, majority of government agencies including government owned
and controlled corporations maintain their own websites and have
incorporation laws and legislations relevant to their agencies. These
developments have facilitated research for administrative rules and
regulations.
As previously stated, there are no up-to-date or complete Statutes finders.
As previously stated, to facilitate legal research, one has to go online to
virtual libraries. The primary source for statutes is: Supreme Court ELibrary and the Official Gazette and Official Gazette online . The
secondary sources area: Chan Robles Virtual Law Library , Arellano Law
Foundations The Lawphil Project , and CD Asia Technologies online and
or CD ROM. Law Juan iPad app (Law) contains only full-text legislative
enactments from 1901, Rules of Court and all the Philippine
Constitutions.
5.2. Research of Case Law

SOURCE: 2002 Revised Manual of Clerks of Court . Manila, Supreme


Court, 2002. Organizational Chart was amended due to the passage of
Republic Act No. 9282 (CTA)
Case Law or Judicial decisions are official interpretations or manifestation
of law made by persons and agencies of the government performing
judicial and quasi-judicial functions. At the apex of the Philippine Judicial
System is the Supreme Court, or what is referred to as court of last resort.

The reorganization of the Judiciary of 1980 (Batas Pambansa Bldg. 129)


established the following courts:

Court of Appeals;
Regional Trial Courts divided into different judicial regions,
Metropolitan Trial Court;
Municipal Trial Court in Cities;
Municipal Trial Courts;
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
The Shariah (Shariaa ) Circuit and District Courts (Presidential Decree
No. 1083), Court of Tax Appeals (Republic Act No. 1125) and the
Sandiganbayan (Presidential Decree Nos. 1486 and 1606), sec. 4, Art XI of
the 1987 Constitution were created by separate laws.
Conventional decisions are decisions or rulings made by regularly
constituted court of justice. Subordinate decisions are those made by
administrative agencies performing quasi-judicial functions.
One major problem in conducting research on case law is the availability of
published or printed decisions from the Court of Appeals to the rest of the
judicial and quasi-judicial agencies. The Judicial Reform Program of the
Supreme Court funded by the World Bank started to address this problem
with the establishment of the Supreme Court E-Library aims to address
this problem and also those from statute law and the digitization of the
decisions of the Supreme Court, and the appellate: Court of Appeals,
Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals. Digitization of the Appellate
Courts have started and are available online from the most recent and will
continue until all their first decision from their creation will be completed.
The Reporters Office of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals keep
all the original and complete copies of the court decisions. By original, this
means that the keep the decisions with the original signatures of the
justices of the Supreme court and Court of Appeals. For the rest of the
Judiciary or the quasi-judicial agencies, copies of their decisions may be
taken from the Legal Office, Office of the Clerks of Court, Records Office or
their libraries. There are no available printed compilations of lower courts
decisions. For those of the Appellate Court, the Court of Appeals has until
1980s only and while the Sandiganbayan has only one volume. For the
Court of Tax Appeals, the compilation is only from 1980 to present in the
CD Asia CD for taxation. The details are in Part 2: Philippine Legal
Information Resources and Citations . A.iv Case Law/ Jurisprudence
Supreme Court Decisions:
Decisions of the Supreme Court are highest source of jurisprudence,

source of law. It is the judgment of this court interprets the law and/or
determines whether a law is constitutional or not. Unconstitutional laws
even though it is signed by the President and passed by both house of
congress cannot take effect in the Philippines.
Decisions of the Supreme Court are classified as follows:
"Regular decisions" and extended Resolutions are published in court
reports either in primary or secondary sources. These decisions provide
the justice who penned the decision or ponente and the other justices
responsible for promulgating the decision, whether En Banc or by
Division. Separate dissenting and/or concurring opinions are likewise
published with the main decision. These regular and extended resolutions
are available electronically in the Supreme Court website under Decisions
and the Supreme Court E-Library under Decisions.
Unsigned Minute Resolutions are not published. Although they bear the
same force and effect as the regular decisions or extended resolutions,
they are issued and signed by the respective Clerks of Court En Banc or
by any of the three (3) Division s and signed by their respective Clerks of
Court. Since these Minutes Resolutions are not published, the Supreme
Court has now incorporated these Minute Resolutions, more particularly
those that resolve a motion for reconsideration or those that explain or
affirm a decision; and (2) Administrative Matters in the Supreme Court ELibrary , under RESOLUTIONS.
Recently, the Supreme Court website has included these decisions. The
Chanrobles has included Minutes Resolution in its website.
Case Reports in the Philippines such as the Philippine Reports, Supreme
Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) , and the Supreme Court Advance
Decisions (SCAD) come in bound volumes which generally cover a month
per volume. The Supreme Court Advance Decisions (SCAD) has been
discontinued. The Official Gazette, Philippine Reports and the Advance
Sheets are the primary source or official repositories of decisions and
extended resolutions of the Supreme Court. The Advance Sheets are
decisions in reproduced form or photocopied copy of the actual
original decision which contains the full text, the signatures of the justices
and the certification of the Chief Justice. The original decisions are those
which the actual signatures is deposited in the Reporters Office of the
Supreme Court. The Advance Sheets was made available as soon as a
decision is issuance. This was however discontinued because decisions of
the Supreme Court are now available almost immediately upon issuance at

