Introduction

In the Philippine legal system, the Supreme Court serves as the final arbiter of constitutional and legal disputes, with its decisions carrying the weight of binding precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis. En Banc decisions, rendered by the full complement of the Court's 15 justices (or as many as are sitting), are reserved for cases of exceptional importance, such as those involving constitutional questions, reversals of prior doctrines, or matters requiring uniformity in jurisprudence. These decisions are typically more authoritative than those issued by divisions of the Court, which handle routine cases.

Reversal of an En Banc decision occurs when the Court, sitting En Banc again, explicitly overrules or abandons a prior ruling. This is not done lightly, as it undermines legal stability, but it may happen due to evolving societal norms, new interpretations of the Constitution, legislative changes, or recognition of past errors. Under Article VIII, Section 4(2) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, En Banc sessions are mandated for cases that modify or reverse a doctrine or principle of law previously laid down by the Court. Reversals can stem from motions for reconsideration in the same case (rarely granted En Banc) or, more commonly, in subsequent cases where the earlier doctrine is challenged.

This article examines the concept of reversed En Banc decisions within the Philippine context, exploring the procedural mechanisms, historical instances, and implications for the rule of law. It covers key examples across constitutional law, taxation, criminal procedure, and other fields, highlighting how such reversals reflect the dynamic nature of Philippine jurisprudence.

Procedural Framework for Reversals

The Supreme Court's Internal Rules (A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC) govern En Banc proceedings. A decision may be reversed through:

Motion for Reconsideration: Filed within 15 days of promulgation, this can lead to reversal if the Court finds grave errors. However, En Banc reversals via reconsideration are infrequent, as they require a majority vote to grant the motion and then to alter the ruling.
Subsequent Cases: More common, where litigants argue for overruling in a new case. The Court must justify departure from precedent, often citing changed conditions or compelling reasons (e.g., Philippine Trust Co. v. Abaladejo, 1935, emphasizing that stare decisis is not inflexible).
Constitutional or Statutory Changes: External factors like amendments to the Constitution or new laws can render prior decisions obsolete, prompting reversal (e.g., post-1987 Constitution cases overruling martial law-era rulings).

Reversals must be explicit; mere distinction or limitation does not constitute reversal. The Court's ponente (opinion writer) typically acknowledges the prior case and explains the shift, ensuring transparency.

Notable Examples of Reversed En Banc Decisions

Philippine jurisprudence features several landmark En Banc reversals, illustrating shifts in judicial philosophy. Below are prominent instances, grouped by legal area.

Taxation and Judicial Independence

One of the most illustrative chains of reversals involves the taxability of judicial salaries, reflecting tensions between fiscal policy and judicial independence under successive constitutions.

Perfecto v. Meer (85 Phil. 552, 1950): In this En Banc decision, the Court held that salaries of judges are subject to income tax, reasoning that the constitutional prohibition against diminution of salaries (1935 Constitution, Article VIII, Section 9) did not exempt them from general taxation. This upheld the collector of internal revenue's assessment against Justice Gregorio Perfecto.
Endencia v. David (93 Phil. 696, 1953): Overruling Perfecto En Banc, the Court declared judicial salaries non-taxable, interpreting the non-diminution clause as an absolute bar to taxation, which effectively reduces take-home pay. This protected judicial independence from legislative interference.
Nitafan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (152 SCRA 284, 1987): Under the 1987 Constitution (Article VIII, Section 10), the En Banc Court reversed Endencia, holding that judicial salaries are taxable. The decision noted the removal of explicit tax exemption language from prior constitutions, aligning with broader fiscal equity. This remains the prevailing doctrine, though it sparked debates on judicial autonomy.

This trilogy demonstrates how constitutional revisions can drive reversals, with each decision building on or rejecting the prior one's rationale.

Criminal Law and Procedure

Reversals in criminal jurisprudence often address due process, evidence, and penalties, adapting to human rights advancements.

