2. Political Question Doctrine

Trial

The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment [Section 3(6), Article XI, 1987 Constitution].

By virtue of the expanded judicial review [Section 1(2), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution], the Court’s power of judicial review extends over justiciable issues arising in impeachment proceedings [Francisco v. House of Representatives, supra]. But the question of whether or not Senate Impeachment Rules were followed is a political question [Corona v. Senate, G.R. No. 200242 (2012)].

Manner of Approval by Congress of Extension is a Political Question

The Court cannot review the rules promulgated by Congress (in extending martial law or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus) in the absence of any constitutional violation. Legislative rules, unlike statutory laws, do not have the imprints of permanence and obligatoriness during their effectivity. In fact, they may be revoked, modified or waived at the pleasure of the body adopting them. (Lagman v. Pimentel III, G.R. No. 235935, Feb. 6, 2018; Lagman v. Medialdea, G.R. No. 243522, Feb. 19, 2019)

Limitations of Judicial Power

• Political Questions: A question, the resolution of which has been vested by the Constitution exclusively In the people, in the exercise of their sovereign capacity, or in which full discretionary authority has been delegated to a co-equal branch of the Government (Tanada v. Cuenco, G.R. No. L-10520, Feb. 28, 1957).
• Separation of Powers: The Supreme Court and its members should not and cannot be required to exercise any power or to perform any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or connected with the administering of judicial functions. (Manila Electric Co. v Pasay Transportation, G.R. No. 37878, Nov. 25, 1932)
• Not the function of the judiciary to give advisory opinion: The function of the courts is to determine controversies between litigants. They do not give advisory opinions. (Director of Prisons v Ang Cho Kio, G.R. No. L-30001, June 23, 1970)

Updated: Courts must review a political body’s action for grave abuse of discretion when constitutional provisions limit its authority (Ocampo v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 225973, 8 August 2017).

Expanded Jurisdiction and Authority of the Supreme Court

Art. VIII, Sec.1, par. 2, of the Constitution expanded the power, authority and jurisdiction of the courts of justice, particularly the Supreme Court, to determine whether any branch of the government has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Under this expanded jurisdiction conferred to the Supreme Court, the political question doctrine is no longer the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions from judicial inquiry or review (Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993)

UP NOTES

Political Question Doctrine

A “political question” connotes a question of policy and refers to: (a) matters to be exercised by the people in their primary political capacity; or (b) 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, G.R. No. L-10520 (1957)].

A “judicial question” or purely justiciable issue implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or omission violative of such right, and a remedy granted and sanctioned by law, for said breach of right [Casibang v. Aquino, G.R. No. L-38025 (1979)].

Updated: Courts may review an otherwise political matter for grave abuse of discretion when constitutional provisions limit the political body’s power (Ocampo v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 225973, 8 August 2017).

Examples:

Note: In 2016, the SC ruled that President Duterte's decision to have the remains of Marcos interred at the Libingan Ng Mga Bayani (LNMB) was not a justiciable controversy but a political question. The issue was a question of policy which the President decided upon based on his wisdom that it shall promote national healing and forgiveness. There being no taint of grave abuse in the exercise of such discretion, his decision on that political question is outside the ambit of judicial review [Ocampo v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 225973 (2016)].

Guidelines to determine whether a question is political or not

• There is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a political department;
• Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it;
• The impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion;
• Impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government;
• An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made;
• Potential embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question [Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15 (2001), citing Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186 (1962)].

Manner of Approval by Congress of Extension is a Political Question

The Court cannot review the rules promulgated by Congress (in extending martial law or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus) in the absence of any constitutional violation. Legislative rules, unlike statutory laws, do not have the imprints of permanence and obligatoriness during their effectivity. In fact, they may be revoked, modified or waived at the pleasure of the body adopting them. (Lagman v. Pimentel III, G.R. No. 235935, Feb. 6, 2018; Lagman v. Medialdea, G.R. No. 243522, Feb. 19, 2019)

Necessity

There must be a necessity which must be of public character [Manapat v. CA, supra].

