Constitutional Law 1 Judicial Review

I. Justiciable and Political Questions

Francisco v HoR

Issue/Ratio

1. Is the petition against the second impeachment complaint a justiciable issue?

In Tanada v Cuenco CJ Concepcion defines the term political question a question of policy, questions which are to
be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislature
or executive branch of the Government a question of wisdom (not legality) of a particular measure
The court was inconsistent in their stance about political questions before the 1973 Constitution (vacillated their
stance)
o Javellana v Executive Secretary a political questions because it involved the ratification of the Constitution by
the people (something they can do in their sovereign capacity) the court took cognizance
Javellana v Executive Secretary the main defense set up by the respondents were that the court had no jurisdiction
because said issue was a political question
They looked back at the records of the Constitutional commission to clarify the Courts power of judicial review and its
application on issues involving political questions (CJ Concepcion)
o Judiciary is the weakest because it would enforce its decisions by the power of reason and appeal to
conscience (executive sword and legislative purse)
o Par 2 of Sec 1, Art VIII is a product of their experience during martial law, general defense of the solicitor
general: political questions, and got away with it
o Javellana v Executive Secretary (explain the story) the main defense put up by the government was that
the issue was a political questions and it was outside the jurisdiction of the court rejected because the issue
was clearly political
o DUTY Courts of justice determine the limits of power of the instrumentalities of the government courts
cannot evade duty to settle matters (par 2, sec 1, article VIII) by claiming it is a political question
o It does not, however, eliminate the fact that truly political questions are beyond the scope of judicial power
It shows that judicial power is not only power, but also a duty and it cannot be abdicated by the political question
doctrine
There is a clarification that Sec 1, Art VIII did not include truly political questions. From this, it was gathered that
there are two types of political questions: truly political (beyond judicial review) and not truly political (still under Sec
1, Art VIII)
There is no clear definition between justiciable political questions and non-justiciable political questions. Baker v Carr
o Constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department
o Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards of solving it
o Impossibility of deciding without an initial policy
However, there are American concepts and it is radically different from ours because Sec 1, Art VIII provides lower
courts with less discretion in determining whether they should pass upon a constitutional issue (American SC
impliedly and discretionary)
SC claims that the determination between truly political and not truly political questions lies in the answer to the
question of whether there are constitutionally imposed limits on the powers of functions conffered upon political bodies
(if there are, they are bound to be examined by the court). In this light, there are five substantial issues
o Impeachment cases yes, in the judicial power section of the case (Sec 3, Art XI)
o Whether the offenses alleged in the Second Impeachment complain constitute valid impeachable offense
under the Constitution outside the jurisidictin of the court because it would have to make a
determination what an impeachable offense is (Sec 3, Art XI is vague and gives general reasons)
political question because it is left to the sound discretion of the legislation not under Sec 1, Art VIII
o Whether the second impeachment complaint was filed in accordance with Sec 3(4), Art XI
o Whether the legislative inquiry by the House Committee on Justice into the Judicial Development Fund is
an unconstitutional infringement of the constitutionally mandated fiscal autonomy of the judiciary.
o Whether Sections 15 and 16 of Rule V of the Rules on Impeachment adopted by the 12th Congress are
unconstitutional for violating the provisions of Section 3, Article XI of the Constitution.
o Whether the second impeachment complaint is barred under Section 3(5) of Article XI of the Constitution.
The other issues, however, as seen throughout the case, was analyzed and determine by the Supreme Court.
Therefore, the claim of the petitioners are judiciable questions and not political SC can exercise its power of
judicial review (which it did)

Ruling

The court found the existence in full of all requisite conditions for its exercise of its constitutionally vested power and duty of judicial
review over the impeachment issue. The second impeachment complaint was null and void.

