Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS (GR No.

122156) involving 51% of the shares of stock of the MHC is clearly covered by the
DOCTRINE: term national economy, to which Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, 1987
- Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract Constitution, applies. (preference to Filipinos for rights, privileges, and
violates any norm of the constitution that law or contract whether concessions covering National Economy and Patrimony)
promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into - It is also the thesis of petitioner that since Manila Hotel is part of the
by private persons for private purposes is null and void and without any national patrimony and its business also unquestionably part of the
force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental paramount national economy petitioner should be preferred after it has matched the
and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and bid offer of the Malaysian firm. For the bidding rules mandate that if for
contract. any reason, the Highest Bidder cannot be awarded the Block of Shares,
- GSIS may offer this to the other Qualified Bidders that have validly
submitted bids provided that these Qualified Bidders are willing to match
FACTS: the highest bid in terms of price per share.
- Respondent Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), pursuant to the
privatization program of the Philippine Government under Proclamation ISSUE:
No. 50 dated 8 December 1986, decided to sell through public bidding 30% - Whether or not the shares should be awarded to Manila Prince, a Filipino
to 51% of the issued and outstanding shares of respondent MHC(Manila Corporation
Hotel Corporation).
- The winning bidder, or the eventual "strategic partner," is to provide RULING:
management expertise and/or an international marketing/ reservation - YES. A constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the governance and
system, and financial support to strengthen the profitability and administration of a nation. It is supreme, imperious, absolute and
performance of the Manila Hotel. unalterable except by the authority from which it emanates.
- In a close bidding held on 18 September 1995 only two (2) bidders - It has been defined as the fundamental and paramount law of the nation. It
participated: petitioner Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino prescribes the permanent framework of a system of government, assigns to
corporation, which offered to buy 51% of the MHC or 15,300,000 shares at the different departments their respective powers and duties, and
P41.58 per share, and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, with ITT-Sheraton establishes certain fixed principles on which government is founded.
as its hotel operator, which bid for the same number of shares at P44.00 - The fundamental conception in other words is that it is a supreme law to
per share, or P2.42 more than the bid of petitioner. which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all
- Pending the declaration of Renong Berhard as the winning private rights must be determined and all public authority administered.
bidder/strategic partner and the execution of the necessary contracts, Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract
petitioner in a letter to respondent GSIS dated 28 September 1995 violates any norm of the constitution that law or contract whether
matched the bid price of P44.00 per share tendered by Renong promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered
Berhad. In a subsequent letter dated 10 October 1995 petitioner sent a into by private persons for private purposes is null and void and
manager’s check issued by Philtrust Bank for Thirty-three Million Pesos without any force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the
(P33,000,000.00) as Bid Security to match the bid of the Malaysian Group, fundamental paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed
Messrs. Renong Berhad, which respondent GSIS refused to accept. written in every statute and contract.
- Petitioner invokes Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution - Sec 10, Par 2, Art XII of the consti, (preference to Filipinos for rights,
and submits that the Manila Hotel has been identified with the Filipino privileges, and concessions covering National Economy and Patrimony) is
nation and has practically become a historical monument which reflects self-executing. It appears non self-executing as mere matter of style. The 1st
the vibrancy of Philippine heritage and culture. It is a proud legacy of an and 3rd paragraphs are non self-executing but the 2nd paragraph is
earlier generation of Filipinos who believed in the nobility and sacredness complete in itself with positive commands which make it judicially
of independence and its power and capacity to release the full potential of enforceable per se. A constitutional provision may be self-executing in
the Filipino people, becoming a part of the national patrimony. Petitioner one part, but not in the other.
also argues that since 51% of the shares of the MHC carries with it the - The patrimony of the Nation that should be conserved and developed
ownership of the business of the hotel which is owned by respondent GSIS, refers not only to our rich natural resources but also to the cultural
a government-owned and controlled corporation, the hotel business of heritage of our race. It also refers to our intelligence in arts, sciences and
respondent GSIS being a part of the tourism industry is letters. Therefore, we should develop not only our lands, forests, mines and
unquestionably a part of the national economy. Thus, any transaction other natural resources but also the mental ability or faculty of our people.
- Manila Hotel has become a landmark — a living testimonial of Philippine
heritage. While it was restrictively an American hotel when it first opened
in 1912, it immediately evolved to be truly Filipino. Formerly a concourse
for the elite, it has since then become the venue of various significant
events which have shaped Philippine history. It was called the Cultural
Center of the 1930’s. It was the site of the festivities during the
inauguration of the Philippine Commonwealth. Dubbed as the Official
Guest House of the Philippine Government it plays host to dignitaries and
official visitors who are accorded the traditional Philippine hospitality.
- The term "qualified Filipinos" simply means that preference shall be given
to those citizens who can make a viable contribution to the common good,
because of credible competence and efficiency. It certainly does NOT
mandate the pampering and preferential treatment to Filipino citizens or
organizations that are incompetent or inefficient, since such an
indiscriminate preference would be counterproductive and inimical to the
common good.
- In the granting of economic rights, privileges, and concessions, when a
choice has to be made between a "qualified foreigner" and a "qualified
Filipino," the latter shall be chosen over the former."
- It should be stressed that while the Malaysian firm offered the higher bid it
is not yet the winning bidder. The bidding rules expressly provide that the
highest bidder shall only be declared the winning bidder after it has
negotiated and executed the necessary contracts, and secured the requisite
approvals. Since the Filipino First Policy provision of the Constitution
bestows preference on qualified Filipinos the mere tending of the highest
bid is not an assurance that the highest bidder will be declared the winning
bidder. Resultantly, respondents are not bound to make the award yet, nor
are they under obligation to enter into one with the highest bidder. For in
choosing the awardee respondents are mandated to abide by the dictates
of the 1987 Constitution the provisions of which are presumed to be
known to all the bidders and other interested parties.
- Adhering to the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, the subject
constitutional provision is, as it should be, impliedly written in the
bidding rules issued by respondent GSIS, lest the bidding rules be
nullified for being violative of the Constitution. It is a basic principle
in constitutional law that all laws and contracts must conform with
the fundamental law of the land. Those which violate the Constitution
lose their reason for being.

Angara vs Electoral Commission (GR No. 45081)

DOCTRINE:
 - The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and - That the case being submitted for decision, the Electoral Commission
balances to secure coordination in the workings of the various promulgated a resolution on January 23, 1936, denying herein petitioner's
departments of the government. The judiciary, with the Supreme Court as "Motion to Dismiss the Protest."
the final arbiter, effectively checks the other departments in the exercise of - Petitioner claims that the supreme court and the electoral commission
its power to determine the law, and hence to declare executive and does not yet have jurisdiction over the case.
legislative acts void if violative of the Constitution.
ISSUE/s:
FACTS: 1) Whether or not the sc has jurisdiction over the Electoral commission and
- In the elections of September 17, 1935, the petitioner, Jose A. Angara, and the subject matter of controversy
the respondents, Pedro Ynsua, Miguel Castillo and Dionisio Mayor, were
candidates voted for the position of member of the National Assembly for RULING:
the first district of the Province of Tayabas; 1) YES. The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of
- That on October 7, 1935, the provincial board of canvassers, proclaimed government. It obtains not through express provision but by actual division
the petitioner as member-elect of the National Assembly for the said in our Constitution. Each department of the government has exclusive
district, for having received the most number of votes; cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own
- That on November 15, 1935, the petitioner took his oath of office; sphere. But it does not follow from the fact that the three powers are to be
- That on December 3, 1935, the National Assembly in session assembled, kept separate and distinct that the Constitution intended them to be
passed a resolution confirming the election of those who have not been absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other. The Constitution
subject of an election protest prior to the adoption of the said resolution. has provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure
- That on December 8, 1935, the herein respondent Pedro Ynsua filed before coordination in the workings of the various departments of the
the Electoral Commission a "Motion of Protest" against the election of the government.
herein petitioner, Jose A. Angara, being the only protest filed after the - The judiciary, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively checks
passage of Resolutions No. 8 aforequoted, and praying, among other- the other departments in the exercise of its power to determine the law,
things, that said respondent be declared elected member of the National and hence to declare executive and legislative acts void if violative of the
Assembly for the first district of Tayabas, or that the election of said Constitution.
