Judicial Department

In a society that has to live by the Rule of Law, it is necessary that there be an institution which could be trusted with objectivity and
impartiality based on the law and free from pressures of political and other extraneous considerations.

Judicial Power vs. Judicial Review

Judicial power is the authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving rights that are legally demandable and
enforceable before the courts of justice or redress of wrongs for violations of such rights. The proper exercise of said authority
requires legislative action:

1. Defining such enforceable and demandable rights and/or prescribing remedies for violations thereof.

2. Determining the court with jurisdiction to hear/decide said controversies or disputes in the first instance and/or appeal. For this
reason, the Constitution ordains that ‘Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of the
various court,’ subject to the limitations set forth in the fundamental law (Lopez vs. Roxas)

Fact-finding (CHR) is not adjudication, and cannot be likened to the judicial function of a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial
agency or official. The function of receiving evidence and making factual conclusions must be accompanied by the authority of
applying the law to those factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be decided or determined authoritatively, finally
and definitively, subject to such appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law. (Carino vs. Commission on Human Rights)

The power of judicial review is the power of the courts to test the validity of executive and legislative acts for their conformity with
the Constitution. Through such power, the judiciary enforces and upholds the supremacy of the Constitution.

Judicial supremacy is but the power of judicial review in actual and appropriate cases and controversies, and is the power and duty
to see that no one branch or agency of the government transcends the Constitution, which is the source of all authority.

Judicial Review Functions: Checking, Legitimating, Validating or Educating

Checking- court determines whether the assailed acts of government officials is constitutional or not and when it declare such act to
be within constitutional bounds, it in effect legitimates or validates, giving its imprimatur or seal of approval, or even when the issue
may have become moot and academic.

Expanded Judicial Power and Certiorari Jurisdiction

“framers of our Constitution envisioned a proactive Judiciary, ever vigilant with its duty to maintain the supremacy of our
Constitution” –facial challenge.

Judicial Restraint and Limitations on Judicial Review

Exercise of power of impeachment- primarily entrusted to the legislative department.

Judicial Supremacy- not judicial superiority or judicial tyranny. It only uphold the supremacy of the constitution.

It has been held that the Court is not authorized to delve into the impropriety of giving unsolicited advice when it comes to the
discretionary power of the Chief Executive relative to the deportation of undesirable aliens (Director of Prisions v. Ang Cho Kio)

Requisites of Judicial Review

1. Actual Case or Controversy:

A proposed bill being considered by Congress if not subject to judicial review- it creates no rights and imposes no duty legally
enforceable by the Court. If the Court on a petition questioning the same, it would be in nature rendering an advisory opinion.

2. Locus Standi – personal and substantial interest in the case that the party will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental
act being challenged.
When the question is one of public right and the object of the mandamus is to procure the enforcement of a public duty, the people
are regarded as the real party in interest and the relator a whose instigation the proceedings are instituted need not show that he
has any legal or special interest in the result, it being sufficient to show that he is a citizen and as such interested in the execution of
law. (Tanada vs Tuvera)

The court does not only adjudicate private cases; that public actions by “non-hohfeldian” or ideological plaintiffs are now cognizable
provided they meet the standing requirement of the Constitution; that under Art 8 (1). (Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance)

Standing jus tertii will only be recognized only if it can be shown that the party suing has some substantial relation to the third party,
or the third party cannot assert his constitutional right or that the right of the third party will be diluted unless the party in court
allowed to espouse the third party’s constitutuional claim.

Exception (Transcendental importance doctrine): Transcendental or paramount importance of the issue raised, standing may be
relaxed and claims may be espoused even if there is no direct injury. Party’s standing will then be determined by the merits of his
case.

Facial challenge: when it regards to free speeches, one not directly affected or injured may question the law or regulation. The
possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that the
protected speech of others may be deterred and perceived grievances left to fester because of possible inhibitory effects of overly
broad statute.

Timeliness of the Constitutional Issue Being Raised

- Does not refer to the date of the filing of the petition.