the Supreme Court website . The Official Gazette, Philippine Reports are
the other primary source for Supreme Court decisions. The difference
between the two lies in the fact that the Official Gazette selective
compilation while Philippine Reports contains the complete compilation
decisions of the Supreme Court. Original decisions with original signature
of the Justices of the Supreme Court are found in the Office of the Reporter
of the Supreme Court.
There were unpublished decisions of the Supreme Court from 1901 until
1960. The list and subject field are found at the back of some volumes of
the Philippine Reports . Some of these decisions are cited in treatises or
annotations. In view of the importance of these decisions, the Supreme
Court E-Library started to collect these unpublished decisions and include
them in its database.
The availability of some of the unpublished decisions before World War II
is a problem for a number of the original decisions have been burned. So,
there is no complete compilation of the original decisions of the Supreme
Court. This problem is being addressed by the Supreme Court E-Library
where are great number of these unpublished decisions of the Supreme
Court before the war were retrieved from different sources such as the
United States National Archives in Maryland, private collection of former
Supreme Court Justices such as Chief Justice Ramon Avancena and Justice
George Malcolm (collection is found in the University of Michigan) and
private law libraries who were able to save some of their collection such as
the University of Santo Tomas, the oldest university in the Philippines.
Search for the unpublished decisions still continues.
The unpublished decisions after the War, the late Judge Nitafan of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila started publishing Supreme Court
Unpublished Decision s ; vol. 1 covers decisions from March 1946 to
February 1952. However only two volumes were published due to Judge
Nitafans untimely death. The Office of the Reporter of the Supreme Court
has these unpublished decisions.
The early volumes, particularly those before the war were originally
published in Spanish in the Jurisprudencia Filipina . They were translated
in English to become the Philippine Reports . Some decisions after the
second Philippine independence were still in the Spanish language. There
are a number of decisions now in the Filipino language. The Philippine
Reports until volume 126 (1960's) was published by the Bureau of Printing,
now called the National Printing Office. Printing was transferred to the
Supreme Court in the 1980s due to the need for a complete official

publication of the Courts decision. The Supreme Courts Philippine


Reports started with volume 127.
The most popular secondary source is the Supreme Court Reports
Annotated (SCRA ) and eSCRA and the Lex Libris Jurisprudence CD ROM
and CD Asia Online . The online and CD versions are on subscription
basis while the printed SCRA may be purchased per volume. Two new
sources on subscription basis are: a) My Legal Whiz ; Easy Contextual
Legal Research and Law Juan decisions, iPad app.
How can we search for Supreme Court decisions manually?
Topic or Subject Approach: (Please See Complete title of the publication
from the Philippine Legal Bibliography chapter)

Philippine Digest
Republic of the Philippine Digest
Velayo's digest
Magsino's Compendium
Supreme Court's unpublished Subject Index
Martinez's Summary of Supreme Court rulings 1984 to 1997
UP Law Center's Supreme Court decisions: subject index and digest's
SC's Case Digest's
Philippine Law and Jurisprudence
Castigadors Citations
SCRA Quick Index Digest
Title Approach or Title of the Approach: (Please See Complete title of the
publication from the Philippine Legal Bibliography chapter)
Philippine Digest - Case Index
Republic of the Philippines Digest
Ong, M. Title Index to SC decisions 1946-1978 2v.; 1978-1981 1st Suppl;
1981-1985, 2nd Suppl; 1986 to present is unpublished but available at the
Supreme Court Library portal
Ateneo's Index
Manual approach is not possible in majority of law libraries for the above
sources enumerated are no longer available. For those who have these
sources, the problem is the availability of updated indexes. Only the SCRA
Quick Index Digest is updated. It is however delayed by about one year for
they have to wait for the last volume of the SCRA for the year before they
could come up with the SCRA Quick Index Digest. In the Title Approach,
the latest is M. Ong Title Index to SC decisions, 2 nd supplement 1981-1985.
The updated Title Index is available at the Supreme Court Library portal

but is not yet available online. Title search made be made through the Lex
Libris: Jurisprudence online.
Electronic application is the source for effective legal research. These
sources are as follows:

!e-library! A Century & 4 Years of Philippine Supreme Court Decisions


1901-April 2004 . Research & Development Department, Agoo Computer
College, Agoo, Lau Union, Philippines (CD ROM)
eSCRA . Q.C.: Central Book Supply
Law Juan . IPad App (Jurisprudence)
Lex Libris: Jurisprudence. Pasig City: CD Asia Technologies Inc. (CD
ROM) and CD Asia online
My
Legal
Whiz
;
Easy
Contextual
Legal
Research
(
https://www.mylegalwhiz.com/)
Supreme Court E-Library online
Supreme Court website
Court of Appeals decisions:
Decisions of the Court of Appeals are merely persuasive on lower courts.
They are cited in cases where there are no Supreme Court decisions in
point. In this regard, they are considered as judicial guides to lower courts
and that conclusion or pronouncement they make can be raised as a
doctrine. The Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals is the repository of all
of the Court of Appeals decisions.
Sources of Court of Appeals decisions are:

Text:
Court of Appeals decisions are now being complete online starting from the
latest to 1936.
Official Gazette (selective publication)
Court of Appeals Reports which was published by the Court of Appeals
until 1980. Even this publication is not a complete compilation. It is still
considered selective for not all CA decisions are included.
Court of Appeals Reports (CAR) by Central Book Supply. One volume was
published
Philippine Law and Jurisprudence
Reports Office of the Court of Appeals

Subject or Topic Approach:


Velayo's Digest;

Moreno's Philippine Law dictionary


Decisions of Special Courts:
Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals do not have published
decisions. The Sandiganbayan has only one volume published;
Sandiganbayan Reports vol. 1 covers decisions promulgated from
December 1979 to 1980. Sandiganbayan decisions are now being made
available online starting from the latest to its first decision. The Legal
Office of the Sandiganbayan is the repository of all of its decisions.
Court of Tax Appeals decisions from 1980 to 2004 are found in the Lex
Libris particularly in Taxation CD ROM. Court of Tax decisions are now
being complete online starting from the latest to its first decision.
Decisions of Administrative Agencies, Commissions and Boards:
Laws have been promulgated which grants some administrative agencies to
perform quasi-judicial functions. These functions are distinct from their
regular administrative or regulatory functions where rules and regulations
are promulgated. The Securities Regulations Code (Republic Act No. 8799)
signed by President Joseph E. Estrada on July 19, 2000 affects Securities
and Exchange Commission's (SEC) quasi-judicial functions. The other
agencies performing said functions are National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC), Insurance Commission, Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board (HLURB), Government Service Insurance System
(GSIS), Social Security System (SSS) and even the Civil Service
Commission (CSC). Some of their decisions are published in the Official
Gazette. Some have their own publication such as the SEC and the CSC or
some include them in their own websites. An important source is the
National Administrative Register which is available in printed and CR
ROM (CD Asia) and the Supreme Court E-Library. The 1987
Administrative Code required that all government including all
government owned and controlled corporations must provide the UP. Law
Center with three certified copies (3) of their rules and regulations. In turn
the UP. Law Center is required to publish them. This is done in the
National Administrative Register .
CD Asia Technologies Lex Libris series has individual CD ROMs for the
Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission, Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas (Central Bank of the Philippines), and the Bureau of
Internal Revenue. Included in these individual CD ROMs are the pertinent
laws, their respective issuances as well as Supreme Court decisions. It CD
ROM on Labor (vol. VII) incorporated issuances from the Department of
Labor and Employment and its affiliated agencies and offices. The Trade,

