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; and4) 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...
Already a subscriber? Log in below. Not yet a member? Subscribe.