position be nullified; - The Constitution is a definition of the powers of government. Who is to
- That on December 9, 1935, the Electoral Commission adopted a resolution, determine the nature, scope and extent of such powers? The Constitution
paragraph 6 of which provides that it will not consider any election protest itself has provided for the instrumentality of the judiciary as the rational
that wasn’t submitted on or before December 9. way. And when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional
- That on December 20, 1935, the herein petitioner, Jose A. Angara, one of boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other
the respondents in the aforesaid protest, filed before the Electoral departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the
Commission a "Motion to Dismiss the Protest", alleging (a) that Resolution legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation
No. 8 of Dismiss the Protest", alleging (a) that Resolution No. 8 of the assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of
National Assembly was adopted in the legitimate exercise of its authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an
constitutional prerogative to prescribe the period during which protests actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and
against the election of its members should be presented; (b) that the guarantees to them. This is in truth all that is involved in what is termed
aforesaid resolution has for its object, and is the accepted formula for, the "judicial supremacy" which properly is the power of judicial review
limitation of said period; and (c) that the protest in question was filed out under the Constitution. Even then, this power of judicial review is
of the prescribed period; limited to actual cases and controversies to be exercised after full
- That on December 27, 1935, the herein respondent, Pedro Ynsua, filed an opportunity of argument by the parties, and limited further to the
"Answer to the Motion of Dismissal" alleging that there is no legal or constitutional question raised or the very lis mota presented. Any
constitutional provision barring the presentation of a protest against the attempt at abstraction could only lead to dialectics and barren legal
election of a member of the National Assembly after confirmation; questions and to sterile conclusions unrelated to actualities. Narrowed as
- That on December 31, 1935, the herein petitioner, Jose A. Angara, filed a its function is in this manner, the judiciary does not pass upon
"Reply" to the aforesaid "Answer to the Motion of Dismissal"; questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of legislation. More than
that, courts accord the presumption of constitutionality to legislative
enactments, not only because the legislature is presumed to abide by the
 Constitution but also because the judiciary in the determination of actual cognizance of the controversy, who will determine the conflict? And if the
cases and controversies must reflect the wisdom and justice of the people conflict were left undecided and undetermined, would not a void be thus
as expressed through their representatives in the executive and legislative created in our constitutional system which may be in the long run prove
departments of the governments of the government. destructive of the entire framework? To ask these questions is to answer
- In the case at bar, the national Assembly has by resolution (No. 8) of them. Natura vacuum abhorret, so must we avoid exhaustion in our
December 3, 1935, confirmed the election of the herein petitioner to the constitutional system. Upon principle, reason and authority, we are clearly
said body. On the other hand, the Electoral Commission has by resolution of the opinion that upon the admitted facts of the present case, this court
adopted on December 9, 1935, fixed said date as the last day for the filing has jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the subject mater
of protests against the election, returns and qualifications of members of of the present controversy for the purpose of determining the
the National Assembly, notwithstanding the previous confirmation made character, scope and extent of the constitutional grant to the Electoral
by the National Assembly as aforesaid. If, as contended by the petitioner, Commission as "the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
the resolution of the National Assembly has the effect of cutting off the returns and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly."
power of the Electoral Commission to entertain protests against the
election, returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly,
submitted after December 3, 1935, then the resolution of the Electoral
Commission of December 9, 1935, is mere surplusage and had no effect.
But, if, as contended by the respondents, the Electoral Commission has the
sole power of regulating its proceedings to the exclusion of the National
Assembly, then the resolution of December 9, 1935, by which the Electoral
Commission fixed said date as the last day for filing protests against the
election, returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly,
should be upheld.
- Here is then presented an actual controversy involving as it does a
conflict of a grave constitutional nature between the National
Assembly on the one hand, and the Electoral Commission on the
other. From the very nature of the republican government established
in our country in the light of American experience and of our own,
upon the judicial department is thrown the solemn and inescapable
obligation of interpreting the Constitution and defining constitutional
boundaries. The Electoral Commission, as we shall have occasion to refer
hereafter, is a constitutional organ, created for a specific purpose, namely
to determine all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications
of the members of the National Assembly. Although the Electoral
Commission may not be interfered with, when and while acting within
the limits of its authority, it does not follow that it is beyond the reach
of the constitutional mechanism adopted by the people and that it is
not subject to constitutional restrictions. The Electoral Commission is
not a separate department of the government, and even if it were,
conflicting claims of authority under the fundamental law between
department powers and agencies of the government are necessarily
determined by the judiciary in justifiable and appropriate cases. The
framers of our constitution adopted the American type of constitutional
government where the written constitution is interpreted and given effect
by the judicial department.
- In our case, the nature of the present controversy shows the necessity of a
final constitutional arbiter to determine the conflict of authority between
two agencies created by the Constitution. Were we to decline to take
Marbury vs Madison 5 US 137 (1803)
DOCTRINE: ISSUE/s:
FACTS: 1) Whether or not Marbury had a right to the commission.
- In the Presidential election in 1800, Thomas Jefferson became the third 2) Whether or not the laws of the country give Marbury a legal remedy.
President of the United States, defeating then President John Adams. 3) Whether or not the Supreme Court has the authority to review acts of
However, Adams and the 6th Congress remained in power until the Congress and determine its unconstitutionality and its being void.
assumption of office of Jefferson on March 4 , 1801 following the finality of 4) Whether or not Congress can expand the scope of the Supreme Court’s
the decision of the election on February 17, 1801. During the lame duck original jurisdiction beyond what is specified in Article III of the
session of the Adams Presidency, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801 Constitution
( Organic Act ) which modified the Judiciary Act of 1789 establishing ten 5) Whether or not invoking a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court was
new district courts, expanding the number of circuit courts from three to the correct legal remedy
six, and adding additional judges to each circuit, giving the President the
authority to appoint Federal judges and justices of the peace. Said act also RULING:
reduced the number of Supreme Court justices from six to five, effective - On February 24, 1803, the Court rendered a unanimous (4-0) decision,
upon the next vacancy in the Court. resolving that Marbury had the right to his commission though the
- Just before his term ended, on March 3, 1801, by virtue of the Judiciary Act court did not have the power to force Madison to deliver the
of 1801, Adams appointed 16 Federalist circuit judges and 42 Federalist commission. Chief Justice Marshall wrote the opinion of the court.
justices of the peace to offices in the Washington and Alexandria area. One 1) YES. Marbury has a right to the commission.
of these “ Midnight Judges “ was a prosperous financier and ardent - The grant of the commission became effective when John Adams who was
federalist from Maryland, William Marbury, who was appointed as Justice clearly still the US President during the time it was granted , affixed his
of the Peace in the District of Columbia. As such, he was vested with a five signature. The order granting the commission takes effect when the
year term coupled with the authority to hold courts and cognizance of Executive’s constitutional power of appointment has been exercised, and
personal demands of 20 dollar value." the power has been exercised when the last act required from the person
- The appointments were altogether approved by Senate on the following possessing the power has been performed, in this case, the signing by
day but the commissions had to be delivered to the appointees to formally President Adams.
take effect. Then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and Secretary of State
John Marshall was given said task. He sealed the commissions but being 2) YES. The law grants Marbury a remedy.
unable to deliver all commissions, he assumed that the new Secretary of - The essence of civil liberty is the exercise of every individual’s right to
State James Madison would ensure said delivery since "they had been claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives injury. One of the
properly submitted and approved, and were, therefore, legally valid first duties of government is to afford that protection
appointments. - Where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend
- As Jefferson was sworn into office on March 4, 1801, he ordered Levi upon the performance of that duty and the individual who considers
Lincoln, who was the new Attorney General and acting Secretary of State himself injured has a right to resort to the law to seek remedy. The
not to deliver the remaining appointments. Without the commissions, the President, by signing the commission, appointed Marbury as a justice of
appointees were unable to assume the offices and duties to which they had the peace in the District of Columbia. The seal of the United States, affixed
been appointed. Jefferson refused to honor said commissions. In Jefferson's thereto by the Secretary of State, is conclusive testimony of the verity of the
opinion, the undelivered commissions, not having been delivered on time, signature, and of the completion of the appointment. Having this legal right
were void. to the office, he has a consequent right to the commission and refusal to
- Displeased, Petitioner William Marbury applied a writ of mandamus deliver it is a plain violation of that right for which the laws of the country
directly to the Supreme Court invoking that Jefferson’s Secretary of State, afford him a remedy.
herein defendant James Madison, to effect delivery of the commissions.
Under the Judiciary Act of 1783, the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to 3) YES. The Supreme Court has the authority to review acts of Congress and
issue writs of mandamus to any courts appointed, or persons holding determine whether they are unconstitutional and void.
office, under the authority of the United States.” - It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the
law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity,
expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other,
the Court must decide on the operation of each. If courts are to regard
 the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act - It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be
of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the
govern the case to which they both apply. words require it.
- The act to establish the judicial courts of the United States authorizes the - If the solicitude of the Convention respecting our peace with foreign
Supreme Court "to issue writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the powers induced a provision that the Supreme Court should take original
principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding jurisdiction in cases which might be supposed to affect them, yet the clause
office, under the authority of the United States." would have proceeded no further than to provide for such cases if no
- The Secretary of State, being a person, holding an office under the further restriction on the powers of Congress had been intended. That they
authority of the United States, is precisely within the letter of the should have appellate jurisdiction in all other cases, with such exceptions
description, and if this Court is not authorized to issue a writ of mandamus as Congress might make, is no restriction unless the words be deemed
to such an officer, it must be because the law is unconstitutional, and exclusive of original jurisdiction.
therefore absolutely incapable of conferring the authority and assigning - When an instrument organizing fundamentally a judicial system divides it
the duties which its words purport to confer and assign. into one Supreme and so many inferior courts as the Legislature may
- The Constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in ordain and establish, then enumerates its powers, and proceeds so far to
one Supreme Court, and such inferior courts as Congress shall, from distribute them as to define the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by
time to time, ordain and establish. This power is expressly extended declaring the cases in which it shall take original jurisdiction, and that in
to all cases arising under the laws of the United States; and others it shall take appellate jurisdiction, the plain import of the words
consequently, in some form, may be exercised over the present case, seems to be that, in one class of cases, its jurisdiction is original, and not
because the right claimed is given by a law of the United States. appellate; in the other, it is appellate, and not original. ,If any other
- In the distribution of this power. It is declared that "The Supreme construction would render the clause inoperative, that is an additional
Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting reason for rejecting such other construction, and for adhering to the
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which obvious meaning.
a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall
have appellate jurisdiction." 4) No. Congress cannot expand the scope of the Supreme Court’s original
- It has been insisted at the bar, that, as the original grant of jurisdiction beyond what is specified in Article III of the Constitution.
jurisdiction to the Supreme and inferior courts is general, and the - The Constitution states that “the Supreme Court shall have original
clause assigning original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court contains jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
no negative or restrictive words, the power remains to the Legislature consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the
to assign original jurisdiction to that Court in other cases than those Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.”
specified in the article which has been recited, provided those cases - If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to
belong to the judicial power of the United States. apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts
- If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to according to the will of that body, this section is mere surplusage and is
apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts entirely without meaning.
according to the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to - If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction
have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial power and the where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and
tribunals in which it should be vested. The subsequent part of the section original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be
is mere surplusage -- is entirely without meaning -- if such is to be the appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form
construction. If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate without substance.
jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be
original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it 5) NO. The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction to issue writs of
shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, mandamus.
is form without substance. - To enable this court then to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an
- Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to
than those affirmed, and, in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be exercise appellate jurisdiction. It is the essential criterion of appellate
given to them or they have no operation at all. jurisdiction that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already
instituted, and does not create that case. Although, therefore, a mandamus
may be directed to courts, yet to issue such a writ to an officer for the
 delivery of a paper is, in effect, the same as to sustain an original action for
that paper, and is therefore a matter of original jurisdiction.
