CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - SUMMARY

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
A. Political law
Political law is that branch of public law which deals with the organization and operation of the
government organs of the state and defines the relations of the state with the inhabitants of its
territory.
(Sinco, Philippine Political Law 1, 11th ed., 1962)

B. Scope/Division of Political Law

 LAW OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
the organization and management of the
different branches of the government
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
guaranties of the constitution to
individual rights and the limitations on
governmental action
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
the exercise of executive power in the
making of rules and the decision of
questions affecting private rights
 LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATIONS
the governmental agencies for local
government or for other special purpose

Macariola vs. Asuncion

 a provision of law partakes of the nature of political law when it regulates the relationship between the
government and certain public officers and employees, notwithstanding its incorporation in the Code of
Commerce which is part of the commercial laws of the country.
 political laws of the former sovereign, whether compatible or not with those of the new sovereign, are
deemed abrogated upon the transfer of sovereignty, unless they are expressly re-enacted by the affirmative
act of the new sovereign.
 Supreme Court ruled that Article 14 of the Code of Commerce which prohibits judges from engaging in
commerce is political in nature for it partakes more of the nature of an administrative law as it regulates the
conduct of certain public officers and employees with respect to engaging in business
People vs. Perfector
 Article 256 of the Spanish Civil Code was considered crime “lesse majeste” as it punishes those who insults
the Ministers of the Crown.
 With the change of sovereignty, the said provision had been automatically abrogated. The Supreme Court
held that the said provision is “political in nature” as it governed the acts of the inhabitants towards the
State.

II. THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

A. Nature of the Constitution
1. Constitution law
 a subdivision of political law which deals with the legal principles affecting the nature, adoption,
amendment, and operation of the constitution. (Sinco 67.)
 a term used to designate the law embodied in the constitution and the legal principles growing out of the
interpretation and application made by courts of the provisions of the constitution in specific cases.
 In the Philippines, constitutional law also lies scattered in a series of Philippine Reports and SCRA.
Constitutional law is the body of law created by applying and interpreting the Constitution with its successive
amendments.

Legaspi vs. Minister of Finance

 Constitutional law is not simply the literal application of the words of the charter.
 The ancient and familiar rule of constitutional construction that has consistently maintained its intrinsic and
transcendental worth is that the meaning and understanding conveyed by the language, albeit, plain, or any
of its provisions, do not only portray the influence of current events and developments but likewise the
inescapable imperative considerations rooted in the historical background and environment at the time of its
adoption and thereby caused their being written as part and parcel thereof.
1. Constitution
 a written instrument by which the fundamental powers of government are established, limited and defined,
and by which those powers are distributed among the several departments for their safe and useful exercise
for the benefit of the body politic.
 both a legal document and a political plan
 embodies legal rules as well as political principles
 The concept of a Constitution as the fundamental law, setting forth the criterion for the validity of any public
act whether proceeding from the highest official or the lowest functionary, is a postulate of our system of
government. That is to manifest fealty to the rule of law, with priority accorded to that which occupies the
top most rung in the legal hierarchy. The three departments of government in the discharge of the functions
with which it is entrusted have no choice but to yield obedience to its commands.
 The Constitution, as the direct enactment of the sovereign people, is the highest law of the state. The
validity of every act of government must depend on its being in conformity with the constitution. Statutes,
executive orders or regulations, ordinances and treaties in conflict with the constitution are void and
unenforceable. This is what is meant by supremacy of the constitution.
2. Purpose
 The purpose of a constitution is to prescribe the permanent framework of a system of government, to assign
to the different departments their respective powers and duties, and to establish certain fixed principles on
which government is founded. The fundamental conception, in other words, is that of a supreme law to
which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private rights must be determined and
all public authority administered.
3. Classification

IN RELATION TO THE AMENDMENT PROCESS

RIGID CONSTITUTION FLEXIBLE CONSTITUTION
 can be amended only by a formal and usually difficult  may be changed in the same manner
process and through the same body that
This may not be amended except through a special process distinct enacts ordinary legislation
from and more involved than the method of changing ordinary laws. 
The constitution is rendered difficult to change and thereby acquires Example: British Constitution
a greater degree of stability.

