Regis, Jasmin Mei C.

3-D Fundamentals of Thesis Writing (under 3-C)

Summary on the Article of Retired Associate Justice Vicente Mendoza on Judicial Review Retired Associate Justice Vicente Mendoza expounded on the nature, importance and application of judicial review in the Philippines, as well as in other countries. Judicial Review is the power of the courts to pass upon the constitutional validity of the acts of other departments of government. Many cases have thereby been elevated to the highest Courts and thus challenged the relationship between the Executive and the Judiciary, or even that of the Legislative or the instrumentalities of the government against the Judiciary. The power of Judicial Review however traces back to the American colonization and is likened to the air as such that we know it exists but we just assume its presence, and is not called upon except as needed. To date, all democracies, including the Philippines adhere to the judicial review power of the Courts. Among many reasons for adopting the system are as stated: (a) for the protection of individual rights; (b) which serves as an umpire to prevent possible conflicts in the government; (c) to guarantee the legitimacy of official action; (d) to maintain its symbolic function since it cultivates national intelligence and (e) to protect the freedom which the judicial review itself provides. Ironically, there exists a contradiction between judicial review and democracy, even if the system id adopted naturally by democratic governments. The Retired Associate Justice thereby proposed two things to reconcile the contradiction, to wit: (a) observe the case and controversy requirement of the Constitution and (b) employ a double standard in reviewing legislation. The first proposal is predicated on the importance of having a constitutional question in order to decide the case before the Courts, and is thus a constitutional requirement. Such existence of the case and controversy is a means to ameliorate the tension between the judicial review by the Judiciary and the principles of a popular government. The second proposal is the use of double standard or review for laws regarding civil liberties on one hand and that relative to social and economic experiments on the other. Thus, it suggests judicial activism relative to individual rights and self-restraint for social and economic experiment. Ultimately, the application of the case and controversy requirement and the use of double standard of review shall play an important role in determining how judicial review may enhance the values of our democracy as a nation.