Judicial review, Constitutional Law
1. Requisites
| Requisites for the exercise of the power of judicial review: |
| 1) There must be an actual case or justiciable controversy before this Court; |
| 2) The question before this Court must be ripe for adjudication; |
| 3) The person challenging the act must be a proper party; and |
| 4) The issue of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity and must be the very litis mota of the case. (Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Aquino III, En Banc, G.R. No. 210500, 02 April 2019) |
Pragmatic adjudication. in exercising judicial review, should also account for the concept of “pragmatic adjudication.” As another parameter of judicial review, adjudicative pragmatism entails deciding a case with regard to the “present and the future, unchecked by any felt duty to secure consistency in principle with what other officials have done in the past. (Ibid.)
Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 (2010)
• The issue that seems to take center stage at present is – whether or not the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its constitutionally mandated power of Judicial Review with respect to recent initiatives of the legislature and the executive department, is exercising undue interference. Is the Highest Tribunal, which is expected to be the protector of the Constitution, itself guilty of violating fundamental tenets like the doctrine of separation of powers? Time and again, this issue has been addressed by the Court, but it seems that the present political situation calls for it to once again explain the legal basis of its action lest it continually be accused of being a hindrance to the nation’s thrust to progress.
• The Philippine Supreme Court, according to Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, is vested with Judicial Power that “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 of abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.”
• Furthermore, in Section 4(2) thereof, it is vested with the power of judicial review which is the power to declare a treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation unconstitutional. This power also includes the duty to rule on the constitutionality of the application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations. These provisions, however, have been fertile grounds of conflict between the Supreme Court, on one hand, and the two co-equal bodies of government, on the other. Many times the Court has been accused of asserting superiority over the other departments.
• To answer this accusation, the words of Justice Laurel would be a good source of enlightenment, to wit: “And when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them.”
• Thus, the Court, in exercising its power of judicial review, is not imposing its own will upon a co-equal body but rather simply making sure that any act of government is done in consonance with the authorities and rights allocated to it by the Constitution. And, if after said review, the Court finds no constitutional violations of any sort, then, it has no more authority of proscribing the actions under review. Otherwise, the Court will not be deterred to pronounce said act as void and unconstitutional.
a. Actual case or justiciable controversy
Actual case or justiciable controversy. An actual case or controversy – is one that involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution; the case must not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other similar considerations not cognizable by a court of justice. Stated otherwise, it is not the mere existence of a conflict or controversy that will authorize the exercise by the courts of its power of review; more importantly, the issue involved must be susceptible of judicial determination. Excluded from these are questions of policy or wisdom, otherwise referred to as political questions. (Garcia v. Executive Secretary, En Banc, G.R. No. 157584, 02 April 2009)
Same. There is an actual case or controversy – if there is a “conflict of legal right, an opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution.” A petitioner bringing a case before this Court must establish that there is a legally demandable and enforceable right under the Constitution. There must be a real and substantial controversy, with definite and concrete issues involving the legal relations of the parties, and admitting of specific relief that courts can grant. (Ibid.)
| Jurisprudential Guidelines on actual case/controversy: |
| 1) The pleadings must show an active antagonistic assertion of a legal right, on the one hand, and a denial thereof on the other; that is, it must concern a real and not a merely theoretical question or issue; |
| 2) An actual and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree conclusive in nature, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts. (Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Aquino III, En Banc, G.R. No. 210500, 02 April 2019) |
Same; Depends on allegations pleaded. The existence of an actual case or controversy depends on the allegations pleaded. (Ibid.)
vs. Political question. Political questions – refer “to those 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 branch of government.” Thus, if an issue is clearly identified by the text of the Constitution as matters for discretionary action by a particular branch of government or to the people themselves then it is held to be a political question. (Garcia v. Executive Secretary, supra.)
