Functions of Judicial Review Salonga, the Supreme Court just the same, releases

its decision on the illegality of the arrest of Salonga.

a. Checking
b. Legitimizing Principle: The Court also has the duty to formulate
c. Symbolic guiding and controlling constitutional principles,
precepts, doctrines, or rules. It has the symbolic
a. Checking. It refers to the function to invalidate a
function of educating bench and bar on the extent of
law or an executive act found to be contrary to the
protection given by constitutional guarantees.
Constitution.

b. Legitimizing. It refers to the function of the Court

to uphold the validity of the law. Requisites of Judicial Review
c. Symbolic. It involves the function to educate the a. There must be an actual case or controversy.
bench and the bar as to guiding or controlling legal b. The constitutional question must be raised by
principles. the proper party.
c. The constitutional question must be raised at
SALONGA vs. PANO the earliest possible opportunity.
d. The decision of the Constitutional question
Facts: Ex-Senator Jovito Salonga, himself a victim of
must be determinative of the case itself.
Plaza Miranda bombings, was arrested implicating
him to the alleged bombing incident. He was not Effects of Declaration of Unconstitutionality
informed of the nature of the charges against him
neither his counsel allowed to talk to him without the Two Views:
Court’s permission.
1. Orthodox View: An unconstitutional act is not
The Respondent Judge relied only on the testimonies a law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties,
of Col. Diego and Lovely alleging that Salonga it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is
involvement in the bombing conspiracy for two inoperative, as if it had not been passed at all.
reasons
Article VII, New Civil Code: When the courts
(1) Because his house was used as a "contact point"; declare a law to be inconsistent with the
and Constitution, the former shall be void and the
latter shall govern. Administrative or executive
(2) Because "he mentioned some kind of violent acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only
struggle in the Philippines being most likely should when they are not contrary to the laws of the
reforms be not instituted by President Marcos Constitution.
immediately."
It is understandable why it should be so, the
However, such testimony, being based on affidavits of Constitution being supreme and paramount.
other persons and purely hearsay, can hardly qualify Any legislative or executive act contrary to its
as prima facie evidence of subversion. It should not terms cannot survive.
have been given credence by the court in the first
place. 2. Modern View: The Courts simply refuse to
recognize the law and determine the rights of
Issue: W/N Salonga was involved in the Bombing. the parties as if the statute had no existence.
Held: No. The Respondent failed to adduce prima AGBAYANI vs. PNB
facie evidence in this case. The “symbolic function” of
the Supreme Court pertains to its duty to issue Facts: Agbayani obtained a loan from PNB
decisions for the purpose of educating the Bench. secured by a real estate mortgage. The loan
Thus, even if the case had become moot and became matured but PNB could not collect
academic, the Supreme Court may promulgate its because it was at this time of the war, and the
decision. Despite the fact that the habeas corpus case Debt Moratorium Law passed suspending the
had become moot and academic by the release of payment of loans for seven (7) years due to
 the ravages of war, until it was declared by the commander for the violation of E.O. Petitioner
Court as unconstitutional. challenged the constitutionality of EO for violative of
right to be heard and due process.
PNB instituted extra-judicial
foreclosure proceedings for the Issue: W/N the EO is unconstitutional.
recovery of the balance of the loan Held: Yes. The Supreme Court found EO
remaining unpaid. However, Agbayani unconstitutional. The carabaos were arbitrarily
contested the mortgage sought to be confiscated by the police station commander. The
foreclosed had long been prescribed. challenged measure is an invalid exercise of the
police power because the method employed to
Issue: W/N effectivity of the conserve the carabaos is not reasonably necessary to
Moratorium Law before barred the the purpose of the law and, worse, is unduly
oppressive.
period of prescription.
The Supreme Court held that the police station
Held: No. the action could still commander who confiscated the petitioner's carabaos
prosper. The period when the law is not liable in damages for enforcing the executive
was promulgated to its declaration of order in accordance with its mandate. The law was at
its unconstitutional should not be that time presumptively valid, and it was his
counted for the purpose of obligation, as a member of the police, to enforce it.
prescription since the Debt
Moratorium Law was operative
during that time. It would be unjust Partial Unconstitutionality
to punish the creditor who could not Requisites:
collect prior to 1953 because the
Debt Moratorium Law was effective. 1. The legislature must be willing to retain the
valid portion(s), usually shown by the
The Supreme Court cited the principle of separability clause in the law.
Modern View that the existence of a statute
2. The valid portion can stand independently as
or executive order prior to its being law.
adjudged void is an operative fact to which
legal consequences are attached. SALAZAR vs. ACHACOSO

 Certain legal effects of the statute prior to its Facts: The Petitioner was charged with illegal
declaration of unconstitutionality may be recruitment to POEA. The Secretary of Labor
recognized. (Pelaez vs. Auditor General) issued a Closure and Seizure Order to petitioner for
having no valid license or authority from the
 A public officer who implemented an Department of Labor and Employment to recruit
unconstitutional law prior to the declaration of and deploy workers for overseas employment. His
unconstitutionality cannot be held liable. documents and other personal property were
seized.
YNOT vs. IAC
Issue: WON the POEA validly issue warrants of
Facts: Late President Marcos amended an EO which search and seizure under Article 35 of the Labor
orders that no carabao and carabeef shall be Code.
transported from one province to another such
violation shall be subject to confiscation and Held: No. The Constitution provides it is only a
forfeiture by the government. judge who may issue warrants of search and arrest.

Petitioner transported his six carabaos after which

they were confiscated by the police station
The Supreme Court declared Article 35, paragraph
(c) of the Labor Code, unconstitutional and of no
force and effect.

Assuming that the Secretary of Labor is

authorized to issue warrants, the same is
invalid for being “general”

The factor which makes the search warrants under

consideration constitutionally objectionable is that
they are in the nature of general warrants. The
search warrants describe the articles sought to be
seized.