1

ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW

Constitutional Law I | Atty. Edgar B. Pascua II

C. CONDITIONS FOR THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of
the various courts", subject to the limitations set forth in the
Conditions for the Exercise of Judicial Review:
fundamental law.
1. There must be an actual case or controversy which is ripe
Function exercised by PET is judicial
for judicial determination.
2. It must be raised at the earliest opportunity. The power to be the judge of “contests relating to the
3. Locus Standi (Legal Standing). election, returns, and qualifications” of any public officer is essentially
4. It is the very lis mota of the case. judicial. As such, under the principle of separation of powers, it
belongs exclusively to the judicial department, except only insofar as
JUDICIAL POWER
the Constitution provides otherwise. This is precisely the reason why
FERNANDO LOPEZ v. GERARDO ROXAS and PET said organic law ordains that "the Senate and the House of
G.R. No. L-25716 | July 28, 1966 Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be
the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
Facts: During the 1965 general elections, Fernando Lopez qualifications of their respective Members" (Article VI, Section 11,
(petitioner) and Gerardo Roxas (respondent) were the main of the Constitution). In other words, the purpose of this provision was
contenders for the Office of Vice-President of the Philippines. to exclude the power to decide such contests relating to Members of
Fernando Lopez was proclaimed winner by Congress, acting as the Congress - which by nature is judicial - from the operation of the
joint canvassing body. Roxas filed an election protest with the general grant of judicial power to the Supreme Court and such inferior
Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET). courts as may be established by law."
Lopez filed the present petition for prohibition to prevent Not only is Republic Act No. 1793 not inconsistent with the
the Presidential Electoral Tribunal from hearing and deciding the Constitution or with the principle of separation of powers underlying
election contest, upon the ground that Republic Act No. 1793, the same, but, also, that it is in harmony with the aforementioned
creating said Tribunal, is unconstitutional and that all proceedings grant of "the judicial power" to said courts.
taken by it are a nullity.
Congress, acting as the board of canvassers, exercises ministerial
Lopez's contentions are (1) that Congress may not, by law functions, while the Supreme Court, acting as the Electoral
(RA 1793), authorize an election contest for President and Vice Tribunal, exercises judicial functions
President, the Constitution being silent thereon, (2) that such contest
tends to nullify the constitutional authority of Congress to proclaim The power of Congress to declare who among the
the candidates elected for President and Vice President, (3) that the candidates for President and/or Vice-President has obtained the
recount of votes by the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, as an incident largest number of votes is entirely different in nature from, and not
of an election contest, is inconsistent with the exclusive power of inconsistent with, the jurisdiction vested in the Presidential Electoral
Congress to canvass the election returns for the President and the Tribunal by Republic Act No. 1793. Congress merely acts as a national
Vice President; (4) that it is illegal for Justices of the Supreme Court to board of canvassers, charged with the ministerial and
sit as Members of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, since the executive duty to make said declaration, on the basis of the election
decisions thereof are appealable to the Supreme Court on questions returns duly certified by provincial and city boards of canvassers.
of law. Upon the other hand, the Presidential Electoral Tribunal has
the judicial power to determine whether or not said duly certified
Issue: W/N election returns have been irregularly made or tampered with, or
reflect the true results of the elections in the areas covered by each,
Held:
and, if not, to recount the ballots cast, and, incidentally thereto, pass
Judicial Power upon the validity of each ballot or determine whether the same shall
be counted, and, in the affirmative, in whose favor, which Congress
Pursuant to the Constitution, the judicial power shall be
has no power to do.
vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as may be
established by law. This provision vests in the judicial branch of the
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
government, not merely some specified or limited judicial power, but
"the" judicial power under our political system, and, accordingly, the SPOUSES BALANGAUAN v. CA
entirety or "all" of said power, except, only, so much as the G.R. No. 174350 | August 13, 2008
Constitution confers upon some other agency.
Facts: Petitioner Katherene was a Premier Customer Services
Judicial power is the authority to settle justiciable Representative (PCSR) of respondent bank, HSBC. As a PCSR, she
controversies or disputes involving rights that are enforceable and managed the accounts of HSBC depositors with Premier Status. One
demandable before the courts of justice or the redress of wrongs for such client and/or depositor handled by her was Roger Dwayne York
violations of such rights. The proper exercise of said authority (York).
requires legislative action: (1) defining such enforceable and
demandable rights and/or prescribing remedies for violations York maintained several accounts with respondent HSBC.
thereof; and (2) determining the court with jurisdiction to hear and Sometime in April 2002, he went to respondent HSBC's Cebu Branch
decide said controversies or disputes, in the first instance and/or on to transact with petitioner Katherene respecting his Dollar and Peso
appeal. For this reason, the Constitution ordains that "Congress shall Accounts. Petitioner Katherene being on vacation at the time, York

