Practice question
A five-member Supreme Court division hears an ordinary appeal. All five participate, and three agree that the appeal should be granted. Their proposed ruling would expressly abandon a controlling doctrine established in an earlier division decision. They argue that their three votes permit both granting relief and reversing that doctrine. Which statement is correct?
- Any division majority may reverse doctrine established by another division.
- Only decisions originally rendered en banc are protected from division reversal.
- Three votes satisfy the ordinary division concurrence threshold, but modification or reversal of the controlling doctrine requires the Court en banc.
- The prior doctrine binds even the Supreme Court en banc forever.
- The parties may authorize doctrinal reversal by written agreement.
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution, Article VIII, section 4, https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.