Judicial review: authority of the court to inquire into the acts of the branches of government or instrumentalities thereof.
Santiago vs. Bautista
Judicial function is an act performed by virtue of judicial powers; the exercise of which is the doing of something in the nature of the action of the court. In order that a special action of certiorari may be invoked in this jurisdiction, the following must
exist:
a. That there must be a specific controversy involving the rights of persons or property;
b. Such controversy is brought before a tribunal, board, or officer for hearing and determination of rights and obligations.
Manila Electric vs. Pasay Transit
The Supreme Court and its members should not and cannot be required to exercise any power or to perform any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or connected with the administering of judicial functions.
The power conferred on this court is exclusively judicial, and it cannot be required or authorized to exercise any other. . . . Its jurisdiction and powers and duties being defined in the organic law of the government, and being all strictly judicial, Congress cannot require or authorize the court to exercise any other jurisdiction or power, or perform any other duty… And while it executes firmly all the judicial powers entrusted to it, the court will carefully abstain from exercising any power that is not strictly judicial in its character, and which is not clearly confided to it by the Constitution.
Noblejas vs. Teehankee
Judicial power does not include the power to discipline officers in others branches of government with equal rank as that of a judge. This is beyond the judicial sphere.
Radiowealth vs. Agregado
The “preservation of Judiciary’s integrity and effectiveness is necessary”. Corollary to this is the power of judiciary to maintain its existence. The quality of the government depends upon the independence of judiciary and the officials of the government cannot deprive the courts of anything which is vital to their functions.
Furthermore, the prerogatives of this court which the Constitution secures against
interference include not only the powers to adjudicate cases but all things that are REASONABLY necessary for the administration of justice. The purchase of the necessary equipment would contribute to a more effective judiciary. Lastly, these are implied and incidental powers that are as essential to the existence of the court as the powers specifically granted to it.
In re Laureta
The Court's authority and duty under the premises is unmistakable. It must act to preserve its honor and dignity from the scurrilous attacks of an irate lawyer, mouthed by his client, and to safeguard the morals and ethics of the legal profession.
In re Borromeo
Judges must be free to judge, without pressure or influence from external forces or factors. They should not be subject to intimidation, the fear of civil, criminal or administrative sanctions for acts they may do and dispositions they may make in the performance of their duties and functions. Hence it is sound rule, which must be recognized independently of statute that judges are not generally liable for acts done within the scope of their jurisdiction and in good faith. The Court has repeatedly and uniformly ruled that a judge may not be held administratively accountable for every erroneous order or decision he renders. The exercise of the power of contempt of the court is valid.
Director of Prisons vs. Ang Cho Kio
The power to revoke a conditional pardon is within the realm of the executive, and does not fall within the jurisdiction of the judiciary. Neither does the judiciary have the power to give advisory opinions. Its main duty is to settle disputes and uphold rights, in the absence of which it cannot render opinions, as this is not one of its functions.
Echegaray vs. Sec. of Justice
The finality of a judgment does not mean the Court has lost all its powers over the case. By thefinality of the judgment, what the court loses is its jurisdiction to amend, modify, or alter the same. The court still has jurisdiction to execute and enforce it.
The power to control the execution of its decision is an essential aspect of jurisdiction.
Supervening events may change the circumstance of the parties and compel courts to intervene and adjust the rights of the litigants to prevent unfairness.
Postponement of the date: The particulars of the execution itself are absolutely under the control of the judicial authority, while the executive has no power over the person of the convict except to provide for carrying out of the penalty and to pardon. The date can be postponed, even in sentences of death. Under the common law this postponement can be ordered in 3 ways: (1) by command of the King (2) by discretion of the court (3) by mandate of the law.
PCGG vs. Disierto
The Constitution has tasked this Court “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,” including the Office of the Ombudsman. Specifically, this Court is mandated to review and reverse the ombudsman’s evaluation of the existence of probable cause, if it has been made with grave abuse of discretion.
Domingo vs. Scheer
Although the courts are without power to directly decide matters over which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government and are not empowered to execute absolutely their own judgment from that of Congress or of the President, the Court may look into and resolve questions of whether or not such judgment has been made with grave abuse of discretion, when the act of the legislative or executive department violates the law or the Constitution.
Angara vs. Electoral Tribunal
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.
The Electoral Commission is an independent constitutional creation with specific powers and functions to execute and perform, closer for purposes of classification to the legislative than to any of the other two departments of the government; is the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly.
US vs. Nixon
The mere assertion of an “intra-executive” dispute does not defeat federal jurisdiction.
Furhtermore the attorney general had conferred upon the special prosecutor the unique tenure and authority to represent the US and with this explicit power to contest the invocation of executive privilege in seeking evidence deemed relevant to the performance of his duties. Actions of the prosecutor are well within the scope of this express authority seeking specified evidence, which are admissible and relevant ot the criminal case at hand. Thus the issue is of a type considered “traditionally justiciable,”
the fact that both officers are of the exec branch does not bar this.
Marcos vs. Manglapus
Given the expanded jurisdiction of the SC, it no longer cowers behind the political question doctrine save for certain undeniable situations such as recognition of states or the grant of pardons. The SC, in the face of the present controversy, has the duty of ascertaining whether or not the Executive goes beyond the power vested by the Constitution. There exists a conflict between the rights asserted by the Marcoses as opposed to the exercise of executive power by the President for the preservation of national interest and security.
Daza vs. Singson
The issue presented is justiciable rather political, involving as it does the legality and not the wisdom of the act complained of, or the manner of filling the Commission on Appointments as prescribed by the Constitution. Even if the question were political in nature, it would still come within the powers of review under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon the SC by Article VIII, Section 1, of the Constitution, which includes the authority to determine whether grave abuse of discretion
amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction has been committed by any branch or instrumentality of the government.
