CASES:

Origin of Judicial Review:

Marbury vs Madison

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what
the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity
expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts
must decide on the operation of each."
Chief Justice John Marshall
A (writ of) mandamus is an order from a court to an inferior government official
ordering the government official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct
an abuse of discretion.

Angara vs Electoral Tribunal

ISSUE(S)
1. Does the SC has jurisdiction over the ELECOM and the controversy? YES
2. If it does, then has ELECOM acted within or without jurisdiction? Within
Jurisdiction
The SC has jurisdiction over the ELECOM: separation of powers granted by
Consti (through separate articles for each branch) but check and balances
maintain coordination among the branches. When there are conflicts between
the boundaries of powers and functions of each branch, the Judiciary has the
power to review and resolve these conflicts through Judicial Review (referred to
as Judicial Supremacy). This however is limited to actual cases and
controversies. That judicial supremacy is but the power of judicial review in actual and
appropriate cases and controversies, and is the power and duty to see that no
one branch or agency of the government transcends the Constitution, which is
the source of all authority.
ELECOM acted within its jurisdiction since ELECOM is recognized as an
independent quasi-judicial body which is not an inferior tribunal, or corporation,
board, or person, and is granted the powers to be the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the NA. The
present constitution granted the ELECOM with all the powers exercised by the
legislature relating to the said function of ELECOM, and this includes the
regulation of the rules and procedures of election protests. The confirmation of
NA of its members is not required and does not limit the ELECOM of its power to
fix dates for election protest, or else this would undermine the power and
functions of the ELECOM.

Requisites of Judicial Review

PACU v Secretary of Education 91 PHIL 806

The mere apprehension that the Secretary of Education might, under the
law, withdraw the permit of one of the petitioners does not construe a
justiciable controversy.
ISSUE: Whether or not Act 2706 as amended is unconstitutional.
No. In the first place, there is no justiciable controversy presented. PACU did not
show that it suffered any injury from the exercise of the Secretary of Education
of such powers granted to him by the said law.
Second, the State has the power to regulate, in fact control, the ownership of
schools. The Constitution provides for state control of all educational institutions
even as it enumerates certain fundamental objectives of all education to wit, the
development of moral character, personal discipline, civic conscience and
vocational efficiency, and instruction in the duties of citizenship. The State
control of private education was intended by the organic law.
Third, the State has the power to ban illegal textbooks or those that are
offensive to Filipino morals. This is still part of the power of control and
regulation by the State over all schools.
Issue: Whether or not there is justiciable controversy to be settled by
the Court
Petition for prohibition is denied. As a general rule, the constitutionality of a
statute will be passed on only if, and to the extent that, it is directly and
necessarily involved in a justiciable controversy and is essential to the protection
of the rights of the parties concerned. The power of courts to declare a law
unconstitutional arises only when the interests of litigant require the use of that
judicial authority for their protection against actual interference, a hypothetical
threat is insufficient. Judicial power is limited to the decision of actual cases and
controversies. Mere apprehension that the Secretary of Education might under
the law withdraw the permit of one of petitioners does not constitute a
justiciable controversy.

Tan vs Macapagal, 43 SCRA 678

Issues:
1. WON the petitioners has locus standi
2. WON the court has jurisdiction over the case
1. NO. Justice Laurel: "The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns
the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case
such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its
enforcement. "Pascual v. The Secretary of Public Works: validity of a statute
may be contested only by one who will sustain a direct injury, in consequence of

its enforcement. Taxpayers only have standing on laws providing for the
disbursement of public funds. Expenditure of public funds, by an officer
of the State for the purpose of administering an unconstitutional act
constitutes a misapplication of such funds,' which may be enjoined at the
request of a taxpayer."
2. NO. At the time the case was filed the Con-Con has not yet finalized any
resolution that would radically alter the 1935 constitution therefore not
yet ripe for judicial review. The case becomes ripe when the Con-Con has
actually does something already. Then the court may actually inquire into
the jurisdiction of the body. Separation of power departments should be
left alone to do duties as they see fit. The Executive and the Legislature
are not bound to ask for advice in carrying out their duties, judiciary may
not interfere so that it may fulfil its duties well. The court may not
interfere until the proper time comes ripeness