ALAG, Miguel Alleandro M. | 2-Manresa

 2
ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW
Constitutional Law I | Atty. Edgar B. Pascua II

was attended to by another PCSR. While at the bank, York inquired The Court have previously ruled that grave abuse of
about the status of his time deposit in the amount of P2,500,000.00. discretion may arise when a lower court or tribunal violates and
The PCSR representative who attended to him, however, could not contravenes the Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence. By
find any record of said placement in the bank's data base. grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse
York adamantly insisted, though, that through petitioner
of discretion must be grave, as where the power is exercised in an
Katherene, he made a placement of the aforementioned amount in a
arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal
higher-earning time deposit. York further elaborated that petitioner
hostility and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion
Katherene explained to him that the alleged higher-earning time
of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by
deposit scheme was supposedly being offered to Premier clients only.
or to act at all in contemplation of law. The word "capricious," usually
Upon further scrutiny and examination, respondent HSBC's bank
used in tandem with the term "arbitrary," conveys the notion of
personnel discovered that: (1) on January 18, 2002, York pre-
willful and unreasoning action. Thus, when seeking the corrective
terminated a P1,000,000.00 time deposit; (2) there were cash
hand of certiorari, a clear showing of caprice and arbitrariness in the
movement tickets and withdrawal slips all signed by York for the
exercise of discretion is imperative.
amount of P1,000,000.00; and (3) there were regular movements in
York's accounts, i.e., beginning in the month of January 2002, monthly The CA cannot be said to have acted with GADALEJ in
deposits in the amount of P12,500.00 and P8,333.33 were made, reversing and setting aside the resolutions of the DOJ. In the
which York denied ever making, but surmised were the regular resolutions of the DOJ, it affirmed the recommendation of ACP
interest earnings from the placement of the P2,500,000.00. Laborte that no probable cause existed to warrant the filing in court
of an Information for estafa and/or qualified estafa against
 Bank personnel of respondent HSBC likewise recounted in their
affidavits that prior to the filing of the complaint for estafa and/or petitioners Bernyl and Katherene. It was the reasoning of the DOJ that
qualified estafa, they were in contact with petitioners. Petitioner Bernyl "while appellant has every reason to suspect Katherene for the loss
supposedly met with them on two occasions. At first he disavowed any of the P2,500,000.00 as per York's bank statements, the cash deposits
knowledge regarding the whereabouts of York's money but later on were identified by the numerals 'CEO8' and it was only Katherene who
admitted that he knew that his wife invested the funds with Shell
could transact from the computer in the work station CEO-8, plus
Company. He likewise admitted that he made the phone banking
deposit to credit York's account with the P12,500.00 and the P8,333.33 alleged photographs showing Katherene 'leaving her office at 5:28
using their landline telephone. With respect to petitioner Katherene, p.m. with a bulky plastic bag presumably containing cash' since a
she allegedly spoke to the bank personnel and York on several occasions portion of the funds was withdrawn, we (the Court) do not, however,
and admitted that the funds were indeed invested with Shell Company dwell on possibilities, suspicion and speculation.
but that York knew about this.
From the records of the case, it is clear that a prima facie
So as not to ruin its name and goodwill among its clients,
case for estafa/qualified estafa exists against petitioners Bernyl and
respondent HSBC reimbursed York the P2,500,000.00. Based on the
Katherene. A perusal of the records, i.e., the affidavits of respondent
foregoing factual circumstances, respondent HSBC, through its
HSBC's witnesses, the documentary evidence presented, as well as
personnel, filed a criminal complaint for Estafa and/or Qualified
the analysis of the factual milieu of the case, leads this Court to agree
Estafa before the Office of the City Prosecutor, Cebu City.
with the Court of Appeals that, taken together, they are enough to
Following the requisite preliminary investigation, Assistant excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, that the Spouses Bernyl
City Prosecutor (ACP) Victor C. Laborte, Prosecutor II of the OCP, Balangauan and Katherene Balangauan are guilty of the crime
Cebu City, found no probable cause to hold petitioners Bernyl and complained of. Whether or not they will be convicted by a trial court
Katherene liable to stand trial for the criminal complaint of estafa based on the same evidence is not a consideration. It is enough that
and/or qualified estafa, particularly Article 315 of the Revised Penal acts or omissions complained of by respondent HSBC constitute the
Code. Accordingly, the ACP recommended the dismissal of crime of estafa and/or qualified estafa.
respondent HSBC's complaint.
From the above, the alleged circumstances of the case at
Respondent HSBC appealed the above-quoted resolution bar make up the elements of abuse of confidence, deceit or
and foregoing comment to the Secretary of the DOJ. In a Resolution, fraudulent means, and damage under Art. 315 of the Revised Penal
the Chief State Prosecutor, Jovencito R. Zuño, for the Secretary of the Code on estafa and/or qualified estafa. They give rise to the
DOJ, dismissed the petition. Respondent HSBC's Motion for presumption or reasonable belief that the offense of estafa has been
Reconsideration was likewise denied with finality by the DOJ. committed; and, thus, the filing of an Information against petitioners
Bernyl and Katherene is warranted. That respondent HSBC is
Respondent HSBC then went to the Court of Appeals. On supposed to have no personality to file any criminal complaint against
April 28, 2006, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision granting petitioners Bernyl and Katherene does not ipso facto clear them of
respondent HSBC's petition, thereby annulling and setting aside the prima facie guilt. The same goes for their basic denial of the acts or
twin resolutions of the DOJ. Hence, this petition. omissions complained of; or their attempt at shifting the doubt to the
Issue: W/N the CA committed Grave Abuse of Discretion person of York; and their claim that witnesses of respondent HSBC are
amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in reversing guilty of fabricating the whole scenario. These are matters of defense;
and setting aside the resolutions of the DOJ. their validity needs to be tested in the crucible of a full-blown trial.
Lest it be forgotten, the presence or absence of the elements of the
Held: No. crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense, the truth of
which can best be passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits.

