IV. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Flashcards
IV. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
A. Definition of Judicial Power (1987 CONST., art. VIII, sec. 1)
Understanding Judicial Power in the Philippines (Section 1)
This section defines the core principle of judicial power in the Philippines:
Key Points:
Single Supreme Court: The highest court in the land.
Lower Courts by Law: Congress establishes and defines the structure of lower courts.
Settling Disputes: Courts resolve actual legal conflicts involving enforceable rights.
Checking Abuses: Courts can review actions of government branches for fairness and adherence to their legal powers.
Meaning of Judicial Power:
Not just applying laws: It involves interpreting them, resolving disputes, and even checking if other branches stay within their legal boundaries.
Guarantor of rights: Courts protect individual rights and ensure they are respected by the government.
Independent and impartial: Judicial decisions should be based on the law and evidence, not external influences.
Memorization Tips:
Think of a referee: The courts fairly judge legal disputes and ensure everyone plays by the rules.
“One Supreme, Lower ones by law”: Remember the court structure.
“Settling disputes, checking abuses”: Key functions of judicial power.
Additional Notes:
The power of judicial review allows courts to declare laws or acts of government unconstitutional if they violate the Constitution.
Judicial power is essential for maintaining a system of checks and balances within the government and protecting individual rights.
IV. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
B. Judicial Review
1. Requisites
a. Actual Case or Controversy
b. Proper Party
c. Raised at the Earliest Possible Opportunity
d. Necessary to the Determination of the Case Itself
Judicial review, the power of courts to check the legality of government actions, comes with specific requirements. Here’s a breakdown for easy understanding and memorization:
Key Elements:
Actual Case or Controversy: This means the case involves a real dispute, not hypothetical situations, and affects the rights of the parties involved.
Proper Party: Only someone with a personal stake in the outcome can challenge the government action. This prevents unnecessary legal challenges.
Raised at the Earliest Possible Opportunity: Don’t wait until later stages to challenge the government action. This ensures timely resolution and avoids unnecessary delays.
Necessary to the Determination of the Case: The challenge to the government action must directly affect the outcome of the case, not be a side issue.
Memorization Tip: Think of “APEC” - Actual, Proper, Earliest, Case-related.
Example Case:
Question: A local government official issues an executive order banning the sale of all fast food within the city limits, citing health concerns. A group of restaurant owners want to challenge this order in court. Can they use judicial review?
Answer:
Actual Case: Yes, the restaurant owners have a real dispute with the government order affecting their business.
Proper Party: Yes, the restaurant owners are directly impacted by the ban.
Earliest Possible Opportunity: The owners should challenge the order before facing its consequences.
Case-related: Yes, challenging the order is crucial to determine if the owners can continue their business.
Therefore, the restaurant owners can use judicial review in this case.
Additional Notes:
These elements are not absolute and can be subject to exceptions in specific circumstances.
Understanding the rationale behind each element helps with applying it in different scenarios.
Remember, judicial review is a powerful tool to ensure accountability and limit government overreach, but it also has limitations to prevent frivolous challenges.
IV. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
A. Definition of Judicial Power (1987 CONST., art. VIII, sec. 1)
B. Judicial Review
- Exceptions
a. Political Questions
b. Moot Questions
c. Advisory Opinions
Exceptions to Judicial Review: Diving Deeper with Examples
You’re right, political questions, moot questions, and advisory opinions are key exceptions to the judicial review rule. Let’s explore each with illustrative cases and analyze if judicial review applies:
a. Political Questions:
Rationale: Certain matters are deemed inherently political, entrusted to the expertise and democratic accountability of the political branches. Courts avoid interfering to maintain separation of powers.
Example:
Case/Question: A group challenges the President’s decision to deploy troops abroad, arguing it violates the Constitution.
Answer: Judicial review is unlikely. This decision likely falls under the political question doctrine due to its foreign policy implications and the President’s commander-in-chief authority.
b. Moot Questions:
Rationale: Courts generally refuse to hear cases where the issue is no longer relevant or the outcome cannot affect anyone. This prevents issuing useless pronouncements.
Example:
Case/Question: A law student challenges a university regulation after graduating.
Answer: Judicial review is unlikely. The issue is moot since the student is no longer affected by the regulation.
c. Advisory Opinions:
Rationale: Courts exist to resolve actual disputes, not offer general legal advice or opinions without a specific case before them.
