Give me the power of judicial review

Differentiate judicial power vs judicial review?

Judicial Power

- 1st part (Art. VIII, Sec. 1): Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.

- SCOPE OF JUDICIAL POWER

- Traditional adjudicatory power: Settling actual controversies involving

rights that are legally demandable and enforceable.

- Expanded Power of Judicial Review: The duty to check and determine

whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or

excess of jurisdiction by any governmental agency, including the executive

and legislative branches.

2. Power of Judicial Review

- 2nd part (Art. VIII, Sec. 1): 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.

- It is under the umbrella of the bigger “judicial power.”

NOTE: Judicial power is bigger! Power of judicial review is just under judicial power

What are the main requisites to judicial review?

A — L — E — P

Actual case or controversy (most important)

a. Requires (1) a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts;

(2) opposing parties with adverse legal interests; (3) definite and concrete, not conjectural or anticipatory issues.

 Locus Standi

a. “Locus standi or legal standing or has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will rustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being

challenged.

” (Francisco v. HOR)

b. Locus standi is a requirement of procedural technicality which can be

waived by the Court in the exercise of its discretion. Where the petitioners

fail to show direct injury, they have been allowed to sue under the principle

of transcendental importance.

Earliest Opportunity

The rule is that the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. If its not considered at pleading, it cannot be considered at trial. If not on trial, it cannot be on appeal

Exceptions

• In criminal cases, the constitutional question can be brought in every case

• In civil cases, the constitutional question can be raised at any stage if it is necessary to determine the case

• In every case, except if there is estoppel, the constitutional question may be raised at any stage if it involves the jurisdiction of the court.

Lis Mota

"It is a well-established rule that a court should not pass upon a constitutional question and decide a law to be unconstitutional or invalid, unless such question is raised by the parties and that when it is raised, if the record also presents some other ground upon which the court may raise its judgment, that course will be adopted and the constitutional question will be left for consideration until such question will be unavoidable.

Why? Because every law has a presumption of validity. As long as the constitutionality of a law need not be touched, the case will be decided on other available grounds.

What is the exception to locus standi?

 Transcendental importance

a. Exemption to lack of requisite of actual controversy or locus standi

b. the idea that courts can exercise their power to overturn legislative or

executive actions when the constitutional issues at stake rise to a level of

fundamental, overriding significance

 Lis Mota

"It is a well-established rule that a court should not pass upon a constitutional

question and decide a law to be unconstitutional or invalid, unless such question is raised by the parties and that when it is raised, if the record also presents some other ground upon which the court may raise its judgment, that course will be adopted and the constitutional question will be left for consideration until such question will be unavoidable.

OR basically that the constitutional question is the most important bit of it

What is Angara v Electoral Tribunal famous for?

Facts: Jose A. Angara was proclaimed a National Assembly Member-elect. The assemby passed a resolution confirming that members who didn’t receive electoral protests by Dec. 3, 1935 would be members.

Election Commission states “we have jurisdiction over this person’s case, because Ynsua filed a protest against him within the timeline we set”

Issue: Does the court have jurisdiction?

Ruling: Yes, because it’s the sole body who can interpret the constitution and have its interpretation be binding precedent.

The SC has the jurisdiction over this issue, it being the only body that can decide the mets and bounds of each government body’s powers under the Constitution.

Under Imbong v Ochoa, how did the court deal with its power of judicial review in this case?

SUB ISSUE	RATIO
W/N the Court can evoke the Power of Judicial Review	The Court ruled that where a legislative act is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, settling the dispute is a mandatory judicial duty to ensure constitutional supremacy. Citing Tañada v. Angara, the Court confirmed that certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus are appropriate remedies to raise constitutional issues when no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy exists.
W/N petitioners have actual Case or Controversy	Under Philippine jurisprudence, the fact that a law is not yet fully effective or implemented does not negate ripeness if a constitutional violation is seriously alleged. Because the RH Law and its IRR had taken effect and budgetary allocations had been passed, the threat of injury was real and immediate. Specifically, medical practitioners and public health officers faced an imminent, concrete danger of being criminally prosecuted or administratively dismissed for "vague" violations
W/N the RH bill can be challenged on “its face” (Facial Challenge)	While facial challenges originated in U.S. First Amendment law, Philippine courts have expanded their scope to encompass statutes involving religious freedom and other fundamental rights.
W/N the petitioners have Locus Standi	While standing generally requires a personal stake and direct injury, the Court ruled that procedural standing rules can be relaxed for ordinary citizens and taxpayers when a matter is of overreaching significance to society

Francisco v. House of Representatives, how did the court dispense with the question of power of judicial review having been fulfilled or not?

