LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

BASIC LEGAL CONCEPTS

A course on the methods of reasoning and syllogisms, arguments and expositions,

deductions, the truth table demonstrating invalidity and inconsistency of arguments. It
also includes the logical organization of legal language and logical testing of judicial
reasoning.

Part II – Finals

A. LOGIC

- The study of methods and principles used to DISTINGUISH CORRECT from

INCORRECT reasoning.

- Sorting GOOD ARGUMENTS from BAD ARGUMENTS

B. PROPOSITIONS

- Building block of arguments

- Can be ASSERTED or DENIED

- Can be TRUE or FALSE (do not apply to questions, commands, or

exclamations)

C. ANALYZING ARGUMENTS

Two Common Techniques:

Paraphrasing -

Archimedes will be remembered when Aeschylus is forgotten, because

language die and mathematical ideas do not.

Languages die. The great plays of Aeschylus are in a language.

So the work of Aeschylus will eventually dies.

Diagram -

D. RECOGNIZING ARGUMENTS

Conclusion and Premise Indicators

- Conclusion Indicators

- Premise Indicators
 - Arguments in Context

- Premises not in Declarative form

- Rhetorical Question - interrogative even though its meaning is declarative

- Imperative/Command

- Unstated Proposition

- Enthymes are propositions that are left unstated but it would be understood.

- Arguments vs. Explanation

- In determining difference, deciding factor is the INTENTION of the author.

E. CLASSES OF ARGUMENTS

- Deductive

o Conclusion is supported by premises conclusive.

o Are either VALID or INVALID - no additional premises could possibly

add to the strength of that argument

o “If all humans are mortal, and if Socrates is human, then Socrates is
mortal”

o Techniques used: Modern Symbolic Logic & Classical Logic

- Inductive

o Premises provide some support for its conclusion.

o The higher the LEVEL OF PROBABILITY, the greater the merit of the
argument.

But even when the premises are all true and provide very strong support
for the conclusion, the CONCLUSION IS NEVER CERTAIN.

Always possible that additional information will strengthen or weaken it.

Most corporation lawyers are conservatives. Angela Reyes is a

corporation lawyer. Therefore Angela Reyes is probably a conservative. Suppose
that Angela Reyes is an office of the ACLU. We can also add that most officers of
 the ACLU are not conservatives. This additional information weakened the
original inductive argument.

F. VALIDITY AND TRUTH

- Validity

- Relation between propositions

- Does not apply to single propositions

- When argument is valid, and its premises are true, it is SOUND.

- Truth and Falsity

- Attributes of individual propositions

- Single statement that serves as a premise might be true but the statement
that serves the conclusion might be false

- Does not apply to arguments because an argument may be valid even if one
or two of its premises is not true.

G. REASONING

Retrograde analysis - is the reasoning that seeks to explain how things must
have developed from what went before.

In a certain flight crew, the positions of pilot, copilot, and flight engineer
are held by three persons, Allen, Brown and Carr, though not necessarily in that
order. The Copilot, who is an only child, earns the least. Carr, who married
Brown’s sister, earns more than the pilot. What position does each of the three
persons hold?

Answer:

Carr – flight engineer, earns more than pilot, co-pilot earns the least.
Brown – pilot, Carr is flight engineer, co-pilot is only child Brown has sister
Allen – co-pilot Alonzo, Kurt, Rudolf and Willard are four creative artists of great
talent. One is a dancer, one is a painter, one is a singer, and one is a writer,
though not in necessarily in that order.
(1) Alonzo and Rudolf were in the audience the night the singer made his debut
on the concert stage.
(2) Both Kurt and the writer have had their portraits painted from life by the
painter.
(3) The writer, whose bibliography of Willard was a best-seller, is planning to
write a biography of Alonzo.
(4) Alonzo has never heard of Rudolf.

What is each man’s artistic field?

Alonzo – dancer
Kurt – singer
Rudolf – writer
Willard – painter

FALLACIES

A.
GENERAL CLASSIFICATION

- Formal Fallacy
: a pattern of mistake that appears in deductive arguments of a certain
specifiable form

- Informal Fallacy
: more common, mistakes made in the everyday uses of language arising from
confusions concerning the content of the language used

B.
CLASSIFICATION OF FALLACIES

FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE
are the most commonly encountered in everyday language wherein
the premises of the argument are simply irrelevant to the conclusion.
Premises may be psychologically relevant in that they invoke attitudes that
may cause acceptance of the conclusion.

