JUDICIAL REVIEW
The court’s authority to examine executive or legislative act and invalidate that act if it is contrary to constitutional principles.- the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review, and possible invalidation, by the judiciary.- A court's authority to examine an executive or legislative act and to invalidate that act if it is contrary to constitutional principles.
JURISDICTION
The practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to apolitical leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility. Authority to hear and determine cause of action. The geographic area over which authority extends; legal authority; the authority to hear and determine causes of action
Herrera v Barretto 25 PHIL 245 9.10.13
F: The case at bar involves a motion for certiorari by the petitioner against Judge Barretto for allegedly acting without jurisdiction on the case involving the cockpit license permit of Constancio Joaquin which the petitioner, in his capacity of the Caloocan Municipal President revoked to operate. Respondent judge apparently issued a provisional license upon the filing of Joaquin for a mandatory injunction without notice to the petitioner. The petitioner now files a motion for certiorari before the higher court against the respondent for acting in excess of jurisdiction for issuing the mandatory injunction of provisional license.
I: WON a writ of certiorari the proper action on the case at bar.
R: No. A writ for certiorari is not issued unless it is established whether or not the court to which it is directed acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. Once the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties in a case all decisions exercised within its jurisdiction, however erroneous or irregular, cannot be corrected by certiorari. The court held that the CFI has the jurisdiction over the present case to resolve all matters arising in question.Court held that
Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a cause —the right to act in a case. Since it is the power to hear and determine, it does not depend either upon the regularity of the exercise of that power or upon the rightfulness of the decisions made. Jurisdiction should therefore be distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction. The authority to decide a cause at all, and not the decision rendered therein, is what makes up jurisdiction.
Certiorari on one hand may not be used to correct errors committed within the jurisdiction of the court no matter how irregular or erroneous it is.
People v Mariano GR No. L-40527
F: Accused, a liaison officer of the Province of Bulacan, is charged with estafa in the amount of less than P6,000.00. He filed a motion to quash the information on the account that the court has no jurisdiction over the case since the military commission already ruled on his malversation case involving the same subject matter.
I: WON the court has jurisdiction over the case at bar.
R: The court ruled that estafa and malversation constitute different offense. The CFI has original jurisdiction over the case of estafa citing the Judicial Act of 1948 (CFI shall have original jurisdiction over all criminal cases involving a penalty of imprisonment for more than 6 months or a fine of P200.00)
The court’s authority to examine executive or legislative act and invalidate that act if it is contrary to constitutional principles.- the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review, and possible invalidation, by the judiciary.- A court's authority to examine an executive or legislative act and to invalidate that act if it is contrary to constitutional principles.
JURISDICTION
The practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to apolitical leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility. Authority to hear and determine cause of action. The geographic area over which authority extends; legal authority; the authority to hear and determine causes of action
Herrera v Barretto 25 PHIL 245 9.10.13
F: The case at bar involves a motion for certiorari by the petitioner against Judge Barretto for allegedly acting without jurisdiction on the case involving the cockpit license permit of Constancio Joaquin which the petitioner, in his capacity of the Caloocan Municipal President revoked to operate. Respondent judge apparently issued a provisional license upon the filing of Joaquin for a mandatory injunction without notice to the petitioner. The petitioner now files a motion for certiorari before the higher court against the respondent for acting in excess of jurisdiction for issuing the mandatory injunction of provisional license.
I: WON a writ of certiorari the proper action on the case at bar.
R: No. A writ for certiorari is not issued unless it is established whether or not the court to which it is directed acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. Once the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties in a case all decisions exercised within its jurisdiction, however erroneous or irregular, cannot be corrected by certiorari. The court held that the CFI has the jurisdiction over the present case to resolve all matters arising in question.Court held that
Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a cause —the right to act in a case. Since it is the power to hear and determine, it does not depend either upon the regularity of the exercise of that power or upon the rightfulness of the decisions made. Jurisdiction should therefore be distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction. The authority to decide a cause at all, and not the decision rendered therein, is what makes up jurisdiction.
Certiorari on one hand may not be used to correct errors committed within the jurisdiction of the court no matter how irregular or erroneous it is.
People v Mariano GR No. L-40527
F: Accused, a liaison officer of the Province of Bulacan, is charged with estafa in the amount of less than P6,000.00. He filed a motion to quash the information on the account that the court has no jurisdiction over the case since the military commission already ruled on his malversation case involving the same subject matter.
I: WON the court has jurisdiction over the case at bar.
R: The court ruled that estafa and malversation constitute different offense. The CFI has original jurisdiction over the case of estafa citing the Judicial Act of 1948 (CFI shall have original jurisdiction over all criminal cases involving a penalty of imprisonment for more than 6 months or a fine of P200.00)
RSS Feed