Example:
Case/Question: A legislator asks the Supreme Court if a proposed law is constitutional.
Answer: Judicial review is unlikely. This is an advisory opinion request, not a concrete case with affected parties.
Remember: These are just simplified examples. Real-life scenarios can be more complex, and exceptions often have nuances and limitations. Always consult legal expertise for specific situations.
Additional Notes:
These exceptions are not absolute and can be overcome in certain circumstances.
Understanding the underlying principles and justifications behind each exception is crucial for proper application.
Judicial review remains a powerful tool, and these exceptions ensure its responsible and targeted use.
IV. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
A. Definition of Judicial Power (1987 CONST., art. VIII, sec. 1)
B. Judicial Review
- Operative Fact Doctrine
The Operative Fact Doctrine: Understanding Its Role in Judicial Review
The operative fact doctrine plays a unique role in judicial review, dealing with situations where a law is declared unconstitutional but its effects remain in place. Here’s a breakdown for easy memorization:
Key Points:
Purpose: Recognizes the reality that certain legal actions or decisions taken under an invalid law have produced concrete effects that cannot be simply erased.
Application: When a court declares a law unconstitutional, it usually applies retroactively, affecting future cases. However, the operative fact doctrine may allow past consequences of the invalid law to stand, depending on various factors.
Factors to Consider:
Fairness and justice: Would undoing past actions based on an invalid law cause undue hardship or disrupt settled expectations?
Reliance on the law: Did individuals or entities act in good faith based on the law being valid?
Practicality: Is it feasible and efficient to undo past actions, considering the time and resources involved?
Memorization Tip: Think of it as a “bridge” between the declared invalidity of a law and the practical consequences of its past application.
Example Case Scenario:
Case: A law restricting freedom of speech is declared unconstitutional. Several individuals were convicted and punished under this law before its invalidation.
Answer: The court might apply the operative fact doctrine, allowing the past convictions and punishments to stand. This could be based on considerations like:
Fairness to victims: Reopening past cases could be emotionally and financially taxing for victims who relied on the convictions.
Reliance on the law: The individuals convicted acted based on the law being valid at the time.
Practicality: Reopening all past cases and potentially retrying individuals could be immensely complex and resource-intensive.
However, the court might also choose to grant relief in specific cases where the injustice was severe or the law was clearly applied unfairly.
Additional Notes:
The operative fact doctrine is not a blanket rule and requires careful consideration of its potential impact on different parties involved.
Its application can be controversial, balancing the need to uphold the Constitution with the practical realities of past actions.
Understanding the rationale behind the doctrine helps in analyzing its application in various legal scenarios.
IV. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
C. Fiscal Autonomy (1987 CONST., art. VIII, secs. 3 and 10)
Understanding the Philippine Judiciary’s Fiscal Autonomy (Sections 3 & 10)
These sections ensure the financial independence of the Philippine judiciary, guaranteeing the impartial and efficient functioning of the courts. Here’s a simplified breakdown:
Section 3:
Fiscal Autonomy: The judiciary has independent control over its finances, separate from the legislative and executive branches.
Guaranteed Funding: The legislature cannot decrease the judiciary’s budget compared to the previous year, ensuring a stable financial base.
Automatic and Regular Release: Once approved, the allocated budget is automatically and regularly released to the judiciary, avoiding delays or interference.
Memorization Tip: Think of “FAAR: Fiscal Autonomy, Anti-reduction, Automatic Release”.
Section 10:
Fixed Salaries: The law determines the salaries of judges, including the Chief Justice, Associate Justices, and lower court judges.
Guaranteed Salaries: Once set, these salaries cannot be lowered while the judges are in office, protecting them from financial pressures that could influence their decisions.
Memorization Tip: Think of “FSND: Fixed by law, Salaries Not Decreased”.
Illustration:
Scenario: The legislature proposes reducing the judiciary’s budget for the next year.
Impact: This would violate Section 3, as the budget cannot be lowered compared to the previous year.
Consequence: The judiciary could challenge this reduction in court, asserting its right to fiscal autonomy.
Additional Notes:
These provisions aim to guarantee judicial independence by ensuring judges can function without undue financial pressure or concerns.
This helps maintain the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, crucial for a fair and effective justice system.