- The earliest opportunity to raise a constitutional issue is to raise it in the pleadings before a competent court that can
resolve the same, such that, if it not raised in the pleadings, it cannot be considered at the trial, and if nit considered at the
trial it cannot be considered on appeal.
- Raising the constitutional issue must be before a competent tribunal, court of justice, not administrative or quasi-judicial.
- The court, even without anybody raiding the constitutional issue, may also inquire into the matter where its jurisdiction to
act is itself questionable. When it is clear that a statute transgresses the authority vested in a legislative body, it is the duty
of the courts to declare that the constitution, and not the statute, governs in a case before them for judgment.
- Thus, while courts will not ordinarily pass upon constitutional questions which are not raised in the pleading, the rule has
been recognized to admit certain exceptions. It does not preclude a court from inquiring into its own jurisdiction or compel
it to enter a judgment that it lacks jurisdiction to enter. The court ex mero motu, on its own motion, may take cognizance of
lack of jurisdictions at any point in the case where that fact is developed. The court has a clearly recognized right to
determine its own jurisdiction in any proceeding. (Fabian vs Desierto)

Issue of Constitutionality as Lis Mota- based on doctrine of separation of powers

Reenactment of a provision which has been declared unconstitutional, the court did not deem it necessary to decide its
constitutionality in cases involving facts which transpired before amendment. The court is possessed with a constitutional duty
to “promulgate rules concerning protection and enforcement of constitutional rights.” No branch or office in the government
may exercise its powers in any manner inconsistent with the Constitution, regardless of the existence of any law that supports
such exercise. The Constitution cannot be trampled upon by any other law. All laws must be read in the light of the Constitution.
Any law that is inconsistent with it is a nullity. Thus, when a law or provision of law is null because it is inconsistent with the
Constitution, the nullity cannot be cured by reincorporation or reenactment of the same or similar law or provision. A law or
provision of law that was already declared unconstitutional remains as such unless circumstances have so changed to warrant a
reverse conclusion. (Sameer Overseas Placement Agency Inc. v Cabiles)

Operative Fact Doctrine: Exception to Invalidation

When a law is declared unconstitutional it means that it was never valid from the beginning. However the doctrine states that
an invalidation of a law does not necessarily result in invalidating also the acts done by others, relying in good faith on the
 assumption that the law was in accordance to the Fundamental Law. Such challenged legislative or executive act must have
been in force and complied with. Only applies as a matter of equity and fair play.

The doctrine is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on those who have relied on
the invalid law. Thus, it was applied to a criminal case when a declaration of unconstitutionality would put the accused in double
jeopardy or would put in limbo the acts done by a municipality in reliance upon a law creating it. (Planters Products Inc. vs
Fertiphil Corporation)

Doctrine of Relative Unconstitutionality

Laws may be constitutional but may eventually be considered unconstitutional due to changing circumstances, or when seen
from a different perspective. Or a “statute may be valid as applied to one set of facts and invalid as application to another”

Moot and Academic Questions

- Related to the presence of actual case or controversy

- The moot and academic principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case,
Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic if
1. There is a grave violation of the Constitution
2. The exceptional character of the situation and paramount public interest is involved
3. When constitutional issue raised requires the formulation of controlling principle that can guide the bench, the bar and
the public.
4. The case is capable of repetition yet evading review.
2 circumstances concur: a. the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or
expiration b. there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action
again.
Another exclusionary circumstance: Voluntary cessation, does not automatically deprive the tribunal jurisidiction

Adjudicatory Powers (Art 8 Sec 4)

Supreme Court may decide en banc or as a single body or in divisions. Currently it has 3 divisions of 5 members each. The more
important cases, such as those involving constitutionality of treaties, international or executive agreements or law are to be heard
en banc, while most of the other cases are heard by the divisions.

It has also been held that the Court En Band, not any of its Divisions has the power to declare a law unconstitutional.

Constitutionality of Ordinance does not justify direct resort to the SC. This Court can thus only review, revise, reverse, modify on
appeal or certiorari final judgements or orders of lower courts in all cases in which the constitutionality or validity, among other
things, an ordinance is in question.