Torrecampo v MWSS

Facts
 1. In his petition,3 Torrecampo narrated that his constituents approached him on 30 June 2009 to report that personnel and
heavy equipment from the DPWH entered a portion of Barangay Matandang Balara to implement the C-5 Road Extension
Project over Lot Nos. 42-A4, 42-A-6 and 42-A-4.4
2. Torrecampo alleged that if the MWSS and the DPWH are allowed to continue and complete the C-5 Road Extension Project
within Barangay Matandang Balara, three aqueducts of the MWSS which supply water to eight million Metro Manila residents
will be put at great risk.
3. Torrecampo insisted that the RIPADA area, consisting of Pook Ricarte, Pook Polaris and Pook Dagohoy, located inBarangay
University of the Philippines (UP), Diliman, Quezon City, is a better alternative to subject lots.
4. The petitioners ask for a petition for injunction with prayer for issuance of TRO and writ of Preliminary Injunction. They
claim that it is against the fundamental right to health under Sec 15, Art II, 1987 Constitution
5. Respondents claim that the proposed C-5 Road Expansion project has not been initiated and they were just completing the
DPWH studies and tests for the area.

Issues/Ratio

1. Whether there is a justiciable controversy alleged by the petitioner

Torrecampo asserts that the right of 8M residents of Metro Manila to clean and potable water is greatly put at risk.
He alleges that MWSS and DPWH violate Sec 16, Article II and Sec 6, Art XII of the Constitution if the proceed
with the C-5 road extension project using MWSS properties instead of RIPADA area.
This is dependent on wisdom, and not legality, of a particular measure political question he wants the court to
determine whether the Tandang Sora area is a better alternative to the RIPADA area for the C-5 Road Extension
Project
Despite the judicial power stated in Sec 1, Art VII, the issues raised deals into matters that are exclusively within
the wisdom of the Executive Branch.
Courts duty to tell the president to tell the DPWH Secretary we already have the road in this RIPADA side no!
not the overseer of the President in terms of Executive Functions

Ruling

The petition is denied because it is outside the jurisdiction of the court. (Also premature because DPWH is still conducting a study
and hasnt really started with the project)

II. Requisites for Judicial Review

A. Actual Case of Controversy Prematurity

PACU v Secretary of Education

Facts

1. Petitioners request that Act 2706 be declared unconstitutional because.

Deprive school owners, teachers, and parents liberty and property without due process of law
Deprive parents of their natural rights and duty to rear their children for civic efficiency
Provisions conferring on the Secretary of Education unlimited power and discretion to prescribe rules and standards
2. Act 2706 An act making the inspection and recognition of private schools and college obligatory for the Secretary of
Education and this has been going on for 37 years
3. Respondents claim that the petitioners suffered no wrong or allege any one of the requirements for the exercise of
judicial review

Issues/Ratio

1. Whether or not the petition constitutes an actual justiciable controversy exhibiting unavoidable necessity of deciding the
constitutional question
Petitioners claim that the right of a citizen to own and operate a school is guaranteed by the Constitution and any
law requiring governmental approval or permit before one can operate a school censorship
o Sec 3, Act 2607 school must first obtain a permit form Secretary of Education
o None of the petitioners have cause to present this issue because all of them have permits to operate and
are actually operating by virtue of permits
o They have suffered no wrong and need no relief in the form in which they seek to obtain
o Apprehension that the Secretary of Education might under the law withdraw the permit of the petitioners
does not constitute a justiciable controversy
o Courts do not sit to adjudicate academic questions to satisfy scholarly interests there has to be an
actual issue, an actual breach of rights or excess of jurisdiction
Reason for Sec 3, Act 2607
o Board of Education Survey to make a study and survey of the education in the Philippines
o Conclusion majority of the universities are money-making devices for profit and it is a system that
constitutes a great evil
o Can there be any doubt that the Government in the exercise of its police power to correct "a great evil"
could validly establish the "previous permit" system objected to by petitioners?
Provisions conferring on the Secretary of Education unlimited power and discretion to prescribe rules and standards
 o The best answer is that despite such alleged vagueness the Secretary of Education has fixed standards to
ensure adequate and efficient instruction, as shown by the memoranda fixing or revising curricula, the
school calendars, entrance and final examinations, admission and accreditation of students etc.; and the
system of private education has, in general, been satisfactorily in operation for 37 years
o Petitioners do not show how these standards have injured them and their operation no reason to assail
the validity of the power or the exercise of the power of the Secretary
o Claims that the Secretary has been whimsical and capricious in making these choices however fail to show
proper evidence
No argument to show that there was unconstitutionality of the statute no undue delegation of legislative power
Respondents cite many authorities that show that the power to regulate means power to control, quotes the
Constitutional Commission to prove that the State control of private education was intended by organic law
Constitution provides the power to supervise + regulate > regulate
Assessment of 1 per cent levied on gross receipts of all private schools for additional Government expenses in
connection with their supervision and regulation tax on the exercise of constitutional rights
o Legality of tax impost or assessment falls within the original jurisdiction of the Courts of First Instance
o 1 percent is a mere fee to finance the cost of the Departments duty and power to regulate schools may
be upheld, if not courts of first instance
RA 139 validity Board of Textbooks
o Censorship. Can this be enacted in the exercise of the States constitutional power to supervise and
regulate private schools? (Sec 5, Art XIV) implied v express
o No justiciable controversy has been presented not informed that the Board on Textbooks has prohibited
this or that text, or that the petitioners refused or intend to refuse to submit some textbooks, and are in
danger of losing substantial privileges or rights for so refusing

