The Supreme Court's power of judicial review

Whenever the highest court of the land calls out the executive or the legislative departments for grave abuses of discretion or going overboard in the scope of their respective authority, the Supreme Court doesn’t essentially assert superiority over the president or the Lower House and the Senate. It merely protects and upholds the Constitution, which we all know as the highest law of the land.

In the recent decision whereby the Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional certain portions of the General Appropriation Acts of 2024 and 2025, respectively, Justice Marvic Leonen declared: "The Court may exercise its extraordinary power of judicial review Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution is both an extraordinary power and a duty imposed upon this Court to exercise its power of judicial review." We all know that the scope of judicial review in the 1987 Charter has been expanded compared to the constitutions of 1935 and 1973 respectively.

Judicial review is the authority of courts to evaluate legislative, executive, and administrative actions for constitutional compliance. The core concepts of judicial review includes constitutional compliance, which means that courts can invalidate laws or administrative orders that violate the Constitution. It also covers checks and balances by which the Supreme Court prevents the legislative and executive branches from exceeding the bounds of their constitutional powers.

We borrowed the principle of judicial review from the landmark U.S. jurisprudence in the celebrated case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, which institutionalized the important role of the Judiciary to interpret the Constitution and to uphold its supremacy as the highest law. Our Constitution of 1987, specifically Article VIII, Section 1, establishes this power, giving courts the duty to settle actual controversies and check for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Article VIII, Section 1 provides: SECTION 1. "The judicial power shall be 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 which are legally demandable and enforceable, and 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 the Government."

Briefly stated, the Supreme Court declared in GAA unconstitutionality case courts of justice determine the limits of power of the agencies and offices of the government as well as those of its officers. In other words, the judiciary is the final arbiter on the question whether or not a branch of government or any of its officials has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction. This isn’t only a judicial power but a duty to pass judgment on matters of this nature.

Leonen teaches us in the GAA cases: "Through the expanded power of judicial review, courts cannot evade the duty to settle matters concerning abuses committed by other branches of government and seek refuge behind the political question doctrine. However, it does not follow that this Court must resolve every question that it has the authority to answer. Courts can pass upon the constitutionality of statutes when the requisites of justiciability are present."

In the GAA cases, the Supreme Court has rebuffed both the president and Congress for exceeding the bounds of their respective powers and authority. That is the principle of checks and balances illustrated in real terms. The Supreme Court is the ultimate guardian of the Constitution, which the executive and legislative often violate.