Should the Three SC Nominees for Chief Justice Have Been Interviewed by the JBC?

By by Leon L. Asa
Posted in The Lawyers Review January 2006 edition

It is consoling that the Judicial and Bar Council had narrowed down its choices for the position of Chief Justice to the three most Senior Justices, namely, Justices Reynato S. Puno, Artemio V. Panganiban, and Leonardo A. Quisumbing.

After having reached the compulsory retirement age of 70, Honorable Hilario G. Davide Jr. retired as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on 20 December 2005.

The three (3) most Senior Justices – Justices Reynato S. Puno, Artemio V. Panganiban, and Leonardo A. Quisumbing – were automatically nominated for the position of Chief Justice.

The Young Lawyers Association of the Philippines recommended Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago to the same position. Senator Santiago accepted her recommendation but a little too late. Under Section 8 of the Rules of the Judicial and Bar Council, Rule No. JBC-10 provides – In case of recommendations, the acceptance by the recommendee must be made before the deadline. Applications or recommendations filed beyond the deadline will not be honored.

Senator Santiago’s acceptance of said recommendation was submitted after the deadline, so it was consequently rejected.

JBC Member Sen. Francis N. Pangilinan moved for the extension of the deadline so that the name of Senator Santiago would be included. The JBC, however, reiterated its previous stand and denied said appeal.

Section 9 of the 1987 Constitution provides that members of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President from “a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.”

Instead of immediately sub-mitting to Malacanang the names of the three Senior Justices pursuant to Section 9, the JBC, however, planned to interview the three nominees in a public hearing on 01 December 2005.

In a letter dated 28 November 2005 addressed to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr., the twelve (12) Supreme Court Associate Justices vigorously objected to the public interview seriously contemplated by the JBC, enumerating cogent reasons for their opposition. Said letter is hereunder reproduced in its entirety:

28 November 2005

Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
Supreme Court
Manila

Dear Chief:

We write to express our alarm at the departure from established practice, one that has become part of our judicial tradition, in the selection of nominees for Chief Justice. We refer to the plan of the Judicial and Bar Council to interview, for the first time, sitting Justices of the Supreme Court nominated for Chief Justice

We do not agree with this new procedure for the following reasons:

1. Since the adoption of the 1987 Constitution, the JBC never interviewed nominees who were already incumbent Jus-tices of the Supreme Court. Thus, the JBC did not interview Chief Jus-tices Fernan, Narvasa and you. There is no sound reason to depart from this established practice.

2. The ostensible reason for interviewing the nominees is to find out how they intend to manage or administer the Judiciary, the assumption being the Chief Justice is the Chief Executive of the Judiciary. This assumption is a gross misconception. The Chief Justice is not the Chief Executive of the Judiciary or even of the Supreme Court.

Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution is clear: “The Supreme Court shall have adminis-trative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.” Section 6 of the same Article states: “The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: x x x (6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with Civil Service Law.” Section 11 of the same Article further provides: “x x x The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.”

Thus, the Supreme Court en banc, not the Chief Justice, manages and administers the Judiciary. The Supreme Court en banc, not the Chief Justice, appoints and disciplines all personnel, other than judges and justices, of the Judiciary.

If the JBC intends to interview the nominees to find out how they intend to manage or administer the Judiciary, then such interview is pointless. Besides, there are only three nominees. The JBC will have to recommend all of them in any event since the President must choose from at least three nominees.

3. The JBC should instead exa-mine the judicial philosophy of the nominees. Sitting Justices of the Court express their judicial philosophy in their written decisions, including dis-sents. The JBC should find out whether the nominee’s judicial philosophy is what is best for the nation. The Chief Justice “leads” the Court and the Judiciary not as an executive manager for he is not one, but as an intellectual leader as expressed in his judicial philosophy.

Sitting Justices nominated for Chief Justice are unlike appellate court justices nominated for the Supreme Court. A sitting Justice of the Supreme Court expresses his judicial philosophy in his written decisions. The JBC does not need to interview a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court to find out his judicial philosophy. All that the JBC needs to do is to scrutinize the decisions of the nominees. The JBC either agrees with the nominee’s judicial philosophy or not. A one-hour interview with the nominee will not change the nominees judicial philosophy.

In contrast, an appellate court justice does not necessarily express his own judicial philosophy in writing his decisions because whether he likes it or not he is bound, under stare decisis, to follow decisions of the Supreme Court. Thus, the JBC needs to interview appel-late court justices to find out their own judicial philosophy, and whether such judicial philo-sophy is for the best interest of the nation.

4. Lastly, the JBC is under the supervision of the Supreme Court. Section 8(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution states: “A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex-officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the 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.”

There is something inherently wrong when members of a subordinate body can accept or reject nominees of a superior body supervising such a subordinate body, on a matter involving the choice of presiding officer of the superior body, when the nominees all come from the superior body. Such a situation is inconsistent with the order of hierarchy found in the 1987 Constitution. Such a situation could not have been the intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution when they placed the JBC under the supervision of the Supreme Court. The established practice of automatically nominating the three most senior members of the Court for Chief Justice is more in accord with the consti-tutional provision placing the JBC under the supervision of the Supreme Court.

Consequently, we respectfully request the Chief Justice to convey to the Judicial and Bar Council our views on this important matter which we believe will have a lasting impact on the independence of the Supreme Court, a principle the 1987 Constitution zealously protects.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) Leonardo A. Quisumbing
(Sgd.) Consuelo Ynares-Santiago
(Sgd.) Angelina Sandoval Gutierrez
(Sgd.) Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez
(Sgd.) Antonio T. Carpio
(Sgd.) Renato C. Corona
(Sgd.) Conchita Carpio Morales
(Sgd.) Romeo L. Callejo, Jr.
(Sgd.) Adolfo S. Azcuna
(Sgd.) Dante O. Tinga
(Sgd.) Minita V. Chico-Nazario
(Sgd.) Cancio C. Garcia

On 01 December 2005, the date of the scheduled public interview – the JBC decided not to conduct the interview.

Quoted hereunder is the report on the meeting of the JBC on 01 December 2005:

The Council, voting 6 in favor and one against, with the Chief Justice abstaining, granted the request contained in the letter dated 28 November 2005 of the 12 SC Associate Justices NOT TO CONDUCT INTERVIEW but with vigorous and serious objections to the substantive grounds relied upon.

The grant is solely on the ground that only three have been considered for nomination and since the Constitution requires that at least three names should be submitted to Malacanang, it necessarily follows that these three have to be recommended by the JBC. The interview is moot and academic.

