(with video)

(color red- with text; pwede pod butangan illustration if naa pero kung wala okay lang pod)
What is Judicial Review?
Judicial Review is the power of the court to examine the actions of the legislative and executive
arms of the government and to determine whether such actions are consistent with the
constitution. The Court's power of judicial review is determined on our system of constitutional
government.
While the Legislative Department assigns the power to make and enact laws and the Executive
Department is in charged with the execution of carrying out the provisions of the laws, then the
interpretation and application of said laws then belong exclusively to the Judicial Department.
And this authority to interpret and apply the laws extends to the Constitution.
Before the courts can determine whether a law is constitutional or not, it will have to interpret
and ascertain the meaning not only of said law, but also of the pertinent portion of the
Constitution in order to decide whether there is a conflict between the two, because if there is,
then the law will have to give way and has to be declared invalid and unconstitutional.
The Requisites for the exercise of the power of Judicial Review are the following:
1) There must be an actual case or justiciable controversy before the court;
2) The question before the court must be ripe for adjudication;
3) The person challenging the act must be a proper party; and
4) The issue of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity and must be the very
cause or motivation of the case.

(voice over only)

In the case of Endencia and Jugo v. David (G.R. No. L-6355-56), the power of judicial review
vested in the Court is exclusive. The Court ruled that if the Legislature may declare what a law
means, then this would surely cause confusion and instability in judicial processes and court
decisions.
A final court determination of a case based on a judicial interpretation of the law may be
undermined or even annulled by a subsequent and different interpretation of the law. That would
be neither wise nor desirable and it is also violative in governing the separation of powers.

Another example is the case of Garcia vs. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 157584). Here, the
petitioner is seeking the Court to declare Section 19 of R.A. No. 8479 as unconstitutional for
contravening Section 19, Article XII of the Constitution. Petitioner Garcia invoked the exercise
of the Court in its power of judicial review.
For a court to exercise this power, certain requirements must first be met: (wala na sa voice over
and 1-4 enumeration pero ibutang gihapon ang text)
(1) an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power;
(2) the person challenging the act must have "standing" to challenge; he must have a personal
and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a
result of its enforcement;
(3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and
(4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.
The Court ruled that the issues are non-justiciable matters that preclude the Court from
exercising its power of judicial review. Overturning a law enacted by the Congress and approved
by the Chief Executive does not justify the remedy the petitioner is seeking.
G.R. No. 157584, April 2, 2009
Garcia vs. The Exec Secretary

Article XII of the Constitution, petitioner Garcia invokes the exercise by this Court of its power
of judicial review, which power is expressly recognized under Section 4(2), Article VIII of the
Constitution. The power of judicial review is the power of the courts to test the validity of
executive and legislative acts for their conformity with the Constitution. Through such power,
the judiciary enforces and upholds the supremacy of the Constitution. For a court to exercise this
power, certain requirements must first be met, namely:
(1) an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power;
(2) the person challenging the act must have "standing" to challenge; he must have a personal
and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a
result of its enforcement;
(3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and
(4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution explicitly vests in the Supreme Court the power of judicial
review which is the authority to examine an executive or legislative act and to invalidate that act
if it is contrary to constitutional principles. While the power of the Supreme Court to review acts
of the executive or legislative branches existed as early as in the 1936 Constitution, in the
decades under the presidency of Ferdinand E. Marcos, especially in the martial law years, the
Supreme Court shirked many times from exercising its power of review. In a number of cases
brought before it during such period, the Supreme Court said it could not rule upon political
questions because they were not justiciable or subject to adjudication by the courts. Thus, the
excesses of the Marcos regime went on unchecked and unabated for more than a decade. To
prevent this abuse from ever happening again and to arm the Supreme Court with sufficient
power to strike down legislative or executive acts that violate the Constitution, which is the
fundamental law of the land, the framers of the 1987 Constitution defined what judicial power is.

https://www.manilatimes.net/2020/06/06/opinion/columnists/basic-concept-of-judicial-
review/729692
Judicial review is a court proceeding involving the review of the lawfulness of a decision or
action made by a public body. It is a challenge to the way in which a decision or action was
made rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion reached. It is really concerned with the
matter of the right procedures having been followed.
The judicial power of the Supreme Court emanates from Section 1, Article VIII of the
Constitution. It states that, “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 the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.” The essence of
judicial review is derived from this constitutionally mandated judicial power.
Judicial review is part of the elaborate system of checks and balances of a democratic form of
government. It is the idea that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of
government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judiciary. It allows the
Supreme Court to take an active role in ensuring that the other branches of government abide by
the provisions of the Constitution.
The requisites for the exercise of the power of judicial review are the following: 1) There must
be an actual case or justiciable controversy before the court; 2) The question before the court
must be ripe for adjudication; 3) The person challenging the act must be a proper party; and 4)
The issue of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity and must be the very
cause or motivation of the case.
The first two requisites demand that there be an actual controversy and it is ripe for adjudication.
“A question is ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect
on the individual challenging it. It is a prerequisite that something had been accomplished or
performed by either branch before a court may come into the picture and the petitioner must
allege the existence of an immediate or threatened injury to itself as a result of the challenged
action (Belgica v. Executive Secretary).”
The third requisite is often referred to as the legal standing of the petitioner. “He must be able to
show not only that the law or any government act is invalid but also that he sustained or is in
imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement and not merely
that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way. It must appear that the person complaining has
been or is about to be denied some right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that he is
about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act complained of
(Agan Jr. v. Piatco).”
The fourth requisite of judicial review is that the issue of constitutionality should be raised at the
earliest opportunity — with the issue not yet being moot or academic.
Did the petition comply with the requisites of judicial review?
Let me dissect the petition of Larry Gadon vis-à-vis the requisites of judicial review.
On Feb. 26, 2020, Cayetano and Alvarez sent a letter-directive to the NTC’s Cordoba “to grant
ABS-CBN Corp. a provisional authority to operate effective May 4, 2020 until such time that the
House of Representatives/Congress has made a decision on its application.” Gadon questioned
this act of Cayetano and Alvarez in his petition before the Supreme Court and prayed that
Cordoba be prohibited from obeying Cayetano and Alvarez. Gadon alleged that this violated the
doctrine of separation of powers of the state and invoked the high court’s role in the system of
checks and balances. In my opinion, this satisfies the first two requisites of judicial review.
In his petition, Gadon claimed that he was “a concerned Filipino citizen and taxpayer” and he
had “not suffered any personal injury” out of the controversy at hand. Did he have legal standing
to file the petition in consonance with the third requisite? In my opinion, he did. In fact, the
Supreme Court ruled that “standing as a citizen has been upheld by this court in cases where a
petitioner is able to craft an issue of transcendental importance or when paramount public
interest is involved (Lozano v. Nograles).” The Supreme Court should realize that there is
paramount public interest involved in this controversy.
The final requisite requires that the issue be raised at the earliest opportune time. Gadon filed the
petition way back on March 5. Meanwhile, important developments took place — the NTC
issued a cease-and-desist order to ABS-CBN Corp., Cayetano calendared the hearing on the
franchise application of ABS-CBN and refrained from pursuing his letter to Cordoba.
These events can be considered supervening causes which rendered the petition moot and
academic. “A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by
virtue of supervening events; so, that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or
value.”
Clearly, there is no more justiciable controversy. The petition can be dismissed on the ground of
mootness but not for failure to comply with the requisites of judicial review.