CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2006

Political Question In Taada vs. Cuenco Context: The petitioner questions the act of the majority party in the Senate which elected for the vacant positions in the Senate Electoral Tribunal. The court held that the issue is a not a political question, and then recommended that the vacant positions in the SET be left unoccupied. Under Consti: what are political questions? 1. Questions to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity Eg. Elections, plebiscites, referendum, in matters of recall (Court could not intervene on the decisions of the people) but the conditions governing the conduct of these are justiciable 2. Questions regarding the full discretionary authority which has been delegated to the Legislature or the Executive Eg. Discretion to grant pardon, emergency powers Except: if there is a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction ***purpose of definition in new consti: able to stop the political question doctrine ***dont cite the C.J.S. (kasi un ung source ng citation sa case) Baker vs. Carr Context: The petitioner was a Republican who lived in Shelby Country, Tennessee, which has not been redistricted since 1901 census as supposed to be done under the Tennessee State Constitution. As a result of this, he alleges that he cannot avail of the equal protection under the laws -APPORTIONMENT CASE ...in the Philippines: Congress apportions the Tennessee state legislature that they have is no longer representative of the people (the population of the Shelby Country already grew 10x since 1901) -Re-apportionment is a justiciable question by the federal courts *the mere fact that the suit seeks the protection of a political right doesnt mean it presents a political question *arises not between Federal-State Government, but bet co-equal branches of government *the case provided for guidelines for determining what political (questions) are in nature: 1. Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department (textual) 2. A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it (Functional) 3. The impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion (Functional) 4. The impossibility of a courts undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government (Prudential) 5. an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made (prudential) 6. The potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question (prudential) *3 apPROACHES: - from Bernas (the faces and uses of the political question doctrine) 1. TEXTUAL: this is the constitution, this is what it says.. 2. FUNCTIONAL APPROACH: is the court capable of the problem posed? It was impossible for the court to decide the case because its not equipped to deal with the question no means to deal with the question (no judicially discoverable and manageable standards, cant decide without an initial policy determination) 3. PRUDENTIAL: the court is afraid (simply put) if the Court decides, it would embarrass the other co-equal branches of the government, disrespects other branches, adherence to a courtesy already made.. XXX e.g Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan

DEC.6,
there was a vacancy because they alleged that Estrada resigned from his position (Angaras Diary published in the PDI); however, Estrada alleged that he did not actually resigned but constructive resignation xxx discuss na si sir about subic rape caseclasses of rape stages of unconsciousness when a persons consent is vitiated Taada vs. Angara Context: Waiver or Estoppel -A person who has waived a constitutional right is susceptible of waiver, in a given case may not thereafter allege an invasion of his constitutional rights in the case because whatever injury he might have received has been due to his own act rather than from the statute. Philippine Scrappers, Inc. vs. Auditor General Context: CA 728 prohibits the exportation of agricultural, industrial products, merchandise, articles, materials, and supplieswithout permit of President of the Philippines. Under Sec 2 of the CA, the President promulgated EO 3 prohibiting such materials, but allowing exportation of scrap metals, provided that an export license is first obtained from Phil. Sugar Administration. EO 23 fixed the export license fee. The Chief of the Executive Office authorized Phil Sugar Administration to collect P10 per ton of metals in short, the Company already paid the fines but then questions the constitutionality of the said acts ***the court held that the petitioners were estopped from questioning the constitutionality of the act when they already benefited from it Guides for declining Constitutional issues Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority The Court would not rule on the following issues/cases: 1. Friendly/non-adversarial suits

2. 3.

not ripe for adjudication e.g. PLanas vs. COMELEC (plebiscite was suspended indefinitely so nothing to question yet) no formulation of rule of constitutional law broader than is required by facts (decide only on issues in the actual case in consideration, as alleged in the facts of the case) it might cause confusion (e.g. Peoples initiative case: the people did not see what they are agreeing to a grand deceptionbut it was not the point raised by the petitioners. The petitioners were raising the ruling of Santiago vs. COMELEC because they alleged that there was a valid law for facilitating the plebiscite) if 2 grounds for the case, the other one is a constitutional ground and the other statutory or general law, decide on the grounds of the second ground (not constitutional ground) evade to nullify an act of a co-equal branch of government no locus standi if you are not injured, you would not have the interest to see the case through estoppel, waiver the one who raised it has already availed himself of the benefits of the act questioned court first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be violated

4.

5. 6.
7.

CRITERIA for determining unconstitutionality