JUDICIAL REVIEW 1. Judicial review, defined; basis.

Supreme Courts power to declare a treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or regulation unconstitutional Includes the power to declare unconstitutional the application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations even if the legal basis for the action itself is constitutional Power alien to English traditions An invention of the American system CASE: - Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 2. Who may exercise the power (Sec. 4(2), Art. VIII) Supreme Courts Inferior Courts 3. SYMBOLIC - to educate the bench and the bar as the controlling principles and concepts on matters of great public importance 4. Requisites of judicial review [a] Actual case or controversy - involves a conflict of legal rights - an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial determination - John Hay Peoples Alternative Coalition v. Lim, G.R. No. 119775, Oct. 24, 2003 [i] Request for advisory opinion not actual case - PACU v. Secretary of Education, 91 Phil. 806 [ii] Issues must not be moot and academic; exceptions - Lacson v. Perez, G.R. No. 147780, May 10, 2001 - David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006 MOOT CASE - one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon wold be of no practical use or value - courts decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on ground of mootness 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 public interest is involved

CASES: - Mirasol v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128448, Feb 1, 2001 3. Functions of judicial review 1. CHECKING - invalidating a law or executive act that is found to be contrary to the Constitution 2. LEGITIMATING - upholding the validity of the law RULE ON THE DOUBLE NEGATIVE - Uses the term not unconstitutional; the court cannot declare a law constitutional because it already gives a presumption of constitutionality

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 the review RIPENESS DOCTRINE - Requirement that a case be ripe for judgement before a court will decide the controversy - Ripeness refers to readiness for adjudication - Rationale To prevent courts, through premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements - When not Ripe a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated or indeed may not occur at all Ripeness and Standing A simple description of the requirements of standing and ripeness is found Valuable legal rights threatened with imminent invasion The valuable legal rights constitute the standing and the threat of imminent invasion constitute the ripeness

and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result EXCEPTIONS 1. Cases of transcendental importance or of paramount public interest or involving an issue of overarching significance 2. Cases of Proclamation of Martial Law and Suspension of the Privilege of the writ of habeas corpus where any citizen may challenge the proclamation of suspension 3. The right to information on matters of public concern and the right to access to public documents has been recognized as accruing to mere citizenship 4. Facial Challenge (?) REQUISITES OF STANDING A citizen can raise a constitutional question only when: 1. Injury He can show that he has personally suffered some actual or threatened injury because of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government 2. Causation The injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action 3. Redressability A favourable action will likely redress the injury - IBP v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000 [ii] Liberal attitude of the Supreme Court - David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, supra. - Abaya v. Ebdane, 515 SCRA 720 - People v. Vera. 65 Phil. 56 [iii] Related principles - Kilosbayan v. Guingona, 232 SCRA 110 - Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002

[b] Constitutional question must be raised by the proper party [i] Locus standi; direct injury test to determine material interest - refers to the right of appearance in a court justice on a given question GENERAL RULE: DIRECT INTEREST TEST - The persons who impugn the validity of a statute must have a personal

[iv] Facial Challenge - Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, Nov. 19, 2001 [v] Void-for-Vagueness Rule - Romualdez v. COMELEC, 167011, April 10, 2008 [c] The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity - Matibag v. Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036, April 2, 2002 - Estarija v. Ranada, G.R. No. 159314, June 26, 2006 [i] Exceptions [d] The decision on the constitutional question must be determinative of the case itself. - Planters Products v. Fertiphil Corporation, G.R. No. 166006, March 14, 2008 - Tarrosa v. Singson, 232 SCRA 553 5. Effects of declaration of unconstitutionality [a] Orthodox view (Art. 7, Civil Code of the Philippines) - An unconstitutional act is not a law - It confers no rights - It imposes no duties - it affords no protection

- it creates no office - it is inoperative as if had not been passed at all - When courts declare a law to inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern [b] Modern view - Certain legal effects of the statute prior to its declaration of unconstitutionality may be recognized - The actual existence of a statute prior to such a determination of constitutionality is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration - Manila Motors v. Flores, 99 Phil. 738 6. Declaration of Partial Unconstitutionality Also in deference to the doctrine of separation of powers, courts hesitate to declare a law totally unconstitutional and as long as it is possible, will salvage the valid portions thereof in order to give effect to the legislative will REQUISITES OF PARTIAL UNCONSTITUTIONALITY: 1. The Legislature must be willing to retain the valid portions 2. The valid portion can stand independently as law - In Re: Cunanan, 94 Phil. 534

VIII. THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

A. The Judicial Power (Sec. 1, Art. VIII) 1. Defined - 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 the Government LIMITS ON JUDICIAL POWER 1. Political Questions 2. Separation of Powers 3. It is not the function of the judiciary to give advisory opinions CASE: - De Leon v. Court of Appeals, G.R.No.127182, Dec. 5, 2001 2. Where vested - in one Supreme Court - in lower courts as may be established by law

as provided in the Constitution without its advise and concurrence CASE: - Villavert v. Desierto, G.R. No. 133715, Feb. 13, 2000

B. Constitutional safeguards to insure independence of the Judiciary 1. The Supreme Court is a Constitutional Body; it may not be abolished by legislature. 2. The members of the Supreme Court are removable only by impeachment 3. The Supreme Court may not be deprived of minimum original and appellate jurisdiction; appellate jurisdiction may not be increased without its advice and concurrence. 4. The Supreme Court has administrative supervision over all inferior courts and personnel. 5. The Supreme Court has the exclusive power to discipline judges/justices of inferior courts. 6. The members of the Judiciary have security of tenure. 7. The members of the Judiciary may not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions. 8. Salaries of judges may not be reduced, the Judiciary enjoys fiscal autonomy. 9. The Supreme Court alone may initiate Rules of Court. 10. The Supreme Court alone may order temporary detail of judges. (not exceeding 6 months)

3. Jurisdiction (Sec. 2, Art. VIII; Sec. 30, Art. VI) - The power to hear and decide a case a. Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases - no law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

11. The Supreme Court can appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary. C. The power of judicial review (supra) D. Appointments to the Judiciary 1. Qualifications (Sec. 7(1-3), Art. VIII) - of PROVEN: competence, integrity, probity and independence a. Supreme Court Natural born citizen of the Philippines At least 40 years of age For 15 years or more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines

Has been engaged for at least 5 years in the practice of law in the Philippines or has held public office in the Philippines requiring admission to the practice of law as an indispensable requisite

2. Procedure for appointment (Sec. 4(1) & Sec. 9, Art. VIII) a. Appointed by the President of the Philippines from among a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar council for every vacancy b. For lower courts, the President shall issue the appointment within ninety days from submission of the list CASES: - In Re: Mateo Valenzuela, supra. - De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council, supra. 3. The Judicial and Bar Council; composition; appointment; powers and duties (Sec. 8(1-5), Art. VIII) COMPOSITION Ex officio chairman Supreme Court Chief Justice Ex officio members Secretary of Justice Representative of Congress Regular members Representative of IBP Professor of Law Retired member of SC Representative of private sector Secretary de officio Clerk of the Supreme Court

b. Lower Collegiate Courts Natural born citizen of the Philippines Member of the Philippine Bar Congress may prescribe other qualifications

c. Presiding Justice and Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals Same as the supreme court

d. Lower Courts Citizen of the Philippines Member of the Philippine Bar Congress may prescribe qualifications

other

e. RTC Judges Citizen of the Philippines At least 35 years old Has been engaged for at least 10 years in the practice of law in the Philippines or has held public office in the Philippines requiring admission to the practice of law as an indispensable requisite

f. Metropolitan, Municipal and Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judges Citizen of the Philippines At least 30 years old

APPOINTMENT Regular members shall be appointed by the President for a four-year term

with the consent of the Commission on Appointments They shall receive such emoluments as may be determined by the Supreme Court The Constitution does not prohibit reappointment of regular members of the JBC

c. Cases heard by a division when the required majority in the division is not obtained d. Cases where the SC modifies or reverses a doctrine or principle of law previously laid down either en banc or in division e. Administrative cases where the vote is for the dismissal of a judge of a lower court or otherwise to discipline such f. Election contests for President and VP When the SC sits en banc, cases are decided by the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, provided there is quorum. CASE: - Fortich v. Corona, G.R. No. 131457, Aug 19, 1999 3. Powers [a] Original jurisdiction a. Over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls b. Over petitions for Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus, Quo Warranto and Habeas Corpus c. Review of the factual basis for the declaration of martial law or suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus

POWERS AND FUNCTIONS Recommend appointees to the Judiciary Recommend appointees to the Office of the Ombudsman and his 5 deputies May exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it The duty of the JBC to submit a list of nominees before the start of the Presidents mandatory 90-day period to appoint is ministerial, but its selection of the candidates whose names will be in the list to be submitted to the President lies within the discretion of the JBC

E. The Supreme Court 1. Composition - Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices May sit en banc or in its discretion, in divisions of three, five or seven members. Any vacancy shall be filled within 90 days from occurrence thereof

2. En banc and division cases a. All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement or law b. Cases involving the constitutionality, applications, or operation of presidential, decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances and other regulations