People vs Vera, Phil. 58, 89

It was held that the Government of the Philippines was a proper party
to challenge the constitutionality of the Prohibition Act because, more
than any other, it was the government itself that should be concerned in
the validity of its own laws.
ISSUES:
1.
Whether or not the constitutionality of Act 4221 has been properly raised
in these proceedings;
2.
If in the affirmative, whether or not Act 4221 is constitutional based on
these three grounds:
a.
It encroaches upon the pardoning power of the executive
b.
It constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power
c.
It denies the equal protection of the laws
HELD/RATIO:
1.
Yes. Constitutional questions will not be determined by the courts unless
properly raised and presented in appropriate cases and is necessary to a
determination of the case, lis mota. Constitutionality issues may be raised in
prohibition and certiorari proceedings, as they may also be raised in mandamus,
quo warranto, and habeas corpus proceedings. The general rule states that
constitutionality should be raised in the earliest possible opportunity (during
proceedings in initial/inferior courts). It may be said that the state can
challenge the validity of its own laws, as in this case. The well-settled rule is that
the person impugning validity must have personal and substantial interest in the
case (i.e. he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result of its
enforcement). If Act 4221 is unconstitutional, the People of the Philippines have
substantial interest in having it set aside.
2.
a.
No. There exists a distinction between pardon and probation.
Pardoning power is solely within the power of the Executive. Probation has an
effect of temporary suspension, and the probationer is still not exempt from the
entire punishment which the law inflicts upon him as he remains to be in legal
custody for the time being.
b.
Yes. The Probation Act does not lay down any definite standards by which
the administrative boards may be guided in the exercise of discretionary powers,

hence they have the power to determine for themselves, whether or not to apply
the law or not. This therefore becomes a surrender of legislative power to the
provincial boards. It is unconstitutional.
c.
Yes. Due to the unwarranted delegation of legislative power, some
provinces may choose to adopt the law or not, thus denying the equal protection
of laws. It is unconstitutional.
Actual Controversy

Mariano v COMELEC G.R. No. 118577 March 7, 1995, 242 SCRA 211

ISSUE:
Whether or not there is an actual case or controversy to challenge the
constitutionality of one of the questioned sections of R.A. No. 7854.
HELD:
The requirements before a litigant can challenge the constitutionality of a law
are well delineated. They are: 1) there must be an actual case or controversy;
(2) the question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party; (3) the
constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and
(4) the decision on the constitutional question must be necessary to the
determination of the case itself.
Petitioners have far from complied with these requirements. The petition is
premised on the occurrence of many contingent events, i.e., that Mayor Binay
will run again in this coming mayoralty elections; that he would be re-elected in
said elections; and that he would seek re-election for the same position in the
1998 elections. Considering that these contingencies may or may not happen,
petitioners merely pose a hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen to an actual
case or controversy. Petitioners who are residents of Taguig (except Mariano) are
not also the proper partiesto raise this abstract issue. Worse, they hoist this
futuristic issue in a petition for declaratory relief over which this Court has no
jurisdiction.

Province of North Cotabato vs GRP

Issues:
1. WON the petitions have complied with the procedural requirements for the
exercise of judicial review
1st issue: As regards the procedural issue, SC upheld that there is indeed a need
for the exercise of judicial review.
The power of judicial review is limited to actual cases or controversy, that is the
court will decline on issues that are hypothetical, feigned problems or mere
academic questions. Related to the requirement of an actual case or controversy
is the requirement of ripeness. The contention of the SolGen is that there is no
issue ripe for adjudication since the MOA-AD is only a proposal and does not
automatically create legally demandable rights and obligations. Such was
denied.

