Constitutional law 1 Doctrines (Mula, HDS)

Political Law Defined

MACARIOLA V. ASUNCION, 5/31/82
The political laws of the former sovereign, whether compatible or not with those of the new sovereign, are
automatically abrogated, unless they are expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the new sovereign.
Political Law has been defined as that branch of public law which deals with the organization and operation of
the governmental organs of the State and define the relations of the state with the inhabitants of its territory.

Constitutional Law Defined/Distinguished from PolLaw

-MMDA V. VERON, 8/15/07;
Constitutional Law is to effect an equilibrium between authority and liberty so that rights are exercised within the
framework of the law and the laws are enacted with due deference to rights.
DTI vs Enriquez
doctrine of qualified political agency or the alter ego doctrine was introduced in our jurisdiction in the landmark
case of Villena v. The Secretary of Interior.48 The Court explained that said doctrine essentially postulates that
the heads of the various executive departments are the alter egos of the President and, as such, the actions
taken by them in the performance of their official duties are deemed the acts of the President unless the latter
disapproves such acts.

Constitution Defined-Types/Kinds

LAWYERS LEAGUE V. AQUINO, 5/22/86;

In relation to the article 2 section 1 of the constitution, that “The Philippines is a democratic and republican State.
Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.”

IN RE: BERMUDEZ, 145 SCRA 160 [1986];

the people of the Philippines have accepted her government as the one in effective control of the
country, such that it is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a de jure government.

DE LEON V. ESGUERRA, 8/31/87;

Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a
plebiscite held for the purpose and shall supersede all previous Constitutions. The 1987 Constitution was
ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987. By that date, therefore, the Provisional Constitution must be deemed
to have been superseded.
IN RE: SABIO 10/17/06
The Constitution is the highest law of the land. It is "the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must
conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer. No act shall be valid,
however noble its intentions, if it conflicts with the Constitution."

Compare with the effectivity of Laws

TAÑADA V. TUVERA, 4/24/85 & 12/19/86;

Publication is an indispensable requirement to comply with due process. The people cannot be expected to
follow a law of which they have not been informed. The Philippines is not a society of secret laws and decrees;
laws should be out in the open. Publication is not required for Supreme Court decisions, interpretative
regulations, letters of instruction and internal rules affecting only the personnel of an administrative agency.
SENATE V. ERMITA 4/20/06;
while laws applies only to officials of the executive branch, it does not follow that the same is exempt from the
need for publication. E.O. 464 has a direct effect on the right of the people to information on matters of public
concern.
GARCILLANO V. HOUSE, 12/23/08;
the law merely recognizes the admissibility in evidence (for their being the original) of electronic data messages
and/or electronic documents. It does not make the internet a medium for publishing laws, rules and regulations.

NERI V. SENATE 3/25/08 & 9/4/08;

The language of Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution requiring that the inquiry be conducted in accordance
with the duly published rules of procedure is direct. It is incumbent upon the Senate to publish the rules for its
legislative inquiries in each Congress or otherwise make the published rules clearly state that the same shall be
effective in subsequent Congresses or until they are amended or repealed to sufficiently put public on notice.
PIMENTEL V. SENATE, 3/8/11;
Rules of the House or the Senate that only affect their own members don’t need to be published, if the rules itself
expressly provide for their publication before the rules can take effect, then it must be published .
VILLANUEVA V. JBC, 4/7/15;
As a general rule, publication is indispensable in order that all statutes, including administrative rules that are intended to enforce or
implement existing laws, attain binding force and effect. In this case, JBC policy need not to be filed in the UP Law Center Office of the
National Administrative Register because the publication confined only to the issuances of administrative agencies under the executive
branch of the government.
GOTESCO V. SOLIDBANK, 7/26/17;
To be a newspaper of general circulation, it is enough that "it is published for the dissemination of local news and general
information; that it has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers; that it is published at regular intervals" . . . The
newspaper need not have the largest circulation so long as it is of general circulation. There is a greater probability that an
announcement or notice published in a newspaper of general circulation, which is distributed nationwide, shall have a
readership of more people than that posted in a public bulletin board, no matter how strategic its location may be, which
caters only to a limited few.

