JUDICIAL REVIEW

Why is there a need for JUDICIAL REVIEW? It is because the

acts of the executive and legislative will boil down to as to whether
or not the constitutional provisions had been followed.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS CITING THE POWER
OF JUDICIAL REVIEW:
1. Article VIII, Sec 1 of the Constitution: Judicial Power includes
the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable
(Justiciable Question)
and to determine whether on not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
any branch or instrumentality(Political Question Exemption).

However, Judicial review is not an assertion of superiority by

the courts over the other departments, but merely an
expression of the supremacy of the Constitution.
In BIR v CTA, it was held that the fact the constitutional
question was properly raised by a party is not alone sufficient
for the respondent court to pass upon the issue of
constitutionality
since every court should approach a
constitutional question with grave care and considerable
caution.
Aside from that ,the Requisites of Judicial Review or Inquiry
must be followed and these are the following:
1. ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY
a.The controversy must be definite and concrete, bearing upon the
legal relations of parties who are pitted against each other due to
their adverse legal interests.
2008 notes: a request for an advisory opinion is not an
actual case or controversy. But an action for declaratory
relief is proper for judicial determination.

JUSTICIABLE QUESTION:
implies a given right, legally demandable and
enforceable, an act or omission violative of such right
and a remedy granted and sanctioned by law for said
breach of right.
As such, where the action (dont USE IF, USE
WHERE) is alleged to infringe the Constitution, it
becomes only the right but the duty of the judiciary to
settle the dispute.

b.Issue raised must not be moot and academic ,or because of

subsequent developments have become moot and academic.
In Enrile v SET (May 19,2004): because the term of the
contested position expired on June 30,1998, the
electoral contest had become moot and academic and
thus there was no occasion for judicial review.
In Lacson v Perez, where cases filed questioning the
declaration by Pres.GMA of a state of rebellion in
Metro Manila ,the Supreme Court dismissed the
petitions because on May 6,2001, the President ordered
the lifting of the state of rebellion and thus the issue
raised in the petitions had become moot and academic.

POLITICAL QUESTION:
It refers to questions which, under the Constitution, are
to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity
or in regard to which full discretionary authority has
been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of
government.
It concerns with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not
legality of the particular measure, that is why the Court
cannot touch on this area.
In Defensor-Santiago v Guingona: where Sen DefensorSantiago questioned the election of Sen Guingona as
Minority Floor Leader, the SC said that it has no
authority to interfere and unilaterally intrude into that
exclusive realm, without running afoul of constitutional
principles that is bound to protect and uphold the very
duty that justifies the Courts being.
EXCEPTION: Judicial review sets in determining
whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part
of any branch or instrumentality.
2. Sec 4(2), Art VIII provides all cases involving constitutionality
of a treaty, international or executive agreement or law which shall
be heard by the Supreme Court en banc including those involving
the constitutionality, application or operation of presidential
decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances and other
regulations shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of
the Members who actually took part in the deliberation on the
issues in the case and voted thereon

HOWEVER, even if issue raised is Moot and Academic, the

Courts will still decide on the following grounds:
a.

if the question is CAPABLE OF REPETITION YET

EVADING REVIEW , whereby, there is a reasonable
expectation that the plaintiff will again be subjected to
the same problem
OR

b.

when the court feels that it is called upon to exercise its

SYMBOLIC FUNCTION.
Where it had the duty to formulate guiding and
controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines
or rules and the symbolic function to educate the bench
and the bar on the extent of protection given by the
constitutional guarantees.

THE QUESTION
ADJUDICATION

INVOLVED

MUST

BE

RIPE

FOR

As a rule ,as long as there exist actual case or controversy, the

court will rule on it--- however, if it is not ripe for judicial
determination (since it creates no rights and imposes no duties
enforceable by the courts),then such question will not be tackled
by the court.
In some books, these rule constitute part of the requisites of
Judicial Review.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION MUST BE RAISED BY

