Jurisdiction over the remedies
The most basic jurisdiction to the Supreme Court and such other courts as may be
created by law is the power and duty to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. In the words of no less
than the Supreme Court, judicial power includes the power to "settle justiciable
controversies or disputes involving rights that are enforceable and demandable
before the courts of justice or the redress of wrongs for violations of such
rights"[1] In simplest terms, this is the most basic
subject-matter jurisdiction
of the courts and it is up for Congress to approtion this power.
The
1987 Constitution, however, has expanded judicial power to include not only the settlement of
actual controversies but also the determination of the existence of grave abuse of discretion
by any government instrumentality. This expanded power does not require
actual controversy
as long as grave abuse of discretion was committed by any branch, office,
commission, or any instrumentality of the government.
The
1987 Constitution, however, has expanded judicial power to include not only the settlement of
actual controversies but also the determination of the existence of grave abuse of discretion
by any government instrumentality. This expanded power does not require
actual controversy
as long as grave abuse of discretion was committed by any branch, office,
commission, or any instrumentality of the government.
Jurisprudence refers to the first power as traditional power of judicial
review. The second one is called the expanded or extraordinary power of
judicial review.[2]
The relevance of all these discussions on jurisdiction over the remedies is
the fact that not all questions can be passed upon by the courts. In short,
judicial review is not always the remedy and there are cases in which there is
no remedy to question a government act or omission. The courts would have no
jurisdiction over the remedies because the "remedy" (quotes intended) would be
suffrage, not judicial recourse.
On one hand, there are questions classified as "justiciable controversies"
and, on the other hand, there are those which are labeled as "political
controversies." Political controversies or political questions are also called
"non-justiciable questions."
Political or non-justiciable questions are those which cannot be passed upon
or resolved by courts because to do so would be violative of the principle of
separation of powers. Such questions or political matters belong to the
political branches of the Government -- the Executive Branch and the
Legislative Branch -- and they are considered policy matters. The remedy to
question policy matters would not be to go to court; rather, to vote out those
who advocate such policies.
Going back to the discussion on judicial power, the remedy of judicial review
is available only to (1) controversies involving rights which are legal
demandable and enforceable (the
actual controversy test) and (2) controversies involving grave abuse of discretion in any
instrumentality of the Government. Beyond these, courts cannot step in to hear
and decide. In other words, over policy questions, judicial review would not
be the proper remedy; there would be no remedy.
In raising a question to the courts, a party-litigant must show the existence
of the court's jurisdiction over the remedies -- i.e. the remedy of judicial
review -- to pass upon, resolve or decide a question which must be a
justiciable one, not a political one.
[1] Lopez v. Roxas, 124 Phil. 168, 173 (1966) [Per C.J. Concepcion,
En Banc].
[2] Association of Medical Clinics for Overseas Workers, Inc. (AMCOW) v.
GCC Approved Medical Centers Association, Inc., 802 Phil. 116, 137-139 (2016)
[Per J. Brion, En Banc] and Araullo v. Aquino III, 111 Phil. 457, 525-527
(2014) [Per J. Bersamin, En Banc].
