POWER OF THE JUDICIARY discretion (IBP vs. Zamora) (Marcos vs.

Manglapus)
Traditional meaning:

"Judicial power includes the duty of the

courts of justice to settle actual Requisites for the proper exercise of
controversies involving rights which JUDICIAL REVIEW:
are legally demandable and
enforceable" Art 8 Sec 1 (2)
1. Actual case or controversy

2. Proper party (locus standi)

-Traditional meaning of judicial power
of the SC excludes political questions 3. Raised in the earliest opportune time

Political Questions - refers to the full 4. The constitutional question is the "lis
discretionary authority are vested to mota" or "the very issue" of the case
the people, executive department, or
legislative by the constitution.
I. ACTUAL CASE OR
CONTROVERSY:
Expanded meaning:
By mere enactment of the law or the
"to determine whether or not there has issuance of an IRR thereto, the dispute
been a grave abuse of discretion is said to have ripened into a judicial
amounting to lack or excess of controversy even without any other
jurisdiction on the part of any branch overt act (Inmates of NBP vs. Sec De
or instrumentality of the Government." Lima)
Art 8 Sec 1 (2)
Hence, advisory opinions are not
allowed.

However, declaratory Relief under Rule

63 may be filed before breach of
Presidents Duterte's decision to have
violation. (Some sort of exception to
the remains of Marcos interred at the
Actual case or controversy)
Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB)
involves a political question that is not
jusiticiable controversy (Ocampo vs.
Moot and Academic Doctrine
Enriquez)
As a general rule, an issue, if
adjudicated, cannot affect the result as
The rule now is that when political to the thing in issue in the case before
questions are involved, the court MAY it is already "moot and academic".
STILL exercise the power of judicial Being MOOT, the court is not
review but the Constitution limits the empowered to decide the case or
determination as to whether or not declare principles of law because of
there has been a grave abuse of
absence of an ACTUAL CASE or For VOTERS, there must be a showing
CONTROVERSY. of obvious interest in the VALIDITY of
the ELECTION LAW in question.
Exceptions to Moot and Academic
*counter to Actual case or
Controversy*:
For CONCERNED CITIZENS, there must
1. There is grave violation of the be a showing that the issues raised are
constitution of TRANSCEDENTAL IMPORTANCE
which must be settled early.
2. the exceptional character of the
situation and the PARAMOUNT PUBLIC
INTEREST are involved
For LEGISLATORS, there must be a
3. When the constitutional issue raised claim that the official action complained
requires formulation of controlling of INFRINGES UPON THEIR
principles TO GUIDE THE BENCH, THE PREROGATIVE AS LEGISLATORS
BAR, AND THE PUBLIC (david vs. Macapagal-arroyo)

4. The case is CAPABLE OF REPETITION

yet evading review (requires that the
For CLASS SUIT "ON BEHALF" of
same issue, the same party, and the
persons whose constitutional right to a
same set of facts)
balanced and healthful ecology is
violated or threatened with violation, it
must be based on
Legal basis of the exceptions:
"INTERGENERATIONAL
(International Service for the
RESPONSIBILITY" to the succeeding
Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications
generations (Oposa vs. Factoran)
vs. Greenpeace vs. CA)

Illustration (locus standi):

II. LOCUS STANDI
On the case of EDCA, it has still no
funding, and even prescribes that the
General rule: Application of Direct implemetnation of EDCA would require
Injury Test the disbursement of public funds, there
must be a legislative action by
Exceptions: Congress appropriating funds thereof.
For TAX PAYER, there must be a claim A tax payer questions the EDCA. Does
of ILLEGAL DISBURSEMENT OF PUBLIC a person claiming to be a taxpayer
FUNDS or the TAX MEASURE IS have locus standi in this case?
UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Ans:

None. A TAX PAYER'S SUIT

contemplates a situation in which there
is already an APPROPRIATION or GRANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO
DISBURSEMENT of PUBLIC FUNDS. THE SENATE, not to the entire
Until and unless the Legislature legislature. Hence, members of the
appropriates funds for EDCA, or unless HOR have no legal personality and
one can pinpoint specific item in the cannot institute a legislator’s suit to
GAA that allows expenditure under the question the absence of a Senate
agreement, filing of a tax payers suit concurrence in the EDCA (Saguisag vs.
cannot be justified (Saguisag vs. ES) ES Ochoa)

TRANSCENDENTAL importance Legislators have the standing to

connotes that the issue is of maintain inviolate the prerogatives,
overreaching significance to society, or powers, and privileges vested by the
paramount public interest and the Constitution in their office and allowed
decision on the issue WOULD HAVE A to sue tp question the validity of any
PROFOUND EFFECT ON THE official action which they claim
POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, AND OTEHR INFRINGES THEIR PREROGATIVES AS
ASPECTS OF NATIONAL LIFE. The LEGISLATORS. In this case, however,
interment of MARCOS at a cemetery there was NO ALLEGATION of
originally established as a national usurpation of LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION.
military cemetery and declared a Being the CHAIRPERSON OF THE SAID
national shrine (LNMB) would have no COMMITTEE by itself was not sufficient
profound effect on the political, to vest petitioner with standing to
economic, and other aspects of our institute the present suit. Notably, the
national life considering that more than FUNCTIONS of the committee under
twenty-seven (27) years since his the aforesaid provision are BASICALLY
death and thirty (30) years after his IN AID OF LEGISLATION. (Osmena III
ouster have already passed. (Ocampo vs. Power Sector Assests and Liabilities
vs. Enriquez) Management Corp)

HOWEVER, when the proceeding

involves the assertion of a PUBLIC
RIGHT, the mere fact that the
In LEGISLATORS SUIT, those members petitioner is a CITIZEN satisfies the
of Congress who are challenging the requirement of personal interest. The
official act have standing only TO THE privatization of power plants in a
EXTENT THAT THE ALLEGED manner that ensures the reliability and
VIOLATION IMPINGES ON THEIR affordability of electricity in our country
RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE pursuant to the EPIRCA is an issue of
EXERCISE OF THE POWERS OF THE paramount to PUBLIC Interest.
INSTITUTION OF WHICH THEY ARE (Osmena III vs. Power Sector assets
MEMBERS. In this connection, THE and Liabilities Management Corp)
POWER TO CONCUR IN A TREATY OR
AN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT IS
AN INSITUTITIONAL PREROGATIVE
(legislation suit will prosper) In In ROAD SHARING PRINCIPLE, as a
legislator's suit, each member of the biker and environmentalist, what is the
Congress has LEGAL STANDING to sue ideal petition to enforce the princple
EVENT WITHOUT an ENABLING Writ of Continuing Mandamus or Writ of
RESOLUTION so long as the questioned Kalikasan?
acts invade the powers, prerogatives,
and privileges of Congress. Otherwise
stated, whenever the acts AFFECT THE Writ of Kalikasan- since in Writ of
POWERS, PREROGATIVES, and Continuing Mandamus there is a risk of
PRIVILIGES of Congress, anyone of its dismissal for being not real party-in-
members may validly bring an action to interest as it is only available to a
challenge the same to safeguard and person who is personally aggrived by
maintain the sanctity thereof. (Umali the unlawful act or omission. While the
vs. JBC) requirements of standing had been
liberalized in environmental cases, the
general rule of real party-in-interst,
animate species (ANIMALS) DO NOT which is to prove direct or personal
HAVE legal standing to sue, but any injury, applies to a petition for
Filipino Citizen may represent them as continuing mandamus (Segovia vs.
steward of nature Climate Change Commission)