Ruling

Petition is denied.

Mariano v COMELEC

Facts

1. The petitioners, suing as taxpayers, assail Sections 2, 51 and 52 of RA 7854 (An Act Converting the Municipality of
Makati to a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Makati) as unconstitutional on the following grounds:
Section 2 did not properly identify the land area of territorial jurisdiction of Makati with technical description in
violation of Sec 10, Art X, 1987 Constitution and Sec 7 and 450, Local Government Code
Section 51 attempts to restart the three consecutive term limit, violating the Sec 8, Art X and Sec 7, Art VI,
1987 Constitution
Section 52
o Increased the legislative district of Makati only by special law
o Increase in legislative district not expressed in the title
o Addition of another legislative district not in accord with Sec 5(3), Art VI, 1987 Constitution for as the
latest survey, the population is only 450,000 (250,000 thousand shall have one representative)

Issues/Ratio

1. Whether sections 2, 51, and 52 of R.A. 7854, An Act Converting the Municipality of Makati Into a Highly Urbanized City to
be known as the City of Makati. are unconstitutional
Section 2 - uncertainty in the boundaries of LGUs must be clear because it will result to costly conflicts and
prejudice the peoples welfare
o There is no actual controversy because the petitioners have failed to show how description made in this
section will cause confusion to its boundaries.
o Dispute between Taguig and Makati over Fort Bonifacio legislation did not want to foreclose dispute by
making a legislative finding of fact which could decide the issue (left it to the court) by using technical
descriptions Congress refrains from using metes and bounds when there is LGU conflict between areas
o Court is not prepared to hold this section unconstitutional
Section 51
o Mayor Binay already served for two consecutive terms, and RA 7854 gives him the opportunity to run as
mayor for another set of three years crafted to suit the political ambitions of Binay
o Court cannot entertain this challenge to the constitutionality of this section (requirements to challenge
constitutionality are not present) petition is premised on the occurrence of many contingent events
(hypothetical issue) futuristic issue which the Court has no jurisdiction
Section 52 these issues have been laid to rest in the recent case of Tobias v Abalos
o Reapportionment of legislative districts may be made through a special law (charter of a new city)
analogous to Congress adding its members thorough passing a law
o Cannot insist that it is against Sec 5(3), Art VI, 1987 Constitution because of the survey in 1990. Its
legislative district may be increased because it has met the minimum population requirement of 250k.
 o Additional legislative in Makati should be expressed in the bill Court favoring liberal construction of one-
title-on-subject rule so as not to impede legislation. Constitution does not command that the title of a law
should exactly mirror all its details.

Ruling

Petition is dismissed because of lack of merit (there is no actual controversy in the case)

Montescarlos v COMELEC

Facts

1.

Issue/Ratio

Ruling