Article VIII

THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

CONCEPT OF JUDICIAL POWER

It is the power to hear and decide cases pending between parties who have the right to sue in courts of law and equity. Corollary to this dictum is the principle of locus standi of a litigant. He who is directly affected and whose interest is immediate and substantial has the standing to sue. Thus, a party must show a personal stake in the outcome of the case or an injury to himself that can be redressed by a favorable decision in order to warrant an invocation of the courts jurisdiction and justify the exercise of judicial power on his behalf. (Domingo vs. Carague, G.R. No. 161065, April 15, 2005)

SECTION 1, ARTICLE VIII JUDICIAL POWER

The judicial power shall be vested in one SC and in such lower courts as may be established by law.

Judicial power includes: 1. The duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable (TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF JUDICIAL POWER); and 2. To determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction (GADALEJ) on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. (EXPANDED POWER)

Jurisdiction: The power to hear and decide cases.

SECTION 2, ARTICLE VIII

The 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 enumerated in Section 5 hereof. No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its Members

SECTION 2, ARTICLE VIII

Constitutional Safeguards that guarantee independence of Judiciary:

1. The Supreme Court is a constitutional body and may not be abolished by law; 2. The members of the SC are removable only by impeachment; 3. The SC may not be deprived of minimum original and appellate jurisdiction; appellate jurisdiction may not be increased without its advice and concurrence; 4. The SC has administrative supervision over all inferior courts and personnel; 5. The SC 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 SC may not be designated to any agency, performing quasijudicial or administrative functions; 8. Salaries of judges may not be reduced; the Judiciary enjoys fiscal autonomy; 9. The SC alone may initiate Rules of Court; 10.The SC alone may order temporary detail of judges; 11.The SC can appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary.

FISCAL AUTONOMY

Means freedom from outside control. The Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman must have the independence and flexibility needed in the discharge of their constitutional duties. The imposition of restrictions and constraints on the manner the independent constitutional offices allocate and utilize the funds appropriated for their operations is anathema to fiscal autonomy and violative not only of the express mandate of the Constitution but especially as regards the SC, of the independence and separation of powers upon which the entire fabric of our constitutional system is based. (Bengzon vs. Drilon, 208 SCRA 133, April 15, 1992)

APPOINTMENT TO THE JUDICIARY

Qualifications: Of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence. In addition:

A. Justices of the SC
a. Natural-born citizen; b. At least 40 years of age; c. 15 years or more a judge of a lower court or has been engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines for the same period.

B. Justices of the Court of Appeals

Same qualifications as those provided for SC Justices Congress may prescribe other qualifications

APPOINTMENT TO THE JUDICIARY

C. RTC Judges
a. Citizen of the Philippines; b. At least 35 years of age; c. Has been engaged in the practice of law for at least 5 years or has held public office in the Philippines requiring admission to the practice of law as an indispensable requisite

D. MTC, MeTC, MCTC Judges

a. Citizens of the Philippines; b. At least 30 years of age; c. Has been engaged in the practice of law for at least 5 years or has held public office in the Philippines requiring admission to the practice of law as an indispensable requisite.

PROCEDURE FOR APPOINTMENT

1. Appointed by the President from among a list of at least 3 nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) for every vacancy. 2. For lower courts, President shall issue the appointment 90 days from submission of the list.

TENURE OF JUSTICES AND JUDGES

A. Supreme CourtHold office until they reach the age of 70 or become incapacitated to discharge their duties. They may be removed only through impeachment. B. Lower CourtsHold office during good behavior until they reach the age of 70 or become incapacitated to discharge their duties.

By majority vote of members who actually took part in the deliberation on the issues and voted thereon, SC en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts or order their dismissal. No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its Members.

JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL

Composition:

Ex-Officio ChairmanChief Justice of the Supreme Court Ex-Officio Members Secretary of Justice Representative of Congress Regular MembersRepresentative of the IBP Professor of Law Retired Member of SC Representative of private sector Secretary de OfficioClerk of the Supreme Court

Appointment: The President shall appoint regular members for a 4-year term with the consent of the Commission on Appointments

Powers and Functions:

1. Recommend appointees to the Judiciary; 2. Recommend appointees to the Office of the Ombudsman and his 5 Deputies; 3. May exercise such other functions as may be assigned by the Supreme Court.

SUPREME COURT
Composition: Chief Justice and 14 Associates Justices May sit:
En

Banc; or In its discretion, in divisions of 3, 5, or 7 members

Any vacancy shall be filled within 90 days from occurrence thereof.

POWER OF SUPREME COURT

A. Original Jurisdiction 1. Over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; 2. Over petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, mandamus, Quo Warranto, and Habeas Corpus;
Certiorari Jurisdiction of the SClimited to decisions rendered in actions or proceedings taken cognizance of by the Commissions in the exercise of their adjudicatory or quasi-judicial functions. It does not refer to purely executive powers. Hence, questions arising from the award of a contract for construction of voting booths can be brought before the trial court. (Ambil vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 143398, October 5, 2000)

3. Review of factual basis for the declaration of martial law or suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus.

POWERS OF THE SUPREME COURT

B. Appellate Jurisdiction Over final judgments and orders of lower courts in: a. All cases in which constitutionality or validity of any treaty international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question; b. All cases involving the legality of any tax impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto; c. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower courts is in issue; d. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher; and e. All cases in which only a question of law is involved.

POWERS OF THE SUPREME COURT

C. Electoral Tribunal for Presidential and Vice-Presidential Contests, over all contests relating to the election, return and qualification of the President or Vice-President. D. Temporary assignment of judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require. Not to exceed 6 months without the consent of the judge concerned. E. Order change of venue or place of trial, to avoid miscarriage of justice F. Rule-making powerpromulgates rules concerning:
1. Protection and enforcement of constitutional rights; 2. Pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts; 3. Admissions to the practice of law; 4. IBP; and 5. Legal assistance to the underprivileged.

Limitations on rule-making power: a. Provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for speedy disposition of cases; b. Uniform for all courts of the same grade; c. Shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights. In Re: Request for Creation of a Special Division, A.M. No. 02-1-09-SC, January 21, 2002, it was held that it is within the competence of the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its power to promulgate rules governing the enforcement and protection of constitutional rights and rules governing pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, to create a Special Division in the Sandiganbayan which will hear and decide the plunder case against former President Estrada. Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 132601, January 19, 1999, Congress cannot amend the Rules of Court. The SC declared that the Constitution took away the power of Congress to repeal, alter, or supplement rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure. In fine, the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is no longer shared by the Court with Congress, more so with the Executive.

POWERS OF THE SUPREME COURT

G. Power of AppointmentSC appoints all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with Civil Service law. H. Power of Administrative SupervisionSC shall have administrative supervision over all courts and personnel thereof. Administrative proceedings before the SC are confidential in nature in order to protect the respondent therein who may turn out to be innocent of the charges; it can take years to build a reputation and only a single accusation, although unfounded, to destroy it. (Godinez vs. Alano, A.M. RTJ-98-1409, February 18, 1999) I. Yearly ReportWithin 30 days from the opening of each regular session of Congress, SC shall submit to the President and Congress an annual report on the operation and activities of the Judiciary. (Section 16, Art. VIII)

CASES TO BE HEARD BY THE SC EN BANC:

1. Cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, executive order, or presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question; 2. Cases raising novel questions of law; 3. Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; 4. Cases involving decisions, resolutions or orders of the Civil Service Commission, Commission on Election, and Commission on Audit; 5. Cases where the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a judge, officer or employee of the judiciary, disbarment of a lawyer, or either the suspension of any of them for a period of more than one (1) year or a fine exceeding ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) or both; 6. Cases where a doctrine or principle laid down by the court en banc or in division may be modified or reversed; 7. Cases assigned to a division which in the opinion of at least three (3) members thereof merit the attention of the court en banc and are acceptable to a majority of the actual membership of the court en banc; and 8. All other cases as the court en banc by a majority of its actual membership may deem of sufficient importance to merit its attention. (Firestone Ceramics, Inc. vs.CA, 334 SCRA 465, June 28, 2000)

CONSULTATIONS/DECISIONS OF SC

The conclusions of the SC in any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in division shall be reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a Member for the writing of the opinion of the Court. A certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties. Any Member who took no part, or dissented, or abstained from a decision or resolution must state the reason therefor. The same requirements shall observe by all lower collegiate courts. Section 13, Article VIII This requirement does not apply to administrative cases

Section 14, Article VIII - No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. It does not apply to a minute resolution dismissing a petition for habeas corpus, certiorari and mandamus, provided a legal basis is given therein. Neither will it apply to administrative cases. People vs. Baring, G.R. No. 137933, January 28, 2002, the trial courts decision may cast doubt on the guilt of the accused, not by the lack of direct evidence against the accused but by: 1. the trial courts failure to fully explain the correlation of the facts; 2. the weight of the admissibility of the evidence; 3. the assessments made from the evidence; and 4. The conclusion drawn therefrom, after applying the pertinent law as basis of the decision. No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor. Lack of merit is sufficient declaration of the legal basis for denial of petition for review or motion for reconsideration. Tichangco vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. 150629, June 30, 2004, when the Court, after deliberating on a petition and any subsequent pleadings, manifestations, comments or motions, decides to deny due course to a petition, and statesin a minute resolution that the questions raised are factual or no reversible error in the respondent courts decision is shown or some other legal basis stated in the resolution, there is sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement.

WRIT OF AMPARO

The Rule on Writ of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC) It was drafted pursuant to the constitutional power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules and regulations for the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. WRIT OF AMPAROit is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security has been violated or is threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or office, or of a private individual or entity. The writ covers extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. It is a writ which may be issued by the courts based on this constitutional power of the SC to promulgate rules for the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. It is a remedy to enforce fundamental rights. It would compel state agents to look for the missing person and the agents would be held liable if they did not exert adequate effort in finding the person. amparomeans protection, from amparar meaning to protect

WRIT OF AMPARO WHO MAY FILE?

The petition may be filed by the aggrieved party or by any qualified person or entitiy in the following order:

Any member of the immediate family, namely: i. Spouse ii. Children iii. Parents of the aggrieved party Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of those mentioned above; or Any concerned citizen, organization, association, or institution, if there is no known member of the immediate family or relative of the aggrieved party.

The filing of a petition by the aggrieved party suspends the right of all other authorized parties to file similar petitions. Likewise, the filing of the petition by an authorized party on behalf of the aggrieved party suspends the rights of all others, observing the order established by the law.

WRIT OF AMPARO WHERE CAN BE FILED?

The petition may be filed on any day at any time with the:

RTC of the place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred; Sandiganbayan Court of Appeals or any Justice of such courts Supreme Court

The writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. The court, justice or judge shall immediately order the issuance of the writ if on the face of the petition it ought to issue. It is served on the respondent by a judicial officer or by a person deputized by the court, justice or judge who shall retain a copy on which to make a return of service. In case the writ cannot be served personally on the respondent, the rules on substituted service shall apply. A clerk of court who refuses to issue the writ after its allowance, or a deputized person who refuses to serve the same, shall be punished by the court, justice or judge for contempt without prejudice to other disciplinary actions.

WRIT OF AMPARO RETURN OF THE WRIT

The respondent shall file a verified written return together with the supporting affidavits within seventy-two (72) hours. If he fails to file a return, the court, justice or judge shall proceed to hear the petition ex parte or even without the appearance of the respondent. RTC:

Returnable before such court or judge Returnable before such court or any justice thereof; or To any RTC of the place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred Returnable before such court or any of its justices; Before the SB or CA or any of their justices; or To any RTC of the place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred.

SB/CA:

SC:

WRIT OF AMPARO HEARING ON THE PETITION

The hearing shall be summary in nature. However, the court, justice or judge nmay call for a preliminary conference to clarify or simplify some issues and determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations and admissions from the parties.

WRIT OF AMPARO AVAILABLE INTERIM RELIEFS

1. Temporary Protection Orderupon motion or motu proprio, the court, justice or judge may order that the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any member of the immediate family be protected in a government agency or by an accredited person or private institution capable of keeping and securing their safety 2. Inspection Orderissued to any person in possession or control of a designated land or other property, to permit entry for the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or any relevant object or operation thereon. The movant must show that the order is necessary to establish the right of the aggrieved party alleged to be threatened or violated. It expires five (5) days after date of its issuance, unless extended for justifiable reasons. 3. Witness Protection Orderthe witness may be referred to the DOJ for admission to the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program, or to other government agencies, or to accredited persons or private institutions capable of keeping and securing their safety.

Only the first two interim reliefs are available to the respondent after he filed a verified motion supported by affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal knowledge of the defenses of the respondent, and after due hearing. The Court shall render judgment within 10 days from the time the petition is submitted for decision. If the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be deemed proper and appropriate; otherwise, the privilege shall be denied. If the court determines that it cannot proceed for a valid cause such as the failure of petitioner or witnesses to appear due to threats on their lives, it shall not dismiss the petition. The court shall archive it instead. The amparo court may, on its own or upon motion by any party, order revival of the petition when ready for further proceedings. The petition shall be dismissed with prejudice upon failure to prosecute the case after the lapse of two (2) years from notice to the petitioner of the order archiving the case.