People v. Hernandez (99 Phil. 515, 1956): This En Banc ruling established the "Hernandez doctrine," holding that rebellion absorbs common crimes committed in furtherance thereof, preventing "complexing" that could inflate penalties. It protected political offenders from disproportionate punishment.
While not fully reversed, the doctrine was limited in cases like People v. Geronimo (100 Phil. 90, 1956), but a partial reversal occurred in Enrile v. Salazar (186 SCRA 217, 1990), where the En Banc Court reaffirmed Hernandez but clarified its application to coup d'état under the Revised Penal Code. However, legislative changes via Republic Act No. 6968 (1990) effectively overrode aspects, prompting judicial adjustment.
Moncupa v. Enrile (141 SCRA 233, 1984): During martial law, this En Banc decision upheld preventive detention without charges, prioritizing national security. Post-1986 People Power Revolution, it was implicitly reversed by Aberca v. Ver (160 SCRA 590, 1988), an En Banc ruling affirming civil liabilities for human rights abuses and restoring due process safeguards under the 1987 Constitution.

Constitutional Law and Political Questions

Reversals here often stem from regime changes or evolving democracy.

Javellana v. Executive Secretary (50 SCRA 30, 1973): In a controversial En Banc decision, the Court dismissed challenges to the 1973 Constitution's ratification via citizens' assemblies, deeming it a political question beyond judicial review. This effectively upheld martial law under President Marcos.
While not formally overruled by the Court (as the 1973 Constitution was superseded by the 1987 Constitution via revolutionary government), subsequent En Banc decisions like Lawyers' League for a Better Philippines v. Aquino (G.R. No. 73748, 1986) recognized the 1986 provisional government's legitimacy, implicitly rejecting Javellana's deference to executive actions. The 1987 Constitution's expanded judicial review powers (Article VIII, Section 1) further eroded such political question doctrines.
Lansang v. Garcia (42 SCRA 448, 1971): En Banc, the Court asserted jurisdiction to review the factual basis for suspending the writ of habeas corpus, enhancing judicial oversight.
Garcia-Padilla v. Enrile (121 SCRA 472, 1983): Overruling Lansang En Banc during martial law, the Court reverted to the political question doctrine, limiting review to arbitrariness.
Post-martial law, David v. Arroyo (489 SCRA 160, 2006): En Banc, revived and expanded Lansang, declaring parts of Proclamation No. 1017 (emergency rule) unconstitutional, emphasizing judicial checks on executive power.

Election and Administrative Law

Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita (469 SCRA 1, 2005): En Banc, upheld the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law but was later nuanced in reversals on related fiscal reforms.
A clearer reversal: Macalintal v. COMELEC (405 SCRA 614, 2003), En Banc, struck down aspects of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act for unconstitutionality. Subsequent cases like Nicolas-Lewis v. COMELEC (497 SCRA 649, 2006) reversed interpretations, allowing dual citizens to vote without residency.

Implications and Criticisms

Reversals of En Banc decisions underscore the Court's role as a living institution, adapting to societal changes. They promote justice by correcting errors, as in human rights cases post-dictatorship. However, frequent reversals can erode public confidence, leading to perceptions of judicial flip-flopping (e.g., the taxation trilogy). Critics argue that some reversals reflect political influences, as seen in martial law-era shifts.

Under Chief Justices like Reynato Puno and Maria Lourdes Sereno, the Court emphasized principled overruling, requiring "strong reasons" (Letran v. Caltex Philippines, Inc., 2003). The 1987 Constitution's Bill of Rights and expanded certiorari powers have facilitated more reversals to protect liberties.

Conclusion

While not exhaustive, these examples illustrate the rarity and significance of reversed En Banc decisions in Philippine law. They serve as reminders that jurisprudence is not static but evolves with the nation's democratic maturity. Legal practitioners must stay vigilant, as today's precedent may become tomorrow's footnote. For a complete historical survey, ongoing scholarly analysis remains essential.