MIDTERM CONSTI 1 REVIEWER Government. (Sec. 1[2], Art.
JUDICIAL REVIEW VIII, 1987 Constitution)
This second paragraph effectively
limits the ―Political Question‖ area that,
A. DEFINITION OF JUDICIAL heretofore, was forbidden territory for
POWER the courts. This is an added provision
The judicial power shall be vested in in the 1987 Constitution which
one Supreme Court and in such lower broadens the scope of judicial power.
courts as may be established by law. 3. Incidental Powers – those which
Judicial power includes the duty of are necessary to the effective
the courts of justice to settle actual discharge of the judicial
controversies involving rights which are functions such as: power to
legally demandable and enforceable, punish persons adjudged in
and to determine whether or not there contempt and power to issue
has been a grave abuse of discretion restraining orders or prohibition
amounting to lack or excess of and injunction in aid of power of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch judicial review.
or instrumentality of the Government. However, it should be made clear
(Sec. 1, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution) that any conduct of the media, or any
JURISDICTION - Jurisdiction is defined other party for that matter, which tends
as the power and authority of a court to to, directly or indirectly, impede,
hear, try, and decide a case. obstruct or degrade the administration
of justice, is subject to the contempt
powers of the courts. The courts should
and will not hesitate to use this power
Scope of Judicial Power when acts inimical to the speedy and
1. Adjudicatory Powers – To settle impartial dispensation of justice are
actual controversies involving committed.
rights which are legally Constitutional Safeguards to ensure
demandable and enforceable. the independence of the Judiciary:
(Sec. 1[2], Art. VIII, 1987
Constitution) 1. The Supreme Court is a
constitutional body; it may not
2. Expanded Power of Judicial be abolished by the legislature.
Review – To determine whether
or not there has been a grave 2. The members of the Supreme
abuse of discretion amounting to Court are removable only by
lack or excess of jurisdiction on impeachment.
the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the 3. The Supreme Court may not be
deprived of its minimum original
and appellate jurisdiction; limitations there must be some
appellate jurisdiction may not be authority competent to hold it in
increased without its advice and control, to thwart its
concurrence unconstitutional attempt, and thus
to vindicate and preserve inviolate
4. The Supreme Court has the will of the people as expressed in
administrative supervision over the Constitution. This power the
all inferior courts and personnel. courts exercise. This is the
beginning and the end of the theory
5. The Supreme Court has the of judicial review. (David v.
exclusive power to discipline Macapagal-Arroyo, GR 171396, 3
judges/justices of inferior courts. May 2006)
6. The members of the Judiciary
have security of tenure. Judicial Review. Sections 1, 5(1), and
5(2), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution.
7. The members of the Judiciary
may not be designated to any Section 5. The Supreme Court shall
agency performing quasi-judicial have the following powers:
or administrative functions.
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over
8. Salaries of judges may not be cases affecting ambassadors, other
reduced; the Judiciary enjoys public ministers and consuls, and over
fiscal autonomy. petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
B. JUDICIAL REVIEW and habeas corpus.
- It is the power of the courts, (2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or
ultimately the Supreme Court, to affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law
interpret the Constitution and to or the Rules of Court may provide, final
declare any legislative or judgments and orders of lower courts
executive act invalid because it is in:
in conflict with the fundamental
law. (a) All cases in which the
constitutionality or validity of any
POWER
treaty, international or executive
The Constitution is the supreme agreement, law, presidential decree,
law. It was ordained by the people, proclamation, order, instruction,
the ultimate source of all political ordinance, or regulation is in question.
authority. It confers limited powers
on the national government. If the (b) All cases involving the legality
government consciously or of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll,
unconsciously oversteps these
or any penalty imposed in relation case or controversy. This is embodied in
thereto. Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution which pertinently states
(c) All cases in which the that judicial power includes the duty of
jurisdiction of any lower court is in the courts of justice to settle actual
issue. controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable.
(d) All criminal cases in which Jurisprudence provides that an actual
the penalty imposed is reclusion case or controversy is one which
perpetua or higher. involves a conflict of legal rights, an
assertion of opposite legal claims,
(e) All cases in which only an susceptible of judicial resolution as
error or question of law is involved. distinguished from a hypothetical or
abstract difference or dispute. In other
Role of Judiciary in Judicial Review words, there must be a contrariety of
legal rights that can be interpreted and
The power of the courts to test enforced on the basis of existing law
the validity of executive and legislative and jurisprudence. (Belgica v. Ochoa,
acts in light of their conformity with the GR 208566, 19 November 2013)
Constitution. This is not an assertion of
superiority by the courts over the other 1.1 Contrariety of legal
departments, but merely an expression rights
of the supremacy of the Constitution.
