In the Philippine legal system, the authority to solemnize marriage is not an inherent right of every individual holding public office; rather, it is a limited power granted by law. For members of the judiciary, this authority is strictly circumscribed by the concept of jurisdiction. When a judge steps outside their territorial or legal boundaries to perform a wedding, they risk not only administrative sanctions but also potential challenges to the formal validity of the union.

The Statutory Basis of Authority

Under Article 7 of the Family Code of the Philippines, the law explicitly lists those authorized to solemnize marriages. Specifically, for the judiciary:

"Any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court's jurisdiction..."

This phrase is the pivot upon which judicial authority turns. Unlike priests or ministers, who may solemnize marriages anywhere in the Philippines provided they are registered and authorized by their church, a judge’s authority is geographically and legally tethered to the court they preside over.

The Scope of Judicial Jurisdiction

The "jurisdiction" referred to in the Family Code is the territorial jurisdiction defined by the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (BP Blg. 129).

Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judges: Their authority is limited to the province or city comprising the judicial region where their court sits.
Metropolitan/Municipal Trial Court (MeTC/MTC/MCTC) Judges: Their authority is limited to the specific municipality or city where they are stationed.
Appellate Justices: Justices of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, and Court of Tax Appeals have national jurisdiction. Because their court’s reach extends across the entire archipelago, they may solemnize marriages anywhere in the Philippines.

Jurisprudential Clarity: The Navarro vs. Domagtoy Doctrine

The landmark case of Navarro vs. Domagtoy (259 SCRA 129) serves as the definitive guide on this matter. In this case, a Municipal Circuit Trial Court judge solemnized a wedding outside his territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court clarified two vital points:

Administrative Liability: A judge who solemnizes a marriage outside his court’s jurisdiction commits a "non-jurisdictional" act that constitutes a violation of the law. This renders the judge administratively liable for ignorance of the law or gross misconduct.
The Good Faith Exception (The Marriage Validity): Under Article 35(2) of the Family Code, a marriage is void unless it falls under the exception where either or both parties believed in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so. Thus, while the judge may be punished, the marriage itself may remain valid if the couple was unaware of the judge's jurisdictional limits.

Exceptions to the Venue Rule

While a judge must have jurisdiction, the law allows for flexibility regarding the physical venue of the ceremony under Article 8 of the Family Code. Generally, a marriage must be performed in the judge's chambers or in open court. However, it may be performed elsewhere (even outside the judge's jurisdiction) in the following instances:

Articulo Mortis: When one of the parties is at the point of death.
Remote Locations: In distant places as defined by the local civil registrar.
Written Request: If both parties request the judge in writing to solemnize the marriage at a specific venue.

Crucial Distinction: These exceptions apply to the venue, not the authority. A judge may travel to a different venue at the parties' request, but that venue must still be within the judge’s territorial jurisdiction. A judge cannot, for example, travel to another province to solemnize a marriage based on a written request if that province is outside their judicial district.

Legal and Administrative Consequences

The Supreme Court maintains a policy of "strict adherence" to jurisdictional rules to maintain the integrity of the judiciary.

Consequence	Description
For the Judge	Subject to fines, suspension, or reprimand. Repeated violations or blatant disregard for the rules may lead to more severe penalties.
For the Marriage	Potentially valid under the "Good Faith" clause of Article 35(2). However, if both parties knew the judge lacked jurisdiction, the marriage could be declared void ab initio (void from the beginning).
For the Public Record	The Local Civil Registrar may refuse to register the marriage contract if the lack of authority is patent on the face of the document.

Summary of Rules

Supreme Court/Appellate Justices: Can solemnize anywhere in the Philippines.
RTC Judges: Can solemnize within their judicial region.
MTC/MCTC Judges: Can solemnize only within their specific municipality or circuit.
The "Rule of Place": The written request for an outside venue does not grant the judge the power to ignore territorial boundaries.