Same; Policy question. Political question – connotes, in legal parlance, what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy. (Tañada v. Cuenco, En Banc, G.R. No. L-10520, 28 February 1957)
b. Question is ripe for adjudication
When question is ripe for adjudication. A question is ripe for adjudication – when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it. An alternative road to review similarly taken would be to determine whether an action has already been accomplished or performed by a branch of government before the courts may step in. (Lozano v. Biraogo, En Banc, G.R. No. 187883, 16 June 2009)
| Two-fold aspect of ripeness: |
| 1) The fitness of the issues for judicial decision; and |
| 2) The hardship to the parties entailed by withholding court consideration. (Ibid.) |
Same; Challenged governmental act – completed. A case is ripe for adjudication when the challenged governmental act is a completed action such that there is a direct, concrete, and adverse effect on the petitioner. It is, thus, required that something had been performed by the government branch or instrumentality before the court may step in, and the petitioner must allege the existence of an immediate or threatened injury to itself as a result of the challenged action. (Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Aquino III, En Banc, G.R. No. 210500, 02 April 2019)
Republic v. Roque, En Banc (2013)
• On July 17, 2007, private respondents filed a Petition for declaratory relief before the RTC, assailing the constitutionality of the following sections of RA 9372: (a) Section 3, for being void for vagueness; (b) Section 7, for violating the right to privacy of communication and due process and the privileged nature of priest-penitent relationships; (c)Section 18, for violating due process, the prohibition against ex post facto laws or bills of attainder, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as for contradicting Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended; (d) Section 26, for violating the right to travel; and (e) Section 27, for violating the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.
• As to the… requisite for an action for declaratory relief, neither can it be inferred that the controversy at hand is ripe for adjudication since the possibility of abuse… remain highly-speculative and merely theorized. It is well-settled that a question is ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it. This private respondents failed to demonstrate in the case at bar.
Same; When it becomes moot and academic. An issue that was once ripe for resolution but whose resolution, since then, has been rendered unnecessary, needs no resolution from the Court, as it presents no actual case or controversy and likewise merely presents a hypothetical problem. In other words, a case, though once ripe fur adjudication, becomes moot and academic “when an event supervenes to render a judgment over the issues unnecessary and superfluous.” (Maunlad Homes, Inc. v. Union Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 228898, 04 December 2019)
c. Person challenging the act must be a proper party (locus standi)
Locus standi. Locus standi or legal standing – is a personal and substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the challenged governmental act. It requires a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure the concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. (Umali v. Judicial Bar Council, En Banc, G.R. No. 228628, 25 July 2017)
| Private suits | Constitutional suits |
| In private suits, standing is governed by the “real-parties-in interest” rule as contained in the Rules of Civil Procedure. The question as to real party in interest is whether he is the party who would be benefited or injured by the judgment, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. (AES Watch v. COMELEC, En Banc, 2020) | Standing is a special concern in constitutional law because cases are brought not by parties who have been personally injured by the operation of a law. The plaintiff who asserts a “public right” in assailing an allegedly illegal official action, does so as a representative of the general public. Hence, he has to make out a sufficient interest in the vindication of the public order and the securing of relief. The question in standing is whether such parties have “allege[d] such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court [so largely] depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.” (Ibid.) |
Personal and substantial interest. Judicial review is not just a power but also a duty. Yet, it does not repose upon the courts a “self-starting capacity.” Specifically, judicial review may be exercised only when the person challenging the act has the requisite legal standing which refers to 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 party’s interest must also be material as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. It must be personal, and not based on a desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some third and unrelated party. (AES Watch v. COMELEC, En Banc, G.R. No. 246332, 09 December 2020)
| General Rule: A party will be allowed to litigate only when he can demonstrate that: |
| 1) 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) The injury is likely to be redressed by the remedy being sought. (Lozano v. Nograles, 2009) |
| Exceptions: |
| 1) For taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure is unconstitutional; |
| 2) For voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question; |
| 3) For concerned citizens, there must be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental importance which must be settled early; and |
| 4.) For legislators, there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes their prerogatives as legislators. (David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171392, 171409, 171485, etc., cited in Ifurung v. Jardeleza, En Banc, 2018) |
Taxpayers, legislators, concerned citizens – some kind of injury-in-fact. This Court has previously ruled that for suits filed by taxpayers, legislators, or concerned citizens, they must still claim some kind of injury-infact and allege that the continuing act has denied them some right or privilege to which they are entitled. These parties have no legal standing unless they sustained or are in imminent danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the complained act. (Lozano v. Nograles, En Banc, G.R. No. 187883, 16 June 2009)
Same; Concerned citizen. When suing as a citizen, the interest of the petitioner assailing the constitutionality of a statute must be direct and personal. He must be able to show, not only that the law or any government act is invalid, but also that he sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way. It must appear that the person complaining has been or is about to be denied some right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that he is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act complained of. In fine, when the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the mere fact that he is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest. (Francisco, Jr. v. The House of Representatives, En Banc, G.R. Nos. 160261, 160262, 160263, etc., 10 November 2003)
Same; Taxpayer. In the case of a taxpayer, he is allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed, or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that there is a wastage of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. Before he can invoke the power of judicial review, however, he must specifically prove that he has sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation and that he would sustain a direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the questioned statute or contract. It is not sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public. (Ibid.)