In asserting a contrariety of legal
That judicial supremacy is but rights, merely alleging an
the power of judicial review in actual incongruence of rights between the
and appropriate cases and parties is not enough. The party
controversies, and is the power and availing of the remedy must
duty to see that no one branch or demonstrate that the law is so
agency of the government transcends contrary to their rights that there is
the Constitution, which is the source of no interpretation other than that
all authority. (Angara v. Electoral there is a factual breach of rights.
Commission, GR 45081, 15 July No demonstrable contrariety of
1936) legal rights exists when there are
possible ways to interpret the
REQUISITES:
provision of a statute, regulation, or
ordinance that will save its
SUBSTANTIVE
constitutionality. In other words, the
party must show that the only
1. ACTUAL CASE OR
possible way to interpret the
CONTROVERSY
provision is one that is
unconstitutional. (Initiative for
By constitutional fiat, judicial power
Dialogue and Empowerment
operates only when there is an actual
through Alternative Legal A constitutional question may not
Services Inc. v. Senate of the be presented to this Court at an
Philippines, GRs 184735 and inopportune time. When it is
195366, 13 June 2023) premature, this Court's ruling shall be
relegated as an advisory opinion for a
potential, future occurrence. When
1.2 When not justiciable belated, concerning matters that are
moot, the decision will no longer affect
a. Political Question the parties. (Pangilinan v. Cayetano,
GR 238875, 16 March 2021)
As the case concerned questions
of policy and issues dependent upon c. Moot and academic; with
the wisdom, not the legality of a exceptions
particular measure, political questions A moot and academic case is one
used to be beyond the ambit of judicial that ceases to present a justiciable
review. However, the scope of the controversy by virtue of supervening
political question doctrine has been events, so that a declaration thereon
limited by Section 1 of Article VIII of the would be of no practical use or value.
1987 Constitution, when it vested in Generally, courts decline jurisdiction
the judiciary the power to determine over such case or dismiss it on ground
whether or not there has been a grave of mootness.
abuse of discretion amounting to a lack
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of However, the moot and academic
any branch or instrumentality of the principle is not a magical formula that
Government. (Ocampo v. Enriquez, GR can automatically dissuade the courts
225973, 8 November 2016) from resolving a case. The courts will
still decide cases otherwise moot and
POLITICAL QUESTIONS DOCTRINE academic if:
Those questions which, under (a) there is a grave violation of the
the Constitution, are to be decided by Constitution;
the people in their sovereign capacity,
or in regard to which full discretionary (b) there is an exceptional character of
authority has been delegated to the the situation and paramount public
legislative or executive branch of the interest is involved;
government. (purple notes)
(c) the constitutional issues raised
b. Premature require formulation of controlling
principles to guide the bench, the bar
- when someone tries to make a and the public, and
complaint or take legal action
before the situation is ready for (d) the case is capable of repetition yet
it. evasive of review. (Salonga v. Cruz
Paño, GR L-59524, 18 February
1985)
The harm occasioned on the
business of Fertiphil is sufficient injury
for purposesof locus standi.
The issues raised by Fertiphil are of
paramount public importance. It
involves not only the constitutionality of
a tax law but, more importantly, the
use of taxes for public purpose.
(Planters Products Inc. v. Fertiphil
Corporation, GR 166006, 14 March
2008)
2.2 Transcendental
importance
The transcendental importance
doctrine shows its application in cases
where the government has committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to
2. LOCUS STANDI (LEGAL lack of, or excess of jurisdiction.
STANDING)
When the standing is relaxed
because of the transcendental
- A personal and substantial
importance doctrine, the character of
interest in a case such that the
the injury presented to fulfil the actual
party has sustained or will
case or controversy requirement is
sustain direct injury as a result
likewise tempered. When we, for
of the governmental act that is
instance, say that the petitioners have
being challenged.
