IN THE MATTER OF: SAVE THE SUPREME COURT JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND FISCAL AUTONOMY MOVEMENT VS. ABOLITION OF JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND (JDF) AND REDUCTION OF FISCAL AUTONOMY. (Political Law Digest)

IN THE MATTER OF: SAVE THE SUPREME COURT JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND FISCAL AUTONOMY MOVEMENT VS. ABOLITION OF JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND (JDF) AND REDUCTION OF FISCAL AUTONOMY. January 21, 2015

FACTS: This case involves the proposed bills abolishing the Judiciary Development Fund and replacing it with the "Judiciary Support Fund." Funds collected from the proposed Judiciary Support Fund shall be remitted to the national treasury and Congress shall determine how the funds will be used.

This matter was raised to this court through the letter dated August 27, 2014, signed by Mijares and addressed to the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court. The letter is captioned: Petition for Mandamus with Manifestation to invoke the Judicial Independence and Fiscal Autonomy as mandated under the Constitution; docketed as UDK-15143.

Petitioner argues that Congress "gravely abused its discretion with a blatant usurpation of judicial independence and fiscal autonomy of the Supreme Court."; that Congress is exercising its power "in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility by abolishing the ‘Judiciary Development Fund’ (JDF) of the Supreme Court."

Petitioner prays that this court exercise its powers to "REVOKE/ABROGATE and EXPUNGE whatever irreconcilable contravention of existing laws affecting the judicial independence and fiscal autonomy as mandated under the Constitution to better serve public interest and general welfare of the people."

 

ISSUE: WON the Court may judicially review proposed bills

RULING: NO.

Requisites for judicial review

Petitioner must comply with all the requisites for judicial review before this court may take cognizance of the case. The requisites are:

(1) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power;

(2) the person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject act or issuance; otherwise stated, he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement;

(3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and

(4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.

Petitioner’s failure to comply with the first two requisites warrants the outright dismissal of this petition.

 

No actual case or controversy

For this court to rule on constitutional issues, there must first be a justiciable controversy. Pleadings before this court must show a violation of an existing legal right or a controversy that is ripe for judicial determination.

Petitioner’s allegations show that he wants this court to strike down the proposed bills abolishing the Judiciary Development Fund. This court, however, must act only within its powers granted under the Constitution. This court is not empowered to review proposed bills because a bill is not a law.

A proposed bill creates no right and imposes no duty legally enforceable by the Court. A proposed bill, having no legal effect, violates no constitution alright or duty. The Court has no power to declare a proposed bill constitutional or unconstitutional because that would be in the nature of rendering an advisory opinion on a proposed act of Congress. The power of judicial review cannot be exercised in vacuo. . . .

Under the separation of powers, the Court cannot restrain Congress from passing any law, or from setting into motion the legislative mill according to its internal rules. Thus, the following acts of Congress in the exercise of its legislative powers are not subject to judicial restraint: the filing of bills by members of Congress, the approval of bills by each chamber of Congress, the reconciliation by the Bicameral Committee of approved bills, and the eventual approval into law of the reconciled bills by each chamber of Congress. Absent a clear violation of specific constitutional limitations or of constitutional rights of private parties, the Court cannot exercise its power of judicial review over the internal processes or procedures of Congress.

 

No Locus Standi

Locus standi is defined as "a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question." In private suits, standing is governed by the "real-parties-in interest" rule as contained in Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. It provides that "every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest." Accordingly, the "real-party-in interest" is "the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit." Succinctly put, the plaintiff’s standing is based on his own right to the relief sought.

This Court adopted the "direct injury" test in our jurisdiction. In People v. Vera, it held that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have "a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result."

Petitioner has not shown that he has sustained or will sustain a direct injury if the proposed bill is passed into law. While his concern for judicial independence is laudable, it does not, by itself, clothe him with the requisite standing to question the constitutionality of a proposed bill that may only affect the judiciary.

This court, however, has occasionally relaxed the rules on standing when the issues involved are of "transcendental importance" to the public.

 

Not of transcendental importance

Transcendental importance is not defined in our jurisprudence, thus, in Francisco v. House of Representatives:

There being no doctrinal definition of transcendental importance, the following instructive determinants formulated by former Supreme Court Justice Florentino P. Feliciano are instructive:

(1) the character of the funds or other assets involved in the case;

(2) the presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public respondent agency or instrumentality of the government; and

(3) the lack of any other party with a more direct and specific interest in raising the questions being raised.

None of the determinants in Francisco are present in this case. The events feared by petitioner are merely speculative and conjectural.

In addition to the determinants in Francisco, it must also be shown that there is a clear or imminent threat to fundamental rights.

 

Mandamus not proper

The writ of mandamus will issue when the act sought to be performed is ministerial. An act is ministerial when it does not require the exercise of judgment and the act is performed in compliance with a legal mandate. In a petition for mandamus, the burden of proof is on petitioner to show that one is entitled to the performance of a legal right and that respondent has a corresponding duty to perform the act. Mandamus will not lie "to compel an official to do anything which is not his duty to do or which it is his duty not to do, or to give to the applicant anything to which he is not entitled by law."

In this case, petitioner has not shown how he is entitled to the relief prayed for. Hence, this court cannot be compelled to exercise its power of judicial review since there is no actual case or controversy.