vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. 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 1. Judicial Power
Courts are given judicial power, nothing
more
It is the measure of the allowable scope of
judicial action.
The right to determine actual
controversies arising between adverse litigants, duly instituted in courts of proper jurisdiction
The authority to settle justiciable
controversies or disputes involving rights that are enforceable and demandable before the courts of justice or the redress of the wrongs for violation of such rights
Requisites: real parties come to court and
controversy can be settled by application of existing laws
Goes beyond the mere promulgation of
final decisions (Echegaray vs Secretary of Justice) o Power to control execution of decision is an essential aspect of jurisdiction 2. Intrinsic limit on judicial power
Courts may neither assume nor be
compelled to perform non-judicial functions
There is no inherent power in the
executive or legislature to charge the judiciary with administrative functions except when reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of judicial duties
Correlative with the duty of congress not to
charge courts with non-judicial power is the duty not to emasculate judicial power o Does not prevent congress from offering alternative modes of settling disputes o When a law says that disputes between government departments shall be settled administratively, the administrative decision shall have same effect as final decisions of courts of justice o When a law prohibits courts from issuing injunctions in cases involving infrastructure projects of the government, such prohibition
can only refer to administrative
acts involving facts or the exercise of discretion in technical cases. o Court can come in when agencies violate constitutional rights or commit grave abuse of discretion or acts in excess of jurisdiction Moot case: one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value General rule: judicial power not exercised to address moot questions. However, courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if: a. There is a grave violation of the constitution b. The exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is in involved c. Constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, bar, public d. Case is capable of repetition yet evading review
3. Grave abuse of discretion
Does not eliminate the fact that truly
political questions are beyond the pale of judicial review o Ex: internal discipline of congress hat do not involve impairment of private rights
Not every abuse of discretion can be an
occasion for the court to come in by virtue of the second sentence of section 1. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. o It is grave abuse of discretion for the Sandiganbayan to contravene earlier decisions of the SC (PCGG vs Cocofed) o It is grave abuse of discretion for COMELEC to award the subject contract in violation of law and with disregard to its own bidding rules and procedure (Infotech foundation v COMELEC)
Grave abuse of discretion:
a. When an act is done contrary to the constitution, law or jurisprudence b. It is executed whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily out of malice, ill will or personal bias