1. Argument Ad Hominem - A fallacious attack not against a conclusion,

but AGAINST A PERSON WHO ASSERTS OR DEFENDS IT.

Abusive - AGAINST THE CHARACTER of the opponent, denying their

intelligence or reasonableness, questioning their integrity. Variations:
genetic fallacy, unfair accusation, guilt by association

Circumstantial - CIRCUMSTANCES OF ONE WHO MAKES OR

REJECTS SOME CLAIM have no bearing on the truth of that claim.
Circumstances: his employment, nationality, political affiliation.

“Tu quoque”.

- Appeal to the Populace (argument ad populum) - The passions of the speaker

 are used to convince listeners that some beliefs are true, as the speaker plays
with the emotions of the listeners.

Example: Commercial Advertising, Political Nature of Speeches

Appeal to Pity (ad misericordiam) - Premises of an argument boil down to no

more than an appeal to feelings as premises. The emotions appealed to are
that of generosity and mercy.

Example: The story of a youth who killed his parents and when confronted
with overwhelming proof of guilt, his attorney pleads for leniency on the grounds
that he is now an orphan.

Red Herring (topic not related) - Attention is drawn to some observation or claim
that may be associated with the TOPIC BUT IS NOT NECESSARILY RELATED
TO THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT

Example 1: Economic inequality tempered with the argument that most

members of the community are well off, which does not disprove the argument of
the huge gap between the social classes.

Example 2: The original topic is legislation to compel corporations to protect the

pensions of their employees, but a senator deflects the discussion on the topic of
providing advice to retired persons for the investment of their pensions.

Example 3: In a rape case, when a publication supporting the prosecutor diverted
the topic to poverty.
o
Straw Man (
absolute view) -
Position of the opponent is depicted as being more extreme
or unreasonable than what was asserted. A strategy used against another
which
SUPPOSES THAT THE POSITION UNDER ATTACK IS TAKING THE ABSOLUTE
VIEW
(always wrong, always justified)

Example: Attacks on RH bill presupposing that it supports killing of all
unborn
children.
o
The Appeal to Force (
argument ad baculum) -
Use or THREAT OF “STRONG-ARM”
METHODS TO COERCE OPPONENTS as a last resort when evidence or rational
methods
fail. Total abandonment of reason
o
Irrelevant Conclusion (
ignoratio elenchi, non sequitur) -
Committed when an argument
purporting to establish a particular conclusion is instead directed to proving
a different
conclusion. Premises “MISS THE POINT” – “Non Sequitur”

Example 1: Arguments in social legislation. A program, designed to achieve
a
national objective, is supported by premises that provide reasons to share
the
larger end, but tells nothing relevant about the program

Example 2: Tax reforms defended by an emphasis on the need to reduce budget
deficits-- when the real issue is the fairness of yield of the specific tax measure
proposed

FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION
exhibit a special kind of mistake: the tacit supposition of what has
not been given support and may even be insupportable.
o
Complex Question (
rhetorical question)
- Asking a question in such a way as to
presuppose the truth of some conclusion buried in that question

Likely to be a RHETORICAL QUESTION, no answer being genuinely sought
o
False Clause (
post hoc ergo propter hoc, “after the thing, therefore because of the
thing”)
- Presuming the reality of a causal connection that does not really exist
is a
common mistake

Example 1: Unusual weather conditions are blamed on some unrelated celestial
phenomenon that happened to precede them.

Example 2: Infection really caused by a virus is thought to be caused by a chill
wind or wet feet

Death penalty in the United States has given us the highest crime rate
and
greatest number of prisoners per 100,000 population in the industrialized world.
(from New York Times).
o
Begging the Question
(petitio principia)
- Assume the truth of what one seeks to prove, in
the effort to prove it. Technically valid - but always worthless
o
Accident and Converse Accident
- Accidents which arise as a result of the careless, or
deliberately deceptive, use of generalizations.

