Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-02T09:37:41.532Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

CHAPTER 5 - CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS AS LEGISLATORS ON MATTERS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2017

Allan R. Brewer-Carías
Affiliation:
Universidad Central de Venezuela
Get access

Summary

One particular aspect in which it is possible to identify interferences of constitutional courts in the legislative function is precisely in matters of legislation on judicial review, particularly in countries with concentrated systems of judicial review, in which not only constitutional courts have created rules of procedure in spite of the existence of a special statute establishing them, but also they have assumed new powers of judicial review and created new actions that can be filed before the courts.

CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS CREATING THEIR OWN JUDICIAL REVIEW POWERS

The Judge-Made Law Regarding the Diffuse System of Judicial Review

In the diffuse, or decentralized, system of judicial review, being a power attributed to all courts, judicial review has always been deduced from the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution and of the duty of the courts to discard statutes contrary to the Constitution, always preferring the latter. Such power of the courts, consequently, does not need an express provision in the Constitution that instructs courts to give preference to the Constitution. As Chief Justice Marshall definitively stated in Marbury v. Madison (1 Cranch 137 (1803)):

Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule … so, if a law be in opposition to the constitution … the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case: This is the very essence of judicial duty. If then, the courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Type
Chapter
Information
Constitutional Courts as Positive Legislators
A Comparative Law Study
, pp. 173 - 192
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×