Commerce and Industry CD ROM includes Supreme Court decisions, laws


and issuances of its various agencies such as the Department of Trade and
Industry, Board of Investments, Bureau of Customs, B angko Sentral and
the Philippine Stock Exchange.
6. Legal Profession and Legal Education
Republic Act No. 7662, otherwise known as the Legal Education Reform
Act of 1993 created the Legal Education Board, was approved on December
23, 1993 . The Board shall be composed of a Chairman who shall
preferably be a former justice of the Supreme Court of Court of Appeals
and regular members composed of: a representative of each of the
following: Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Philippine Association
of Law Schools (PALS), Philippine Association of Law Professors (PALP),
ranks of active law practitioners and law students sector. The Legal
Education has replaced the Commission on Higher Education for legal
education. Its primary functions are:

to administer the legal education system


to supervise the law schools
to set the standards of accreditation for law schools
to accredit law schools that meet the standards of accreditation;
to prescribe minimum standards for law admission and minimum
qualifications and compensation of faculty members;
to prescribe the basic curricula for the course of study aligned to the
requirements for admission to the Bar,
to establish a law practice internship
to adopt a system of continuing legal education.
The 1987 Constitution however provides under Article VIII, sec. 5(5) that
it is the Supreme Court who has the power to promulgate rules concerning
the admission to practice the law. The Supreme Court has promulgated
the Rules of Court, Rule 138 as to the admission of the bar. To be
admitted to the bar, there are three requirements:
must have passed the bar examination which is given annually at four (4)
consecutive Sundays
must take the lawyers oath
must sign the roll of attorneys at the Supreme Court
The lists of lawyers who are allowed to practice are found in the Rolls of
Attorneys of the Supreme Court and the publication of the Court entitled,
Law List . The online version of the Law List, available in the Supreme
Court and Supreme E-Library , includes the annual lists of additional

members of the bar.


Applicants for the annual bar examination must have the following (Rules
of Court, Rule 138, sec. 2):

citizen and resident of the Philippines


21 years of age
good moral character (three testimonials of good moral character)
submission of the required documents such as birth certificate, marriage
certificate, three testimonials of good moral character, official law
transcript, certificate of no derogatory record and certificated from the
CHED/LEB and photos
Academic requirements to qualify to take the bar examinations are
provided in Rules of Court, Rule 138, section 5 and section 6.
Section 5 provides that the applicant should have studied law for four
years and have successfully completed all the prescribed courses. This
section was amended by Bar Matter No. 1153, March 9, 2010 which
provides that they have successfully completed all the prescribed courses
for the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent, in a law school or
university officially recognized by the Philippine Government or by the
proper authority in foreign jurisdiction where the degree has been
granted. Bar Matter No. 1153 further provides that a Filipino citizen who
graduated from a foreign law school shall be allowed to take the bar only
upon the submission to the Supreme Court the required certifications.
Section 6 provides the Pre-Law requirement which is a four year high
school course and a bachelors degree in arts or science. This section will be
however affected by Republic Act No. 10533 Enhanced Basic Education
of 2013 which provides a K to 12 Program which covers Kindergarten and
12 years of basic education (six years of primary education, four years of
Junior High School, and two years of Senior High School.
The Schedule of subjects for the four Sundays of the month is as follows:
First Sunday: A.M. Political and International Law (15%), P.M. Labor Law
and Social Legislation (10%);
Second Sunday: A.M. Civil law (15%), P.M. Taxation (10%);
Third Sunday: A.M. Mercantile Law (15%), P.M. Criminal Law (10%);
Fourth Sunday: A.M. Remedial Law (20%), P.M. Legal Ethics and
Practical Exercises (5%).
The Rules of Court, Rule 138, section 16 provides that those who fail the

bar examinations for three or more times must take a refresher course.
The Legal Education Board has listed the following 88 accredited law
schools who can conduct refresher courses for 2014-2015:

Adamson University
Aemilianum College Inc.
Aklan Colleges, Kalibo Aklan
Andres Bonifacio College
Angeles University Foundation
Aquinas University
Araullo University
Arellano University
Ateneo de Davao University
Ateneo de Manila University
Bicol Colleges
Bukidnon State University
Bulacan State University
Cagayan State University
Central Philippines University
Centro Escolar University
Colegio de la Purisima College
Cor Jesu College
Cordillera Career Development College
Dr. V. Orestes Romualdez Educational Foundation
Eastern Samar State University
Father Saturnino Urios University
Far Eastern University
Far Eastern University-DLSU
Foundation University
Holy Name University (formerly DWC-T)
Isabela State College
J.H. Cerilles State College
Jose Rizal Memorial State University
Jose Rizal University
Leyte Colleges
Liceo de Cagayan University
Lyceum of the Philippines University
Lyceum Northwestern University
Manila Law College Foundation
Manuerl Luis Quezon University
Mariano Marcos State University
Mindanao State University
New Era University

