Judicial Review

Question 1

Avelino v. Cuenco

1. What makes this different from Angara?
2. Why was this a political question?

Answer 1

Doctrine:
Each department has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction and is supreme within its own sphere. (Angara vs. Electoral Commission)

In view of the separation of powers, the political nature of the controversy (Alejandrino vs. Quezon, 46 Phil., 83; Vera vs. Avelino, 77 Phil., 192; Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil., 1) and the constitutional grant to the Senate of the power to elect its own president, which power should not be interfered with, nor taken over, by the judiciary.

Question 2

Francisco Jr. vs House of Rep. (Judicial Review)

1. What was the legal case brought before the S.C.?
2. Compared the Ph. to U.S. Judicial Review
3. Baker v. CARR standards? (That could have been but were not applied)
4. Coordinacy Theory (Puno)
5. Contemporaneous Construction
6. Jurisdiction v. Justiciability

Answer 2

1. Issue: Whether or not the certiorari jurisdiction of the court may be invoked to determine the validity of the second impeachment complaint pursuant to Article XI of the Constitution.

Decision: The second impeachment complaint is barred under Section 3 (5) of Article XI of the Constitution.

No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official
more than once within a period of one year.
-Initiation meaning?

2. The power of the S.C. is expressly provided in the Constitution. (TAMASE)
   It’s a duty of the Court (TAMASE)
3. Discoverable (Consti, Intent, Broad) and Manageable (The court can enforce its decisions)
4. Coordinacy means courts listen to the voice of the President and Congress but their voice does not silence the judiciary.
5. Administrative bodies have some leeway on their interpretation; it is considered but not binding on the Court.
6. Justiciability refers to the suitability of a dispute for judicial resolution. Mr. Justice Frankfurter considers political question unfit for adjudication for it compels courts to intrude into the political thicket.

In contrast, jurisdiction refers to the power of a court to entertain, try and decide a case.

Question 3

Corona v. Senate

1. Mootness?
2. Why was it Moot?

Answer 3

1. An issue or a case becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy so that a determination thereof would be without practical use and value. In such cases, there is no actual substantial relief to which the petitioner would be entitled to and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.
2. Events that indicate mootness
   - impeachment trial had been concluded with the conviction of petitioner by more than the required majority vote of the Senator-Judges.
   - Petitioner accepted the verdict and without any protest vacated his office.
   - JBC is already in the process of screening applicants and nominees
   - President of the Philippines is expected to appoint a new Chief Justice within the prescribed 90-day period from among those candidates shortlisted by the JBC.

Question 4

Ocampo v. Enriquez

1. Exhaustion of Admin remedies
2. Hierarchy of Courts

Answer 4

1. The Secretary of National Defense should be given opportunity to correct himself, if warranted, considering that AFP Regulations G 161-375 was issued upon his order.
2. Should have been filed with the RTC first

Question 5

Baker v. Carr (Bonus)

-When is something a political question?

Answer 5

1. “a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or
2. a lack of judicially DISCOVERABLE and MANAGEABLE standards for resolving it; or
3. the impossibility of deciding without an INITIAL POLICY determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or
4. the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the RESPECT DUE COORDINATE BRANCHES of government; or
5. an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or
6. the potentiality of embarrassment from MULTIFARIOUS PRONOUNCEMENTS by various departments on one question.”

Question 6

What is a concise definition of prudential considerations?

Answer 6

Devices used by the court in order to avoid answering constitutional questions. (Constitutional avoidance)

When a court cites prudential considerations it doesn’t say there’s no legal issue it merely says that because there are other considerations it will avoid ruling. (The court protecting itself)

Question 7

Examples of Prudential Considerations

Answer 7

1. Political Question
2. Moot and Academic
   Example : Corona v. Senate
   -Considered Moot and Academic because Corona had already been impeached and he accepted his removal from office.
3. Requisites for Judicial Review (Ocampo v. Enriquez)
4. Hierarchy of Courts (Ocampo Enriquez)
5. Exhaustion of administrative remedies
6. Justiciability

Question 8

Trying of Facts vs Finding Facts

Answer 8

Finding of facts v. Trying Facts

The supreme court can “find facts” in the sense na pwede siyang mamili ng facts from lower courts. (TAMASE)

Trying of facts requires the actual presentation of facts this is not allowed in the S.C. but for one example. Does not hear testimony, take evidence, assess credibility of witnesses. (TAMASE)

Question 9

Jurisdiction vs Justiciability

Answer 9

Jurisdiction is the power, competence or authority of the court to hear, try and decide the case, it is a power granted by the Constitution and the law. (CORRECT)

Justiciability is whether a court should exercise its ability to decide a case. (CORRECT)

Question 10

Falcis

Answer 10

The court had jurisdiction but did not believe the case was justiciable because of the procedural defects.

Question 11

Judicial Review Reqs (Need this for Jurisdiction)

Answer 11

1. Case or Controversy
2. Standing
3. Lis Mota
4. Earliest Opportunity (Gallant Maritime v. Serrano)

Question 12

What does earliest opportunity mean?

Answer 12

It means the issue of constitutionality should be brought at the first instance to a COMPETENT court.