IV. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
D. Appointments to the Judiciary
1. Qualifications – 1987 CONST., art. VIII, sec. 7
Understanding Judicial Appointments in the Philippines (Section 7)
This section outlines the key qualifications and requirements for individuals seeking appointment to the Philippine judiciary, aiming to ensure a competent, ethical, and independent judicial system. Here’s a simplified breakdown for easy memorization:
Key Points:
Citizenship: All appointees (Supreme Court and lower courts) must be natural-born citizens of the Philippines.
Supreme Court Justices:
Age: At least 40 years old at the time of appointment.
Experience: 15+ years of experience as a lower court judge or practicing lawyer in the Philippines.
Lower Court Judges: Qualifications are set by Congress, but they must be citizens of the Philippines and members of the Philippine Bar.
Overall Qualities: All judicial appointees are expected to be individuals of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.
Memorization Tips:
Citizenship: Think of “NC: Natural-born Citizens”.
Supreme Court: “40 & 15 Rule: 40 years old, 15+ years of experience”.
Lower Courts: “Congress sets, PH Citizen & Bar Member: Qualifications are set by Congress, but they must be Philippine citizens and members of the Bar.
Overall Qualities: “CIPI: Competence, Integrity, Probity, Independence”.
Understanding the Rationale:
These requirements aim to:
Ensure loyalty and commitment: Requiring Filipino citizenship fosters loyalty to the nation and a deep understanding of the legal system.
Guarantee experience and expertise: Age and experience requirements ensure appointees have the maturity and knowledge necessary for complex legal decisions.
Uphold ethical standards: The emphasis on integrity, probity, and independence safeguards the judiciary against corruption and promotes fair and impartial judgments.
IV. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
D. Appointments to the Judiciary
- Judicial and Bar Council – 1987 CONST., art. VIII, secs. 8 and 9
Understanding the Judicial and Bar Council (Sections 8 & 9)
Sections 8 and 9 of the Philippine Constitution deal with the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), the body tasked with recommending nominees for appointments to the judiciary.
Section 8:
Creation: Establishes the JBC under the Supreme Court’s supervision.
Composition:
Ex-Officio Members: Chief Justice, Secretary of Justice, and a Congressional Representative.
Appointed Members:
Integrated Bar representative (4 years)
Law professor (3 years)
Retired Supreme Court Justice (2 years)
Private sector representative (1 year)
Appointment Process: President appoints regular members with the Commission on Appointments’ consent.
Secretarial Functions: The Clerk of the Supreme Court serves as the JBC’s Secretary, maintaining records.
Financial Provisions: The Supreme Court determines JBC members’ salaries and allocates budget from its annual budget.
Primary Function: Recommending nominees for judicial appointments.
Additional Roles: The Supreme Court may assign other functions to the JBC.
Section 9:
Presidential Selection: The President appoints Supreme Court justices and lower court judges from the JBC’s list of at least three nominees for each vacancy.
No Confirmation Required: These appointments don’t require approval from any other body.
Timeframe for Lower Courts: The President must issue appointments for lower courts within 90 days of receiving the JBC’s list.
Memorization Tips:
JBC Composition: “Chief, Justice, Congress + 4-3-2-1: Chief Justice, Secretary of Justice, and a Congressional Representative as ex-officio members, and additional members appointed for 4, 3, 2, and 1 year terms.
President’s Role: “3 Nominees, No Confirmation, 90 Days: The President chooses from a list of at least 3 nominees with no confirmation needed. For lower courts, appointments must be issued within 90 days.
Importance of the JBC:
The JBC plays a crucial role in ensuring the selection of competent, ethical, and independent individuals for the Philippine judiciary, upholding the integrity and fairness of the justice system.
IV. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
E. Supreme Court of the Philippines
1. Composition – 1987 CONST., art. VIII, sec. 4
Understanding the Composition and Decision-Making of the Supreme Court (Section 4)
Section 4 delves into the composition and decision-making process of the Supreme Court, highlighting the number of justices and voting requirements in various situations. Here’s a simplified breakdown for easy comprehension and memorization:
Key Points:
Number of Justices: The Supreme Court consists of a Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices.
Sitting Arrangements: The court can function as a whole (en banc) or in divisions of 3, 5, or 7 justices.