Does the filing of the petition preclude the filing of separate criminal, civil or administrative actions? No. However, when a criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall be filed, but the reliefs under the writ shall be available by motion in the criminal case, and the procedure under this rule shall govern the disposition of the reliefs available under the writ of amparo. When a criminal action is filed subsequent to the filing of a petition for the writ, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action. When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent to a petition for a writ of amparo, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action. After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to apply to the disposition of the reliefs in the petition.

POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

Are in accordance with the Constitution. It is an expression of supremacy of Constitution.

Justiciable Questiona given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or omission violative of such right, and a remedy granted by law for said breach of right Political Questionsthose 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 branches of government. Political Question Doctrine has been greatly diminished.

POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

Political questions are questions of policy. They involve the wisdom of an act or the efficacy or the necessity of a particular measure. These are questions which are better left for the political branches of the government to determine or resolve. Arose from doctrine of separation of powers

Two (2) Types of Political Question 1. Those to be decided by the people themselves in their sovereign capacity 2. Full discretionary authority has been delegated by the Constitution to the Legislative or Executive branch of the government

Legislative and Executivepolitical branches of the governmentwhere laws are enacted and enforced

POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

RECALL- a mode of removing a local official from his post even before his term ends due to lack of confidence. It is a political question which can not be intruded by the courts. Ybardone vs. COMELEC- lack of confidence is to be decided by the people thru a special recall election Lawyer's League vs. AquinoPetitioner questioned the legality of the Aquino Government.
-the SC dismissed the petition that it has gone outside the ambit of judicial review - the mere presence of the people, without inquiring to their motive in going to EDSA, caused Marcos to fly to Hawaii.

POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

Estrada vs. Desierto (2001) The Petition questioned the legitimacy of the assumption of office by then Vice President GMA Lawyer's League case was cited by respondents; that the case presented a political question, hence not subject to judicial review SC held that the case of Lawyer's League is inapplicable; the government of former President Aquino was the result of a successful revolution by the sovereign people, albeit a peaceful one. No less than the Freedom Constitution declared that the Aquino government was installed through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people "in defiance of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution, as amended." It is familiar learning that the legitimacy of a government sired by a successful revolution by people power is beyond judicial scrutiny for that government automatically orbits out of the constitutional loop. In checkered contrast, the government of respondent Arroyo is not revolutionary in character. The oath that she took at the EDSA Shrine is the oath under 1987 Constitution. In her oath, she categorically swore to preserve and defend the 1987 Constitution. Indeed, she has stressed that she is discharging the powers of the presidency under the authority of the 1987 Constitution. The case at bar pose legal and not political questions. The principal issues for resolution require the proper interpretation of certain provisions in the 1987 Constitution, notably Sec. 1 of Article II and Sec. 8 of Article VI, and the allocation of governmental powers under Section 11 of Article VII. The issues likewise call for a ruling on the scope of presidential immunity from suit. They also involve the correct calibration of the right of petitioner against prejudicial publicity. Thus, respondent's invocation of the doctrine of political question is but a foray in the dark.

EDSA I

EDSA II

involves the exercise of people power of revolution which overthrows the whole government extra constitutional and the legitimacy of the new government that resulted from it cannot be the subject of judicial review presented a political question

involves the exercise of people power of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances which only affected the office of the President intra constitutional and the resignation of the sitting President that it caused and the succession of the VP as President are subject to judicial review involves legal questions

IBP vs. ZAMORA (2000) The SC said that when the President calls out the armed forces to suppress lawless violence, rebellion or invasion, he necessarily exercises a discretionary power solely vested in his wisdom. The Court cannot overrule the President's discretion or substitute its own. The only criterion is that "whenever it becomes necessary", the President may call out the armed forces. In the exercise of the power, onthe-spot decisions may be necessary in emergency situations to avert great loss of human lives and mass destruction of property. Indeed, the decision to call out the armed forces must be done swiftly and decisively if it were to have any effect at all. Section 18, Article VII- Powers of the President 1. Calling out power as Commander-in-Chief of the AFP 2. Power to proclaim martial law 3. Power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus

CALLING-OUT POWER - full discretionary power of the President. In effect, it is a political question not subject to judicial review UNLESS it can be shown that there is GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION (GAD) in the exercise of such power.

expanded power of the judicial review mere abuse of discretion will not do. The abuse must be grave. To doubt is to sustain the power of the President.

