A justiciable question
A justiciable question is one which is inherently susceptible of being decided
on grounds recognized by law,[1] as where the court finds that there are
constitutionally-imposed limits on the exercise of the powers conferred on a
political branch of the government.[2]
The issue of whether a Deputy Ombudsman may be subjected to the administrative
disciplinary jurisdiction of the President (concurrently with that of the
Ombudsman) is a justiciable – not a political – question.[3]
The issue of whether a Deputy Ombudsman may be subjected to the administrative
disciplinary jurisdiction of the President (concurrently with that of the
Ombudsman) is a justiciable – not a political – question.[3]
Justiciability refers to the types of matters that a court can
adjudicate. If a case is "nonjusticiable," then the court cannot hear
it. Typically to be justiciable, the court must not be offering an advisory
opinion, the plaintiff must have standing, and the issues must be ripe but
neither moot nor violative of the political question doctrine. Typically,
these issues are all up to the discretion of the court which is adjudicating
the issue.[4]
[1] Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, 392 Phil. 618, 637 (2000).
[2] Separate Opinion of Justice Puno in Integrated Bar of the Philippines v.
Zamora; id. at 661.
[4] Read more: Justiciability. Cornell Law School.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/justiciability.
