1:58:00 – 2:08:00

The Second Paragraph of section 1 was formally ruled by former Chief Justice …(can’t here due
to external noise in the recording) … not abandoning the (…..) doctrine. During the Martial Law
years, the Supreme Court was trying to avoid passing upon the constitutionality of the acts of
President Marcos by indiscreetly invoking the political question doctrine. They said Courts can
only pass upon question of the legality of the actions; they cannot pass upon the wisdom of the
actions of the other departments. It is the duty of the courts of the justice. It is obligatory to the
court to settle actual controversies. Now, the court said, they can only be asked to decide if there
is actual controversy. In two cases, when there is pending bill in Congress and somebody file a
petition asking the court to rule on whether or not the law is deemed unconstitutional. The Court
said, that is not within our judicial power because a bill creates no rights or obligations until it
becomes a law. What he is asking is for the court to give an opinion. That is outside of the scope
of judicial power involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. They said(SC) in
another(case) rights may exist and yet they are not judicially demandable and enforceable. The
marriage contract gives the right to the right(sic) to have sexual intercourse but if I may point to
engage in a sexual intercourse, the husband cannot file an action for sperm legal donor. And to
the third, if there has a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
any branch or instrumentality of the government. So the SC says that this provision expanded the
scope of judicial power. Now, usually, questions involving the validity of laws can be passed upon
by the court when a usurpation of power has happened. They say that the law cannot be or there
is no situation, well, the application of this law should be valid. Chief Justice Concepcion was my
teacher in Constitutional law in first year when he became Chief Justice. He said that the decisions
of the SC are different because they will become jurisprudence. So, when you will lay down a
doctrine, no one else will try to suit the allegations of their pleadings within the scope of your
decision. So you have to anticipate how lawyer will try to make use of the doctrines you are
writing down.

Now, the Congress said because of this expanded judicial power, they face a challenge that all
affects the bill of rights. The SC court said in another case, now with the expanded judicial power,
if you want to question anything you can do it by filing in the SC a petition for certiorari. And the
respondent can be any instrumentality that exercises judicial, quasi-judicial or even ministerial
functions.

(Long pause…. He was looking for the next topic)

Lawmakers cannot appear as the lawyers for third parties. Now, but they can appear in their own
behalf because acting as counsel contemplates a situation that you are lawyering for somebody.
That is why Senator Tolentino can file a petition in his own behalf.

Now, in the case of Estanislao Fernandez(I think this is Puyat v. De Guzman), he appeared in
intervention and his appearance was challenged because he was a member of congress. He said
he has P200 worth of shares therefore he was a stockholder of the corporation and he has
interest. The court said what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.