The Constitution The Courts

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AMENDMENTS
- The question of validity of the adoption of the amendments to the Constitution is subject to judicial
review.
- The Political Question Doctrine allows the courts to inquire WON the prescribed procedure for
amendment has been observed.
- In Sanidad Case, the amending process raises a judicial question. Under the terms of the 1973
Constitutuion, the power to propose amendments to the Constitution resides in the Interim National Assembly.
- Sec 2, Art. 10 of the new Constitution:
“1. All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, executive agreement, or law shall be
heard and decided by the Supreme Court en banc, and
2. No treaty, executive agreement, or law may be declared unconstitutional without the
concurrence of at least 10 members.”
- In Santiago v Commission, the SC prohibited an attempt to amend the Constitution by initiative,
holding that there was no law providing for the mechanics of such a proposal.
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE COURTS

The Judiciary is the ultimate guardian of the Constitution. It is expected to rectify the wrong and affirm
its “sacred and solemn duty” to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land.
Voting
The new rule in Art. 8, Sec. 4 on en banc cases:
“All cases involving the (1) constitutionality of a treaty; (2) international or executive agreement; or (3)
law, which shall be heard by the SC en banc,
And all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including (1)
constitutionality, (2) application, (3) operation of PD, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other
regulations, shall be decided with the occurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.”
Requisites of a Judicial Inquiry

The courts are passive instruments that can act only when their jurisdiction is invoked. No
constitutional question will be heard and decided by them unless there is compliance with the requisites of
judicial inquiry:
1. There must be an actual case or controversy
2. The question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party
3. The constitutional question must raised at the earliest possible opportunity
4. The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case.
(1) Actual Case

- an actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims
susceptible of judicial resolution.
- the case must not be moot and academic
- there must be a contrariety of legal rights that can be interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing
law and jurisprudence
Controversy
- must be one that is appropriate for judicial determination.
- the controversy must be:
1. definite and concrete
2. real and substantial
Request for advisory opinion

- not an actual case or controversy since the issue raised does not involve any conflict in law;
- the court in this case is being asked only to counsel and not to decide.
- Counseling by courts is contrary to the doctrine of separation of powers since their advice will not
have the force of law but of a mere suggestion or recommendation that may be accepted or rejected at will
by the department requesting it.
When will the case be an actual controversy?

When the purpose is to solicit a declaratory judgment involving the interpretation of the rights and
duties of a person under the provisions of a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or a statute or
ordinance, the court may validly assume jurisdiction.
“When the act of the legislative department is seriously alleged to have infringed the constitution,
settling the controversy becomes the duty of this Court.”
Moot and Academic Cases

- a cases that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a
declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value.
Madriaga v China Banking Corporation, Courts generally decline jurisdiction on the ground of
mootness.
The court also dismissed the petition questioning former President Estrada’s eligibility to run for
Presidency during the 2010 election, stressing that since he was not elected for the 2 nd time, “any discussion of
his ‘reelection’ will simply be hypothetical and speculative.”
Cases which are heard eventhough considered as Moot and Academic

In Javier v COMELEC, the court rejected the plea of the respondent for the dismissal of the case on the
ground that it had become moot and academic.
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 the paramount of public interest is involved;
3. When the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench,
the bar and the public;
4. The case is capable of repetition yet evading review.
Doctrine of Capable of Repetition yet Evading Review

- to avoid repetition; capable of repetition
- Mootness Doctrine – a court will not hear or decide a moot case unless it includes an issue that is not
considered moot because it involves the public interest or constitutional questions and is likely to be
repeated and otherwise evade review or resolution.
(2) Proper Party

A proper party - one who has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a result of
the act complained of.
Locus Standi – a personal and substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will
sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged.
Taxpayer as a Proper Party

The rule before was that an ordinary taxpayer did not have the proper party personality to question the
legality of an appropriation law since his interest in the sum appropriated was not substantial enough.
Since the first Emergency Powers Cases, the rule has been changed. It is now permissible for an
ordinary taxpayer to raise the question of validity of an appropriation law.
Taxpayers must however:

1. make a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds; or that
2. a tax measure is unconstitutional,
3. deflected to an illegal purpose
4. there is a wastage of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law
2 requisites for a taxpayer’s suit to prosper:

1. public funds are disbursed by a political subdivision or instrumentality
2. the petitioner is directly affected by the alleged act
To be accorded standing on the ground of transcendental importance, it must establish:

1. the character of the funds or other assets involved in the case
2. the presence of a clear case of disregard of constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public
respondent agency or instrumentality of the government
3. the lack of any party with a more direct and specific interest in raising the questions being raised
** When the issue concerns a public right, it is sufficient that the petitioner is:
1. a citizen
1. has an interest in the execution of the laws
(3) Earliest Possible Opportunity

General rule: Constitutional question must be raised at an earliest possible opportunity.
Exceptions to the rule:
1. In criminal cases – the constitutional question can be raised at any time in the discretion of the
court
2. In civil cases – the constitutional question can be raised at any stage if it is necessary to the
determination of the case
3. In every case (except when there is estoppel) – the constitutional question may be raised at any
stage if it involves the jurisdiction of the court.
(4) Necessity of Deciding Constitutional Question

Reason why courts will avoid decision of a constitutional question can be traces to the doctrine of
separation of powers which enjoins upon each department a proper respect. This means that the measure had
first been carefully studied by the legislative and executive departments and found to be in accord with the
Constitution before it was finally enacted and approved.
7 Pillar of Limitations of the Power of Judicial Review:
The court will not:

1. Pass upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, non-adversary proceeding, declining
because to decide such questions “is legitimate only in the last resort”
2. “Anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it”
3. “Formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be
applied
4. Pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also
present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of
5. Pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its
operation.
6. Pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its
benefits
7. When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question

The Constitution The Courts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Constitution The Courts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AMENDMENTS

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE COURTS

Requisites of a Judicial Inquiry

(1) Actual Case

Request for advisory opinion

When will the case be an actual controversy?

Moot and Academic Cases

Cases which are heard eventhough considered as Moot and Academic

Doctrine of Capable of Repetition yet Evading Review

(2) Proper Party

Taxpayer as a Proper Party

Taxpayers must however:

2 requisites for a taxpayer’s suit to prosper:

To be accorded standing on the ground of transcendental importance, it must establish:

(3) Earliest Possible Opportunity

(4) Necessity of Deciding Constitutional Question

7 Pillar of Limitations of the Power of Judicial Review:

The court will not:

2. “Anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it”

7. When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question

You might also like