MUN. V. FAUSTINO, 8/20/19;

Ordinance has never been published in any newspaper of either general or local circulation. A belated publication cannot
have retroactive effect of curing the infirmity. What is required by law, is prior publication.

DENR V. ABAD, 1/19/21

belated publication cannot have retroactive effect of curing the infirmity attendant in the passage of the administrative
regulation. Effectivity of laws, therefore, depends on their publication. Without such notice and publication, the conclusive
presumption cannot apply for laws and rules are to be binding only when their existence and contents are confirmed by a
valid publication.

JUDICIAL ELABORATION OF THE CONSTITUTION:

Construction & Supremacy-
MANILA PRINCE V. GSIS 2/3/97;
Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the constitution that law or contract
whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes is
null and void and without any force and effect.

FRANCISCO V. HOUSE, 11/10/03;

Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated in the foregoing manner, another may not be filed against the same
official within a one year period following Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution.

PAMATONG V. COMELEC 4/13/04;

There is no constitutional right to run for or hold public office and, particularly in his case, to seek the presidency. What is
recognized in Art II, Sec 26 is merely a privilege subject to limitations imposed by law. There is nothing in the plain
language of the provision which suggests such a thrust or justifies an interpretation of the sort. The provisions under the
“Declaration of Principles and State Policies” Article (Art II) are generally considered not self-executing, and there is no
plausible reason for according a different treatment to the "equal access" provision.

DE CASTRO V. JBC, 3/17/10;

The supremacy of constitution takes place on how plainly stated using the statutory construction or by the language of the
law.This is consistent with the rule that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context.

ESPINA V. ZAMORA, 9/21/10

The constitution prohibits the aliens in owning property in the phil. The law on this case allow aliens to a retail trades and it
not contrary to article XII of constitution which stated that the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign
competition and trade practices.

The Doctrine of Separation of Powers & the Theory of Judicial Review-

THE PROV. V. THE GOV’T, 10/14/08;
Only the state has the power enter in international relations, The power of judicial review is limited to actual cases or
controversies.54 Courts decline to issue advisory opinions or to resolve hypothetical or feigned problems, or mere academic
questions.55 The limitation of the power of judicial review to actual cases and controversies defines the role assigned to the
judiciary in a tripartite allocation of power, to assure that the courts will not intrude into areas committed to the other branches
of government.

COCOFED V. RP, 9/17/09;

the Court cannot question the wisdom and reasons behind the decision of the executive branch to ask for the
conversion of the common shares to preferred shares. Else, the Court would be trenching on the well-settled
doctrine of separation of powers. The cardinal postulate explains that the three branches must discharge their
respective functions within the limits of authority conferred by the Constitution. Under the principle of separation
of powers, neither Congress, the President, nor the Judiciary may encroach on fields allocated to the other
branches of government. The legislature is generally limited to the enactment of laws, the executive to the
enforcement of laws, and the judiciary to their interpretation and application to cases and controversies. It is only
upon a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion that the Courts will set aside the award of a contract made by
a government entity. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power .
The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual
refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as to act at all in contemplation of law, where the power is exercised in
an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility

ANGARA V. ELEC COMM 7/15/36

The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government. It obtains not through express
provision but by actual division in our Constitution. Each department of the government has exclusive
cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere. But it does not follow from the
fact that the three powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the Constitution intended them to be
absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other. The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of
checks and balances to secure coordination in the workings of the various departments of the government.