Filling Vacancies: Any vacancy must be filled within 90 days of its occurrence.
Decision-Making Requirements:
En Banc:
Cases involving constitutionality of treaties, laws, or government acts.
Other cases designated in the Rules of Court to be heard en banc.
Decisions require a concurrence (agreement) of a majority of justices participating and voting.
Divisions:
Other cases not requiring en banc hearing.
Decisions require concurrence of a majority of participating and voting justices, with at least three justices always in agreement.
If the required number is not met, the case is decided en banc.
Precedents: Legal principles and doctrines established in en banc or division decisions can only be changed by the entire court sitting en banc.
Memorization Tips:
Number of Justices: “Chief + 14 = 15 Justices”.
En Banc: “Constitutionality & Rules: Cases involving constitutionality or designated by Rules are heard en banc, requiring a majority concurrence.
Divisions: “3, 5, 7: Cases assigned to divisions of 3, 5, or 7 require a majority concurrence, with at least 3 justices always agreeing. If insufficient agreement, it goes en banc.
Precedents: “En Banc or Division Sets Precedent, Change Requires Full Court: Legal principles established by the court can only be changed by the full court sitting en banc.
Understanding the Rationale:
This structure ensures diverse perspectives are considered and upholds the importance of consensus and careful deliberation for critical legal issues, particularly those involving the constitutionality of laws and government actions.
IV. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
E. Supreme Court of the Philippines
- Procedural Rule-Making Power – 1987 CONST., art. VIII, sec. 5
Demystifying the Supreme Court’s Rule-Making Power (Section 5)
Section 5 outlines the Supreme Court’s diverse powers, with a specific focus on its rule-making authority in this summary. Here’s a breakdown for easy understanding and memorization:
Key Points:
Original Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court can directly hear specific cases, including those involving diplomats and petitions for specific legal remedies.
Appellate Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court can review decisions from lower courts in various situations, including:
Constitutional challenges: Cases questioning the legality of laws, government actions, or treaties.
Tax and penalty disputes: Cases involving taxes, imposts, assessments, or penalties.
Jurisdictional issues: Cases where the authority of a lower court is in question.
Serious criminal cases: Cases with penalties of reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment) or higher.
Pure legal questions: Cases solely focused on legal interpretations and not factual disputes.
Judicial Administration: The Supreme Court can:
Temporarily assign judges to different locations (with limitations).
Order changes in trial venues to prevent injustice.
Rule-Making: The Supreme Court has the power to:
Create rules regarding:
Protecting and enforcing constitutional rights.
Court procedures and practices.
Admission to the Bar and the Integrated Bar.
Legal assistance for the underprivileged.
Ensure rules promote:
Simplified and inexpensive court procedures.
Consistency across courts of the same level.
Respect for existing legal rights.
Review and potentially disapprove rules from special courts and quasi-judicial bodies.
Personnel Management: The Supreme Court appoints judiciary officials and employees, following the Civil Service Law.
Memorization Tips:
Original Jurisdiction: “Diplomats & Special Petitions: The Supreme Court hears specific cases, including those involving diplomats and petitions like certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.”
Appellate Jurisdiction: “5 C’s: The Supreme Court reviews decisions from lower courts in cases involving Constitutionality, Taxes & Penalties, Court Jurisdiction, Serious Crimes, and Pure Legal Questions.”
Judicial Administration: “Temporary Transfers & Venue Changes: The Supreme Court can temporarily assign judges elsewhere and order venue changes to prevent injustice.”
Rule-Making: “5 R’s: The Supreme Court creates rules for Rights, Procedures, Bar Admissions & Integration, Legal Aid, and Simplified & Consistent Procedures that respect existing rights. It also reviews rules from special courts and quasi-judicial bodies.”
Personnel Management: “Civil Service Appointments: The Supreme Court appoints judiciary personnel following the Civil Service Law.”
Importance of Rule-Making:
The Supreme Court’s rule-making power allows it to establish a fair, efficient, and consistent justice system by regulating procedures, protecting rights, and ensuring access to legal services.
IV. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
E. Supreme Court of the Philippines
- Disciplinary Powers – 1987 CONST., art. VIII, sec. 11
Understanding the Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Power (Section 11)
This section outlines the Supreme Court’s authority to oversee the conduct and performance of judges in lower courts. Here’s a simplified breakdown for easy comprehension and memorization:
Key Points:
Tenure: Judges hold office during good behavior until they reach 70 years old or become incapacitated.
