Judicial Review - Part 1 Flashcards
The following are true about the power of Judicial Review, except:
It is the courts’ assertion of constitutional supremacy.
It is the power of courts to determine grave abuse of discretion among the executive and legislative departments, and their officials, that amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
It is the power of courts to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.
It is the power of courts to test the constitutionality of executive and legislative acts.
It is the power of courts to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.
In the case of Marbury vs. Madison, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the exercise of the power of Judicial Review, declared the Judiciary Act of 1789 as:
Constitutional, because it is consistent with the jurisdiction granted by the US Constitution to the Supreme Court.
Constitutional, because the US Constitution is silent about the cases that may be filed directly to the Supreme Court.
Unconstitutional, because it violates the rule-making power of the Supreme Court in the US Constitution.
Unconstitutional, because of the restrictive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the US Constitution.
Unconstitutional, because of the restrictive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the US Constitution.
In the case of Garcia vs. Executive Secretary, the constitutionality of Section 19 of the Oil Deregulation Law of 1998 was challenged. Did the Supreme Court exercise its power of Judicial Review in the case?
No, because although the issues surrounding the deregulation of the oil industry are justiciable, resolving the constitutionality of the relevant statutory provision was not the lis mota of the case.
No, because the issues of soundness and wisdom of the timing of full deregulation of the oil industry is a political question.
Yes, because while Congress has the discretion to regulate or prohibit monopolies in Article 12, Section 19 of the 1987 Constitution, the exercise of such discretion is limited by the public interest requirement, making it a justiciable political question.
Yes, because the full deregulation of the oil industry at a time when the market is dominated and controlled by an oligopoly presents a justiciable question in relation to the constitutional provision on the state’s duty to regulate and prohibit monopolies when public interest so requires.
No, because the issues of soundness and wisdom of the timing of full deregulation of the oil industry is a political question.
Which among the following statements is true?
The expanded concept of the power of Judicial Review has effectively obliterated the Political Question Doctrine.
The exercise of discretion on the part of the Executive and Legislative Departments, and their officials, may be subject to the power of Judicial Review.
Judicial Power may otherwise be referred to as the power of Judicial Review.
The traditional understanding of the power of Judicial Review includes the power to determine whether there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the executive and legislative department, and their officials.
The exercise of discretion on the part of the Executive and Legislative Departments, and their officials, may be subject to the power of Judicial Review.
Which of the following statements best describe political questions?
They refer to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which a discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government.
They refer 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.
They exclusively refer to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity.
They exclusively refer to those questions in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government.
They refer 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.
In the case of Estrada vs. Arroyo, the Supreme Court characterized the EDSA 2 Revolution, as opposed to EDSA 1. Which among the following does not properly refer to EDSA 2?
In Arroyo’s oath, she categorically swore to preserve and defend the 1987 Constitution
It was an exercise of the people power of revolution which overthrew the whole government.
It was an exercise of people power of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances which only affected the office of the President.
It was done within the bounds of the 1987 Constitution.
It was an exercise of the people power of revolution which overthrew the whole government.
In the case of IBP vs. Zamora, the Supreme Court characterized the exercise of the President’s calling out power. Is the determination of the factual basis thereof a political question?
No, because the factual basis of the exercise of the President’s calling out power is a factual question, not constitutional.
No, because while the President may exercise discretion in calling out the armed forces, the exercise of said discretion comes with the constitutional limitations of the existence of an emergency, lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.
Yes, because a factual determination of the existence of an emergency is within the wide latitude of executive discretion assigned by the Constitution to the President.
Yes, because the President is given full discretionary authority to exercise the calling out power so long as it is done in good faith.
No, because while the President may exercise discretion in calling out the armed forces, the exercise of said discretion comes with the constitutional limitations of the existence of an emergency, lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.
In the case of Francisco vs. House of Representatives, the Supreme Court determined whether the initiation of an impeachment complaint against an impeachable official may be subject to the power of Judicial Review. Is it?
Yes, because the initiation of an impeachment complaint has a constitutional understanding, which may not be disregarded by Congress’ exercise of its power to promulgate rules.
No, because the Constitution grants Congress the full discretionary authority to promulgate its rules on impeachment.
No, because the Constitution grants the House of Representatives and Senate the exclusive powers to initiate all cases of impeachment, and to try and decide all cases of impeachment, respectively.
Yes, because in the case, all 4 conditions for the exercise of the power of Judicial Review are present.
Yes, because the initiation of an impeachment complaint has a constitutional understanding, which may not be disregarded by Congress’ exercise of its power to promulgate rules.
In our jurisdiction, what standard must be used in ascertaining whether, in the exercise of the expanded concept of Judicial Review, a supposed political question is justiciable or not?
Whether the question is best answered by the people in their sovereign capacity
Whether said question may be resolved by merely looking into statutes without touching on the Constitution
Whether there are constitutionally imposed limits on powers and functions conferred upon political bodies
Whether discretion is granted by the Constitution to the Executive and Legislative Departments, and their officials
Whether there are constitutionally imposed limits on powers and functions conferred upon political bodies
Which of the following is not a function of the power of Judicial Review?
Judicial Function
Legitimating Function
Symbolic Function
Checking Function
Judicial Function
What are the four conditions to exercise judicial review?
i. Actual case or controversy
ii. Locus standi or legal standing
iii. Timeliness
iv. Lis mota
What does an actual case mean?
Sec 1, Art 8, 1987 Constitution. “actual case” means an existing case which is appropriate or ripe for judicial determination.
What does ripe for adjudication mean?
Ripe for adjudication means an act has been done by any branch presenting an immediate or threatened injury to the Petitioner.
What are the exceptions to the actual case or controversy condition?
o Grave constitutional violation
o Paramount public interest
o Guidance for the Bench and Bar
o Capable of repetition yet evading review
Locus standi is the right of appearance before a court on a given question. Using the _________, one must have _______, ________, and ________ interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act being challenged.
direct injury
personal
substantial
material