THE PROPER PARTY OR ONE WHO HAS LEGAL
STANDING
COURTS will not touch an issue involving validity of a law ,
UNLESS, there has been a governmental act accomplished which
has a direct adverse effect on the legal right of the person
contesting its legality.
The established rule is that a party can question the validity of a
statute only if ,as applied to him, it is unconstitutional.
The exception is the so-called FACIAL CHALLENGE --- BUT
the only time a Facial Challenge to a statute is allowed is when it
operates in the area of freedom of expression.
In such instance, the overbreadth doctrine permits a party to
challenge the validity of a statute even though ,as applied to him, it
is not unconstitutional , but it might be if applied to others not before
the court whose activities are constitutionally protected.
Invalidation of the statute on its face, rather than as applied is
permitted in the interest of preventing a chilling effect on freedom
of expression.
2008 notes: A Facial challenge to a legitimate act is the most
difficult challenge to mount successfully since the challenge must
establish that no set of circumstance exist under which the act would
be valid (Estrada v Sandiganbayan)

LEGAL STANDING a personal and substantial interest in the

case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury
as a result of the governmental act.
As a rule, Party must have legal standing UNLESS, court will set
aside issue of standing in view of the paramount importance and
constitutional significance of the issues involved (except when the
party involved has no PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST)
PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST means such interest of a
party in the subject matter of the action as will entitle him under
substantive law to recover if the evidence is sufficient
Or that he has a legal title to defend and the defendant will be
protected in payment to or recovery from him.
2008 notes: the main reason why standing may be set aside since the
latter is a mere procedural technicality which may be set aside by the
Court in view of the importance of the issues involved.

THE FOLLOWING HAS STANDING OR PROPER PARTIES:

1.any citizen- question martial law or habeas corpus
2.concerned
citizen-question
of
transcendental
importance (important to life of nation) so it allows
suits even to people with no standing.
3.voters-with regard validity of election laws (except
telebap case)
4.taxpayer-proper party to question the validity of a law
appropriating public funds for government projects.
(Sanidad v Comelec) However, if it is a private fund of
private company, then ,taxpayer cannot question it.
5.legislator-act which infringes on his prerogative as
legislator
6.environmentalist- even minors can sue if issue is with
regard environment.
7.and the Government of the Philippines is a proper
party to question the validity of its own laws since
more than any one, it should be concerned with the
constitutionality of its own acts (Pp v Vera)

NOT A PROPER PARTY

In Automotive Industry Workers Alliance v Romulo, (January
18,2005): the petitioners composed of 10 labor unions,seeking the
declaration of unconstitutionality of EO 185 dated March 10,2003
which transfer administrative supervision over the NLRC from the
NLRC Chairman to the Secretary of Labor, could not show that the
member sustained or were in danger of sustaining injury over the
EO.
In Domingo v Carague (April 15,2005) the petitioners failed to show
any direct and personal interest in the COA Organizational
Restructuring Plan since there was no indication that they sustained
some direct injury as a result of the implementation.

PROPER PARTY it is one who has sustained or is in imminent

danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of.
In Agan Jr. v PIATCO: the petitioners, the NAIA concessioners and
service contractors were declared proper parties because they stood
to lose their source of livelihood by reason of the implementation of
the PIATCO contracts. The financial prejudice brought about by the
said PIATCO contracts on them are legitimate interests sufficient to
confer on them the requisite standing to file the instant petitions.
In Ople v Torres: SC held that Senator Ople was a proper party to
question the constitutionality of AO 38 in his capacity as Senator,
Taxpayer and Member of the GSIS.
As Senator, he had requisite standing to bring suit assailing the
issuance of the AO as a usurpation of legislative power
As Taxpayer and GSIS member, he could impugn the legality of the
misalignment of public funds and the misuse of the GSIS to
implement the AO.
A taxpayer or a group of taxpayers is a proper party to question the
validity of a law appropriating public funds.
To constitute a taxpayers suit, 2 requisites must concur:
1.
public funds are disbursed by a political subdivision or
instrumentality
2.
a law is violated or some irregularity is committed and the
petitioner is directly affected by the allegedly ultra vires act.
However, the Court has discretion on whether a taxpayer suit may be
given due course or not.

2008 notes: interest means a material interest affected by the decree. Like IBP
since it is for practice of law profession so it has no standing to question issues
regarding military.
Petitioners Sanlakas and Partido are juridical persons and are not subject to arrest
and even if they are peoples organization still they have no personality or
standing. (Sanlakas v Exec)
Neither do SJS officers in their capacity as taxpayers ,citizens since the dispute has
no actual or imminent violation of their rights,as such the courts will not touch an
issue involving the validity of a law unless there has been a governmental act
accomplished or performed that has a direct adverse effect on the legal right of the
person contesting its legality.

