Consti Finals Notes

8/6/2019 Consti Finals Notes

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/consti-finals-notes 1/11

judicial power

section 1

duty, when all elements present, no discretion to exercise power or not

actual controversies, can not pose mere

involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, can not go to court without claim beinganchored on some right created by law (constitution, statutory provision, inherent claim)

correlate with section 2,

how does congress influence courts

rights which courts...

congress will define, prescribe, apportion jurisdiction of courts, what cases decided by waht courts, lawang mu.fix

jurisdiction, meaning? authority to hear and decide case

controversy, courts have power to resolve, traditional idea of judicial power

section 5,

certain cases that congress can not add/remove from certain courts without its approval andconcurrence

paragraph 1, "original" jurisdiction, comes to court at first instance

two kinds of original jurisdiction, comes to you at first instance, you are only court to decide taht

concurrent jurisdiction, comes to you at first instance, but there are also other courts that can decidethat



ambassadors (local or foreign (qualify if you can sue diplomatic offcials from foreign countries)), otherpublic ministers

if na ra'i urgency

paragraph 2, apellate jusrisdicion, decided by some other lower court

law can not be passed na to reduce appelate juris of sc without advise and concurrence of court

irreducible juris of sc,

expanded concept, grave abuse of discretion

what is grave abuse of discretion

how does it differ from the grave abuse of discretion from rules of court, rule 65

higher court to look at decisions of lower court done wih grave abuse of dicretion, reach is limited tocourrts

but in consti, not only lower couerts but actions pud on any branch or instrumentality of government

how has the court exercised expanded certiorari juris

pros and cons with vesting courts with this

how cases are decided, req in consti

review determinig constitutionality

judicial power, not necessarily constitutionality, actual case, controversy, abuse of discre

before automatic review sa asc, now,



pp vs mateo

appeal judgement of lower court convicting to penalty of rec perp to death

intermediate review by ca as subordinate court before elevating to sc, declog, decongest (many moreyears)

section 5, paragraph 2? nothing precludes requirement of going to lower court before bringong matterup to sc

fabian vs diserto

passed law not asking for sc advise, appelate sa omb, declared unconstitutional

electoral tribunal

martial law

traditional aspect of courts settling actual contriversies

change, grave abuse of discretion

product of martial law

what is grave abuse of discre, patent disregard of law virtual refusal to apply law, capricious, whimsical,arbitrary

what it is really, courts to determine

boi vs garcia

bnpp

any branch or instrumentality

bureau of investments, goccs, exec, legis



before

higher courts can review abuse of discretion, juris by lower courts

now, extended to branch and instrumentalitites

boi, sc no transfer of plant

issues of policies, if elected, semblance of will of pp

not elected, indirect confimity sa pp

counter-majoritarian courts, overriding will of those elected?

panganiban, cj, liberty and prosperity

liberty, case comes to court dealing with issue on lib, judicial activism (strictest judicial policies)

policies dealing with economic implication, isssues of eceonomic policies judicial restriant

like boi vs garcia, can not transfer investors pulled out investments

bataan

labugal, foeign comp invest 16 b p is phils to be allowed to extract minerals, mining

exec said ok ra, can be done

with restraint, granted, unless showing na grave abuse

req of how courts may decide, whther exer traditional or exp power

cases to be decided en banc

no lower than three ang mu concurr sso maj sa div 3 is 3

section 4 (2), (3)

how will they decide, form required?



sec 13, 14

reachesd in consultationdelib of all members, certification of cj,

req na if mu.dissent, write separate opinion, why, decisions change

state law on which decision is based and facts clearly and distinctly in decision

three reasons, aprise parties of the reason of the court for deciding that way

want other party to know for assailing decision on appeal or motion for recon

section 15



provision, feature in constitution would you liked changed, reexamined or consider as strength of government

cite facts, reason of position

powers of president

emergency power delegated to pres, comes from congress, if so given what kind of power? needed tocarry out declared national policy

power over foreign affairs

ratify treaties, president

senate concurs

bureau of immig, deporatation

president can admit aliens

in exer of such power, appoints ambass, ministers, consuls

power to deport aliens

power over leg

moral in character

speak at openning of each reg session

sense sona, outline to cong,recommend wwhat to be passed as law, priority measures of his/heradministration

judicial structure

section 1, judicial power shall be vested in one SC and in such lower courts as may be established by law

sc, constitutionally created



sandiganbayan, constitutionally created? no constitutionally mandated, need to pass law

sc, composed of chief justice, 14 associate justices

constitution allows sc to be divided into divisions of 3, 5, 7

but only one sc, how to reconcile this with fact nga na'i division

remaisn and functions as one body

sc, decisions of div, deci of court itself

improper na file motion to appeal en banc, not appelate within sc itself

vacancy, filled 90 days from occurence thereof

de castro vs jbc, sc, ban on midnight appointments not extend to judiciary

sense of urgency (but not legal basis)

prohibition in article 7 ra

intent of frameers, na full memebrs at all times

what is prevented is mass midnight appointment, di dao mu.happen og sa sc kai 15 ra ka members

counter arguement od dissenting opinion

cj, purposes ra of administration

senior justice acts as cj, until mka.appoint og cj

arrangement nga na sa article 7, weakest

only exception, practically useless dao ang sec 15, art 7

qualifications of sc justices

to be appointed



natural born cit

40 years of age

engaed in 15 yrs or more as judge or engaged in practice of law

law professor, dean,

cayetano vs monsod,

before, lawyer, courtroom

application of some legal knowledge

advicer od several multinational companies, legal advicer

wanted to be appointed somewhere

dissent of cruz

opinions of authorities of legal ethics

teaching, di dao practice of law

no atty-client relationship

but no sc decision pa

section 7 (3)

competence, integrity, probity and independence

insulated form politics (apponted by pres, not confirmed by comission on apointments)

constitutional requirement, for sc justices and judges of lower courts

salaries, section 10

fetaures in constitution that ensure judicial independence



fixed by law, salary of justices, judges

during theri continuance in office, their salary shall not be decreased

issue on taxes, gov, decreasing salaries

priviledges

guarantee of security of tenure

unresoveld issue sa wordings sa consti

shall, right to hold office, can not be removed

during good behavior

until they reach 70 or become incapacitated

can they be removed? yes, wa'i good behavior, mandatory retirement for justices, judges, 70

can law be passed to change age of retirement, no, kai na mn sa consti

contriversy when there is judicial reorganization

section 2, no law shall be passed reorganizing the judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its members

example, 20 rtcs in cebu city

but high filing fees, gaMAI na lng mu.file of case

reduce number of rtc, reorganize

security of tenure, removal from office, office is there, occupant is removed

sc, but if reorganize, abolition of office man, so not violation of security of tenure, kai no removal



is reorganization, unconstitutional

"undermines"

reorganize, abolish office, so ma.wa ang occupant

violated sec of tenure, can argue na no

but word use is not violates man, but undermines, need not directly violate, comes within prohibition



Documents

Consti Finals Notes