In the case of Gallant Maritime v. Serrano the petitioner raised the issue of constitutionality only at the CA level. However, that was the earliest opportunity considering the LA and NLRC cannot rule on constitutionality.

Question 13

David v. GMA (Differnt types of Standing Discussed)

1. Reqs of Judicial Review
   - Types of Standing (Direct Injury Exceptions)
2. Exception to Mootness
3. Emergency Powers

Answer 13

1. Standing (Direct Injury exceptions)
   (1) the cases involve constitutional issues;
   (2) for TAXYPAYER , there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure is unconstitutional;
   (3) for VOTERS , there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question;
   (4) for CONCERNED CITIZEN, there must be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental importance which must be settled early; and
   (5) for LEGISLATOR, there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes upon their prerogatives as legislators.
2. Repeatable and capable of evading review.
3. ADD LATER

Question 14

Resident Marine Mammals (Citizen Suit)

1. Real Party in Interest
2. Petitioner has standing

the human petitioners should only speak for themselves and already have legal standing to sue with respect to the issue raised in their pleading. The rules on standing have already been liberalized to take into consideration the difficulties in the assertion of environmental rights. When standing becomes too liberal, this can be the occasion for abuse.

3. Citizen’s Suit Dangers

Answer 14

1. A litigant who stands to benefit or sustain an injury from the judgment of a case is a real party in interest.
2. The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases allows filing of a citizen’s suit. A citizen’s suit under this rule allows any Filipino citizen to file an action for the enforcement of environmental law on behalf of minors or generations yet unborn. It is essentially a representative suit that allows persons who are not real parties in interest to institute actions on behalf of the real party in interest.
   - Their only standing was based on being concerned citizens for the environment and future generations
   - They were allowed standing NOT because they represented mammals, they’re right to the environment
3. Danger : Diminish the cause

Question 15

People v. Vera (Direct Injury)

Answer 15

“a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result.”

Question 16

IBP v Zamora (No Standing)

Answer 16

IBP DUTY TO UPHOLD LAW IMPARTS NO STANDING
IBP primarily anchors its standing on its alleged responsibility to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution. Apart from this declaration, however, the IBP asserts no other basis in support of its locus standi. The mere invocation by the IBP of its duty to preserve the rule of law and nothing more, while undoubtedly true, is not sufficient to clothe it with standing in this case. This is too general an interest which is shared by other groups and the whole citizenry.

Question 17

Arceta v. Mangrobang (Lis Mota)

1. List Mota
2. Earliest Opportunity

Answer 17

Bouncing Checks law assailed for being unconstitutional.

1. Every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality, and to justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, and not one that is doubtful, speculative or argumentative.

AVOIDANCE
As a rule, where the controversy can be settled on other grounds, the courts will not resolve the constitutionality of a law (Lim v. Pacquing, 240 SCRA 649 [1995]). The policy of the courts is to avoid ruling on constitutional questions and to presume that the acts of political departments are valid, absent a clear and unmistakable showing to the contrary.

2. Earliest opportunity doesn’t mean immediately raising it with the SC.

Question 18

Planters vs Fertifil (When Law is declared unconstitutional)
Topics
1. Operative Fact
2. Police Power (Public Welfare)
3. Tax (Inherent Limitation - Public Purpose)

Summary:
The law that required Fertifil to pay Planters is void. Therefore, Planters must pay them back. This is based on the principle of UNJUST ENRICHMENT.

Answer 18

1. GR - When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern.

Exception - The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general rule, only applies as a matter of equity and fair play.

Then a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law.

Question 19

Nitafan v. CIR (Intent of Framers)

1. Perfecto v. Meer doctrine discarded
2. Compensation for Judges

Answer 19

Summary : Are judges subject to income tax? (Yes)
The ConCom deliberations show the intent.

1. With the foregoing interpretation, and as stated heretofore, the ruling that “the imposition of income tax upon the salary of judges is a dimunition thereof, and so violates the Constitution” in Perfecto vs. Meer, as affirmed in Endencia vs. David must be declared DISCARDED. The framers of the fundamental law, as the alter ego of the people, have expressed in clear and unmistakable terms the meaning and import of Section 10, Article VIII, of the 1987 Constitution that they have adopted
2. it is plain that the Constitution authorizes Congress to pass a law fixing another rate of compensation of Justices and Judges but such rate must be higher than that which they are receiving at the time of enactment, or if lower, it would be applicable only to those appointed after its approval.

Question 20

Francisco Jr. vs House of Rep. (Construction)

-Very Rich discussion on Construction

Answer 20

1. VERBA LEGIS
   wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed. (J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration)
2. RATIO LEGIS EST ANIMA
   The words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of its framers. (Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary)
3. UT MAGIS VALEAT QUAM PEREAT

The court must harmonize them, if practicable, and must lean in favor of a construction which will render every word operative, rather than one which may make the words idle and nugatory.45 (Emphasis supplied)

Question 21

Manila Prince v. GSIS

Self-executing v. Non-self executing

Answer 21

In general self-executing. The exception is the provisions expressly provided for required legislator.

Does not create rights that can be granted or duties that can be ordered***

Art. 2 Constitution, states and provision (Generally not self-executing)
Patrimony, Filipino first (Self-executing)