Political question is a matter of policy that has to be decided by the political departments or the sovereign people.

COMMENT: Political Questions are questions of policy. It is a question of wisdom of the political
departments – Legislative and Executive. Political Questions cannot be taken cognizance by the Court.

The term "political question" connotes, in legal parlance, what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a
question of policy" in matters concerning the government of a State, as a body politic. "In other words, in
the language of Corpus Juris Secundum (supra), it refers to "those questions which, under the Constitution,
are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority
has been delegated to the Legislature or executive branch of the government." It is concerned with issues
dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure."

The opposite of political question is justiciable controversies - when the grant of power is qualified,
conditional or subject to limitations, the issue on whether or not the prescribed qualifications or conditions
have been met, or the limitations respected, is justiciable or non-political, the crux of the problem being one
of legality or validity of the contested act, not its wisdom.

Example:

- Whether Marcos Sr. should be buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani. In Ocampo v. Enriquez, the
Court ruled that such issue is a political question. The interment of Marcos Srs.’ Body is a question left
to the discretion of the political departments.
- The issue on who should be selected as part of cabinet members of the President is a political issue
since that discretion is vested solely to the President.

GENERAL RULE: The court cannot take cognizance on issues involving political question in line with the principle
of separation of powers.

EXCEPTION: Unless the political departments acted with grave abuse of discretion, the Court may take a judicial
recourse.

COMMENT: This is an innovation in the Philippines. The so-called expanded judicial power, allows the
Philippine Supreme Court to take cognizance even on political questions on the grounds that there is a
“grave abuse of discretion.” This was primarily intended in order to check the political departments and
avoid the experience we had during the Marcos regime.

To understand better about political questions, you may read the following jurisprudence:

(1) Garcia v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 157584

ISSUE: whether the propriety of implementing full deregulation by removing the system of price controls
in the local downstream oil industry is a justiciable controversy.

HELD: No. What petitioner Garcia raises as an issue is the propriety of immediately and fully deregulating
the oil industry. Such determination essentially dwells on the soundness or wisdom of the timing and
manner of the deregulation Congress wants to implement through R.A. No. 8497. Quite clearly, the issue is
not for us to resolve; we cannot rule on when and to what extent deregulation should take place without
passing upon the wisdom of the policy of deregulation that Congress has decided upon. Congress, by
enacting R.A. No. 8479, determined that this objective is better realized by liberalizing the oil market,
instead of continuing with a highly regulated system enforced by means of restrictive prior controls. This
legislative determination was a lawful exercise of Congress’ prerogative and one that this Court must
respect and uphold. Regardless of the individual opinions of the Members of this Court, we cannot, acting
as a body, question the wisdom of a co-equal department’s acts. The courts do not involve themselves with
or delve into the policy or wisdom of a statute; it sits, not to review or revise legislative action, but to
enforce the legislative will. For the Court to resolve a clearly non-justiciable matter would be to debase the
 principle of separation of powers that has been tightly woven by the Constitution into our republican
system of government.

(2) Francisco Jr. et. al. v. House of Representatives et. al., G.R. No. 160261

- This pertains to the impeachment complaint filed against Chief Justice Davide. The issue on whether to
file an impeachment complaint or to impeach Davide is a political question because that discretion is
certainly given to the legislative branch. However, the issue of the impeachment complaint filed against
Davide here becomes justiciable controversy because “the second impeachment complaint possible violates
the limits enshrined under the Constitution.”

- Constitutional provision involved: Article XI Section 3 par. 5 - No impeachment proceedings shall be

- The House of Representative issued a House Impeachment Rules: Under Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of
the House Impeachment Rules, impeachment proceedings are deemed initiated (1) if there is a finding
by the House Committee on Justice that the verified complaint and/or resolution is sufficient in substance,
or (2) once the House itself affirms or overturns the finding of the Committee on Justice that the verified
complaint and/or resolution is not sufficient in substance or (3) by the filing or endorsement before the
Secretary-General of the House of Representatives of a verified complaint or a resolution of impeachment
by at least 1/3 of the members of the House. These rules clearly contravene Section 3 (5) of Article XI since
the rules give the term "initiate" a meaning different meaning from filing and referral.

- What is the issue: The issue is when is impeachment complaint deemed initiated? The Court ruled that
such issue is justiciable and not political because this involves interpreting the constitution. According to
the decision of the Court through constitutional interpretation, impeachment complaint is deemed initiated
upon the filing of the impeachment complaint. Therefore, the House Rules is unconstitutional because it
changed or broadened the idea of “initiate” as provided in the Constitution.

- MAIN POINT OF THE CASE: In our jurisdiction, the determination of a truly political question from a
non-justiciable political question lies in the answer to the question of whether there are constitutionally
imposed limits on powers or functions conferred upon political bodies. If there are, then our courts are
duty-bound to examine whether the branch or instrumentality of the government properly acted within such
limits.

(3) Javellana v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. L-36142 [Ratification of Marcos Constitution]

- Issue: Whether or not the revised Constitution drafted by the 1971 Constitutional Convention has been
ratified in accordance with said Art. XV of 1935 Constitution.

- Held: In the light of the foregoing, and considering that Art. XV of our 1935 Constitution prescribes
the method or procedure for its amendment, it is clear to my mind that the question whether or not the
revised Constitution drafted by the 1971 Constitutional Convention has been ratified in accordance
with said Art. XV is a justiciable one and non-political in nature, and that it is not only subject to
judicial inquiry, but, also, that it is the Court's bounden duty to decide such question.

- CONTROVERSIAL VOTES OF THE JUSTICES: On the first issue involving the political-question
doctrine Justices Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee and myself, or six (6) members of
the Court, hold that the issue of the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 presents a justiciable and non-
political question. Justices Makalintal and Castro did not vote squarely on this question, but, only
inferentially, in their discussion of the second question. Justice Barredo qualified his vote, stating that
"inasmuch as it is claimed there has been approval by the people, the Court may inquire into the
question of whether or not there has actually been such an approval, and, in the affirmative, the Court
should keep hands-off out of respect to the people's will, but, in negative, the Court may determine
 from both factual and legal angles whether or not Article XV of the 1935 Constitution been complied
with." Justices Makasiar, Antonio, Esguerra, or three (3) members of the Court hold that the issue is
political and "beyond the ambit of judicial inquiry."

- COMMENT: The Court here justified that the issue of ratification is a justiciable controversy because
no less than the 1935 Constitution provides the method of revision. Thus, it is within the Court’s power
to determine on whether the methods prescribed in the Constitution was followed. So what do we learn
from this case? That issues on whether the mandates in the constitution is followed or not is therefore a
justiciable controversy.

ASSESSMENT:

The Congress passed Republic Act No. X raising the age of sexual consent in the Philippines from 12 years old to 16
years old. A sector in the society filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to the Court. The
petitioners prayed that the law be struck down because it is prejudicial to the children. They further prayed that the
law be amended and increased the sexual consent to 18 years of age.

Is this a justiciable controversy or a political question?

Answer:

The determination of the age of sexual consent is a matter of policy. The authority to enact laws resides with the
legislative branch, which possesses plenary powers to determine the appropriate legislation and define its
parameters. This legislative discretion is constrained only by constitutional limitations. In this instance, the
Constitution is silent on the age of sexual consent, indicating that such a determination is within the purview of the
legislative branch.

In the absence of grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of its legislative prerogative and constitutional provisions
on the matter, the issue is therefore political question which is outside the province of the Court. The granting of the
petition to raise the age of sexual consent to 18 years old should not be allowed since it would effectively encroach
the prerogatives of Congress through judicial action, thereby violating the doctrine of separation of powers.