AS TO FORM/ ENACTMENT
WRITTEN CONSTITUTION UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTION -
 embodied in one or more instruments at a particular  one which has not been committed to
time writing at any specific time but is the
A written constitution, according to Justice Malcolm, as the written accumulated product of gradual
instrument by which the fundamental power of the government political and legal development
are established, limited and defined, and by which these powers
are distributed among the several departments for their safe and
useful exercise for the benefit of the body politic.

The Philippine Constitution is both written and rigid. (See Art. XVII on the Amendment process)

In general, there are three types of Constitutional Law.

English Type European type American type

is characterized by the absence of a
written constitution and the
absence of judicial review by the
courts
is one that has been reduced into
writing but which gives the courts
no power to declare ineffective
statutes contrary to it
is one where the legal provisions of
the written constitution are given
effect albeit the courts have the
power to declare ineffective or void
statutes repugnant to it
4. Qualities of a good written Constitution
The three essential requisites of a good written constitution are breadth, brevity and definiteness.
 BROAD. It must be broad in its scope because it must outline an organization of the government for the
whole state. A statement of the province and functions of government, and of the relations between
government bodies and the governed, requires a comprehensive document.
 BRIEF. A constitution must be brief because it is not a place in which the details of organization should be set
forth. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outline should be marked, its important objects be
deducted from the nature of the objects themselves. It must confine itself to basic principles to be
implemented with legislative details more adjustable to change and easier to amend.
 DEFINITE. In a statement of principle as underlying the essential nature of a state, any vagueness which may
lead to opposing interpretations of essential features cause incalculable harm.

5. Essential parts of a good written Constitution

The essential substantive parts of a written constitution are:
1. bill of rights
2. provisions defining, distributing and limiting the powers of government
3. method of amendments

6. Interpretation/Construction of the Constitution

Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003
Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317

Who may interpret the Constitution? From force of circumstances and conditions necessarily arising in the
administration of government affairs, it is evident that those who are charged with official duties, must
necessarily construe the constitution. Generally however, the construction of the constitution is the
peculiar province of the courts, and to them belongs, in the most though not in all cases, the authority of
final decision; and where a court of last resort has construed a constitutional provision, such construction
is binding on all departments of government.

Self-executing/non-self-executing provisions

Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, February 03, 1997
Pamatong v. Comelec, G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004

B. Constitutional History
Treaty of Paris: (signed December 10, 1898; became effective on April 11, 1899)
 The Philippines was ceded by Spain to the U.S. Spain relinquished its sovereignty over the Philippines Islands,
and with this,
 All laws of political nature were automatically abrogated.
 It provided that the civil and political status of all inhabitants of the islands were to be determined by the US
Congress.
 The US Constitution did not apply to the Philippines unless the US Congress expressly enacted its provisions.
 The Philippines in turn, was not given the status of an "incorporated territory" (as to make it a candidate for
statehood) and so ex proprio vigore

McKinley’s Instructions: (issued by Pres. McKinley on April 7, 1900 as “Letter of Instruction to the Second
Philippines Commission” under Taft)
 It set up a “divided civil and military government” with the existing Military governor as the Executive and a
Philippine Commission, created on September 1, 1900, as the Legislative, both representing the US President
as Commander-in-Chief
 It extended to the Philippines all the rights in the Bill of Rights of the US Federal Constitution except the right
to bear arms and the rights to a trial by jury
 This was the first Organic Act (a law which establishes the structure and limitations of the government) of
the Philippines.
 What it lacked, as a constitution, were the ratification by the people and the right of amendment which was
reserved solely to the US President)
 The judiciary was subsequently established on 11 June 1901, with a Supreme Court, Courts of First Instance,
and Justice of Peace Courts

Spooner Amendment:
 July 4, 1901: The Spooner Amendment, was actually a rider to the “Army and Navy Appropriation Act.”

 It changed the then “divided military and civil government” into a fully civil government under the US
Congress.
 All acts of the Philippines Commission would now begin: “Be it enacted by the authority of the US
government,” and no longer by authority of the US President.

