POLITICAL scientists and constitutional scholars have always painted the judiciary in the image of a passive institution, a nonpolitical entity that waits only until controversies are brought to it for adjudication. Thus, it may have the final say about everything but only when it is asked to say something. And even when asked to say something, it can only do so if it deems it has jurisdiction or when the person who brought an issue before it has legal standing to do so.

And nothing clearly illustrates this than Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen’s assertion during the oral arguments held for the Anti-Terrorism Act. He implied that the constitutionality of the Act is not yet ripe for adjudication, considering that there is no case of people actually suffering under the ambit of the said law, as a consequence of its provisions that are being assailed in the suits filed in the Supreme Court

Premium + Digital Edition

Ad-free access


P 80 per month
(billed annually at P 960)
  • Unlimited ad-free access to website articles
  • Limited offer: Subscribe today and get digital edition access for free (accessible with up to 3 devices)

TRY FREE FOR 14 DAYS
See details
See details