Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Constitution The Courts
The Constitution The Courts
- 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.
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.”
Controversy
- must be one that is appropriate for judicial determination.
- the controversy must be:
1. definite and concrete
2. real and substantial
“When the act of the legislative department is seriously alleged to have infringed the constitution,
settling the controversy becomes the duty of this Court.”
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.
** 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. “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