A. Concept of Judicial Power

A. Concept of Judicial Power

1987 CONST., art. VIII, sec. 1 (2)

> SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice 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.

Judicial Power

The authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving rights that are enforceable and demandable before the courts of justice or the redress of wrongs for violations of such rights 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. (Lopez v. Roxas, G.R. No. L-25716, July 28, 1966).

Where Vested

Vested in the Supreme Court and such lower courts as may be established by law. (PHIL. CONST., art. VIII, § 1.)

Hence, they may neither attempt to assume or be compelled to perform non-judicial functions. They may not be charged with administrative functions, except when reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of their duties (Meralco v. Pasay Transportation Co., G.R. No. L-37878, Nov. 25, 1932).

Judicial Power includes the duty of the courts: (PHIL. CONST., art. VIII, § 1.)

• To settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable;
• 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.

Scope of Jurisdiction

The power to control the execution of its decision is an essential aspect of jurisdiction. It cannot be the subject of substantial subtraction, for our Constitution vests the entirety of judicial power in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. (Echegaray v. SOJ, G.R. No. 132601, Jan. 19, 1999)

Administration of Government v. Administration of Justice:

Updated: Judicial power requires an actual controversy and includes review of constitutional limits and grave abuse of discretion (Cesar v. Purisima, G.R. No. 223318, 15 July 2019; Saguisag v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 212426, 12 January 2016).

Judicial Power

On whom vested: The judicial power shall be vested in:

• One Supreme Court; and
• In such lower courts as may be established by law.

What: Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice 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

Where applicable: On the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government [Section 1, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution]

The Supreme Court is entrusted exclusively with the judicial power to adjudicate with finality all justiciable disputes, public and private. No other department or agency may pass upon its judgments or declare them unjust [In Re Laureta and Maravilla, G.R. No. 68635 (1987)].

Absent a showing of a violation of the Constitution or grave abuse of discretion, the Court cannot use its judicial power to inquire into allegations that, in enacting a law, a House of Congress failed to comply with its own rules [Arroyo v. De Venecia, G.R. No. 127255 (June 26, 1998)].

Action in personam vs. Action in rem

• Action in personam — Seeks to enforce a personal right or obligation against particular persons.
• Action in rem — Concerns the status or interests of property or a thing and results in a judgment binding against the world.

Amount to be Paid for Expropriation

The amount to be paid for the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court, based on the fair market value at the time of the taking of the property.

The determination of just compensation is a judicial function and any valuation for just compensation laid down in the statutes may serve only as a guiding principle. It may not substitute the court’s own judgment as to what amount should be awarded and how to arrive at such an amount. (Hon. Vergara, in his capacity as City Mayor of Cabanatuan City v. Grecla, G.R. 185638, 2016).

Requirements for Justiciability

• That there be an actual controversy between or among the parties to the dispute;
• That the interests of the parties be adverse;
• That the matter in controversy be capable of being adjudicated by judicial power; and
• That the determination of the controversy will result in practical relief to the complainant.

Actual Case/Controversy

• An actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims, susceptible of judicial resolution as distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute. (PHILCONSA v Philippine Government, G.R. No. 218406, Nov. 29, 2016)
• There must be a contrast of legal rights that can be interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence. (Id.)
• It is the parties' duty to demonstrate actual cases or controversies worthy of judicial resolution. Pleadings must show a violation of an existing legal right or a controversy that is ripe for judicial determination. (Falcis v. Civil Registrar General, G.R. No. 217910, Sept. 3, 2019)
• Facts are the basis of an actual case or controversy. There must be sufficient facts to enable the Court to intelligently adjudicate the issues. (Id.)

Determination of Just Compensation is a Judicial Function

The determination of just compensation is a judicial function. The executive or legislature may make the initial determination but when a party claims a violation in the Bill of Rights, no statute, decree, or executive order can mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the court’s mandate [EPZA v. Dulay, G.R. No. L-59603 (1987)].

Rules on the Liberal Approach on Locus Standi