Northeastern College
Northwestern University
Notre Dame University
Palawan State University
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila
Pan Pacific University of Northern Philippines
Philippine Christian University
Philippine Law School
Polytechnic University of the Philippine
San Sebastian College-Recoletos
Saint Louis University
San Beda College-Alabang
San Beda College-Mendiola
San Pablo Colleges
Siliman University
Southwestern University
St. Louis College
St. Marys University
St. Paul School of Business and Law
St. Thomas More School of Law and Business
Sultan Kudarat University
Tarlac State University
Universidad de Manila
University of the Cordilleras
University of Baguio
University of Batangas
University of Cagayan Valley
University of Cebu
University of Eastern Philippines
University of Iloilo
University of Manila
University of Mindanao
University of Negros Occidental-Recoletos
University of Northern Philippines
University of Nueva Caceres
University of Pangasinan
University of Perpetual Help-Laguna
University of Perpetual Help-Rizal
University of San Agustin
University of San Carlos
University of San Jose-Recoletos
University of Sothern Philippines-Foundation
University of St. La Salle

University of Santo Tomas


University of the East
University of the Philippines
University of the Visayas
Western Mindanao State University
Xavier University
Reforms in the Bar Examinations (Bar Matter No. 1161) was adopted in
June 2004 and effective July 15, 2004, 15 days after it was published in the
Manila Bulletin and the Philippine Star (June 21, 2004). In 2011, new
reforms were made as to its coverage and the application of Multiple
Choice Question (MCQ) exam and Essay-Type exams. The date of the Bar
examination was moved to the four (4) Sundays of November.
Special Bar Exams for Sharia Court lawyers is provided for by virtue of the
Court En Banc Resolution dated September 20, 1983. The exam is given
every two years. Although the exam is conducted by the Supreme Court
Office of the Bar Conidant, it is the Office of Muslim Affairs who certifies as
to who are qualified to take the exam. Candidates to the Sharia bar do not
need to be degree holder of Bachelor of laws. Those who have passed the
Sharia bar or the Sharia lawyers are not considered as full-fledged
members of the Philippine bar for they are authorized to practice only in
Sharia courts.
All attorneys whose names are in the Rolls of Attorneys of the Supreme
Court who have qualified for and have passed the bar examinations
conducted annually, taken the attorneys oath, unless otherwise disbarred
must be a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Bar Matter
No. 850 was promulgated by the Resolution of the Supreme Court En Banc
on August 22, 2000, as amended on October 2, 2001, providing for the
rules on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) for Active
Members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The members of
the IBP have to complete every three (3) years at least thirty six (36) hours
of continuing legal activities approved by the MCLE Committee. An IBP
member who fails to comply with the said requirement shall pay a noncompliance fee and shall be listed as a delinquent member of the IBP. A
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Office to implement said MCLE
was established by the Supreme Court by virtue of SC Administrative Order
No. 113-2003 which was approved on August 15, 2005 and effective
September 1, 2003 following its publication in two newspapers of general
circulation. Under the Resolution of the Court en Banc dated September
2, 2008 (Bar Matter No. 1922), the counsels MCLE Certificate of
Compliance must be indicated in all pleadings filed with the Courts.

The Supreme Court has the power to discipline the members of the bar by
disbarment or suspension based on the grounds provided in the Rules of
Court, Rule 138, sec. 27. Rule 139-B provides that the proceedings for
disbarment, suspension or discipline may be taken by the Supreme Court
motu proprio or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines upon the verified
complaint of a person. The IBP Board of Governors may, motu proprio
or upon referral by the Supreme Court or by a Chapter Board of Officers, or
at the instance of any person, initiate of any prosecute proper charges
against erring attorneys including those in government service.
6.1. Law Schools
The Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court as of July 2014 has
listed the following law schools in the Philippines which have produced
bar candidates:

*Abra Valley Colleges, Taft St., Bangued, Abra


*Adamson University, San Marcelino St., Manila
*Aemilianum College Inc., Sorsogon City
*Aklan Colleges, Kalibo Aklan
*Andres Bonifacio College, College Park, Dipolog City
*Angeles University Foundation, Mac Arthur Highway, Angeles City,
Pampanga
*Aquinas University, 2-S Kings Building, JAA Penaranda St., Legaspi City
*Aquinas University Penablanca Campus, Penablance, Cagayan
*Araullo University, Bitas, Cabanatuan City
*Arellano University, Taft Ave., cor. Menlo St, Pasay City
*Ateneo de Davao University, Jacinto St., Davao City
*Ateneo de Manila University, Rockwell Drive, Rockwell Center, Makati
City
*Batangas State University (BATSU), Rizal Ave., Batangas City
*Bicol Colleges, Daraga Albay
*BIT International College ( formerly Bohol Institute of Technology),
Tagbilaran, Bohol
*Bukidnon State College, Fortich Street, Malaybalay, Bukidnon
*Bulacan State University, Mac Arthur Highway, Malolos, Bulacan
*Cagayan State University, Andrews Campus, Tuguegarao, Cagayan
*Camarines Norte School of Law, Itomang, Talisay, Camarines Norte
*Central Philippines University, Jaro, Iloilo City
*Centro Escolar University- Makati Campus, Buendia Ave., Makati City
*Christ the King College, Calbayog City, Western Samar
*City University of Pasay, , Pasadera St., Pasay City
*Colegio dela Purisima Concepcion, 1 Arzobispo St., Roxas City, Capiz

*College of Maasim, R. Kangleon Street, Tunga-Tunga, Maasim City


*Cor Jesus College, Digos, Sacred Heart Ave., Digos City, Davao del Sur
*Cordillera Career Development College, Buyagan Poblacion, La Trinidad,
Benguet
*De La Salle University, 2401 Taft. Ave., Manila
*De La Salle University, 1962 J.P. Laurel, National Highway, Lipa City,
Batangas
Dipolog Medical Center (DMC) College Foundation Inc., Fr. Patangan
Road, Sta Filomena, Dipolog City
*Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University, San Fernando City , La
Union
*Dr. Vicente Orestes Romualdez Education Foundation Inc., Calanipawan
Road, Calanipawan, Tacloban City, Leyte
East Central Colleges
*Eastern Samar State University, Borogan, Eastern Samar
*Far Eastern University, Nicanor Reyes Sr. St., Sampaloc,Manila
Far Eastern University-De La Salle Makati, RCBC Bldg, Buendia cor Ayala
Ave., Makati
*Father Saturnino Urios University, San Francisco St. cor. J.C. Aquino
Avenue, Butuan City
Fernandez College of Arts & Technology, Gil Carlos St., Baliuag, Bulacan
*Foundation University, Dr. Miciano St., Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental
*Harvadian Colleges, San Fernando City, Pampanga
*Holy Name University, Corner Lesage & Gallares Streem, Tagbilaran City,
Bohol
International Harvardian University, Shellanger Cmpd., Bagumbayan, Sta.
Cruz, Laguna
*Isabela State University, Cauayan Campus, San Fabian, Echague,
Cauayan City, Isabela
*Jose Rizal Memorial State University, Dapitan City, Zamboanga del Norte
*Jose Rizal University, 80 Shaw Blvd., Mandaluyong City
*Josefina H. Cerilles State Collage, West Capitol Road, Pagadian City
*Laguna State Polytechnic University, Barangay Bubukal, Sta. Cruz,
Laguna
*Leyte Colleges, Zamora St., Paterno Street, Tacloban City
*Liceo de Cagayan University, Rodolfo N. Pelaez Blvd, Carmen, Cagayan de
Oro City, Misamis Oriental
Luna Goco Colleges, Calapan, Oriental Mindoro
*Lyceum of the Philippines University, 109. Leviste St., Salcedo Village,
Makati City
*Lyceum of the Philippines University
*Lyceum-Northwestern University, Tapuac, District, Dagupan City,
Pangasinan