no standing as citizens or as taxpayers
but we nevertheless give the petition
2.1 Direct Injury Test
due course, we indirectly acknowledge
Fertiphil suffered a direct injury that the injury that they had or will
from the enforcement of LOI No. 1465. sustain is not personally directed
It was required, and it did pay, the ₱10 towards them, but to the more general
levy imposed for every bag of fertilizer and abstract Filipino public. (Diocese
sold on the domestic market. of Bacolod v. Commission on
Elections, GR 205729, 21 January
The harm to their business consists 2015)
not only in fewer clients because of the
increased price, but also in adopting 2.3 Third Party Standing
alternative corporate strategies to meet
Essentially, petitioner has no interest in
the demands of LOI No. 1465.
this supposed controversy. As firmly
and consistently held by the
Court, locus standi requires a personal illegal disbursement of public funds, or
stake in the outcome of a controversy if public money is being deflected to any
for significant reasons. (Aguinaldo v. improper purpose or when petitioners
New Bilibid Prison, GR 221201, 29 seek to restrain respondent from
March 2022) wasting public funds through the
enforcement of an invalid or
a. Citizen’s Standing unconstitutional law.
The interest must be direct and In the instant case, individual
personal. The person complaining must petitioners, suing as taxpayers, assert a
show that he has been or is about to be material interest in seeing to it that
denied of some right or privilege to public funds are properly and lawfully
which he is lawfully entitled. However, used. In the Petition, they claim that
when the proceeding involves the the bidding was defective, the winning
assertion of a public right, the mere fact bidder not a qualified entity, and the
that he is a citizen satisfies the award of the Contract contrary to law
requirement of personal interest. and regulation. (Information
(Gonzales vs. Narvasa, G.R. No. Technology Foundation vs. COMELEC
140835, August 14, 2000) (G.R. 159139 January 13, 2004)
In relation to other satient beings c. Voter’s Standing
Petitioner has a legal standing, A party will be allowed to litigate only
and it has been eliminated by our when
Rules, which allow any Filipino citizen,
as a steward of nature, to bring a suit (1) The can show that he has personally
to enforce our environmental laws. It is suffered some actual or threatened
worth noting here that the Stewards are injury because of the allegedly illegal
joined as real parties in the Petition and conduct of the government;
not just in representation of the named
cetacean species. (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the
challenged action; and
Having shown in their petition
that there may be possible violations of (3) the injury is likely to be redressed
laws concerning the habitat of the by a favorable action. (Tolentino v.
Resident Marine Mammals, are Commission on Elections, GR
therefore declared to possess the legal 148334, 21 January 2004)
standing to file this petition. (Resident d. Legislator’s Standing
Marine Mammals of the Protected
Seascape Tanon Strait v. Reyes, GR Legislators have a legal standing
180771, 21 April 2015) to see to it that the prerogative, powers
and privileges vested by the
b. Taxpayer’s Standing Constitution in their office remain
Court has held that taxpayers are inviolate. Thus, they are allowed to
allowed to sue when there is a claim of question the validity of any official
action which, to their mind, infringes EXCEPTIONS:
on their prerogatives as legislators.
In criminal cases, the question
Therefore, a member of Congress can be raised at any time at the
who merely invokes his or her status as discretion of the court.
a legislator cannot be granted standing
in a petition that does not involve any In civil cases, the question can
impairment of the powers or be raised at any stage of the
prerogatives of Congress. (Lagman v. proceedings if necessary for the
Ochoa, GR 197422, 3 November determination of the case itself.
2020) In every case, except where there is
e. Association Standing an estoppel, it can be raised at any
stage if it involves the jurisdiction of the
An association is endowed with court.
standing to institute actions on behalf
of its members, it must establish who 4. LIS MOTA of the Case
their members are, and that it has been Lis Mota is the fourth requirement
duly authorized by its members to to satisfy before this Court will
represent them or sue on their behalf. undertake judicial review. This
(Bayyo Association Inc. v. Tugade, requirement is based on the rule that
GR 254001, 11 July 2023) every law has in its favor the
presumption of constitutionality; to
justify its nullification, there must be a
3. EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY clear and unequivocal breach of the
Constitution, and not one that is
Earliest opportunity means that the doubtful, speculative, or
question of unconstitutionality of the argumentative.(Garcia v. Executive
act in question should have been Secretary, GR 157584, 2 April 2009)
immediately raised in the proceedings
in the court. MODES:
Court could not entertain questions 1. Declaratory Relief with RTC
on the invalidity of a statute where that
issue was not specifically raised, Section l, Rule 63 of the Rules of
insisted upon, and adequately argued. Court provides that a petition for
(Arceta v. Mangrobang, GR 152895, declaratory relief may be filed before the
15 June 2004) RTC by any person whose rights are
affected by a statute, executive order or
GENERAL RULE: The question must be regulation, ordinance, or any other
raised at the earliest opportunity. governmental regulation, before breach
or violation thereof, to determine any
question of construction or validity
arising, and for a declaration of his
rights or duties thereunder. (Lozano v.