The new Rules of Procedure for

Environmental Cases allows ANY
Every CITIZEN has the right, if not the
FILIPINO CITIZEN, AS A STEWARD OF
duty, to interfere and see that a public
NATURE, to bring a suit to enforce our
offense be properly pursued and
environmental laws. Hence, even
punished, and that a public grievance
without representing the animate
be remedied. A CITIZEN who files a
species nor personal injury, any
petition before the court asserting a
Filipino, as steward of nature, can file a
PUBLIC RIGHT satisfies the
suit in his own name TO ENFORCE OUR
requirement of PERSONAL INTEREST
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS. (Resident
simply because the petitioner is a
Marine Mammals vs. Sec. Reyes)
member of the general public upon
which the right is vested. He MAY NOT
SUSTAIN AN INJURY AS DIRECT and
Juridical Person, as a steward of
adverse as compared to others but it is
nature, can also bring suit to enforce
enough that he sufficiently
environmental laws even without
demonstrates in his petition theat he is
having sustained any personal and
entitled to protection or relief rom the
direct injury (West Tower
Court in the vindication of a public right
Condominium Corporation vs. First
(Case is related in locus standi of a
Philippine Industrial Corporation)
person questionning the failure of
Congress to convene in joint session to
deliberate Proclamation of Martial Law
in Mindanao) (Padilla vs. Congress of Lac of Fair Notice
the Philippines)
Lac of ascertainable standards

Overbreadth or
In challenging the factual basis of the
Vagueness
proclamation of martial law or
suspension of the writ of Habeas
Corpus, the only requisite for standing
to challenge the validity of the Exception: Except to a strictly penal
proclamation or suspension is that the statute, a petitioner may mount a
challenger be a CITIZEN. He need not "FACIAL" CHALLENGE to the
even be a tax payer (Lagman vs. ES) constitutionality of a statute EVEN IF
HE CLAIMS NO VIOLATION OF HIS
OWN RIGHTS under the assailed statite
where it involves:
HOWEVER, in IBP vs. Zamora, the SC
in effect held that QUESTIONING the
exercise of the CALLING OUT POWER of
the president, the petitioner must show Free Speech
ANY SPECIFIC INJURY which it had Religious Freedom
suffered or could suffer by virteu of
such exercise. Other fundamental rights

on the grounds of OVERBREADTH or

VAGUENESS (vagueness is omited
Doctrine of Prohibition Against Third- later)
Party Standing - This rule states that
one can challenge the constitutionality (Disini vs. Secretary of Justice)
of a statute ONLY if he asserts a
violation of his own rights. It prohibits
one from assailing the constitutionality
of the statute based solely on the
NEW RULE! FACIAL CHALLENGES can
violation of the rights of third persons
only be raised ON THE GROUND OF
not before the court.
BASIS OF OVERBREADTH and NOT ON
VAGUENESS. Vagueness relates to
violations of due process rights,
General rule: This rule appoes the "AS whereas FACIAL CHALLENGES are
APPLIED" CHALLENGE where the raised on the basis of OVERBREADTH.
petitioner who claims a violation of his (Samahan ng mga Progresibong
constitutional right can raise any Kabataan vs. Quezon City)
Constitutional ground -

EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY
Absence of Due Process
General Rule: If not Raised in the whatever was done while the law was
pleadings, it cannot be considered at in operation should be recognized as
the trial, and if not considered at the valid (Rieta v. People, 436 SCRA 273
trial, it cannot be considered on appeal. [2004])

Exceptions: Partial Unconstitutionality

Provision who can not stand alone and

depending on the declared
In criminal cases - can be raised at any
unconstitutional provision may likewise
time in the dissertation of the court
be declared unconstitutional.
In civil cases - can be raised at any Otherwise, constitutional
stage if it is necessary to determination
of the case itself.

In every case, except where there is

estoppel - can be raised at any stage if
it involves the jurisdiction of the court.

LIS MOTA of the CASE

Courts will not resolve the issue raised

if the case can be disposed of on some
other grounds

Doctrine of Purposeful Hesitation

- Courts has the duty of purposelful

hesitation on delcaring the statute
unconstitutional (in line with the
Presumption that Statute passed by
congress is constitutional)

Operative Fact Doctrine

The doctrine of operative fact means

that before a law was declared
unconstitutional, its actual existence
must be taken into account and