- It has been stated at the bar that the appellate jurisdiction may be
exercised in a variety of forms, and that, if it be the will of the Legislature
that a mandamus should be used for that purpose, that will must be
obeyed. This is true; yet the jurisdiction must be appellate, not original.
- It is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction that it revises and
corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not create
that case. Although, therefore, a mandamus may be directed to courts, yet
to issue such a writ to an officer for the delivery of a paper is, in effect, the
same as to sustain an original action for that paper, and therefore seems
not to belong to appellate, but to original jurisdiction. Neither is it
necessary in such a case as this to enable the Court to exercise its appellate
jurisdiction.
- The authority, therefore, given to the Supreme Court by the act establishing
the judicial courts of the United States to issue writs of mandamus to
public officers appears not to be warranted by the Constitution, and it
becomes necessary to inquire whether a jurisdiction so conferred can be
exercised.
- The court denied the application for writ of mandamus and resolved that
that Marbury does not get the commission.

Ratio Decidendi :
The case of Marbury vs. Madison is the single most significant case of the Supreme
Court, a struggle that would end in a future altered by fate. This landmark case
established the constitution as "Supreme law" of the United States and developed
the power of the Supreme Court, enhancing its independence and proving it a
nonpartisan instrument. It established the precedent for the Supreme Court to rule
on the constitutionality of laws, through the principle of judicial review.
Imbong vs Ochoa (GR No. 204819) through express provision but by actual division in our Constitution. Each
DOCTRINE: department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within
- The Court does not have the unbridled authority to rule on just any and its jurisdiction and is supreme within its own sphere
every claim of constitutional violation. Jurisprudence is replete with the - The Constitution impresses upon the Court to respect the acts performed
rule that the power of judicial review is limited by four exacting requisites, by a co-equal branch done within its sphere of competence and authority,
viz : but at the same time, allows it to cross the line of separation - but only at a
o (a) there must be an actual case or controversy; very limited and specific point - to determine whether the acts of the
o (b) the petitioners must possess locus standi; executive and the legislative branches are null because they were
o (c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest undertaken with grave abuse of discretion. Thus, while the Court may not
opportunity; and pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of the RH Law, it may
o (d) the issue of constitutionality must be the lis mota(cause or do so where an attendant unconstitutionality or grave abuse of discretion
motivation of a legal action) of the case. results. The Court must demonstrate its unflinching commitment to protect
those cherished rights and principles embodied in the Constitution.
FACTS: - In this connection, it bears adding that while the scope of judicial power of
- Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10354, otherwise known as the Responsible review may be limited, the Constitution makes no distinction as to the kind
Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law), was enacted of legislation that may be subject to judicial scrutiny, be it in the form of
by Congress on December 21, 2012. social legislation or otherwise. The reason is simple and goes back to the
- Challengers from various sectors of society are questioning the earlier point. The Court may pass upon the constitutionality of acts of the
constitutionality of the said Act. The petitioners are assailing the legislative and the executive branches, since its duty is not to review their
constitutionality of RH Law collective wisdom but, rather, to make sure that they have acted in
- Respondents claim there is no actual case or controversy and therefor the consonance with their respective authorities and rights as mandated of
issues are not yet ripe for judicial determination. them by the Constitution. If after said review, the Court finds no
constitutional violations of any sort, then, it has no more authority of
ISSUE: proscribing the actions under review.
- Whether or not the court can exercise the power of judicial review over the - Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution which expressly provides:
controversy o Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme
Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
RULING: - Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
- YES. OSG asserts that the court should submit to the legislative and controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
political wisdom of Congress.The OSG posits that the authority of the Court enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave
to review social legislation like the RH Law by certiorari is "weak," since abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
the Constitution vests the discretion to implement the constitutional part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
policies and positive norms with the political departments, in particular, - The Court does not have the unbridled authority to rule on just any
with Congress. It further asserts that in view of the Court's ruling in and every claim of constitutional violation. Jurisprudence is replete
Southern Hemisphere v. Anti-Terrorism Council, the remedies of certiorari with the rule that the power of judicial review is limited by four
and prohibition utilized by the petitioners are improper to assail the exacting requisites, viz :
validity of the acts of the legislature. o (a) there must be an actual case or controversy;
- Moreover, the OSG submits that as an "as applied challenge," it cannot o (b) the petitioners must possess locus standi;
prosper considering that the assailed law has yet to be enforced and applied o (c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the
to the petitioners, and that the government has yet to distribute reproductive earliest opportunity; and
health devices that are abortive. It claims that the RH Law cannot be o (d) the issue of constitutionality must be the lis mota(cause
challenged "on its face" as it is not a speech-regulating measure. or motivation of a legal action) of the case.
- It is often sought that the Court temper its exercise of judicial power and - ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY – Respondents claim that there is no
accord due respect to the wisdom of its co-equal branch on the basis of the actual case or controversy because the RH Law is yet to be implemented
principle of separation of powers. To be clear, the separation of powers is a and no one has been charged with violating any of its provisions and there
fundamental principle in our system of government, which obtains not
 is no showing that any of the petitioners’ rights has been adversely affected violation of his own rights. The rule prohibits one from challenging the
by its operation. constitutionality of the statute grounded on a violation of the rights of third
- An actual case or controversy means an existing case or controversy persons not before the court. This rule is also known as the prohibition
that is appropriate or ripe for determination, not conjectural or against third-party standing.
anticipatory, lest the decision of the court would amount to an - TRANCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE - Notwithstanding, the Court leans on the
advisory opinion. The rule is that courts do not sit to adjudicate mere doctrine that "the rule on standing is a matter of procedure, hence, can be
academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest, however relaxed for non-traditional plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers, and
intellectually challenging. The controversy must be justiciable- legislators when the public interest so requires, such as when the matter is
definite and concrete, touching on the legal relations of parties having of transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of
adverse legal interests. In other words, the pleadings must show an paramount public interest."
active antagonistic assertion of a legal right, on the one hand, and a - The transcendental importance of the issues involved in a case may
denial thereof, on the other; that is, it must concern a real, tangible warrant that the court set aside the technical defects and take
and not merely a theoretical question or issue. There ought to be an primary jurisdiction over the petition at bar. This is in accordance
actual and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through with the well-entrenched principle that rules of procedure are not
a decree conclusive in nature, as distinguished from an opinion inflexible tools designed to hinder or delay, but to facilitate and
advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts. promote the administration of justice. Their strict and rigid
- In this case, the Court is of the view that an actual case or controversy application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate,
exists and that the same is ripe for judicial determination. Considering that rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed.
the RH Law and its implementing rules have already taken effect and that - In view of the seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents, not only to
budgetary measures to carry out the law have already been passed, it is the public, but also to the bench and bar, the issues raised must be resolved
evident that the subject petitions present a justiciable controversy. As for the guidance of all. After all, the RH Law drastically affects the
stated earlier, when an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged constitutional provisions on the right to life and health, the freedom of
to have infringed the Constitution, it not only becomes a right, but also a religion and expression and other constitutional rights. Mindful of all these
duty of the Judiciary to settle the dispute. and the fact that the issues of contraception and reproductive health have
- Moreover, the petitioners have shown that the case is so because medical already caused deep division among a broad spectrum of society, the Court
practitioners or medical providers are in danger of being criminally entertains no doubt that the petitions raise issues of transcendental
prosecuted under the RH Law for vague violations thereof, particularly importance warranting immediate court adjudication. More importantly,
public health officers who are threatened to be dismissed from the service considering that it is the right to life of the mother and the unborn which is
with forfeiture of retirement and other benefits. They must, at least, be primarily at issue, the Court need not wait for a life to be taken away before
heard on the matter NOW. taking action.
- LOCUS STANDI - The OSG also attacks the legal personality of the - The Court cannot, and should not, exercise judicial restraint at this time
petitioners to file their respective petitions. It contends that the "as applied when rights enshrined in the Constitution are being imperilled to be
challenge" lodged by the petitioners cannot prosper as the assailed law has violated. To do so, when the life of either the mother or her child is at stake,
yet to be enforced and applied against them, and the government has yet to would lead to irreparable consequences.
distribute reproductive health devices that are abortive.
- The petitioners, for their part, invariably invoke the "transcendental
importance" doctrine and their status as citizens and taxpayers in
establishing the requisite locus standi.
- Locus standi or legal standing is defined as a personal and substantial
interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain
direct injury as a result of the challenged governmental act. It
requires a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to
assure the concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of
issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of
difficult constitutional questions.
- In relation to locus standi, the "as applied challenge" embodies the rule
that one can challenge the constitutionality of a statute only if he asserts a
Garcia vs Executive Secretary (GR No. 157584) No. 8479 which, in essence, prescribed the period for removal of price
DOCTRINE: control on gasoline and other finished petroleum products and set the time
- An actual case or controversy is one that involves a conflict of legal rights, for the full deregulation of the local downstream oil industry.
an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution; the - Petitioner Garcia contended that implementing full deregulation and
case must not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other similar removing price control at a time when the market is still dominated and
considerations not cognizable by a court of justice. controlled by an oligopoly would be contrary to public interest, as it would
- Lis Mota - the fourth requirement to satisfy before this Court will only provide an opportunity for the Big 3 to engage in price-fixing and
undertake judicial review - means that the Court will not pass upon a overpricing. He averred that Section 19 of R.A. No. 8479 is "glaringly pro-
question of unconstitutionality, although properly presented, if the case oligopoly, anti-competition, and anti-people", and thus asked the Court to
can be disposed of on some other ground, such as the application of the declare the provision unconstitutional.
statute or the general law. The petitioner must be able to show that the - On December 17, 1999, in Garcia v. Corona (1999 Garcia case), we denied
case cannot be legally resolved unless the constitutional question raised is petitioner Garcia's plea for nullity. We declined to rule on the
determined. This requirement is based on the rule that every law has in its constitutionality of Section 19 of R.A. No. 8479 as we found the question
favor the presumption of constitutionality; to justify its nullification, there replete with policy considerations. The 1999 Garcia case ruled: “The issue,
must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, and not one quite simply, is the timeliness or the wisdom of the date when full
that is doubtful, speculative, or argumentative. deregulation should be effective. In this regard, what constitutes reasonable
time is not for judicial determination.”
FACTS: - Undaunted, petitioner Garcia is again before us in the present petition
- For the second time, petitioner Enrique T. Garcia, Jr. (petitioner Garcia) asks for certiorari seeking a categorical declaration from this Court of the
this Court to examine the constitutionality of Section 19 of Republic Act No. unconstitutionality of Section 19 of R.A. No. 8479.
8479 (R.A. No. 8479), otherwise known as the Oil Deregulation Law of
1998) through this petition for certiorari. He raises once again before us ISSUE:
the propriety of implementing full deregulation by removing the system of - Whether or not the court can rule on its constitutionality
price controls in the local downstream oil industry — a matter that we
have ruled upon in the past. RULING:
- After years of imposing significant controls over the downstream oil - NO. The court dismissed the petition.
industry in the Philippines, the government decided in March 1996 to - In asking the Court to declare Section 19 of R.A. No. 8479 as
pursue a policy of deregulation by enacting Republic Act No. 8180 (R.A. No. unconstitutional for contravening Section 19, Article XII of the
8180) or the "Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Act of 1996". Constitution, petitioner Garcia invokes the exercise by this Court of its
- R.A. No. 8180, however, met strong opposition, and rightly so, as this Court power of judicial review, which power is expressly recognized under
concluded in its November 5, 1997 decision in Tatad v. Secretary of Section 4 (2), Article VIII of the Constitution. The power of judicial review
Department of Energy. We struck down the law as invalid because the three is the power of the courts to test the validity of executive and legislative
key provisions intended to promote free competition were shown to acts for their conformity with the Constitution. Through such power, the
achieve the opposite result; contrary to its intent, R.A. No. 8180's judiciary enforces and upholds the supremacy of the Constitution. For a
provisions on tariff differential, inventory requirements, and predatory court to exercise this power, certain requirements must first be met,
pricing inhibited fair competition, encouraged monopolistic power, and namely:
interfered with the free interaction of market forces. o (1) an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial
- Notwithstanding the existence of a separability clause among its power;
provisions, we struck down R.A. No. 8180 in its entirety because its o (2) the person challenging the act must have "standing" to
offensive provisions permeated the whole law and were the principal tools challenge; he must have a personal and substantial interest in the
to carry deregulation into effect. case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a
- Congress responded to our Decision in Tatad by enacting on February 10, result of its enforcement;
1998 a new oil deregulation law, R.A. No. 8479. This time, Congress o (3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest
excluded the offensive provisions found in the invalidated law. possible opportunity; and
Nonetheless, petitioner Garcia again sought to declare the new oil o (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the
deregulation law unconstitutional on the ground that it violated Article XII, case.
Section 19 of the Constitution. He specifically objected to Section 19 of R.A.
- ACTUAL CASE CONTROVERSY - Whether a monopoly exists is a question of fact. On the other hand,
SUSCEPTIBLE OF JUDICIAL DETERMINATION the questions of (1) what public interest requires and (2) what the
- The petition fails to satisfy the very first of these requirements — the State reaction shall be essentially require the exercise of discretion on
existence of an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of the part of the State.
judicial power. An actual case or controversy is one that involves a - Stripped to its core, what petitioner Garcia raises as an issue is the
conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal propriety of immediately and fully deregulating the oil industry. Such
claims susceptible of judicial resolution; the case must not be moot or determination essentially dwells on the soundness or wisdom of the
academic or based on extra-legal or other similar considerations not timing and manner of the deregulation Congress wants to implement
cognizable by a court of justice. Stated otherwise, it is not the mere through R.A. No. 8497. Quite clearly, the issue is not for us to resolve;
existence of a conflict or controversy that will authorize the exercise by the we cannot rule on when and to what extent deregulation should take
courts of its power of review; more importantly, the issue involved must be place without passing upon the wisdom of the policy of deregulation
susceptible of judicial determination. Excluded from these are questions of that Congress has decided upon.
policy or wisdom, otherwise referred to as political questions: - To use the words of Baker v. Carr, the ruling that petitioner Garcia asks
o if an issue is clearly identified by the text of the Constitution requires "an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-
as matters for discretionary action by a particular branch of judicial discretion"; the branch of government that was given by the
government or to the people themselves then it is held to be a people the full discretionary authority to formulate the policy is the
political question. Prominent on the surface of any case held to legislative department.
involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable - Directly supporting our conclusion that Garcia raises a political question is
constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political his proposal to adopt instead a system of partial deregulation - a system he
department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and presents as more consistent with the Constitutional "dictate." He avers that
manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of free market forces (in a fully deregulated environment) cannot prevail for
deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind as long as the market itself is dominated by an entrenched oligopoly. In
clearly for non-judicial discretion; or the impossibility of a such situation, he claims that prices are not determined by the free play of
court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing supply and demand, but instead by the entrenched and dominant oligopoly
lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an where overpricing and price-fixing are possible. Thus, before full
unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision deregulation can be implemented, he calls for an indefinite period of
already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from partial deregulation through imposition of price controls.
multifarious pronouncements by various departments on the one - Petitioner Garcia's thesis readily reveals the political, hence, non-
question.” justiciable, nature of his petition; the choice of undertaking full or partial
- Petitioner Garcia's issues fit snugly into the political question mold, as he deregulation is not for this Court to make. By enacting the assailed
insists that by adopting a policy of full deregulation through the removal of provision - Section 19 - of R.A. No. 8479, Congress already determined that
price controls at a time when an oligopoly still exists, Section 19 of R.A. No. the problems confronting the local downstream oil industry are better
8479 contravenes the Constitutional directive to regulate or prohibit addressed by removing all forms of prior controls and adopting a
monopolies under Article XII, Section 19 of the Constitution. This Section deregulated system.
states: - The court finds that there is no justiciable controversy that would justify
o The State shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when the public the grant of the petition.
interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or - LIS MOTA
unfair competition shall be allowed. - Lis Mota - the fourth requirement to satisfy before this Court will
- Read correctly, this constitutional provision does not declare an outright undertake judicial review - means that the Court will not pass upon a
prohibition of monopolies. It simply allows the State to act "when public question of unconstitutionality, although properly presented, if the
interest so requires"; even then, no outright prohibition is mandated, as the case can be disposed of on some other ground, such as the application
State may choose to regulate rather than to prohibit. Two elements must of the statute or the general law. The petitioner must be able to show
concur before a monopoly may be regulated or prohibited: that the case cannot be legally resolved unless the constitutional question
o 1. There in fact exists a monopoly or an oligopoly, and raised is determined. This requirement is based on the rule that every
o 2. Public interest requires its regulation or prohibition. law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality; to justify its
nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the
 Constitution, and not one that is doubtful, speculative, or
argumentative.
- Petitioner Garcia argues against full deregulation implemented through the
lifting of price control, as it allows oligopoly, overpricing and price-fixing.
