In the Philippine legal system, the power of judicial review is not merely a statutory privilege but a constitutional duty. Under Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, the judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and lower courts, specifically expanded to include the "grave abuse of discretion" clause.

This article explores the specific grounds and standards the courts apply when determining whether to uphold or strike down an act of the Executive or Legislative branches.

1. The Expanded Concept of Judicial Power

Traditionally, judicial review was limited to "actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable." However, the 1987 Constitution introduced the Expanded Power of Judicial Review, allowing courts:

"...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."

This means that even "political questions"—once considered beyond the reach of the bench—can be reviewed if they involve a violation of constitutional limits.

2. Fundamental Grounds for Review

For a court to reverse a government action, the petitioner must generally establish one of the following:

A. Grave Abuse of Discretion

This is the most common ground. It is not a simple error of judgment; it is a "capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment" equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.

Arbitrariness: When a decision is made without regard to evidence or law.
Despotic Exercise: When power is exercised in a manner so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty.

B. Lack or Excess of Jurisdiction

Lack of Jurisdiction: The agency or official acted without any legal authority over the subject matter.
Excess of Jurisdiction: The official has the authority to act but transcended the bounds set by law.

C. Unconstitutionality

A government action (an executive order, a law, or an ordinance) may be reversed if it violates the Constitution. This includes:

Violation of the Bill of Rights: e.g., breach of due process, equal protection, or freedom of speech.
Violation of Separation of Powers: When one branch usurps the role of another.

D. Violation of Due Process

In administrative law, government actions can be reversed if they fail the "Seven Cardinal Primary Rights" established in Ang Tibay v. CIR:

The right to a hearing.
The tribunal must consider the evidence presented.
The decision must have something to support itself (substantial evidence).
The evidence must be substantial.
The decision must be based on the record of the case.
The deciding body must act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts.
The decision should be rendered in such a manner that parties can know the various issues involved and the reasons for the decision.

3. The "Actual Case or Controversy" Requirement

Courts do not issue advisory opinions. Before they can exercise review, four requisites must be met:

Actual Case: There must be a real conflict of legal rights.
Locus Standi: The petitioner must have a personal and substantial interest in the case (legal standing).
Earliest Opportunity: The question of constitutionality must be raised at the first instance.
Lis Mota: The constitutional question must be the very lis mota (the heart) of the case.

4. Standards of Judicial Scrutiny

When reviewing government actions that limit fundamental rights, Philippine courts apply different "levels" of toughness:

Standard	When Used	Requirement
Strict Scrutiny	For acts affecting fundamental rights (speech, religion) or "suspect" classifications (race).	The government must prove a compelling state interest and use the least restrictive means.
Intermediate Scrutiny	For content-neutral regulations or quasi-suspect classes.	The government must show an important state interest substantially related to the goal.
Rational Basis Test	For economic or social legislation.	The act must simply be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

5. Limitations: When Courts Will Not Interfere

The judiciary generally observes the Principle of Comity and the Presumption of Constitutionality.

Factual Findings: Courts generally respect the factual findings of administrative agencies (like the NLRC or SEC) if supported by substantial evidence.
Political Questions: If a matter is purely a policy decision left by the Constitution to the "wisdom" (not the legality) of the people or the political branches, the court may decline to intervene—provided no grave abuse of discretion is present.

Would you like me to draft a summary of recent Philippine Supreme Court jurisprudence applying the "Grave Abuse of Discretion" standard?