2006 BAR: The President issued Proclamation 1018 placing the Philippines
under Martial Law. Robert dela Cruz, a citizen, filed with the Supreme Court
,a petition questioning the validity of Proclamation 1018.
1.Does Robert have a standing to challenge?
YES. Under Article VIII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court
may review ,in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen ,the sufficiency of
the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law.

Question must be raised in the pleadings, however,

in criminal cases, the question can be raised at any time at the
discretion of the court.
in civil cases, the question can be raised at any stage of the
proceedings if necessary for the determination of the case itself
and in every case, except where there is estoppel, it can be raised at
any stage if it involves the jurisdiction of the court.

BAR TIP: MEMORIZE ABOVE, COZ IT S A FAVORITIE BAR TOPIC

2.in the same suit, the SOLGEN contends that under the Constitution ,the
President as Commander-in-Chief, determines whether the exigency has
arisen requiring the exercise of his power to declare Martial Law and that his
determination is conclusive upon the courts. How should the Supreme Court
rule?

In Umali v Guingona, the question of constitutionality of PCAGC

was not entertained because the issue was raised by the petitioner
only in his motion for reconsideration before the RTC of Makati. It
was too late to raise the issue for the first time at that stage of the
proceedings.

SUPREME
COURT
SHOULD
RULE
THAT
HIS
(SOLGEN)
DETERMINATION IS NOT CONCLUSIVE UPON THE COURTS.
The 1987 Constitution allows a citizen, in an appropriate proceedings,to file a
petition questioning the sufficiency of the factual basis of said proclamation.
Moreover, the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and
power to impose martial law involve the curtailment and suppression of certain
basic civil rights and individual freedoms, and thus necessitate safeguards by
Congress and review by the Supreme Court.

4.DECISION ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

MUST BE DETERMINATIVE OF THE CASE ITSELF.

BAR TIP: if theres 2 connecting ideas, use MOREOVER

3.the SOLGEN argues that, in any event, the determination of whether the
rebellion poses danger to public safety involves question of fact and the
Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. What should be the ruling of the Court?
Art VIII,Sec 1, Par 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides that 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 the Government.
As such, when the grant of power is qualified, conditional or subject to limitations
the findings that such conditions have been met or the limitations respected is
Justiciablethe problem being one of legality or validity and not its wisdom.
4.finally, the SOLGEN maintains that the President reported to Congress
such proclamation of Martial Law but Congress did not revoke the
proclamation. What is the effect of the inaction of Congress on the suit
brought by Robert to the Supreme Court?
The inaction of Congress has no effect on the suit brought by Robert to the
Supreme Court.
Sec 18,Art VIII provides for checks on the Presidents power to declare martial
law to be exercised separately by Congress and the Supreme Court.
Under said provision, the Supreme Court has the power to review the said
proclamation and promulgate its decision thereon within 30 days from its filing

Resolution of the issue of constitutionality is unavoidable or is the

very lis mota.

EFFECT OF A DECLARATION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY:

1. Prior to the declaration that a particular law is unconstitutional, it is considered
as an operative fact which at that time had to be complied with.
2. Thus, vested rights may have been acquired under such law before it was
declared unconstitutional.
3. These rights are not prejudiced by the subsequent declaration that the law is
unconstitutional.
Orthodox view: unconstitutional act is not a law,it confers no right, no duty hence
inoperative as if it had not been passed at all.
Modern view (FOLLOWED IN RP): courts simply refused to recognize rights
of parties as if statute had no existence, however ,certain legal effects of the statute
prior to its declaration of unconstitutionality may be recognized
PARTIAL UNCONSTITUTIONALITY REQUISITES:
1.Legislature must be willing to retain valid portion usually shown by the presence
of a separability clause in law
2.Valid portion can stand independently as law

WHO MAY EXERCISE

Sec 5(2), Art. VIII which prescribes the constitutional appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court, and implicitly recognizes the authority of lower courts to decide
questions involving the constitutionality of laws, treaties, international agreements
etc
Judicial review is also vested with the Regional Trial Courts.
However, in actions assailing the validity of statute,treaty ,presidential decree,
order or proclamation and not just in actions involving declaratory relief and
similar remediesnotice to the SOLGEN is mandatory.
Purpose of this mandatory notice is to enable the SOLGEN to decide whether or
not his intervention in the action is necessary.
To deny the SOLGEN such notice would be tantamount to depriving him of his
day in court.
2008 notes: police power cannot be bargained away through the medium of a
treaty or a contract.

3. RAISED AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY