Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page
Norms, Rights and the Place of Judicial Power
Art. VIII, §1. 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 controversies involving rights which are legally demandable andenforceable, 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.Art. VIII, §2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive theSupreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its Members.Art. VIII, §4(2)
All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by theSupreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving theconstitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall bedecided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.Art. VIII, §5(2)
Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments andorders of lower courts in: (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidentialdecree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
arcia v. BOI
Right to Information; Access to public records; exceptionTrade and industrialsecrets-
ataan Petrochemical Corp. decided to transfer its proposed refineryoperations to
I approved despite objections of localgovernment officials. SC reversed
Pursuant to Art. VIII, §1, it is the duty of the court to address thecontroversy. It may substitute its discretion and judgment to that of
I andthe investors.-
: The court should not delve on matters beyond its competence.
Oposa v. Factoran
The SC affirmed the standing of minors, represented by their parents, to challenge thevalidity of logging concessions on the basis of the concept of intergenerationalresponsibility for and right to a balanced and healthful ecology guaranteed by Art. II,§16.Does not involve a political question but an issue of enforcing a right vis-à-vis policyformulated. Nevertheless, political question is no longer insurmountable in view of Art. VIII, §1(2).
Kilosbayan v. Morato
., the SC affirmed the right of petitioners to challengethe validity of the lotto contract of the PCS
with the Phil. Gaming Mgt., Corp. on theargument that the case was of transcendental importance. This case reverses thisdecision on the ground that the petitioner had no substantial interest in the contractbeing challenged.Justice Felicianos guide in determining
cases of transcendental importance
the character of the funds involvedb)
presence of a disregard of law prohibiting an agency from doingcertain actionsc)
lack of party w/ a more direct & specific interestd)
wide impact or applicationA partys standing in court is a procedural technicality which may be set aside by theCourt in view of the importance of the issues involved. Thus, where the issues raisedby petitioners are of paramount public interest or of transcendental importance, theCourt may brush aside the procedural barrier.
Tañada v. Angara
Senates concurrence in WT
Judicial power is not impaired because rules of procedure under TRIPS are notincongruent to our own system.