In the context of Political Law and Public International Law in the Philippines, particularly under the subject of Constitutional Commissions, the Judicial Review of Final Orders, Resolutions, and Decisions refers to the judicial power of courts, specifically the Supreme Court, to review decisions made by these Constitutional Commissions.

Overview of Constitutional Commissions in the Philippines

The Constitutional Commissions in the Philippines are independent bodies created by the Constitution itself. These include:

Civil Service Commission (CSC)
Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
Commission on Audit (COA)

These commissions are intended to operate independently from other branches of government, ensuring a system of checks and balances. Their decisions, orders, and resolutions carry significant weight as they pertain to critical aspects of governance, such as civil service matters, electoral issues, and government auditing.

Judicial Review of Constitutional Commissions

While the Constitutional Commissions are independent, they are not immune from judicial scrutiny. The 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that final orders, resolutions, and decisions of these commissions can be subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court.

1. Nature of Judicial Review

Judicial review is a mechanism through which the judiciary ensures that the other branches of government or independent bodies do not exceed their powers or violate the Constitution. The judicial review of decisions by Constitutional Commissions is specifically grounded in the Constitution under Article IX-A, Section 7, which states:

“Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its Members any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof."

2. Certiorari as the Mode of Judicial Review

Certiorari is the legal procedure by which a higher court (in this case, the Supreme Court) reviews the decisions of a lower court or body (the Constitutional Commissions).
Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, certiorari is employed when it is alleged that the lower body acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
In the case of Constitutional Commissions, decisions can be questioned before the Supreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari, which challenges the commission’s jurisdiction or claims that the commission committed grave abuse of discretion.

3. Grounds for Judicial Review

The Supreme Court will entertain a petition for judicial review only when it is demonstrated that:

Grave abuse of discretion was committed by the Constitutional Commission. This occurs when the commission’s decisions are so arbitrary or capricious that it acted outside the bounds of law or reason.
The commission acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction. If the commission decides on matters outside the scope of its authority, its decision can be challenged.

4. Finality of the Constitutional Commissions' Decisions

Decisions of Constitutional Commissions are final and executory, unless reversed by the Supreme Court upon judicial review. This underscores the importance of these commissions' independence and authority. However, such finality is not absolute, as they are subject to review when errors are committed or constitutional provisions are violated.

5. Examples of Judicial Review

The judicial review of decisions made by Constitutional Commissions has been extensively exercised in Philippine jurisprudence, particularly in:

COMELEC decisions on election contests, disqualifications, and other electoral matters. An aggrieved candidate or party can elevate these to the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari.
COA decisions on government auditing matters, where government agencies or officials can challenge COA rulings on issues such as disallowed or disapproved transactions.
CSC decisions affecting civil servants, where decisions on employment, promotion, or dismissal can be subject to Supreme Court review if alleged to have been made with grave abuse of discretion.

6. Time Frame for Filing a Petition for Certiorari

As provided under Article IX-A, Section 7 of the Constitution, a petition for certiorari must be filed within thirty (30) days from receipt of the final order, resolution, or decision of the Constitutional Commission.

Limitations of Judicial Review

While the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, it does not automatically act as a trier of facts. Judicial review of decisions from Constitutional Commissions is typically confined to questions of law, particularly whether the commission acted within its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Factual findings by the commissions, when supported by substantial evidence, are generally respected by the Supreme Court.

The Role of the Supreme Court in Safeguarding Constitutional Principles

The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in ensuring that the actions of Constitutional Commissions adhere to constitutional mandates. By exercising its power of judicial review, the Court provides a remedy to individuals and entities who feel aggrieved by decisions of these independent bodies. This preserves the constitutional order, ensuring that no entity, even those established by the Constitution itself, acts beyond its powers.

Key Points Summary

Constitutional Commissions (CSC, COMELEC, COA) are independent bodies whose decisions are final and executory, but still subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court.
The Constitution, particularly Article IX-A, Section 7, allows an aggrieved party to file a petition for certiorari within 30 days from receipt of a final decision, alleging grave abuse of discretion or jurisdictional errors.
Certiorari is the legal remedy for questioning the decisions of Constitutional Commissions, governed by Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
The Supreme Court generally respects factual findings of the commissions but intervenes when there are questions of law, abuse of discretion, or jurisdictional overreach.

This mechanism ensures that the Constitutional Commissions remain accountable to the rule of law while maintaining their functional independence.