Same; Legislator. As for a legislator, he is allowed to sue to question the validity of any official action which he claims infringes his prerogatives as a legislator. Indeed, a member of the House of Representatives has standing to maintain inviolate the prerogatives, powers and privileges vested by the Constitution in his office. (Ibid.)
Constitutional requirement. The rule on locus standi is not a plain procedural rule but a constitutional requirement derived from Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, which mandates courts of justice to settle only “actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.” (Lozano v. Nograles, supra.)
Lozano v. Nograles (2009)
• In the cases at bar, petitioners have not shown the elemental injury in fact that would endow them with the standing to sue. Locus standi requires a personal stake in the outcome of a controversy for significant reasons. It assures adverseness and sharpens the presentation of issues for the illumination of the Court in resolving difficult constitutional questions. The lack of petitioners’ personal stake in this case is no more evident than in Lozano’s three-page petition that is devoid of any legal or jurisprudential basis.
• It is undisputed that there has been no allocation or disbursement of public funds in this case as of yet. To be sure, standing as a citizen has been upheld by this Court in cases where a petitioner is able to craft an issue of transcendental importance or when paramount public interest is involved. While the Court recognizes the potential far-reaching implications of the issue at hand, the possible consequence of House Resolution No. 1109 is yet unrealized and does not infuse petitioners with locus standi under the “transcendental importance” doctrine.
d. Issue must be lis mota of the case
Lis mota. Lis mota – literally means “the cause of the suit or action.” This last requisite of judicial review is simply an offshoot of the presumption of validity accorded the executive and legislative acts of our co-equal branches of the government. Ultimately, it is rooted in the principle of separation of powers. Given the presumed validity of an executive act, the petitioner who claims otherwise has the burden of showing first that the case cannot be resolved unless the constitutional question he raised is determined by the Court. (General v. Urro, En Banc, G.R. No. 191560, 29 March 2011)
Same. Lis Mota – the fourth requirement to satisfy before this Court will undertake judicial review – means that the Court will not pass upon a question of unconstitutionality, although properly presented, if the case can be disposed of on some other ground, such as the application of the statute or the general law. (Garcia v. Executiev Secretary, En Banc, G.R. No. 157584, 02 April 2009)
General v. Urro, En Banc (2011)
• In the present case, the constitutionality of the respondents’ appointments is not the lis mota of the case. From the submitted pleadings, what is decisive is the determination of whether the petitioner has a cause of action to institute and maintain this present petition – a quo warranto against respondent Urro. If the petitioner fails to establish his cause of action for quo warranto, a discussion of the constitutionality of the appointments of the respondents is rendered completely unnecessary. The inclusion of the grounds for certiorari and/or prohibition does not alter the essential character of the petitioner’s action since he does not even allege that he has a personal and substantial interest in raising the constitutional issue insofar as the other respondents are concerned.