Fallacy of accident: presume the applicability of a GENERALIZATION TO
INDIVIDUAL CASES that it does not properly govern. “
from generalization
”

Fallacy of converse accident: presume that what is TRUE OF A
PARTICULAR
CASE IS TRUE OF THE GREAT RUN OF CASES. “
to generalization
”
●
FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY
meaning of words or phrases may shift as a result of inattention, or may be deliberately
manipulated within the course of an argument.
o
Equivocation (
confuse meaning)
- Confuse the several meanings of a word or phrase-
accidentally or deliberately in an argument.
o
Amphiboly (
grammatical construction)
-Formulations are ambiguous because of their
grammatical construction. A word’s meaning is indeterminate because of the
loose or
awkward way in which its words are combined.
o
Accent (
emphasis)
- Premise relies for its apparent meaning on one possible emphasis,
but a conclusion is drawn from it that relies on the meaning of the same words accented
differently.
o
Composition (
attribute
of
part to whole)
-
Applied to both of two closely related types of
invalid argument:

Reasoning fallaciously from the attributes of the parts of a whole to the attributes
of the whole itself

Reasoning fallaciously from the attributes of the individual elements or members
of a collection to attributes of the collection or totality of those elements.
o
Division (
attribute of
whole to parts)
-
Arguing fallaciously that what is true of a whole
must also be true of its parts. Arguing from the attributes of a collection of elements to
the
attributes of the elements themselves

Example 1: A certain corporation is important; Mr. Doe is an official of
that
corporation. Therefore, Mr. Doe is important.

Example: A student must have a large room because it is located in a
large
dormitory
CASE LAW AND PRECEDENT
A.
COURT DECISIONS

These decisions are “law” by their own right
o
SC decisions: Binding as precedent because of doctrine of
stare decisis
. They should
be “definitive and authoritative, binding on those occupying the lower ranks
in the
judicial hierarchy.” GENERAL RULE: All lower courts are bound by SC
decisions
EXCEPT: if case cannot be “decided” if decision subject to MFR.
o
Stare decisis:
Lower courts should adhere to doctrinal rules established by the SC in
its final decisions. SC explained:
 (1)
the decisions of higher courts bind lower courts
(2)
Courts of coordinate authority do not bind each other
(3)
One highest court does not
Atty. Christopher Lao
2016-2017
2
bind itself.

Becomes part of law
as of the date that the law was originally passed
B.
STARE DECISES
–
“Doctrine of Precedent” (Stare Decises et non quieta movare)

Judge-made law: Like cases should be decided alike

Works as a bar only against issues litigated in a previous case which are non-
procedural
(substantial)

Enjoys adherence by the lower courts to doctrinal rules established by the Supreme
Court
o
Once a question of law has been examined, it should be deemed settled and
closed to
further argument

Encourages private settlement
of disputes because it discourages individuals from forum and
judge shopping.

Stare decisis is not an inexorable command but a principle of policy and not a
mechanical formula
of adherence to the latest decision
o
Abandoning stare decisis must be based on STRONG and COMPELLING reasons
o
The court may be guided but it is not controlled by precedent

Bowers v. Hardwick – Only SC can overturn SC decision. Ruling overturned by
Lawrence v. Texas.

Gerona v. Secretary of Education - Court sanctioned the expulsion of the students. In
1993, the
Court, in Ebralinag v. Division of Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, took the opposite
position
. SC
overturned SC decision.

Maliksi v. Comelec - Sometimes, a doctrine may be abandoned because Congress
amended the
pertinent law that was the basis of a SC decision. A doctrine, if found contrary to law,
must be
abandoned because “the principle of
stare decisis
does not and should not apply when there is
conflict between the precedent and the law.”

De Mesa v. Pepsi Cola Products Philippines – “Number Fever”. Despite the difference
in the parties
involved, the legal rights & relations of the parties, facts, applicable laws, causes of
action, issues,
and evidence are the same, that’s why the SC dismissed the third complaint on the
basis of the
previous dismissal of the first two. The SC was bound by finality of judgements.

Villena v. Spouses Chavez - A conclusion reached in one case should be applied to
those that
follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different.
SC held this
case was similar to a case previously settled by the CA. Thus, the SC ruled the proper
action was
not unlawful detainer but rescission of contract or specific performance. The earlier
ruling should
apply by way of stare decisis.

Olaguer v. Military Commission No. 34 - Olaguer asked the SC to revisit the issue of
whether
military commissions or tribunals had jurisdiction to try civilians for offenses allegedly
committed
during martial law when civil courts were functioning. SC overturned
Aquino Jr. v. Military
Commission No. 2
and six other decisions and ruled that the creation of Military Commission No.
34 to try civilians was unconstitutional. All its proceedings were deemed null and void.
Precedent is
not upheld just because the SC has already ruled on the issue. Precedence can’t
prevail when
constitutionalism & public interest demand it.
C.
RES JUDICATA

REQUISITES
o
The former judgment or order must be
final
o
the judgment of order must be on the
merits
o
It must have been rendered by the
court having
jurisdiction
over the subject matter and
the parties
o
There must be, between the first and second actions,
identity of parties, of subject
matter, and cause of action
.
1.
Identity of parties – Representing same interests in both parties
2.
Identity of rights – Belief being founded on the same facts
3.
Identity in two particulars – Any judgment which may be rendered in another will,
regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in consideration

“A matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by
judgment”.
o
Applies only to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, not administrative.
o
Interlocutory order does not result to res judicata

Rests on the principle that parties should not be permitted to litigate the same issue
more than
once; that when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of
competent
jurisdiction, so long as it remains unreversed, it should be conclusive upon the parties
and those in
privity with them in law or estate
o
There should be an end to litigation by the same parties over a subject once fully and
fairly
adjudicated

Res judicata vs. Stare decisis
- the focal point of res judicata is the judgement but for
stare
decisis, it
is the doctrine created.
D.
LAW OF THE CASE

Effect of judgment or final orders:
(Paragraph 2)
“In any other litigation between the same parties or
their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former
judgment or
final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged or
which was actually and
necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.” (Sec. 47, Rule 39, ROC)

Whatever is once irrevocably established as the
controlling legal principle
of the decision continues
to be the law of the case BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES IN THE SAME CASE, as long
as the
facts of the case remain the same.

Law of the case v. Stare decisis
:
o
A decision on a prior appeal
of the same case
usually refers to the law of the case while
stare decisis may pertain to other cases with similar nature.
o
Stare decisis forecloses parties or privies in one case by what has been done in another
case.
o
law of the case deals entirely with questions of law while stare decisis is generally
concerned with the effect of adjudication in a wholly independent proceeding.
E.
INCONSISTENSIES

Sweetheart defense
in rape cases which suggests that the existence of a romantic relationship
precludes the possibility of rape
.
o
The court said that even if the relationship really existed, the fact that they are
“sweethearts”
does not negate the crime of rape. Love is not a license for love. But what really
destroyed
the “sweetheart” defense was the declaration of “AAA” that she did not love him.
o
From the aforementioned case, it seems that evidence can be shown to prove that there
is
actually a romantic relationship. If the existence of a relationship does not preclude the
existence of rape, then why allow the admission of such evidence?
o
“Sweetheart defense” rashly derides the intelligence of the Court and sorely
tests its
patience. It may be true that the defendant and the plaintiff were lovers,
there was no
license for accused-appellant to force himself upon her.

Judicial flip-flopping
is another form of inconsistency in SC decisions involving a single case
which the SC justices cannot seem to agree on what the correct interpretation of the law
should be.
o
League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC - SC reversed itself three times and it
did
so in a span of three years.
o
Indecision on the part of the Court creates little confidence in the Judiciary. It suggests
that
the law is nothing more than the Justices whims, especially when the members of the
Court
shift sides in the dispute. This particular case became of the grounds for the
impeachment
case of Chief Justice Renato Corona in December 2011.
RATIO DECIDENDI & OBITER DICTUM
A.
RATIO DECIDENDI

Binding precedent
Atty. Christopher Lao
2016-2017
3

Ultimate issue directly before the court, expressly decided in the consideration of the
case, so that
any resolution thereon must be considered as authoritative precedent.
B.
OBITER DICTUM

Not a binding precedent
. It cannot be cited as a doctrinal declaration of the SC and is not safe
from judicial examination.

A matter that was not raised expressly and therefore, it was required for the disposition
of the case.
SC has ruled that a remark made by a judge in a decision upon a cause, and not
directly upon the
question before the court.