ALAG, Miguel Alleandro M. | 2-Manresa

 3
ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW
Constitutional Law I | Atty. Edgar B. Pascua II

SINGIAN JR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law,
G.R. Nos. 195011-19 | September 30, 2013 or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercised
in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.
Facts: Integrated Shoe Inc. applied for a five-year confirmed
irrevocable deferred letter of credit amounting to US$2,500,000.00 to The Supreme Court ruled that it cannot interfere with the
finance its purchase of a complete line of machinery and equipment. discretion of the Sandiganbayan in finding probable cause against
The letter of credit was recommended to the PNB Board of Directors petitioner, absent grave abuse of discretion. There was also no grave
by then Senior Vice President, Mr. Bautista. PNB approved the loan, abuse of discretion, as defined, which can be attributed to the
subject to certain stipulations. The said letter of credit was supposed Ombudsman as well as the Sandiganbayan.
to be secured by a number of collaterals. Integrated was further
extended 9 subsequent loan accommodations. ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY

The Committee found that the loans extended to PEOPLE v. VERA

Integrated bore characteristics of behest loans specifically for not G.R. No. L-45685 | October 16, 1937
having been secured with sufficient collaterals and obtained with
undue haste. As a result, Atty. Orlando Salvador filed with the Office Facts: The Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a judgment
of the Ombudsman a sworn complaint for violation of Section 3, of conviction against Mariano Cu Unjieng sentencing him to
paragraphs (e) and (g), of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, against imprisonment and to pay costs to Hongkong and Shanghai Banking
the respondents, consisting of former officers of PNB and current Corporation. After several unsuccessful motions, final judgment was
officers of Integrated. entered on December 18, 1935.

Prosecutor Linco found that probable cause existed to indict Mariano Cu Unjieng applied for probation on November 27,
petitioner, among other respondents, and recommended that they 1936 under the provisions of Act No. 4221.
be charged, which was ultimately approved by Ombudsman Desierto. The City Fiscal of Manila opposed the granting of probation
Hence, 18 Informations against petitioner and his co-accused for and questioned the constitutionality of Act No. 4221 on the ground
violation of Section 3(e) and (g) of Rep. Act No. 3019, were filed that it violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the
before the Sandiganbayan. laws for the reason that its applicability is not uniform throughout the
Petitioner filed before the Sandiganbayan an Urgent Islands (i.e. nowhere in the law is it stated that it is applicable to a city
Consolidated Motions for Reinvestigation and Reduction of Bail. The like Manila; it is indicated therein that only provinces are covered).
Sandiganbayan issued an order granting petitioner’s motion for It is also alleged that Act No. 4221 is an undue delegation of
reinvestigation. Pursuant thereto, the Office of the Special Prosecutor legislative power to the provincial boards of several provinces
conducted the reinvestigation. The prosecutor then resolved the because Section 11 of the said Act endows the provincial boards with
reinvestigation exonerating the respondent from the criminal the power to make said law effective or otherwise in their respective
charges. The recommendations of Prosecutor Ferrer exonerating provinces.
petitioner and his co-accused of the charges were, however,
disapproved by Ombudsman Marcelo. Further, the said probation law may be an encroachment of
the power of the executive to provide pardon because providing
Petitioner filed before the Sandiganbayan a Motion for Re- probation, in effect, is granting freedom.
determination of Existence of Probable Cause which was denied. A
petition for certiorari was then filed before the Supreme Court. Issue: W/N the constitutionality of Act No. 4221 has been properly
raised in these proceedings.
Issue: W/N the Supreme Court can interfere with the findings of
the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan. Held: Yes.

Held: No. In dealing with cases of this kind, the Supreme Court It is a well-settled rule that the constitutionality of an act
had invariably refused to interfere with the discretion of the of the legislature will not be determined by the courts unless that
Ombudsman. question is properly raised and presented inappropriate cases and is
necessary to a determination of the case; i.e., the issue of
The act of the Ombudsman in finding probable cause to constitutionality must be the very lis mota presented.
indict petitioner is an exercise of his powers based upon
constitutional mandate and the courts should not interfere with such The mere fact that the Probation Act has been repeatedly
exercise, unless clothed with grave abuse of discretion. relied upon the past and all that time has not been attacked as
unconstitutional by the Fiscal of Manila but, on the contrary, has been
 The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory powers impliedly regarded by him as constitutional, is no reason for
granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon
practicality as well. Otherwise, the functions of the Court will be
considering the People of the Philippines estopped from nor assailing
grievously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the findings by its validity. For courts will pass upon a constitutional questions only
the Ombudsman with respect to complaints filed before him. when presented before it in bona fide cases for determination, and
the fact that the question has not been raised before is not a valid
Grave abuse of discretion is the capricious and whimsical
reason for refusing to allow it to be raised later. The fiscal and all
exercise of judgment on the part of the public officer concerned which
others are justified in relying upon the statute and treating it as valid
is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of
until it is held void by the courts in proper cases.
discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of

ALAG, Miguel Alleandro M. | 2-Manresa

 4
ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW
Constitutional Law I | Atty. Edgar B. Pascua II

