SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be finality. In truth, an accused who has been Foundation, et al. v.
n, et al. v. COMELEC which says that
vested in one Supreme Court and in
such lower courts as may be
established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of
the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which
are legally demandable and
enforceable, and 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.
Judicial power - "the right to determine actual
controversies arising between adverse
litigants, duly instituted in courts of proper
jurisdiction."
It is "the authority to settle justiciable
controversies or disputes involving rights that
are enforceable and demandable before the
courts of justice or the redress of wrongs for
violation of such rights.
The exercise of judicial power, however, goes
beyond the mere promulgation of final
decisions.
Article VII, Section 19 "cannot be interpreted
as denying the power of the courts to control
the enforcement of their decisions after their
convicted by final judgment still possesses
collateral rights and these rights can be
claimed in the appropriate courts
"The powers of the Executive, the Legislative
and the Judiciary to save the life of a death
convict do not exclude each other for the
simple reason that there is no higher right than
the right to life." To contend that "only the
Executive can protect the right of life to an
accused after his final conviction is to violate
the principle of coequal and coordinate
powers of the three branches of our
government.”
Intrinsic limit on judicial power.
Because all that is given to the judiciary is
judicial power, by the principle of separation of
powers courts may neither attempt to assume
nor be compelled to perform non-judicial
functions.
Grave abuse of discretion.
"Judicial power includes the duty of the courts
of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable
and enforceable, and 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."
Infotech
there is "grave abuse of discretion
1. when an act is done contrary to the
Constitution, the law or jurisprudence;
or
2. when it is executed whimsically,
capriciously or arbitrarily out of malice,
ill will or personal bias.
Advisory opinions.
The nature of judicial power is also the
foundation of the principle, as old as the
American republic, that it is not the function of
the judiciary to give advisory opinions.
SEC. 4. (2) ALL CASES INVOLVING THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A TREATY,
INTERNATIONAL OR EXECUTIVE
AGREEMENT, OR LAW, WHICH SHALL
BE HEARD BY THE SUPREME COURT
EN BANC, AND ALL OTHER CASES
WHICH UNDER THE RULES OF COURT
ARE REQUIRED TO BE HEARD EN
BANC, INCLUDING THOSE INVOLVING
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY,
APPLICATION, OR OPERATION OF
PRESIDENTIAL DECREES,
PROCLAMATIONS, ORDERS,
INSTRUCTIONS, ORDINANCES, AND
OTHER REGULATIONS, SHALL BE
DECIDED WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF
A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS WHO
ACTUALLY TOOK PART IN THE
 DELIBERATIONS ON THE ISSUES IN
THE CASE AND VOTED THEREON.
By command of the Constitution the following
cases have to be heard and decided en banc:
1. all cases involving the constitutionality
of a treaty, international or executive
agreement, or law;
2. cases involving the constitutionality,
application, or operation of
presidential decrees, proclamations,
orders, instructions, ordinances, and
other regulations;
3. cases heard by a division when the
required majority in the division is not
obtained
4. cases where the Supreme Court
modifies or reverses a doctrine or
principle of law previously laid down
either en banc or in division;
5. administrative cases where the vote is
for the dismissal of a judge of a lower
court or otherwise to discipline such a
one; and,
6. election contests for President or Vice-
President.
SEC. 5. (2) REVIEW, REVISE, REVERSE,
MODIFY, OR AFFIRM ON
APPEAL OR CERTIORARI AS THE LAW OR
THE RULES OF COURT MAYPROVIDE,
FINAL JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS OF
LOWER COURTS IN:
A. ALL CASES IN WHICH THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OR VALIDITY
OF ANY TREATY, INTERNATIONAL
OR EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT, LAW,
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE,
PROCLAMATION, ORDER,
INSTRUCTION, ORDINANCE, OR
REGULATION IS IN QUESTION.
B. ALL CASES INVOLVING THE
LEGALITY OF ANY TAX, IMPOST,
ASSESSMENT, OR TOLL, OR ANY
PENALTY IMPOSED IN RELATION
THERETO.
C. ALL CASES IN WHICH THE
JURISDICTION OF ANY LOWER
COURT IS IN ISSUE.
D. ALL CRIMINAL CASES IN WHICH
THE PENALTY IMPOSED IS
RECLUSION PERPETUA OR
HIGHER.
E. ALL CASES IN WHICH ONLY AN
ERROR OR QUESTION OF LAW IS
INVOLVED.
SC5. (5) PROMULGATE RULES
CONCERNING THE PROTECTION AND
ENFORCEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS, PLEADING, PRACTICE,
AND PROCEDURE IN ALL COURTS, THE
ADMISSION TO THE PRACTICE OF
LAW, THE INTEGRATED BAR, AND
LEGAL ASSISTANCE TO THE
UNDERPRIVILEGED. SUCH RULES
SHALL PROVIDE A SIMPLIFIED AND
INEXPENSIVE PROCEDURE FOR THE
SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES,
SHALL BE UNIFORM FOR ALL COURTS
OF THE SAME GRADE, AND SHALL
NOT DIMINISH, INCREASE, OR
MODIFY SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS. RULES
OF PROCEDURE OF SPECIAL COURTS
AND QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES SHALL
REMAIN EFFECTIVE UNLESS
DISAPPROVED BY THE SUPREME
COURT.
Requisites for the exercise of judicial review:
a. that there must be before it an actual
case calling for the exercise of judicial
power.
b. that the question must be "ripe" for
adjudication.
A constitutional question is ripe for
adjudication when the governmental
act being challenged has had a direct
adverse effect on the individual
challenging it.
c. locus standi
"a personal and substantial interest in
the case such that he has sustained, or
will sustain, direct injury as a result of
its enforcement.
The elements of standing:
 the petitioner must have
suffered injury in fact which
can be legal, economic, or
environmental;
  the injury must be traceable to
the governmental act
challenged;
 the injury must be redressable
by the remedy being sought by
petitioner
Mootness doctrine is a principle of judicial
procedure whereby American courts will not
decide moot cases that is, cases in which there public funds, a taxpayer has standing to sue if
is no longer any actual controversy. The
inability of the federal judiciary to review moot
cases derives from the requirement of U.S.
Const. art. III under which the exercise of
judicial power depends upon the existence of a
case or controversy. Therefore the courts will
not hear or decide a case unless it includes an
issue that is not considered moot because it
involves the public interest or constitutional
questions.
The challenger's interest in the suit must be
personal and not one based on a desire to
vindicate the constitutional right of some third
and unrelated party.
locus standi, broader than the rule on "real
party in interest," can be used only when
constitutional issues are involved in the
litigation
From these it may be concluded that, although under the Constitution, are to be decided by
he rule on standing is rooted in the nature of
judicial power and is an aspect of judicial self- regard to which full discretionary authority has
restraint required by separation of powers, been delegated to the legislative or executive
what now appears is that whenever a majority branch of the government."
of the members of the Court agree that a
matter is of paramount importance, the Court One class of cases which the Court generally
will entertain a suit even if strict locus standi. refuses to touch are "political questions." The
"political questions" doctrine then constitutes
Standing of legislators, taxpayers and citizens another limitation on the power of judicial
Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works,'13 which review.
ruled that in cases involving expenditure of
it can be shown:
a. "that he has a sufficient interest in
preventing the illegal expenditure of
money raised by taxation"
b. "that he will sustain a direct injury as a
result of the enforcement of the
questioned statute."
in Tan v. Macapagal,"6 and Sanidad v.
COMELEC,"1 it was stressed that as regards
taxpayers' suits,
a. Court enjoys that open discretion to
entertain the same or not
a. what is required is that the action
being challenged must be the exercise
of the spending or taxing power of
Congress.
Political questions.
political questions are "those questions which,
the people in their sovereign capacity, or in