R.A. No. 8479, however, does not condone these acts; indeed, Section 11 (a)
of the law expressly prohibits and punishes cartelization, which is defined
in the same section as "any agreement, combination or concerted action by
refiners, importers and/or dealers, or their representatives, to fix prices,
restrict outputs or divide markets, either by products or by areas, or
allocate markets, either by products or by areas, in restraint of trade or free
competition, including any contractual stipulation which prescribes pricing
levels and profit margins." This definition is broad enough to include the
alleged acts of overpricing or price-fixing by the Big 3. R.A. No. 8479 has
provided, aside from prosecution for cartelization, several other anti-trust
mechanisms, including the enlarged scope of the Department of Energy's
monitoring power and the creation of a Joint Task Force to immediately act
on complaints against unreasonable rise in the price of petroleum
products. Petitioner Garcia's failure is that he failed to show that he
resorted to these measures before filing the instant petition. His belief that
these oversight mechanisms are unrealistic and insufficient does not
permit disregard of these remedies.
 Ombudsman created under the 1987 Constitution and the DOJ
created under the Administrative Code of 1987.
Biraogo vs Philippine Truth Commission (GR Nos. 192935 & 193036) o (d) E.O. No. 1 violates the equal protection clause as it selectively
DOCTRINE: targets for investigation and prosecution officials and personnel
- Locus standi is defined as "a right of appearance in a court of justice on a of the previous administration as if corruption is their peculiar
given question." In private suits, standing is governed by the "real-parties- species even as it excludes those of the other administrations, past
in interest" rule as contained in Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil and present, who may be indictable.
Procedure, as amended. It provides that "every action must be prosecuted - Respondents, through OSG, questioned the legal standing of petitioners
or defended in the name of the real party in interest." and argued that:
- Accordingly, the "real-party-in interest" is "the party who stands to be o 1] E.O. No. 1 does not arrogate the powers of Congress because
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the the President’s executive power and power of control necessarily
avails of the suit." Succinctly put, the plaintiff’s standing is based on his include the inherent power to conduct investigations to ensure
own right to the relief sought. that laws are faithfully executed and that, in any event, the
- Constitution, Revised Administrative Code of 1987, PD No.
141616 (as amended), R.A. No. 9970 and se led jurisprudence,
FACTS: authorize the President to create or form such bodies.
- Pres. Aquino signed E. O. No. 1 establishing Philippine Truth Commission o 2] E.O. No. 1 does not usurp the power of Congress to appropriate
of 2010 (PTC) dated July 30, 2010. funds because there is no appropriation but a mere allocation of
- PTC is a mere ad hoc body formed under the Office of the President with funds already appropriated by Congress.
the primary task to investigate reports of graft and corruption committed o 3] The Truth Commission does not duplicate or supersede the
by third-level public officers and employees, their co-principals, functions of the Ombudsman and the DOJ, because it is a fact-
accomplices and accessories during the previous administration, and to finding body and not a quasi-judicial body and its functions do not
submit its finding and recommendations to the President, Congress and duplicate, supplant or erode the latter’s jurisdiction.
the Ombudsman. PTC has all the powers of an investigative body. But it is o 4] The Truth Commission does not violate the equal protection
not a quasi-judicial body as it cannot adjudicate, arbitrate, resolve, settle, clause because it was validly created for laudable purposes.
or render awards in disputes between contending parties. All it can do is
gather, collect and assess evidence of graft and corruption and make ISSUE:
recommendations. It may have subpoena powers but it has no power to - Whether or not the requisites for a valid exercise of its power for judicial
cite people in contempt, much less order their arrest. Although it is a fact- review are present
finding body, it cannot determine from such facts if probable cause exists
as to warrant the filing of information in our courts of law. RULING:
- Petitioners asked the Court to declare it unconstitutional and to enjoin the - YES. Like almost all powers conferred by the Constitution, the power of
PTC from performing its functions. They argued that: judicial review is subject to limitations, to wit:
o (a) E.O. No. 1 violates separation of powers as it arrogates the o (1) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the
power of the Congress to create a public office and appropriate exercise of judicial power;
funds for its operation. o (2) the person challenging the act must have the standing to
o (b) The provision of Book III, Chapter 10, Section 31 of the question the validity of the subject act or issuance; otherwise
Administrative Code of 1987 cannot legitimize E.O. No. 1 because stated, he must have a personal and substantial interest in the
the delegated authority of the President to structurally reorganize case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a
the Office of the President to achieve economy, simplicity and result of its enforcement;
efficiency does not include the power to create an entirely new o (3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest
public office which was hitherto inexistent like the “Truth opportunity; and
Commission.” o (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the
o (c) E.O. No. 1 illegally amended the Constitution and statutes
case.
when it vested the “Truth Commission” with quasi-judicial powers - Among all these limitations, only the legal standing of the petitioners has
duplicating, if not superseding, those of the Office of the been put at issue.
- As correctly pointed out by the OSG, Biraogo has not shown that he - The Court held that in cases of paramount importance where serious
sustained, or is in danger of sustaining, any personal and direct injury constitutional questions are involved, the standing requirements may be
attributable to the implementation of Executive Order No. 1. Nowhere in relaxed and a suit may be allowed to prosper even where there is no direct
his petition is an assertion of a clear right that may justify his clamor for injury to the party claiming the right of judicial review.
the Court to exercise judicial power and to wield the axe over presidential - The Court, however, finds reason in Biraogo’s assertion that the petition
issuances in defense of the Constitution. The case of David v. covers matters of transcendental importance to justify the exercise of
Arroyo explained the deep-seated rules on locus standi. Thus: jurisdiction by the Court. There are constitutional issues in the
- Locus standi is defined as "a right of appearance in a court of justice petition which deserve the attention of this Court in view of their
on a given question." In private suits, standing is governed by the seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents. Where the issues are of
"real-parties-in interest" rule as contained in Section 2, Rule 3 of the transcendental and paramount importance not only to the public but also
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. It provides that "every to the Bench and the Bar, they should be resolved for the guidance of
action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party all. Undoubtedly, the Filipino people are more than interested to know the
in interest." status of the President’s first effort to bring about a promised change to the
- Accordingly, the "real-party-in interest" is "the party who stands to be country. The Court takes cognizance of the petition not due to
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled overwhelming political undertones that clothe the issue in the eyes of the
to the avails of the suit." Succinctly put, the plaintiff’s standing is public, but because the Court stands firm in its oath to perform its
based on his own right to the relief sought. constitutional duty to settle legal controversies with overreaching
- The difficulty of determining locus standi arises in public suits. Here, the significance to society.
plaintiff who asserts a "public right" in assailing an allegedly illegal official
action, does so as a representative of the general public. He may be a
person who is affected no differently from any other person. He could be
suing as a "stranger," or in the category of a "citizen," or ‘taxpayer." In either
case, he has to adequately show that he is entitled to seek judicial
protection. In other words, he has to make out a sufficient interest in the
vindication of the public order and the securing of relief as a "citizen" or
"taxpayer.
- Case law in most jurisdictions now allows both "citizen" and "taxpayer"
standing in public actions.
- However, to prevent just about any person from seeking judicial
interference in any official policy or act with which he disagreed with, and
thus hinders the activities of governmental agencies engaged in public
service, the United State Supreme Court laid down the more stringent
"direct injury" test in Ex Parte Levitt. The same Court ruled that for a
private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of
an executive or legislative action, he must show that he has sustained a
direct injury as a result of that action, and it is not sufficient that he
has a general interest common to all members of the public.
- This Court adopted the "direct injury" test in our jurisdiction. In People v.
Vera, it held that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must
have "a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has
sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result." The Vera doctrine
was upheld in a litany of cases..
- Notwithstanding, the Court leans on the doctrine that "the rule on standing
is a matter of procedure, hence, can be relaxed for nontraditional plaintiffs
like ordinary citizens, taxpayers, and legislators when the public interest so
requires, such as when the matter is of transcendental importance, of
overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest."
 petitioner for a group picture at a birthday party abroad, or even visit him
with others in his home, the petitioner does not thereby become a rebel or
Salonga vs Pano (GR No. 59524) subversive, much less a leader of a subversive group. More credible and
DOCTRINE: stronger evidence is necessary for an indictment.
- The Court also has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling - The prosecution has not come up with even a single iota of evidence which
constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules. It has the symbolic could positively link the petitioner to any proscribed activities of the
function of educating bench and bar on the extent of protection given by Movement for Free Philippines or any subversive organization mentioned
constitutional guarantees. in the complaint.
- The fact that a case is moot and academic should not preclude the Supreme - Furthermore, the alleged opinion of the petitioner about the
Court from setting forth in language clear and unmistakable, the obligation likelihood of a violent struggle here in the Philippines if reforms are
of fidelity on the part of lower court judges to the unequivocal command of not instituted, assuming that he really stated the same, is nothing but
the Constitution a legitimate exercise of freedom of thought and expression. No man
deserves punishment for his thoughts. Cogitationis poenam memo
FACTS: meretur. And as the late Justice Oliver W. Holmes stated in the case
- A series of bombings occurred in Metro Manil in the months of August, of U.S. v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644, " ... if there is any principle of the
September, and October of 1980, in YMCA building Manila because of a Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any
certain Victor Lovely Jr. Among the other bombed places were Rustan’s other it is the principle of free thought not free thought for those who
Supermarket, Philippine Plaza, Century Park Sheratone, Manila Peninsula, agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate."
and in the Philippine International Convention Center after the President - We have adopted the concept that freedom of expression is a "preferred"
had finished delivering his speech. right and, therefore, stands on a higher level than substantive economic or
- News article linked petitioner Jovito Salonga to theb ombings other liberties. The primacy, the high estate accorded freedom of
- Jovito Salonga was charged with the violation of the Revised Anti- expression is a fundamental postulate of our constitutional system.