Grave Abuse of Discretion Amounting to Lack or Excess of Jurisdiction capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility. (Intestate Estate of Carmen de Luna vs. IAC, February 13, 1989) General Rule: Calling out power is not subject to judicial review and is considered a political question. Exception: When there has been a GAD. Nos. 2 and 3- are not political questions. They are subject to judicial review as expressly provided in Sec. 18 (3), Article VII: xxx The SC may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within 30 days from its filing. xxx

Randolf David, et al. vs. GMA, et al. (2006) Petitioners failed to rebut the assertion that GMA acted with grave abuse of discretion SC uphold the constitutionality of PP1017 insofar as it constitutes a call by the President for the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence. The proclamation is sustained by Sec. 18, Art. VII and other relevant jurisprudence. However, PP 1017's extraneous provisions giving the President express or implied power (1) to issue decrees; (2) to direct the AFP to enforce obedience to all laws even those not related to lawless violence as well as decrees promulgated by the President; and (3) to impose standards on media or any form of prior restraint on the press, are ultra vires and unconstitutional. The Court also rules that under Sec. 17, Art. XII, the president, in the absence of legislation, cannot take over privately-owned public utility and private business affected with public interest. ultra-vires acts and unconstitutional: a. warrantless arrest of petitioners David and Llamas; b. the dispersal of the rallies and warrantless arrest of the KMU and NAFLU-KMU members; c. imposition of standards on media or any prior restraint on the press; d. warrantless search of the Tribune offices and the whimsical seizures of some articles for publication and other materials

Section 23 (2), Article VI: In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.

Generally, Congress is the repository of emergency powers. This is evident in the tenor of the above provision authorizing it to delegate such powers to the President. Certainly, a body cannot delegate a power not reposed upon it.

However, knowing that during grave emergencies, it may not be possible or practicable for Congress to meet and exercise its powers, the Framers of the Constitution deemed it wise to allow Congress to grant emergency powers to the President, subject to certain conditions, thus:
(1) There must be war or other emergency (2) The delegation must be for a limited period only (3) The delegation must be subject to restrictions as the Congress may prescribe (4) The emergency power must be exercised to carry out a national policy declared by Congress

Let it be emphasized that while the President alone can declare a state of national emergency, however, without legislation, he has no power to take over privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest. The President cannot decide whether exceptional circumstances exist warranting the take over of privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest. Nor can he determine when such exceptional circumstances have ceased. Likewise, without legislation, the President has no power to point out the types of businesses affected with public interest that should be taken over. In short, the President has no absolute authority to exercise all the powers of the State under Section 17, Article XII in the absence of an emergency powers act passed by Congress.

emergency power must be authorized by Congress (thru an enactment of law) she is not exercising emergency power because there was no law enacted by Congress authorizing her to exercise such power

General rule: POTESTA DELEGATA NON DELEGARE POTESTwhat has been delegated cannot be re-delegated. It is based on ethical principle that delegated powers constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate through the instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the intervening mind of another.

While PAGCOR is allowed under its charter to enter into operators and/or management contracts, it is not allowed to relinquish or share its franchise, much less grant a veritable franchise to another entity such as SAGE. In Lim vs. Pacquing, 240 SCRA 649, the Court clarified that since ADC has no franchise from Congress to operate jai-alai, it cannot, even if it has license or permit from the City Mayor, operate jai-alai in the City of Manila. By the same token, SAGE has to obtain a separate legislative franchise, and not ride on PAGCORs franchise if it were to legally operate on-line internet gambling (Jaworski vs. PAGCOR, G.R. No. 144463, January 14, 2004).

EXCEPTIONS: PERMISSIBLE DELEGATION OF POWERS (PETAL)

P-eople power thru plebiscite and initiative- (Sec. 32, ART VI; Sec. 10, Art. X; Sec. 2, Art. XVII; RA 6735) Under the 1987 Constitution, there are specific provisions where the people have reserved to themselves the function of legislation.

REFERENDUM

PLEBISCITE

the power of the electorate to approve or reject legislation through an election called for that purpose.

the electoral process by which an initiative on the Constitution is approved or rejected by the people.

