On Expanded Judicial Power

Turbulent were the times when the absolute power of the dictator corrupted our civil, political, and economic rights absolutely. When this absolute power was challenged before courts of law, our justices and judges declined to rule upon it on the ground of political question doctrine. This had its genesis in Javellana v. Executive Secretary where the Supreme Court was asked to rule on the validity of the ratification of the 1973 Constitution. Yet, the Court ruled that “there is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect” because “there are not enough votes to declare that the new Constitution is not in force.”

Since then, numerous other challenges to governmental actions taken while martial law was in effect were raised, including the legality of the Arrest, Search, and Seizure Order (ASSO), Presidential Commitment Order (PCO), and Presidential Detention Action (PDA), which the Court dismissed after the Marcos regime invoked the political question doctrine. In effect, the people’s right to assail grave abuse of power perished in the squalor of the night. But all hope is not lost because the malignant malaise that seeped into the moral fabric of the Philippine bureaucracy ignited the Filipino people to oust the dictator and his cronies in 1986. Thus, a new dawn of hope reigned in the country.

Denouncing the many instances where the plea of "political question" was set up, resulting in the dismissal of cases, the 1986 Constitutional Commission proposed that judicial power is not limited only to the duty of the courts of justice “to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,” but also the power “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 latter diluted any attempt to invoke immunity from accountability using the political question doctrine.

Unlike the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions where the authority of the Supreme Court was limited only to reviewing and setting aside the decision of lower courts on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, this authority under the 1987 Constitution has been extended to acts not only of lower courts but also of “any branch or instrumentality of the government.” To be clear, the expanded judicial power was introduced to guarantee the supremacy of the Constitution; it does not, however, make the Supreme Court superior to the other departments.

The records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission show that the exercise of expanded certiorari jurisdiction of the Courts is to be limited to the instance when “the Judiciary feels that the department or branch concerned has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction amounting to an arbitrary abuse of power.” The intent was to make the Judiciary “an effective guardian and interpreter of the Constitution and the protector of the people's rights.” The implication is that “the Supreme Court cannot, like Pontius Pilate, wash its hands of its responsibility of reviewing acts of public officials and offices.”

Cognizant of the need to regain the trust and faith of the Filipino people in the judicial branch, the 1986 Constitutional Commission introduced the expanded judicial power as a mechanism against tyranny, despotism, and dictatorship. Gone are the days when the whimsical or capricious exercise of power by one branch or instrumentality of the government was left unchecked because the courts of justice, under the 1987 Constitution, have the positive legal duty to rule upon the validity of executive and legislative acts. This expanded judicial power enables and will continue to enable our courts of law to judiciously strike a balance between authority and rights.

More than thirty (30) years ago, Justice Isagani Cruz counseled in Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court that the strength of democracy lies not in the rights it guarantees but in the courage of the people to invoke them whenever they are ignored or violated. To my mind, the people will only have the courage to assert and fight for their rights when the judiciary, as the ultimate guardian and protector of the people’s rights, is empowered to strike down grave abuse of discretion. Only then will our rights be kept bright and sharp in our polity. Our judicial branch is, undoubtedly, empowered to do so under our current constitutional system.