THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM:

POWERS, STRUCTURE, PROCESSES

Note the following provision of the 1987 Constitution:

ARTICLE VIII

Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in
such lower courts as may be established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and
to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government.

This provision expresses the essence of judicial power, as opposed to

political power: it is the power of the courts “to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable”. This provision, in
contrast to the corresponding provisions in earlier constitutions, includes the power
“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
government. This latter clause remains controversial in that there are those who
hold that this involves an expansion of the power of the courts while others hold
that this power was already inherent in judicial power even under the earlier
constitutions.

Read: Lopez v. Roxas, G.R. No. L-25716, July 28, 1966.

This brings us to the concept of the so-called “power of judicial review”. It

is the power of the Supreme Court to declare a law, treaty, international or
executive agreement, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation unconstitutional. In other words, the courts can invalidate
the acts of the other branches of government. The doctrine of judicial review holds
that the power of the courts to invalidate the acts of the other branches of
government is implied in the very nature of judicial power since the power “to
settle controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable” includes rights under the constitution.

The prevailing view is that the power of judicial review does not imply
judicial supremacy: it does not mean the Supreme Court is superior to the other
departments; it merely expresses the superiority of the Constitution.

Do the lower courts exercise the power of judicial review?

Note the following provision in the 1987 Constitution:

Article VIII

Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other

public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.

2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as

the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders
of lower courts in:

(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international
or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.

(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any
penalty imposed in relation thereto.

(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.

(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or
higher.

(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

Current jurisprudence holds that by necessary implication the clause “All

cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any . . . law . . . is in question” the
power of judicial review is vested in all courts. Besides, since judicial power is
vested in “one Supreme Court and such lower courts as may be established by
law”, and the power of judicial review being a mere facet of judicial power, then
all courts are vested with the power of judicial review.

Read:

 Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115455, August 25, 1994.

 Tañada v. Cuenco, G.R. L-105220, February 28, 1965.
 PACU v. Secretary of Education, G.R. No. L-5279, October 31, 1955;
 Tan v. Macapagal, G.R. No. L-34161 (Resolution), February 29, 1972.

Note that there are two “certioraris mentioned in Section 5 above. A quick
distinction between the two:

 “Petition for certiorari” – original jurisdiction; special civil action; governed

by Rule 65 of the Rules of Court; Issue: lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. A.k.a. “writ of
certiorari”

 “Review . . . on appeal or certiorari” – appellate jurisdiction; governed by

Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; Issue: pure question of law. (Note: in appeal
issue is fact or both law and fact.) A.k.a. “appeal by certiorari’ or “petition
for review on certiorari”.

THE JUDICIAL PROCESS

Trial and Appeal

Phases of a case:
Pleadings –> Pre-trial –> Trial (of factual issues) –> Decision on the merits (final
and appealable) –> Period of appeal –> Finality of appeal or exhaustion of
appellate remedies (final and executory) –> Execution.

Three kinds of Orders:

 Interlocutory – An order that does not resolve the case on its merits.

 Final and Appealable – An order or decision that disposes of the merits of

the case.

 Final and Executory – An order or decision that has become immutable and
is now subject to execution.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A DECISION OR ORDER OF THE SUPREME

COURT HAS BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY?

• Res judicata sets in. An identical case cannot be re-litigated.

• The judgment or order (fallo) is now immutable.

• The order or decision (fallo) becomes the “law between the parties”.

• The opinion supporting the decision (ratio decidendi) become precedence

(stare decisis). It will be binding in future analogous cases.

EFFECT IF ORDER OR DECISION BECOMES FINAL AND EXECUTORY

AT:

 MTC – “law between the parties”.

 RTC – “law between the parties”.

 CA/CTA/ Sandiganbayan as appellate courts – “law between the parties”

and “highly persuasive” on future analogous cases.
 SC – “law between the parties” and BINDING on future cases. It becomes
CASE LAW.

###