The Expanded Judicial Power Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution

By Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III

In a recent development in the United States, Federal District Courts had issued “universal injunctions” against executive officials under the Trump Administration enjoining them from enforcing policies relative to the issuance of Executive Order No. 14160 which identified certain individuals born in US soil but are “not subject to US jurisdiction” and thus “are not American citizens.”

The injunctive reliefs granted by the US Federal District Courts were questioned before the US Supreme Court. In Trump, President of the United States Et. Al. v. Casa, Inc., No. 24A884, June 27, 2025,   the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress has not granted US Federal Courts the equitable power to issue “universal injunctions” that apply to “anyone.” Instead, the scope of judicial power of US Federal Courts is only limited to the protection of the plaintiff who filed the case.

Trump v. Casa is redolent of the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison where the US Supreme Court dismissed the mandamus petition to compel the delivery of the commission or appointment of a newly appointed judge. In Marbury, the US Supreme Court ruled that it had no original jurisdiction over a petition for mandamus and thus the same cannot be directly filed therein. Thus, when the court has no jurisdiction, its only power is to dismiss the case.

In general, therefore, US courts seem to have less judicial reach as compared to Philippine courts.

And why?

Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, judicial power was expanded. It belongs to all courts and not only the Supreme Court. Judicial power refers to the authority vested in courts to settle actual controversies involving legally demandable rights. This is the traditional concept of judicial power.

However, because of the abuse in the invocation of the political question doctrine under the 1973 Constitution, the framers of the 1987 Constitution have expanded the power of judicial review.

Basically, the political question doctrine is one where the court’s power of judicial review cannot interlope as the issue devolves on the executive or legislative branches of government. It is a limitation on judicial power. Thus, when the political question doctrine increases, the power of judicial review decreases and vice-versa.

So, to diminish the sphere of political question, the framers of the 1987 Constitution have expanded the judicial power to include the duty of courts “to determine whether there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on any branch or instrumentality of the government.” This added judicial power gave authority to Philippine courts to declare an act of any governmental instrumentality as void if it transgresses or inconsistent with, the constitution.

Under the Philippine judicial framework, Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) are established by judicial regions. The reach of their judicial powers is also within their territorial jurisdictions only.

Yet, what is interesting to note is that unlike the US Federal District Courts, whose judicial powers are limited to injunctions that would protect only the plaintiff as held in Trump v. Casa, RTCs in the Philippines can declare a statute, law or any governmental regulation of national application as void or unconstitutional. This is only subject to appeal to the Supreme Court on an issue involving a pure question of law.

Philippine courts also have original jurisdiction under BP 129, as amended, to issue injunctions but they may only be “enforced within their territorial jurisdictions.”

So, the similarity between US Federal District Courts and RTCs in the Philippines in terms of judicial power is that the orders they hand down are only enforceable within their territorial jurisdictions and primordially to protect the plaintiff who filed the case.

Unlike the US Federal District Courts however, whose judicial powers are limited by the political question doctrine, Philippine courts can inquire into, and if necessary, declare as void, any act of a governmental instrumentality, even that of the President, and even if they used to be within the realm of political question.

(The author is the senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates (ETRIIILaw)– a law firm based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor, MCLE lecturer, bar reviewer and a book author. Among the books he authored is Law on Property and Essentials of Land Registration [2024 Edition] which was on the bestseller’s list in online shops for several months. His website is etriiilaw.com)