REFERENDUM VS. PLEBISCITE

EXCEPTIONS: PERMISSIBLE DELEGATION OF POWERS (PETAL)

E-mergency power of the President. (Sec. 23(2), Art. VI) T-ariff Powers to the President. (Sec. 28(2), Art. VI) A-dministrative agencies- The power of subordinate legislation. L-ocal government. (RA 7160) Such legislation (by LG) is not regarded as a transfer of general legislative power, but rather as the grant of the authority to prescribe local regulations, according to immemorial practice, subject, of course, to the interposition of the superior in cases of necessity (People vs. Vera). This recognizes the fact that local legislatures are more knowledgeable than the national lawmaking body on matters of purely local concern, and are in better position to enact appropriate legislative measures thereon.

TESTS FOR VALID LEGISLATION

1. Completeness TestThe law must be complete in all its essential terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature so that there will be nothing left for the delegate to do when it reaches him except to enforce it. 2. Sufficient Standard Testintended to map out the boundaries of the delegates authority by defining the legislative policy and indicating the circumstances under which it is to be pursued and effected. This is intended to prevent a total transference of legislative power from the legislature to the delegate.

THREE (3) IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

1. Checking 2. Legitimating Rule on Double Negativeuses the term not unconstitutional; the court cannot declare a law constitutional because it already enjoys a presumption of constitutionality 3. Symbolic - educating the bar and bench and the people on the extent of protection given by the constitutional guarantees Proclamation No. 1021 was issued lifting PP 1017- it becomes moot and academic but SC did not agree as the case is capable of repetition.

REQUISITES FOR THE PROPER EXERCISE OF POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

1. Actual case or controversy- must be definite, concrete, bearing upon the legal relations of parties who are pitted against each other due to their adverse legal interests. susceptible of judicial determination Philippine courts may not render advisory opinion. There must always be an actual case or controversy EXCEPT: Int'l Court of Justiceprincipal judicial organ of the United Nations- ICJ may render advisory opinions. Its 2 main functions are: (a) to decide contentious cases; and (b) to render advisory opinions upon request of the General Assembly, or the Security Council, or the other organs of the UN when authorized by the General Assembly. A request for an advisory is not an actual case or controversy. But an action for declaratory relief is proper for judicial determination. The issue raised in the case must not be moot and academic, or because of subsequent developments, have become moot and academic.

REQUISITES FOR THE PROPER EXERCISE OF POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW (ACTUAL CASE)
MOOT and ACADEMIC PRINCIPLE General Rule: Court will have to dismiss the case. There is no more actual case to be resolved. Exceptions: (David vs. GMA) a. Grave violation of the Constitution b. The exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved c. Constitutional issue raised requires formulation of guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines or rules and the symbolic function to educate the bar and bench and the people on the extent of protection given by the constitutional guarantees d. Case is capable of repetition yet evading reviewit presupposes that: i. The life of the controversy is too short to be fully litigated prior to its termination, and ii. That there is a reasonable expectation that the plaintiff will again be subjected to the same problem

REQUISITES FOR THE PROPER EXERCISE OF POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

The constitutional question must be raised by the proper partyA proper party is one who has sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of. (LOCUS STANDI)

"Legal Standing"- personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of governmental act. A party's standing in court is a procedural technicality which may be set aside by the Court in view of the importance of the issues involved. Thus, where the issues raised by the petitioners are of paramount public interest, the Court may, in the exercise of its discretion, brush aside the procedural barrier. (Kilosbayan vs. Guingona, 232 SCRA 110)

In Sanlakas vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 159085, February 3, 2004, Rep. Suplico, et al., and Senator Pimentel were considered as proper parties to contest the constitutionality of Pres. Arroyos proclamation of a state of rebellion after the Oakwood incident. In IBP vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000, the petition seeking to nullify the order of Pres. Estrada for the deployment of the Philippine Marines to join the PNP in visibility patrols around Metro Manila area, was dismissed on the ground that the IBP had no legal standing to question the presidential act. Lim vs. Executive Secretary (2002)Because of the paramount importance and the constitutional significance of the issues raised in the Petition, the Court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, brushed aside the procedural barrier and took cognizance of the petitions. Information Technology Foundation vs. COMELEC (2004) the subject matter of the case is a matter of public concern and imbued with public interest; it is of paramount public interest and of transcendental importance.