Oposa v. Factoran - Cited as a case that recognizes the standing of future generations
to sue on
behalf of the environment. A careful analysis of the case will show that Secretary
Factoran never
challenged petitioner's standing to sue. The pronouncement on standing is
obiter dictum
as, in this
case, it touched upon a matter that was not raised expressly by the petitioner, and
therefore, it was
not a prerequisite in disposing of the case. Of course, the Philippine Supreme Court has
also held
that dictum is generally not binding as authority or precedent within the
stare decisis
rule, but may
be followed if sufficiently persuasive.

Mercado v People of the Philippines - Marvin Mercado was convicted by the Regional
Trial Court
(RTC) for car napping and was sentenced to prison term of twelve years
and one day as a
minimum to seventeen years and four months as maximum. In that decision, the Court
of Appeals
relied on a footnote in the case of People v Omotoy to affirm the conviction of Mercado.
In essence,
the footnote explained the direct appeal to the Supreme Court from the
RTC by reason of
imposition of reclusion perpetua and avoidance of delaying the disposition of the case.
The Court
pronounced that while this footnote was not the ratio decidendi of the case, it still
constituted “an
important part of the decision since it enunciated a fundamental procedural rule in the
conduct of
appeals.”

Villanueva v. Court of Appeal - Villadores was charged with the offense of
falsification of public
documents for falsifying a surety bond in an appeal against Villanueva, Jr. In
the course of the
proceedings, a second amended information was accepted by the trial court wherein
Villanueva
was added as an offended party. On the strength of the pronouncement of the Court of
Appeals that
Villanueva is not an offended party, Villadores filed a Motion to Disqualify
Villanueva’s counsel.
Villanueva argued that the pronouncement of the Court of Appeals was mere
obiter dictum
and it
lacks the force of adjudication. The Court ruled that the pronouncement of the Court of
Appeals was
not an
obiter dictum
because it touched upon the issue of Villanueva’s inclusion as an offended
party, a matter clearly raised by Villadores in his petition. It stated that as a rule: “It has
been held
that an adjudication on any point within the issues presented by the case cannot be
considered as
obiter dictum
, and this rule applied to all pertinent questions, although only incidentally involved
which are presented and decided in the regular course of the consideration of the case,
and led up
to the final conclusion, and to any statement as to matter on which the decision is
predicated.”
C.
RULINGS PRO HAC VICE

A ruling expressly qualified as pro hac vice cannot be relied upon as a precedent to
govern other
cases. Decisions qualified as pro hac vice are made only when there are
“extremely peculiar
circumstance” in a case.

Citizens’ Battle against Corruption v. COMELEC
-
SC was asked to determine whether the
COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it denied CIBAC an additional seat in the
HoR under
the party-list system. the COMELEC adopted a simplified formula of one
additional seat per
additional 2% limiting CIBAC to a single seat. The COMELEC defended its decision by
citing a SC
Resolution. In the said Resolution, the SC granted BUHAY’s Motion for
Reconsideration, entitling it
to one additional seat for having garnered more than 4% of the total number of votes
cast for the
party-list system. However, when the Court granted BUHAY an additional seat, it meant
to apply it
on that specific case alone, not being a precedent- pro hac vice. Thus, that Resolution
could not be
applied as a precedent to future case.

Decisions pro hac vice are applied to admin matters such as requests for the audio
coverage of oral arguments before the SC.
In the case questioning the constitutionality of the
PDAF, the SC approved the request of pro hac vice of Atty. Te, Chief of the
Public Information
Office, to “livestream” the audio component of the oral arguments. The
approval was meant to
apply only to the specific case for which the request was made
JUDICIAL POWER
“Section 1. The judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts
as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights that are legally
demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been grave
abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess or jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of
Government.” (Art.VIII, Sec. 1,
Constitution)
A.
SUPREME COURT POWERS

Original
: “Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers
and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari (grave abuse of discretion), prohibition,
mandamus,
quo warranto, and habeas corpus.” (Art. VIII, Sec. 5, par. 1. Const.)