*Manila Law College Foundation, 641 Sales St., Sta. Cruz, Manila
*Manuel L. Quezon University, 916 R. Hidalgo St., Quiapo, Manila
*Manuel S. Enverga University Foundation-Lucena, University Site,
Lucena City
*Mariano Marcos State University, Batac, Ilococ Norte
Masbate Colleges, Masbate, Masbate
*Medina Colleges, Gov. Angel N. Medina Sr. Avenue, Carmen Annex,
Ozamiz City
*Mindanao State University-Iligan, Fatima Campus, Fatima, Iligan City
*Mindanao State University-Marawi, Laurel Avenue, Marawi City
*Misamis University, Hitarion T. Feliciano Street, ., Ozamis City
Naval State University-UEP (Fomerly Naval Institute of Technology),
Naval, Biliran
*Negros Oriental State University, Kagasawan Avenue, Dumaguete City
*New Era University, No. 9 Central Avenue, St. Joseph Street, New Era,
Quezon City
*Northeastern College, Maharlika Highway, Santiago City, Isabela
*Northwestern University, Don Mariano Marcos Avenue, Laoag City
*Notre Dame University, Notre Dame Ave., Cotabato City
Our Lady of Mercy College, Borogan, Eastern Samar
*Pagadian Capitol College, Pagadian City, Zamboanga del Sur
*Palawan State University, PSU Road, Barangay Tiniguiban, Puerto
Princesa, Palawan
*Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, Intramuros, Manila
*Pan Pacific University of North Philippines, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan
*Philippine Advent College, Ramon Magsaysay, Sindangan, Zamboanga del
Norte
*Philippine Cambridge School of Law, Arts, sciences, Business, Economics
and Technology, Paliparan Site, Paliparan III, Dasmarinas, Cavite
*Philippine Christian University, Pedro Gil cor. Taft Ave., Manila
*Philippine Law School, 1942 Donado corner San Juan Street,, Pasay City
Polytechnic College of La Union. La Union
*Polytechnic University of the Philippines, A Mabini Campus, Anonas
Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila
*Ramon Magsaysay Technological University, Iba, Zambales
St. Ferdinand College, Santa Ana, Centro Iligan, Isabela
*St. Dominic Savio College, Block 1, Lot 6, Mountain Heights Subdivision,
Quirino Highway, Pangarap, Caloocan City
*Saint Louis College, National Highway, Lingsat, San Fernando City, La
Union
*St. Louis University, A. Bonifacio St., Baguio City
*St. Marys College of Tagum, Inc., National Highway, Tagum
*St. Marys University, San Vidal corner Ponce Street, Bayombong, Nueva

Vizcaya
*St. Paul School of Business and Law, Palo, Leyte
*St. Thomas More School of Law & Business, Doclotero Avenue, Tagum
City
Samar College, Catbalogan City , Samar
*San Beda College, 638 Mendiola St., San Miguel, Manila
*San Beda College-Alabang, 8 Don Manolo Blvd, Alabang Hills, Alabang
*San Pablo Colleges, Hermanos Belen Street, San Pablo City, Laguna
*San Sebastian College-Recoletos, C.M. Recto Avenue, Manila
San Sebastian College-Recoletos, IBP Bldg., Surigao City
*Silliman University, Hubbard Avenue, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental
*Southern Bicol Colleges, Mabini St., Masbate City
*Southwestern University, Villa Aznar, Urgello Street, Cebu City
*Sultan Kudarat State University, EJC Montilla Street, Tacurong City,
Sultan, Kudarat
*Tabaco Colleges, 5 Tomas Cabilles Avenue, Tabaco, Albay
*Tarlac State University, 2/F Tarlac State University Gym, Romulo Avenue,
Tarlac City
*Universidad de Manila, Cecilia Munos-Palma corner Antonio Villegas St.,
Mehan Gardens, Manila
*University of Baguio, General Luna Road, Baguio City
*University of Batangas-Batangas City Campus, Batangas City
*University of Bohol, Ma. Clara Street, Tagbilaran City, Bohol
*University of Cagayan Valley, College Ave., Tuguegarao City, Cagayan
*University of Cebu, Gov. Cuenco Avenue, Banilad, Cebu City
*University of Eastern Philippines, University Town, Catarman, Northern
Samar
*University of Iloilo, Rizal Street, Iloilo City
*University of La Sallete, Bachelor Street, Santiago City, Isabela
*University of Manila, 546 Dr. M.V. delos Santos, Manila
*University of Mindanao, Bolton St., Davao City
*University of Negros Occidental-Recoletos, Lizares St., Bacolod City
*University of Northeastern Philippines, San Roque, Iriga City, Camarines
Sur
*University of Northern Philippines, Quirino Boulevard, Vigan, Ilocos Sur
University of Northwestern Philippines, Mariano Marcos Ave., Laoag City
*University of Nueva Caceres, J. Hernandez Avenue, Naga City
*University of Pangasinan, Arellano Street, Dagupan City, Pangasinan
*University of Perpetual Help-Rizal, Alabang-Zapote Road, Pamplona, Las
Pinas City
*University of Perpetual Help System, Sto Nino, Binan, Laguna
*University of Saint La Salle, La Salle Avenue, Bacolod City
*University of San Agustin, Gen. Luna St., Iloilo City

