Essential Requisites for Judicial Review

As clearly stated in Angara v. Electoral Commission, the courts' power of judicial review, like almost all powers
conferred by the Constitution, is subject to several limitations, namely:
(1) an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power;
(2) the person challenging the act must have "standing" to challenge; he must have a personal and substantial
interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement;
(3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and
(4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution explicitly vests in the Supreme Court the power of judicial review which is the
authority to examine an executive or legislative act and to invalidate that act if it is contrary to constitutional principles.
The Philippine Supreme Court, according to Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, is vested with Judicial
Power that 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 of abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.
Furthermore, in Section 4(2) thereof, it is vested with the power of judicial review which is the power to declare a treaty,
international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation
unconstitutional. This power also includes the duty to rule on the constitutionality of the application, or operation of
presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations. These provisions,
however, have been fertile grounds of conflict between the Supreme Court, on one hand, and the two co-equal bodies
of government, on the other. Many times the Court has been accused of asserting superiority over the other
departments.

INCOMPATIBLE AND FORBIDDEN OFFICES Incompatible office. No legislator is allowed to hold office or positions in
any government agency including government-owned or controlled corporations without forfeiting his seat in the
Congress. Meaning, a member of the Congress is not prevented from accepting other government posts as long as he
forfeits his seat as a legislator. What is not allowed is the simultaneous holding of a government office and the seat in
the Congress. The purpose is to prevent owing loyalty to another branch of the government, to the detriment of the
independence of the legislature and the doctrine of the separation of powers. Forfeiture of the seat is automatic. Thus
for example, a congressman who was appointed as secretary of the Department of Budget and Management is
deemed to have automatically forfeited his seat in the House of Representatives when he took his oath as secretary
for DBM. No resolution is necessary to declare his legislative post as vacant. Not every other office or employment is
to be regarded as incompatible office. There are seats where it is permitted by the Constitution itself, eg. membership
in the Electoral Tribunal and in the Judicial and Bar Council. Moreover, if it can be shown that the second office is
actually an extension of the legislative position or is in aid of legislative duties, the holding thereof will not result in the
loss of the legislator's seat in the Congress. Legislators who serve as treaty negotiators under the President..
Forbidden office. No members of the Congress shall be appointed to any office in the government that has been crated
or the emoluments thereof have been increased during his term. The purpose is to prevent public trafficking in public
office. Some legislators who do not opt to run again in the public office might create or improve lucrative government
positions and in combination with the President, arrange that they be appointed in those positions, all at the expense
of public good. The appointment however to the forbidden office is not allowed only during the term for which a certain
legislator was elected, when such office was created or its emolument thereof. After such term, and even if the
legislator is re-elected, the disqualification no longer applies and he may therefore be appointed to the office.

no.3 madame ang question na naguwa,about congress declaration of war

state of lawless violence or lawlessness: What it simply means, he said, is that more soldiers and policemen will now
be deployed, government will set up more checkpoints, and impose, if needed, curfews in certain areas. The 1987
Constitution allows the President to call on the armed forces "to prevent or suppress lawless violence."

Section 18, Article VII of the Philippine Constitution states: "The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all
armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or
suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion." Duterte's declaration is similar to previous presidential declarations
of state of emergency.