際際滷

際際滷Share a Scribd company logo

Requisites of a judicial review

Download as PPTX, PDF
Cath Velasco
Cath Velasco

The document outlines 4 requirements for justiciability in determining the constitutionality of a law: 1) There must be an actual case or controversy, not a hypothetical question. 2) The constitutional question must be raised by a party with proper legal standing. 3) The constitutional issue must be raised at the earliest opportunity. 4) Resolving the constitutional question must be necessary to determine the case itself.

1 of 17
1. There must be an actual case or controversy; 2. The question of constitutionality must be raised by the property party; 3. The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; 4. The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself.
Involves a conflict or legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial adjudication. Must be moot or academic or based on extralegal or other similar considerations not cognizable by a court of justice.
Must be definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests; real and substantial controversy admitting a specific relief through a decree that is conclusive in character.
Pacu v. Secretary of Education The mere apprehension that the Secretary of Education might, under the law, withdraw the permit of one of the petitioners does not constitute a justiciable controversy. PHILCONSA v Villareal The SC dismissed the petition to compel theSpeaker of the House of Representatives to produce the books of accounts of that body because the same had already become moot and academic as the Congress of the Philippines was abolished due to the effectivity of 1973 Constitution.
Is one who has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a result of act complained of.
The patients of the physician and not the physician himself were the proper parties to question the constitutionality of a law prohibiting the use of contraceptives.
a certain person had not made a claim to the position held by the other, he could not be regarded as the proper party who had sustained an injury as a result of the questioned act
It was held that the Government of the Philippines was a proper party to challenge the constitutionality of the Prohibition Act because, more than any other, it was the government itself that should be concerned over the validity of its own laws.
an organization of taxpayers and citizens werethe proper party to question the constitutionality of a law providing forcertain special retirement benefits for members of the legislature.
General Rule: if not raised in the pleadings, it considered at the trial, and if not considered at the trial, it cannot be considered on appeal.
Exceptions: 1.In criminal cases, the constitutional question can be raised at any time in the discretion of the court. 2. In civil cases, the constitutional question can be raised at any stage if it is necessary to the determination of the case itself. 3. In every case, except where there is estoppel, the constitutional question may be raised at any stage if it involves the jurisdiction of the court.
to doubt is to sustain: a law is supposed to have been carefully studied and determined to be constitutional before it was finally enacted; presence of other basis: its constitutionality cannot be touched and the case will be decided on other available grounds
The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record if the case can be disposed of on some other ground application of a statue or general law.
estoppel- a person cannot question the validity of a law under which he had previously accepted benefits.
Orthodox view Norton v. Shelby: An unconstitutional act- a. not a law, b.confers no rights, c. imposes no duties, d. affords no prot ection, e. creates no office; total nullity
Modern View Less stringent; it does not repeal, supersede, revoke or annul the statute if it finds it in conflict with the Constitution. Manila Motors Co. vs. Flores Due to equity, the SC relaxed the operation of the general rule.
Will be valid only if two conditions concur: 1. that the legislature is willing to retain the valid portions even if the rest of the statute is declared illegal. 2. That the valid portions can stand independently as a separate statute.

More Related Content

Requisites of a judicial review

  • 1. 1. There must be an actual case or controversy; 2. The question of constitutionality must be raised by the property party; 3. The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; 4. The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself.
  • 2. Involves a conflict or legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial adjudication. Must be moot or academic or based on extralegal or other similar considerations not cognizable by a court of justice.
  • 3. Must be definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests; real and substantial controversy admitting a specific relief through a decree that is conclusive in character.
  • 4. Pacu v. Secretary of Education The mere apprehension that the Secretary of Education might, under the law, withdraw the permit of one of the petitioners does not constitute a justiciable controversy. PHILCONSA v Villareal The SC dismissed the petition to compel theSpeaker of the House of Representatives to produce the books of accounts of that body because the same had already become moot and academic as the Congress of the Philippines was abolished due to the effectivity of 1973 Constitution.
  • 5. Is one who has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a result of act complained of.
  • 6. The patients of the physician and not the physician himself were the proper parties to question the constitutionality of a law prohibiting the use of contraceptives.
  • 7. a certain person had not made a claim to the position held by the other, he could not be regarded as the proper party who had sustained an injury as a result of the questioned act
  • 8. It was held that the Government of the Philippines was a proper party to challenge the constitutionality of the Prohibition Act because, more than any other, it was the government itself that should be concerned over the validity of its own laws.
  • 9. an organization of taxpayers and citizens werethe proper party to question the constitutionality of a law providing forcertain special retirement benefits for members of the legislature.
  • 10. General Rule: if not raised in the pleadings, it considered at the trial, and if not considered at the trial, it cannot be considered on appeal.
  • 11. Exceptions: 1.In criminal cases, the constitutional question can be raised at any time in the discretion of the court. 2. In civil cases, the constitutional question can be raised at any stage if it is necessary to the determination of the case itself. 3. In every case, except where there is estoppel, the constitutional question may be raised at any stage if it involves the jurisdiction of the court.
  • 12. to doubt is to sustain: a law is supposed to have been carefully studied and determined to be constitutional before it was finally enacted; presence of other basis: its constitutionality cannot be touched and the case will be decided on other available grounds
  • 13. The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record if the case can be disposed of on some other ground application of a statue or general law.
  • 14. estoppel- a person cannot question the validity of a law under which he had previously accepted benefits.
  • 15. Orthodox view Norton v. Shelby: An unconstitutional act- a. not a law, b.confers no rights, c. imposes no duties, d. affords no prot ection, e. creates no office; total nullity
  • 16. Modern View Less stringent; it does not repeal, supersede, revoke or annul the statute if it finds it in conflict with the Constitution. Manila Motors Co. vs. Flores Due to equity, the SC relaxed the operation of the general rule.
  • 17. Will be valid only if two conditions concur: 1. that the legislature is willing to retain the valid portions even if the rest of the statute is declared illegal. 2. That the valid portions can stand independently as a separate statute.