- The judiciary is considered the ultimate guardian of the Constitution. This particular branch of government is responsible for judging the constitutionality of a statute.
- The courts are passive instruments that can act only when their jurisdiction is invoked.
What provision of the Constitution dictates how the Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional?
The voting for the determination of constitutionality is provided by Article VIII, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution.
What items are covered by Article VIII, Section 4?
- Treaty
- International agreement
- Executive agreement
- Law
- Presidential decree
- Proclamation
- Order
- Instructions
- Ordinance
- Other regulations
How many votes (by the members of the SC) are needed to declare a law unconstitutional?
Commonwealth Constitution: two-thirds of the Supreme Court
1973 Constitution: 10
1987 Constitution: a majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon
What is the least number of members of the Supreme Court that may declare a law unconstitutional?
Five. This is the majority of the quorum of eight of the fifteen-membered Court.
What are the requisites of judicial inquiry?
No constitutional question will be heard and decided unless the following are present:
- There must be an actual case or controversy.
- The question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party.
- The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity.
- The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself.
What does it mean to have an actual case?
- An actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution.
- The case must not be moot or academic.
- The must be a contrariety of legal rights that can be interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence.
Is a request for advisory opinion under the category of an actual case?
No. The issue raised here does not involve any conflict in law. It only seeks counseling by the courts, whose advice does not have the force of law.
Is a single violation of the Constitution enough to awaken judicial duty?
Yes, as declared by the Supreme Court in Pimentel v. Aguirre.
Are all cases considered moot and academic automatically disqualified for judicial review?
No. Courts may decide cases that are otherwise moot and academic if
- There is a grave violation of the Constitution
- The exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved
- When the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public
- The case is capable of repetition yet evading review
Who is a proper party to a case?
A proper party is one who has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of. Unless and until such actual or potential injury is established, the complainant cannot have the legal personality to raise the constitutional question.
Define locus standi.
Locus standiis a personal and substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain directinjury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged.
May a taxpayer or a group of taxpayers question the validity of an appropriation law?
Yes. This was the ruling held by the Supreme Court since the Emergency Powers Cases, saying, ‘‘the transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside, if we must, technical procedure.’’
What are the requisites for a taxpayer’s suit to prosper?
In order for a taxpayer’s suit to prosper, the following requirements must be met:
- Public funds derived from taxation are disbursed by a political subdivision or instrumentality and in doing so, a law is violated or some irregularity is committed
- The petitioner is directly affected by the alleged act
When can a case be considered of transcendental importance?
A case can be accorded standing on the ground of transcendental importance if the following is established:
- The character of the funds (that it is public) or other assets involved in the case
- The presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public respondent agency or instrumentality of the government
- The lack of any party with a more direct and specific interest in raising the questions being raised
When can a citizen raise a constitutional question?
A citizen can raise a constitutional question only when
- He can show that he has personally suffered some actual or threatened injury because of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government
- The injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action
- A favorable action will likely redress the injury
When can voters be considered proper parties with respect to implementation of election laws?
Voters may be considered as proper parties with respect to implementation of election laws when there is a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question.
What does raising the constitutionality question at the earliest possible opportunity mean?
It means that if the question is not raised during the pleadings, it cannot be considered at the trial, and, if not considered at the trial, it cannot be considered on appeal.
Can the question of constitutionality still be raised if not raised at the earliest possible opportunity?
Yes, for the following cases:
- In criminal cases, the constitutional question can be raised at any time in the discretion of the court.
- In civil cases, the constitutional question can be raised at any stage if it is necessary to the determination of the case itself.
- In every case, except where there is estoppel, the constitutional question may be raised at any stage if it involves the jurisdiction of the court.
What should the courts do when the issue of constitutionality is raised but there are other grounds where the controversy can be settled?
The courts should resolve the controversy based on other grounds other than the issue of constitutionality. This is because courts should presume that ‘‘the acts of the political departments are valid, absent a clear and unmistakable showing to the contrary.’’ This is for the courts to show respect to their coequal branch.
Can a person question the validity of a law under which he previously accepted benefits?
No. This constitutes estoppel.
What are the seven pillars of limitations of the power of judicial review?
The seven pillars of limitations of the power of judicial review, as written by US Supreme Court Justice Brandeis in Ashwander v. TVA are the following:
- The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, non-adversary proceeding, declining because to decide such questions ‘‘is legitimate only in the last resort and as a necessity in the determination of real, earnest, and vital controversy between individuals. It never was the thought that, by means of a friendly suit, a party beaten in the legislature could transfer to the courts an inquiry as to the constitutionality of a certain act.’’
- The Court will not ‘‘anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it.’’ . . . ‘‘It is not the habit of the Court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case.’’
- The Court will not ‘‘formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied.’’
- The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of. This rule has found most varied application. Thus, if a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction or general law, the Court will decide only the latter. Appeals from the highest court of a state challenging its decision of a question under the Federal Constitution are frequently dismissed because the judgment can be sustained on an independent state ground.
- The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation. Among the many applications of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of the right of challenge to one who lacks a personal or property right. Thus, the challenge by a public official interested only in the performance of his official duty will not be entertained . . . In Fairchild v. Hughes, the court affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a citizen who sought to have the Nineteenth Amendment declared unconstitutional. In Massachussetts v. Mellon, the challenge of the federal Maternity Act was not entertained although made by the Commonwealth on behalf of all its citizens.
- The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.
- When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided.
What are the views on the effects of a declaration of the unconstitutionality of a statute, and how do they differ?
There are two views on the effects of a declaration of the unconstitutionality of a statute, namely the orthodox view and the modern view. Their difference is shown below.
|
Orthodox view
|
Under the orthodox view, an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, inoperative, as if it had not been passed.
|
|
Modern view
|
Under the modern view, the court does not annul or repeal a statute if it finds it unconstitutional. It simply refuses to recognize it and determines the rights of the parties just as if such statute had no existence.
|
What is the operative fact doctrine?
The operative fact doctrine is a rule of equity. Under this doctrine, the law is recognized as unconstitutional but the effects of the unconstitutional law, prior to its declaration of nullity, may be left undisturbed as a matter of equity and fair play. It recognizes that the existence of a statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot always be ignored.
What are the requirements for a statute to be considered partially constitutional?
A declaration of partial constitutionality will be valid only if two conditions concur:
- That the legislature is willing to retain the valid portions even if the rest of the statute is declared illegal
- That the valid portions can stand independently as a separate statute
How can the legislature express that they want to salvage the constitutional parts of a statute should a portion be considered unconstitutional?
The legislature’s willingness to retain the valid portions of a statute is expressed in the separability clause.
It's a Ping Thing 