Kilosbayan vs. Morato, 246 SCRA 540, the petitioners do not posses the legal capacity to institute the action for annulment of the Equipment Lease Agreement (ELA) because they are without a present substantial interest, as distinguished from mere expectancy, or future, contingent, subordinate or consequential 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.

In Domingo vs. Carague, G.R. No. 161065, April 15, 2005, the petitioners failed to show any direct and personal interest in the COA Organizational Restructuring Plan; there was no indication that they have sustained or are in imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its implementation; and they admitted that they do not seek any affirmative relief nor impute any improper or improvident act against the respondents. Clearly, then, they do not have any legal standing to file the instant suit.

In Cutaran vs. DENR, G.R. No. 134958, January 31, 2001, the SC refused to give due course to a petition seeking to enjoin the DENR from processing the ancestral land claim of private respondent over a property located at Camp John Hay reservation in Baguio, on the ground that there is no actual or imminent violation of the petitioners asserted right. Court 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. Until such time, petitioners are simply speculating that they might be evicted from the premises at a future time. General rule: A party can question the validity of a statute only if, as applied to him, it is unconstitutional. Exception: FACIAL CHALLENGE. The statute is absolutely unconstitutional under no circumstance. But the only time a facial challenge to a statute is allowed is when it operates in the area of freedom of expression. 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

Overbreadth Doctrinepermits 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 Courts whose activities are constitutionally protected. In Francisco, Jr. vs. Bayani Fernando, G.R. No. 166501, November 16, 2006, a citizen can raise a constitutional question only when: 1) he can show that he has personally suffered some actual or threatened injury because of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government; 2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and 3) a favorable action will likely redress the injury.

REQUISITES FOR THE PROPER EXERCISE OF POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

3. The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportune time generally, the question must be raised in he 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. In Umali vs. Guingona, G.R. No. 131124, March 21, 1999, the question of constitutionality of the Presidential Commission on Anti-Graft and Corruption (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.

REQUISITES FOR THE PROPER EXERCISE OF POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

4. The decision on the constitutional question must constitute the very LIS MOTA must be determinative of the case itself/entire controversy In Arceta vs. Judge Mangrobang, G.R. No. 152895, June 15, 2004, in a new challenge to the constitutionality of B.P. 22, the SC did not find the constitutional question to be the very lis mota presented in the controversy. Every law has in its favour the presumption of constitutionality, and to justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, and not one that is doubtful, speculative or argumentative.

PERIOD FOR DECISION

Section 15, Article VIII: (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four (24) months from date of submission for the SC, and, unless reduced by the SC, twelve months (12) for all lower collegiate courts, and three (3) months for all lower courts. (2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself. (3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case or matter, and served upon the parties. The certification shall state why decision or resolution has not been rendered or issued within said period. (4) Despite the expiration of the applicable 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 thereto for determination, without further delay.

The above provision does not apply to Sandiganbayan. The provision refers to regular courts of lower collegiate level that in the present hierarchy applies only to the Court of Appeals. The Sandiganbayan is a special court of the same level as the Court of Appeals and possessing all the inherent powers of a court of justice, with functions of a trial court. Thus, the Sandiganbayan is not a regular court but a special one. (Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan, A.M. 00-8-05-SC, November 28, 2001)

MEMORANDUM DECISIONS

A specie of succinctly written decisions by appellate courts in accordance with the provisions of Section 40, BP 129 on the grounds of:
1. Expediency 2. Practicality 3. Convenience 4. Docket status of the Court

To be valid, it cannot incorporate the findings of fact and the conclusions of law of the lower court only by remote reference, which is to say that the challenged decision is not easily and immediately available to the person reading the memorandum decision. For the incorporation by reference to be allowed, it must provide for direct access to the facts and the law being adopted, which must be contained in a statement attached to the said decision. In other words, the memorandum decision authorized under Section 40 of BP 129 should actually embody the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the lower court in an annex attached to and made an indispensable part of the decision.

Distinctive Features and Purpose: 1. It is rendered by an appellate court. 2. It incorporates by reference the findings of facts or the conclusions of law contained in the decision, order, or ruling under review. This is to avoid cumbersome reproduction of the decision of the lower court, or portions thereof, in the decision of the higher court. The idea is to avoid having to repeat in the body of the higher court decision the findings or conclusions of the lower court since they are being approved or adopted anyway. 3. The purpose is to affirm the decision, although it is not impossible that the approval of the finding of facts by the lower court may lead to a different conclusion of law by the higher court. (Yao vs. CA, 344 SCRA 202, October 24, 2000)