JUDICIAL REVIEW

CASES ISSUE/S AND HELD EXPANDED RULING AND CONCEPTS

The petitioners have locus standi.
Under Section 16, Article II of the 1987 constitution,
Oposa v Factoran it states that: The state shall protect and advance the
right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology
in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
Petitioner-minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations to come. The
Supreme Court ruled that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation, and for the
succeeding generation, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of succeeding generations
is based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right considers the “rhythm and harmony of nature” which
indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and
conservation of the country’s forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, offshore areas and
other natural resources to the end that their exploration, development, and utilization be equitably
accessible to the present as well as the future generations.
Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and
harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the
minor’s assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes at the same time, the
performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.

The power of judicial review is set forth in Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, to wit:
Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as
may be established by law.

petitioner failed to sufficiently show that it is in
possession of the requisites of standing to raise the
IBP v Zamora
issues in the petition.
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 grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch
or instrumentality of the Government.
When questions of constitutional significance are raised, the Court can exercise its power of
judicial review only if the following requisites are complied with, namely: (1) the existence of an
actual and appropriate case; (2) a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the
constitutional question; (3) the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity;
and (4) the constitutional question is the lis mota of the case.

However, when the issues raised are of paramount importance to the public, the Court may brush
aside technicalities of procedure.18 In this case, a reading of the petition shows that the IBP has
advanced constitutional issues which deserve the attention of this Court in view of their
seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents.

The Congress power of inquiry is expressly recognized in Section 21 of Article 6 of the

Constitution. This power of inquiry is broad enough to cover officials of the executive branch; it
is co-extensive with the power to legislate. the matters which may be a proper subject of legislation
Whether E.O. 464 contravenes the power of inquiry
Senate v Ermita and those wich may be proper subject of investigation are one. it folloews the operation of
vested in Congress.
government, being a legitimate subject for legislation, is a proper subject for investigation.
The Legislature’s power to conduct inquiry in aid of legislation is expressly recognized in Article
6, section21 of the 1987 Constitution, which reads:
 JUDICIAL REVIEW

“The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct
inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights
of persons appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be respected.”

The power of inquiry in aid of legislation is inherent in the power to legislate. A legislative body
cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which
the legislation is intended to affect or change. And where the legislative body does not itself possess
the requisite information, recourse must be had to others who do possess it.

This Court adopted the “direct injury” test in our jurisdiction. In People v. Vera, it held that the
David v
person who impugns the validity of a statute must have “a personal and substantial interest in the
Macapagal-Arroyo
The petitioners have legal standing case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result.” Therefore, the court ruled
(Marbury v
that the petitioners have a locus standi, for they suffered “direct injury” resulting from “illegal
Madison)
arrest” and “unlawful search” committed by police operatives pursuant to PP 1017.

The COA's authority to conduct post-audit examinations on constitutional bodies granted fiscal
autonomy is provided under Section 2(1), Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution. This authority,
however, must be read not only in light of the Court's fiscal autonomy, but also in relation with the
constitutional provisions on judicial independence and the existing jurisprudence and Court rulings
on these matters.

One of the most important aspects of judicial independence is the constitutional grant of fiscal
autonomy. While, as a general proposition, the authority of legislatures to control the purse in the
first instance is unquestioned, any form of interference by the Legislative or the Executive on the
Judiciary's fiscal autonomy amounts to an improper check on a co-equal branch of government. If
the judicial branch is to perform its primary function of adjudication, it must be able to command
Did the COA err when it issued its June 8, 2010
Re: COA Opinion adequate resources for that purpose. This authority to exercise (or to compel the exercise of)
opinion?
legislative power over the national purse (which at first blush appears to be a violation of concepts
of separateness and an invasion of legislative autonomy) is necessary to maintain judicial
independence and is expressly provided for by the Constitution through the grant of fiscal
autonomy under Section 3, Article VIII.

In Bengzon v. Drilon, we had the opportunity to define the scope and extent of fiscal autonomy in
the following manner: "as envisioned in the Constitution, the fiscal autonomy enjoyed by the
Judiciary, the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Audit, the Commission on Elections,
and the Office of the Ombudsman contemplates a guarantee of full flexibility to allocate and utilize
their resources with the wisdom and dispatch that their needs require."

Whether or not the Family Court has jurisdiction on
Garcia v Drilon
the issue of constitutionality of a statute.
At the outset, it must be stressed that Family Courts are special courts, of the same level as Regional
Trial Courts. Under R.A. 8369, otherwise known as the “Family Courts Act of 1997,” family courts
have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of domestic violence against women
and children. In accordance with said law, the Supreme Court designated from among the branches
of the Regional Trial Courts at least one Family Court in each of several key cities identified.
 JUDICIAL REVIEW

Section 7 of R.A. 9262 now provides that Regional Trial Courts designated as Family Courts shall
have original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases of VAWC defined under the latter law.

The Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare the constitutionality or
validity of a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order,
instruction, ordinance, or regulation not only in this Court, but in all RTCs under Section 5, Article
VIII of the 1987 Constitution.

SC made an exception and said that even if the issue has become moot and academic, the court
may still resolve it if the following conditions are present: (1) if there is a grave violation of the
Constitution; (2) the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest
Whether Funa has legal standing; whether the issue
involved; (3) when the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to
Funa v Villar has become moot; and what is the exception thereto.
guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and (4) the case is capable of repetition.
This actually is teaching or symbolic function as one of the functions of judicial review. Because it
is capable of repetition, meaning, the issue if not resolved can be raised thereafter as it is. It is
recurring.

This the case involving PDAF. While the 2013 GAA (General Appropriations Act) has already been
passed and implemented, though the issue has become moot or academic already, the SC opted
to review it and said that this case falls under the 4 exceptions.
1. IS THERE A GRAVE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION?
Yes. There is an allegation of the violation of the separation of powers, non-delegation of
legislative powers, issue on checks and balances, and accountability, as well as local autonomy.
2. IS THE ISSUE OF EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER OR A PARAMOUNT PUBLIC INTEREST?
Yes. The PDAF system, in which significant amount of the funds are spent and continue to be
Belgica v Ochoa PDAF- Doctrine of Operative
utilized, presents a situation of exceptional character and matter of paramount public interest.
3. IS THERE A NEED TO FORMULATE CONTROLLING PRINCIPLES?
Yes. There is a practical need for an objective ruling for the question on PDAF‘s constitutionality.
4. IS IT CAPABLE OF REPETITION?
Yes. The relevance of the issue does not cease because the preparation, passage, and
implementation of the national budget is an annual event. So even if the question is of past
appropriations, since the appropriations and budget is an annual thing, SC thought it would be
proper to resolve the issue even in the present case technically is considered moot or academic.

Manila Memorial
v DSWD

Imbong v Ochoa
 JUDICIAL REVIEW

DAP
Araullo v Aquino

Laude v Ginez-
Jabalde

Saguisag v Ochoa

Alliance for the

Family
Foundation,
Philippines v
Garin
Ocampo v
Political Question
Enriquez
Knights of Rizal v
DCMI Homes, Inc
PBOAP v DOLE
Private Hospitals
Association of the
Philippines v
Medialdea

Zabal v Duterte