Modes of Judicial Review

MODES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
Judicial review is basically the power to review acts of the legislative or judiciary or even that of
the lower courts. 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; The existence
of an actual case or controversy is needed for calling the exercise of judicial power.
An actual case or controversy is one that involves a conflict of legal rights, an
assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution; the case must
not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other similar considerations not
cognizable by a court of justice. Stated otherwise, it is not the mere existence of a
conflict or controversy that will authorize the exercise by the courts of its power of
review; more importantly, the issue involved must be susceptible of judicial
determination. This means that purely political questions are generally beyond the
power of judicial review except in cases where there is grave abuse of discretion.
Political questions refer "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 legislative or executive
branch of government." Thus, if an issue is clearly identified by the text of the
Constitution as matters for discretionary action by a particular branch of
government or to the people themselves then it is held to be a political
question.
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 fourth
requirement to satisfy before this Court will undertake judicial review – means that
the Court will not pass upon a question of unconstitutionality, although properly
presented, if the case can be disposed of on some other ground, such as the
application of the statute or the general law. The petitioner must be able to show
that the case cannot be legally resolved unless the constitutional question raised is
determined. This requirement is based on the rule that every law has in its favor the
presumption of constitutionality; to justify its nullification, there must be a clear and
unequivocal breach of the Constitution, and not one that is doubtful, speculative, or
argumentative.
In an administrative case, the MODE OF APPEAL is done by Petition for Review on Certiorari
under RULE 43 of the Rules of Court, otherwise, if there is GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
resulting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, then the correct mode should be Petition for Certiorari
under Rule 65.
Courts have concurrent jurisdiction under Petition For Certiorari under Rule 65 because this is
an Original Petition. That means, that the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and the Regional
Trial Court all have jurisdiction. However, in Petition for Review on Certiorari, this is different. A
petition for review is basically an appeal from the decision of the lower court. Because of that,
the body that has jurisdiction should be a higher court. In which case, it is the Court of Appeals
that can review the decisions of the SEC for example, and the Supreme Court has power to
review the decisions made by the Court of Appeals. A co-equal court can not review any act of
its co-equal. Since the SEC is considered to be an equal of the Court of General Jurisdiction or
the RTC, then it follows that the RTC cannot review the decisions of the NLRC on appeal.
Difference between RULE 43, RULE 45 and RULE 65 of the Rules of Court:
Rule 43 Rule 45 Rule 65
Appeal Appeal Original Action
within fifteen (15) days within 15 days Within 60 days
administrative body to CA from RTC to CA From any court to a higher

Except NLRC (Sec. 2, Rule 43) court
Any decisions of the for purely questions of law Because of grave abuse of
administrative body discretion resulting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction

Modes of Judicial Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modes of Judicial Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modes of Judicial Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MODES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

3. the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity;

Rule 43 Rule 45 Rule 65

Appeal Appeal Original Action

within fifteen (15) days within 15 days Within 60 days

administrative body to CA from RTC to CA From any court to a higher

You might also like