Scribd
Upload
243 views4 pages

Judicial Review

The three branches of government are coequal, independent, and check and balance one another. Judicial power includes settling actual controversies and determining if other branches exceeded their jurisdiction. For the Supreme Court to exercise judicial review, there must be an actual case or controversy that is ripe for resolution and involves parties that have standing. The case must not be moot, request an advisory opinion, or hypothetically question the validity of future actions.

Uploaded by

Emil Bautista
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
243 views4 pages

Judicial Review

The three branches of government are coequal, independent, and check and balance one another. Judicial power includes settling actual controversies and determining if other branches exceeded their jurisdiction. For the Supreme Court to exercise judicial review, there must be an actual case or controversy that is ripe for resolution and involves parties that have standing. The case must not be moot, request an advisory opinion, or hypothetically question the validity of future actions.

Uploaded by

Emil Bautista
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Characteristics of the Three Branches Government:

● Coequal
● Independent
● Checks and Balances one another

CONCEPT: The People is the source of Sovereign Power; and the three branches
only serve as extensions of the same (sovereign power)

ANGARA VS ELECTORAL COMMISSION 63 Phil 139 (1936)


Courts are authorized by the people to be the only organ which can be
called upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between and among the
constituent units thereof

1987 Constitution provides that:


Section 1 x x x
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 government

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


xxx
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or 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 in question

YNOT vs. IAC, 148 SCRA 659 (1987)


Lower courts can pass upon the validity of statutes in the first instance. The
power is lodged in courts, though ultimately, it falls on the Supreme Court

Under Section 1 of Article VIII


“JUDICIAL POWER SHALL BE VESTED IN ONE SUPREME COURT AND IN SUCH
LOWER COURTS AS MAY BE ESTABLISHED BY LAW”

REQUI SITES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW


1. There must be an actual case or controversy
Existing case or controversy must be ripe for resolution and susceptible of judicial
determination
PACU vs Secretary of Education (1955): “Mere apprehension that the Secretary of
Education might, under the law, withdraw the permit of one of the petitioners
does not constitute a justiciable controversy.”

Case must be ripe for judicial determination

Mariano vs COMELEC (1995)


A petition premised on many contingent events, the happening of which is
uncertain presents a hypothetical issue and thus, is not ripe for judicial
determination

Cutaran vs. DENR (2001)


While the application for a certificate of ancestral land claim is being processed,
one cannot say if it shall be approved or denied. Hence, there is no government

1
act accomplished or performed that has a direct adverse effect on the legal right
of the person contesting its validity.

REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION IS NOT ALLOWED


Montesclaros vs COMELEC (2002) :
The Court has no power to rule on the constitutionality of a proposed bill.
To rule on such a question would amount to rendering an advisory opinion on a
proposed act of Congress
Dumlao vs COMELEC (1980)
Until a petition for disqualification and the COMELEC decides to disqualify
Dumlao, the question he presents is a hypothetical issue

The petition must not be moot and academic


Atlas Fertilizer vs Secretary of DAR (1997):
a petition that questions the constitutionality of certain sections of the law
becomes moot and academic once Congress decides to amend the questioned
provisions

Gonzales vs Narvasa (2000)


A petition questioning the creation of the Preparatory Commission on
Constitutional Reform should be deemed moot and academic after the said PCCR
was dissolved by the President

Lacson vs Perez (2001)


A petition questioning the declaration of a state of rebellion is moot and academic
after the said declaration is lifted by the President

Defunis vs Odegard 416 US 312 (1974)


A petition questioning the admission policy of Washington State U
becomes moot, after the petitioner is admitted, and has reached his 4th year and
the law school has already committed not to abrogate his registration

Exceptions to the “moot and academic” doctrine:


There is grave violation of the constitution;
Exceptional character of the situation and paramount public interest involved;
Constitutional issue raised requires the formulation of controlling principles to
guide the bench, the bar and the public
The case is capable of repetition yet evading review

Capable of repetition and evasive of review


In the US: Roe vs Wade
In the Philippines:
1. Acop vs Guingona
2. Sanlakas vs Executive Secretary
3. Pimentel vs Ermita

2. Proper Party
A proper party is one who has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining
an injury as a result of the act complained of

Joya vs PCGG (1993)


when petitioners fail to show any justification for relaxing the rules, a
petition seeking to stop the PCGG from selling paintings and silverware of the
Marcosses filed by a party who is not directly affected cannot be allowed

Agan vs PIATCO

1
NAIA concessionaires and service contractors have the requisite standing in a
case where they allege that the PIATCO contracts will nullify their existing
contracts between them and MIAA and/or international airlines

CHR Employees Assoc vs CHR

CHR Employees association has the requisite standing to question the CHR’s
power to reclassify positions as the said reclassification intends to “eat up the
pie” of the budget for personnel services. Hence, the members of the CHREA will
suffer direct personal injury if the reclassification is upheld.

Tanada vs Tuvera

When the question involves a 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, it being sufficient that he is a citizen interested in having the
laws executed.

Chavez vs PEA Amari

When the petition seeks to compel the performance of a constitutional duty, any
citizen has the standing to bring the action.

KMU Labor center vs Garcia (1994)


Members of the KMU who avail of the use of buses, trains, and jeepneys everyday
are directly affecgted by the burdensome cost of arbitrary increase in passenger
fares. They therefore have standing to question the increase in transportation
fares allowed by the DOTC

IBP vs Zamora :
the IBP President has no direct personal interest to be affected by the
deployment of Marines in Metro Manila. Even the IBP’s interest, assuming the
president was authorized to represent it, is not direct

John Hay PAC vs Lim

RA 7227 expressly requires the concurrence of the local government unit


affected and consequently, they are vested with the standing to question the
creation of a Special Economic Zone

Executive Secretary vs CA

The Asian Recruitment Council Philippines, being an association that seeks to


advance the interest of its member recruitment agencies has the standing to
bring a suit on behalf of its members. It is the modern view that associations may
represent their members in such actions. It however cannot represent the
unskilled workers they claim to represent

Kilosbayan vs Guingona

The question of locus standi is a procedural question that may be brushed aside in
view of the transcendental importance to the public of the issue to be resolved

US vs Richardson
A generalized claim of interest that is shared with the general public is insufficient
to give a citizen a standing to bring the suit as there is no particular concrete
injury alleged that may be suffered by the operation of the statute

1
ITF vs COMELEC
The fact alone that it is alleged that bidding was defective and that the winning
bidder is not qualified makes it a matter of public concern and imbued with public
interest. Thus, the individual petitioners, as citizens would have standing to bring
the suit.

You might also like