Introduction

In the Philippine governmental framework, the principle of separation of powers is enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, establishing three co-equal branches: the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. This system, modeled after the American constitutional structure due to historical colonial ties, incorporates checks and balances to prevent any single branch from dominating the others. Central to the Judiciary's function is the power of judicial review, which empowers the Supreme Court to declare laws, executive orders, or actions unconstitutional. This authority serves as a critical check on the Executive branch, ensuring that presidential actions, administrative issuances, and implementations of law align with constitutional mandates.

The Supreme Court's role in this regard is not merely interpretive but actively safeguards individual rights, democratic processes, and the rule of law. By invalidating unconstitutional measures, the Court prevents executive overreach, such as arbitrary exercises of power or violations of fundamental freedoms. This article explores the constitutional foundations, historical evolution, procedural mechanisms, landmark jurisprudence, limitations, and contemporary implications of this judicial power in the Philippine context.

Constitutional Foundations

The 1987 Philippine Constitution explicitly vests judicial power in the Supreme Court and lower courts, as outlined in Article VIII. Section 1 defines judicial power broadly:

"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."

This provision, often referred to as the "expanded certiorari jurisdiction," was a deliberate expansion from previous constitutions to address abuses during the Marcos dictatorship. It allows the Supreme Court to review not only legislative acts but also executive actions for grave abuse of discretion, effectively positioning the Court as a guardian against executive excesses.

Article VIII, Section 5 enumerates the Supreme Court's powers, including:

Exercising original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
Reviewing, on appeal or certiorari, final judgments of lower courts in cases involving the constitutionality or validity of treaties, laws, presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, or regulations.
Assigning temporary judges to lower courts and handling administrative matters related to the judiciary.

The Constitution requires that cases involving the constitutionality of laws or executive actions be decided by the Supreme Court en banc (full court) under Section 4(2), ensuring collective deliberation for matters of national importance. This en banc requirement underscores the gravity of declaring unconstitutionality, as it demands a majority vote of at least eight justices (out of 15) for such rulings.

The power to declare laws unconstitutional stems from the supremacy clause in Article II, Section 1, which states that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any law or executive action inconsistent with it is void ab initio. This mirrors the U.S. Supreme Court's authority established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), which the Philippine judiciary adopted through American colonial influence.

Historical Evolution

The concept of judicial review in the Philippines traces back to the American colonial period. Under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law of 1916, courts could invalidate laws conflicting with organic acts or the U.S. Constitution. The 1935 Constitution formalized this in Article VIII, Section 2, granting the Supreme Court jurisdiction over cases involving constitutionality.

The 1973 Constitution, enacted under martial law, retained judicial review but curtailed it through amendments that limited challenges to martial law declarations. The Marcos regime's control over the judiciary highlighted the need for stronger checks, leading to the 1987 Constitution's enhancements.

Post-1986 People Power Revolution, the Supreme Court reasserted its independence. Early cases under the Aquino administration tested this, evolving into a robust mechanism against executive overreach during subsequent presidencies, including those of Ramos, Estrada, Arroyo, Aquino III, Duterte, and Marcos Jr.

Procedural Mechanisms

To invoke the Supreme Court's power to declare unconstitutionality as an executive check, several procedural requisites must be met:

Actual Case or Controversy: The Court requires a genuine dispute with adversarial parties, not hypothetical questions. Advisory opinions are not issued, as per the doctrine of ripeness.
Standing (Locus Standi): Petitioners must demonstrate direct and personal injury from the challenged act. Exceptions include taxpayer suits for illegal expenditure of public funds, legislator suits for usurpation of powers, or transcendental importance cases where societal impact justifies relaxed standing (e.g., environmental or human rights issues).
Hierarchy of Courts: Petitions must generally start at lower courts unless direct recourse to the Supreme Court is warranted by grave abuse or national significance.
Mootness and Ripeness: Cases must not be moot (resolved by events) and must be ripe (imminent harm).
Political Question Doctrine: The Court avoids issues better left to political branches, but the expanded jurisdiction under Article VIII, Section 1 has narrowed this doctrine, allowing review of executive actions for grave abuse.