One of the letter-writers is the third Member of the Court to be considered for nomination.
This is only pro hac vice, not to be a precedent for future action, where more than three are nominated or where outsiders are nominated, the Council shall proceed with the public interview.

The JBC shall submit to Malacanang at the earliest opportunity three names to be considered for the position of Chief Justice in alphabetical order.

In the afternoon of 01 December 2005, the JBC forwarded the list of the nominees to Malacanang.

The position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is without question of great importance. The Judicial Depart-ment is the third branch of government which is co-equal with the Executive and Legislative Departments. The Chief Justice is the fifth in line of constitutional succession.
Would it not diminish the dignity of the Office of Chief Justice if the Chief Justice who would be appointed would be subjected to a public hearing by the Judicial and Bar Council primarily to determine his competence or his ability to administer the judiciary? As plainly stated in the said letter of the 12 SC Justices, "it is the Supreme Court en banc, not the Chief Justice that manages and administers the Judiciary." Perforce, it is not necessary to interview the nominees for Chief Justice to find out how they will manage or administer the Judiciary. The JBC already interviewed the three Justices when they first applied for the position of Associate Justice. Their experience as Associate Justices for years surely has increased their competence.

Their well-written ponencias, concurring opinions, and sometimes scathing dissenting opinions in celebrated cases are an open book and striking evidence of their competence and qualifications. Their judicial philosophy is clearly expounded in several landmark cases. It is, therefore, superfluous and an exercise in futility if said nominees would be subjected to a public interview by the Judicial and Bar Council.

Congratulations to the outgoing Honorable Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. for a job well done.

Congratulations also to the new Honorable Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban.

The Philippine Judiciary, 1999-2005 by Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.

Posted in The Lawyers Review January 2006 edition

The Twelfth Lecture under the Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. Distinguished Lecture Series delivered on 13 December 2005, 3:00 p.m., New Session Hall, Supreme Court.

My very distinguished brethren in the Supreme Court, incumbent and retired; Members of the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, and Court of Tax Appeals, incumbent and retired; judges of other courts; deans and professors of the various law schools; fellow students of law; guests; ladies and gentlemen:

I suffer from an unfortunate (or fortunate) twist of fate. The Valedictory Executive Committee headed by Mr. Justice Panganiban and the Philippine Judicial Academy headed by our very energetic and tireless Chancellor, Mme. Justice Herrera, came up with this Distinguished Lecture Series as one of the activities for my valedictory year as Chief Justice. It was intended to be a tribute for the retiring Chief Justice. Yet, apart from having been ordered to deliver the closing remarks in many of the lectures, I was ordered to deliver this last lecture in the series, not only under pain of contempt but also with a threat that the lecture series may go beyond my term with no more funding from the Court nor an assurance of a captive audience.

More than that, I was ordered to focus on the topic State of the Philippine Judiciary (SPJ) - one akin to the President’s State of the Nation Address (SONA). It would be like SONA with these main differences: (1) the SONA is delivered at the beginning of the session of congress on the fourth Monday of July of every year; and (2) the SONA covers a report on the state of the Nation for one year and focuses on the President’s vision for the incoming year. The SPJ, on the other hand, is expected to cover the term of my watch as Chief Justice, from 30 November 1998 up to today, or barely 6 days and 9 hours away from the end of my watch which is on the midnight of 19 December 2005. In a sense, it would be an accomplishment report of the Judiciary for a period covering seven (7) years and thirteen (13) days.

Since my stewardship has been primarily guided by the roadmap I have set under my vision-mission paper The DAVIDE WATCH: Leading the Philippine Judiciary and the Legal Profession Towards the Third Millenium and this document is put in detail and articulated in the Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR), the assignment given to me for this lecture is not an easy one. For, the APJR is the most comprehensive reform program ever embarked for the Philippine Judiciary, and the progress and milestones we have accomplished under it are beyond our expectations. If I would mention them in detail, I might spend many hours with you until midnight of 19 December 2005. What makes the assignment all the more difficult is that I would have to rely partly on memory. At my age, memory may not be fully reliable, although it may prove to my advantage because memory could be selective and temptation to be biased may become unavoidable. However, it is not an insurmountable task because of the demands of truth and objectivity.

Fortunately, my task this afternoon has been made much lighter by Mr. Justice Artemio V. Panganiban because when he delivered the tenth lecture under the Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. Distinguished Lecture Series last 19 October 2005, he devoted his time on the topic: The Totality of Reforms for a Transformed Judiciary. As I said in my Closing Remarks in that lecture, he removed from me at least 50% of the labor required for the preparation of my lecture. With his prior permission, his lecture is made an integral part of my lecture this afternoon.

Let me start by bringing you briefly to the DAVIDE WATCH with this vision: A Judiciary that is independent, effective and efficient, and worthy of public trust and confidence; and a legal profession that provides quality, ethical, accessible, and cost-effective legal service for the people and is able and willing to answer the call of public service. The mission and goals are (1) the delivery of speedy and fair dispensation of justice to all; (2) judicial autonomy and independence from political inter-ference; (3) improved access to judicial and legal services; (4) improved quality of external and internal inputs to the judicial process; (5) effective, efficient, and continuously improving judicial institutions; and (6) a Judiciary that conducts its business with dignity, integrity, accountability, and transparency.

Under its Policy Statement, the DAVIDE WATCH declares that, in light of the foregoing goals, the core values of the rule of law, equal justice, judicial independence, and pursuit of excellence should be preserved and at all times be predominant. It further declares and warns that "dishonesty, immorality, incompetence, inefficiency and any other form of unbecoming conduct are impermissible and will not be tolerated in the Judiciary and the legal profes-sion."
With these vision and mission as its guiding light and building on various studies, your Supreme Court approved on 8 December 2000 the Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR), whose six components are (1) Judicial Systems and Procedures, (2) Institution Develop-ment, (3) Human Resource Develop-ment, (4) Integrity Infrastructure Development, (5) Access to Justice by the Poor, and (6) Reform Support System. The APJR is the most comprehensive judicial reform program in the Philippines, which could be a model for other judiciaries.

The Philippine Judiciary has attained its present state because of, inter alia, the reforms under the APJR. In this connection, we must have a picture of what it was immediately before I assumed office as Chief Justice on 30 November 1998 and what it is now.

Judicial Posts

I shall start with the data on the number of judicial posts, incumbents, and vacancies in the courts as of 31 December 1998 and as of 30 November 2005.