2. Political question doctrine
Political questions. Political questions – refer to those 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 branch of government. Thus, if an issue is clearly identified by the text of the Constitution as matters for discretionary action by a particular branch of government or to the people themselves then it is held to be a political question. (Garcia v. Executive Secretary, En Banc, G.R. No. 157584, 02 April 2009)
Same; Wisdom, not legality, of an act or measure. Political questions are concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not the legality, of a particular act or measure being assailed. Moreover, the political question being a function of the separation of powers, the courts will not normally interfere with the workings of another co-equal branch unless the case shows a clear need for the courts to step in to uphold the law and the Constitution. (IBP v. Zamora, En Banc, G.R. No. 141284, 15 August 2000)
Same; Question of policy. In short, the term “political question” connotes, in legal parlance, what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy. In other words, in the language of Corpus Juris Secundum, it refers to “those 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 Legislature or executive branch of the Government.” It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure. (Tañada v. Cuenco, En Banc, G.R. No. L-10520, 28 February 1957)
Same; Grave abuse of discretion. When political questions are involved, the Constitution limits the determination as to whether there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the official whose action is being questioned. (IBP v. Zamora, supra.)
Constitutionally imposed limits on powers or functions. Thus, a political question will not be considered justiciable if there are no constitutionally imposed limits on powers or functions conferred upon the political bodies Nonetheless, even in cases where matters of policy may be brought before the courts, there must be a showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government before the questioned act may be struck down. “If grave abuse is not established, the Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the official concerned and decide a matter which by its nature or by law is for the latter alone to decide.” (J. Mendoza, Separate Opinion in Ocampo v. Enriquez, En Banc, G.R. Nos. 225973, 225984, 226097, etc., 08 November 2016)
3. Moot questions
Moot and academic. A case becomes moot and academic when the conflicting issue that may be resolved by the court ceases to exist as a result of supervening events. (Oclarino v. Navarro, G.R. No. 220514, 25 September 2019)
No more justiceable controversy. Where a case has become moot and academic, there is no more justiceable controversy, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical value. A case becomes moot and academic when, by virtue of supervening events, there is no more actual controversy between the parties and no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits. Since they are constituted to pass upon substantial rights, courts of justice will not consider questions where no actual interests are involved. As a rule, courts decline jurisdiction over such cases or dismiss them on the ground of mootness. (Stradcom Corporation v. Laqui, G.R. No. 172712, 21 March 2012)
Same; Academic discussion – not necessary. An academic discussion of a case presenting a moot question is not necessary, because a judgment on the case cannot have any practical legal effect or, in the nature of things, cannot be enforced. Stated otherwise, the Court will not determine a moot question in a case in which no practical relief can be granted. (Oclarino v. Navarro, supra.)
| General Rule: Courts decline jurisdiction over such cases or dismiss them on the ground of mootness. (Stradcom Corporation v. Laqui, supra.) |
| Exception: |
| While it is true that this Court may assume jurisdiction over a case that has been rendered moot and academic by supervening events, the following instances must be present: |
| 1) Grave constitutional violations; |
| 2) Exceptional character of the case; |
| 3) Paramount public interest; |
| 4) The case presents an opportunity to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; or |
| 5) The case is capable of repetition yet evading review. (Ibid.) |
a. Actual case/controversy v. Moot and academic
| Actual case or controversy | Moot and academic |
| The existence of an actual case or controversy is a condition precedent for the court’s exercise of its power of adjudication. An actual case or controversy exists when there is a conflict of legal rights or an assertion of opposite legal claims between the parties that is susceptible or ripe for judicial resolution. (Oclarino v. Navarro, 2019) | On the other hand, a moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical value. As a rule, courts decline jurisdiction over such a case, or dismiss it on ground of mootness;8 otherwise, the court would engage in rendering an advisory opinion on what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts. (Ibid.) |
Oclarino v. Navarro (2019)
• The expiration of the respondents’ term of office operates as a supervening event that mooted the present petition. The petitioners, however, insist that the case falls under the fifth exception, i.e., the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. There are two factors to be considered before a case is deemed one capable of repetition yet evading review: (1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration; and (2) there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action.11 In this case, while the respondents were re-elected, their re-election was never assailed. Also, there is no sufficient showing that the respondents would seek further re-election, and even if they do, their victory is not guaranteed. Moreover, the qualifications which the petitioners alleged that the respondents lack could be subsequently cured.
