Relevance of Marbury vs Madison and Angara vs Electoral Commision Cases.

SC’s Power of Judicial Review

Marbury vs Madison case lays down the basis of the judicial review powers of the SC; the
Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) has constitutional authority to review executive
actions and legislative acts and determine whether or not there has been a Grave Abuse of Discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Here, the US SC ruled that the act of US Congress empowering the SC to issue the writ of
mandamus beyond its appellate jurisdiction by amending Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional as
it violates the Constitution.

Judicial Supremacy; Checks and Balances

Angara vs Electoral Commission’s case provided for the justification on the judicial review
powers of the SC as provided by the 1987 Constitution. And when the judiciary mediates to allocate
constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does not in
reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation
assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution
and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and
guarantees to them.

This is in truth all that is involved in what is termed "judicial supremacy" which properly is the
power of judicial review under the Constitution. Even then, this power of judicial review is limited to
actual cases and controversies to be exercised after full opportunity of argument by the parties, and
limited further to the constitutional question raised or the very lis mota presented.

Similarities of Marbury vs Madison and Angara vs Electoral Commision Cases.

Both cases lay down the principle of Judicial Review, Separation of Powers, Checks and
Balance.

Angara Case: (a) That the government established by the Constitution follows fundamentally
the theory of separation of power into the legislative, the executive and the judicial. (b) That the
system of checks and balances and the overlapping of functions and duties often makes difficult the
delimitation of the powers granted. (c) That in cases of conflict between the several departments and
among the agencies thereof, the judiciary, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, is the only
constitutional mechanism devised finally to resolve the conflict and allocate constitutional boundaries.
(d) That 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.

Marbury vs Madison Case: The Supreme Court has limited jurisdiction, the bounds of which
are set by the United States Constitution (Constitution), which may not be enlarged by the Congress.

The case establishes the traditions of judicial review and a litigable constitution on which the
remainder of constitutional law rests, it also transformed the Supreme Court from an incongruous
institution to an equipotent head of a branch of the federal government.