Judge Martinez, GR L-63419, 18 use or enjoyment of a right or office to
December 1986) which such other is entitled.
Prohibition may be issued to
correct errors of jurisdiction committed
not only by a tribunal, corporation,
board or officer exercising judicial,
quasi-judicial or ministerial functions
but also to set right, undo and restrain
any act of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction by any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.
2.1 Facial viz as-applied
challenge
A facial challenge is allowed to be made
to a vague statute and to one which is
overbroad because of possible ―chilling
effect‖ upon protected speech. The
2. Certiorari, Prohibition, and theory is that when statutes regulate or
Mandamus proscribe speech and no readily
apparent construction suggests itself as
Certiorari is a special civil action by a vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes
which questions of jurisdiction may be in a single prosecution, the
determined. The extraordinary writ of transcendent value to all society of
certiorari offers a limited form of review, constitutionally protected expression is
for its principal function is to keep deemed to justify allowing attacks on
inferior tribunals within their overly broad statutes with no
jurisdiction. The writ is available only to requirement that the person making the
keep an inferior court within the attack demonstrate that his own
bounds of its jurisdiction, or to prevent conduct could not be regulated by a
it from committing a grave abuse of statute drawn with narrow specificity.
discretion amounting to excess of (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, GR
jurisdiction. 148560, 19 November 2001)
The Supreme Court ruled that a writ Chilling effect: There is chilling effect
of mandamus is a remedy granted by when the right to freedom of expression
law when any tribunal, corporation, is suppressed by fear of punishment.
board, officer, or person unlawfully By all means, violations of law should
neglects the performance of a legal duty be vigorously prosecuted by the State
or unlawfully excludes another from the for they breed their own evil
consequence. But to repeat, the need to
prevent their violation cannot per se Effect of equal votes
trump the exercise of free speech and
free press, a preferred right whose As the votes were equally divided
breach can lead to greater evils. (7 to 7) and the necessary majority was
(Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. not obtained, the case was
168338, February 15, 2008) PURPLE redeliberated upon. However, after
NOTES redeliberation, the voting remained the
same. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule
GENERAL RULE: Facial invalidation of 56, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil
laws is generally disfavored as it results Procedure, the petition is DISMISSED.
in entirely striking down the challenged
law or statute on the ground that they Section 7. Procedure if opinion
may be applied to parties not before the is equally divided. — Where the court
Court whose activities are en banc is equally divided in opinion, or
constitutionally protected. the necessary majority cannot be had,
the case shall again be deliberated on,
OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE and if after such deliberation no
decision is reached, the original action
Foremost, a facial review of a law commenced in the court shall be
or statute encroaching upon the dismissed, in appealed cases, the
freedom of speech on the ground of judgment or order appealed from shall
overbreadth or vagueness is acceptable stand affirmed; and on all incidental
in our jurisdiction. matters, the petition or motion shall be
Under the overbreadth doctrine, denied. (Cruz v. Secretary of
a proper governmental purpose, Environment and Natural Resources,
constitutionally subject to state GR 135385)
regulation, may not be achieved by Effects of declaration of
means that unnecessarily sweep its unconstitutionality
subject broadly, thereby invading the
area of protected freedoms. A. Operative Fact Doctrine
Limitations: The actual existence of a statute,
prior to such a determination [of
The only time a facial challenge unconstitutionality], is an operative fact
to a statute is allowed is when it and may have consequences which
operates in the area of freedom of cannot justly be ignored. The past
expression. It is not allowed in penal cannot always be erased by a new
statutes; if allowed, the State may well judicial declaration. The effect of the
be prevented from enacting laws subsequent ruling as to invalidity may
against socially harmful conduct. have to be considered in various
(Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. aspects, with respect to particular
No. 148560, November 19, 2001) relations, individual and corporate, and
particular conduct, private and official.
(Serrano de Agbayani v. Philippine
National Bank, GR L-23127, 28 April
1971)