Subversion Act after he was implicated, along with other 39 accused, by - The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to secure the innocent
Victor Lovely in the series of bombings in Metro Manila. He was tagged by against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution, and to protect
Lovely in his testimony as the leader of subversive organizations for two him from an open and public accusation of crime, from the trouble,
reasons (1)because his house was used as a contact point; and (2) because expense and anxiety of a public trial, and also to protect the state
of his remarks during the party of Raul Daza in Los Angeles. He allegedly from useless and expensive trials. The right to a preliminary
opined about the likelihood of a violent struggle in the Philippines investigation is a statutory grant, and to withhold it would be to
if reforms are not instituted immediately by then President Marcos. transgress constitutional due process.
- (BASICALLY HE COULD NOT BE CONVICTED AND THE CASE WAS
ISSUE: DROPPED, PENDING THIS PETITION I THINK) (IMPORTANT PART
- Whether or not there was prima facie evidence against the petitioner FOLLOWS)
- The Court had already deliberated on this case, a consensus on the Court's
RULING: judgment had been arrived at, and a draft ponencia was circulating for
- NO. The testimony of Victor Lovely against petitioner Salonga is full of concurrences and separate opinions, if any, when on January 18, 1985,
inconsistencies. respondent Judge Rodolfo Ortiz granted the motion of respondent City
- The presence of Lovely in a group picture taken at Mr. Raul Daza's birthday Fiscal Sergio Apostol to drop the subversion case against the petitioner.
party in Los Angeles where Senator Salonga was a guest is not proof of Pursuant to instructions of the Minister of Justice, the prosecution
conspiracy. As stated by the petitioner, in his many years in the turbulent restudied its evidence and decided to seek the exclusion of petitioner Jovito
world of politics, he has posed with all kinds of people in various groups Salonga as one of the accused in the information filed under the questioned
and various places and could not possibly vouch for their conduct. resolution.
Commenting on the matter, newspaper columnist Teodoro Valencia stated - We were constrained by this action of the prosecution and the respondent
that Filipinos love to pose with important visitors and the picture proves Judge to withdraw the draft ponencia from circulating for concurrences
nothing. and signatures and to place it once again in the Court's crowded agenda for
- It is likewise probable that a national figure and former politician of further deliberations.
Senator Salonga's stature can expect guests and visitors of all kinds to be
visiting his home or office. If a rebel or subversive happens to pose with the
- Insofar as the absence of a prima facie case to warrant the filing of validate the filing of an information based on the kind of evidence
subversion charges is concerned, this decision has been rendered moot against the petitioner found in the records.
and academic by the action of the prosecution. - Dismissed for being moot and academic.
- Respondent Fiscal Sergio Apostol correctly points out, however, that he is
not precluded from filing new charges for the same acts because the
petitioner has not been arraigned and double jeopardy does not apply. in
that sense, the case is not completely academic.
- Recent developments in this case serve to focus attention on a not too well
known aspect of the Supreme Court's functions.
- The setting aside or declaring void, in proper cases, of intrusions of
State authority into areas reserved by the Bill of Rights for the
individual as constitutionally protected spheres where even the
awesome powers of Government may not enter at will is not the
totality of the Court's functions.
- The Court also has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling
constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules. It has the
symbolic function of educating bench and bar on the extent of
protection given by constitutional guarantees.
- In dela Camara v. Enage (41 SCRA 1), the petitioner who questioned a
P1,195,200.00 bail bond as excessive and, therefore, constitutionally void,
escaped from the provincial jail while his petition was pending. The
petition became moot because of his escape but we nonetheless rendered a
decision and stated: The fact that the case is moot and academic should
not preclude this Tribunal from setting forth in language clear and
unmistakable, the obligation of fidelity on the part of lower court
judges to the unequivocal command of the Constitution that excessive
bail shall not be required.
- In Gonzales v. Marcos (65 SCRA 624) whether or not the Cultural Center of
the Philippines could validly be created through an executive order was
mooted by Presidential Decree No. 15, the Center's new charter pursuant
to the President's legislative powers under martial law. Stan, this Court
discussed the constitutional mandate on the preservation and
development of Filipino culture for national Identity. (Article XV, Section 9,
Paragraph 2 of the Constitution).
- In the habeas corpus case of Aquino, Jr., v. Enrile, 59 SCRA 183), during the
pendency of the case, 26 petitioners were released from custody and one
withdrew his petition. The sole remaining petitioner was facing charges of
murder, subversion, and illegal possession of firearms. The fact that the
petition was moot and academic did not prevent this Court in the exercise
of its symbolic function from promulgating one of the most voluminous
decisions ever printed in the Reports.
- In this case, the respondents agree with our earlier finding that the
prosecution evidence miserably fails to establish a prima facie case against
the petitioner, either as a co-conspirator of a destabilization plan to
overthrow the government or as an officer or leader of any subversive
organization. They have taken the initiative of dropping the charges against
the petitioner. We reiterate the rule, however, that this Court will not
 - On February 24, 2006, as the nation celebrated the 20th Anniversary of
the Edsa People Power I, President Arroyo issued PP 1017 declaring a state
of national emergency, thus:
David vs Macapagal-Arroyo (GR No. 171396) o NOW, THEREFORE, I, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the
DOCTRINE: Republic of the Philippines and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed
- The "moot and academic" principle is not a magical formula that can Forces of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested upon me
automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case. Courts will decide by Section 18, Article 7 of the Philippine Constitution which states
cases, otherwise moot and academic, if: that: "The President. . . whenever it becomes necessary, . . . may
o first, there is a grave violation of the Constitution; call out (the) armed forces to prevent or suppress. . .rebellion. . .,"
o second, the exceptional character of the situation and the and in my capacity as their Commander-in-Chief, do hereby
paramount public interest is involved; command the Armed Forces of the Philippines, to maintain
o third, when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of law and order throughout the Philippines, prevent or
controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; suppress all forms of lawless violence as well as any act of
and insurrection or rebellion and to enforce obedience to all the
o fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. laws and to all decrees, orders and regulations promulgated
- It was held that the plaintiff in a taxpayer’s suit is in a different category by me personally or upon my direction; and as provided in
from the plaintiff in a citizen’s suit. In the former, the plaintiff is affected Section 17, Article 12 of the Constitution do hereby declare a
by the expenditure of public funds, while in the latter, he is but the State of National Emergency.
mere instrument of the public concern. - This was President GMA’s response to an alleged conspiracy by the NDF-
- The following rules may be culled from the cases decided by this Court. CPP-NPA to overthrow the government.
Taxpayers, voters, concerned citizens, and legislators may be accorded - On March 3, 2006, exactly one week after the declaration of a state of
standing to sue, provided that the following requirements are met: national emergency and after all these petitions had been filed, the
o (1) the cases involve constitutional issues; President lifted PP 1017 through PP 1021.
o (2) for taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of
public funds or that the tax measure is unconstitutional; ISSUE/s:
o (3) for voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest in the 1) Whether or not the issuance of PP 1021 renders the petitions moot and
validity of the election law in question; academic
o (4) for concerned citizens, there must be a showing that the 2) Whether or not petitioners have legal standing
3) Whether or not the SC can review the factual bases of PP1017
issues raised are of transcendental importance which must be
settled early; and
RULING:
o (5) for legislators, there must be a claim that the official action
1) NO. The power of judicial review does not repose upon the courts a "self-
complained of infringes upon their prerogatives as legislators.
starting capacity." Courts may exercise such power only when the following
- Under the new definition of judicial power, the courts are authorized not
requisites are present: first, there must be an actual case or
only "to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
controversy; second, petitioners have to raise a question of
demandable and enforceable," but also "to determine whether or not there
constitutionality; third, the constitutional question must be raised at the
has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
earliest opportunity; and fourth, the decision of the constitutional question
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
must be necessary to the determination of the case itself.
government."
- Respondents maintain that the first and second requisites are absent,
- "judicial inquiry can go no further than to satisfy the Court not that the
hence, we shall limit our discussion thereon.
President’s decision is correct," but that "the President did not
- An actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal right, an
act arbitrarily." Thus, the standard laid down is not correctness, but
opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution. It is "definite
arbitrariness.
and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse
legal interest;" a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific
FACTS:
relief. The Solicitor General refutes the existence of such actual case or
controversy, contending that the present petitions were rendered "moot
and academic" by President Arroyo’s issuance of PP 1021.
- Such contention lacks merit. person who is affected no differently from any other person. He could be
- A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable suing as a "stranger," or in the category of a "citizen," or ‘taxpayer." In either
controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration case, he has to adequately show that he is entitled to seek judicial
thereon would be of no practical use or value. Generally, courts protection. In other words, he has to make out a sufficient interest in the
decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on ground of vindication of the public order and the securing of relief as a "citizen" or
mootness. "taxpayer”.
