JUDICIAL REVIEW

Judicial Power Judicial Review Where vested

Supreme Court Lower courts

Supreme Court Lower courts Definition

Duty to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally

demandable and

enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government [Art.

VIII,Sec. 1, par. 2]

Power of the courts to test the validity of executive and legislative acts in light of their conformity with the Constitution

[Angara v. Electoral Commission (1936)]

63 Judicial Power Judicial Review

Requisites for exercise Jurisdiction – Power to

decide and hear a case and execute a decision thereof

(1) Actual case or controversy

(2) Locus Standi (3) Question raised at the earliest opportunity

(4) Lis mota of the case

Judicial Supremacy

When the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them. This is in truth all that is involved in what is termed "judicial supremacy"

which properly is the power of judicial review under the Constitution. [Angara v. Electoral Commission (1936)]

Functions of Judicial Review (1) Checking

(2) Legitimating (3) Symbolic

Essential Requisites for Judicial Review (A) Actual case or controversy

This means that there must be a genuine conflict of legal rights and interests which can be resolved through judicial determination. [John Hay v. Lim (2003)]

This precludes the courts from entertaining the following:

(1) Request for an advisory opinion [Guingona v. CA (1998)]

(2) Cases that are or have become moot and academic, i.e. cease to present a

justiciable controversy due to supervening events [David v.

Macapagal-Arroyo (2006)].

(B) Locus standi

Legal standing or locus standi refers to a party’s personal and substantial interest in a case, arising from the direct injury it has sustained or will sustain as a result of the challenged governmental action. Legal standing calls for more than just a generalized grievance. The term “interest”

means a material interest, an interest in issue affected by the governmental action, as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. Unless a person’s constitutional rights are adversely affected by a statute or governmental action, he has no legal standing to challenge the statute or governmental action. [CREBA v. Energy Regulatory Commission (2010)]

A proper party is one who has sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the act complained of [IBP v. Zamora (2000)]. The alleged injury must also be capable of being redressed by a favorable judgment [Tolentino v. COMELEC (2004)].

(1) Requires partial consideration of the merits of the case in view of its constitutional and public policy underpinnings [Kilosbayan vs Morato, (1995)]

(2) May be brushed aside by the court as a mere procedural technicality in view of transcendental importance of the issues involved [Kilosbayan v. Guingona (1994);

Tatad v. DOE (1995)].

(3) Who are proper parties?

(a) Taxpayers, when public funds are involved. [Tolentino v. Comelec (2004)]

(b) Government of the Philippines, when questioning the validity of its own laws.

[People v. Vera (1937)]

64 (c) Legislators, when the powers of

Congress are being impaired.

[PHILCONSA v. Enriquez, (1994)]

(d) Citizens, when the enforcement of a public right is involved. [Tañada vs Tuvera, (1985)]

Special Rules on Standing (Requisites) Taxpayer (1) Appropriation;

(2) Disbursement

Citizen

(1) Direct injury,

(2) Public right; OR Art. VII, Sec. 18 (on the sufficiency of the factual basis for martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus)

Voter Right of suffrage is involved

Legislator

(1) Authorized;

(2) Affects legislative prerogatives (i.e. a derivative suit)

Third-Party Standing

(1) Litigants must have injury-in-fact;

(2) Litigants must have close relation to the third-party; and (3) There is an existing hindrance to the third party’s ability to protect its own interest. [White Light v. City of Manila (2009)]

(C) Constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity

Exceptions:

(a) In criminal cases, at the discretion of the court;

(b) In civil cases, if necessary for the determination of the case itself; and (c) When the jurisdiction of the court is

involved

N.B. The reckoning point is the first competent court. The question must be raised at the first court with judicial review powers. Hence, the failure to raise the constitutional question before the NLRC is not fatal to the case. (See Serrano v.

Gallant Maritime Services, G.R. No. 167614, Mar. 24, 2009)

(D) Lis Mota

Decision on the constitutional question must be determinative of the case itself.

The reason for this is the doctrine of separation of powers which requires that due respect be given to the co-equal branches, and because of the grave consequences of a declaration of unconstitutionality. [De la Llana v. Alba (1982)]

(i) Operative fact doctrine

General Rule: The interpretation (or declaration) of unconstitutionality is retroactive in that it applies from the law’s effectivity

Exception: OPERATIVE FACT DOCTRINE

Subsequent declaration of

unconstitutionality does not nullify all acts exercised in line with [the law]. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. [Municipality of Malabang v.

Benito (1969), citing Chicot County]

Effect of a Declaration of Unconstitutionality

(1) Orthodox view - An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative, as if it had not been passed at all.

(2) Modern view - Certain legal effects of the statute prior to its declaration of unconstitutionality may be recognized.

65 (ii) Moot questions

Ripeness of the controversy: The issue must be raised not too early that it is conjectural or anticipatory, nor too late that it becomes moot.

General Rule: Courts will not decide questions that have become moot and academic.

Exception: Courts will still decide if:

(a) There is a grave violation of the Constitution;

(b) The situation is of exceptional character and paramount public interest is involved;

(c) [Symbolic Function] The constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar and the public; and

(d) The case is capable of repetition yet evading review. [David v. Macapagal-Arroyo (2006)]

(iii) Political question doctrine

The term “political question” refers to: (1) matters to be exercised by the people in their primary political capacity; or (2) those specifically delegated to some other department or particular office of the government, with discretionary power to act. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure. [Tañada v. Cuenco (1957)]

In recent years, the Court has set aside this doctrine and assumed jurisdiction whenever it found constitutionally-imposed limits on the exercise of powers conferred upon the Legislative and Executive branches [Bernas]. over its member is

not to be

interfered with by the Court.

Avelino v. Cuenco, (1949):

election of Senate President was done without the required quorum

Tañada v. Cuenco, (1957):

The selection of the members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal is subject to constitutional limitations.

Javellana v. Executive Secretary (1973): WON the 1973 Constitution had been ratified in accordance with the 1935 Constitution is justiciable.

HOWEVER, the people may be deemed to have

66 Political

Question

Justiciable Controversy cast their favorable votes in the belief that in doing so they did the part required of them by Article XV, hence, it may be said that in its political aspect, which is what counts most, after all, said Article has been substantially complied with, and, in effect, the 1973 Constitution has been constitutionally ratified.

B. SAFEGUARDS OF JUDICIAL