Photo from Pexels | Leeloo The First
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
Questions of policy or wisdom, oftentimes referred to as political questions, are defined as those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislature or executive branch of the Government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure. (Tañada, et al. v. Cuenca, et al., G.R.No. 10520)
As a general assertion, the political question doctrine prohibits the courts from interfering with the workings of a co-equal branch of government. It is predicated on the principle of separation of powers, such that the Supreme Court cannot substitute its judgment and decide a matter which by its nature or by law, is exclusively lodged on the concerned executive or legislative official. It rests on prudential considerations and serves to preserve the complementary nature of the political and judicial branches to the end of upholding the rights of the general public at all times.
However, the invocation of the political question doctrine does not automatically prevent the Supreme Court from inquiring into and very narrowly and specifically crossing the exclusive domain of the two other branches of government when called upon to exercise power of judicial review.
In Francisco, Jr. v. The House of Representative, the Court emphasized that the expanded scope of judicial power under Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution covers questions that are “not truly political in nature,” reviewable by the courts if only to the extent of determining whether the political branch acted within the constitutional limits of its powers.
Indeed, the 1987 Constitution greatly limited the applicability of the political question doctrine when it expanded the court’s power of judicial review to include the determination of 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. As it is, the political question doctrine is “no longer an insurmountable obstacle of judicial power” which protects executive and legislative actions from judicial review. Thus, while this Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the executive or legislative branches, it may look into the question whether the exercise of their power has been made in grave abuse of discretion. (Syjuco, Jr. v. Abaya, G.R. No. 215650, March 28, 2023)
In the recent case of Macalintal v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 263590), the Supreme Court cited Estrada v. Desierto where the expanded concept of judicial power under the 1987 Constitution and its effect on the political question doctrine was explained as follows:
“To a great degree, the 1987 Constitution has narrowed the reach of the political question doctrine when it expanded the power of judicial review of this court not only to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable but also 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 government. Heretofore, the judiciary has focused on the “thou shalt not’s” of the Constitution directed against the exercise of its jurisdiction. With the new provision, however, courts are given a greater prerogative to determine what it can do to prevent grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government. Clearly, the new provision did not just grant the Court power of doing nothing.”
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.