Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila ... - Columba.us
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila ... - Columba.us
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila ... - Columba.us
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
a length <strong>of</strong> time. The power to make rules is not one which once exercised is exha<strong>us</strong>ted.<br />
It is a continuo<strong>us</strong> power, always subject to be exercised by <strong>the</strong> Ho<strong>us</strong>e, and within <strong>the</strong><br />
limitations suggested, absolute and beyond <strong>the</strong> challenge <strong>of</strong> any o<strong>the</strong>r body or tribunal."<br />
Ballin, clearly confirmed <strong>the</strong> jurisdiction <strong>of</strong> courts to pass upon <strong>the</strong> validity <strong>of</strong><br />
congressional rules, i.e, whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>y are constitutional. Rule XV was examined by<br />
<strong>the</strong> Court and it was found to satisfy <strong>the</strong> test: (1) that it did not ignore any constitutional<br />
restraint; (2) it did not violate any fundamental right; and (3) its method had a reasonable<br />
relationship with <strong>the</strong> result sought to be attained. By examining Rule XV, <strong>the</strong> Court did<br />
not allow its jurisdiction to be defeated by <strong>the</strong> mere invocation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> principle <strong>of</strong><br />
separation <strong>of</strong> powers. 154<br />
x x x<br />
In <strong>the</strong> Philippine setting, <strong>the</strong>re is a more compelling reason for courts to categorically<br />
reject <strong>the</strong> political question defense when its interposition will cover up ab<strong>us</strong>e <strong>of</strong><br />
power. For section 1, Article VIII <strong>of</strong> our Constitution was intentionally cobbled to<br />
empower courts "x x x to determine whe<strong>the</strong>r or not <strong>the</strong>re has been a grave ab<strong>us</strong>e <strong>of</strong><br />
discretion amounting to lack or excess <strong>of</strong> jurisdiction on <strong>the</strong> part <strong>of</strong> any branch or<br />
instrumentality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> government." This power is new and was not granted to our<br />
courts in <strong>the</strong> 1935 and 1972 Constitutions. It was not also xeroxed from <strong>the</strong> US<br />
Constitution or any foreign state constitution. The CONCOM granted this<br />
enormo<strong>us</strong> power to our courts in view <strong>of</strong> our experience under martial law where<br />
ab<strong>us</strong>ive exercises <strong>of</strong> state power were shielded from judicial scrutiny by <strong>the</strong> mis<strong>us</strong>e<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> political question doctrine. Led by <strong>the</strong> eminent former Chief J<strong>us</strong>tice Roberto<br />
Concepcion, <strong>the</strong> CONCOM expanded and sharpened <strong>the</strong> checking powers <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
judiciary vis-à-vis <strong>the</strong> Executive and <strong>the</strong> Legislative departments <strong>of</strong> government. 155<br />
x x x<br />
The Constitution cannot be any clearer. What it granted to this Court is not a mere<br />
power which it can decline to exercise. Precisely to deter this disinclination, <strong>the</strong><br />
Constitution imposed it as a duty <strong>of</strong> this Court to strike down any act <strong>of</strong> a branch or<br />
instrumentality <strong>of</strong> government or any <strong>of</strong> its <strong>of</strong>ficials done with grave ab<strong>us</strong>e <strong>of</strong><br />
discretion amounting to lack or excess <strong>of</strong> jurisdiction. Rightly or wrongly, <strong>the</strong><br />
Constitution has elongated <strong>the</strong> checking powers <strong>of</strong> this Court against <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r branches<br />
<strong>of</strong> government despite <strong>the</strong>ir more democratic character, <strong>the</strong> President and <strong>the</strong> legislators<br />
being elected by <strong>the</strong> people. 156<br />
x x x<br />
The provision defining judicial power as including <strong>the</strong> 'duty <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> courts <strong>of</strong> j<strong>us</strong>tice. . . to<br />
determine whe<strong>the</strong>r or not <strong>the</strong>re has been a grave ab<strong>us</strong>e <strong>of</strong> discretion amounting to lack or<br />
excess <strong>of</strong> jurisdiction on <strong>the</strong> part <strong>of</strong> any branch or instrumentality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Government'<br />
constitutes <strong>the</strong> capstone <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> efforts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Constitutional Commission to upgrade <strong>the</strong><br />
powers <strong>of</strong> this court vis-à-vis <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r branches <strong>of</strong> government. This provision was