Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila ... - Columba.us

Recommendations

Info

personal that to enforce them by actual compulsion would be highly derogatory to human dignity." This is why the first part of the second paragraph of Section I provides that: Judicial power includes the duty of courts to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable or enforceable . . . The courts, therefore, cannot entertain, much less decide, hypothetical questions. In a presidential system of government, the Supreme Court has, also another important function. The powers of government are generally considered divided into three branches: the Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary. Each one is supreme within its own sphere and independent of the others. Because of that supremacy power to determine whether a given law is valid or not is vested in courts of justice. Briefly stated, courts of justice determine the limits of power of the agencies and offices of the government as well as those of its officers. In other words, the judiciary is the final arbiter on the question whether or not a branch of government or any of its officials has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial power but a duty to pass judgment on matters of this nature. This is the background of paragraph 2 of Section 1, which means that the courts cannot hereafter evade the duty to settle matters of this nature, by claiming that such matters constitute a political question. I have made these extended remarks to the end that the Commissioners may have an initial food for thought on the subject of the judiciary. 103 (Italics in the original; emphasis supplied) During the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, Chief Justice Concepcion further clarified the concept of judicial power, thus: MR. NOLLEDO. The Gentleman used the term "judicial power" but judicial power is not vested in the Supreme Court alone but also in other lower courts as may be created by law. MR. CONCEPCION. Yes. MR. NOLLEDO. And so, is this only an example? MR. CONCEPCION. No, I know this is not. The Gentleman seems to identify political questions with jurisdictional questions. But there is a difference. MR. NOLLEDO. Because of the expression "judicial power"?
MR. CONCEPCION. No. Judicial power, as I said, refers to ordinary cases but where there is a question as to whether the government had authority or had abused its authority to the extent of lacking jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction, that is not a political question. Therefore, the court has the duty to decide. x x x FR. BERNAS. Ultimately, therefore, it will always have to be decided by the Supreme Court according to the new numerical need for votes. On another point, is it the intention of Section 1 to do away with the political question doctrine? MR. CONCEPCION. No. FR. BERNAS. It is not. MR. CONCEPCION. No, because whenever there is an abuse of discretion, amounting to a lack of jurisdiction. . . FR. BERNAS. So, I am satisfied with the answer that it is not intended to do away with the political question doctrine. MR. CONCEPCION. No, certainly not. When this provision was originally drafted, it sought to define what is judicial power. But the Gentleman will notice it says, "judicial power includes" and the reason being that the definition that we might make may not cover all possible areas. FR. BERNAS. So, this is not an attempt to solve the problems arising from the political question doctrine. MR. CONCEPCION. It definitely does not eliminate the fact that truly political questions are beyond the pale of judicial power. 104 (Emphasis supplied) From the foregoing record of the proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, it is clear that judicial power is not only a power; it is also a duty, a duty which cannot be abdicated by the mere specter of this creature called the political question doctrine. Chief Justice Concepcion hastened to clarify, however, that Section 1, Article VIII was not intended to do away with "truly political questions." From this clarification it is gathered that there are two species of political questions: (1) "truly political questions" and (2) those which "are not truly political questions." 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 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, courts can review questions which are not truly political in nature.
Page 1 and 2: G.R. No. 160261 November 10, 2003 R
Page 3 and 4: x----------------------------------
Page 5 and 6: x----------------------------------
Page 7 and 8: COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY AND CEBU LADY
Page 9 and 10: President of the Philippines is on
Page 11 and 12: Section 3(2) A verified complaint f
Page 13 and 14: of the second impeachment complaint
Page 15 and 16: Before acting on the petitions with
Page 17 and 18: Judicial Review As reflected above,
Page 19 and 20: departments, are bound by that inst
Page 21 and 22: This is the background of paragraph
Page 23 and 24: The proper interpretation therefore
Page 25 and 26: House representation in the Commiss
Page 27 and 28: While rights personal to the Chief
Page 29 and 30: alleging that "they will suffer if
Page 31 and 32: y the people in their sovereign cap
Page 33: egarded as the votes cast in the pl
Page 37 and 38: judicially discoverable and managea
Page 39 and 40: a violation of the constitutionally
Page 41 and 42: In sum, this Court holds that the t
Page 43 and 44: Besides, there are specific safegua
Page 45 and 46: efrain from upholding the Constitut
Page 47 and 48: MR. MAAMBONG. With reference to Sec
Page 49 and 50: Father Bernas explains that in thes
Page 51 and 52: Respondent House of Representatives
Page 53 and 54: a length of time. The power to make
Page 55 and 56: verified complaint and/or resolutio
Page 57 and 58: government branch or instrumentalit
Page 59 and 60: LDP, 2nd District, Misamis Oriental
Page 61 and 62: subsequent legislation. In Concepci
Page 63 and 64: 63 187 SCRA 377 (1990). 64 180 SCRA
Page 65 and 66: 91 Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Morato, supr
Page 67 and 68: 121 Rollo, G.R. No. 160310 at 38. 1

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila ... - Columba.us

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?