Judicial Review

It is power of the courts of a country to examine the actions of the legislative, executive,
and administrative arms of the government and to determine whether such actions are
consistent with the constitution. Actions judged inconsistent are declared
unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.

Judicial Power
It includes the duty of 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. The Court needs to determine
whether the requisites for a valid exercise of its power of judicial review are present.

POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW: LIMITATIONS/ REQUISITES

there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial
power;
the person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of
the subject act or issuance; otherwise stated, he must have a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct
injury as a result of its enforcement;
the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and,
the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case

Actual Controversy

Actual controversy means a true legal dispute which leads to a genuine lawsuit not
merely a hypothetical, theoretical, or speculative legal issue.

Mootness Doctrine

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW /mjsb

It is a principle of judicial procedure whereby courts will not decide cases in which there
is no longer any actual controversy. The exercise of judicial power depends upon the
existence of a case or controversy. Hence, the courts will not hear or decide a case unless
it includes an issue that is not considered moot because it involves the public interest or
constitutional questions.

Legal Standing

In order to bring a suit to court, a person, or plaintiff, must demonstrate that they have
been harmed, or will be harmed, and therefore, the court must take corrective action.
Standing, or locus standi, limits lawsuits to those individuals who have suffered actual
harm. In other words, a court will not hear a case brought by a person who simply
believes a law is unfair, or if he or she believes that a law has harmed others. A plaintiff
must demonstrate a risk to their own legal interests. Did they lose money? Did they
suffer an injury? Were their constitutional rights violated? Insufficient standing is the
demise of many litigants before the Supreme Court.

Taxpayers Suit
It is a case where the act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of
public funds derived from taxation. Taxpayers have sufficient interest of preventing the
illegal expenditures of money raised by taxation. A taxpayer is not relieved from the
obligation of paying a tax because of his belief that it is being misappropriated by certain
officials. A taxpayer has no legal standing to question acts that do not involve the use of
public funds.

The Supreme Court has discretion whether or not to entertain taxpayers suit, and could
brush aside lack of locus standi.

REQUISITES FOR A TAXPAYERS PETITION

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW /mjsb

 that money is being extracted and spent in violation of specific constitutional
protections against abuses of legislative power;
that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose; and,
that the petitioner seeks to restrain respondents from wasting public funds
through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW /mjsb