It has been held that the determination of a constitutional termed "judicial supremacy" which properly is the power of judicial
question is necessary whenever it is essential to the decision of the review under the Constitution.
case, as where the right of a party is founded solely on a statute the
Even then, this power of judicial review is limited to actual
validity of which is attacked. There is no doubt that the respondent
cases and controversies to be exercised after full opportunity of
Cu Unjieng draws his privilege to probation solely from Act No. 4221
argument by the parties, and limited further to the constitutional
now being assailed.
question raised or the very lis mota presented.
Apart from the foregoing considerations, that court will also
Narrowed as its function is in this manner, the judiciary
take cognizance of the fact that the Probation Act is a new addition to
does not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of
our statute books and its validity has never before been passed upon
legislation. More than that, courts accord the presumption
by the courts; that may persons accused and convicted of crime in the
of constitutionality to legislative enactments, not only because the
City of Manila have applied for probation; that some of them are
legislature is presumed to abide by the Constitution but also because
already on probation; that more people will likely take advantage of
the judiciary in the determination of actual cases and controversies
the Probation Act in the future; and that the respondent Mariano Cu
must reflect the wisdom and justice of the people as expressed
Unjieng has been at large for a period of about four years since his
through their representatives in the executive and legislative
first conviction. All wait the decision of this court on the constitutional
departments of the government.
question. Considering, therefore, the importance which the instant
case has assumed and to prevent multiplicity of suits, strong reasons The case at bar presents an actual controversy involving as
of public policy demand that the constitutionality of Act No. 4221 be it does a conflict of a grave constitutional nature between the
now resolved. National Assembly on the one hand, and the Electoral Commission on
the other. Specifically, the National Assembly has by
ANGARA v. ELECTORAL COMMISSION resolution (No. 8) of December 3, 1935, confirmed the election of
G.R. No. L-45081 | July 15, 1936 petitioner to the said body. On the other hand, the Electoral
Commission has by resolution adopted on December 9, 1935, fixed
Facts: In the 1935 elections, petitioner was proclaimed as member said date as the last day for the filing of protests against the election,
elect of National Assembly for the first district of the Province of returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly,
Tayabas. He took his oath of office on November 15, 1935. notwithstanding the previous confirmation made by the National
On December 3, 1935, the National Assembly passed Assembly as aforesaid.
Resolution No. 8 confirming the election of its members against
whom no protest had thus far been filed. IMBONG v. OCHOA
G.R. No. 204819 | April 8, 2014
On the other hand, the electoral commission adopted a
resolution on December 9, 1935 fixing said date as the last day for Facts: The consolidated petitions assail as unconstitutional
the filing of protests against the election, returns and qualifications Republic Act No. 10354 also known as Reproductive Health (RH) Law
of members of National Assembly, notwithstanding the previous for violating the following:
confirmation made.
1. Right to life of the unborn – insofar as it authorizes the purchase of abortives in
Prior to December 9, or on December 8, 1935, respondent violation of Section 12, Article II of the Constitution which guarantees protection of
both the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.
Ynsua, a defeated candidate, filed a “motion of protest”, being the
only protest filed after the passage of resolution No. 8, asking for the 2. Right to health – insofar as it provides access to contraceptives which have
nullification of petitioner’s election. hazardous health effects

3. Right to religious freedom- insofar as (a) it mandates the State-sponsored

Angara filed before the Electoral Commission a "Motion to
procurement of contraceptives, which contravene the religious beliefs of
Dismiss the Protest", alleging that the protest was filed out of the petitioners (b) it compels medical health practitioners, hospitals, and health care
prescribed period. The ‘motion to dismiss the protest' filed by providers, under pain of penalty, to refer patients to other institutions despite their
petitioner was denied. Hence, this present petition for the issuance of conscientious objections; (c) it requires would-be spouses, as a condition for the
a writ of prohibition. issuance of a marriage license, to attend a seminar on parenthood, family planning,
breastfeeding and infant nutrition, and (d) it provides for mandatory sex education
Issue: W/N there is an actual case or controversy that is ripe for in schools.
judicial determination in this case. Petitioners argue that the RH law does not satisfy the “clear
Held: Yes. and present danger” test and “compelling state interest test” to
justify the regulation of the free exercise of religion and free speech.
When the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional
boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other 4. Prohibition against involuntary servitude- insofar as it compels medical
practitioners, under pain of criminal punishment, to render 48 hours of pro bono
departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the service to indigent women, to be accredited under the Philhealth program
legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation
assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of 5. Equal protection – insofar as it makes the poor the primary target of the
legislation that promotes contraceptive that will effectively reduce the number of
authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in
the poor.
an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and
guarantees to them. This is in truth all that is involved in what is

ALAG, Miguel Alleandro M. | 2-Manresa

 5
ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW
Constitutional Law I | Atty. Edgar B. Pascua II