BIRAOGO V. THE PHIL., 12/7/10

The power of judicial review is subject to limitations, to wit: (1) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the
exercise of judicial power; (2) the person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject
act or issuance; otherwise stated, he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained,
or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest
opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.

presumption of constitutionality:
ALDABA V. COMELEC, 3/15/10;
In here, the case conceptualized that the preponderance of evidence is necessary in the judicial review. In absence of these,
the presumption of constitutionality may be apply. This is a justiciable question because The constitutionality of a legislative
apportionment act is a justicialble question, and not one which the court cannot consider on the ground that it is a political
question.

SALCEDO V. BOLOJOS, 7/5/10;

the law provides ample judicial remedies against errors or irregularities being committed by a Trial Court in the exercise of
its jurisdiction. The ordinary remedies against errors or irregularities which may be regarded as normal in nature. Absence
of malice or bad faith deemed, the presumption of regularity may apply.

tests/standard/Approaches on application of the presumption of constitutionality-

GARCIA V. DRILON, 6/25/13 [concurring opinion, J. Brion]
the constitutional provision of equal protection simply requires that similarly situated persons be treated in the same way. It
does not connote identity of rights among individuals, nor does it require that every person is treated identically in all
circumstances. It acts as a safeguard to ensure that State-drawn distinctions among persons are based on reasonable
classifications and made pursuant to a proper governmental purpose. In short, statutory classifications are not
unconstitutional when shown to be reasonable and made pursuant to a legitimate government objective.
The use of an expanded equal protection clause only stresses the concept of an uneven equality that cannot long stand in a
unit living at close quarters in a situation of mutual dependency on one another.

Conditions for the Exercise of Judicial Review-

ESTARIJA V. RANADA 6/26/06;
When the issue of unconstitutionality of a legislative act is raised, the Court may exercise its power of judicial review only if the
following requisites are present: (1) an actual and appropriate case and controversy; (2) a personal and substantial interest of
the party raising the constitutional question; (3) the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the
constitutional question raised is the very lis mota of the case.19

For our purpose, only the third requisite is in question. Unequivocally, the law requires that the question of constitutionality of a
statute must be raised at the earliest opportunity.

ANAK- MIN V. EXEC. 8/29/07;

Locus standi or legal standing has been defined as a personal and substantial interest
in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of
the governmental act that is being challenged.
the following elements must be established: (1) the public character of the funds or other assets involved in
the case, (2) the presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition by the
public respondent agency or instrumentality of government, and (3) the lack of any other party with a
more direct and specific interest in raising the questions being raised.

ABAKADA V. PURISIMA 8/14/08;

An actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of
judicial adjudication. A closely related requirement is ripeness, that is, the question must be ripe for adjudication. And a
constitutional question is ripe for adjudication when the governmental act being challenged has a direct adverse effect on the
individual challenging it. Thus, to be ripe for judicial adjudication, the petitioner must show a personal stake in the outcome of
the case or an injury to himself that can be redressed by a favorable decision of the Court.

BELGICA V. OCHOA, 11/19/13;

actual and justiciable controversy; By constitutional fiat, judicial power operates only when there is an actual case or
controversy.120 This is embodied in Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution which pertinently states that "judicial
power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable
and enforceable x x x." Jurisprudence provides that an actual case or controversy is one which "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.121 In other words, "there must be a contrariety of legal rights that can be interpreted and enforced on
the basis of existing law and jurisprudence.
The prevailing rule in constitutional litigation is that no question involving the constitutionality or validity of a law or
governmental act may be heard and decided by the Court unless there is compliance with the legal requisites for
judicial inquiry,117 namely: (a) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (b) the
person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject act or issuance; (c) the question of
constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity ; and (d) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of
the case.
 BANKERS V. COMELEC, 11/26/13;
The power of judicial review is limited to actual cases or controversies. The Court, as a rule, will decline to
exercise jurisdiction over a case and proceed to dismiss it when the issues posed have been mooted by
supervening events. Mootness intervenes when a ruling from the Court no longer has any practical value and,
from this perspective, effectively ceases to be a justiciable controversy.13 "[W]ithout a justiciable controversy,
the [petition would] become a [plea] for declaratory relief, over which the Supreme Court has no original
jurisdiction."14
While the Court has recognized exceptions in applying the "moot and academic" principle,
these exceptions relate only to situations where: (1) there is a grave violation of the
Constitution; (2) the situation is of exceptional character and paramount public interest is
involved; (3) the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to
guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and (4) the case is capable of repetition yet evading
review
IN RE: SAVE THE SUPREME COURT, 1/21/15;
The Court can exercise its power of judicial review only after a law is enacted, not before. the rule on standing is a matter of
procedure, hence, can be relaxed for nontraditional plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers, and legislators when the public
interest so requires, such as when the matter is of transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of
paramount public interest.