Disciplinary Power: The Supreme Court en banc (full court) has the power to discipline judges of lower courts for misconduct or inability to fulfill their duties.
Dismissal Option: In serious cases, the Supreme Court can even dismiss a judge through a majority vote of participating justices.
Memorization Tips:
**“70 & Good Behavior: Judges serve until 70 years old or exhibit bad behavior.”
**“Supreme Court en banc Disciplines: The full Supreme Court has the power to discipline lower court judges.”
**“Majority Vote for Dismissal: Serious misconduct can lead to dismissal with a majority vote from the Supreme Court.”
Importance of this Power:
The Supreme Court’s disciplinary power ensures accountability and proper conduct within the judiciary, promoting a fair and impartial justice system. By holding judges accountable, the system maintains public trust and ensures adherence to ethical and professional standards.
IV. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
E. Supreme Court of the Philippines
- Administrative Supervision – 1987 CONST., art. VIII, sec. 6
Supreme Court’s Administrative Supervision (Section 6): Explanation and Scenario
Explanation:
Section 6 of the Philippine Constitution grants the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and their personnel. This means the Supreme Court holds the ultimate authority regarding the management, organization, and operation of the entire court system in the Philippines. This includes:
Setting policies and procedures: The Supreme Court establishes rules and regulations for all courts to follow, ensuring consistency and efficiency in court operations.
Allocating resources: The Supreme Court manages the judiciary’s budget, allocating resources such as personnel, equipment, and facilities to different courts.
Disciplining court personnel: The Supreme Court has the power to discipline court employees, including judges of lower courts, for misconduct or violations of established regulations.
Conflict Scenario:
Imagine Judge Reyes of a regional trial court consistently disregards deadlines for issuing court decisions, causing delays and frustration for litigants. Lawyers repeatedly file complaints with the court administrator highlighting these delays.
Question: Based on the principle of administrative supervision, who can address this issue and how?
Answer:
The Supreme Court, through its Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), can address this issue. The OCA can investigate the complaints against Judge Reyes. If the allegations are found to be true, the OCA can recommend disciplinary action against the judge, which could range from reprimand to suspension or even dismissal, depending on the severity of the offense.
Importance of Administrative Supervision:
This power ensures the:
Efficiency and effectiveness: Standardized procedures and resource allocation contribute to a smoother and more efficient court system.
Accountability of court personnel: Judges and court employees are held accountable for their professional conduct and performance.
Public confidence in the judiciary: A well-managed court system fosters public trust in the fairness and effectiveness of the judicial process.
E. Supreme Court of the Philippines
- Jurisdiction – 1987 CONST., art. VI, sec. 30; art. VIII, sec. 5
Understanding the Supreme Court’s Jurisdiction (Sections 5 & 30)
These sections work together to define the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, outlining the types of cases it can hear and the limitations on expanding its power.
Section 5:
Original Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court can directly hear specific cases, including those involving:
Diplomats: Cases affecting ambassadors and other high-ranking officials.
Specific legal remedies: Petitions like certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
Appellate Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court can review decisions from lower courts in various situations, including:
Constitutional challenges: Cases questioning the legality of laws, government actions, or treaties.
Tax and penalty disputes: Cases involving taxes, fees, assessments, or related penalties.
Jurisdictional issues: Cases where the authority of a lower court is in question.
Serious criminal cases: Cases with penalties of reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment) or higher.
Pure legal questions: Cases solely focused on legal interpretations and not factual disputes.
Other Relevant Powers:
Assign judges temporarily to different locations.
Order changes in trial venues to prevent injustice.
Create rules for various legal aspects.
Appoint judiciary personnel.
Section 30:
Limits on Expanding Jurisdiction: Any law increasing the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction beyond what’s defined in the Constitution requires the court’s advice and concurrence. This ensures the Court’s role and authority are not altered without its consent.
Memorization Tips:
Original Jurisdiction: “Diplomats & Special Petitions: The Supreme Court hears specific cases, including those involving diplomats and petitions like certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.”
Appellate Jurisdiction: “5 C’s: The Supreme Court reviews decisions from lower courts in cases involving Constitutionality, Taxes & Penalties, Court Jurisdiction, Serious Crimes, and Pure Legal Questions.”
