If the Great Depression spurred on the development of economic theories, according to former Philippine Supreme Court Chief Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, martial law prompted the formulation of judicial theories.
One such theory would have to be the Political Question Doctrine, which the Supreme Court invoked alarmingly too often in declaring controversial cases as being out of its hands. In Montenegro vs Castañeda, for example, the tribunal held: “The authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen requiring suspension belongs to the President and ‘his decision is final and conclusive’ upon the courts and upon all other persons.”
Furthermore, in Lansang vs Garcia, the Supreme Court went on to say that “[t]he function of the Court is merely to check — not to supplant — the Executive, or to ascertain merely whether he has gone beyond they constitutional limits of his jurisdiction, not to exercise the power vested in him or to determine the wisdom of his act.” In the ascertainment of the factual basis of the suspension, however, the Court had to rely implicitly on the findings of the Chief Executive. Indeed, such reliance on the Executive’s findings would be the more compelling when the danger posed to the public safety is one arising from Communist rebellion and subversion.
However, sensing that the Political Question Doctrine had become a convenient escape under the Marcos Regime, former Chief Justice and Constitutional Commission member Roberto Concepcion pushed for the amendment of the political doctrine clause in the 1987 Constitution. Thus, Article 7, Section 18 now reads: “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.”
Justice Mendoza noted that the first part of the definition of judicial power came from Roxas vs Lopez, the second part from Lansang vs Garcia—both cases, as it turns out, were penned by Chief Justice Concepcion.
Put simply, judicial power grants the Supreme Court the power to do something—clarify issues, settle controversies, prevent abuses by government instrumentalities. For me, this means that the tribunal cannot simply copout or seek refuge in the Political Question Doctrine for fear of going up against the Executive or Legislative departments.
Judicial power, as defined in the 1987 Constitution, is a recognition of the Judiciary as being equal to the other two branches of government. Therefore, when the nation is under threat of extinction, whether by internal or external forces, the Judiciary has as much responsibility as the Executive and the Legislative to protect the government. It has its own obligations and commitments to the Constitution.
Cicero did say, as quoted by Justice Mendoza, that “in the midst of war the laws are silent.” He may be right but surely, during martial law, the Supreme Court has to lose its cold neutrality and unquestioning adherence to the actions and decisions of the Chief Executive.
Dear Elizabeth 