PIMENTEL V. LEB, 9/10/19

Legal standing may be extended to petitioners for having raised a "constitutional issue of
critical significance. Without a doubt, the delineation of the Court's rule-making power vis-a-
vis the supervision and regulation of legal education and the determination of the reach of the
State's supervisory and regulatory power in the context of the guarantees of academic
freedom and the right to education are novel issues with far-reaching implications that
deserve the Court's immediate attention. In taking cognizance of the instant petitions, the
Court is merely exercising its power to promulgate rules towards the end that constitutional
rights are protected and enforced.

Functions of Judicial Review-

JAVIER V. COMELEC 144 SCRA 194 [1986];
The Supreme Court is not only the highest arbiter of legal questions but also the conscience
of the government. The citizen comes to us in quest of law but we must also give him justice.
The two are not always the same. There are times when we cannot grant the latter because
the issue has been settled and decision is no longer possible according to the law. But there
are also times when although the dispute has disappeared, as in this case, it nevertheless
cries out to be resolved. Justice demands that we act then, not only for the vindication of the
outraged right, though gone, but also for the guidance of and as a restraint upon the future.

ABS-CBN V. COMELEC 1/20/00;

In any event, the Court had occasion to reiterate that it "also has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling
constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules. It has the symbolic function of educating bench and bar on
the extent of protection given by constitutional guarantees.

CENTRAL BANK V. BSP 12/15/04;

Doctrine: the Court will exercise judicial restraint in deciding questions of constitutionality,
recognizing the broad discretion given to Congress in exercising its legislative power. Judicial
scrutiny would be based on the "rational basis" test, and the legislative discretion would be
given deferential treatment. But if the challenge to the statute is premised on the denial
of a fundamental right, or the perpetuation of prejudice against persons favored by the
Constitution with special protection, judicial scrutiny ought to be more strict. A weak
and watered down view would call for the abdication of this Court's solemn duty to strike
down any law repugnant to the Constitution and the rights it enshrines.

GUDANI V. SENGA 8/15/06

Doctrine: Courts are empowered, under the constitutional principle of judicial review, to arbitrate disputes
between the legislative and executive branches of government on the proper constitutional parameters of power.
[60] This is the fair and workable solution implicit in the constitutional allocation of powers among the three
branches of government. The judicial filter helps assure that the particularities of each case would ultimately
govern, rather than any overarching principle unduly inclined towards one branch of government at the expense
of the other. The procedure may not move as expeditiously as some may desire, yet it ensures thorough
deliberation of all relevant and cognizable issues before one branch is compelled to yield to the other. Moreover,
judicial review does not preclude the legislative and executive branches from negotiating a mutually acceptable
solution to the impasse. After all, the two branches, exercising as they do functions and responsibilities that are
political in nature, are free to smooth over the thorns in their relationship with a salve of their own choosing.

MBTC V. REYNALDO, 8/9/10

Doctrine: judicial review is allowed where respondent has clearly established that the prosecutor committed grave
abuse of discretion that is, when he has exercised his discretion "in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic
manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, patent and gross enough as to amount to an evasion of a
positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.