- The Court holds that President Arroyo’s issuance of PP 1021 did not render - Case law in most jurisdictions now allows both "citizen" and "taxpayer"
the present petitions moot and academic. During the eight (8) days that PP standing in public actions. It was held that the plaintiff in a taxpayer’s suit
1017 was operative, the police officers, according to petitioners, committed is in a different category from the plaintiff in a citizen’s suit. In the former,
illegal acts in implementing it. Are PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 constitutional or the plaintiff is affected by the expenditure of public funds, while in the
valid? Do they justify these alleged illegal acts? These are the vital issues latter, he is but the mere instrument of the public concern.
that must be resolved in the present petitions. It must be stressed that "an - "In matter of mere public right, however…the people are the real
unconstitutional act is not a law, it confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it parties…It is at least the right, if not the duty, of every citizen to
affords no protection; it is in legal contemplation, inoperative." interfere and see that a public offence be properly pursued and
- The "moot and academic" principle is not a magical formula that can punished, and that a public grievance be remedied."
automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case. Courts will - With respect to taxpayer’s suits, "the right of a citizen and a taxpayer to
decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if: first, there is a grave maintain an action in courts to restrain the unlawful use of public
violation of the Constitution; second, the exceptional character of the funds to his injury cannot be denied."
situation and the paramount public interest is involved; third, when - However, to prevent just about any person from seeking judicial
constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling interference in any official policy or act with which he disagreed with, and
principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and fourth, the thus hinders the activities of governmental agencies engaged in public
case is capable of repetition yet evading review. service, the United State Supreme Court laid down the more stringent
- All the foregoing exceptions are present here and justify this Court’s "direct injury" test. The same Court ruled that for a private individual to
assumption of jurisdiction over the instant petitions. Petitioners alleged invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of an executive or
that the issuance of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 violates the Constitution. There legislative action, he must show that he has sustained a direct injury as
is no question that the issues being raised affect the public’s interest, a result of that action, and it is not sufficient that he has a general
involving as they do the people’s basic rights to freedom of expression, of interest common to all members of the public.
assembly and of the press. Moreover, the Court has the duty to formulate - This Court adopted the "direct injury" test in our jurisdiction. It is held
guiding and controlling constitutional precepts, doctrines or rules. It has that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have "a
the symbolic function of educating the bench and the bar, and in the personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has
present petitions, the military and the police, on the extent of the sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result."
protection given by constitutional guarantees. And lastly, respondents’ - However, being a mere procedural technicality, the requirement of locus
contested actions are capable of repetition. Certainly, the petitions are standi may be waived by the Court in the exercise of its discretion. This was
subject to judicial review. done in the 1949 Emergency Powers Cases, Araneta v. Dinglasan, where
the "transcendental importance" of the cases prompted the Court to act
2) YES. Locus standi is defined as "a right of appearance in a court of justice on liberally. Such liberality was neither a rarity nor accidental. In Aquino v.
a given question." In private suits, standing is governed by the "real- Comelec, this Court resolved to pass upon the issues raised due to the "far-
parties-in interest" rule as contained in Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules reaching implications" of the petition notwithstanding its categorical
of Civil Procedure, as amended. It provides that "every action must be statement that petitioner therein had no personality to file the suit. Indeed,
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest." there is a chain of cases where this liberal policy has been observed,
Accordingly, the "real-party-in interest" is "the party who stands to be allowing ordinary citizens, members of Congress, and civic organizations to
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled prosecute actions involving the constitutionality or validity of laws,
to the avails of the suit." Succinctly put, the plaintiff’s standing is based regulations and rulings
on his own right to the relief sought. - By way of summary, the following rules may be culled from the cases
- The difficulty of determining locus standi arises in public suits. Here, the decided by this Court. Taxpayers, voters, concerned citizens, and legislators
plaintiff who asserts a "public right" in assailing an allegedly illegal official may be accorded standing to sue, provided that the following requirements
action, does so as a representative of the general public. He may be a are met:
 o (1) the cases involve constitutional issues; - This Court further ruled that "it is incumbent upon the petitioner to
o (2) for taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of show that the President’s decision is totally bereft of factual basis"
public funds or that the tax measure is unconstitutional; and that if he fails, by way of proof, to support his assertion, then "this
o (3) for voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest in the Court cannot undertake an independent investigation beyond the
validity of the election law in question; pleadings."
o (4) for concerned citizens, there must be a showing that the - Petitioners failed to show that President Arroyo’s exercise of the calling-
issues raised are of transcendental importance which must be out power, by issuing PP 1017, is totally bereft of factual basis. A reading of
settled early; and the Solicitor General’s Consolidated Comment and Memorandum shows a
o (5) for legislators, there must be a claim that the official action detailed narration of the events leading to the issuance of PP 1017, with
complained of infringes upon their prerogatives as legislators. supporting reports forming part of the records. Mentioned are the escape
- It must always be borne in mind that the question of locus standi is but of the Magdalo Group, their audacious threat of the Magdalo D-Day, the
corollary to the bigger question of proper exercise of judicial power. This is defections in the military, particularly in the Philippine Marines, and the
the underlying legal tenet of the "liberality doctrine" on legal standing. It reproving statements from the communist leaders. There was also the
cannot be doubted that the validity of PP No. 1017 and G.O. No. 5 is a Minutes of the Intelligence Report and Security Group of the Philippine
judicial question which is of paramount importance to the Filipino people. Army showing the growing alliance between the NPA and the military.
To paraphrase Justice Laurel, the whole of Philippine society now waits Petitioners presented nothing to refute such events. Thus, absent any
with bated breath the ruling of this Court on this very critical matter. The contrary allegations, the Court is convinced that the President was justified
petitions thus call for the application of the "transcendental in issuing PP 1017 calling for military aid.
importance" doctrine, a relaxation of the standing requirements for - Indeed, judging the seriousness of the incidents, President Arroyo was not
the petitioners in the "PP 1017 cases." expected to simply fold her arms and do nothing to prevent or suppress
- This Court holds that all the petitioners herein have locus standi. what she believed was lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. However, the
exercise of such power or duty must not stifle liberty.
3) YES. While the Court considered the President’s "calling-out" power as a
discretionary power solely vested in his wisdom, it stressed that "this does
not prevent an examination of whether such power was exercised
within permissible constitutional limits or whether it was exercised
in a manner constituting grave abuse of discretion."
- This ruling is mainly a result of the Court’s reliance on Section 1, Article
VIII of 1987 Constitution, which fortifies the authority of the courts to
determine in an appropriate action the validity of the acts of the political
departments. Under the new definition of judicial power, the courts are
authorized not only "to settle actual controversies involving rights which
are legally demandable and enforceable," but also "to determine whether
or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of
the government."
- The latter part of the authority represents a broadening of judicial power
to enable the courts of justice to review what was before a forbidden
territory, to wit, the discretion of the political departments of the
government. It speaks of judicial prerogative not only in terms
of power but also of duty.
- As to how the Court may inquire into the President’s exercise of power,
"judicial inquiry can go no further than to satisfy the Court not that
the President’s decision is correct," but that "the President did not
act arbitrarily." Thus, the standard laid down is not correctness, but
arbitrariness.
 To set aside the resolution of the issue now will only postpone a task
that could well crop up again in future elections.
- In any event, in Salonga v. Cruz Paño, the Court had occasion to reiterate
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. vs COMELEC that it "also has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling
DOCTRINE: constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules. It has the
- The Court had occasion to reiterate that it also has the duty to formulate symbolic function of educating bench and bar on the extent of
guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines, or protection given by constitutional guarantees." Since the fundamental
rules. It has the symbolic function of educating bench and bar on the extent freedoms of speech and of the press are being invoked here, we have
of protection given by constitutional guarantees. resolved to settle, for the guidance of posterity, whether they likewise
protect the holding of exit polls and the dissemination of data derived
FACTS: therefrom.
- Before us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court - The solicitor general further contends that the Petition should be
assailing Commission on Elections (Comelec) en banc Resolution No. 98- dismissed for petitioner's failure to exhaust available remedies before the
1419 dated April 21, 1998. In the said Resolution, the poll body: issuing forum, specifically the filing of a motion for reconsideration.
RESOLVED to approve the issuance of a restraining order to stop - This Court, however, has ruled in the past that this procedural requirement
ABS-CBN or any other groups, its agents or representatives from may be glossed over to prevent a miscarriage of justice, when the issue
conducting such exit survey and to authorize the Honorable involves the principle of social justice or the protection of labor, when the
Chairman to issue the same. decision or resolution sought to be set aside is a nullity, or when the need
- The Resolution was issued by the Comelec allegedly upon "information for relief is extremely urgent and certiorari is the only adequate and speedy
from a reliable source that ABS-CBN (Lopez Group) has prepared a project, remedy available.
with PR groups, to conduct radio-TV coverage of the elections . . . and to - The instant Petition assails a Resolution issued by the Comelec en banc on
make [an] exit survey of the . . . vote during the elections for national April 21, 1998, only twenty (20) days before the election itself. Besides, the
officials particularly for President and Vice President, results of which shall petitioner got hold of a copy thereof only on May 4, 1998. Under the
be [broadcast] immediately." circumstances, there was hardly enough opportunity to move for a
- The electoral body believed that such project might conflict with the reconsideration and to obtain a swift resolution in time or the May 11,
official Comelec count, as well as the unofficial quick count of the National 1998 elections. Moreover, not only is time of the essence; the Petition
Movement for Free Elections (Namfrel). It also noted that it had not involves transcendental constitutional issues. Direct resort to this Court
authorized or deputized Petitioner ABS-CBN to undertake the exit survey. through a special civil action for certiorari is therefore justified.
- On May 9, 1998, this Court issued the Temporary Restraining Order prayed
for by petitioner. We directed the Comelec to cease and desist, until further
orders, from implementing the assailed Resolution or the restraining order
issued pursuant thereto, if any. In fact, the exit polls were actually
conducted and reported by media without any difficulty or problem.