SC has both original and appellate jurisdiction. These are provided in the Constitution itself, which Congress may not diminish. Also,
Congress cannot add/ increase to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court without the latter’s advice or consent.

Heirarchy of courts- mandate that such cases must first be brought before such lower courts and not immediately to the Supreme
Court. This policy is designed to shield the Court from having to deal with causes that are also well within the competence of the
lower courts, and thus leave time to the Court to deal with more fundamental and more essential tasks that the Constitution
assigned to it.

In Philippine Duplicators Inc. v NLRC, decisions of the Divisions of the Supreme Court may sometimes be inconsistent or conflicting.
Court had to reconcile that the apparently conflicting decisions, holding that there was really no conflict- the two decisions could co-
exist. The two cases present quite different factual situations the legal characterizations of which must accordingly differ.
In Cabuay Jr. vs Malvar, the court realized two decisions of different divisions were irreconcilable. The two decisions recognized
ownership of the same piece of land in two different parties. The Court ended up stating that the Divisions that came up with the
later decisions was misled.

There is only one Supreme Court from whose decisions all other courts should take their bearings.

It is only the Supreme Court which is constitutionally established, while all other lower courts may be established by laws passed by
Congress.

As the third great department of government vested with judicial power and as the guardian of the Constitution, cannot be deprived
of its certiorari jurisdiction to pass upon and determine alleged violations of the citizens constitutional and legal rights under Rule of
Law.

Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, the 1987 Constitution molded an even stronger and more independent judiciary. It expanded the
rule-making power of the SC especially in regard to promulgation of procedural rules.

When it comes to procedural rules, it is now within the exclusive domain of the Supreme Court, leaving to Congress the power to
provide substantive rules. Congress cannot exempt payment of legal fees.

SC’s rule making authority should not result in diminution, increase or modification of substantive rights.

The 1987 Constitution has also included in the Court’s rule making power the promulgation of rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights.

Administrative power (Art 8 Sec 6)

“The Supreme Court shall have the administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.”

The Court also has disciplinary authority over members of the lower courts which power excluded any authority of the Ombudsman
to look into.

In In Re: Undated letter of Mr. Luis C. Biraog, the court can also discipline a former member of the Court itself for any misconduct
during his tenure.

However, the Court’s administrative supervision over all inferior courts and court personnel does not extend to criminal cases filed
against a judge which is not related to the performance of his duties as a judge.

Appointments in the Judiciary

Appointments of members of the judiciary, from the Supreme Court, to the judges of the lower courts, are made by the President,
subject to the vetting process undertaken by the Judicial and Bar Council.

Judicial and Bar Council

By the clamor to rid the process of appointments of the judiciary from political pressures and partisan activities.

De-politicize the judiciary by doing away with the intervention of the Commission on Appointments.

In Chavez vs Judicial Bar Council, with regard to the representative coming from Congress, notwithstanding that such body has two
chambers, the Courth held that pursuant to the language of the fundamental law itself, there should only be one representative
from Congress, subject to both chambers working on the appropriate arrangement as to how to determine who will sit as member
at any given time.

In Jardeleza vs Sereno and Villanueva vs Judicial Bar Council, the JBC is under the supervision of the Supreme Court. Hence, the
Court could oversee the discharge of its functions and the exercise of its power, such as the governing rules as to the screening and
selection of nominees and the criteria or guidelines used.
Decision Making Guidelines and Parameters

Absence of the certification would not have the effect of invalidating the decision.

Holding neither the sword nor the purse by the Constitution, nonetheless vested with the sovereign prerogative of passing judgment
on the life, liberty or property of his fellowmen, the judge must ultimately depend on the power of reason for sustained public
confidence in the justness of his decision.\

24-23-3, DIRECTORY

Fiscal Autonomy

The prerogatives of this court which the Constitution secures against interference includes not only the powers to adjudicate causes
but all things that are reasonable necessary for the administration of justice.

Contemplates a guarantee of full flexibility to allocate and utilize their resources with the wisdom and dispatch that their needs
require. FA means freedom from outside control.