1- Judicial Review-Unconstitutionality

Judicial Power- power of the courts to settle disputes or actual controversies

Judicial Activism- before 1897: merely to interpret the law; deciding a case or interpreting a law
difffferent from what is

expected

Judicial Review / Inquiry- 1987 onwards: power of the courts not just to interpret laws but also to
test the validity and

constitutionality of governmental acts; the constitution confers limited powers on the national
government and if they

overstep there must be some authority competent to hold it in control, to thwart its
unconstitutional attempt and

vindicate and preserve inviolate the will of the people as expressed in the Constitution

procedural requisites- prevent intruding into the prerogative of co-equal branches; absence
thereof means no

justifification for SC to take cognizance as court will not have any authority to inquire; before
deciding on merits

actual case which is ripe for adjudication- involves a conflflict of rights which are legally
demandable

and enforceable, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial determination;

cannot be

merely advice

premature- conflflict/controversy not present at the time of petition; hypothetical, giving

advisory opinion

PACU v Secretary of Education- wouldn’t be accredited but didn’t even apply

moot- conflflict does not continue until the end

Pormento v Estrada- 6 year term; Estrada didn’t win; case pending after election;

dismissed

may set aside procedural requisites and decide cases otherwise moot and academic

grave violation of the Constitution

transcendental importance

David v Arroyo- Pres declared state of national emergency; Arroyo lifted while

case was pending; not dismissed because transcendental importance

controlling principle to guide the bench, the bar and at the public

capable of repetition yet evading review

GR: only justiciable questions (legality, constitutionality) can be subject to inquiry (political

question- questions of policy, wisdom not legality of the act)

EXC: political question to be answered by the people who in their sovereign capacity elected

members of Congress and delegated the exercise of the power either by the President

(discretion in enforcing the laws) or by Congress; one the resolution od which is vested by the

Constitution exclusively in either the people, in their sovereign capacity, or in which

full discretionary authority has been delegated to a co-equal branch of government

EX. suspension of the writ of HC and proclamation of Martial Law no longer

considered political questions

Ocampo v Enriquez- Marcos burial case; no law but guidelines providing qualififications

to be buried in the Libingan ng mag Bayani, president simply enforced the law after

determining eligibility; questions as to propriety is for the president to answer to the

people not to the court; no grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of

jurisdiction thus beyond jurisdiction of the courts

legal standing / locus standi

direct injury principle- personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained

or will sustain direct injury as a result; actual or imminent danger of public rights or public

interests being affffected; pertains to legal standing in order to pursue questions of

constitutionality

EXC

concerned citizen’s suit

showing that the issues raised are of transcendental importance which must

be settled early and requires injury, causation, and redressability

locus standi (personal and substantial interest) to pursue questions of

constitutionality; allows those who are not real parties in interest to fifile cases

on behalf of those who are

EX. validity of declaration of martial law and suspension of habeas corpus

any ordinary citizen can question even if not aggrieved

EX. validity of the ratifification of the Constitution; whether amendment or

revision

Resident Marine Mammals v Secretary of the Department of Energy- rules of

procedure for environmental cases allow fifiling of citizen’s suit for theenforcement of
environmental law on behalf of minors or generations yet

unborn

Oposa v Factoran- intergenerational responsibility of the government to

maintain a balanced and healthful ecology; for enforcement of environmental

laws for the next generation and generations yet unborn

taxpayer’s suit

question propriety / claim of illegal disbursement- anomalous disbursement of

public funds leading to misappropriation or misapplication of public funds; all

funds in all branches even if discretionary

tax measure is unconstitutional- exorbitant collection / imposition

voter’s suit

showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question

legislator’s suit

impairs prerogative or prejudices the exercise of of legislative functions

Drilon v Ermita- Drilon as Senate Pres questioned EO 464 extends the

executive privilege of the president to Cabinet members thus needing to seek

approval of president before submitting to legislative inquiry; impairs

prerogative to conduct legislative inquiry; proper party because intrudes into

the prerogative of a co-equal branch

Akbayan v Aquino- sought to learn the details of treaty negotiations; Aquino

refused to disclose; alleged it impaired their power to conduct legislative

inquiry; SC said treaty negotiations confifidential unless agreement concurred

otherwise covered by the executive privilege of the president; unless they

concur; not member of HR thus not a proper party

government

not in estoppel to question the validity of its own laws which it passed

People v Vera- probation law was originally subject to availability of funds for

application; can only avail of privilege if funds are available; violates equal

protection clause; government is a proper party as they must be concerned

that only valid and constitutional laws are enforced

EXC: SC in its discretion can set aside the requirement of proper party as a mere procedural

technicality

transcendental importance

flflagrant, obvious, patent violation of the Constitution

exceptional character of its inclusion and the paramount public interest is

involved
Constitutional issue raised requires for the creation of controlling principles to

guide the bench, the bar and the public

capable of repetition yet evading review

Kilosbayan v Ermita- injunction against appointment as Justice of

Sandiganbayan; no locus standi but SC proceeded due to primordial

importance involving compliance with a constitutional mandate of natural-born

citizenship to be appointed

facial challenge- operates in the area of freedom of expression; must establish that no

set of circumstances exists under which the act would be valid (not applicable to

penal statutes)

strict scrutiny

overbreadth

void-for-vagueness