Philippine Bill of 1902: (Philippines’ organic act from 1902 to 1906)

 passed on 1 July 1900
 The US Congress being in control of the Philippines, ratified all the organic acts of the President, in order to
prevent disruption of government
 The organic act introduced significant provisions to constitutional history.
 It established a bicameral house, with the Philippine Commission as the upper house and the Philippine
Assembly as the lower house composed entirely of Filipinos.
 The Governor-General retained all executive power, including the power to suspend the writ of habeas
corpus upon recommendation of the Philippine Commission.
 It defined for the first time who are the citizens of the Philippines. They were all the inhabitants of the
Philippine islands who were subjects of Spain as of April 11, 1989, who continued to reside therein, and all
the children subsequent thereto.

Jones Law (or the Philippine Autonomy Act): (passed on August 29, 1916 by the US Congress)
 It established a tripartite government with real separation of powers; this was the prototype of our present
set-up.
 The executive power was in the hands of an American Governor-General, who was independent of the
Legislature, and who was given the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and impose martial law
without the recommendation of the Legislature.
 The Legislature was composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives, all composed of Filipinos.
 The judiciary continued to be made up of the Supreme Court, the CFIs and Justice of Peace Courts.
 Under this set-up, while the Filipinos has all the legislative power, the Americans had all the executive power
and thus, also the control of the government
Tydings-McDuffie Law
 while not an organic act, was to be the enabling statute for the adoption of the Constitution of an
independent Philippines
 Complete independence was to take place ten (10) years after its effectivity.
This provided for:
1. The calling of Constitutional Convention to draft our Constitution.
2. The adoption of a Constitution that established a republican government, with a Bill of Rights and a
separation of Church and state.
3. Submission of the draft to the US President for certification that the Constitution was in conformity with the
condition set by the Tydings-McDuffie Law.
4. Its ratification by the people in a plebiscite.

1935 Constitution: (took effect on November 15, 1935)

This served as the charter of the Commonwealth and upon withdrawal of US sovereignty, of the Republic.
It provides for a tripartite government, with the executive lodged in the President who had a 6-year term,
the legislative in a unicameral National Assembly and the judiciary in a Supreme Court, CFI’s, and Justice of
Peace Courts.
Amendments:
1940 1947 1967
a) Provided a bicameral Congress Included Parity Rights Agreement Provided the amendment
b) a term of 4 years for the which stated that Congress acting as of the Constitution by a
President with re-election, constituent body, needed ¾ vote to Convention
c) establishment of Commission propose an amendment to the
on Elections Constitution

 At any rate, on 23 April 1946, the election of the first officials of the Philippine Republic was held, and on 4
July 1946, the Republic was inaugurated and the Philippines became "politically" independent of the US.
 Theoretically, to an extent that sovereignty is never granted to a people but is earned by them as they assert
their will, then it is a misnomer to say that 4 July 1946 was the day US granted independence to the
Philippines. More appropriately, it was the day when the US withdrew its sovereignty over the Philippines,
thus giving the Filipino people an occasion to assert their own independence.
 The third time the Constitution was amended was in 1967. A Resolution of both houses provided for (a) the
amendment of the Constitution by a Convention, (b) the increase of seats in the House of Representatives to
make the Concon sufficiently representative, and (c) allowing members of the House as delegates without
forfeiting their seats. The first was approved, the second and third were rejected. This became the subject
matter of Gonzales v COMELEC.

Bell Trade Act (Vera vs. Avelino)