As of 31 December 1998

Court - Number of Judges Position - Number of Incumbents - Vacancies
SC 15 - 15 - 0
CA 51 - 45 - 6
SB 15 - 15 - 0
CTA 3 - 3 - 0
RTC 950 - 714 - 236
SDC 5 - 2 - 3
MeTC 82 - 71 - 11
MTCC 143 - 105 - 38
MTC 424 - 275 - 149
MCTC 475 - 265 - 210
SCC 51 - 19 - 32


As of 30 November 2005
Court - Number of Judges Position - Number of Incumbents - Vacancies
SC 15 15 0
CA 69 66 3
SB 15 14 1
CTA 6 6 0
RTC 952 783 169
SDC 5 0 5
MeTC 82 67 15
MTCC 205 156 49
MTC 388 233 155
MCTC 470 224 246
SCC 51 29 22

It can be gleaned from these figures that the vacancies in the second level courts have dramatically been reduced, with 67 RTCs filled up already. Vacancies in the first level courts have, however, increased. The promotion for the second level courts of many first level courts caused this phenomenon.

The vacancy rates in these courts as of 30 November 2005 are

SC - 0%
CA - 4.34%
SB - 6.67%
CTA - 0%
RTC - 17.75%
SDC - 100%
MeTC - 18.29%
MTCC - 25.85%
MTC - 39.95%
MCTC - 54.34%
SCC - 43.14%

Number of Judges and Court Personnel of the courts of the First and Second Levels

As of 31 December 1998, we had 1,451 judges and as of 30 November 2005, 1,492 judges — meaning we have 41 more judges now. Assisting our judges in these courts of the first and second levels are our court personnel (from Clerks of Court to the lowliest employee). We had 22,780 court personnel as of 31 December 1998. As of 30 November 2005 we have 23,311, which means that we have 531 more lower court employees.

In the Supreme Court, we had 1,796 officials and employees as of 31 December 1998 and 2,245 as of 30 November 2005. The increase in the number of SC employees is 449. All in all, the increase in the number of judges and SC and lower court employees is 1,021.

Cases Pending and Filed

The following table will show the number of cases pending as of 31 December 1998, the number of cases filed from January 1999 up to 15 November 2005, and the number of cases pending as of 15 November before all courts:

Courts - Pending Cases as of Dec 1998 - Cases Filed From Jan 1, 1999-Nov 15, 2005 - Pending Cases as of Nov 15, 2005
SC - - -
CA 19,173 - 83,630* - 22,680*
SB 3,272 - 2,965 - 2,251
CTA 285 - 1,845 - 831
RTC 225,188 - 1,272,603 - 350,162
MeTC 183,024 - 755,863 - 146,370
MTCC 177,935 - 659,518 - 119,876
MTC 121,214 - 508,019 - 85,840
MCTC 64,153 - 339,610 - 65,366
SDC 182 - 232 - 45
SCC 227 - 2,245 - 273

Total 771,923 - 3,538,090 - 767,932

Laying the Groundwork for Reforms

The initial implementation of the reform program was not without great pains. Convincing the stakeholders of the justice system about the urgency of transforming and reforming the Judiciary as envisioned in THE DAVIDE WATCH and in the APJR was a herculean task. Efforts at reforms are often met by resistance – not because the reforms are not good, but because of the sacrifices demanded and the burden of adjustments that follows.

The first steps involved the preparation of the minds and hearts of the stakeholders, especially of those in the Judiciary itself. Needless to say, their inner transformation is vital for the success of the pursuit of the other reform activities and projects. Thus, we laid the groundwork to attune the psychological, intellectual, ethical, moral and even the spiritual moorings of the judges and court officials and personnel toward the achievement of these goals. Our early resolutions, circulars, or orders sought to accomplish these ends by (1) directing the enhancement of the dignity of courts as temples of justice and promoting respect for their officials and employees; (*1) (2) requiring strict observance of working hours and imposing disciplinary sanctions for absenteeism and tardiness;(*2) (3) requiring prompt action on letters and requests and the public’s personal transactions;(*3) and (4) encouraging the attendance of court officials and personnel in training, seminars, workshops, and conferences conducted in the Philippines.(*4)

As to the judges, in particular, various resolutions and circulars were issued (1) requiring strict observance of session hours of trial courts and effective management of cases to ensure their speedy disposition;(*5) (2) directing the exercise of utmost caution, prudence, and judiciousness in the issuance of TROs and writs of preliminary injunctions (*6) and imposing a ban on the issuance of TROs and writs of preliminary injunctions in cases involving government infrastructure projects;(*7) (3) granting incentives to judges who are given additional duty of hearing and deciding cases of other branches of their courts or of other courts of the same level; (*8) (4) increasing the expense allowance of executive judges; (*9) (5) providing guidelines for qualifying for judicial office;(*10) (6) granting automatic permanent total disability benefits to heirs of Justices and judges who die while in actual service;(*11) and (7) prescribing measures to protect members of the Judiciary from baseless and unfounded administrative complaints. (*12)

Institutionalization of Personnel Mechanisms

We institutionalized personnel mechanisms both for the Supreme Court and the lower courts. The Supreme Court created the Performance Evaluation Review Committee (PERC) on 19 June 2000, (*13) and the Personnel Development Committee (PDC) (*14) on 14 November 2000. On 4 May 2001, the Supreme Court approved the Policies and Guidelines in Human Resource Development Programs submitted by the PDC. (*15)

On 21 August 2001 and 19 September 2001, the Court established the Merit Selection and Promotion Plans (MSPP) for the Supreme Court (*16) and for the lower courts,(*17) respectively. The objective of the MSPP is to establish a system that is characterized by strict observance of the merit, fitness, and equality principles in the selection of employees for appointment to positions in the career service and to create equal employment opportunities to all those qualified and career advancement in the Supreme Court or the Judiciary. On 23 January 2003, the Chief Justice approved the System of Ranking Positions.

Earlier, or on 18 September 2001, the Court created a Grievance Committee,(*18) which thereafter prepared the Grievance Machinery (*19) and was tasked to implement the provisions thereof. From its creation up to the present, the Committee has received and acted on only eight complaints or grievances.

Capability-Building and Career Enhancement

For the Supreme Court, the Employee Training Development Division of the Office of Administrative Services has conducted various training courses on values development and public service, ethics and accountability, supervisory development courses, team building, service enhancement delivery, and effective leadership. Apart from in-house trainings, court officials and employees have been authorized to avail themselves of other human resource development programs.

Specifically, the Court has approved the participation of a total of 251 court officials and employees to local and 25 to foreign training, workshops, seminars, or conferences. It has also authorized the availment by 4 employees of local scholarships for masteral degrees (1 in 2001, 2 in 2002, and 1 in 2004), by 11 employees of foreign scholarships,(*20) and by 46 employees of study leave to take the bar or board examinations. Likewise, on 20 August 2004, the Court approved the Policies and Guidelines on the Capacity-Building Plan in connection with the implementation of the APJR.(*21) This year, the Chief Justice entered into a Partnering Agreement with the Philippines-Australia Human Resource Development Facility (PAHRDF) for a grant for capability-building of judicial personnel.

For the lower courts, the PHILJA has conducted capacity-building and career enhancement programs for judges and court personnel of the lower courts. Moreover, hundreds of employees have availed of the study leave to take the bar and board examinations. One judge and two court employees are now abroad on a foreign scholarship.

Cultivation or Enhancement of Values and Virtues

Topping all measures to enhance ethical and moral principles were the promulgation by the Supreme Court of the New Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (*22) and the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel,(*23) both of which took effect on 1 June 2004. The first enshrines six canons: (1) independence, (2) integrity, (3) impartiality, (4) propriety, (5) equality, and (6) competence and diligence. The second underscores four canons: (1) fidelity to duty, (2) confidentiality, (3) conflict of interest, and (4) performance of duties. As of the end of October 2005, we had already conducted 20 seminars on the New Code of Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary participated by a total of 1,124 judges, and 69 seminars on the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel participated by a total of 9,575 employees. The American Bar Association Asia Law Initiative has been helping us bear the costs for the seminars.

The main thrusts of these projects and activities are inner transformation; development of attitudes; cultivation of values and virtues demanded of the public trust character of public office; and recognition of excellence for loyalty, devotion to duty, and integrity.

Establishment of Awards and Incentives Programs

In tandem with the capacity-building and career enhancement programs, we instituted on 29 March 2001 the Program on Awards and Incentives for Service Excellence (PRAISE)(*24) to formulate policies and procedures for the development, administrative monitoring, and evaluation of the awards and incentives system of the Supreme Court.(*25)

Moreover, we have the Chief Justice Awards for Outstanding Service in the Judiciary,(*26) which was established on 9 October 2002 by the Chief Justice.(*27) These awards, given annually, are for court personnel holding positions below that of Clerk of Court and are funded by a part of the cash prize awarded to the Chief Justice by the Ramon Magsaysay Award Foun-dation as the 2002 Awardee for Government Service.

We have likewise institutionalized the Judicial Excellence Awards Program for Judges and Clerks of Court by creating a Committee on Judicial Excellence. Awarding ceremonies are held annually. This year’s was held yesterday, 12 December 2005.

The Supreme Court likewise participates in the national awards on search for deserving employees given by the Civil Service Commission.

Providing Monetary and Other Benefits

As material or monetary incentives which undoubtedly contribute largely to the efficiency of officials and personnel, the Chief Justice has authorized the release on a monthly basis of the 80% of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) allotted for additional cost of living allowance. He has likewise authorized the granting to all officials and personnel of the Supreme Court and the lower courts of (1) emergency economic assistance, pursuant to his authority under Joint Resolution No. 90 of the Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group, the latest of which was given last 18 November 2005 in an amount equivalent to ½ month of the basic salary but in no case less than P5,000;(*28) and (2) Christmas cash gifts, the latest of which was released last 22 November 2005 at the rate of P20,000 for the Supreme Court Justices and personnel, and P7,500 for the judges and personnel of the lower courts.(*29) Pursuant to his authority under R.A. No. 9227, the Chief Justice has authorized the grant of certain amounts from the current surplus in the collections for the special allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ) to those in the Judiciary who are not receiving SAJ or its equivalent, the latest of which was released last 2 December 2005 in the amount of P4,000 each.(*30) Moreover, loyalty and productivity benefits are regularly released.

It may not be amiss to mention that during my tenure, five more shuttle buses were purchased for use by Court employees. To date, the Court has ten shuttle buses. Overseeing their operations and maintenance is the SC Shuttle Bus Committee, which was organized last 18 March 2004.

Discipline of Judges

Upon the other hand, we have been relentless in our campaign against the unfit and misfits in the Judiciary.

From 1986 to 1998 or for a period of 13 years, 256 RTC judges and 313 judges of courts of the first level were imposed disciplinary sanctions consisting of admonition, censure, reprimand, fine, suspension from office, or dismissal from the service. Of the 256 RTC judges, 35 were dismissed from the service; 7, suspended from office; and 89, fined. Of the 313 judges of courts of the first level, 37 were dismissed from the service; 9, suspended from office; and 135, fined.

From January 1999 to 15 November 2005 or for a period of only 7 years, 375 judges of the RTC and 372 judges of courts of the first level were imposed disciplinary sanctions. Of the 375 RTC judges, 21 were dismissed from the service; 21, suspended from office; and 227, fined. Of the 372 judges of the courts of the first level, 27 were dismissed from the service; 20, suspended from office; and 231, fined.

Discipline of Court Personnel

From 1986 to 1998, or for a period of thirteen (13) years, 529 personnel were imposed disciplinary sanctions, with 107 dismissed from the service, 90 suspended from office, and 134 fined. From 1999 to 15 November 2005 or for a period of only 7 years, 862 personnel suffered the same fate, with 114 dismissed from the service, 159 suspended from office, and 209 fined.

Even the personnel in the Supreme Court were not spared from our campaign against misfits. From 1999 up to November 2005, a total of 452 employees were administratively sanctioned. Of these, 15 were dismissed from the service; 107, suspended from office; 7, fined; 211, reprimanded; 10, dropped from the roll; 95, warned; and 5, admonished.

Creation and Enhancement of Court Offices

To implement the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) program, the Court, in its Resolution of 5 August 2003 in A.M. No. 01-7-08-SC, established the MCLE Office. That office is now operational.

We have also strengthened the organizational structure and administra-tive set-up of the PHILJA as the education arm of the Supreme Court.31 Its major accomplishments were reported in the Ninth Lecture under the Chief Justice Davide, Jr. Distinguished Lecture Series held on 29 September 2005. What must be stressed is that from 1996 to 2004, the PHILJA conducted a total of 475 seminars or workshops with 70,518 participants consisting of Justices, Judges, court personnel, lawyers, and others. For 2005, it has conducted 109 seminars or workshops involving a total of 12,907 participants, of whom 111 were Justices; 2,643 were judges; and 10,153 were personnel.

On 27 April 2004, the Supreme Court promulgated a Resolution (*32) strengthening the role and capacity of the JBC and establishing offices therein so that the JBC can more effectively and efficiently exercise the constitutional mandate to recommend to the Judiciary only men and women of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence. On 5 May 2005, the Department of Budget and Management approved the new staffing patterns of the JBC with some modifications. And, just last month, the Resolution of the Court was partly implemented with the appointment of new Chiefs of Offices.

The Court has also recognized that the scope and extent of the reform program demand a permanent structure adequately staffed by full-time personnel skilled in project management and development. Considering that the program management tasks will considerably intensify and increase, the Chief Justice, pursuant to the authority vested in him to create the plantilla positions in the PMO,(*33) promulgated on 5 May 2005 a Memorandum Order (*34) rectifying the nature of the appointments to the plantilla positions in the Program Management Office from coterminous to permanent or regular, amending for the purpose Administrative Order No. 71-2001.(*35) Recently, some of the incumbents who met the qualification standards approved by the Civil Service Commission were appointed to the permanent positions in the PMO.

Last 18 October 2005, per an En Banc Resolution (*36) the Court also created the Office of the Halls of Justice as an additional organic office in the Office of the Court Administrator owing to the nature and increasing volume of workload in the repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of the Halls of Justice nationwide. An officer-in-charge of this new office was recently designated.

Last 8 November 2005, in another En Banc resolution (*37) the Court converted from coterminous to permanent the positions in the Public Information Office (PIO). Just like the PMO, a permanent PIO is needed to bring the Court closer to the people by disseminating news about the Court and its decisions, especially in cases of great national significance.

Computerization of Courts

As of 31 December 1998 our courts of the first and second levels had only 427 computers. As on 22 November 2005, they have 2,915 computers. In his report submitted to me last 3 December 2005 by our MISO Chief, Atty. Ivan Uy, every court has at least one computer. I need not elaborate to you the importance of computers for our courts.

The computerization of the courts nationwide may now be considered completed in the sense that, as I earlier stated, each court has a computer. The next wave of distribution would be the delivery of additional units to replace unserviceable ones or to meet the demands of efficiency and effectiveness. The next step would be to interconnect all these computers in a large network called Wide Area Network (WAN) to facilitate communications and exchange of documents between the various courts all over the archipelago. We have initiated this first step, as a pilot project, by connecting via DSL internet 400 justices and judges in the National Capital Judicial Region.

Through this network, the judges will be able to access vital court information through either "push" or "pull" technology. By "push," the Supreme Court and its officials may transmit information by e-mail and text messaging to the judges and court personnel. By "pull," the judges may "download" an information they need from the Court’s website. Eventually, through this network, the judges will be able to access the latest decisions of the Supreme Court published in the electronic Library System, which is now in place. With the DSL, we can move forward too with our piloted Case Administration Management Infor-mation System (CAMIS) project.

It is also worth mentioning that as reported by Atty. Ivan Uy, we have already installed tele-video conferen-cing facilities in selected family courts. This allows "vulnerable witnesses," such as young children who are victims of sexual abuse, to testify in a special room inside a court filled with toys and other pleasant objects. In this way, the vulnerable witnesses are spared of the trauma of testifying in a courtroom filled with adults, including the accused, while narrating their horrible experience at the hands of the accused.

Moreover, during my Watch, the PHILJA has launched and initiated distance learning program, wherein judges can participate in continuing judicial education courses in the comfort of their respective homes or in their offices by logging into online courses offered by PHILJA.

Construction or Renovation of Supreme Court Buildings or Offices

The construction of the SC Centennial Building ran from November 1998 to June 2000, and the interior fit-out was completed in May 2002. Following it were renovations of the Main Session Hall and other areas in the SC main Building, as well as the SC Baguio Cottages. Also constructed were the 5-storey SC-CA Multi-Purpose Building, as well as two new Baguio Cottages for use of other justices and duplex cottages for use of employees and other retired justices. Repairs and renovations of damaged areas and fixtures of both the Old and New SC Building were also undertaken.

Construction and Renovation of Halls of Justice for the Lower Courts

Our courts of the first and second levels are housed in Halls of Justice constructed under the Justice System Infrastructure Program (JUSIP) of the Department of Justice or in courthouses provided by the various local govern-ment units (LGU) or in municipal buildings owned by the LGUs. In a Memorandum Agreement entered into between the DOJ and the Supreme Court, the ownership of all the buildings that have been completely constructed under the JUSIP, including the land on which they stand, were transferred to the Court.

As of 31 December 1998, we had 170 Halls of Justice stations and 188 Halls of Justice buildings. From January 1999 to 15 November 2005, we added 42 Halls of Justice stations and 45 Halls of Justice buildings. Twenty two (22) more Halls of Justice stations and 22 Halls of Justice buildings are under construction under the JUSIP or under the Court’s JRSP or UNDP-EC Projects.

Before December 1998, the ownership or administration of 32 courthouses built or owned by LGUs was transferred to the DOJ. From December 1998 to 15 November 2005 the ownership or administration of 20 courthouses built by LGUs was, in turn, transferred to the Supreme Court.

To summarize, we have 257 completed Halls of Justice stations and 285 Halls of Justice buildings. Under construction under either are 22 Halls of Justice stations and 22 Halls of Justice Building.

Major Institutional Reforms

Now in place, as part of our accomplishments, are revisions of our Rules of Court specifically the Rules on Criminal Procedure; Electronic Evidence; rules on the conduct of pre-trial, use of deposition, discovery measures, enhanced pre-trial pro-ceedings, and mediation; and special rules on examination of a child witness, protection of juveniles in conflict with the law, adoption, search and seizure in civil cases for infringement of intellectual property rights, intra-corporate controversies, and violence against women and children. Only last 15 November 2005, the Court approved the Rule of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture, Asset Preservation, and Freezing of Monetary Instrument, Property, or Proceeds Representing, Involving, or Relating to an Unlawful Activity or Money Laundering Offense Under Republic Act No. 9160, as Amended.(*38)

The Court likewise approved last 21 November 2005 the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals. Much earlier, it approved the Revised Rules of the Court of Appeals and of the Sandiganbayan.

All these revisions of the Rules of Court and the Revised Rules of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, and the Court of Appeals are aimed at, among other things, the expeditious disposition of cases or proceedings.

The Legal Profession During the Davide Watch

As stated earlier, the DAVIDE WATCH envisions a legal profession that provides quality, ethical, accessible, and cost-effective legal service to our people and is willing and able to answer the call to public service.