6. Due process clause- as the RH Law is “void-for-vagueness” since it punishes “any (4) A constitutional question that is the VERY LIS MOTA of the
violation” of the law yet does not define the type of conduct to be treated as case, i.e. an unavoidable question
violation. Moreover, it infringes on the right of the people to manage their own
affairs.
A PARTY WITH A PERSONAL AND SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST
7. Right to privacy (marital privacy and autonomy)- insofar as it gives absolute
authority to the person who will undergo reproductive health procedure, it BAKER v. CARR
impedes the right of spouses to mutually decide on matter affecting the family. 369 U.S. 186 (1962)

8. Non-delegation of legislative authority – insofar is it delegates to the Food and Facts: Apportionment cases had often been brought under the
Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to determine if product is a non- Guaranty Clause of Article IV, Section: 4 of the United States
abortifacient and to be included in the Essential Drugs List (EDL). Constitution, in which the United States guarantees to the individual
states a republican form of government. The Supreme Court of the
9. Local Autonomy – insofar as it imposes duties on the local government.
United States (Supreme Court) has long held that such challenges
Proponents of the RH Law submit that the subject petitions present a political question, not addressable by the courts.
do not present any actual case or controversy because the RH Law has In the current case, appellants challenged the state
yet to be implemented, no one has been charged with violating any apportionment of legislatures under the Equal Protection Clause of
of its provisions and that there is no showing that any of the the Fourteenth Amendment.
petitioners' rights has been adversely affected by its operation.
Issue: W/N appellants have the standing to maintain this suit.
Issue: W/N the case present an actual case or controversy.
Held: Yes.
Held: Yes.
The complaint was filed by residents of Davidson, Hamilton,
The power of judicial review is limited by four exacting Knox, Montgomery, and Shelby Counties. These appellants sued "on
requisites, viz: (a) there must be an actual case or controversy; (b) the their own behalf and on behalf of all qualified voters of their
petitioners must possess locus standi; (c) the question of respective counties, and further, on behalf of all voters of the State
constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (d) of Tennessee who are similarly situated.”
the issue of constitutionality must be the lis mota of the case.
The Court held that the appellants do have standing to
An actual case or controversy means an existing case or maintain this suit. These appellants seek relief in order to protect or
controversy that is appropriate or ripe for determination, not vindicate an interest of their own, and of those similarly situated.
conjectural or anticipatory, lest the decision of the court would Their constitutional claim is, in substance, that the 1901 statute
amount to an advisory opinion. The rule is that courts do not sit to constitutes arbitrary and capricious state action, offensive to the
adjudicate mere academic questions. There ought to be an actual and Fourteenth Amendment in its irrational disregard of the standard of
substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree apportionment prescribed by the State's Constitution or of any
conclusive in nature, as distinguished from an opinion advising what standard, effecting a gross disproportion of representation to voting
the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts. population. The injury which appellants assert is that this
Corollary to the requirement of an actual case or classification disfavors the voters in the counties in which they reside,
controversy is the requirement of ripeness. For a case to be placing them in a position of constitutionally unjustifiable inequality
considered ripe for adjudication, it is a prerequisite that something vis-a-vis voters in irrationally favored counties.
has then been accomplished or performed by either branch before a A citizen's right to a vote free of arbitrary impairment by
court may come into the picture, and petitioner must show that he state action has been judicially recognized as a right secured by the
has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct Constitution, when such impairment resulted from dilution by a false
injury as a result of the act complained of. tally, or by a refusal to count votes from arbitrarily selected precincts,
The fact that the law or act in question is not yet effective or by a stuffing of the ballot box.
does not negate ripeness. Concrete acts under a law are not necessary It would not be necessary to decide whether appellants'
to render the controversy ripe. Even a singular violation of the allegations of impairment of their votes by the 1901 apportionment
Constitution and/or the law is enough to awaken judicial duty. will, ultimately, entitle them to any relief, in order to hold that they
In the case at bar, considering that the RH Law and its have standing to seek it. If such impairment does produce a legally
implementing rules have already taken effect and that budgetary cognizable injury, they are among those who have sustained it. They
measures to carry out the law have already been passed, it is evident are asserting "a plain, direct and adequate interest in maintaining the
that the subject petitions present a justiciable controversy. effectiveness of their votes," not merely a claim of "the right,
possessed by every citizen, to require that the Government be
administered according to law . . . ." They are entitled to a hearing and
An ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY requires the following:
to the District Court's decision on their claims. "The very essence of
(1) A PARTY with a PERSONAL AND SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST; civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim
(2) An APPROPRIATE CASE; the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury."
(3) A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION raised at the EARLIEST
POSSIBLE TIME