 passed by the US Congress on 30 April 1946, one week after the election
 would grant Philippine prime exports entry to the US free of customs duties from 1946 to 1954, and a
gradual increase in duties from 1954 to 1974 (Laurel-Langley agreement), provided that the Philippines
would grant US citizens and corporations the same privileges, and in addition, the right to explore natural
resources of the Philippines in parity with the Filipinos, and to operate public utilities.
 This must be accepted by Congress, embodied in an Executive Agreement, and reflected as an amendment in
the Constitution.
The Senate approval of this bill gave rise to the case of Vera vs. Avelino.
 The Senate then had 11 Nacionalistas and 13 Liberals.
 Three Nacionalista Senators-elect (Vera, Diokno and Romero), known to be against the Bell Trade Act,
were prevented by the rest of the Senate, in what is known as "exclusion proceedings," on grounds that
their elections were marred with fraud.
 The political motivation was clear but the SC was conned into lifting the injunction it issued for the
withholding of the suspension, because of the unfulfilled promise that the Senate would not carry out
the suspension.
  With the balance of power offset, the Bell Trade Act was passed. Subsequently, the SC had to dismiss
the petition on the ground that the principle of separation of powers, it could not order a co-equal
branch to reinstate a member.
 The Senate authorized President Roxas to enter into an Executive Agreement, which he did on 3 July
1946, the eve of the declaration of Philippine Independence
Parity Rights Agreement (Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito (1947)
 Then came the second amendment of the Constitution in order to include the Parity Rights Agreement,
which gave rise to the case of Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito (1947).
 Under the Amendatory Provisions of the 1935 Constitution, Congress, acting as constituent body,
needed 3/4 vote to propose an amendment to the Constitution.
 But with the three Senators still suspended, only the 21 remaining were used as the basis for computing
the 3/4 requirement. When this was raised in court, it begged off from ruling on the ground that it was a
political question.
 It also used the Enrolled Bill Theory.
 So with the amendment proposed, it was subsequently ratified on 5 March 1947.

Election of delegates to the Concon took place on 10 November 1970. Then the ConCon met on 1 June 1971. Before
it finished its work, it came up with a resolution calling for an amendment to the 1935 Constitution reducing the
voting age from 21 to 18, so that a wider base could vote in the ratification of the Constitution then being drafted. A
plebiscite was set by the COMELEC for 8 November 1971 but this was enjoined by the SC in the case of Tolentino v
COMELEC, the court ruling that a piece-meal amendment was not allowed by the 1935 Constitution since it provided
that the amendments were to be ratified at "an election" which meant only one election. The Court upheld its
jurisdiction over the ConCon by arguing that since the Concon derived its power from the Constitution, it was thus
limited by the Constitution.

But it was subsequently overtaken by Martial Law. On 30 November 1972, the Convention submitted its "draft" to
the President, who called on a plebiscite to ratify the Constitution. This was questioned in the case of Planas v
COMELEC, on the ground that there can be no freedom of expression under Martial Law. But the case was rendered
moot and academic when the President cancelled the plebiscite and instead held a citizens' assembly on 10 to 15
January, 1973. On 17 January 1973, the President came up with a proclamation that the Constitution had come to
full force and effect after its overwhelming ratification by the people in a viva voce vote.

1973 Constitution (Javellana vs. Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA 30 (1973)

 This was ratified by the citizens’ assembly (January 10-15, 1973 which was called by Pres. Marcos during the
Martial Law. After the ratification, Proclamation No. 1102 on 17 January 1973, certified and proclaimed that
the Constitution proposed by the Constitutional Convention of 1971 had been ratified by the Filipino people
and thereby come into effect.
 The validity of the ratification process was questioned in the case of Javellana vs. Executive Secretary, 50
SCRA 30 (1973) but the failure of the SC to come up with the necessary votes to declare the act as
unconstitutional forced it into the conclusion that "there are no further obstacles to considering the
constitution in force and effect."

Amendments:
1976 1980 1980 1984
Gave the President legislative powers even Raised the Changed the form of Provided for a Vice
if the Interim Batasang Pambansa was retirement of government from President.
already operating. justices from 65 to Parliamentary to
70. Presidential.

1986 Freedom Constitution (Lawyers League vs. Aquino; In Re: Saturnino Bermudez)
 The start of the end of the Marcos years, of course, could be treated as early as 21 August 1983. But its
immediate precursor was the Snap Election which the President was forced to call and set on 7 February
1986 to respond to the clamor for popular mandate.
 The validity of the "Snap Election Law" called by the Batasang Pambansa was raised in the case of Philippine
Bar Association v COMELEC. The issue was raised because of the conditional letter of resignation sent by Mr.
 Marcos to the Batasan, making his resignation effective only upon (i) the holding of a Presidential election,
(ii) the proclamation of a winner, (iii) the assumption into office by the winning candidate. It was contended
that a conditional resignation was not allowed under the 1973 Constitution, for it did not create a vacancy,
and without a vacancy, there was no reason to call for an election. But the SC failed to issue a preliminary
injunction to enjoin the COMELEC from preparing for the election, thus making "the initially legal question
into a political one." In the meantime, the political parties have started campaigning and the people were so
involved in the election that to stop it on legal grounds would frustrate their very will. And so, failing to come
up with the majority to hold the Snap Election Law unconstitutional, the SC could not issue the injunction
prayed for. The election went ahead.
 The rest is history. The results of the election were proclaimed by the Batasan, naming Marcos and Tolentino
as the winners. But the February 2 to 25, 1986, EDSA revolution took place. On 25 February, Marcos was
proclaimed in Malacanang by Makasiar, while Aquino was proclaimed in Club Filipino by Teehankee. Later
that evening, Marcos fled to Hawaii.

Proclamation of the Freedom Constitution.

 Proclamation No. 1 – February 25, 1986 (Provisional Government)
o announced the assumption of power of Aquino and Laurel
 Proclamation No. 3 – March 25, 1986 (Provisional Constitution)
o announced the promulgation of the Provisional (Freedom) Constitution, pending the drafting and
ratification of a new Constitution
o abrogated the legislative provisions of the 1973 Constitution, modified the provision regarding the
executive department, and totally reorganized the government
o adopted certain provisions in the 1973 Constitution, contained additional articles on the executive
department, on government reorganization, and on existing laws
o provided for the calling of a Constitution Commission composed of 30 to 50 members appointed by
the President within 60 days
o The President appointed 48 Commissioners, who worked on the Constitution from 1 June to 15
October 1986. The draft was submitted to the people in a referendum on 2 February 1987. On 11
February 1987, the President, through Proclamation No. 58, announced its overwhelming ratification
by the people and that, therefore, it had come into force and effect.

 The Aquino government was not an offshoot of the 1973 Constitution for under that Constitution, a
procedure was given for the election of the President --- proclamation by the Batasan --- and the candidate
Batasan proclaimed was Marcos.
 This view was affirmed in Lawyers League vs. Aquino where the legitimacy of the Aquino government is
questioned on the ground that it was not established pursuant to the 1973 Constitution. The SC ruled that
petitioners had no personality to sue and their petition states no cause of action. "For the legitimacy of the
Aquino government is not a justiciable matter. It belongs to the realm of politics where only the people of
the Philippines are the judge. And the people have made the judgment; they have accepted the government
of President Aquino which is in effective control of the entire country so that it is not merely a de facto
government but in fact and law a de jure government. Moreover, the community of nations has recognized
the legitimacy of the present government. All the eleven members of this Court as reorganized, have sworn
to uphold the fundamental law of the Republic under her government."
 The Aquino government was a result of a "direct state action." It was not as if a small group revolted and
succeeded in wresting power in the end. Rather, the entire state revolted and overthrew the government,
so that right from the beginning, the installation was already lawful and the government was at all times de
jure.
 In this regard, it must be noted that there is no such thing as a constitutional right of revolution. A
revolution, from the point of view of a State, is always lawful since a State can never go wrong; it can change
its government in whatever way the sovereign sees fit. But this right of revolution, inherent in sovereignty,
cannot be recognized in a Constitution, for this would be self-destructive. The nature of a Constitution is to
set-up a government and provide for an orderly way to change this government. A revolution contradicts
this nature.
 In the case of In Re: Saturnino Bermudez , the SC held, quoting the previous case of Lawyers League v
Aquino, that: [T]he legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter. It belongs to the realm of
politics where only the people of the Philippines are the judge. And the people have made the judgment;
 they have accepted the government of President Aquino which is in effective control of the entire country so
that it is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a de jure government. Moreover, the
community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the present government. All the eleven members of
this Court as reorganized, have sworn to uphold the fundamental law of the Republic under her government.

1987 Constitution (De Leon vs. Esguerra)

 1987 Constitution, Art. XVIII, sec. 27 provides that: This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its
ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the purpose and shall supersede the all
previous Constitutions.
 Proclamation No. 58 (Proclaiming the Ratification of the 1987 Constitution).
 The 1987 Constitution took effect on February 2, 1987 and not on February 11, 1987, the date of the
Proclamation issued by the President.
 This was affirmed by the Supreme Court in De Leon vs. Esguerra citing the intent of the framers of the
Constitution that its effectivity will be on the date of ratification.

