In the Philippine legal system, the 1987 Constitution serves as the fundamental law of the land to which all other laws, executive acts, and administrative regulations must conform. This principle, known as the Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy, ensures that any act found to be in conflict with the Constitution is deemed null and void. The mechanism through which the judiciary exercises this oversight is called Judicial Review.
I. The Constitutional Basis of Judicial Power
The authority of the judiciary to pass upon the constitutionality of a law is explicitly granted under Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution. It defines judicial power as:
"...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."
This "expanded" jurisdiction allows the Supreme Court to check the actions of the Executive and Legislative branches even in matters traditionally considered "political questions," provided there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion.
II. The Four Requisites for Judicial Review
The courts do not proactively seek out laws to invalidate. For a court to exercise the power of judicial review, four stringent requirements must be met:
1. Actual Case or Controversy
The court will not issue advisory opinions. There must be a real, existing conflict of legal rights between parties, or an assertion of a right that has been violated. The case must be "ripe" for adjudication, meaning the threat of injury is immediate and not merely speculative.
2. Locus Standi (Legal Standing)
The party challenging the law must have a personal and substantial interest in the case, such that they have sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the law's enforcement.
- Exceptions: In cases of "transcendental importance," the Supreme Court often relaxes this rule, allowing Taxpayer Suits, Citizen Suits, or Legislative Standing (where lawmakers challenge acts that infringe on their prerogatives).
3. Earliest Opportunity
The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible stage—usually in the initial pleadings (the Complaint or the Answer) filed in the trial court. Failure to do so may result in the waiver of the argument, though courts may overlook this if the question is jurisdictional or essential to the administration of justice.
4. Lis Mota
The constitutional question must be the very "cause of the suit." If a case can be decided on other grounds (e.g., statutory interpretation or procedural technicalities), the court will avoid the constitutional issue. The challenge to the law must be the "limit" or the "turning point" of the controversy.
III. Procedural Vehicles for Challenge
There are two primary ways a law is challenged in the Philippine courts:
| Action | Description | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|---|
| Declaratory Relief (Rule 63) | Filed before a breach or violation occurs. The petitioner asks the court to declare their rights or duties under a statute. | Regional Trial Court (RTC) |
| Certiorari & Prohibition (Rule 65) | Filed to annul an act or prevent the enforcement of a law/regulation due to Grave Abuse of Discretion. | RTC, Court of Appeals, or Supreme Court |
While the Hierarchy of Courts generally dictates that cases start at the Regional Trial Court, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over petitions challenging the constitutionality of laws, especially when the matter involves national interest or urgent constitutional issues.
IV. The Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts vs. Direct Resort
Generally, a party cannot go straight to the Supreme Court. However, the Court may take "cognizance" of a direct petition if the following exist:
- The issue is one of Transcendental Importance.
- The case is of First Impression (no existing precedent).
- The constitutional issues are purely legal and do not require a trial to determine facts.
V. The Effect of Unconstitutionality
When a law is declared unconstitutional, it generally produces no legal effect. However, the Philippine Supreme Court applies two distinct perspectives:
The Orthodox View (Void Ab Initio)
Under this view, an unconstitutional law is not a law at all; it confers no rights, imposes no duties, and affords no protection. It is treated as if it never existed.
The Operative Fact Doctrine
This is an exception to the void ab initio rule. It recognizes that before a law was declared unconstitutional, it existed as an "operative fact" that people relied upon. Under this doctrine, the effects of the law prior to the declaration of unconstitutionality (such as taxes paid or contracts entered into) may be left undisturbed in the interest of equity and fair play.
VI. The Role of the Solicitor General
In any action involving the validity of a statute, executive order, or regulation, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) must be notified and heard. The OSG acts as the "Lawyer of the Government" and is tasked with defending the constitutionality of the challenged act. If the OSG refuses to defend the law (which happens in rare instances of conflict), the court may appoint a counsel ad litem.