Practice question
In an otherwise proper concrete challenge, a governmental board argues that the statute labels its action final and therefore even a proven whimsical exercise amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction is categorically beyond judicial scrutiny. The petitioner seeks legal relief, not substitution of preferred policy. Which principle applies?
- Every statutory finality clause abolishes Article VIII
- The constitutional duty to determine qualifying governmental grave abuse cannot be answered merely by the label final
- The board may amend the constitutional definition
- The petitioner must instead ask a private company to decide
- No distinction exists between review for grave abuse and policy administration
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/3/353; Article VIII, Section 1.
- Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261 et al., November 10, 2003, main opinion: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/nov2003/gr_160261_2003.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.