*University of San Carlos, P. del Rosario St., Cebu City


*University of San Jose-Recoletos, P. Del Rosario Street, Cebu City
*University of Santo Tomas, Espana, Manila
*University of Southern Philippines Foundation, Salinas Drive, Lahug,
Cebu City
*University of the Cordelleras, Governor Pack Road, Baguio City
*University of the East, C.M. Recto Avenue, Manila
*University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City
*University of the Visayas, D. Jakosalem Corner Colon Street, Cebu City
Virgen de los Remedios College, Eat Bajac-Bajac, Olongapo City
*Virgen Milagrosa University Foundation, Martin P. Posadas Avenue, San
Carlos City, Pangasinan
*Western Leyte College of Ormoc City, Inc., A. Bonifacio Street, Ormoc
City
*Western Mindanao State University, Normal Road, Baliwasan,
Zamboanga City
*Xavier University, Corales Avnue., Cagayan de Oro City
The above list from the Office of the Bar Confidant does not include newly
organized law schools and/or law schools who do not have any graduate
to qualify for the annual bar examination. They however have received
accreditation from the Legal Education Board. These additional law
schools are as follows:

*Asian Development Foundation of Tacloban, Tacloban City, Leyte


*Ateneo de Zamboanga University, La Purisina St., Zamboanga City
*Kalinga-Apayao State College, Tabuk City, Kalinga
*University of Asia and the Pacific, Pearl Drive, Ortigas Center, Pasig City
*University of Batangas-Lipa City Campus, Lipa City , Batangas
*Urdaneta City University, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan
The laws schools with asterisk (*) before the name of the law school are the
accredited law school or schools offering Legal Education as of October
2014.

The following educational Association and/or Organizations:


Philippine Association of Law Deans
Philippine Association of Law Professors
Philippine Association of Law Students
6.2. Bar Associations
Integrated Bar of the Philippines :

The official organization for the legal profession is the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), established by virtue of Republic Act No. 6397. This
confirmed the power of the Supreme Court to adopt rules for the
integration of the Philippine Bar. Presidential Decree 181 (1973)
constituted the IBP into a corporate body.
There are now about 50,000 attorneys who composed the IBP. These are
the attorneys whose names are in the Rolls of Attorneys of the Supreme
Court who have qualified for and have passed the bar examinations
conducted annually, taken the attorneys oath, unless otherwise disbarred.
Membership in the IBP is compulsory. The Supreme Court in its
resolution Court En Banc dated November 12, 2002 (Bar Matter No. 1132)
and amended by resolution Court En Banc dated April 1, 2003 (Bar Matter
No. 112-2002) require all lawyers to indicate their Roll of Attorneys
Number in all papers and pleadings filed in judicial and quasi-judicial
bodies in additional to the previously required current Professional Tax
Receipt (PTR) and IBP Official Receipt or Life Member Number.
Other Bar Associations:
Philippine Bar Association is the oldest voluntary national organization of
lawyers in the Philippines which traces its roots to the Colegio de
Abogados de Filipinas organized on April 8, 1891. It was formally
incorporated as a direct successor of the Colegio de Abogados de Filipinas
on March 27, 1958.
The other voluntary bar associations are the Philippine Lawyers
Association, Trial Lawyers Association of the Philippines, Vanguard of the
Philippine Constitution, PHILCONSA, All Asia Association, Catholic
Lawyers Guild of the Philippines, Society of International Law, WILOCI,
Women Lawyers Association of the Philippines (WLAP), FIDA . The
Philippines is also a member of international law associations such as the
ASEAN Law Association , and LAWASIA.
7. Law Librarians Association
The Philippine Group of Law Librarians Inc. (PGLL ) is a national
organization of law librarians from both the government and the private
sector organized August 1980 during the 46 th General Congress of the
International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA).
Now on 35 th year, the PGLL aims to develop the competencies of law
librarians in legal research, management, the information technology and
other fields though it congresses, fora and seminars for improved library
services. The PGLL is sensitive to the latest development in the law library

field and has adopted measures conform to these developments. ASEAN


integration is the latest development in the Asean countries and the PGLL
is preparing for it. In 2014, it started its study tour to notable law libraries
in Asia, starting with Malaysia. Other members have observed the law
libraries of Singapore and other Asian countries. In 2015, it will conduct a
National Congress on Developing the Level of Competencies of Librarians
and Information Professionals Towards Asean Integration to be held on
May 6-8, 2015 wherein the law librarian of model law library is Asia is
invited.
The Association of Special Libraries of the Philippines (ASLP) is a national
organization of special libraries, including law was organized in 1954.
Through this association, law librarians can improve their networking and
competencies in other disciplines related to law.

begin page footer with address


Hauser Global Law School Program, New York University School of
Law
40 Washington Square South, New York, New York 10012-1099
Telephone: (212) 998-6691, Facsimile: (212) 995-

También podría gustarte