Petitions typically take the form of certiorari (Rule 65) or prohibition, seeking to annul executive orders or laws. The Court may issue temporary restraining orders (TROs) or writs of preliminary injunction to halt implementation pending decision.

Decisions declaring unconstitutionality can be total (striking down the entire law) or partial (severing unconstitutional provisions if separable). The doctrine of operative fact recognizes that actions taken under a void law may have valid effects if relied upon in good faith.

Landmark Jurisprudence

The Supreme Court has exercised this power in numerous cases, serving as a bulwark against executive actions:

Angara v. Electoral Commission (1936): Established judicial review in the Philippines, affirming the Court's supremacy in constitutional interpretation over other branches.
Javellana v. Executive Secretary (1973): Upheld the 1973 Constitution's ratification amid martial law, but dissenting opinions highlighted judicial constraints under authoritarian rule.
Aquino v. Enrile (1974): Limited review of martial law, but post-1987 cases expanded scrutiny.
Ople v. Torres (1998): Declared Executive Order No. 420 unconstitutional for creating a national ID system without legislative backing, violating privacy rights—a direct check on executive administrative power.
Estrada v. Desierto (2001): Ruled on the validity of Vice President Arroyo's assumption of presidency, checking executive succession amid impeachment.
Francisco v. House of Representatives (2003): Invalidated impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Davide for procedural flaws, protecting judicial independence from executive-legislative interference.
David v. Macapagal-Arroyo (2006): Declared Proclamation No. 1017 (state of national emergency) partly unconstitutional, limiting executive emergency powers and affirming press freedom.
Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission (2010): Struck down Executive Order No. 1 creating the Truth Commission for targeting the prior administration, violating equal protection.
Lagman v. Medialdea (2017): Upheld martial law in Mindanao under Duterte but set parameters for extension, requiring factual basis and congressional review.
Association of Medical Clinics for Overseas Workers v. GCC-Approved Medical Centers Association (2019): Invalidated DOH regulations for exceeding statutory authority, checking executive rulemaking.
Petitions vs. Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (2021): Declared certain provisions unconstitutional, such as overly broad definitions allowing executive abuse against dissenters, while upholding the core law.

These cases illustrate the Court's role in curbing executive overreach in areas like emergency powers, administrative regulations, and human rights.

Limitations and Criticisms

Despite its potency, the Supreme Court's power has limitations:

Judicial Restraint: The Court defers to executive discretion in policy matters unless grave abuse is shown.
Enforcement Challenges: Decisions rely on executive compliance; historical non-compliance (e.g., during martial law) underscores this vulnerability.
Politicization: Appointments by the President can influence rulings, raising impartiality concerns.
Backlog and Delay: The Court's docket overload can delay resolutions, allowing unconstitutional acts to persist.
Criticisms: Some argue the Court oversteps into policymaking (judicial activism), while others decry conservatism in upholding executive actions.

Reforms, such as the Judicial and Bar Council for appointments, aim to mitigate biases.

Contemporary Implications

In the current Philippine landscape, the Supreme Court's role remains vital amid ongoing challenges like drug war policies, counter-terrorism measures, and economic reforms. Under the Marcos Jr. administration, cases involving charter change, foreign investments, and pandemic responses test this check. The Court's decisions influence governance, investor confidence, and international relations, reinforcing democratic accountability.

Globally, this mirrors trends in constitutional courts (e.g., India's basic structure doctrine or South Africa's transformative jurisprudence), adapting to modern threats like populism and digital surveillance.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's authority to declare laws and executive actions unconstitutional is a cornerstone of Philippine democracy, embodying the judiciary's role as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional fidelity. Rooted in history, fortified by the 1987 Constitution, and honed through jurisprudence, it ensures executive power serves the people without trampling rights. While imperfect, this mechanism upholds the delicate balance of powers, fostering a government of laws, not men. As societal complexities evolve, the Court's vigilant exercise of this power will continue to define the nation's commitment to justice and liberty.