[b] Appellate jurisdiction Review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm an appeal or certiorari as the law or Rules of Court may provide, final judgements and orders of lower courts a. Over final judgements and orders of lower courts in all cases which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential

decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or regulation in question b. All cases involving the legality of any tax imposed, assessment or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto c. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue d. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher e. All cases in which only a question of law is involved CASES: - Garcia v. People, G.R. No. 106531, Nov. 18, 1999 - Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, Sept. 16, 1998 - Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 135789, Jan 31, 2002 [c] Temporary assignment of judges - of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require - shall not exceed 6 months without the consent of the judge concerned. [d] Order change of venue or place of trial to avoid miscarriage of justice

CASES:

Uniform for all courts of the same grade Shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights

- In Re: Integration of the Bar of the Philippines, 49 SCRA 22 - In Re: Edillon, A.C. No. 1928, Aug. 3, 1978 - Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice, G.R. No. 132601, Jan 19, 1999 [i] Rule on the Writ of Amparo, A.M. No. 07-912-SC A writ that may be issued by the courts Based on this constitutional power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules for the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights

[ii] Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC [f] Power of appointment - appoints all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law [g] Power of Administrative Supervision 1. Over all courts and the personnel thereof 2. It is a well settled rule that the jurisdiction to try a case is to be determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action, not at the time of the commission of the offense. The time of commission is not material to determining which court has jurisdiction 3. Under Bar Matter No. 209, administrative cases which are to be heard by SC en banc includes only i. Administrative judges ii. Disbarment of lawyers iii. Suspension of more than 1 year iv. Fine exceeding Php 10, 000

[e] Rule-making power; limitations Promulgates rules concerning: protection and enforcement of constitutional rights; pleading, practice and procedures in all courts; admissions to the practice of law; Integrated Bar of the Philippines; legal assistance to the underprivileged Limitation - Provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases

CASE: - Maceda v. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 460 [h] Annual report Supreme Court to submit, within 30 days from the opening of each regular session of congress, to the President and to Congress an annual report on the operations and activities of the Judiciary

F. Tenure of Justices/Judges 1. Supreme Court CASE - Re: 1st Indorsement from Hon. Raul M./ Gonzalez, A.M. No. 88-4-5433, Aug. 15, 1988 2. Lower Courts (Sec. 11, Art. VIII) Hold office during good behaviour until they reach 70 years of age or become incapacitated to discharge their duties Hold office until they reach 70 years of age or become incapacitated to discharge their duties May be removed only through impeachment

4. Consultations/Decisions of the Supreme Court Conclusions in any case submitted to it for decision shall be reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a member for the writing of the opinion of the Court. A certification, signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued. This requirement is applicable also to lower collegiate courts (this requirement does not apply to administrative cases)

a. When votes are equally divided and the majority vote is not obtained b. Decision shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. This does not apply to minute resolutions dismissing a petition for habeas corpus, certiorari and mandamus provided a legal basis is given. c. No petition for review or motion for reconsideration shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor. CASES - Prudential Bank v. Castro, 158 SCRA 646 - Dizon v. Judge Lopez, A.M. No. RTJ-961338, Sept 5, 1997

The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, OR order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the members who actually took part on the issues in the case and voted thereon. It was held that the first clause in the said section is a declaration of the grant of the disciplinary power to, and the determination of the procedure in the exercise thereof by the Court en banc. No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its members. - People v. Judge Gacott, 246 SCRA 52 - De la Llana v. Alba, 112 SCRA 294

G. Salaries Fixed by law May not be decreased during their continuance in office. - Nitafan v. Tan, 152 SCRA 284

H. Periods for Decision 1. All cases filed after the effectivity of the Constitution must be decided or resolved, from the date of submission, within: 24 months Supreme Court 12 months lower collegiate courts 3 months- all lower courts

cases/matters within the periods prescribed in the Constitution. - Dizon v. Judge Lopez, supra. - In Re: Problem of Delay in Cases before the Sandiganbayan, A.M. No. 00-8-05-SC, Nov. 8, 2001

Unless, in the two latter cases, the period is reduced by the Supreme Court. A certification to be signed by the CJ or Presiding Judge shall be issued stating the reason for delay While it is truly the duty of the Judge to decide cases with good dispatch, he must not sacrifice for expediencys sake the fundamental requirements of due process, nor to forget that he must conscientiously endeavour each time to seek the truth, to know and aptly apply the law, and to dispose of the controversy objectively and impartially, all to end that justice is done to every party.

2. Despite the expiration of the mandatory period, the court, without prejudice to such responsibility as may have been incurred in consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case or matter submitted to it without further delay. The court does not lose jurisdiction over the case, despite the lapse of the mandatory period, but the erring judge or justice may be subjected to administrative sanctions for the delay.

3.Failure of a judge to decide a case within the reglementary period constitutes gross dereliction of duty the gravity of which depends on several factors, including the number of cases not decided on time, the damage suffered by parties as a result of delay and the presence of other aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Other cases where administrative sanctions were imposed by the Supreme Court on judges for failure to decide/resolve