Limits on Expansion: “Court’s Consent Required: Increasing the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction beyond the Constitution requires its advice and concurrence.”
IV. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
B. Judicial Review
1. Requisites
a. Actual Case or Controversy
b. Proper Party
c. Raised at the Earliest Possible Opportunity
d. Necessary to the Determination of the Case Itself
DISCUSS THE EXCEPTIONS
Exceptions to Judicial Review: Understanding the Limits
While judicial review serves as a crucial check and balance on government power, there are certain situations where it doesn’t apply. Here’s a breakdown of some key exceptions:
- Political Question Doctrine:
This doctrine shields certain political decisions from judicial review, such as:
Recognition of foreign governments.
Decisions on war and peace.
Congressional apportionment (dividing seats among states).
Rationale: These decisions are entrusted to the political branches due to their expertise and democratic accountability. - Act of State Doctrine:
Courts generally avoid reviewing the actions of foreign governments within their own territory, even if they violate international law.
Rationale: Respect for international sovereignty and avoiding interference in other nations’ affairs. - Standing Requirements:
Even if judicial review applies, a person must have “standing” to challenge a government action, meaning they have a personal stake in the outcome.
Rationale: Prevents frivolous lawsuits and ensures those directly affected have access to courts. - Ripeness Doctrine:
Courts may refuse to review an issue until it’s “ripe,” meaning it’s developed to a specific and concrete stage where judicial intervention is effective.
Rationale: Allows courts to avoid premature involvement and ensure the issue is ready for adjudication. - Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies:
In some cases, individuals must exhaust available administrative remedies (appeals within government agencies) before going to court.
Rationale: Promotes efficiency and allows agencies to address issues within their expertise before judicial intervention. - Waiver of Sovereign Immunity:
Governments typically enjoy immunity from lawsuits, but they can waive this immunity to allow judicial review.
Rationale: Protects public funds and resources while allowing for accountability in specific situations.
Remember: Exceptions to judicial review are complex and nuanced. It’s crucial to understand the underlying principles and how they apply in specific contexts.
Additional Notes:
These exceptions are not absolute and can be subject to exceptions themselves.
Understanding the rationale behind each exception helps with applying it in different scenarios.
Remember, judicial review remains a powerful tool, and these exceptions ensure its responsible and effective application.
IV. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
A. Definition of Judicial Power (1987 CONST., art. VIII, sec. 1)
B. Judicial Review
- Exceptions
a. Political Questions
b. Moot Questions
c. Advisory Opinions
DISCUSS EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTIONS EG. COURT WILL ENTERTAIN
Overcoming the Exceptions: When Courts Might Intervene
While the exceptions of political questions, mootness, and advisory opinions limit judicial review, there are situations where courts might step in despite these hurdles. Here are some scenarios illustrating how these exceptions can be overcome:
- Political Questions:
Scenario: The President issues an executive order indefinitely delaying national elections, citing a national emergency. A group of citizens challenges this action, arguing it undermines democracy and violates the Constitution’s mandate for regular elections.
Answer: While seemingly a political question, the clear violation of a fundamental constitutional principle (regular elections) might prompt the court to intervene, especially if the political branches fail to act as a check on the President’s action.
- Moot Questions:
Scenario: A law banning same-sex marriage is challenged by LGBTQ+ couples. While the case is ongoing, the law is repealed.
Answer: Though the specific law is no longer in effect, the court might still hear the case to clarify the constitutionality of same-sex marriage and set a precedent for future legal challenges. This could prevent similar discriminatory laws in the future.
- Advisory Opinions:
Scenario: A legislator asks the Supreme Court if a proposed law restricting press freedom would be unconstitutional. The legislator genuinely needs guidance to avoid violating the Constitution but also wants to gauge public opinion before proceeding.
Answer: Recognizing the legislator’s genuine need for guidance and the potential impact on press freedom, the court might issue an opinion cautiously avoiding specific pronouncements on the law’s validity but highlighting relevant legal principles and potential constitutional concerns.
Additional Notes:
These exceptions are constantly evolving, with courts balancing their role with respect for other branches of government.
Public interest, potential for future harm, and the need to clarify important legal principles can sometimes outweigh the traditional limitations of these exceptions.
