Political and Public International Law › Judicial Department

B. Judicial Review

B. Judicial Review

1. Requisites 2. Political Questions Doctrine 3. Moot Questions 4. Operative Fact Doctrine

The Court’s exercise of its traditional jurisdiction is rooted in its power of judicial review which gives the Court the authority to strike down acts of the legislative and/or executive, constitutional bodies or administrative agencies contrary to the Constitution. The power of judicial review is part and parcel of the Court’s judicial power and is a power inherent in all courts [Villanueva v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 211833 (2015)].

Judicial Power vs. Judicial Review [Miranda v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 133064 (1999)]

Judicial Power Judicial Review
Where vested Supreme Court & lower courts
Definition Duty to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable & enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government [Article VIII, Section 1 (2), Constitution]. Power to determine the constitutionality of acts of the executive or the legislative branch
Where applicable Any branch or instrumentality of the government
Requisites for exercise Jurisdiction, or the power to decide and hear a case and execute a decision thereof Actual case or controversy; locus standi; earliest opportunity; and lis mota

Where the legislature or executive branch acts beyond the scope of its constitutional power, it becomes the duty of the judiciary to declare what the other branches of the government had assumed to do so as void [Demetria v. Alba, G.R. No. 71977 (1987)]

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 government action. The term “interest” means material interest, an interest in issue affected by governmental action, as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest [CREBA v. Energy Regulatory Commission, G.R. No. 174696 (2010)].

The interest of the party plaintiff must be personal and not one based on a desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some third and unrelated party [Joya v. PCGG, G.R. No. 96541 (1993)].

Direct injury test - The person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result [People v. Vera, G.R. No. 45685 (1937)].

This may be brushed aside by the court as a mere procedural technicality in view of public interest or transcendental importance of the issues involved [Kilosbayan v. Guingona, G.R. No. 113375 (1994)].

JUDICIAL REVIEW

  • The power of the Supreme Court to declare a law, treaty, ordinance, etc. unconstitutional (PHIL. CONST., art. VIII, § 4(2).)
  • Lower courts may also exercise the power of judicial review, subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the SC. (PHIL. CONST., art. VIII, § 5(2).)
  • Only Supreme Court decisions set precedents. As thus, only SC decisions are binding on all.

Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy

When the judiciary allocates constitutional boundaries, it neither asserts superiority nor nullifies an act of the Legislature. It 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.

Advisory Opinions

Even the expanded jurisdiction of this Court under Article VIII, Section 1 does not provide license to provide advisory opinions. An advisory opinion is one where the factual setting is conjectural or hypothetical. (PBOAP v. DOLE, G.R. No. 202275, July 17, 2018)

  • In such cases, the conflict will not have sufficient concreteness or adversariness so as to constrain the discretion of this Court. After all, legal arguments from concretely lived facts are chosen narrowly by the parties. Those who bring theoretical cases will have no such limits. (Id.)

The Court generally declines to issue advisory opinions or to resolve hypothetical or feigned problems, or mere academic questions. The limitation of the power of judicial review to actual cases and controversies assures that the courts will not intrude into areas specifically confined to the other branches of government. (PHILCONSA v Philippine Government, G.R. No. 218406, Nov. 29, 2016)

Judicial Review of Treaties

Even after ratification, the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review over the constitutionality of any treaty, international or executive agreement and must hear such case en banc. (Secs. 4(2) and 5(2)(a), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)

Authorities

  • 1987 Constitution (PHIL. CONST.), Sec. 4
  • 1987 Constitution (PHIL. CONST.), Sec. 5
  • 1987 Constitution, Sec. 1
  • Creba v. Energy Regulatory Commission, G.R. No. 174696
  • Joya v. PCGG, G.R. No. 96541, 24 August 1993
  • Kilosbayan v. Victorino, G.R. No. 113375, 5 May 1994
  • Pboap v. DOLE, G.R. No. 202275
  • People v. Vera, G.R. No. 45685, 22 December 1937
  • Philippine Constitution Association v. Philippine Government, G.R. No. 218406, 29 November 2016