- The solicitor general contends that the petition is moot and academic,
because the May 11, 1998 election has already been held and done with.
Allegedly, there is no longer any actual controversy before us.

ISSUE:
- Whether or not the petition is moot and academic, therefore there is no
more controversy

RULING:
- NO. The issue is not totally moot. While the assailed Resolution referred
specifically to the May 11, 1998 election, its implications on the people's
fundamental freedom of expression transcend the past election. The
holding of periodic elections is a basic feature of our democratic
government. By its very nature, exit polling is tied up with elections.
 - And while it is true that laws are presumed to be constitutional, that
presumption is not by any means conclusive and in fact may be rebutted.
Ynot vs Intermediate Appellate Court Indeed, if there be a clear showing of their invalidity, and of the need to
DOCTRINE: declare them so, then "will be the time to make the hammer fall, and
- Courts should not follow the path of least resistance by simply presuming heavily," to recall Justice Laurel's trenchant warning. Stated otherwise,
the constitutionality of a law when it is questioned. On the contrary, they courts should not follow the path of least resistance by simply presuming
should probe the issue more deeply, to relieve the abscess, paraphrasing the constitutionality of a law when it is questioned. On the contrary, they
another distinguished jurist, and so heal the wound or excise the affliction. should probe the issue more deeply, to relieve the abscess, paraphrasing
- Judicial power authorizes this; and when the exercise is demanded, there another distinguished jurist, and so heal the wound or excise the affliction.
should be no shirking of the task for fear of retaliation, or loss of favor, or - Judicial power authorizes this; and when the exercise is demanded, there
popular censure, or any other similar inhibition unworthy of the bench, should be no shirking of the task for fear of retaliation, or loss of favor, or
especially this Court. popular censure, or any other similar inhibition unworthy of the bench,
especially this Court.
FACTS: - The challenged measure is denominated an executive order but it is really
- Executive Order No. 626-A was signed by President Marcos, which presidential decree, promulgating a new rule instead of merely
prohibits the interprovincial movement of carabaos and the slaughtering of implementing an existing law. It was issued by President Marcos not for the
carabaos not complying with the requirement of EO No. 626. The violation purpose of taking care that the laws were faithfully executed but in the
of the interprovincial movement of carabaos would result to the exercise of his legislative authority under Amendment No. 6. It was
confiscation and forfeiture of the carabao by the government. provided thereunder that whenever in his judgment there existed a grave
- The petitioner had transported six carabaos in a pump boat from Masbate emergency or a threat or imminence thereof or whenever the legislature
to Iloilo on January 13, 1984, when they were confiscated by the police failed or was unable to act adequately on any matter that in his judgment
station commander of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo, for violation of the above required immediate action, he could, in order to meet the exigency, issue
measure. decrees, orders or letters of instruction that were to have the force and
- The petitioner sued for recovery, and the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City effect of law.
issued a writ of replevin upon his filing of a supersedeas bond of - As there is no showing of any exigency to justify the exercise of that
P12,000.00. After considering the merits of the case, the court sustained extraordinary power then, the petitioner has reason, indeed, to question
the confiscation of the carabaos and, since they could no longer be the validity of the executive order. Nevertheless, since the determination of
produced, ordered the confiscation of the bond. The court also declined the grounds was supposed to have been made by the President "in his
to rule on the constitutionality of the executive order, as raise by the judgment, " a phrase that will lead to protracted discussion not really
petitioner, for lack of authority and also for its presumed validity. necessary at this time, we reserve resolution of this matter until a more
appropriate occasion.
ISSUE:
- Whether or not the court has the authority to rule on the constitutionality
of the law

RULING:
- This Court has declared that while lower courts should observe a becoming
modesty in examining constitutional questions, they are nonetheless not
prevented from resolving the same whenever warranted, subject only to
review by the highest tribunal.
- We have jurisdiction under the Constitution to "review, revise,
reverse, modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or rules of
court may provide," final judgments and orders of lower courts in,
among others, all cases involving the constitutionality of certain
measures. This simply means that the resolution of such cases may be
made in the first instance by these lower courts.
 - Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. Thus, this
petition is filed.

Garcia vs Drilon (GR No. 179267) ISSUE/s:

DOCTRINE: 1) Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the petition on the theory that
- -It is settled that RTCs have jurisdiction to resolve the constitutionality of a the issue of constitutionality was not raised at the earliest opportunity and
statute, this authority being embraced in the general definition of the that the petition constitutes a collateral attack on the validity of the law.
judicial power to determine what are the valid and binding laws by the 2) WON the CA seriously erredin declaring RA 9262 as invalid and
criterion of their conformity to the fundamental law." unconstitutional because it allows an undue delegation of judicial power to
- The Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare Brgy. Officials.
the constitutionality or validity of a law, treaty, international or executive
agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation
not only in this Court, but in all RTCs. (subject to the review of the SC of
course) RULING:
1) NO. As a general rule, the question of constitutionality must be raised at
FACTS: the earliest opportunity so that if not raised in the pleadings, ordinarily it
- On March 23, 2006, Rosalie Jaype-Garcia (private respondent) filed, for may not be raised in the trial, and if not raised in the trial court, it will not
herself and in behalf of her minor children, a verified petition before the be considered on appeal. Courts will not anticipate a question of
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City for the issuance of a Temporary constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it.
Protection Order (TPO) against her husband, Jesus C. Garcia (petitioner), - In defending his failure to attack the constitutionality of R.A. 9262 before
pursuant to R.A. 9262. She claimed to be a victim of physical abuse; the RTC of Bacolod City, petitioner argues that the Family Court has limited
emotional, psychological, and economic violence as a result of marital authority and jurisdiction that is "inadequate to tackle the complex issue of
infidelity on the part of petitioner, with threats of deprivation of custody of constitutionality." We disagree.
her children and of financial support. - Family Courts have authority and jurisdiction to consider the
- Private respondent married petitioner in 2002 when she was 34 years old constitutionality of a statute.
and the former was eleven years her senior. They have three children. - At the outset, it must be stressed that Family Courts are special courts, of
- She claimed to be a victim of physical, emotional, psychological and the same level as Regional Trial Courts. Under R.A. 8369, otherwise known
economic violence, being threatened of deprivation of custody of her as the "Family Courts Act of 1997," family courts have exclusive original
children and of financial support and also a victim of marital infidelity on jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of domestic violence against women
the part of petitioner. and children. In accordance with said law, the Supreme Court designated
- The TPO was granted but the petitioner failed to faithfully comply with the from among the branches of the Regional Trial Courts at least one Family
conditions set forth by the said TPO by continuing to deprive them of Court in each of several key cities identified.To achieve harmony with the
financial support, private-respondent filed another application for the first mentioned law, Section 7 of R.A. 9262 now provides that Regional
issuance of a TPO ex parte. The trial court issued a modified TPO and Trial Courts designated as Family Courts shall have original and exclusive
extended the same when petitioner failed to comment on why the TPO jurisdiction over cases of VAWC defined under the latter law, viz:
should not be modified. After the given time allowance to answer, the SEC. 7. Venue. – The Regional Trial Court designated as a Family
petitioner no longer submitted the required comment as it would be an Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases of
“exercise in futility.” violence against women and their children under this law. In the
- Petitioner filed before the CA a petition for prohibition with prayer for absence of such court in the place where the offense was
injunction and TRO on, questioning the constitutionality of the RA 9262 for committed, the case shall be filed in the Regional Trial Court
violating the due process and equal protection clauses, and the validity of where the crime or any of its elements was committed at the
the modified TPO for being “an unwanted product of an invalid law.” option of the complainant.
- The CA issued a TRO on the enforcement of the TPO but however, denied - Inspite of its designation as a family court, the RTC of Bacolod City remains
the petition for failure to raise the issue of constitutionality in his pleadings possessed of authority as a court of general original jurisdiction to pass
before the trial court and the petition for prohibition to annul protection upon all kinds of cases whether civil, criminal, special proceedings, land
orders issued by the trial court constituted collateral attack on said law. registration, guardianship, naturalization, admiralty or insolvency.
- It is settled that RTCs have jurisdiction to resolve the constitutionality of a
statute, this authority being embraced in the general definition of the
judicial power to determine what are the valid and binding laws by the
criterion of their conformity to the fundamental law."
- The Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare
the constitutionality or validity of a law, treaty, international or executive
agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation
not only in this Court, but in all RTCs.
- We said in J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. v. CA that, "plainly the Constitution
contemplates that the inferior courts should have jurisdiction in cases
involving constitutionality of any treaty or law, for it speaks of appellate
review of final judgments of inferior courts in cases where such
constitutionality happens to be in issue." Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution reads in part as follows:
o SEC. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
o xxx
o 2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari,
as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and
orders of lower courts in:
o a. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in
question.
o xxxx
- Thus, contrary to the posturing of petitioner, the issue of constitutionality
of R.A. 9262 could have been raised at the earliest opportunity in his
Opposition to the petition for protection order before the RTC of Bacolod
City, which had jurisdiction to determine the same, subject to the review of
this Court.
2) NO. There is no undue delegation of judicial power to Barangay officials.
- Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on any part of any
branch of the Government while executive power is the power to enforce
and administer the laws.
- The preliminary investigation conducted by the prosecutor is an executive,
not a judicial, function. The same holds true with the issuance of BPO.
Assistance by Brgy. Officials and other law enforcement agencies is
consistent with their duty executive function.