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?

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.

Doctrine of Ripeness; NOT Moot or Academic — earliest opportunity

a. Requires (1) withholding court consideration would cause hardship to the

parties; (2) administrative action is final; (3) factual record is sufficiently

developed. All of this makes it so that issues are fit for judicial decision.

b. Related to the requisite that the case must not be moot or academic.

i. Exception to Mootness: If the issue is capable of repetition.

The rule is that the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible

opportunity, such that if it is not raised in the pleadings, it cannot be considered at

the trial, if not considered at the trial, it cannot be considered on appeal.

 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

sustain 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.

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?

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.

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