Treaty of Paris Spain - the civil and The US

April 11, 1899 relinquished its political status Constitution did
sovereignty over of all not apply to the
the Philippines inhabitants of Philippines
Islands, and with the islands unless the US
this, were to be Congress
determined by expressly
All laws of the US enacted its
political nature Congress. provisions.
were
automatically
abrogated.
McKinley’s It extended to the “divided civil and military The judiciary was subsequently
Instructions Philippines all the government” with the established with a Supreme Court,
April 7, 1900 rights in the Bill existing MILITARY Courts of First Instance, and Justice
of Rights of the governor as the Executive of Peace Courts
US Federal and a Philippine
Constitution Commission as the
Legislative.
Spooner a fully civil government under the US Congress
Amendment
July 4, 1901
Philippine Bill of It defined for the first time who are the The Governor-General retained all executive power
1902 citizens of the Philippines. They were
all the inhabitants of the Philippine Philippine lower house called the Philippines
islands who were subjects of Spain as Commission was Assembly, composed entirely of Filipinos
of April 11, 1989, who continued to the upper house
reside therein, and all the children
subsequent thereto.
Jones Law A tripartite government
Executive Legislature was judiciary
power was composed of the
in the hands Senate and the House
of an of Representatives, all
American composed of Filipinos.
Governor-
General
Tydings- - calling of Constitutional Convention to draft our Constitution
McDuffie Law - Complete independence was to take place ten (10) years after its effectivity.

1935 - withdrawal of US sovereignty, of the Republic.

Constitution - a tripartite government, with the executive lodged in the President who had a 6-year term, the legislative and the judiciary
1973 - This was ratified by the citizens’ assembly which was called by Pres. Marcos during the Martial Law.
Constitution - Proclamation No. 1102 on 17 January 1973, certified and proclaimed that the Constitution had been ratified by the
Filipino people and thereby come into effect.
1986 - Proclamation No. 1 – February 25, 1986 (Provisional Government) Announced the assumption of power of Aquino and
Provisional Laurel
Constitution - The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter - Lawyers League v Aquino
- Proclamation No. 3 – March 25, 1986 (Provisional Constitution), announced the promulgation of the Provisional
(Freedom) Constitution, pending the drafting and ratification of a new ConstitutionIt provided for the calling of a
Constitution Commission composed of 30 to 50 members appointed by the President within 60 days.
 1987 - February 2, 1987 - Plebiscite held for the present constitution
Constitution - Proclamation No. 58 – February 11, 1987 - proclaiming the ratification of the Constitution
- “1987 Constitution took effect on February 2, 1987, the date of its ratification in the plebiscite held on that same date.”
DE LEON vs. ESGUERRA G.R. No. 78059 August 31, 1987

SUMMARY

C. The Power of Judicial Review

1. Judicial review
 The power of judicial review is the power of the courts to test the validity of executive and legislative acts for
their conformity with the Constitution. Through such power, the judiciary enforces and upholds the
supremacy of the Constitution. 
 For a court to exercise this power, certain requirements must first be met, namely:
(1) an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power;
(2) the person challenging the act must have "standing" to challenge; he must have a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of
its enforcement;
(3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and
(4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.

Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139

 In Angara vs. Electoral Commission, Justice Laurel pointed out that “judicial Review” is the “moderating
power” to “determine the proper allocation of powers” of the different branches of government and “to
direct the course of government along constitutional channels” is inherent in all courts as a necessary
consequence of the judicial power itself, which is the “power of the court to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.
 In justifying the power of judicial review, J. Laurel pointed out in Angara vs. Electoral Commission that when
the court allocated constitutional boundaries, it neither asserts supremacy, nor annuls the acts of the
legislature. It simply carries out the obligations imposed upon it by the constitution to determine conflicting
claims and to establish for the parties the rights which the constitution grants to them.