ALAG, Miguel Alleandro M. | 2-Manresa

 6
ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW
Constitutional Law I | Atty. Edgar B. Pascua II

PEOPLE v. VERA ABAKADA v. PURISIMA

G.R. No. L-45685 | October 16, 1937 G.R. No. 166715 | August 14, 2008

Facts: The Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a judgment Facts: Petitioners seek to prevent respondents from
of conviction against Mariano Cu Unjieng sentencing him to implementing and enforcing Republic Act (RA) 9335 or the Attrition
imprisonment and to pay costs to Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Act of 2005.
Corporation. After several unsuccessful motions, final judgment was
RA 9335 provides for a system of rewards and sanctions to
entered on December 18, 1935.
encourage the officials and employees of the Bureau of Internal
Mariano Cu Unjieng applied for probation on November 27, Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC) to exceed their
1936 under the provisions of Act No. 4221. revenue targets. Covered officials and employees are those with at
least six (6) months of service in the BIR and the BOC, regardless of
The City Fiscal of Manila opposed the granting of probation
employment status.
and questioned the constitutionality of Act No. 4221 on the ground
that it violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the RA 9335 created the Rewards and Incentives Fund (Fund),
laws for the reason that its applicability is not uniform throughout the which is sourced from the collection of the BIR and the BOC in excess
Islands (i.e. nowhere in the law is it stated that it is applicable to a city of their revenue targets for the year, as determined by the
like Manila; it is indicated therein that only provinces are covered). Development Budget and Coordinating Committee (DBCC).
It is also alleged that Act No. 4221 is an undue delegation of  The DOF, DBM, NEDA, BIR, BOC and the Civil Service Commission (CSC) were
tasked to promulgate and issue the implementing rules and regulations of
legislative power to the provincial boards of several provinces RA 9335 to be approved by a Joint Congressional Oversight Committee
because Section 11 of the said Act endows the provincial boards with created for such purpose.
the power to make said law effective or otherwise in their respective
provinces. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of RA 9335 on the
following grounds: (1) The law transforms the officials and employees
Further, the said probation law may be an encroachment of of the BIR and the BOC into mercenaries and bounty hunters as they
the power of the executive to provide pardon because providing will do their best only in consideration of the reward (2) It violated the
probation, in effect, is granting freedom. constitutional guarantee of equal protection due to limiting the scope
of the rewards and incentives to the BIR and BOC employees (3) The
Issue: W/N the People of the Philippines, represented by the OSG,
law unduly delegates the power to fix revenue targets to the
have a substantial interest in the case.
President as it lacks a sufficient standard on that matter. (4) The
Held: Yes, the People of the Philippines, represented by the creation of a congressional oversight committee violates the doctrine
Solicitor-General and the Fiscal of the City of Manila, is such a proper of separation of powers.
party in the present proceedings.
Issue: W/N petitioners have a personal stake in the outcome of
The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns the the case.
validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in
Held: No. An actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal
the case such that he has sustained, or will sustained, direct injury
rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial
as a result of its enforcement.
adjudication. A closely related requirement is ripeness, that is, the
In the case at bar, it goes without saying that if Act No. 4221 question must be ripe for adjudication. And a constitutional question
really violates the constitution, the People of the Philippines, in is ripe for adjudication when the governmental act being challenged
whose name the present action is brought, has a substantial interest has a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it. Thus, to be
in having it set aside. Of greater import than the damage caused by ripe for judicial adjudication, the petitioner must show a personal
the illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal wound inflicted stake in the outcome of the case or an injury to himself that can be
upon the fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid statute. redressed by a favorable decision of the Court.
Hence, the well-settled rule that the state can challenge the validity
In this case, aside from the general claim that the dispute
of its own laws.
has ripened into a judicial controversy by the mere enactment of the
The capacity of the chief law officer of the state to question law even without any further overt act, petitioners failed either to
the constitutionality of the statute was though, as a general rule, only assert any specific and concrete legal claim or to demonstrate any
those who are parties to a suit may question the constitutionality of direct adverse effect of the law on them. They are unable to show a
a statute involved in a judicial decision, it has been held that since the personal stake in the outcome of this case or an injury to
decree pronounced by a court without jurisdiction in void, where the themselves. On this account, their petition is procedurally infirm.
jurisdiction of the court depends on the validity of the statute in
This notwithstanding, public interest requires the
question, the issue of constitutionality will be considered on its
resolution of the constitutional issues raised by petitioners. The grave
being brought to the attention of the court by persons interested in
nature of their allegations tends to cast a cloud on the presumption
the effect to begin the statute.
of constitutionality in favor of the law. And where an action of the
legislative branch is alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it
becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to
settle the dispute.

