i.   Judicial Supremacy vs. Constitutional
Supremacy
 
-  Francisco v. House of Representatives, GR
160261, Nov. 10, 2003
Facts: An impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario
Davide and seven Asociate Justices was filed on 2 June 2003 but was
dismissed by The House Committee on Justice on 22 October 2003
for being insufficient in substance. On 23 October 2003,
Representative Gilbert Teodoro and Felix Fuentabella filed a new
impeachment complaint against the Chief Justice. Thus arose the
instant petitions against the House of Representatives et al, most of
which contend that the filing of the second impeachment complaint
is unconstitutional as it violates the provision of Section 5, Article XI
of the Constitution, “no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated
against the same official more than once within the period of one
year.” Senator Aquilino Pimintel Jr, filed a Motion to Intervene,
stating that the consolidated petitions be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction of the Court and that the sole power, authority and
jurisdiction of the Senate as the impeachment court be recognized
and upheld pursuant to the provision of Article XI of the
Constitution.
Issue: Whether or not the certiorari jurisdiction of the court may be
invoked to determine the validity of the second impeachment
complaint pursuant to Article XI of the Constitution.
Decision: The second impeachment complaint is barred under
Section 3 (5) of Article XI of the Constitution.
Applying the principles of constitutional construction, ut magis
valeat quam pereat. The Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole,
the said provision should function to the full extent of its substance
and form and its terms, in conjunction with all other provisions of
the Constitution. Pursuant to Section 1 Article VIII of the
Constitution, “the judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme
Court.” Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to
settle actual controversies involving 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 part of any branch of the government. The
courts of justice determine the limits of power of the agencies and
offices of the government as well as its officers , this is not only a
judicial power but a duty to pass judgment.
The Constitution itself has provided for the instrumentality of the
judiciary as the rational way. And when the judiciary mediates to
allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority
over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or
invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and
sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine
conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to
establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which
that instrument secures and guarantees to them.
 ii.   Political vs. Justiciable Question
  Brillantes v. Concepcion, GR 163193, June 15,
2004
FACTS: Comelec issued resolutions adopting an Automated Elections
System including the assailed resolution, Resolution 6712, which
provides for the electronic transmission of  advanced result of
“unofficial” count. Petitioners claimed that the resolution would
allow the preemption and usurpation of the exclusive power of
Congress to canvass the votes for President and Vice-President and
would likewise encroach upon the authority of NAMFREL, as the
citizens’ accredited arm, to conduct the "unofficial" quick count as
provided under pertinent election laws. Comelec contended that the
resolution was promulgated in the exercise of its executive and
administrative power "to ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful and
credible elections” Comelec added that the issue is beyond judicial
determination.
ISSUE: Whether the issues they raise are political in nature over
which the Court has no jurisdiction;
HELD: The Issue Raised By The Petition Is Justiciable
Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution expands the concept
of judicial review by providing that:
SEC. 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
and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
The Court does not agree with the posture of the respondent
COMELEC that the issue involved in the present petition is a political
question beyond the jurisdiction of this Court to review. As the
leading case of Tañada vs. Cuenco26 put it, political questions are
concerned with "issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of
a particular measure."
The issue raised in the present petition does not merely concern the
wisdom of the assailed resolution but focuses on its alleged
disregard for applicable statutory and constitutional provisions. In
other words, that the petitioner and the petitioners-in-intervention
are questioning the legality of the respondent COMELEC’s
administrative issuance will not preclude this Court from exercising
its power of judicial review to determine whether or not there was
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
on the part of the respondent COMELEC in issuing Resolution No.
6712. Indeed, administrative issuances must not override, supplant
or modify the law, but must remain consistent with the law they
intend to carry out.27 When the grant of power is qualified,
conditional or subject to limitations, the issue of whether the
prescribed qualifications or conditions have been met or the
limitations respected, is justiciable – the problem being one of
legality or validity, not its wisdom. 28 In the present petition, the
Court must pass upon the petitioner’s contention that Resolution
No. 6712 does not have adequate statutory or constitutional basis.
Although not raised during the oral arguments, another procedural
issue that has to be addressed is whether the substantive issues had
been rendered moot and academic. Indeed, the May 10, 2004
elections have come and gone. Except for the President and Vice-
President, the newly- elected national and local officials have been
proclaimed. Nonetheless, the Court finds it necessary to resolve the
merits of the substantive issues for future guidance of both the
bench and bar.29 Further, it is settled rule that courts will decide a
question otherwise moot and academic if it is "capable of repetition,
yet evading review."30
 iii.   Presumption of Constitutionality
            -  Lim v. Pacquing, GR 115044, Jan. 27, 1995
FACTS:
Sec 3 of the Presidential Decree No. 771 expressly revoked all
existing franchises and permits to operate all forms of gambling
facilities (including the jai-alai) issued by local governments.
Judge Pacquing had earlier issued the following orders which were
assailed by the Mayor of the City of Manila, Hon. Alfredo S. Lim:
  order directing Manila mayor Alfredo S. Lim to issue the
permit/license to operate the jai-alai in favor of Associated
Development Corporation (ADC).
 order directing mayor Lim to explain why he should not be
cited for contempt for non-compliance with the order
dated 28 March 1994.
 order reiterating the previous order directing Mayor Lim to
immediately issue the permit/license to Associated
Development Corporation (ADC). Lim v. P

ISSUE:

W/N P.D. No. 771 is violative of the EQUAL PROTECTION and NON-
IMPAIRMENT clauses of the Constitution.

RULING:

NO.

P.D. No. 771 is VALID AND CONSTITUTIONAL.

Presumption against unconstitutionality. There is nothing on record

to show or even suggest that PD No. 771 has been repealed, altered
or amended by any subsequent law or presidential issuance (when
the executive still exercised legislative powers).

Neither can it be tenably stated that the issue of the continued

existence of ADC’s franchise by reason of the unconstitutionality of
PD No. 771 was settled in G.R. No. 115044, for the decision of the
Court’s First Division in said case, aside from not being final, cannot
have the effect of nullifying PD No. 771 as unconstitutional, since
only the Court En Banc has that power under Article VIII, Section 4(2)
of the Constitution.

And on the question of whether or not the government is estopped

from contesting ADC’s possession of a valid franchise, the well-
settled rule is that the State cannot be put in estoppel by the
mistakes or errors, if any, of its officials or agents. (Republic v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, 209 SCRA 90)