All Courts can Exercise the Power of Judicial Review-

YNOT V. IAC 3/30/87;
Court has declared that while lower courts should observe a becoming modesty in examining
constitutional questions, they are nonetheless not prevented from resolving the same
whenever warranted, subject only to review by the highest tribunal. We have jurisdiction
under the Constitution to "review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as
the law or rules of court may provide," final judgments and orders of lower courts in, among
others, all cases involving the constitutionality of certain measures. This simply means that
the resolution of such cases may be made in the first instance by these lower courts.

MIRASOL V. CA, 2/1/01;

It is settled that Regional Trial Courts have the authority and jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of a
statute, presidential decree, or executive order.9 The Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power
to declare a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance,
or regulation not only in this Court, but in all Regional Trial Courts. "Plainly, the Constitution contemplates that
the inferior courts should have jurisdiction in cases involving constitutionality of any treaty or law, for it speaks of
appellate review of final judgments of inferior courts in cases where such constitutionality happens to be in issue.

EQUI-ASIA V. DEPT, 9/19/06;

There is no denying that regular courts have jurisdiction over cases involving the validity or constitutionality of a
rule or regulation issued by administrative agencies. Such jurisdiction, however, is not limited to the Court of
Appeals or to this Court alone for even the regional trial courts can take cognizance of actions assailing a
specific rule or set of rules promulgated by administrative bodies. Indeed, the Constitution vests the power of
judicial review or the power to declare a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree,
order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation in the courts, including the regional trial courts.

PLANTERS V. FERTIPHIL, 3/14/08;

SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may
provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:

(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question. (Underscoring
supplied) It is settled that Regional Trial Courts have the authority and jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality
of a statute, presidential decree, or executive order. The Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the
power to declare a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation not only in this Court, but in all Regional Trial Courts.

Judicial review of official acts on the ground of unconstitutionality may be sought or availed of through any of the
actions cognizable by courts of justice, not necessarily in a suit for declaratory relief.

GARCIA V. DRILON, 6/25/13

Family Courts have authority and jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of a statute. At
the outset, it must be stressed that Family Courts are special courts, of the same level as
Regional Trial Courts. Under R.A. 8369, otherwise known as the "Family Courts Act of 1997,"
family courts have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of domestic
violence against women and children.42 In accordance with said law, the Supreme Court
designated from among the branches of the Regional Trial Courts at least one Family Court in
each of several key cities identified. Inspite of its designation as a family court, the RTC of
Bacolod City remains possessed of authority as a court of general original jurisdiction to pass
upon all kinds of cases whether civil, criminal, special proceedings, land registration,
guardianship, naturalization, admiralty or insolvency.44 It is settled that RTCs have jurisdiction
to resolve the constitutionality of a statute,45 "this authority being embraced in the general
definition of the judicial power to determine what are the valid and binding laws by the
criterion of their conformity to the fundamental law
Collateral attack on constitutionality of a law-
VIVAS V. MONETARY, 8/7/13;
Nothing is more settled than the rule that the constitutionality of a statute cannot be
collaterally attacked as constitutionality issues must be pleaded directly and not collaterally. A
collateral attack on a presumably valid law is not permissible. Unless a law or rule is annulled
in a direct proceeding, the legal presumption of its validity stands.

LAUDE V. GINES-JABALDE, 11/24/15

Judicial review of official acts on the ground of unconstitutionality may be sought or availed of
through any of the actions cognizable by courts of justice, not necessarily in a suit for
declaratory relief. . . The constitutional issue, however, (a) must be properly raised and
presented in the case, and (b) its resolution is necessary to a determination of the case, i.e.,
the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota presented.
Effects of Declaration of Unconstitutionality-
FLORES V. DRILON 6/22/93;
The effect is quite different where it is expressly provided by law that a person holding one office shall be
ineligible to another. Such a provision is held to incapacitate the incumbent of an office from accepting or
holding a second office and to render his election or appointment to the latter office void or voidable. Where the
constitution, or statutes declare that persons holding one office shall be ineligible for election or appointment to
another office, either generally or of a certain kind, the prohibition has been held to incapacitate the incumbent
of the first office to hold the second so that any attempt to hold the second is void.

LOKIN V. COMELEC, 6/22/10;

An IRR adopted pursuant to the law is itself law.46 In case of conflict between the law and the IRR, the law
prevails. There can be no question that an IRR or any of its parts not adopted pursuant to the law is no law at all
and has neither the force nor the effect of law.47 The invalid rule, regulation, or part thereof cannot be a valid
source of any right, obligation, or power.

LEAGUE OF CITIES V. COMELEC, 8/24/10;

The general rule is that an unconstitutional law is void. It produces no rights, imposes no duties and affords no
protection. It has no legal effect. It is, in legal contemplation, inoperative as if it has not been passed. Being
void, Fertiphil is not required to pay the levy. All levies paid should be refunded in accordance with the general
civil code principle against unjust enrichment. The general rule is supported by Article 7 of the Civil Code,
When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter
shall govern. The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general rule, only applies as a matter
of equity and fair play. It nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing that the existence
of a statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have
consequences which cannot always be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial
declaration. The doctrine is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue
burden on those who have relied on the invalid law. The operative fact doctrine never validates or
constitutionalizes an unconstitutional law. Under the operative fact doctrine, the unconstitutional law
remains unconstitutional, but the effects of the unconstitutional law, prior to its judicial declaration of
nullity, may be left undisturbed as a matter of equity and fair play. In short, the operative fact doctrine
affects or modifies only the effects of the unconstitutional law, not the unconstitutional law itself.

ARAULLO V. AQUINO, 2/3/15

The doctrine of operative fact has nothing to do with the potential liability of persons who acted pursuant to a
then-constitutional statute, order, or practice. They are presumed to have acted in good faith and the court
cannot load the dice, so to speak, by disabling possible defenses in potential suits against so-called "authors,
proponents and implementors." The mere nullification are still deemed valid on the theory that judicial
nullification is a contingent or unforeseen event.
As a general rule, the nullification of an unconstitutional law or act carries with it the illegality of its effects.
However, in cases where nullification of the effects will result in inequity and injustice, the operative fact doctrine
may apply.

Political Question # Justiciable Question-

OPOSA V. FACTORAN 7/30/93;

the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the impenetrable shield that protects executive
and legislative actions from judicial inquiry or review. The second paragraph of section 1, Article VIII of the
Constitution states that 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.

GARCIA V. CORONA 12/17/99;

For the Court to declare unconstitutional the key provision around which the law’s anti-trust measures are
clustered would mean a constitutionally interdicted distrust of the wisdom of Congress and of the determined
exercise of executive power.

VELARDE V. SJS 4/28/04;

A justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for judicial
determination, not one that is conjectural or merely anticipatory.

VINUYA V. ROMULO, 4/28/10;

Political questions refer “to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in
their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or
executive branch of the government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a
particular measure.”One type of case of political questions involves questions of foreign relations. It is well-
established that “the conduct of the foreign relations of our government is committed by the Constitution to the
executive and legislative–‘the political’–departments of the government, and the propriety of what may be done
in the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision.

DIOCESE V. COMELEC, 1/21/15

What is generally meant, when it is said that a question is political, and not judicial, is that it is a matter which is
to be exercised by the people in their primary political capacity, or that it has been specifically delegated to some
other department or particular officer of the government, with discretionary power to act.
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 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 concept of a political question, however, never precludes judicial review when the act of a constitutional organ
infringes upon a fundamental individual or collective right. When political questions are involved, the Constitution
limits the determination to whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction on the part of the official whose action is being questioned. If grave abuse is not established, the
Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the official concerned and decide a matter which by its nature or by
law is for the latter alone to decide.