The Philippine judiciary will be radically changed under the Puno constitutional draft. The proposal should be taken seriously given its provenance. Chief Justice Reynato Puno knows our judicial system very well, having spent decades working there initially as Solicitor General, followed by a long stint in the Court of Appeals, ending with his appointment in the Supreme Court first as Associate Justice before becoming chief magistrate.
I know also from several people that the Puno proposal on the judiciary is well-researched and the reforms suggested are supported by solid data and evidence. At some point, it would be good for all of these to be disclosed to the public.
In essence, the Consultative Committee has designed a judiciary in the Federal Constitution in such a way that there will be four (4) Supreme Courts; each one supreme in its own sphere of operation. In effect, the powers of the Supreme Court under the 1987 Constitution shall be distributed among four Supreme Courts.
As envisaged, the judiciary is to be composed of a Federal Supreme Court, Federal Constitutional Court, Federal Administrative Court, and the Federal Electoral Court and such other lower courts as may be created. Each Federal Court is headed by a Chief Justice with eight associate justices with the exception of the Federal Electoral Court which shall have 14 Associate Justices.
As in the 1987 Constitution, the four Supreme Courts shall exercise judicial power including the power to exercise the expanded certiorari jurisdiction, that is, to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on any branch or instrumentality of the government. In addition however, the Federal Constitutional Court and the Federal Administrative Court are granted the authority to render advisory opinions respectively on constitutional questions and on whether the Federal Commission on Elections has complied with the processes, procedures and preparations relative to the conduct of the elections.
As to their particular jurisdictions, the Federal Supreme Court shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over cases, among others, involving branches and agencies within the Federal Government and the Federated Regions, and conflicts between and among Federated Regions.
The Federal Constitutional Court exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over disputes involving the constitutionality of a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decrees, including administrative issuances by the Federal Government and its agencies. The Federal Constitutional Court is also tasked to hear and decide impeachment cases except when a member of the Federal Constitutional Court is impeached, in which case it shall be the Federal Administrative Court which will take over its impeachment functions. As already mentioned, the Federal Constitutional Court may render advisory opinions when sought by specified officials of the government.
The Federal Administrative Court shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction to review, on appeal or certiorari, the decisions, judgments of the Federal Civil Service Commission, the Federal Commission on Elections, and all other Federal Commissions.
And finally, the Federal Electoral Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the president, vice president and members of both Houses of Congress. It also exercises exclusive jurisdiction to review, on appeal or certiorari, all decisions and final orders of lower courts insofar as elections, returns and qualifications of all other officials of government at any level.
Also to be created is a JBC-like council known as the Judicial Appointments and Disciplinary Council which is tasked to conduct search and investigation to find the most qualified candidates for the vacant positions in the judiciary and to recommend to the proper appointing authority the promotion and transfer of its members. However unlike the present JBC, the Judicial Appointments and the Disciplinary Council shall also investigate disciplinary cases and submit its findings to the appropriate Federal Court. The Council is composed of 11 ex-officio members and four regular members. An Executive Board is also to be created tasked to provide administrative and operational support to the Council.
Also to be established is at least one Federal Court of Appeals in each region and at least one (1) Federal District Court in constituent cities and provinces in each Federated Regions. My understanding is that each region will also have its own judicial branch (from trial courts to its own highest court). The Bangsamoro Autonomous region already have the Shariah Court system.
Other provisions contained in the proposed draft of the Federal Constitution are those in connection with fiscal autonomy of the judiciary, salary of the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices, prohibition on its members to be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative function, qualification of its members, the voting on administrative matters, the manner of arriving at decisions, the period within which to decide cases which is 24 months from the date of filing, the annual reportorial requirement on the operations and activities of the judiciary for submission by the Federal Courts to the President and Congress, the manner of appointment of lower court judges and retirement age for members of the judiciary. Also provided are the limitations on Congress not to pass laws that would deprive the Federal Courts of their respective jurisdiction as provided in the Federal Constitution and laws that would undermine the security of tenure of its members.
My first impression of the Puno proposal is that it is both top-heavy and bottom-heavy. Four federal chief justices, 38 associate justices of the Federal Courts, 18 regional supreme court chief justices, and a still undetermined number of regional supreme court associate justices. The current Court of Appeal and other lower courts will remain unless the Congress abolishes them. In addition, regions will be creating regional courts of appeals and regional trial courts for cases involving regional law. I wonder if the Consultative Committee has determined the cost of this new system and whether the country can afford to pay for it.
While the proposal, especially in appointing Justices, clearly tried to enhance the independence of the judiciary, I wonder if the opposite would in fact happen. For one, by diffusing the power of the current Supreme Court, there is no one entity that can now serve as a bulwark of the judicial branch that can stand up to the President and Congress. In addition, allowing Congress through the Commission on Appointments to appoint several members of the four federal courts politicize very explicitly the appointment process and could be at the expense of the independence of the Justices appointed through this route.
Since this proposal is not final, it might be good for Congress or a constitutional convention to consider alternatives to the Puno proposal while making sure we retain the advantages of the proposal. For example, my view is that all we need to do is to transform the current Supreme Court to a constitutional court that will only rule on cases involving constitutional law and cases involving conflict between the federated regions and those between the main branches of government and the proposed six federal commissions. All other cases should end at the Courts of Appeals which I propose should be renamed the Court of Final Appeals. An Administrative Appeals Court and an Electoral Appeals Court could be created but they do not have to be treated as equal to the Constitutional Court. In my view, there is no need to have a regional judicial system. The Court of Appeals should be fully regionalized and they will serve as both federal and regional appeals courts. Likewise, there is no need to create a parallel system at the regional level. The federal appellate courts and the federal trial courts can also serve as their regional counterparts, mandated to apply federal or regional law as the case before them they require.
Radical reforms are being proposed for our judicial system. But I have strong doubts that they will work to address the current gaps. They might even worsen them.
Facebook: tonylavs Twitter: tonylavs