Lawyers are officers of the court and indispensable partners of the court in the administration of justice. It is primarily for this reason that the Constitution vests upon the Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.(*39)

As of 31 December 1998, 43,314 lawyers were admitted to the Bar; and from 1999 to the present 8,060 more lawyers have been admitted to the Bar.

It is inspiring to note that the Integrated Bar of the Philippines has considerably improved its image and has been serious in pursuing the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Program its various projects on legal aide, jail decongestions, and the protection of the environment. And, significantly, many lawyers are now applying for judicial posts.

Upon the other hand, we have been relentless in our campaign to uphold the Code of Professional Responsibility and demand utmost fidelity to the Lawyer’s Oath. Records at the Office of the Bar Confidant disclose that from 1950 to 1998 – or in 48 years – 50 lawyers were disbarred. But from 1999 up to November 2005 – or in 7 years, we have these figures:

Disbarred – 28
Suspended from the practice of law – 169
Reprimanded – 63
Admonished – 60
Censured – 5
Warned – 10

Some Landmark Decisions of the Supreme Court

During the period from 1999 to 2005, the Supreme Court has established doctrines protecting and strengthening democratic institutions; preserving the Rule of Law; enriching Philippine jurisprudence on constitutional law or principles, such as, on separation of powers; enhancing good governance; and contributing in no small measure to the economic growth and development and national stability.

A. Enriching Political Law Doctrines

In its En Banc decision of 2 March 2001 in Estrada v. Desierto (*40) and Estrada v. Macapagal-Arroyo,(*41) the Court declared constitutional the assumption on 20 January 2001 of then Vice-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the Philippines after she took her oath of office at noon of that date at the EDSA Shrine. It sustained the legitimacy of her government and pronounced that former President Joseph Estrada did not enjoy immunity from suit with respect to criminal acts committed during his incumbency.

In Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary,(*42) the Court sustained Procla-mation No. 427 and General Order No. 4 issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on 27 July 2003 at the height of the take-over by 323 junior officers and enlisted men of the Armed Forces of the Philippines of the Oakwood Premier Apartments in Ayala Center, Makati City. It ruled that the said issuances declaring a "state of rebellion" and calling out the AFP to suppress the rebellion were valid exercise of the President’s power as Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief.

In Francisco v. House of Representatives43 involving the impeachment complaint by the House of Representatives against Chief Justice Davide, the Court ruled that its constitutional judicial power includes the duty to determine the validity of the exercise of congressional discretion. It declared that Sections 16 and 17 of the House Impeachment Rules contravene the constitutional provision on when impeachment is deemed initiated for purposes of applying the constitutional prohibition against the filing of an impeachment proceedings against the same impeachable officer within a one-year period. The filing of this impeachment complaint was the greatest challenge to the independence of the Judiciary. It was primarily provoked or triggered by the refusal of the Chief Justice to appear before the committee of the House of Repre-sentatives for an investigation into alleged irregularities in the adminis-tration of the Judiciary Development Fund. The Chief Justice had denounced the investigation as an unprecedented breach of the doctrine of separation of powers, attack on judicial indepen-dence, and abuse of the rules on investigation in aid of legislation.

In Pimentel v. Office of the Executive Secretary,44 the Court ruled that the President or Office of the Executive Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs may not be compelled by mandamus to transmit a signed copy of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to the Senate for its concurrence in accordance with Section 21 of Article VII of the Constitution. The decision to submit the treaty to the Senate for ratification is within the sole discretion of the President, which the Court cannot encroach through a writ of mandamus.

In Central Bank Employees Association v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,45 the Court declared that an initially valid law may become unconstitutional when its continued operation violates the equal protection clause in view of subsequent laws.

In GSIS v. Montesclaros,46 the Court declared unconstitutional, for being discriminatory and violative of the due process and equal protection of law clauses, Section 18 of PD No. 1146 disallowing entitlement to survivorship pension of the dependent spouse if the marriage to the pensioner was contracted within three years before the pensioner qualified for pension.

B. Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Press

In ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corpo-ration v. COMELEC,47 the Court held that an exit poll is part of the freedom of expression, the conduct of which may not be restrained, but may only be regulated by the COMELEC.

In Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. COMELEC,48 the Court struck down as unconstitutional Section 5.4 of R.A. No. 9006 (the Fair Elections Act) prohibiting the publication of surveys affecting national and local candidates within 15 and 7 days, respectively, before an election. That provision was held to constitute as a prior restraint on freedom of speech, of expression, and of the press.

In its Resolution of 29 June 2001 in A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC, the Court did not allow radio-TV coverage of the trial by the Sandiganbayan of the plunder case against former President Joseph E. Estrada because such coverage would affect the rights of the accused; however, on motion for reconsideration, the Court allowed an audio-visual recording of the trial for documentary purposes.

In Filipinas Radio Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. AGO Medical and Educational Center-Bicol Christian College of Medicine,49 the Court ruled that radio broadcasters are liable for damages arising from libelous broadcasting if not backed by facts or if done in violation of the Radio Code.

C. Sovereign or Diplomatic Immunity

In Republic of Indonesia v. Vinzon,50 the establishment of diplomatic mission by a sovereign State was held to be an act jure imperii that encompasses the maintenance and upkeep of the mission. When Indonesia did so in the Philippines by entering into a maintenance contract with respon-dent, it was acting in pursuit of a sovereign activity.

In Minucher v. Court of Appeals,51 the Court held that foreign agents operating within a territory may be clothed with diplomatic immunity from suit as long as they act within the directives of the sending state.

D. Rights of an Accused

On this topic, the Supreme Court has ruled that in rape cases, the presumption of moral ascendancy of a father over his child cannot ipso facto lead to the conclusion that intimidation was present. The presumption of moral ascendancy cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence.52

In People v. Valdez,53 the Court refused to apply "the plain view" doctrine to a situation where the police found an open field of marijuana, which the accused admitted to have planted. That doctrine applies only when the police was not searching for evidence against the accused but inadvertently came upon the incriminating object.

With respect to the right to counsel, the Court, in People v. Tomaquin,54 held that a lawyer-barangay chairman in the place where the crime was committed is a person in authority charged with keeping the peace in the community, and cannot therefore be an independent counsel. Thus an extraju-dicial confession of an accused with the assistance of such lawyer is inadmissible in evidence for having been executed without the assistance by an independent counsel.

In People v. Genosa,55 the defense of "battered wife syndrome" in parricide cases was considered in the context of self-defense.

