POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

XI. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

B. Judicial Review

Judicial review is the power of the courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative acts, executive orders, or administrative regulations, and to strike them down if they are found to be in violation of the Constitution. In the Philippines, the power of judicial review is an essential feature of constitutional law, allowing courts, especially the Supreme Court, to safeguard the supremacy of the Constitution. It is derived from the principle of checks and balances within the framework of separation of powers.

1. Constitutional Basis

The power of judicial review in the Philippines is implied in several provisions of the 1987 Constitution:

Article VIII, Section 1: Vests judicial power in the Supreme Court and such lower courts as may be established by law. 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."

This provision expands the traditional scope of judicial review by allowing courts to address not only issues of legality but also whether government actions involve "grave abuse of discretion."

2. Scope of Judicial Review

Judicial review covers both constitutional and legal issues. It allows courts to assess:

The constitutionality of laws, treaties, executive orders, presidential decrees, proclamations, rules and regulations.
The legality of administrative actions.
Compliance with constitutional mandates by the legislative and executive branches.
The exercise of "grave abuse of discretion" by any branch or instrumentality of the government.

Judicial review is not limited to laws passed by Congress but extends to:

Presidential acts (executive orders, proclamations, administrative orders).
Decisions of administrative agencies (subject to appeal via certiorari).
Acts of local governments and other political subdivisions.

3. Limitations on the Power of Judicial Review

Although the courts possess broad powers of judicial review, it is subject to certain limitations:

A. Political Question Doctrine

Courts refrain from deciding matters that are classified as "political questions" — issues that are fundamentally political in nature and not for judicial determination. These typically involve discretion by the political branches of government, particularly in matters of policy or diplomacy.
The scope of this doctrine has been narrowed in the 1987 Constitution by allowing judicial review in cases of "grave abuse of discretion" even in political acts, as provided in Article VIII, Section 1. For example, decisions on martial law or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus may now be reviewed for grave abuse of discretion.

B. Requisites of Judicial Review

Judicial review can only be exercised when specific requisites are present:

Actual Case or Controversy: There must be an actual case or controversy involving rights that are legally demandable and enforceable. Courts cannot issue advisory opinions.
Locus Standi (Legal Standing): The person invoking judicial review must have a direct and personal interest in the case. In some instances, courts relax this requirement in matters of public concern (e.g., taxpayer suits or cases involving environmental rights).
Mootness: Courts do not decide cases that have become moot, unless the issue is capable of repetition yet evading review, or the case involves a matter of public interest that requires resolution.
Ripeness: Courts will not entertain premature cases where the harm being complained of is speculative or hypothetical.

C. Hierarchy of Courts

The principle of hierarchy of courts requires litigants to initially seek redress from the lower courts before resorting to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is a court of last resort and exercises discretionary jurisdiction, particularly in cases of constitutional significance or those affecting the national interest.

D. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Courts generally refrain from intervening in administrative actions unless all available administrative remedies have been exhausted. This doctrine ensures that agencies with specialized expertise are given the first opportunity to address disputes arising under their jurisdiction.

E. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

This doctrine requires courts to defer to the judgment of administrative agencies in matters within the agency's expertise. It allows agencies to resolve issues first, after which judicial review may be sought.

4. Justiciable Controversies (Actual Case or Controversy)

Judicial review cannot be invoked without an actual case or controversy involving opposing legal rights that are ripe for adjudication. This prevents courts from entertaining hypothetical issues or issuing advisory opinions.

The controversy must involve legally demandable and enforceable rights. For example, challenges to statutes, presidential proclamations, or administrative orders must involve claims that specific provisions violate constitutional rights.

5. Grave Abuse of Discretion

The 1987 Constitution has expanded judicial review by mandating courts to rule on matters involving "grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction" on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. Grave abuse of discretion refers to arbitrary or despotic exercise of power beyond the bounds of reason.

Examples:
- The Supreme Court invalidating laws that violate constitutional rights, such as those infringing on the right to due process or equal protection.
- Reviewing acts of the Executive during emergency situations like martial law or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus to ensure they are not arbitrary or despotic.
- Administrative actions being invalidated when found to be issued with "grave abuse of discretion."

6. Supreme Court’s Expanded Power of Judicial Review (Article VIII, Section 1)

One of the most significant features of the 1987 Constitution is the expanded power of the Supreme Court to review government actions that involve "grave abuse of discretion." This provision is meant to prevent abuse of power and ensure that no branch or agency of the government is beyond judicial scrutiny.

Grave Abuse of Discretion has been defined in numerous cases as "whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction." In the landmark case of Angara v. Electoral Commission, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of judicial review in maintaining the balance of power between the branches of government.

This expanded review can be seen in cases like Marcos v. Manglapus, where the Supreme Court reviewed the President’s actions in barring the return of a former president based on national security concerns, ultimately finding no grave abuse of discretion.

7. Judicial Review of Treaties and International Agreements

Under the 1987 Constitution, Article VII, Section 21, no treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate. This constitutional requirement subjects treaties and international agreements to judicial review for compliance with constitutional procedures and protections.

Judicial Review of International Law: Courts may review whether an international treaty or agreement violates the Constitution or existing laws. For example, in Bayan Muna v. Romulo, the Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), which involved questions of sovereignty and constitutionality.

8. Judicial Review as a Safeguard of Rights

Judicial review plays a critical role in the protection of constitutional rights. Through its power to interpret the Constitution, the Supreme Court ensures that any governmental action—whether executive, legislative, or administrative—that violates constitutional rights is subject to invalidation.

This protective role is seen in cases involving civil liberties, due process, freedom of expression, equal protection, and protection from arbitrary actions of the state.
Notably, the Writ of Amparo and the Writ of Habeas Data were judicial innovations introduced by the Supreme Court to protect citizens from extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and violations of privacy rights.

9. Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint

The power of judicial review is accompanied by debates over judicial activism and judicial restraint. Judicial activism refers to a more proactive role by the judiciary in striking down unconstitutional actions and enforcing constitutional rights. Judicial restraint, on the other hand, encourages the courts to defer to the actions of the political branches of government unless there is a clear and unquestionable violation of the Constitution.

Landmark Cases: The Philippine Supreme Court has exercised both judicial activism (e.g., nullifying parts of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020) and judicial restraint (e.g., refusing to intervene in issues seen as purely political or discretionary).

10. Key Doctrines in Judicial Review

Doctrine of Separation of Powers: Courts ensure that one branch does not encroach on the powers of another.
Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all laws and government actions must conform to it.
Doctrine of Stare Decisis: Courts should follow precedent, especially on constitutional matters, to maintain consistency and stability in the law.

Conclusion

Judicial review in the Philippines is a vital mechanism for maintaining constitutional supremacy and protecting the rights of citizens. The courts, especially the Supreme Court, play a key role in checking the powers of the legislature, executive, and administrative agencies, ensuring that all government actions conform to the Constitution. With the expanded power under the 1987 Constitution, judicial review ensures that no government act is beyond judicial scrutiny, particularly in cases of grave abuse of discretion.