Appellate
: “Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the
Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
o
All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of and treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, executive order, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question
o
All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty
imposed in relation thereto
o
All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue
o
All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher
o
All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved” (Art VIII, Sec. 5, par. 2,
Const.)
B.
DIVISIONS

The Court sits in division of
three, five and seven
. The SC only sits En Banc on the following
matters and cases:
o
Cases in which the constitutionality or validity of and treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, executive order, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question;
o
Criminal cases in which the appealed decision imposes the death penalty or reclusion
perpetua
o
Cases raises the novel questions of law
o
Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls
o
Cases involving decisions, resolutions, and order of the Civil Service Commission, the
Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit
o
...(p. 27-29 of Philippine History and the Legal System Book)

SC En Banc not an appellate court for decisions of divisions.
The only constraint is any doctrine
or principle of law laid down by the Court, either rendered en banc or in division, may be
overturned or reversed only by the Court sitting en banc.
C.
JUDICIAL HEIRARCHY
4
TH
LEVEL
Supreme Court (SC)
Exercises the power to settle actual
controversies involving rights that are
legally demandable and enforceable and to
determine whether or not there has been
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess or jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of Government.
The Court of last resort
3
RD
LEVEL
Court of Appeals (CA)
Exercises power, functions, and duties
Atty. Christopher Lao
2016-2017
4
through twenty-three divisions of three
members each.
Assigned to review cases elevated to it from
the RTCs as well as quasi-judicial agencies.
Sandiganbayan
Anti-Graft court that tries public officers
charged with criminal cases involving graft,
corrupt practices and corresponding civil
cases for recovery of civil liability.
Court of Tax Appeals
Exclusive jurisdiction to review on appeal
decisions in cases involving disputed
assessments, refunds of internal revenue
taxes, fees, or other charges, penalties in
relation thereto, or other matters arising
under the National Internal Revenue Code
or Tariff and Customs Code.
Shari’a Appellate Court
(SAC)
Exercise original jurisdiction over petitions
for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,
habeas corpus, and other auxiliary writs and
processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction,
and to exercise exclusive appe;ate
jurisdiction over all cases tried in the SDCs.
2
ND
LEVEL
Regional Trial Courts
(RTCs)
Established in thirteen regions of the
Philippines and exercise appellate
jurisdiction over decisions of 1
st
Level courts
(MeTC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC) in their
respective jurisdiction.
Shari’a District Courts
(SDC)
Can appeal to Shari’a Appellate Courts
1
ST
LEVEL
Metropolitan Trial Courts
(MeTCs)
Created in each metropolitan area
established by law
Municipal Trial Courts in
Cities (MTCCs)
Created in every city which does not form
part of the metropolitan area
Municipal Trial Courts
(MTCs)
Established in each of the other cities or
municipalities
Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts (MCTCs)
Created in each circuit composing such
cities and/or municipalities as grouped by
law
Shari’a Circuit Courts
(SCC)
Established in Islamic regions and
provinces to interpret and apply the Code of
Muslim Personal Laws (P.D. 1083)
JUDICIAL REVIEW
“Section 4. (2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or
executive agreement,, or law, which
shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under the
Rules of Court are required to be
heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of
presidential decrees,
proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided
with the concurrence of a
majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the
case and voted thereon.” (Art.
VIII, Sec. 4, par 2. Const.)
“...whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
or jurisdiction on the part of
any branch or instrumentality of Government.” (Art.VIII, Sec. 1, Constitution)
= Expanded certiorari jurisdiction
A.
REQUISITES

Actual case or controversy
calling for the exercise of judicial power
o
There must be a case that is
ripe and existing for determination.
o
No case or controversy when as issue becomes
moot
(when it ceases to present a
justiciable controversy because of supervening events, so that the determination of the
issue would have no practical use)

When to relax rule for mootness
: (1) there is grave violation of the
Constitution (2) the situation has an exceptional character and the paramount
public interest is involved (3) constitutional issue raised requires formulation of
controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public (4) case is
capable of repetition but has evaded review

The person challenging the stand must have
locus standi (legal standing)
o
A personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party
has sustained or
will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being
challenged
o
Must have suffered come actual or threatened injury
o
EXCEPTIONS:

Case involves
constitutional issues

Taxpayers
– must be a claim of illegal disbursement or public funds, or tax
measure is unconstitutional

Voters
– must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of election law in
question

Concerned citizens
– must be a showing that issues raised are of
transcendental importance which must be settled early

Legislators
– claim that official actions complained of infringes upon their
prerogatives as legislators

Question of
constitutionality
must be raised at the
earliest
possible opportunity
o
The question of unconstitutionality must have been raised in the proceedings in the
court below
o
But court, in the exercise of sound discretion, can take cognizance of the constitutional
issue raised by the parties.

