You are on page 1of 1

JUDICIAL REVIEW / INQUIRY (power of the courts to test the validity of the executive and legislative acts in the

light of their conformity with the Constitution) Requisites: 1) Actual Controversy General Rule actual/concrete; hence, ripe for adjudication (not for advisory opinion or a hypothetical question).

But, what is required is that the action being challenged must be the exercise of spending or taxing power of Congress. Thus, where the Pres., out of the funds placed at the disposal of his office, sets aside an amount to finance a study of possible constitutional amendments, there is neither appropriation nor taxation by Congress (Gonzales vf. Narvasa, G.R. No. 140835, August 14, 2000). Here, taxpayers suit was not deemed proper. Voters suit there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question (Sanidad vs. COMELEC)

Rationale: judicial power is invoked to settle actual controversy involving conflicting claims of demandable and enforceable rights and to determine grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. But, an action for declaratory relief under Rule 63, Rules of Court is still part of judicial review wherein any person interested under a deed, will, contract, or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation before breach or violation may bring an action in the RTC to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder. General Rule on Moot questions- -the court will not entertain or will dismiss the case. Rationale: there is no judicial controversy when there are no more conflicting claims of legal rights; thus, an adjudication thereon would be of no practical use or value as courts do not sit to settle mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest, however intellectually challenging. Exceptions: - capable of repeated violation yet escaping review - educate the bar and bench of controlling principles

b) Concerned citizens suit there must be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental importance which must be settled (Oposa vs. Factoran, Kilosbayan vs. Guingona, David vs Arroyo ) NOTE: But, generalized interest (shared by the citizenry) is not enough (IBP vs Zamora; Lozada vs. COMELEC; 120 SCRA 337) Legislators suit there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringe their prerogatives as legislators (Tanada vs. Angara) Government itself suing proper party to question the validity of its own laws (PP vs. Vera RE: challenge on the probation law)

a)

NOTE: Court may relax the rules on proper party in the greater interest of justice

In other words, the Court may at its sound discretion, relax the procedural rule to allow a suit even if strictly not raised by the property party because it is only a procedural defect. 3) The constitutionality is raised at the earliest opportunity (Umali) except: in criminal cases in civil cases where the constitutional issue is necessary to resolve the case in any case, the constitutional question maybe raised at any stage if it involves jurisdiction of court except: when estoppel applies (Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy; 33 SCRA 29)

- there is a grave violation of the Constitution - paramount public interest is involved (North Cotabato vs GRP Peace Panel case; David vs Arroyo case) 2) Raised by the proper party (locus standi) General Rule (Direct injury test) one must have personal and substantial interest; and suffers or will suffer a direct inquiry (not a mere inchoate or contingent interest) Exceptions: (Oposa vs Factoran case, Kilosbayan vs Guingona case, Tolentino vs COMELEC case; Bayan vs Zamora, GR No. 138570, Oct 10, 2000) 1) transcendental importance or of paramount public interest 2) involves serious constitutional issues Maybe raised by and through:

4) The constitutional issue is the lis mota/determinative of the case itself (Laurel vs Garcia case) NOTE: - However, as long as a case can be decided on some other basis, the court shall avoid the constitutional challenge to a law due to the rule on separation of power and respect to co-equal and separate departments which enacted the law. (Zandueta vs de la Costa) To doubt the constitutionality of a law is to sustain it. To justify nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. Until a law is declared by a competent court as unconstitutional, it is presumed valid (presumption of constitutionality rule)

a) taxpayers suit there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds - validity of appropriation law (Tolentino case) - constitutionality of a law providing for special retirement benefits to members of Congress (Philconsa vs. Gimenez; 15 SCRA 479; Philconsa vs. Enriquez may also question contracts entered into by the National government or GOCC allegedly in contravention of laws (Abaya vs. Ebdane; 515 SCRA 720)

- can question validity of a law appropriating public funds (Tolentino vs. COMELEC). NOTE: