CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | Group 2 | Knowledge Portfolio |
Instructor: Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos
MODULE 3
JUDICIAL REVIEW PART 1
I. THEORY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
● Power of the courts to ​test the
constitutionality of executive and legislative
acts and, as a consequence, declare them
unconstitutional.
● Simply stated, it is the power of judicial bodies
to test the constitutionality of the other branches
of government.
● They do this by comparing the act and the
constitutional provisions which are allegedly
violated. Should the courts find that the acts are
unconstitutional the exercise of judicial review
ends with a declaration of unconstitutionality.
● In line with the doctrine of Constitutional
Supremacy, the said act becomes null and void
. Sec.2 Art. III of the U.S Constitution as an act of
HISTORY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
If we try to trace the history of the power ofJudicial
Review, we end up with the case of ​Marbury v.
Madison​.
Marbury v. Madison
FACTS:
● During the elections in 1800, the John Adams
and Federalists lost Congress as well as the
presidency to Thomas Jefferson.
● As the results of the election became clear,
Adams and the Federalists became determined
to exercise their influence in the weeks
remaining before Jefferson took office, and did
all they could to fill federal offices with
"anti-Jeffersonians" who were loyal to the
Federalists. On March 2, 1801, just two days
before his presidential term ended, Adams
nominated nearly 60 Federalist supporters to
circuit judge and justice of the peace positions
the Federalist-controlled Congress had newly
created with the Judiciary Act of 1801
● These last-minute nominees—were referred to
as the "Midnight Judges"—including William
Marbury,
● The Senate approved Adams's nominations en
masse. The appointees' commissions were
immediately written out, then signed by Adams
and sealed by his Secretary of State. The day
before Jefferson’s inauguration, most
commissions were delivered, but a few -
including Marbury’s- were not delivered.
● Jefferson instructed Madison to withhold the
undelivered appointments, since in their
opinions, the commissions were void because
they were not delivered in time.
● Marbury filed suit against Madison in the U.S.
Supreme Court, asking the Court to issue a writ
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
of mandamus forcing Madison to deliver his
commission.
What were the factual predicates that led
Marbury to file a Petition for the issuance of a
Writ of Mandamus before the Supreme Court?
Answer:
When William Marbury did not receive his letter of
appointment to a justice of the peace position
in the District of Columbia​, he sued for a writ of
mandamus to force its delivery.
What was Marbury’s basis in filing the Petition
directly to the Supreme Court? What
constitutional provision was violated by said
basis?
Answer:
The Court held that Sec. 13 of the Act of 1789,
giving the Court authority to issue writs of
mandamus to an officer, was ​contrary to the
original jurisdiction, and therefore void.
Explain how the Supreme Court applied the
power of Judicial Review in relation to the
Judiciary Act of 1801.
Answer:
Writing for the majority, Marshall held that the court
could not issue a writ of mandamus compelling
Madison to deliver Marbury's commission, as
Marbury had requested, because ​the Judiciary
Act apparently took the initial scope of the
Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, as
specified in the Constitution, and expanded it
to include cases involving writs of mandamus.
Marshall ruled that ​Congress cannot increase the
Supreme Court's original jurisdiction as it was
set down in the Constitution​, and therefore that
the relevant portion of Section 13 of the Judiciary
Act violated Article III of the Constitution.
After the case of Marbury v. Madison, came several
criticisms on the power of judicial review, and even
after this date the criticism remains the same. Among
them was the allegation that the power of Judicial
Review attacks the fundamental understanding that
the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of
the government are three CO - EQUAL branches.
According to critics, because courts could declare the
acts of the legislative and executive departments as
null and void, it puts the judicial department on a
pedestal and therefore, supreme over the other two.
However, over the course of time there appears to be
consistent pronouncement by our very own Supreme
Court that said criticism does not hold water.
According to the Court when this power is exercised,
the court does not assert its superiority but merely
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | Group 2 | Knowledge Portfolio |
Instructor: Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos
asserts its duty to protect the Constitution. If not them,
who else would?
Thus the exercise of judicial review is not an exercise
of Judicial Supremacy but of Constitutional
Supremacy.
CONSTITUTIONAL , not JUDICIAL, Supremacy
[A]nd when the ​judiciary mediates to allocate
constitutional boundaries, it ​does not assert any
superiority over the 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 guaranties them.
Biraogo v. PTC
FACTS:
● Louis Biraogo (Petitioner) filed a special civil
action for the prohibition of Executive Order No.
1 for violating Section 1 of Article VI of the 1987
Constitution
○ E.O. no. 1 – Establishing the Philippine
Truth Commission
○ Creation of the Philippine Truth
Commission to act as a body to
prevent corruption
○ This was done as the first order of
President Noynoy Aquino
○ Petitioners Lagman, Albano jr.,
Datumanon, and Fua, Sr. (members of the
House of
● The PTC is a mere ad hoc body under the
Office of the President
○ Power to investigate but cannot
adjudicate
○ Can give subpoenas but cannot arrest
○ The PTC is not a common one as
other Truth Commissions were made
in times of civil unrest
● Petitioners claimed to have EO 1 declare
unconstitutional under the grounds:
○ E.O. no. 1 Violates the separation of
powers as it arrogates the power of
the Congress to create a public office
and appropriate funds for its operation
○ EO 1 illegally amended the
constitution when it invested the PTC
with quasi-judicial powers
■ Duplicating, if not superseding,
the Office of the Ombudsman
○ E.O. Violates the equal protection
clause as it selectively targets officials
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
What issuance was challenged to be
unconstitutional in this case?
Answer:
Executive Order No. 1
What was the factual backdrop that lead to the
issuance?
Answer:
Before the May 2010 elections, Senator Benigno
Simeon Aquino III declared his staunch
condemnation of graft and corruption
The Filipino people were convinced of his sincerity
and elected him to presidency
To transform his ideal into reality, President Aquino
found a need for a special body to investigate
reported cases of graft and corruption allegedly
committed during the previous administration
Aquino signed Executive Order No. 1 establishing
the Philippine Truth Commission
What did this issuance purport to do?
Answer:
To enact the Philippine Truth Commission to
investigate graft and corruption of the previous
administration
What were the arguments raised by the
Petitioner to support the claim of
unconstitutionality?
Answer:
● E.O. No. 1 violates the separation of powers
as it arrogates the power of the Congress to
create a public office and appropriate funds
for its operation
● The authority of the President to structurally
reorganize the Office of the President does
not include the power to create an entirely
new public office
● E.O. No. 1 illegally amended the Constitution
and pertinent statutes when it vested the
Truth Commission with quasi-judicial powers
duplicating, if not superseding, the Office of
the Ombudsman and Department of Justice
● E.O. No. 1 violates the equal protection
clause as it selectively targets for
investigation and prosecution officials and
personnel of the previous administration as if
corruption is their peculiar species even as it
excludes those of the other administrations,
past and present, who may be indictable
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | Group 2 | Knowledge Portfolio |
Instructor: Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos
Garcia v. Executive Secretary
FACTS:
● Petitioner, for the second time, wants to declare
Section 19 of RA 8479, on deregulation of oil
industry, as unconstitutional, he says that this
very important because it concerns national
economy
● His basis for this petition is Article 12, Sec. 19,
of the Constitution and the following:
○ Subsequent events after the lifting of
price control in 1997 has led to the
overpricing of petroleum products by
the oligarchy, namely, the BIG 3,
Caltex, Shell and Petron.
○ Oligopoly of the Big 3 is detrimental to
public interest
○ Abuse of legislative of its power
○ The constitution has solemn and
explicit constitutional command
against monopolies/ oligopolies
● Sec. 19, Article 12, the Philippine Constitution:
○ The State shall regulate or prohibit
monopolies when the public interest
so requires. No combinations in
restraint of trade or unfair competition
shall be allowed
ISSUE:
Whether the controversy is a matter political question,
within the limits of the powers of the government.
RULING:
● The SC dismisses the petition on the ground
that this is not within jurisdiction.
● Judicial Review – is the power of the courts to
test the validity of executive and legislative acts
for and upholds the supremacy with the
constitution.
○ Judicial review upholds the Power of
Constitutional Supremacy
● Requitisites of Judicial Revew:
○ Actual case or controversy calling for
the exercise of judicial power’
○ The person challenging the act must
have “standin” to challenge; he must
have a personal and substantial
interest as a result of the enforcement
○ Question on constitutionality ust be
raised at the earliest possible
opportunity.
○ The issue of constitutionality must be
the very lis mota of the case
■ Court will not pass upon a
question of unconstitutionality,
although properly presented, if
the case be disposed of some
other ground, such as application
of the statue or the general law.
● The petition DOES NOT satisfy the very first
requirement. The existing controversy is nothing
but a political question beyond the powers of the
Judiciary.
○ Political question
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
■ Refers 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.
■ Lack of a judicially discoverable
and manageable standards for
resolving it; or the impossibility of
deciding without an initial policy
determination of deciding of a
kind clearly for non-judicial
discretion.
● If read carefully, nothing in Section 19, Article 12
of the Constitution says that monopolies and
oligarchies per se are prohibited.
● To decide this, would be a grave abuse of
discretion to the judiciary branch as it would
lead to the breaking of the doctrine of separation
of powers
What provisions of what law was challenged to
be unconstitutional by the Petition here?
Answer:
Section 19 of RA 8479, on deregulation of oil
industry
What provision of the 1987 Constitution was
allegedly violated? Exhaustively explain
Petitioner’s arguments?
Answer:
Section 19, Article 12 of the 1987 Constitution
Petitioners contention
1. Subsequent events after the lifting of price
control in 1997 have confirmed the continued
existence of the Big 3 oligopoly and its overpricing
of finished petroleum products;
2. The unabated overpricing of finished petroleum
products by the Big 3 oligopoly is gravely and
undeniably detrimental to the public interest;
3. No longer may the bare and blatant
constitutionality of the lifting of price control be
glossed over through the expediency of legislative
wisdom or judgment call in the face of the Big 3
oligopoly's characteristic, definitive, and continued
overpricing;
4. To avoid declaring the lifting of price control on
finished petroleum
products as unconstitutional is to consign to the
dead letter dustbin the solemn and explicit
constitutional command for the regulation of
monopolies/oligopolies.
What clarifications were made by the Supreme
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | Group 2 | Knowledge Portfolio |
Instructor: Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos
Court pertaining to the relevant Constitutional
provision?
Answer:
This constitutional provision does not declare an
outright prohibition of monopolies. It simply allows
the State to act "when public interest so requires";
even then, no outright prohibition is mandated, as
the State may choose to regulate rather than to
prohibit. Two elements must concur before a
monopoly may be regulated or prohibited:
1. There in fact exists a monopoly or an oligopoly,
and
2. Public interest requires its regulation or
prohibition
How did the Supreme Court characterize and
nuance the question raised by the Petitioner?
Answer:
To summarize, we declare that the issues
petitioner Garcia presented to this Court are
non-justiciable matters that preclude the Court from
exercising its power of judicial review. The
immediate implementation of full deregulation of
the local downstream oil industry is a policy
determination by Congress which this Court cannot
overturn without offending the Constitution and the
principle of separation of powers. That the law
failed in its objectives because its adoption
spawned the evils petitioner Garcia alludes to does
not warrant its nullification.
How did the Supreme Court discuss the Power
of Judicial Review?
Answer:
READ RULING OF THE CASE
CONSTITUTIONAL BASES OF THE POWER OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Art. 8, Sec 1
“[t]o determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.”
Art. 8, Sec 4(2)
“All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty,
international or executive agreement, or law…”
Lays down the original jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court which includes questions relating to the
constitutionality of treaties, International Agreements,
Laws, and Ordinances among others.
Art. 8, Sec 1
The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme
Court and in such lower courts as may be established
by law.
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
Nothing is found with regards to the Court’s power to
test the Constitutionality of the acts of the other
branches of government.
Instead, what you have there is the power to settle
actual controversies regarding legally demandable
and enforceable rights and the power to determine
the existence of grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Is Sec. 1 really a Constitutional Basis of the power
of Judicial Review?
Yes. However, take note that this phrase uses
“Judicial Power” instead of “Judicial Review”.
IS JUDICIAL POWER SIMILAR WITH JUDICIAL
REVIEW? If not, how do they differ?
No, Judicial Power is not Judicial Review.
How are they related?
Judicial Review is part and parcel of Judicial Power.
Remember that Judicial Review is simply the power of
the courts to test the constitutionality of executive and
legislative acts.
However, if you read Sec. 1 of Art. 8, it also refers to
the power to settle actual controversies involving
legally demandable and enforceable rights
.
Ex. If you want to sue your debtor for non - payment
of debt, there is an actual controversy that warrants a
legally enforceable right.
You may go to court, asking the court to rule in your
favor, and when the court decides, it becomes an
exercise of judicial power.
Now the question is, was the court presented with the
question of constitutionality? No. So while it was an
exercise of ​Judicial POWER , it was ​NOT an
exercise of ​Judicial REVIEW​ .
Going back to Sec. 1, it also states that the power of
the court also includes determining whether there has
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government.
EXPANDED JUDICIAL REVIEW
To determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government. You only need to
look at the relevant act and determine WON the
Constitution is being violated thereby.
The framers of the 1987 Constitution expanded the
reach of Judicial Review such that it does not only
refer to the power to test the constitutionality of
Executive and Legislative acts but also through the
power of judicial review, Courts now have the power
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | Group 2 | Knowledge Portfolio |
Instructor: Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos
to determine whether in exercising any discretion
granted by the constitution the executive or legislative
departments, gravely abused the same. Much so, that
it amounts to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
II. POLITICAL QUESTION
It is a ​question of policy. ​It refers to those questions
which, under the Constitution, are to be ​decided by
the people in their sovereign capacity​, or i​n regard
to which full discretionary authority has been
delegated to the Legislature or executive branch of
the Government. It is concerned with ​issues
dependent upon the wisdom, not legality​, of a
particular measure.
Ex. When one wins the elections, you can't go to
Court and challenge why the electorate voted for the
winning candidate by arguing that the winning
candidate cannot best carry out the functions of the
position vied for. Because the question of whoever
could best carry out the duties of an elected public
official could not be answered by looking at the Consti
or the statutes. Thus, it can’t be decided by the court.
Rather, it is best decided by the people in their
sovereign capacity,and that is a PQ.
-ex. When Congress passes a law, can't go to Court
and argue that Congress is wrong in its decision,
because that question could not be answered by
looking into the Constitution or by looking into our
laws because the law was passed in order to amend
the existing law. rather, it is question one in regard to
which full discretionary power or authority has been
delegated to the legislative branch. And when
Congress has full discretion in passing laws pursuant
to its plenary legislative power
JUSTICIABLE POLITICAL
QUESTION QUESTION
● A question of ● A question of wisdom
constitutionality or ● Answer is not found in
legality the Constitution or
● Answer is found in statute
the Constitution or ● NOT Subject of
statute Judicial Review
● Subject of Judicial
● Review
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
Estrada v. Arroyo
FACTS:
● President Joseph Estrada was embroiled in a
corruption scandal after a close friend, Ilocos Sur
Governor Luis Chavit Singson, revealed that
Estrada and his family allegedly received money
from Jueteng lords.
● The revelation prompted Senator Teofisto
Guingona to deliver a privilege speech, detailing
the anomalies done by President Estrada. The
public now calls for Estrada’s resignation.
Eventually, he had to face an impeachment trial
in the Senate
● In a vote of 11-10, the Senator-Judges ruled
against opening the second envelope which
allegedly contains evidence wherein Estrada held
P3.3 billion in a secret bank account under the
name “Jose Velarde.”
● At this point, everyone snapped. The prosecutors
tendered their resignation – prompting the
Senate to postpone the impeachment
proceedings indefinitely. People started marching
towards EDSA to call for Estrada’s resignation.
On January 19, both the AFP and PNP declared
that they are withdrawing their support of the
Estrada administration.
● On January 20, (12 noon), Chief Justice Davide
administered Vice President Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo’s oath as the new President of the
Republic of the Philippines. At around 2:30 PM,
Estrada and his family hurriedly left Malacanang.
And issued a statement and signed it, which was
sent to the House Speaker and Senate
President.
● On January 22, now President Arroyo started
discharging her functions as President. She
appointed new cabinet members, ambassadors
and special envoys. Foreign state leaders also
expressed their recognition to Arroyo’s
administration (including then President George
Bush from the White House). Congress issued
House Resolution 175 to express support to the
new admin. The court also issued the following
Resolution in Administrative Matter No.
01-1-05-SC.
● The Senate then passed Resolution No. 83 which
officially moved to terminate the impeachment
proceeding. Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago
stated “for the record” that she voted against the
closure of the impeachment court on the grounds
that the Senate had failed to decide on the
impeachment case and that the resolution left
open the question of whether Estrada was still
qualified to run for another elective post.
● Estrada on the other hand is now facing charges
of plunder, graft, and corruption under the office
of the Ombudsman. He then filed a writ of
preliminary injunction to enjoin the Ombudsman
from “conducting any further proceedings in or
any other criminal complaint that may be filed in
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | Group 2 | Knowledge Portfolio |
Instructor: Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos
his office, until after the term of petitioner as
President is over.
● Thru another counsel, Estrada filed for Quo
Warranto. He prayed for judgment to confirm him
as the lawful and incumbent President of the
Republic of the Philippines temporarily unable to
discharge the duties of his office, and declaring
respondent (Arroyo) to have taken her oath as
and to be holding the Office of the President, only
in an acting capacity
What were the important dramatic events that
led to the filing of this case?
Answer:
READ FACTS
What was the petition filed by Estrada?
Answer:
READ FACTS
According to him, what was his status with
respect to the Office of the President?
Answer:
lawful and incumbent President of the Republic of
the Philippines temporarily unable to discharge the
duties of his office
What was Arroyo’s argument concerning the
petition assailing the legitimacy of her
administration?
Answer:
Private respondents raise the threshold issue that
the cases at bar pose a political question, and
hence, are beyond the jurisdiction of this Court to
decide. They contend that shorn of its
embroideries, the cases at bar assail the
"legitimacy of the Arroyo administration." They
stress that respondent Arroyo ascended the
presidency through people power; that she has
already taken her oath as the 14th President of the
Republic; that she has exercised the powers of the
presidency and that she has been recognized by
foreign governments. They submit that these
realities on ground constitute the political thicket
which the Court cannot enter.
What decided case was relied upon by Arroyo?
Answer:
Respondents rely on the case of ​Lawyers League
for a Better Philippines and/or Oliver A. Lozano
v. President Corazon C. Aquino, et al ​and
related case
The situation of Arroyo is not the same with Former
Pres. Aquino, where the latter was installed
through a direct exercise of the power of the
Filipino people "in defiance of the provisions of the
1973 Constitution. the government of former
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
President Aquino was the result of a successful
revolution by the sovereign people, albeit a
peaceful one.
In checkered contrast, the government of
respondent Arroyo is not revolutionary in character.
The oath that she took at the EDSA Shrine is the
oath under the 1987 Constitution. 64 In her oath,
she categorically swore to preserve and defend the
1987 Constitution. Indeed, she has stressed that
she is discharging the powers of the presidency
under the authority of the 1987 Constitution.
What are the differences between EDSA 1 and
EDSA 2? What is the effect of a revolutionary
government?
Answer:
Edsa 1 different from Edsa 2. In fine, the Court
distinguished Edsa 1 from Edsa 2 in this wise:
“EDSA I involves the exercise of the people power
of revolution which overthrew the whole
government. EDSA II is 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. EDSA I is extra constitutional and the
legitimacy of the new government that resulted
from it cannot be the subject of judicial review, but
EDSA II is intra constitutional and the resignation of
the sitting President that it caused and the
succession of the Vice President as President are
subject to judicial review. EDSA I presented a
political question; EDSA II involves legal
questions.”
In other words, Edsa 1 obliterated the then existing
1973 Constitution and all the government
institutions under it, including the Supreme Court.
This is why its legitimacy was repeatedly
challenged legally, politically and militarily in
several coup attempts. (The question of its legality
was put to rest after our people ratified the 1987
Constitution.) On the other hand, Edsa 2 did not
abolish the 1987 Constitution. Quite the contrary, it
preserved it and the public institutions under it.
Were the questions presented in the case
justiciable or political? Explain.
Answer:
Please refer to the case issues
1st. ​The case is legal not political. A political
question has been defined by our Court as “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
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | Group 2 | Knowledge Portfolio |
Instructor: Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos
branch of the government. It is concerned with
issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of
a particular measure.” (​Comparing Aquino Admin
and Arroyo Admin; EDSA 1 vs EDSA 2​)
2nd. ​He is not a president on leave. Resignation is
a factual question and its elements are beyond
quibble: there must be an intent to resign and the
intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment.
There is no required form of resignation. It can be
expressed, implied, oral or written. The court used
the ​totality tes​t or ​the totality of prior,
contemporaneous and posterior facts and
circumstantial evidence bearing a material
relevance on the issue​.
Using this test, the Court rules that the petitioner
had resigned. The Court knows the amount of
stress that the petitioner had suffered. With just a
blink of an eye, he lost the support of the legislative
when then Manny Villar and other Representatives
had defected. AFP Chief of Staff General Angelo
Reyes had already gone to EDSA. PNP Chief
Director General Panfilo Lacson and other cabinet
secretaries had withdrawn as well. By looking into
the Angara diaries, it was pointed out that the
petitioner had suggested a snap election at May on
which he would not be a candidate. Proposing a
snap election in which he is not a candidate means
that he had intent to resign. When the proposal for
a dignified exit or resignation was proposed,
petitioner did not disagree but listened closely.
This is proof that petitioner had reconciled
himself to the reality that he had to resign. His
mind was already concerned with the five-day
grace period he could stay in the palace. It was
a matter of time.
3rd. ​The impeachment proceedings were already
aborted. As a non-sitting president, he is not
entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution.
Sec. 11 Article 7. Provisions on whether or not the
President is still able to perform his functions or
not. If not, he can make a decision and is willing to
declare himself disabled, it is one of its powers
under the constitution.
4th​. There is not enough evidence to warrant this
Court to enjoin the preliminary investigation of the
petitioner by the respondent Ombudsman. He
contends that the respondent Ombudsman should
be stopped from conducting an investigation of the
cases filed against him for he has already
developed a bias against the petitioner. He submits
that it is a violation of due process.
According to the records, it was the ​petitioner who
assailed the biasness of the Ombudsman​. The
petitioner alleges that there were news reports
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
which said that the Ombudsman had already
prejudged the cases against him. The Court rules
that the evidence presented is insufficient. The
Court also cannot ​adopt the theory of derivative
prejudice of petitioner, i.e., that the prejudice of
respondent Ombudsman flows to his
subordinates​. Investigating prosecutors should
not be treated like unthinking slot machines.
Moreover, if the respondent Ombudsman resolves
to file the cases against the petitioner and the latter
believes that the finding of probable cause against
him is the result of bias, he still has the remedy of
assailing it before the proper court.
DID THE EXPANDED CONCEPT OF JUDICIAL
REVIEW obliterate the Political Question
Doctrine?
Fr. Bernas​: [I]is it the intention of Section 1 to do
away with the Political Question Doctrine?
Mr. Concepcion: ​No. It definitely does not eliminate
the fact that truly political questions are beyond the
pole of judicial power.
STANDARD: JUSTICIABLE POLITICAL QUESTION
In our jurisdiction, the determination of a justiciable
political question from a non-justiciable political
question lies in the answer to the question of whether
there are constitutionally imposed limits on powers or
functions conferred upon political bodies .
● When the Constitution grants any branch of the
Government or any government instrumentality
the power to exercise discretion, one can’t
automatically rule that the exercise of such
discretion is a political question. Have to further
ask, although the Constitution granted the power
to exercise discretion, is the discretion to be
exercised in full? Or does the exercise of
discretion come from the Constitution imposed
limitations, qualifications or conditions?
● If discretion is full, then what you have is a truly
political question which cannot be brought with
the ambit of Judicial Review.
● On one hand, jurisprudence refers to it as a
Justiciable Political Question. This means that
although discretion was granted to a branch of
the government or any government
instrumentality, the exercise of discretion is
subjected to Judicial Review to the extent of
ascertaining whether there is grave abuse of said
exercise.
● In determining whether there is grave abuse, one
must ask whether the Consti imposed limitation,
conditions and question to the exercise of
discretion have been reached.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | Group 2 | Knowledge Portfolio |
Instructor: Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos
IBP v. Zamora
FACTS:
● Invoking his powers as Commander-in-Chief
under Sec. 18, Art. VII of the Constitution, the
President directed the AFP Chief of Staff and
PNP Chief to coordinate with each other for the
proper deployment and utilization of the
Marines to assist the PNP in preventing or
suppressing criminal or lawless violence.
● The President declared that the services of the
Marines in the anti-crime campaign are merely
temporary in nature and for a reasonable
period only, until such time when the situation
shall have improved
● The IBP filed a petition seeking to declare the
deployment of the Philippine Marines null and
void and unconstitutional.
What were the important events that led to the
filing of this case? What was the issuance
assailed?
Answer:
1. Invoking his powers as Commander-in-Chief
under Sec. 18, Art. VII of the Constitution, the
President directed the AFP Chief of Staff and PNP
Chief to coordinate with each other for the proper
deployment and utilization of the Marines to assist
the PNP in preventing or suppressing criminal or
lawless violence. The President declared that the
services of the Marines in the anti crime campaign
are merely temporary in nature and for a
reasonable period only, until such time when the
situation shall have improved. The IBP filed a
petition seeking to declare the deployment of the
Philippine Marines null and void and
unconstitutional.
2. In compliance with the presidential mandate, the
PNP Chief, through Police Chief Superintendent
Edgar B. Aglipay, formulated Letter of Instruction
02/20001 (the "LOI") which detailed the manner by
which the joint visibility patrols, called Task Force
Tulungan, would be conducted.2 Task Force
Tulungan was placed under the leadership of the
Police Chief of Metro Manila.
What was the main argument raised by IBP with
respect to the calling out of the Marines? How
about the Respondent?
Answer:
1. The calling of the armed forces to assist the PNP
in joint visibility patrols violates the constitutional
provisions on civilian supremacy over the military
and the civilian character of the PNP.
2. The Joint Implementing Police Visibility Patrols
between the PNP NCRPO and the Philippine
Marines partnership in the conduct of visibility
patrols in Metro Manila for the suppression of crime
prevention and other serious threats to national
security
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
What constitutional provision was examined in
the case?
Answer:
Section 18, Article VII
Is the President’s determination of factual basis
for calling out the Armed Forces a political
question?
Answer:
No
What was the burden of IBP in the case? Was it
overcome?
Answer:
In view of the constitutional intent to give the
President full discretionary power to determine the
necessity of calling out the armed forces, it is
incumbent upon the petitioner to show that the
President’s decision is totally bereft of factual
basis. The present petition fails to discharge such
heavy burden, as there is no evidence to support
the assertion that there exists no justification for
calling out the armed forces.
Francisco v. House Reps.
****THE CASE IS REPEATED, SAME FACTS****
What were the important events that led to the
filing of this case? What was assailed?
Answer:
Within a period of 1 year, 2 impeachment
proceedings were filed against Supreme Court
Justice Hilario Davide. The petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, and mandamus were filed with the
Supreme Court against the House of
Representatives, et. al., most of which petitions
contend that the filing of the second impeachment
complaint is unconstitutional as it violates the
provision of Section 5 of Article XI of the
Constitution that “no impeachment proceedings
shall be initiated against the same official more
than once within a period of one year.”
What were the constitutional provisions relied
upon by respondent by arguing that the
questions were presented were political?
Answer:
This is why the first part of the second paragraph of
Section I provides that:
Judicial power includes the duty of courts to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable or enforceable . . .
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | Group 2 | Knowledge Portfolio |
Instructor: Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos

This is the background of paragraph 2 of Section 1, Answer:

which means that the courts cannot hereafter
evade the duty to settle matters of this nature, by
claiming that such matters constitute a political
question. Clearly, the issue calls upon this court to
decide a non-justiciable political question which is
beyond the scope of its judicial power under
Section 1, Article VIII.
This Court in the present petitions subjected to
judicial scrutiny and resolved on the merits only the
main issue of whether the impeachment
proceedings initiated against the Chief Justice
transgressed the constitutionally imposed one-year
time bar rule. Beyond this, it did not go about
assuming jurisdiction where it had none, nor
indiscriminately turn justiciable issues out of
decidedly political questions. Because it is not at all
the business of this Court to assert judicial
dominance over the other two great branches of
the government. Rather, the raison d'etre of the
judiciary is to complement the discharge by the
executive and legislative of their own powers to
bring about ultimately the beneficent effects of
having founded and ordered our society upon the
rule of law
Were the questions presented truly political
questions? Support your answer
Answer:
The issue goes into the merits of the second
impeachment complaint over which this Court has
no jurisdiction. More importantly, any discussion of
this issue would require this Court to make a
determination of what constitutes an impeachable
offense. Such a determination is a purely political
question which the Constitution has left to the
sound discretion of the legislation. Such an intent is
clear from the deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission.
“Initiate” of course is understood by ordinary men
to mean, as dictionaries do, to begin, to
commence, or set going. As Webster’s Third New
International Dictionary of the English Language
concisely puts it, it means “to perform or facilitate
the first action,” The Court pried the Constitutional
Convention Records to ascertain the intent of the
framers of the Constitution. The framers really
intended “initiate” to mean the filing of the verified
complaint to the Committee on Justice of the Lower
House. This is also based on the procedure of the
U.S. Congress where an impeachment is initiated
upon filing of the impeachment complaint.
Distinguish a “truly political question” from a
“not truly political question”.
Truly political questions are thus beyond judicial
review, the reason for respect of the doctrine of
separation of powers to be maintained. On the
other hand, by virtue of Section 1, Article VIII of the
Constitution, courts can review questions which are
not truly political in nature.
In our jurisdiction, the determination of a truly
political question from a non-justiciable political
question lies in the answer to the question of
whether there are constitutionally imposed limits on
powers or functions conferred upon political bodies.
If there are, then our courts are duty-bound to
examine whether the branch or instrumentality of
the government
III. FUNCTIONS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
Checking Legitimating Symbolic
Function Function Function

Although Section 2 of Article XI of the Constitution The The Judiciary The Court also
enumerates six grounds for impeachment, two of Judiciary can stamp has the duty to
these, namely, other high crimes and betrayal of can check if legitimacy into formulate
public trust, elude a precise definition. In fact, an the acts of the doubtful guiding and
examination of the records of the 1986 the status of controlling
Constitutional Commission shows that the framers executive or governmental constitutional
could find no better way to approximate the legislative acts in order to principles,
boundaries of betrayal of public trust and other high branch are erase all precepts,
crimes than by alluding to both positive and in doubts as to its doctrines, or
negative examples of both, without arriving at their accordance constitutionalit rules. It has
clear cut definition or even a standard therefor. with the y the symbolic
Clearly, the issue calls upon this court to decide a Constitution. function of
non-justiciable political question which is beyond educating the
the scope of its judicial power under Section 1, bench and bar
Article VIII on the extent
of protection
given by
How was the word „initiate‟ interpreted? constitutional

Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | Group 2 | Knowledge Portfolio |
Instructor: Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos

withdraw the circulating ponencia on the case.

guarantees.
Case in Case in Point:
Point: Estrada vs.
IBP vs. Arroyo
Zamora
- Checking Function-most obvious function
- Legitimating Function- doubtful gov’t act
- Symbolic Function- function comes into play when
the case is moot and academic. It means that there is
no point in deciding the case. Any decision issued will
serve no real purpose in the parties of the case.
Salong v. Pano
FACTS:
● This case stems from the series of bombings on
Metro Manila on the months of August,
September, and October 1980. Victor Burns
Lovely Jr., an American national, implicated
petitioner Salonga as one of those responsible.
● On December 10, 1980, the Judge Advocate
General Filed sent the Petitioner (Mr. Salonga) a
“Notice of Preliminary investigation” and has
given him 10 days to file for counter-evidence.
The petitioner claims that he had not received
any copies of the charge.
● The petitioner invokes the constitutionally
protected right to life and liberty guaranteed by
the due process clause, alleging that no prima
facie case has been established to warrant the
filing of an information for subversion against
him; the counsel of the petitioner filed a motion to
dismiss.
● Judge Paño denied the motion to dismiss, and
afterwards issued a resolution ordering the filing
of an information for violation of the Revised
Anti-Subversion Act, of 40 individuals including
Salonga. The said decisions of Judge Paño
became a subject for a petition for certiorari.
● On January 18, 1985 Judge Rodolfo Ortiz
granted the motion of the respondent, City Fiscal
Sergio Apostol to drop the subversion case
against the Petitioner. The nature of the case
became moot and academic because the
Supreme court was overtaken by the events in
the lower courts, the court is constrained to
withdraw the draft ponencia currently circulating
for concurrences and signatures.
ISSUE:​:
Whether or not, the case still deserves a decision
from the Supreme Court despite being dropped by the
lower court?
RULING:
● Pursuant to the actions of the lower court
granting the motion to drop the subversion case
against the petitioner, the court is forced to
Insofar as the absence of a prima facie case to
warrant the filing of subversion charges is
concerned, this decision has been rendered moot
and academic by the action of the prosecution.
● Still, the court has decided to continue with its
decision on the case despite its mootness as an
exercise of their Symbolic Function because the
court has the duty to formulate guiding principles,
precepts, doctrines, or rules it has the symbolic
function to educate the bench and the bar.
What was the criminal charge against the
petitioner?
Answer:
The charge against the petitioner was a violation of
R.A. 1700 or the AntiSubversion Act.
What were the important events that led to the
case becoming moot and academic?
Answer:
• On 15 October 1981, the counsel for Salonga
filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him
for failure of the prosecution to establish a prima
facie case.
• On December 2, 1981 Judge Ernani Paño, denied
the motion to dismiss.
• On 4 January 1982, Judge Paño issued a
resolution ordering the filing of an information for
violation of the Revised Anti-Subversion Act, as
amended, against 40 people, including Salonga.
• The resolutions dated December 2, 1981 and
January 4, 1982 of the said judge, is a subject of
the present petition of certiorari.
• On January 18, 1985 Judge Rodolfo Ortiz granted
the motion of the respondent, City Fiscal Sergio
Apostol to drop the subversion case against the
Petitioner.
• The court is constrained to withdraw the draft
ponencia currently circulating for concurrences and
signatures.
• Despite the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the
petition, it has rendered decisions in cases where
mootness was apparent.
• The Court also has the duty to formulate guiding
and controlling constitutional principles, precepts,
doctrines, or rules. It has the symbolic function of
educating bench and bar on the extent of
protection given by constitutional guarantees.
Why did the Supreme Court still decide the
case despite its being moot and academic?
Answer:
• The Court had already deliberated on the case
and already had a ponencia circulating.
• The Supreme court was overtaken by the event of
the dismissal of the lower court’s petition.
• Still, the court has decided to continue with its

Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | Group 2 | Knowledge Portfolio |
Instructor: Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos
decision on the case despite its mootness as an
exercise of their Symbolic Function.
• The Court also has the duty to formulate guiding
and controlling constitutional.
• principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules. It has the
symbolic function of educating bench and bar on
the extent of protection given by constitutional
guarantees.
IV. WHO MAY EXERCISE JUDICIAL REVIEW
Art 8, Sec 1 Art 8, Sec Art 8, Sec 5
4(2) (2)
Supreme Supreme Supreme
Court Court Court
Lower Courts
established by
law
- The power of judicial review may be exercised by
ALL judicial bodies established by law​. ​ALL
means from the first level of Court to the Supreme
Cour​t.
-The issue of constitutionality must be raised at the
earliest possible opportunity or before the first
judicial body where the case was initially filed​,
because that is the condition for the exercise of
Judicial Review.
Ynot v. IAC
Q1. What was the relevant issuance in the
case? What were the events that led to the
filing of the case?
FACTS:
● There had been an existing law which prohibited
the slaughtering of carabaos (EO 626).
● To strengthen the law, Marcos issued EO 626-A
which not only banned the movement of
carabaos from inter-provinces but as well as the
movement of carabeef.
● Petitioner had transported 6 carabaos in a pump
boat from Mastbate to Iloilo.
● They were confiscated by the police station
commander of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo for violation
of Exec. Order No. 626-A
Q2. In what court did the Petitioner file a case?
What did he raise before said court?
Answer:
Ynot averred EO 626-A as unconstitutional for it
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
violated his right to be heard or his right to due
process. He said that the authority provided by EO
626-A to outrightly confiscate carabaos even
without being heard is unconstitutional.
The lower court ruled against Ynot, deciding that
the EO is a valid exercise of police power in order
to promote general welfare so as to curb down the
indiscriminate slaughter of carabaos.
After appealing the decision to the Intermediate
Appellant Court which upheld the trial court, the
petitioner came before the Supreme Court for
review on certiorari.
Issue: WoN Executive Order No. 626-A is
unconstitutional
Q3. What was the action of the court in Q2
pertaining to the question on Constitutionality?
Was the course of action taken by said court
correct?
Held:
● The SC ruled that the EO 626-A is not
constitutional as it indeed violates due process. It
created a presumption based on the judgment of
the executive.
● The movement of carabaos from one area to the
other does not mean a subsequent slaughter of
the same would ensue.
● Ynot should be given to defend himself and
explain why the carabaos are being transferred
before they can be confiscated.
● The SC found that the challenged measure is an
invalid exercise of the police power because the
method employed to conserve the carabaos is
not reasonably necessary to the purpose of the
law and, worse, is unduly oppressive.
● Due process is violated because the owner of the
property confiscated is denied the right to be
heard in his defense and is immediately
condemned and punished.
● The conferment on the administrative authorities
of the power to adjudge the guilt of the supposed
offender is a clear encroachment on judicial
functions and militates against the doctrine of
separation of powers.
● There is, finally, also an invalid delegation of
legislative powers to the officers mentioned
therein who are granted unlimited discretion in
the distribution of the properties arbitrarily taken.
Note: ​The Trial Court and Court of Appeals— though
they also had superior authority, SC took notice that
did not have the spirit to question the order the
Supreme Court annulled.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | Group 2 | Knowledge Portfolio |
Instructor: Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos
Garcia v. Drilon
Facts:
● Rosalie Jaypie-Garcia, private respondent filed,
for herself and in behalf of her minor children,
for the issuance of a Temporary Protection
order against Jesus Garcia, her husband,
pursuant to R.A 9262..
● Respondent claimed to be a victim of physical
abuse; emotional, psychological, and economic
violence as a result of marital infidelity on the
part of petitioner, with threats of deprivation of
custody of her children and of financial support
● RTC granted the TPO but petitioner failed to
faithfully comply with the conditions set forth by
the said TPO, private-respondent filed another
application for the issuance of a TPO ex parte.
The trial court issued a modified TPO and
extended the same when petitioner failed to
comment on why the TPO should not be
modified. After the given time allowance to
answer, the petitioner no longer submitted the
required comment as it would be an “exercise in
futility.”
● Petitioner filed before the CA a petition for
prohibition with prayer for injunction and TRO
on, questioning the constitutionality of the RA
9262 for violating the due process and equal
protection clauses, and the validity of the
modified TPO for being “an unwanted product of
an invalid law.”
● The CA issued a TRO on the enforcement of the
TPO but however, denied the petition for failure
to raise the issue of constitutionality in his
pleadings before the trial court and the petition
for prohibition to annul protection orders issued
by the trial court constituted collateral attack on
said law.
ISSUE:
WON the CA erred in dismissing the petition on the
theory that the issue of constitutionality was not raised
at the earliest opportunity and that the petition
constitutes a collateral attack on the validity of the
law.
RULING:
● As a general rule, the question of
constitutionality must be raised at the earliest
opportunity so that if not raised in the pleadings,
ordinarily it may not be raised in the trial, and if
not raised in the trial court, it will not be
considered on appeal.
● In defending his failure to attack the
constitutionality of R.A. 9262 before the RTC of
Bacolod City, ​petitioner argues that the
Family Court has limited authority and
jurisdiction that is "inadequate to tackle the
complex issue of constitutionality​. ​The Court
disagrees.
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
● 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.
● 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
● In Spite of its designation as a family court, the
RTC of Bacolod City remains ​possessed of
authority as a court of general original
jurisdiction to pass upon all kinds of cases
whether civil, criminal, special proceedings,
land registration, guardianship,
naturalization, admiralty or insolvency​.
● It is settled that RTCs have jurisdiction to
resolve the constitutionality of a statute, "this
authority being embraced in the general
definition of the judicial power to determine what
are the valid and binding laws by the criterion of
their conformity to the fundamental 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​.
NOTE:​ ​:
● Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262, entitled "​An Act
Defining Violence Against Women and Their
Children, Providing for Protective Measures
for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor,
and for Other Purposes​."
● R.A. 9262 provides for protection orders from
the barangay and the courts to prevent the
commission of further acts of VAWC; and
outlines the duties and responsibilities of
barangay officials, law enforcers, prosecutors
and court personnel, social workers, health care
providers, and other local government officials in
responding to complaints of VAWC or requests
for assistance