Judicial Review and Stare Decisis in Constitutional Law

Four. Judicial Review and Stare Decisis

A. Power of Judicial Review upon Constitutional Questions

Judicial review is the power and duty of the courts to settle actual controversies involving demandable and enforceable rights and to determine if there has been a grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch of government. It is a necessary concomitant of the power to hear and dispose of a case to ensure that no branch of government transcends the Constitution.

The Four Requisites for Judicial Review: As established in Dumlao versus COMELEC, for the Court to exercise this power, the following must concur:

One. There must be an actual case or controversy.

Two. The party raising the question must have legal standing (a personal and substantial interest).

Three. The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportunity.

Four. The resolution of the constitutional question must be necessary to the decision of the case (the lis mota).

CASE DIGEST: Patricio Dumlao, et al. versus Commission on Elections G.R. Number L-five-two-two-four-five, January twenty-two, nineteen eighty

FACTS: Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. fifty-one, fifty-two, and fifty-three regarding disqualifications for local elective positions. Specifically, Dumlao assailed a provision that disqualified former elective officials over sixty-five who received retirement benefits from running for the same office, claiming it was targeted specifically at him. At the time of filing, no petition for disqualification had actually been filed against Dumlao before the COMELEC.

ISSUES: WHETHER the petition satisfies the requisites for the exercise of the power of judicial review.

RULINGS: NO. The Court ruled that the petition fell short of the procedural criteria. There was no actual controversy because Dumlao had not yet been adversely affected by the law, making his query a hypothetical request for an advisory opinion. Furthermore, the other petitioners lacked legal standing as they were not personally or directly injured by the provisions they attacked.

DOCTRINE: The person who impugns the validity of a statute 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.

RATIO DECIDENDI: Judicial power is limited to the determination of actual cases and controversies. Courts must first ascertain whether an interpretation is fairly possible to sidestep the question of constitutionality, as invalidity is a measure of last resort.