Agcaoili, Jr. v. Farinas (2018)
• A Writ of Habeas Corpus may no longer be issued if the person allegedly deprived of liberty is restrained under a lawful process or order of the court64 because since then, the restraint has become legal. In the illustrative case of Ilagan v. Hon. Ponce Enrile, the Court dismissed the petition for habeas corpus on the ground of mootness considering the filing of an information before the court. The court pronounced that since the incarceration was now by virtue of a judicial order, the remedy of habeas corpus no longer lies.
• Like so, in Duque v. Capt. Vinarao, the Court held that a petition for habeas corpus can be dismissed upon voluntary withdrawal of the petitioner. Further, in Pestano v. Corvista, it was pronounced that where the subject person had already been released from the custody complained of, the petition for habeas corpus then still pending was considered already moot and academic and should be dismissed. This pronouncement was carried on in Olaguer v. Military Commission No. 34, where the Court reiterated that the release of the persons in whose behalf the application for a writ of habeas corpus was filed is effected, the petition for the issuance of the writ becomes moot and academic. Thus, with the subsequent release of all the petitioners from detention, their petition for habeas corpus has been rendered moot. The rule is that courts of justice constituted to pass upon substantial rights will not consider questions where no actual interests are involved and thus, will not determine a moot question as the resolution thereof will be of no practical value.
4. Operative fact doctrine
| General Rule: The general rule is that a void law or administrative act cannot be the source of legal rights or duties. (CIR v. San Roque Power Corporation, En Banc, G.R. Nos. 187485, 196113, and 197156, 08 October 2013) |
| Article 7 of the Civil Code enunciates this general rule, as well as its exception: “Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary. When the courts declared a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern. Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution.” (Ibid.) |
| Exception: The doctrine of operative fact is an exception to the general rule, such that a judicial declaration of invalidity may not necessarily obliterate all the effects and consequences of a void act prior to such declaration. (Ibid.) |
Operative fact doctrine. Under the operative fact doctrine, the law is recognized as unconstitutional but the effects of the unconstitutional law, prior to its declaration of nullity, may be left undisturbed as a matter of equity and fair play. In fact, the invocation of the operative fact doctrine is an admission that the law is unconstitutional. (League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC, En Banc, G.R. No. 176951, 24 August 2010)
Same; Prior to declaration of unconstitutionality, must be complied with. A legislative or executive act, prior to its being declared as unconstitutional by the courts, is valid and must be complied with. (Film Development Council of the Philippines v. Colon Heritage Realty Corporation, En Banc, G.R. No. 203754, 16 June 2015)
Same; Past acts – legitimate. A void act though in law a mere scrap of paper nonetheless confers legitimacy upon past acts or omissions done in reliance thereof. Consequently, the existence of a statute or executive order prior to its being adjudged void is an operative fact to which legal consequences are attached. It would indeed be ghastly unfair to prevent private respondent from relying upon the order of suspension in lieu of a formal leave application. (City Government of Makati City v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 131392, 06 February 2002)
a. Requisites
| Requisites for application of the operative act doctrine: |
| 1) The existence of a legislative act or measure; and |
| 2) Equity and fair play demands application to protect those who relied in good faith on the invalid law. (CIR v. San Roque Power Corporation, supra. cf. Film Development Council of the Philippines v. Colon Heritage Realty Corporation, supra.) |
Existence of a legislative act or measure. For the operative fact doctrine to apply, there must be a “legislative or executive measure,” meaning a law or executive issuance, that is invalidated by the court. From the passage of such law or promulgation of such executive issuance until its invalidation by the court, the effects of the law or executive issuance, when relied upon by the public in good faith, may have to be recognized as valid. (CIR v. San Roque Power Corporation, supra.)
Equity and fair play. The doctrine of operative fact applies as a matter of equity and fair play. This doctrine nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law or an executive act by recognizing that the existence of a statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have consequences that cannot always be ignored. It applies when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law. (Film Development Council of the Philippines v. Colon Heritage Realty Corporation, supra.)
Same; Effects of already accomplished acts. Therefore, in applying the doctrine of operative fact, courts ought to examine with particularity the effects of the already accomplished acts arising from the unconstitutional statute, and determine, on the basis of equity and fair play, if such effects should be allowed to stand. It should not operate to give any unwarranted advantage to parties, but merely seeks to protect those who, in good faith, relied on the invalid law. (Ibid.)
