Rule-making power no longer shared with Congress
Until the 1987 Constitution took effect, the two previous constitutions of the Philippines textualized a power sharing scheme between the legislature and the Supreme Court in
the enactment of judicial rules. Thus, both the 1935[1] and the 1973[2]
Constitutions vested on the Supreme Court the "power to promulgate rules
concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission
to the practice of law." However, these constitutions also granted to the
legislature the concurrent power to "repeal, alter or supplement" such
rules.[3]
The 1987 Constitution textually altered the power-sharing scheme under the
previous charters by deleting in Section 5(5) of Article VIII Congress' subsidiary and corrective power.[4] This glaring and fundamental omission led
the Court to observe in Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice[5] that the Supreme Court's
power to promulgate judicial rules "is no longer shared by this Court with
Congress."
The 1987 Constitution textually altered the power-sharing scheme under the
previous charters by deleting in Section 5(5) of Article VIII Congress' subsidiary and corrective power.[4] This glaring and fundamental omission led
the Court to observe in Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice[5] that the Supreme Court's
power to promulgate judicial rules "is no longer shared by this Court with
Congress."
The 1987 Constitution molded an even stronger and more independent judiciary.
Among others, it enhanced the rule making power of the Court [under] Section
5(5), Article VIII.[6]
The rule-making power of the Court was expanded. The Court for the first
time was given the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights. The Court was also granted for the first
time the power to disapprove rules of procedure of special courts and
quasi-judicial bodies. But most importantly, the 1987 Constitution took away
the power of Congress to repeal, alter, or supplement rules concerning
pleading, practice and procedure. In fine, the power to promulgate rules of
pleading, practice and procedure is no longer shared by the Court with
Congress, more so with the Executive.
For example, the matter of payment of legal fees was declared by the Supreme
Court as a vital component of the rules promulgated by the Court concerning
pleading, practice and procedure. Therefore, it cannot be validly annulled,
changed or modified by Congress. As one of the safeguards of the Court's
institutional independence, the power to promulgate rules of pleading,
practice and procedure is now the Supreme Court’s exclusive domain.[7]
[1] Article VIII, Section 13.
[2] Article X, Section 5(5).
[3] The 1935 Constitution provides: "The Congress shall have the power to
repeal, alter or supplement the rules concerning pleading, practice, and
procedure, and the admission to the practice of law in the Philippines."
(Section 13, Article VIII). Similarly, the 1973 Constitution provides: "The
Supreme Court shall have the following powers: x x x (5) Promulgate rules
concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to
the practice of law, and the integration of the bar, which, however, may be
repealed, altered or supplemented by the Batasang Pambansa." (Section 5(5),
Article X).
[4] In Re Cunanan, 94 Phil. 534 (1954).
[5] 361 Phil. 73, 88 (1999).
[6] The provision reads in full:
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: [xxx]
(5) 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 under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts
of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall
remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
[7] G.R. No. 165922.
