Concept of Judicial Power | JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW > JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT > A. Concept of Judicial Power

I. Definition of Judicial Power

Judicial power is the authority vested in the judiciary by the Constitution to interpret and apply laws, settle justiciable controversies, and ensure the observance of the rule of law within its jurisdiction. The 1987 Philippine Constitution expressly defines judicial power in Article VIII, Section 1, which provides:

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

Moreover, Section 1(2) further elaborates that:

"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."

The dual aspect of judicial power is:

1. Traditional Adjudicatory Power – Settling actual controversies involving rights that are legally demandable and enforceable.
2. Expanded Power of Judicial Review – The duty to check and determine whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any governmental agency, including the executive and legislative branches.

II. Components of Judicial Power

1. Traditional Adjudicatory Power

The courts have the authority to:

• Settle actual disputes by determining rights and liabilities of parties involved.
• Apply existing laws to cases brought before them.
• Protect the rights of individuals and groups under the law, ensuring the rule of law prevails in society.

In the exercise of this power, courts must determine whether the issues presented involve justiciable controversies. A controversy is justiciable if it is definite, concrete, and involves legally demandable rights, and not merely abstract or hypothetical.

The courts cannot render advisory opinions or decide political questions (before the expanded scope of judicial review) unless there is an actual case or controversy. This ensures that the courts do not overstep their bounds and interfere with matters that are not within their constitutional mandate.

2. Expanded Power of Judicial Review (Grave Abuse of Discretion)

The 1987 Constitution expanded the scope of judicial power to allow courts to review and annul acts of any branch or instrumentality of the government, including the executive and legislative branches, where there is grave abuse of discretion.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion means capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The abuse must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law.

• Political Questions Doctrine – Prior to the 1987 Constitution, courts generally refrained from reviewing actions involving political questions, which are issues entrusted by the Constitution to the discretion of the executive or legislative branches. However, with the expanded power, courts now have the authority to review actions previously deemed political if there is grave abuse of discretion involved.

III. Limits of Judicial Power

Despite the broad definition, judicial power is subject to certain limitations:

1. Constitutional and Statutory Limits – The judiciary can only act within the bounds provided by the Constitution and law. Courts cannot exercise power beyond what is conferred by law.

2. Jurisdictional Limits – Courts must act within their specific jurisdiction as defined by law. Any ruling made beyond its jurisdiction would be null and void.

3. Doctrine of Separation of Powers – While judicial power allows for checks and balances, it must respect the separate and co-equal branches of government. It must not unduly interfere with the executive and legislative branches unless grave abuse of discretion is proven.

4. Doctrine of Judicial Restraint – Courts typically refrain from deciding matters not ripe for judicial determination or where the parties lack standing. They also avoid intruding into areas exclusively delegated to the other branches unless necessary to prevent grave abuse of discretion.

5. Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy – Courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have the final say in interpreting the Constitution and determining whether laws and executive actions are constitutional. This is anchored in the principle that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

IV. Judicial Review

Judicial review is the power of the courts to assess the constitutionality of legislative acts, executive orders, and other governmental actions. Judicial review arises when a question is brought before a court regarding the validity of an act by the legislative or executive branches.

Requisites for Judicial Review:

1. Actual Case or Controversy – There must be an actual, bona fide dispute involving real parties.

2. Legal Standing (Locus Standi) – The party bringing the suit must have a direct and personal interest in the case, and must stand to suffer injury as a result of the challenged action.

3. Mootness and Ripeness – The issue must be ripe for adjudication and not moot. A case is considered ripe if it has developed into an actual legal dispute. A case is moot if it ceases to be a live controversy due to intervening events.

4. Hierarchy of Courts – Judicial review should follow the proper judicial hierarchy, with higher courts acting as courts of last resort.

Doctrine of Judicial Review:

• The exercise of judicial review assumes a presumption of constitutionality for laws and executive actions. Courts will only nullify a law if it is clearly unconstitutional, and the unconstitutionality must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

The Power of Judicial Review in the Philippines includes the ability to:

• Declare laws unconstitutional.
• Invalidate executive actions that exceed the powers granted by law.
• Protect citizens from government overreach and uphold the Bill of Rights.
• Ensure that all governmental actions conform to the fundamental law of the land.

V. Importance of Judicial Independence

Judicial independence is the cornerstone of judicial power. The judiciary must be free from influence or interference from the executive or legislative branches to function impartially and uphold the rule of law. The Constitution guarantees this by providing for:

• Security of tenure for justices and judges, who can only be removed by impeachment.
• Fiscal autonomy, allowing the judiciary to manage its own budget without interference from other branches.
• Immunity from suits for acts done in the exercise of their judicial functions.

VI. Conclusion

Judicial power, as vested in the judiciary, plays a crucial role in the balance of governmental powers. Through its power to interpret laws and to review the constitutionality of actions by other branches of government, the judiciary serves as the protector of constitutional rights and the rule of law. The expanded power of judicial review grants the courts a more active role in maintaining constitutional supremacy and preventing abuses of power, particularly through the application of the grave abuse of discretion standard. This role is vital to the preservation of democracy and the protection of individual freedoms under the law in the Philippines.