CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

Assignment No._1

QUESTIONS:

1. What is Judicial Review? (5%)

Answer:

In the case of Garcia v. Secretary, it states that judicial review is the power of the courts
to test the validity of executive and legislative acts for their conformity with the
Constitution

2. What are the requisites for the Court to exercise Judicial Review? Expound with Legal Bases.
(20%)

Answer:

In the case of Calleja vs. Executive Secretary, the court provides for the requisites to
exercise judicial review which are as follows:
1. An actual and appropriate case and controversy exists. This means that
there is an actual controversy if the issue is a conflict of legal rights, an
assertion of opposite legal claims, susceptible of judicial resolution as
distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute.
2. A personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional
question. This means that the person raising the issue should have a legal
standing over the case that there is injury suffered for example.
3. The exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity. It
means that the question of unconstitutionality of the act in question should
have been immediately raised in the court proceedings.
4. The constitutional question raised is the very lis mota of the case. This
means that petitioners must be able to show that the case cannot be legally
resolved unless the constitutional question raised is determined. The lis
mota requirement is based on the rule that every law has in its favor the
presumption of constitutionality, and to justify its nullification, there must be
a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution and not one that is
doubtful, speculative, or argumentative.

3. Will the Court still exercise Judicial Review despite the lack of locus standi by the petitioner?
Expound with Legal Bases. (10%)

Answer:
 Yes. In the case of Oposa vs. Factoran, the court held that the the particular case is indeed
a class suit which means that the parties are numerous and represented enough to ensure the full
protection of all concerned interests including the generations yet unborn.

4. Distinguish prematurity and moot and academic as concepts in relation to actual case or
controversy. (5%)

Answer:

In the cases decided by the Supreme Court, it stated that prematurity is when the courts
cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is for example within the
jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that question by the said
tribunal or when such question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion
requiring the special knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to
determine technical and intricate matters of fact.

On the other hand, the issue becomes moot when there is no more actual
controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in passing upon
the merits which means that the court cannot render judgment after the issue has already been
resolved or through external developments. Moot cases prevent the actual case or controversy
from becoming justiciable.

5. Will the Court still exercise Judicial Review despite the matter being moot and academic?
Expound with legal bases. (10%)

Answer:
Yes. the court held in Belgica vs. Executive Secretary that the court can still exercise
judicial review despite the matter being moot and academic if the following are met:
1. Grave violation of the Constitution
2. Exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved
3. The constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles
4. The case is capable of repetition yet evading review.

6. What are the functions of Judicial Review? (15%)

Answer:
In the case of Salonga vs. Pano, it stated that there are three (3) main functions of Judicial
Review which are the checking, legitimating and symbolic functions. The court emphasized in
this case that it also has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional
principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules. It has the symbolic function of educating the
bench and bar on the extent of protection given by constitutional guarantees.

7. Who can exercise Judicial Review? (5%)

Answer:
 The Constitution expressly grants the Supreme Court the power of Judicial Review as the
power to declare a treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or regulation unconstitutional.

8. What is the Doctrine of Operative Fact? Cite actual examples. (20%)

Answer:

In the case of Belgica vs. Executive Secretary, the court explained that under the Doctrine
of the Operative Fact, a certain legislative or executive act is presumed constitutional and
entitled to obedience and respect and should be properly enforced and complied with.
For example, In Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) 42-2003, it was ruled that input
VAT claimed for refund may be charged to appropriate expense account or asset account
subject to depreciation, whichever is applicable, in case the zero-rated sales fail to comply with
the invoicing requirement, e.g., including the TIN of the VAT registered seller-claimant in the
VAT invoice or VAT receipt it issued to its customers. Another example is the Disbursement
Acceleration Program (DAP) under the General Appropriations Act.

9. Distinguish Political Question from Justiciable Question. (5%)

Answer:

A political question refers to "those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be
decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary
authority has been delegated to the Legislature or executive branch of the Government while a
justiciable controversy refers to an existing case of controversy that is appropriate or ripe for
judicial determination, not one that is conjectural or merely anticipatory as explain by the court
in the case of Velarde vs. Social Justice Society.

10. Who was the host (emcee) of the USPF Orientation conducted last August 27, 2023? (5%)

Host: Imari Sabenicio