I. Introduction
The power of judicial review is the fundamental authority of the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, to examine the acts of the legislative and executive branches of government and to declare them null and void if they are found to be contrary to the Constitution. This power establishes the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional meaning, ensuring that no branch of government operates beyond the limits set by the fundamental law. It is the cornerstone of the Philippine system of constitutional supremacy and the principle of checks and balances.
II. Constitutional Basis
The power is explicitly vested by Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, which states that “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.” This provision expands the traditional concept of judicial review, which typically involves a mere “no jurisdiction” or “excess of jurisdiction” analysis, to include the review of acts constituting “grave abuse of discretion.”
III. Scope and Limitations
Judicial review is not an unlimited power. It is circumscribed by essential requisites: (1) there must be an actual case or controversy involving legally demandable rights; (2) the party raising the constitutional issue must have standing or locus standi; (3) the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the resolution of the constitutional issue must be necessary to the determination of the case itself. The Court will not entertain hypothetical, abstract, or moot questions. Furthermore, the principle of the “political question doctrine” traditionally barred review of issues deemed textually committed to other branches, though the “grave abuse of discretion” clause has significantly narrowed this doctrine in Philippine jurisprudence.
IV. The “Grave Abuse of Discretion” Standard
This is the defining standard for judicial review under the 1987 Constitution. “Grave abuse of discretion” implies a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. It is not merely an error of judgment. When a branch of government acts in a manner so patent, gross, and deliberate as to defy constitutional or legal limits, the Supreme Court has not only the power but the duty to intervene and correct such abuse. This standard empowers the Court to check not just jurisdictional errors, but also substantive abuses of power.
V. Hierarchy of Courts and Finality
While all courts can exercise judicial review, final authority resides in the Supreme Court. Lower courts may pass upon the constitutionality of statutes, treaties, executive orders, and other governmental acts, but their decisions are subject to appeal. The Supreme Court’s en banc decisions on constitutional questions are final and executory. Under the Constitution, any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation declared unconstitutional becomes void and has no legal effect.
VI. Procedural Aspects
Constitutional questions are typically raised through appropriate pleadings in an ongoing case. They may also be raised via original actions filed directly with the Supreme Court, such as petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, especially when challenging acts for grave abuse of discretion. The special civil action of declaratory relief may also be used to test the validity of statutes before enforcement, provided there is a justiciable controversy.
VII. Effects of a Declaration of Unconstitutionality
The general rule is that an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights, imposes no duties, and affords no protection. It is considered void ab initio (from the beginning). However, the Court may, for reasons of equity and fair play, apply the doctrine of operative fact, recognizing that prior to the declaration of nullity, the law was acted upon in good faith, and the effects of such actions may be respected.
VIII. Key Jurisprudential Evolution
Landmark cases have shaped the power. In Angara v. Electoral Commission (1936), the Court early on established its authority. Javellana v. Executive Secretary (1973) grappled with political questions. The post-1987 cases, such as Francisco v. House of Representatives (2003) on impeachment, and Estrada v. Desierto (2001), have actively used the “grave abuse of discretion” standard to define the boundaries of co-equal branches, demonstrating a more interventionist role in checking governmental power.

IX: Practical Remedies.
For a client seeking to invoke judicial review, the following practical steps and remedies are critical: First, meticulously ensure the existence of an actual case or controversy with a concrete injury; abstract grievances will be dismissed. Second, establish clear standing by demonstrating a personal and substantial interest harmed by the governmental act, or, in cases of transcendental importance, prepare to argue for relaxed standing rules. Third, file the appropriate petition promptly: a Rule 65 petition for certiorari or prohibition for acts involving grave abuse of discretion by any branch, or a petition for declaratory relief in the proper regional trial court for pre-enforcement review of a statute. Fourth, in drafting the petition, foreground the constitutional violation and argue why the act constitutes not just an error but a grave abuse of discretionarbitrary, capricious, and detached from legal grounds. Fifth, be strategic in forum selection; while lower courts can rule, for nationally significant issues or those against high government bodies, direct filing with the Supreme Court via an original action is often most effective. Sixth, consider seeking a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction to prevent irreparable injury while the case is pending. Finally, prepare for the doctrine of operative fact; if challenging a long-standing law, argue for or against the preservation of past actions taken under it, as complete nullification ab initio may have severe equitable consequences.