Mootness Doctrine
Mootness arises when there is no longer an actual controversy between the
parties to a court case, and any ruling by the court would have no actual,
practical impact.
Mootness arises when there was at one time a conflict or dispute between the
parties but, during the time a case takes to come to trial and be decided by a
court, that conflict or dispute has ceased to exist. If the court determines that
the conflict has died and the parties no longer have any actual, vested interest in
what the outcome might be, then the court will find that the issue is moot and
dismiss the case in order to be in accordance with the Case or Controversy
Clause of the constitution.

Alunan vs Mirasol

Issue: Whether COMELEC can validly vest the DILG with the power of direct
control and supervision over the SK elections with the technical assistance of
COMELEC
Held: Despite the holding of SK elections in 1996, the case is not moot; it is
capable of repetition, yet evading review.

Akbayan vs Thomas G. Aquino

Issue:
Whether or not the petition has been entirely rendered moot and academic
because of the subsequent event that occurred?
Held:
On the first issue, the Supreme Court ruled that the principal relief petitioners
are praying for is the disclosure of the contents of the JPEPA prior to its
finalization between the two States parties, public disclosure of the text of the
JPEPA after its signing by the President, during the pendency of the present
petition, has been largely rendered moot and academic.
The text of the JPEPA having then been made accessible to the public, the
petition has become moot and academic to the extent that it seeks the
disclosure of the full text thereof.
The petition is not entirely moot, however, because petitioners seek to obtain,
not merely the text of the JPEPA, but also the Philippine and Japanese offers in
the course of the negotiations.
Legal Standing

Macasiano vs. National Housing Authority

Issue:
Whether or not Petitioner has legal standing

Held:
It is a rule firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence that the constitutionality of an
act of the legislature will not be determined by the courts unless that, question
is properly raised and presented in appropriate cases and is necessary to a
determination of the case, i.e., the issue of constitutionality must be very lis
mota presented.
8
To reiterate, the essential requisites for a successful judicial inquiry into the
constitutionality of a law are: (a) the existence of an actual case or controversy
involving a conflict of legal rights susceptible of judicial determination, (b)the
constitutional question must be raised by a proper property, (c) the
constitutional question must be raised at the opportunity, and (d) the resolution
of the constitutional question must be necessary to the decision of the case.
A proper party is one who has sustained or is in danger of sustaining an
immediate injury as a result of the acts or measures complained of. It is easily
discernible in the instant case that the first two (2) fundamental requisites are
absent. There is no actual controversy. Moreover, petitioner does not claim that,
in either or both of the capacities in which he is filing the petition, he has been
actually prevented from performing his duties as a consultant and exercising his
rights as a property owner because of the assertion by other parties of any
benefit under the challenged sections of the said Act. Judicial review cannot be
exercised in vacuo. Judicial power is the "right to determine actual controversies
arising between adverse litigants."

KILOSBAYAN, INC., et. al. vs. GUINGONA, et. al.

1. Whether or not petitioners have the legal standing to file the instant
petition.
The petitioners have locus standi due to the transcendental importance to the
public that the case demands. The ramifications of such issues immeasurably
affect the social, economic and moral well-being of the people. The legal
standing then of the petitioners deserves recognition, and in the exercise of its
sound discretion, the Court brushes aside the procedural barrier.
Political Question

Tanada vs Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051

ISSUE: Whether or not the issue is a political question.

raised by Taada was whether or not the elections of the 5 NP members to the
SET are valid which is a judicial question. Note that the SET is a separate and
independent body from the Senate which does not perform legislative acts.

DAZA VS SINGSON

ISSUE: Whether or not the question raised by the Daza is political in nature and
is beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
No. The Court has the competence to act on the matter at bar. The issue
involved is not a discretionary act of the House of Representatives that may not
be reviewed by us because it is political in nature. What is involved here is the
legality, not the wisdom, of the act of that chamber in removing the petitioner
from the Commission on Appointments.
The term political question 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.
Even if we were to assume that the issue presented before us was political in
nature, we would still not be precluded from resolving it under the expanded
jurisdiction conferred upon us that now covers, in proper cases, even the
political question. Article VIII, Section 1, of the Constitution clearly provides:
Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such
lower courts as may be established by law.