Garcia vs. BOI
There is an actual controversy whether the petro-chemical plant should remain in Bataan or be transferred to Batangas.
Djumantan vs. Domingo
Being final arbiter, it has power to review the order of the Commission of Immigration and Deportation, as a branch or instrumentality of the Government.
GADELJ
Mariano vs. Comelec
A hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen into an actual case is not a justiciable controversy which the court can take cognizance of. A hypothetical issue which rests on many contingent events does not pose an issue ripe for adjudication.
PPI vs. Comelec
Issue not ripe for judicial review due to lack of actual case or controversy.
SBMA vs. Comelec
Courts may decide only actual controversies, not hypothetical questions or cases.
Judicial power has been defined in jurisprudence as "the right to determine actual controversies arising between adverse litigants, duly instituted in courts of proper jurisdiction". It is "the authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving rights that are enforceable and demandable before the courts of justice or the redress of wrongs for violation of such rights". Thus, there can be no occasion for the exercise of judicial power unless real parties come to court for the settlement of an actual controversy and unless the controversy is such that it can be settled in a manner that binds the parties by the application of existing laws.
Tanada vs. Angara
The court cannot look into the wisdom of the acts of the legislature.
Arroyo vs. De Venecia
The courts may only look into the constitutionality of the acts of officials, and not if these acts conform to the internal rules of each branch of government (HoR rules).
CIR vs. Santos
The Constitution contemplates that the inferior courts should have jurisdiction in cases involving constitutionality of any treaty or law, for it speaks of appellate review of final judgments of inferior courts in cases where such constitutionality happens to be in issue. But this authority does not extend to deciding questions, which pertain to legislative policy.
Garcia-Rueda vs. Pascasio
While the Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed, this Court is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman's action when there is an abuse of discretion, in which case Rule 65 of the Rules of Court may exceptionally be invoked pursuant to Section I, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. In this regard, "grave abuse of discretion" has been defined as "where a power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by, or in contemplation of law.
Defensor-Santiago vs. Guingona
The present constitution now fortifies the authority of the courts to determine in an appropriate action the validity of the acts of the political departments. It speaks of judicial prerogative in terms of duty: 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 GADALEJ on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.
Tatad vs. DOE
Judicial power includes not only the duty of the courts to settle actual controversies involvingrights which are legally demandable and enforceable, but also the duty 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. The courts, as guardians of the Constitution, have the inherent authority to determine whether a statue enacted by the legislature transcends the limit imposed by the fundamental law. Where a statute violates the Constitution, it is not only the right, but the duty of the judiciary to declare such null and void. The petitioner is not assailing the wisdom of the law, but its constitutionality. Therefore, there is a justiciable controversy.
Telebap vs. Comelec
A justiciable controversy has arisen as GMA allaged that said law violates its rights against deprivation of property without just compensation and that it has sustained millions of pesos in damages resulting therefrom.
Miranda vs. Aguirre
“The term ‘political question’ connotes what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy. 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 legislative or executive branch of the government.’ It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.”
“A purely justiciable issue implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or omission violative of such right, and a remedy granted and sanctioned by law, for said breach of right.”
Cutaran vs. DENR
There is no justiciable controversy because the applications are still pending. Hence, there is not government act to speak of and rule upon.
Estrada vs. Disierto
Review of the inability of the president to perform his duties and the decision of Congress is no longer a political question. Courts cannot expand executive immunity from suit. The 1987 Constitution has narrowed the reach of the political question doctrine when it expanded the power of judicial review of this court not only to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable but also to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government. The judiciary has focused on the “thou shall not’s” of the Constitution.
Cawaling vs. Comelec
A political question is one in which the wisdom, expediency or justice of the legislative enactment is being questioned. The courts cannot rule on the wisdom of the laws.
Montesclaros vs. Comelec
A proposed bill cannot be the subject of judicial review because it is not a law.
Judicial review may only be exercised after a laws has been passed, not before it.
John Hay vs. Lim
The courts retain full discretionary power to take cognizance of the petition filed directly to it if compelling reasons or the nature and importance of the uses raised, warrant. Remanding the case to the lower courts would unduly prolong the case.
Velarde vs. SJS
Requirements for declaratory relief sought by respondents are: 1) justiciable controversy, 2)controversy is between people whose interests are adverse, 3) party seeking relief has a legal interest in the controversy and 4) the issue is ripe for judicial determination.
A justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for judicial determination, not one which is merely one of conjecture or merely anticipatory. This petition failed to allege an exsitng controversy or dispute between the petitioner and the named respondents.
Panganiban vs. Shell
The court cannot rule of “feared hypothetical abuse”: not an actual case or controversy. There is not cause of action. No injury or encroachment of right legally enforceable or demandable.
SMART vs. NTC
The court has jurisdiction over administrative issuances of agencies, which were issued in the exercise of their quasi-legislative, and not quasi-judicial function.
Buac vs. Comelec
Recount of plebiscite ballots is exclusively within the realm of the Comelec: not to be interfered with by the courts.
Information Technology vs. Comelec
The court does not give advisory opinions. It can nly rule on actual cases or controversies, involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.
Macasiano vs. NHA
Requisites for declaratory relief:
1) There must be a justiciable controversy;
2) The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse; and 3) The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy.
Tano vs. Socrates
Court will not entertain direct resort unless redress desired cannot be obtained in appropriate court and when there is exceptional circumstance to justify availment of remedy.
Section 2: Power of Legislature to Apportion Jurisdiction