Difference as to the exercising officer [Manapat v. CA, supra]

Updated: Constitutional limits on a political body’s power make its exercise reviewable for grave abuse of discretion, regardless of the officer-based categories in the passage (Ocampo v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 225973, 8 August 2017).

What is the personality of individuals?

Under modern international law, an individual has limited personality.

The question whether the Philippine government should espouse claims of its nationals against a foreign government is a foreign relations matter, the authority for which is demonstrably committed by our Constitution not to the courts but to the political branches. In the Comfort Women Case, the Executive Department has decided that it is to the best interest of the country to waive all claims of its nationals for reparations against Japan in the Treaty of Peace of 1951. The wisdom of such decision is not for the courts to question; thus, said determination by the Executive Department cannot be questioned through a petition for certiorari. (Vinuya v. Romulo G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010).

Political Question

A question, the resolution of which has been vested by the Constitution exclusively:

• In the people, in the exercise of their sovereign capacity, or
• In which full discretionary authority has been delegated to a co-equal branch of the Government (Tanada v. Cuenco, G.R. No. L-10520, Feb. 28, 1957).

The judiciary is NOT precluded from reviewing “political questions”. Under the second clause of Sec. 1, Art. VIII (the power to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion) the Courts may now determine whether there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government.

A political question arises in constitutional issues relating to the powers or competence of different agencies and departments of the executive or those of the legislature. The political question doctrine is used as a defense when the petition asks this court to nullify certain acts that are exclusively within the domain of their respective competencies, as provided by the Constitution or the law. In such a situation, presumptively, this court should act with deference. It will decline to void an act unless the exercise of that power was so capricious and arbitrary so as to amount to grave abuse of discretion.

• The existence of constitutionally imposed limits justifies subjecting the official actions of the body to the scrutiny and review of the Court
• Furthermore, the concept of a political question never precludes judicial review when the act of a constitutional organ infringes upon a fundamental individual or collective right. (The Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 205728, Jan. 21, 2015)

While courts can determine questions of legality with respect to governmental action, they cannot review government policies and the wisdom behind such policies. These questions are vested by the Constitution in the Executive and Legislative Departments.

Examples of political questions in jurisprudence

Interpretation of the meaning of “disorderly behavior” and the legislature’s power to suspend a member (there is no procedure for the imposition of the penalty of suspension nor did the 1935 Constitution define what “disorderly behavior is). The matter is left to the discretion of the legislature (Osmeña, Jr. v. Pendatun, G.R. No. L-17144, Oct. 28, 1960).

Whether the court could intervene in a case where the House of Representatives was said to have disregarded its own rule. The court was held to have been without authority to intervene (Arroyo v. De Venecia, G.R. No. 127255, Aug. 14, 1997).

Recognition of diplomatic immunity (ICMC v. Hon. Calleja, G.R. No. 85750, Sept. 28, 1990).

Congress has discretion to assess whether alleged conduct constitutes “betrayal of public trust,” “other high crimes,” or another impeachable offense, subject to judicial review for compliance with constitutional requirements and grave abuse of discretion under Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution (Gutierrez v. The House of Representatives Committee on Justice, et al., G.R. No. 193459, Feb. 15, 2011).

Updated: Courts may review a political body's exercise of power for grave abuse of discretion when the Constitution imposes limits on that power (Ocampo v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 225973, 8 August 2017).

Examples of cases in jurisprudence where the Court held that there was no political question involved.

• Apportionment of representative districts (because there are constitutional rules governing apportionment) (Bagabuyo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 176970, Dec. 8, 2008).
• The factual and constitutional basis for suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is subject to judicial review (Lansang v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-33964, Dec. 11, 1971; 1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 18).
• Manner of forming the Commission on Appointments (Daza v. Singson, G.R. No. 86344, Dec. 21, 1989; Coseteng v. Mitra, G.R. No. 86649, July 12, 1990; Guingona v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 106971, Oct. 20, 1992).