Aquino v. Enrile, 59 SCRA 183

Bondoc v. Pineda, 201 SCRA 792

2. Who may exercise the power?

Sec. 4(2), Art. VIII

Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 148 SCRA 659

 In Ynot v IAC, the SC reversed the RTC's holding that it had no authority to rule on the validity of EO 626-A,
banning the transporting of carabaos from one province to another. The Court pointed out, that since it has
jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm final judgments of lower courts in constitutional
cases, then the lower courts can pass upon the validity of a statute in the first instance. The SC then struck
down the law for being arbitrary and for unduly delegating legislative power.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals, 195 SCRA 444

Ongsuco v. Malones, 604 SCRA 499 (2009)

3. Functions of Judicial Review

1. Checking - invalidating a law or an executive act that is found to be contrary to the Constitution.
2. Legitimating (legitimizing) - upholding the validity of the law which results from a mere dismissal of a case
challenging the validity of that law.
 3. Symbolic - to educate the bench and bar as to the controlling principles and concepts on matters of great
public importance. The Symbolic Function of Supreme Court is to Give Guidelines to Bench and Bar in Cases
which are Moot and Academic.

Salonga v. Pano, 134 SCRA 438

 In Salonga vs. Cruz-Pano, the case against petitioner for subversion which was filed by the fiscal on the basis
of flimsy testimony given by Victor Lovely was already dismissed without prejudice by the fiscal (upon
anticipation of adverse ruling). And yet, the SC noting that as the fiscal said the dismissal of the charges was
without prejudice to the filing of new ones for the same acts because the petitioner has not been arraigned
and double jeopardy does not apply, the case is not entirely moot, decided to perform its duty to "formulate
guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts and doctrines or rules" for the guidance of the bar
and bench. It thus, went on to lecture about its antiquated understanding of the inciting test, and how it
could not be proved by a mere photograph.
Mitra vs Comelec, 104 SCRA 58 (1981)

Javier v. Comelec, 144 SCRA 194 (1988)

 In Javier vs. COMELEC, the case was already mooted not only by the death of Evelio Javier, but also by the
abolition of Batasan, the Antique seat which he and Pacificador were contesting for. And yet the SC, claiming
to be "not only the highest arbiter of legal questions but also the conscience of the government," decided
the case anyway "for the guidance of and as a restraint upon the future. The citizen comes to us in quest of
law but we must also give him justice. The 2 are not always the same. There are times when we cannot
grant the latter because the issue has been settled and the decision is no longer possible according to the
law. But there are also times when although the dispute has disappeared, as in this case, it nevertheless
cries out to be resolved. Justice demands that we act then, not only for the vindication of the outraged
right, though gone, but also for the guidance of and as a restraint upon the future."

4. Requisites of Judicial Review

a. Actual Case or Controversy

 Actual Case: The power of judicial review is limited to actual cases or controversies. Courts decline to issue
advisory opinions or to resolve hypothetical or feigned problems, or mere academic questions. The
limitation of the power of judicial review to actual cases and controversies defines the role assigned to the
judiciary in a tripartite allocation of power, to assure that the courts will not intrude into areas committed to
the other branches of government. (Province of North Cotabato vs. GRP, 589 Phil. 387 (2008).

An actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims,
susceptible of judicial resolution as distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute.  There
must be a contrast of legal rights that can be interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing law and
jurisprudence. The Court can decide the constitutionality of an act, either by the Executive or Legislative,
only when an actual case between opposing parties is submitted for judicial determination. (Philconsa vs.
GPH, November 29, 2016)

There is an actual case or controversy in the case at bar because there is a contrariety of legal rights that can
be interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence. Respondents stand for the
prospective application of the grant of GCTA, TASTM, and STAL while petitioners and intervenors view that
such provision violates the Constitution and Article 22 of the RPC. The legal issue posed is ripe for
adjudication as the challenged regulation has a direct adverse effect on petitioners and those detained and
convicted prisoners who are similarly situated. There exists an immediate and/or threatened injury and they
have sustained or are immediately in danger of sustaining direct injury as a result of the act complained of.
In fact, while the case is pending, petitioners are languishing in jail. If their assertion proved to be true, their
illegal confinement or detention in the meantime is oppressive. With the prisoners' continued incarceration,
any delay in resolving the case would cause them great prejudice. Justice demands that they be released
soonest, if not on time.