The Judicial Power and Its Role in Upholding Justice: A Critical Analysis of Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution

 Johnvel M. Palaas, LLM

Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution establishes the foundation of judicial power in the Philippines. This section not only defines the role of the judiciary in resolving legal disputes but also emphasizes its crucial function in safeguarding the rule of law and ensuring that no government branch exceeds its constitutional boundaries. Judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court and lower courts and carries two primary mandates: to resolve actual controversies involving legally demandable and enforceable rights and to check for grave abuse of discretion by government entities.

I. The Definition and Scope of Judicial Power

Judicial power, as defined in the Constitution, includes two essential elements:

1. Settling Actual Controversies:  

   The judiciary is tasked with resolving disputes involving rights that are "legally demandable and enforceable." This requirement ensures that the courts do not engage in theoretical or hypothetical cases, but instead focus on real and substantive disputes. The courts are intended to act as a neutral arbiter in situations where there are clear legal issues at stake, such as the violation of contractual rights, property disputes, or challenges to government regulations affecting individual freedoms.

    Example: If a private citizen believes their right to free speech has been violated by a government policy, they may bring their case to the courts. The judiciary’s role is to examine the facts of the case, apply relevant laws, and determine whether the government has overstepped its bounds.

2. Determining Grave Abuse of Discretion:  

   The second mandate expands the traditional role of the judiciary by giving it the authority to review the actions of any branch or instrumentality of the government to ensure that no grave abuse of discretion has occurred. Grave abuse of discretion refers to a government action that is arbitrary, capricious, or done without regard for the law or established legal principles.

   This expanded judicial power, sometimes referred to as expanded judicial review, allows the courts to ensure that government actions remain within the bounds of the law and do not violate the Constitution. This function is particularly crucial in maintaining the checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.

    Example: If the executive branch issues an order or policy that appears to violate the Constitution, such as an unlawful curtailment of freedom of the press, the judiciary has the power to review that action and declare it unconstitutional if it constitutes grave abuse of discretion.

II. Judicial Power and the Doctrine of Separation of Powers

The doctrine of separation of powers is a fundamental principle in democratic governance, ensuring that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government operate independently while maintaining a system of checks and balances. Article VIII, Section 1 empowers the judiciary to act as a check on the powers of the other branches, particularly when there is an overreach or abuse of power.

The judiciary, by its design, is meant to be an impartial arbiter that interprets the law and protects individual rights against possible abuses by the government. This provision places the judiciary in a unique position where it can not only adjudicate legal disputes but also oversee the constitutionality of governmental actions.

Judicial Review as a Check on Government Power

The power to determine whether there has been grave abuse of discretion enhances the role of the courts in maintaining the balance of power between the different branches. By granting the judiciary the authority to assess executive and legislative actions, the Constitution ensures that no branch operates without accountability.

One of the landmark cases that demonstrated the expanded role of judicial power is Francisco v. House of Representatives (2003). In this case, the Supreme Court exercised its power to determine whether the House of Representatives’ impeachment complaint against then-Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The Court ruled that the impeachment proceedings were unconstitutional, illustrating how judicial power can be used to check even the actions of another branch when they violate the Constitution.

III. The Doctrine of Judicial Restraint vs. Judicial Activism

The expanded definition of judicial power under Article VIII, Section 1 has often been debated within the context of judicial activism versus judicial restraint.

Judicial Activism

  Judicial activism refers to the willingness of courts to go beyond merely applying the law to actively shaping policy by striking down government actions that are inconsistent with constitutional principles. This approach often involves a more proactive role in protecting individual rights and ensuring the accountability of public officials. The expanded power of judicial review under Section 1 could be seen as promoting judicial activism, as it allows the courts to intervene in matters traditionally left to the discretion of the executive or legislative branches.

Judicial Restraint

  On the other hand, judicial restraint advocates for a more conservative approach, where courts defer to the decisions of the legislative and executive branches unless there is a clear violation of the Constitution. This approach emphasizes the limited role of the judiciary in democratic governance, maintaining that policy decisions should primarily be left to elected officials. Critics of the expanded judicial power argue that an overly active judiciary risks encroaching on the powers of the other branches, undermining the principle of separation of powers.

IV. Judicial Independence and Accountability

Judicial independence is essential for the proper exercise of judicial power. The judiciary must be free from undue influence from the executive and legislative branches to perform its constitutional duty of interpreting laws impartially and protecting individual rights.

However, with great power comes the responsibility to ensure that the judiciary itself does not abuse its authority. The principle of judicial accountability is just as important as judicial independence. Mechanisms such as impeachment of justices and judicial review of lower court decisions serve as checks on potential abuses within the judiciary itself.

The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), which plays a key role in recommending appointments to the judiciary, ensures that only individuals of proven competence, integrity, and independence are appointed to the courts. This system helps to maintain the credibility and impartiality of the judiciary, which is crucial for the proper exercise of judicial power.

V. Contemporary Challenges and Political Context

In recent years, the exercise of judicial power in the Philippines has been thrust into the spotlight due to high-profile cases involving executive actions and legislative policies. The judiciary has been called upon to address issues such as executive orders related to national security, legislative acts on controversial policies, and high-level government corruption cases.

One key issue has been the judiciary’s role in adjudicating cases involving extrajudicial killings and alleged abuses of power in the government’s anti-drug campaign. Human rights advocates have often looked to the courts to intervene and hold government officials accountable for actions that violate constitutional rights. The courts, through the expanded power of judicial review, have been asked to assess whether these actions constitute grave abuse of discretion.

For example, in cases related to the writ of amparo and habeas corpus, the judiciary has acted as a safeguard for individuals whose constitutional rights may have been violated by state actors. The role of the courts in addressing such issues demonstrates the importance of judicial power in protecting individual freedoms and ensuring government accountability.

However, critics have also raised concerns about the potential overreach of the judiciary into matters of policy-making. Some argue that the courts, by striking down executive or legislative actions, are effectively encroaching on the functions of other branches of government. This tension between judicial activism and judicial restraint is a key issue in the contemporary political context of the Philippines.

VI. Conclusion: The Vital Role of Judicial Power in Philippine Democracy

Article VIII, Section 1 of the Philippine Constitution provides a strong foundation for the exercise of judicial power in the country. By granting the judiciary the authority to resolve actual controversies and check for grave abuse of discretion, the Constitution ensures that the courts can play an essential role in maintaining the rule of law and protecting individual rights.

However, the exercise of this power requires a delicate balance between ensuring accountability and respecting the autonomy of the executive and legislative branches. As the judiciary continues to play a pivotal role in addressing pressing legal and constitutional issues, it must remain vigilant in upholding its responsibility to act as an impartial guardian of the Constitution while avoiding overreach into the domains of other branches.

In a democracy, the judiciary serves as the last line of defense against abuses of power and ensures that the government operates within the framework of the law. The expanded judicial power granted by the Constitution is a powerful tool for ensuring justice, accountability, and the protection of fundamental rights—making it a cornerstone of the Philippine legal system and democratic governance.