JURISDICTION REVIEWER

I. DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS1. JUDICIAL POWERA. MEANING OF JUDICIAL POWER, JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY

BELGICA V OCHOA, JR.

LEGAL REQUISITES FOR JUDICIAL INQUIRY (JUDICIAL REVIEW)

a. There must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial powerb. The person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject act or issuancec. The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunityd. The issue of constitutionality must be very lis mota of the case

A case becomes moot when there is no more actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits.

Article VIII, Section I The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversiesInvolving 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.

FRANCISCO V HOR

A political question refers to a question of policy or to issues, which under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the Government. Generally, political question are concerned which issues dependent upon the wisdom not the legality, of a particular measure.

Political questions are those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislature or Executive branch of the Government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.

The determination of truly political question from a non-justiciable political question lies in the answer to the question of whether there are constitutionality-imposed limits on powers or functions conferred upon political bodies. If there are, then our courts are duty bound to examine whether the branch or instrumentality of the government properly acted with in such limits.

Truly political questions are thus beyond judicial review, the reason for respect of the doctrine of separation of powers to be maintained. On the other hand, by virtue of Section I, Article VIII of the Constitution, Courts can review questions which are not truly political in nature.

ANGARA V ELECTORAL COMMISION

In case of conflict, the judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon the determination of proper allocation of powers between the several departments and among the integral and constituents units thereof.

The court has jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the subject matter of the present controversy for the purpose of determining the character, scope, and extent of the constitutional grant to the Electoral Commission as the sole judge of all contest relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly.

Doctrine of Supremacy of the Constitution The Constitution is the supreme law to which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private rights must be determined and all public authority administered.

TOLENTINO V COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

Courts will decide a question otherwise moot if it is capable of repetition yet evading review. The power of judicial review is limited actual cases and controversies to be exercised after full opportunity of argument by the parties and limited further to the constitutional question raised or the very lis mota presented. The judiciary does not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of legislation. The courts accord the presumption of constitutionality to legislative enactments, not only because the legislature is presumed to abide by the Constitution but also because the judiciary, in the determination of actual cases and controversies, must reflect the wisdom and justice of the people as expressed through their representatives in the executive and legislative departments of the government.

JAVELLANA V EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

The question of the validity of the 1973 Constitution is a political question which was left to the people in their sovereign capacity to answer. Their ratification of the same had shown such compliance.

The issue of the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 presents a justiciable and non-political question.

Inasmuch as it is claimed there has been approval by the people, the court may inquire into the question of whether or not there has been such approval, and, in the affirmative, the court should keep hands off out of respect to the peoples will, but, in negative, the court may determine from both factual and legal angles whether or not Article XV of 1935 Constitution been complied with.

OCAMPO V CABANGIS

B. POLITICAL QUESTION

LANSANG V GARCIA

That the finality and conclusiveness rests upon the courts.Judicial courts have authority to and should inquire into the existence of the factual basis required by the Constitution for suspension of the privilege of the writ. The President has the authority to suspend privilege of hebeas corpus but subject to Judicial Review.

VINUYA V EXECUTIVE SECRETARY A political question refers to a question of policy or to issues, which under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the Government. Generally, political question are concerned which issues dependent upon the wisdom not the legality, of a particular measure.

Political questions are those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislature or Executive branch of the Government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.

One type of political questions involves questions of foreign relations. It is well established that the conduct of the foreign relations of our government is committed by the Constitution to the Executive and Legislative, the political departments of the government, and the propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision are delicate, complex and involved large elements of prophecy. They are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil.

But not all cases implicating foreign relations present political questions and courts certainly possess the authority to construe or invalidates treaties and executive agreements. However, the question whether the Philippine government should espouse claims of its nationals against a foreign government is foreign relations matter, the authority for which is demonstrably committed by our Constitution not to the Courts but to the political branches.

MAMBA V LARA

A political question refers to a question of policy or to issues, which under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the Government. Generally, political question are concerned which issues dependent upon the wisdom not the legality, of a particular measure.

Political questions are those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislature or Executive branch of the Government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.

