Judicial Power - the power of the court to
settle actual cases or controversies between
real conflicting parties through the
application of laws, including the
constitution.
Expanded form – the SC also has the power
to determine whether or not there has been
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the government:
1. When its decisions are contrary to the
constitution
2. When it is executed capriciously,
whimsically, and maliciously.
Conflict between a law/statute and the
constitution - the constitution will prevail.
Sagisag vs. Ochoa
Distinguished from the general notion of judicial
power, the power of judicial review refers to both the
authority and the duty of the courts to determine
whether a branch or instrumentality of government
(refers to the political branches of government -
legislative/executive branch) has acted beyond the
scope of the latter’s constitutional powers.
Anggara vs. Election Commission
Judicial Review - an aspect of judicial power
which allows the courts to review, revise,
reverse, modify, affirm on appeal or certeriori
any cases which involves rights that are
legally demandable and enforceable and
determine whether of not there is a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction.
Power of SC and lower courts to declare
constitutionality of laws, treaties and
presidential issuances. It emanates from
judicial power - power of courts to settle
controversies through the application of laws
including the constitution.
Separation of Powers
 Each department is supreme within its
sphere and not over other branches
 A fundamental principle in our
system of government. It obtains not
through express provision but by
actual division in our constitution.
Each department of the government
has the exclusive cognizance of
matters within its jurisdiction and is
supreme within its own sphere. But it
does not follow from the fact the three
powers are to be kept separate in the
state that the constitution intended
them to be absolutely unrestrained
and independent of each other. The
constitution provides for the system
of checks and balances to secure
coordination in the workings of the
various departments/branches of the
government.
 Each department has its own power
but it does not impose supremacy
over other departments.
 The constitution is not a grant of
power – it is an expression of the
limitations of powers of government
instrumentalities.
 National Assembly - created the Electoral
Commission
 EC - made its own rules and regulation on
election protest
 National Assembly - wants its rules to
govern.
 Conflict between EC and NA
 NA – said that the court has no jurisdiction
because it belongs to their power to make
laws and to provide for the powers of EC
 EC – the constitution provides for separation
of powers and checks and balances. The SC
has the power to determine whether a branch
of government/instrumentality has exceeded
the powers given to it by the constitution.
 “But in the main, the Constitution has
blocked out with deft strokes and in bold
lines, allotment of power to the executive, the
legislative and the judicial departments of the
government. The overlapping and interlacing
of functions and duties between the several
departments, however, sometimes makes it
hard to say just where the one leaves off and
the other begins. In times of social
 disquietude or political excitement, the great
landmarks of the Constitution are apt to be
forgotten or marred, if not entirely
obliterated. In cases of conflict, the judicial
department is the only constitutional organ
which can be called upon to determine the
proper allocation of powers between the
several departments and among the integral
or constituent units thereof.”
 The Supreme Court is the final arbiter in
checks and balances. It is the SC which has
the power to define whether a
branch/instrumentality of government has
exceeded its constitutional powers.
Judicial Independence
 Encompasses the idea that individual
justice/justices/judges can freely
exercise their mandate to resolve
justiciable disputes while the judicial
branch as a whole would work in the
discharge of its constitutional
functions free of restraints and
influence from the other branches
saved only for those imposed by the
constitution itself. There are two
categories:
1. Individual judicial
independence - focuses on
each particular judge and
seeks to ensure his or her
ability to decide cases with
autonomy within the
constraints of the law. A judge
has his independence when he
can render a judgement that is
free from political/popular
influences based solely on the
individual facts and
applicable laws.
2. Institutional judicial
independence – focuses on the
independence of the judiciary
as a branch of government and
protects judges as a class.
RE: COA Opinion
 Justices wanted to purchase properties which
value is already depreciated based on their
formula.
 The SC decided to peg the amount of the
properties depending on its value over time.
 COA – the formula used by the SC is wrong.
 SC – “we have fiscal autonomy and we have
judicial independence. This is our
computation based on our own criteria. It is
in line with the GAA.” This is not subject for
intervention from other branches because
there is a grant of fiscal autonomy and
judicial independence.
Judiciary Fiscal Autonomy is provided by the
constitution to the judiciary as a whole in the
spirit of Judicial Independence. When there is
already an allocated budget, it will be given
to them regularly without the usual rules and
requirements governing other institutions
without fiscal autonomy. They have the
authority on how they will spend the budget
that is given to them, as long as it is covered
by the GAA (General Appropriations Act).
They have the authority to determine
amounts and how they will dispose of this
amount accordingly.
COA is an independent commission which
should respect the independence of the
judiciary.
Example of Individual Judicial Independence
 A judge hearing an individual’s case,
regardless of the power of that
individual/institution, should look at
the facts and apply the laws in
resolving the matters filed before his
court.
Still re: Separation of Powers
Corpuz vs. People
 Discusses article 5 of the RPC.
 Article 5 provides that the courts have their
power to tell the executive/legislative branch
when a particular act not punishable under the
RPC, should be penalized, OR when a
 penalty should no longer be applied. It can
recommend but does not have the power to
legislate since this power is given the
legislative branch of the government.
Mamiscal vs. Abdullah
 Shariah Law is distinct.
 In this case, the clerk of court in the Shariah
circuit court is also the serving registrar of
Muslim marriages. His job as the clerk is
under the supreme court while his job as a
civil registrar of marriages is under the
executive branch.
 SC wanted to put him under discipline
because of certain acts he did as a registrar of
marriages.
 Ruling: In accordance to the principle of
Separation of Powers, SC had no jurisdiction
to discipline the clerk because the act that was
complained of was a job fulfilled for his
executive role and not for his judiciary role.
The SC’s power to discipline has its limits.
CONDITIONS ON THE EXERCISE OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW:
FUNCTIONS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
1. Legitimating – the act of declaring a
law/statutes/presidential issuance,
etc. as NOT unconstitutional or to put
emphasis on the presumption of
constitutionality.
2. Symbolic (teaching) – this is
exercised even if the conditions are
not met simply because there is a need
for the courts to lay down the rules or
principles which would serve as a
guide for the bench and the bar for
future acts of similar character.
3. Checking – the act of declaring or
negating a law as unconstitutional.
PRESUMPTION OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY
 The Supreme Court said that it is an
established doctrine that the
statute/presidential issues shall be
construed whenever possible, to be in
harmony with rather than in violation
of the constitution. The presumption
is that the legislature intended to enact
a valid, sensible, and just law and one
which operates no further than
necessary to effectuate the specific
purpose of the law. It is presumed that
the legislature has acted within its
constitutional powers so it is the
generally accepted rule that every
statute or regularly accepted act is or
will be or shall be presumed to be
valid and constitutional.
 It is the burden of proof of the
complainant/petitioner to prove that a
law/statute is unconstitutional.
Otherwise, it is automatically
declared by the supreme court as
constitutional.
1. There must be an ACTUAL CASE
calling for the exercise of judicial
power.
 It involves conflicting legal
rights, an assertion of opposite
legal claims susceptible of
judicial resolution.
 There is a contrariety of legal
rights that can be interpreted
and enforced on basis of
existing law and
jurisprudence.
 A party or parties claim that
they have legal rights that
must be upheld by the
supreme court.
 The SC has the power only if
there is a contrariety of legal
rights. Otherwise the courts
will not entertain.
 Ripeness – the controversy
should be ripe for judicial
adjudication. The act being
challenged has had adverse
effects to the concerned party
 because it has already been
accomplished/performed by
the government before a court
may come into the picture. It
is not anticipated. This should
be alleged by someone
claiming or defending his
right.
 Mootness – when the
controversy ceases to be
justiciable controversy (actual
case – ripe) by virtue of
supervening events such that
the declaration of the court
will be of no use or value.
When the act no longer affects
the parties (e.g. There has
already been a subsequent act
that repeals law, making the
problem/case/controversy no
longer relevant), the SC will
no longer entertain the case.
FUNA vs. Manila Economic Office
 Taiwan is not recognized as an
independent country, but the PH has
economic trade relationship with it.
The Manila Econ office, a private
institution but receives government
funds to facilitate the renewal/grant
of passports to OFWs in Taiwan.
 The COA issued a memo that on
post-audit, MECO should be
included despite MECO’s claim that
it’s not a government office should
not be subjected to audit.
 However, during the trial, the
MECO already conceded to be
subjected to audit. (Supervening
Cause)
 Given that, there is no longer an
actual case.
Even if the case is moot due to supervening causes, the
courts may still exercise judicial review when:
 There is a grave violation of the constitution.
 The case involved is a situation of
exceptional character and is a paramount
public interest.
 The constitutional issue raised require the
formulation of principles to guide the bench,
the bar, and the public.
 The case is capable of repetition.
Under these circumstances, the court may rule upon it
despite being moot, but it will not apply to that
particular case but in all similar cases in the future.
This purpose is the Symbolic Function of Judicial
Review – to inform/educated the bar, the bench, and
the public that it is a violation of the constitution.
2. The person challenging the law/act
must have LEGAL STANDING/
LOCUS STANDI to assail the
validity of the subject act.
 Locus Standi – right of
appearance in the court of
justice on a given question (as
defined in Unduran vs.
Aberasturi)
 Real Party In Interest – states
that every action must be
prosecuted or defended in the
name of the real party in
interest who stands to be
benefitted or injured. The one
who has the right to file a suit.
 In Civil Law, he must have a
personal and substantial
interest in the case such that
he has a stake, or he be
affected by the direct injury of
a private person’s act. The
interest/injury should not be
anticipated.
 In Constitutional Law, he
must have a personal and
substantial interest in the case
such that the party have
sustained or will sustain a
direct injury as a result of the
governmental act that is
being challenged.
Non-Traditional Plaintiffs
 Taxpayers – there must be a claim of
illegal disbursement of public funds
or that the tax measure is
unconstitutional
  Concerned Citizens – there must a
showing that the issue raised is of
transcendental importance.
 Voters – there must be a showing of
obvious interest in the validity of the
election law in question.
 Legislators – there must be a claim
that the official action complained of
infringes their prerogatives as
legislators.
 They represent not only their private
interests/injuries but the
interest/injuries of a class or the
masses.
 This interest of the masses that need
to be protected has to be proven.
Doctrine of Transcendental Importance
 In cases with paramount public
interest, the court can waive/relax the
technicalities of the requirements of
legal standing and will entertain the
case.
 Liberal approach to judicial review
 The case has far-reaching
implications and there is a need to
promulgate rules that will guide the
bench, the bar, and the public in
future analogous cases.
 Vindication of a public right.
Imbong vs. Ochoa
 Reproductive Health Bill
 While the individual legal standings of the
plaintiffs were discussed, the court ruled that
this case is of transcendental importance.
International Service vs. Greenpeace
 Case of BT Talong
 The court had a lenient stance stance on the
requirements of legal standing because the
case is of transcendental importance. The
court ruled that the requirement is a matter of
procedure which can be relaxed if the matter
is of transcendental importance.
Saguisag vs. Ochoa
 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement
(EDCA)
Rappler vs. Bautista
 Livestreaming of presidential debates
 The SC issues a resolution granting rappler
and all other media outlets the right to
livestream the debates because the matter is
of transcendental importance because it
illuminates the public as to the platforms and
propagandas of presidential and vice-
presidential candidates.
Disini vs. Secretary of Justice
 Cybercrime Law – transcendental importance
Rosales vs. ERC
 Requisites of Transcendental Importance:
o Public character of the assets
involved.
o Presence of a clear disregard of a
constitution or statutory prohibition
by the public respondent, agency, or
instrumentality of the government.
o Lack of any other party of a more
distinct, direct, and specific interest.
 There are cases that do not fall under these
requirements that the court has a discretion to
declare whether there is transcendental
importance.
*Epistolary Jurisdiction – representation of
an aggrieved party. In line with
environmental law.
3. The question of constitutionality
must be raised at the earliest
opportunity.
 Bodies which have only
quasi-judicial functions, do
not have a power of judicial
review despite having power
to settle controversies.
 Only the SC and the courts
vested with judicial power
review have the power to
declare a law
unconstitutional.
 The earliest time is not when
the case is raised in an
administrative body where all
facts and questions of the law
are exhausted first and when
the body interprets the law
based on the facts
(administrative remedies).
When it is raised to a courts
 with judicial power after the
administrative body, the
question on constitutionality
can be raised.
Brokenshire vs. Ministry of Labor and
Employment
 The issue on constitutionality was
raised before the NLRC, which is a
quasi-judicial body.
4. The issue of constitutionality must
be the very LIS MOTA of the case.
 The court will not pass upon a
question of
unconstitutionality although
properly presented if the case
can be disposed of on some
other grounds such as the
application of the statute or
the general law. The petitioner
must be able to show that the
case may not be resolved
unless the constitutional
question raised is determined.
This is based on the rule that
every law has in its favor the
presumption of
constitutionality.
 Lis Mota – the constitutional
issue is the real issue of the
case.
 The court cannot rule on the
case without touching on the
constitutional issue. If the
court finds other ways to
resolve the case, it will rule
that way and dismiss the
petition on the question of
constitutionality.
Robredo
 The provision that is questioned in
the case is that provision that the
NHA can order demolition and
eviction of illegal settlers. The
petitioner questioned this as
unconstitutional.
 The SC said it has already ruled on
this validity of this eviction. In
deciding the case, the court ruled by
determining if, in the eviction
process, the law has been followed,
INSTEAD of questioning the
constitutionality of the law. Hence,
it was not the Lis Mota of the case.
QUESTION OF LAW VS QUESTION OF
FACT
Question of Law – when the doubt or
difference arises as to what the law is on a
certain state of fact. Whether a law applies to
a fact.
Question of Fact – when the doubt or
difference arises as to the truthfulness or the
falsehood of the given facts. It is not an
application of the law.
Courts can only entertain question of law; it
cannot entertain question of facts because the
court is not a trier of facts.
Laude
 The motion was filed by the sister of Jennifer
Laude.
 The SC emphasized that in criminal cases the
people of the Philippines is the real party in
interest. That is, through the OSG.
7 Pillars of the limitations of the power of
Judicial Review (Disini vs. Secretary of
Justice -Sereno Concurring Opinion)
1. The court will not pass upon the
constitutionality of a legislation in a
friendly/advisory proceeding
(meaning there is no actual
controversy).
2. The court will not anticipate a
question of constitutional law in
advance of necessity of deciding it.
3. The court will not formulate a rule of
constitutional law broader than is
required by the precise facts to which
it is to be applied.
4. The Court will not pass upon a
constitutional question although
 properly presented by the record, if
there is also present some other
ground upon which the case may be
disposed of.
5. The Court will not pass upon the
validity of a statute upon complaint of
one who fails to show that he is
injured by its operation.
6. The Court will not pass upon the
constitutionality of a statute at the
instance of one who has availed
himself of its benefits.
7. When the validity of an act of the
Congress is drawn in question, and
even if a serious doubt of
constitutionality is raised, it is a
cardinal principle that this Court will
first ascertain whether a construction
of the statute is fairly possible by
which the question may be avoided
Pre-enforcement Judicial Review
 Covers criminal acts passed by
congress. While there is not yet an
actual enforcement under the new
law, but if there’s an anticipation of
its probable application, these persons
already have the standing and an
actual case. Hence, there can be a
judicial review.
 E.g., Anti-Terrorism Act, Cyber
Crime Law
Elements:
1. The challenged law or provision forbids a
constitutionally protected conduct or activity
that a petitioner seeks to do.
2. A realistic, imminent, and credible threat
or danger sustaining a direct injury or facing
prosecution awaits the petitioner should the
prohibited conduct or activity be carried out.
3. The factual circumstances surrounding the
prohibited conduct/activity sought to be
carried out are real, not hypothetical and
speculative and are sufficiently alleged and
proven.
Case: Anti-terrorism Act
 There is definition of what a terrorist
or terroristic group are.
 A certain group of individuals which
feared that they may be prosecuted
under the anti-terrorism act because
of the definition. It seems that they are
under that definition. So, they wanted
that provision to be stricken out as
unconstitutional.
 SC – Albeit there’s really no
controversy, it belongs to the concept
of pre-enforcement judicial review.
Relative Constitutionality
1. A statute valid at one time may
become void at another time because
of altered circumstances. Thus, if a
statute in its practical operation
becomes arbitrary or confiscatory, its
validity, even though affirmed by a
former adjudication is open to inquiry
and investigation in the light of the
changed conditions.
2. A statute or an interpretation thereof,
its constitutionality is conditioned but
it is being fair or reasonable which in
turn is dependent on the actual
situation, never static but subject to
change. So a measure is valid when
enacted subsequently due to altered
circumstances that is stricken down as
unconstitutional.
LOWER COURTS have judicial power as
provided for in section 1 article 8 and section
5 #2.
o Cases: Brokenshire
In determining constitutionality, we should
not only look at the provision but also the
distinct set of facts in the case.