On the probative value of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), the Court, in People v. Yatar,56 had the occasion to rule that where there are no eyewitnesses to the commission of rape with homicide, the DNA taken from the semen found in the victim’s organ may be the basis for identification and culpability of the accused.

In the leading case of People v. Mateo,57 the Court decided to transfer to the Court of Appeals all criminal cases before it for automatic review pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659,58 or on regular appeals where the penalty imposed by the trial court is either reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. This action of the Court is based on its rule-making prerogative under the Constitution and is aimed at providing another level of appellate review to minimize errors of judgment.

E. Appeal in Cases of Acquittal of the Accused

In Merciales v. Court of Appeals,59 the prosecution deliberately refused to present the sole eyewitness who had availed of the Witness Protection Program, but who was not discharged by the court as one of the accused. This resulted to the acquittal of all the accused. The Court ruled that the acquittal was without regard to due process of law and was, therefore, null and void. Thus, the private complainant could bring an action questioning the judgment of acquittal without placing the accused in double jeopardy.

F. Recovery of Ill-gotten Wealth

In Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan and Ferdinand Marcos,60 the Court En Banc ruled that properties found to be ill-gotten may be forfeited under R.A. No. 1379 through a summary procedure. Since the Marcoses’ Swiss deposit of US$627,608,544.91 as of 31 August 2000 was admitted by the Marcoses to be considerably out of proportion to their known lawful income and was not shown to have been lawfully acquired by them, it was forfeited in favor of the Government.

G. Government Contracts

In the decision of 1 December 2004 in La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Associa-tion, Inc. v. Ramos,61 the Court overturned, upon a motion for reconsideration, its previous decision and sustained the constitutionality of the Mining Act of 1995 (R.A. No. 7942). In brief, it ruled that the constitutional provision providing that the exploration, development, and utilization of the natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State allows the service contracts with foreign corporations which operate and manage extractive enterprises under the Philippine Mining Act of 1995. Full control and supervision by the State does not preclude the legitimate exercise of management prerogatives by the foreign contractor. Section 4 of the Act affirms the State’s control over mining activities, even as it provides a mechanism of inspection and visitorial rights over mining operations and institutes reportorial requirements. Under the law, the State possesses the means by which it can have the ultimate word in the operation of the enterprise, set directions and objectives, and detect deviations and noncompliance by the contractor, as well as the capability to enforce compliance and to impose sanctions.

In Agan v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc.,62 the Court declared invalid for two reasons the contract for the operation of the Ninoy Aquino International Passenger Terminal III: (1) the rule on public bidding was not complied with; and (2) there were substantial variances between the conditions under which the bids were invited and those which were stipulated in the contract executed after the award.

In the earlier case of Chavez v. Public Estate Authority,63 the Court invalidated the amended joint venture agreement to transfer the ownership of the Freedom Islands and to reclaim submerged portions surrounding the islands in favor of the AMARI Coastal Bay and Development Corporation on the following grounds: (1) the agreement was entered into without public bidding; and (2) the agreement was contrary to Section 3, Article XII of the Constitution, which prohibits alienation of lands of public domain to private corporations except by lease.

H. Taxation

In its decision of 1 September 2005 in the so-called Expanded Value-Added Tax (E-VAT) Cases,64 the Court sustained the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9337,65 which imposes EVAT on certain goods and services.

In Republic of the Philippines v. MERALCO (*66) the Court ruled that income taxes paid by MERALCO are not part of its operating expenses, and hence they must be borne by MERALCO alone and should not be passed to its customers.

The case of Commission on Internal Revenue v. The Estate of Benigno Toda, Jr.,67 deals with tax evasion. In that case, the tax planning scheme adopted by a corporation consisted of two sales of the same property in one day: the first sale was subjected to 35% corporate income tax and the second, to only 5% individual capital gains tax. Treating the two sale transactions as a single sale by the corporation, the Court held that the intermediary transaction to the conduit, which was intended as a tax shelter designed to mislead the BIR, constituted tax evasion.

In John Hay People’s Alternative Coalition v. Lim,68 the Court reiterated the constitutional principle that tax exemption can only be granted by Congress; hence the grant of tax exemption by the President through Presidential Proclamation No. 420 was void. This principle was recently reiterated in Coconut Oil Refiners Association v. Hon. Torres.69

Cases Involving the COMELEC

Many cases affecting the power and other actions of the COMELEC were decided from 1999 to date.

The COMELEC’s independence was upheld in Macalintal v. COMELEC,70 where the Court declared that Congress went beyond the scope of its authority in creating a Joint Congressional Oversight Committee in connection with the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003, which undermines such independence.

In COMELEC v. Español,71 the Court sustained the authority of the COMELEC to exempt from prose-cution persons charged with vote-buying, vote-selling, and conspiracy to bribe voters who volunteer to give information and testify on any information under Section 28 of R.A. No. 6648.
In Buac v. COMELEC,72 the Court ruled that the COMELEC has jurisdiction over controversies involving the conduct of plebiscites and the annulment of its results. And in Chavez vs. COMELEC73 it sustained COME-LEC Resolution No. 6520 proscribing the continued display of the product endorsements by individuals after filing their certificate of candidacy and before the start of the campaign period. But, in Brillantes v. COMELEC,74 the Court declared unconstitutional COMELEC Resolution No. 6712 providing general instructions for the electronic trans-mission and consolidation of advanced results of the 10 May 2004 elections.

Two contracts entered into by the COMELEC were likewise nullified by the Court. In COMELEC v. Judge Quijano-Padilla,(*75) the contract for the implementation of the Voters’ Regis-tration and Identification System (VRIS) which envisioned a compu-terized database system for voter registration was voided for failure to observe the constitutional requirement that "no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law." Also, in Information Technology of the Philippines v. COMELEC76 the contract for an automated election system awarded by the COMELEC was nullified for being violative of the policy on public bidding. The contract was awarded to a bidder which should have been disqualified; and worse, it permitted the same bidder to change and alter the subject contract, thereby allowing a substantive amendment without bidding.

The other landmark decisions promulgated by the Court during my Watch are too numerous to mention. However much I want to discuss them with you, I rather do not, lest I would further tax your attention span.

The report I have just made is now interlaced with the great story of the Filipino destiny. One thing for sure is that I have given my best. I have drawn out to unthinkable thresholds all my faculties and powers with which God has blessed me.

There have been times when the activities of a public man like me can be routine, unexciting, tedious, and dull. But time has a way of making them divine, soaking one with the felt sympathy of the gentle, quiet forces of an unimaginable cosmos. I have aimed at a complete national life, a life unified by purpose, accomplishment, selfless sacrifice, and beatified by a rare, divine fire that can lift me up towards that elegant miracle. My public life has been an unspeakable, incommunicable experience. It is a feeling of that exalted joy of the life-long struggle to find my place in the inscrutable designs of the Almighty. I can only do every act in the name of holiness. I cannot count blessings. I can only pursue a ministry. For, the edification of the temple of justice is not a profession, but a ministry.

In our youth, we all learned that life can be a very passionate thing. I have tried to impart a vision. I have tried to inspire the Filipino spirit. I have attempted to decipher the infinite, and then after catching a glimpse of it, I hurled myself towards it. All we can do thereafter melts into the stream of the past. But we demand a record, a recitation of the human endeavor. We have it. And it is for me to bear the report to those who succeed us.

I now pass the great torch, my living legacy, to you, and to whom I subordinate my heart. The chronicle of your Supreme Court under my watch has now become a fine, magnificent memory. It is now the time to marshal my energies elsewhere, bearing the same fire that moved me when I first began.

As I leave the portals of this institution, which I have loved so much, I take the pride and comfort of having succeeded in laying the groundwork towards its transformation into what I have envisioned: a Judiciary that is independent, effective and efficient, and worthy of public trust and confidence.

Thank you. God bless us all!

Footnotes:
1 Administrative Circular No. 1-99.
2 Administrative Circular No. 2-99.
3 Administrative Circular No. 8-99.
4 Administrative Circular No. 11-99.
5 Administrative Circular No. 3-99.
6 Administrative Circular No. 7-99.
7 Administrative Circular No. 11-2000.
8 A.M. No. 99-1-04-SC.
9 A.M. No. 99-1-06-SC.
10 A.M. No. 99-7-07-SC.
11 A.M. No. 02-12-01-SC.
12 A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC.
13 Administrative Order No. 80-2000.
14 A.M. No. 00-10-08-SC.
15 A.M. No. 01-4-10-SC.
16 Administrative Circular No. 37-2001A.
17 Administrative Circular No. 50-2001.
18 Administrative Circular No. 23-2001.
19 A.M. No. 01-6-04-SC.
20 3 in 2001 (1-YLP-Japan and 2 Humphrey Fellowship Program); 8 in 2005 under the PAHRDF.
21 Administrative Circular No. 39-2004.
22 A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC.
23 A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC.
24 Administrative Circular No. 22-2001.
25 The awards given by the Supreme Court under the PRAISE program are (1) Model Employee Award, (2) Gantimpala Agad Award, (3) Exemplary Behavior Award, (4) Cost Economy Measure Award, and (5) Service Award.
26 There are six awardees, the Outstanding Employees of (1) Supreme Court, (2) Court of Appeals, (3) Sandiganbayan, (4) Court of Tax Appeals, (5) courts of the first level, and (6) courts of the second level, with cash awards of P40,000 each for this year and P30,000 each for 2004. The awarding ceremonies for this year was held on 9 December 2005 at the new Session Hall of the Supreme Court.
27 Memorandum Order No. 31-2002.
28 Memorandum Order No. 63-2005.
29 Memorandum Order No. 64-2005.
30 Memorandum Order No. 68-2005.
31 A.M. No. 01-1-04-SC, 24 February 2004.
32 A.M. No. 03-11-16-SC(2).
33 Resolution in A.M. No. 01-7-09-SC, 17 July 2001.
34 Memorandum Order No. 20-2005.
35 Issued by the Chief Justice pursuant to his authority under A.M. No. 01-7-09-SC.
36 A.M. No. 05-10-12-SC.
37 A.M. No. 05-11-03-SC.
38 A.M. No. o5-11-04-SC.
39 Sec. 5(5), Article VIII.
40 G.R. Nos. 146710-15, 353 SCRA 452.
41 G.R. No. 146738, 353 SCRA 452.
42 G.R. Nos. 159085 and companion cases, 3 February 2004, 421 SCRA 656.
43 G.R. No. 160261, and companion cases, 10 November 2003, 415 SCRA 44.
44 G.R. No. 158088, 6 July 2005.
45 G.R. No. 148208, 15 December 2004, 446 SCRA 299.
46 G.R. No. 146495, 14 July 2004.
47 G.R. No. 133486, 28 January 2000, 323 SCRA 811.
48 G.R. No. 147571, 5 May 2001, 357 SCRA 496.
49 G.R. No. 141994, 17 January 2005, 448 SCRA 413.
50 G.R. No. 154705, 26 June 2003, 405 SCRA 126.
51 G.R. No. 142396, 11 February 2003, 397 SCRA 244.
52 People of the Philippines v. Chua, G.R. No. 137841, 1 October 2001.
53 G.R. No. 129296, 25 September 2000, 341 SCRA 25.
54 G.R. No. 133188, 23 July 2004, 435 SCRA 23.
55 G.R. No. 135981, 15 January 2004, 419 SCRA 537.
56 G.R. No. 150224, 19 May 2004, 428 SCRA 504.
57 G.R. Nos. 147678-87, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
58 An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Code, as Amended, Other Special Penal Laws, and for Other Purposes.
59 G.R. No. 124171, 18 March 2002, 379 SCRA 345.
60 G.R. No. 152154, 15 July 2003, 406 SCRA 190.
61 G.R. No. 127882, 445 SCRA 1.
62 G.R. No. 155011, and companion cases, 5 May 2003, 402 SCRA 612.
63 G.R. No. 133250, 9 July 2002, 384 SCRA 152.
64 ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST, et al. v. The Honorable Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 168056, and companion cases.
65 Entitled An Act Amending Section 27, 28, 34, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 119, 121, 148, 151, 236, 237 and 288 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as Amended and for Other Purposes.
66 G.R. Nos. 141314 and 141369, respectively, 15 November 2002, 391 SCRA 700.
67 G.R. No. 147188, 14 September 2004, 438 SCRA 290.
68 G. R. No. 119775, 24 October 2003, 414 SCRA 356.
69 G.R. No. 132527, 29 July 2005.
70 G.R. No. 157013, 10 July 2003, 405 SCRA 614.
71 G.R. Nos. 149164-73, 10 December 2003, 417 SCRA 554.
72 G.R. No. 155855, 26 January 2004, 421 SCRA 92.
73 G.R. No. 162777, 31 August 2004, 437 SCRA 415.
74 G.R. No. 163193, 15 June 2004, 432 SCRA 269.
75 G.R. No. 151992, 18 September 2002, 389 SCRA 353.
76 G.R. No. 159139, 13 January 2004, 419 SCRA 141.