Issue of constitutionality must be the
lis mota
of the case
o
Rooted in the principle of separation of powers and arises from the
presumption of
validity
accorded to executive and legislative acts of our co-equal branches of the
government
o
Legislative act has presumed validity, therefore the
burden is on the petitioner
to
prove that the case cannot be resolved unless the constitutional issue he raised is
determined by the court.
B.
POLITICAL QUESTIONS

Those question 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
legislative or
executive branch of the government.
o
Marcos regime – what the Courts did SC hid behind the “political question doctrine” as
an excuse not to question the acts of the administration.

Never precludes judicial review when the act of a constitutional organ infringes upon a
fundamental
individual or collective right.
C.
EFFECT OF DECLARATION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY

GENERAL RULE: An unconstitutional act is not a law. Iit confers no rights, it imposes
no duties, it
affords no protection, it creates no office, it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as
though it had
never been passed.

OPERATIVE FACT DOCTRINE
: A law or executive issuance must first be invalidated by the Court.
o
The doctrine is concerned with the consequences with the acts performed under the
unconstitutional law.
o
The SC applies the doctrine “when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an
undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law.”
o
No rule that automatically applies the operative fact doctrine where law is found to be
unconstitutional.
o
The courts may also require that certain acts can be undone if they were performed
under an unconstitutional law.
Atty. Christopher Lao
2016-2017
5

Planters Products Inc. V. Fertiphil Corporation
: The court refused to apply the
doctrine and explained that they do not find anything iniquitous in ordering PPI
to refund the amounts paid by Fertiphil under LOI No. 1465. PPI unduly
benefited from the levy. Quite the reverse, it would be inequitable and unjust not
to order a refund. To do so would unjustly enrich PPI at the expense of Fertiphil.
The court cannot allow PPI to profit from an unconstitutional law. Justice
and equity dictate that PPI
must
refund the amounts paid by Fertiphil.
o
Araullo v Aquino III (DAP Case) - the doctrine may only apply to program, projects and
activities that can no longer be undone and whose beneficiaries relied in good faith on
the validity of the DAP. The doctrine cannot be applied to authors,
proponents and
implementers of DAP unless concrete findings of good faith in their favor.
D.
PARTIAL UNCONSTITUTIONALITY; THE SEPARABILITY CLAUSE

Partial unconstitutionality - when a statute is declared unconstitutional in part and it is
possible to
only disregard the unconstitutional part without affecting the valid part, only the
unconstitutional part
of the statute will be discarded.

Separability Clause - creates the presumption that Congress intended
separability rather than
complete nullity of the statute.
o
However, a statute may still be declared unconstitutional as a whole despite the
presence
of a separability clause:
o
Tatad v Secretary of DOE - Separability clause only creates a presumption, it is an aid
in
statutory construction, and not a command. It also cannot be applied if it will create an
absurd result. The separability clause cannot be invoked if it will defeat the intent of the
legislature.
E.
WHEN JUDICIAL REVIEW IS NOT EXERCISED
●
Power of judicial review can only be exercised in connection with a
bona fide case or controversy
which involves
the statute sought to be reviewed.
o
Montesclaros v. COMELEC - Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of a
proposed
bill postponing the SK elections to a later date, thereby rendering such
petitioners
ineligible for participation as a function of the age requirement. Court ruled
it cannot
exercise the power of judicial review over a proposed bill because there was no actual
controversy. The bill was not passed into law yet and intervention from the judiciary
would
amount to giving advisory opinions on an act of Congress (against principle of co-equal
branches of government).
o
In re Supreme Court Judicial Independence v. Judiciary Development Fund
- A bill
produces no legal effects until passed into law. The judiciary cannot rule
on mere
speculations or issues that are not ripe for judicial determination. Ergo, SC cannot stop
Congress from passing laws that will abolish JDF