Even if the issues wore political in nature, it would still come within the Supreme Courts powers of review under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us by Section I, Article VIII of the Constitution, which includes the authority to determine whether grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction has been committed by any branch or instrumentality of the Government

FORTUN V MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

Although the Constitution reserves to the Supreme Court the power to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation or suspension in a proper suit, it is implicit that the Court must allow Congress to exercise its own review powers, which is automatic rather than initiated. Only when Congress defaults in its express duty to defend the Constitution through such review should the Supreme Court step in as its final rampart. The constitutional validity of the presidents proclamation of martial law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is first a political question in congress before it becomes a justiciable one in the Court.

2. COURTS AND JUDGES: DEFINITIONS A. COURT OF LAW AND COURT OF EQUITY DISTINGUISHED

TING HO, JR. ET AL V FENG GUI

An implied trust cannot be permitted to arise on equity considerations. No trust can result in favor of the party who is guilty of fraud.

Invoking the principle that a court is not only a court of law but also a court of equity is like wise misplaced. It has been held that equity as a rule will follow the law and will not permit that to be done indirectly which, because of public policy, cannot be done directly.

MULLER V MULLER SAME ISSUE WITH TING HO IMPLIED TRUST.

Invoking the principle that a court is not only a court of law but also a court of equity is like wise misplaced. It has been held that equity as a rule will follow the law and will not permit that to be done indirectly which, because of public policy, cannot be done directly. He who seeks equity must do equity, and he who comes into equity must come with clean hands.

PCMC V TAGYAMON

Laches has been defined as the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, thus, giving rise to a presumption that the party to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it.

ZABAT JR. V CA

Equity, which has been aptly described as a justice outside legality, this is applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law or, as in this case, judicial rules of procedure. AEQUETAS NUNGUAM CONTRAVENIT LEGIS. The pertinent positive rules being present here, they should preempt and prevail over all abstract based only on equity.

B. COURT OF JUSTICE AND QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES DISTINGUISHED

REPUBLIC V ASUNCION

Sandiganbayan is a regular court. Regular courts are those with in the judicial department of the government, namely, the Supreme Court and such lower courts which as established by law, under Section 16, Chapter 4, Book II of the Administrative Code of 1987, includes the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, Regional Trial Court, Sharia District Courts, MTCs, MeTCs, MCTC and Sharia Circuit Courts.

The term regular courts in RA No. 6975, Section 46 means civil courts. This is in line with the purpose of the law to remove the jurisdiction of Court-Martial over criminal cases involving PNP members due to reorganization and turning PNP into civilian in character which in return mandates the transfer of criminal cases against members of the PNP to the civilian courts.

PICHAY V OFFICE OF DEPUTY SECRETARY

President Aquino issued EO 13 creating the Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs (ODESLA) more particularly to its newly established Investigative and Adjudicatory Division (IAD).

IAD-ODESLA cannot try and resolve cases, its authority being limited to the conduct of investigations, preparation of reports and submission of recommendations.

The IAD-ODESLA is a fact-finding and recommendatory body to the President, not having power to settle controversies and adjudicate cases.

Fact-finding is not adjudication and it cannot be likened to the judicial function of a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency or office. The function of receiving evidence and ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a judicial function. To be considered as such, the act of receiving evidence and arriving at factual conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by the authority of applying the law to the factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be decided or determined authoritatively, finally and definitely, subject to such appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law.

BIRAOGO V THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION

Fact-finding is not adjudication and it cannot be likened to the judicial function of a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency or office. The PTC will not supplant the Ombudsman or DOJ or erode the respective powers. If at all the investigative function of the commission will complement those of the two offices. As pointed out by the Solicitor General, the recommendation to prosecute is but a consequence of the over all task of the commission to conduct a fact-finding commission.

SIMON JR. V CHR

The CHR was not meant by the fundamental law to be another court or quasi-judicial agency in this country, or duplicate much less take over the functions of the latter.

Fact-finding is not adjudication and it cannot be likened to the judicial function of a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency or office. The function of receiving evidence and ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a judicial function. To be considered as such, the act of receiving evidence and arriving at factual conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by the authority of applying the law to the factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be decided or determined authoritatively, finally and definitely, subject to such appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law.

CARIO V CHR

Fact-finding is not adjudication and it cannot be likened to the judicial function of a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency or office. The function of receiving evidence and ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a judicial function. To be considered as such, the act of receiving evidence and arriving at factual conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by the authority of applying the law to the factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be decided or determined authoritatively, finally and definitely, subject to such appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law.