CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS vs .

STATUTORY COURTS
Q: Distinguish Constitutional Courts from Statutory Courts.
A: CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS are created directly by the Constitution itself, while STATUTORY COURTS
are
created by law or by the legislature.
In our country, there is only one Constitutional court – the Supreme Court. Even the
Sandiganbayan is not considered a Constitutional court because it was not created by the
Constitution directly. The 1973 Constitution ordered Congress to create Sandiganbayan. It was law
that
created Sandiganbayan (PD 1486). There is a provision in the 1973 Constitution which says, “There
should
be created a Sandiganbayan.”
The CA, RTC, and the MTC are created by the Congress. Thus, Congress has the power to
abolish the said courts but it can never abolish the Supreme Court.
So there is only one Constitutional court. All the rest, from the CA down and all other special courts,
are only
creatures of Congress. In political law, the power to create carries with it the power to abolish. That is
why, BP
129 abolished all existing courts at that time (CFI, CA, Juvenille, etc.) and RTC, IAC, MTC were created.
That was
the judicial reorganization of 1980 under BP 129. But there is only court which the Batasan Pambansa
could not
touch – the Supreme Court.
They have no power to abolish the SC because it is created by the Constitution. Pareho lang tayong
tabla
eh. Congress is also created by the Constitution. So if you want to abolish the SC, you must call for a
constitutional convention to change the Constitution.
INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT
Before we leave the concepts of courts, you must know that the courts of justice have what we call
inherent
powers. Just like the State have certain inherent powers, whether written or not, these things are
understood to
have them – Police power, power of taxation, and power of taxation.
Courts have also inherent powers. Their very existence automatically necessitates the existence of
these
powers. Now, that was already asked in the Bar before – what are the inherent powers of the court?
3
Q: What are the inherent powers of the court?
A: Section 5 Rule 135 of the Rules of Court of the provides:
Section 5. Inherent powers of courts. Every court shall have the power:
(a) to preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence;
(b) to enforce order in proceedings before it, or before a person or persons
empowered to conduct a judicial investigation under its authority;
(c) to compel obedience to its judgments orders, and processes, and to the lawful
orders of a judge out of court, in a case therein;
(d) to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and
of all other persons in any manner connected with a case before it, in every manner
appertaining thereto;
(e) to compel the attendance of persons to testify in a case pending therein;
(f) to administer or cause to be administered oaths in a case pending therein,
and in all. other cases where it may be necessary in the existence of its powers;
(g) to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable
to law and justice;
(h) to authorize a copy of a lost or destroyed pleading or other paper to be filed
and used instead of the original, and to restore, and supply deficiencies in its
records and proceedings.
There are many powers enumerated. Some of them are common sense. Every court has the power to
see to
it that everything of his order is enforced; to compel obedience to his order. Common sense yan. You
are inutile
 if you cannot even enforce your own judgment! So I've been telling some judges here, eh. Sometimes
we talk
about this: they say, it seems that I don't have the power under the Rules of Court. It's beyond my
power. I
made a decision but I cannot see how was it enforced.
Parang pampalakas-loob ang Rule 135, Section 5 because you can see there the powers that you do
not
know you have. These are inherent eh – hindi puwedeng alisin sa iyo iyan. Otherwise, maging inutil ka
– I have
the power to decide but I do not know how to enforce my decision. That is a sign of impotence
(Charles,
pinaringgan ka ni Dean!). As a matter of fact, the next section (Section 6, Rule 135) tells us how to
carry out
your judgment. If you do not know how to carry out your judgment because the law is silent, Section 6
says,
look for a way. Hanapan mo ng paraan!
SITUATION: Suppose I have the power to decide and I render a decision. I want to enforce the decision,
how
do I enforce? Well, usually the law provides for the procedure.
Q: But suppose the law does not provide for any manner to enforce? For example a judge has rendered
a
decision, and the law is silent on how to enforce it, do you mean to say that the order is unenforceable
because
the law is silent?
A: NO. Section 6 of Rule 135 answers the question.
SEC 6. Means to carry jurisdiction into effect – When by law jurisdiction is
conferred on a court or a judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, processes and all other
means to carry it into effect maybe employed by such court or officer; and if the
procedure to be followed in the exercise of such jurisdiction is not specifically
pointed out by law or these rules, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may
be adopted which appears conformable to the spirit of said law or rules.
What Section 6 is trying to say is that when you have the power to decide, you have the power
to
enforce. And if the law is silent, you have to think how to do it. Be creative. Provided you conform
with the
spirit of the rule. So you do not make the order useless simply because there is no rule. In other words,
try to
look for a way on how to enforce you judgment. That is part of your power.