Facts:

FACTS

An impeachment complaint was filed against Chief Justice Hilario Davide jr. This was found as insufficient by the Committee on Justice, thus was dismissed. Another impeachment complaint was filed against the CJ, 4 months and 3 weeks after the first one. This was based on the legislative inquiry done prior on the Judicial Development Fund. At least ⅓ of the House signed a “Resolution of Endorsement/Impeachment. Petitioners (including lawyers,

organizations, taxpayers, and HoR members filed petitions. The court decided, sitting en banc, that the rules on impeachment were unconstitutional and that the 2nd complaint was barred under the one-year rule (because it was filed within one year of an earlier complaint). The Court also explained that the issue was under its judicial review and that it did not violate the equality of the three branches.

1. Actual case/controversy: the issue herein falls within the purview of expanded judicial review

2. Person challenging having locus standi: the petitioners “invariably invoke the

vindication of their own rights — as taxpayers; members of Congress; citizens,

individually or in a class suit; and members of the bar and of the legal profession — which were supposedly violated by the alleged unconstitutional acts of theHouse of Representatives”

3. Constitutionality being raised as early a possible: yes, it has been raised

4. Constitutionality being the very lis mota of the case: the issue of constitutionality is

questioned here is re: HoR rules on impeachment

KNIGHTS OF RIZAL V. DMCI Why struck down?

• It is the policy of the courts not to interfere with the discretionary executive acts of the executive branch unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

• In addition, no clear law that prohibits the construction of Torre de Manila

What was the facts and ratio behind dismissal in Ocampo v. Enriquiez?

FACTS

The case was composed of multiple petitions, including that of Saturnino Ocapo and his companions who were human rights advocates, assailing the constitutionality of allowing Marcos’ burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Such a mechanism was done through the issued memorandum and directive of the Secretary of National Defense and AFP Rear Admiral in compliance with the verbal order of President Duterte to implement his election campaign promise to have the remains of Marcos interred at the LNMB.

The Court ruled that there is no clear constitutional or legal basis to hold that there was a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction which would justify the Court to interpose its authority to check and override an act entrusted to the judgment of another branch. President Duterte, through the public respondents, acted within the bounds of the law and jurisprudence—notwithstanding the call of human rights advocates. What the Court could only do is to implement laws according to rules and principles

Issue:

Sub Issue	Ratio
W/N President Duterte’s determination to have Marcos Sr. interred in the LNMB is a justiciable controversy NO	The case involves a political question that is not a justiciable controversy. President Duterte’s act of interring Marcos Sr. 's remains at the LNMB comes from his exercise of executive powers vested in the Constitution and the Administrative Code. The Court decided that President Duterte decided on a question of policy based on his wisdom that it shall promote national healing and forgiveness. Grave abuse of discretion is therefore not evident on his decision that is a political question outside of the ambit of judicial review.
W/N Petitioners have legal standing NO	All petitioners failed to show that they have suffered or will suffer direct and personal injury as a result of the internment of Marcos Sr. at the LNMB. Petitioners also failed to show that the issues raised are of transcendental importance as they could not demonstrate a clear and imminent threat to their constitutional rights or that it would have a profound effect on the political, economic, and other aspects of their national life. Additionally, petitioners filing as taxpayers cannot claim illegal disbursement of public funds without first proving that Marcos is disqualified to be interred in the LNMB by any provision of the Constitution, law, or jurisprudence.
W/N Petitioners violated the doctrines of exhaustion of administrative remedies and hierarchy of courts YES	Petitioners failed to seek reconsideration of the assailed directive before the National Secretary of Defense, who issued AFP regulations 161-375 governing the burials in the LNMB.  Had they been dissatisfied with raising the issue to the National Secretary, they also could have elevated the matter to the Office of the President. The requisites of directly resorting to the SC for extraordinary petitions of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus are also lacking in this case. As such, petitioners blatantly disregarded following the Hierarchy of Courts by not first filing with the RTC (which is not just a trier of facts, but can also decide on questions of law).