ALAG, Miguel Alleandro M. | 2-Manresa

 7
ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW
Constitutional Law I | Atty. Edgar B. Pascua II

TELEBAP and GMA v. COMELEC party’s constitutional claim. None of these circumstances is here
G.R. No. 132922 | April 21, 1998 present.

Facts: In the case of Osmeña v. COMELEC (1998), the Supreme On the other hand, GMA Network, Inc. possesses the
Court upheld the validity of Section 11 (b) of RA 6646 which prohibits requisite standing to bring this constitutional challenge. It operates
the sale or donation of print space or air time for political ads, except radio and television broadcast stations in the Philippines affected by
to the COMELEC under BP 881 (Omnibus Election Code), specifically the enforcement of Sec. 92 of BP 881. Its allegation that it will suffer
Sec. 90 with respect to print media, and Sec. 92 with respect to losses again because it is required to provide free airtime is sufficient
broadcast media. to give it standing to question the validity of Sec. 92.

It will be noted that while Section 90 of BP 881 requires the GENERAL ELEMENTS OF STANDING
COMELEC to procure print space which should be paid for, Section 92 (1) He can show that he has personally suffered some actual or
states that air time shall be procured by the COMELEC free of charge. threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct
Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the of the government;
Philippines, Inc. (TELEBAP) is an organization of lawyers of radio and (2) The injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action.
television broadcasting companies, and are suing as citizens, (3) The injury is likely to be redressed by the remedy brought
taxpayers, and registered voters. GMA Network, Inc. operates radio about by the party.
and television broadcasting stations throughout the Philippines under
a franchise granted by Congress. Both challenge the validity of Sec. PACU v. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
92 which requires radio and television broadcast companies to G.R. No. L-5279 | October 31, 1955
provide free air time to the COMELEC for the use of candidates for
campaign and other political purposes, on the ground that (a) it is Facts: Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities (PACU)
tantamount to taking of property without due process of law; (b) it assails the constitutionality of Act No. 2706, as amended by
violates the eminent domain clause of the Constitution which Commonwealth Act No. 180, entitled “An Act making the inspection
provides for the payment of just compensation; (c) it denies broadcast and recognition of private schools and colleges obligatory for the
media the equal protection of the laws; and (d) in any event, it violates Secretary of Public Instruction."
the terms of the franchise of petitioner GMA Network, Inc. PACU contends that any law requiring an approval or permit
Issue: W/N TELEBAP has the standing to sue for such amounts to censorship of previous restraint. They refer to
section 3 of the statute which provides that before a private school
Held: may be opened to the public, a permit must first be obtained from
the Secretary of Education.
In those cases in which citizens were authorized to sue, this
Court upheld their standing in view of the transcendental importance Petitioner likewise assail the assessment of 1 per cent levied
of the constitutional question raised which justified the granting of on gross receipts of all private schools for additional Government
relief. expenses in connection with their supervision and regulation. They
maintain that this is a tax on the exercise of a constitutional right - the
A citizen will be allowed to raise a constitutional question
right to open a school, the liberty to teach, etc.
only when he can show that he has personally suffered some actual
or threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the In addition, PACU also assails the validity of Republic Act
government; the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; No. 139 which provides that the textbooks to be used in private
and the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action. schools shall be submitted to the Board of Textbooks which shall have
the power to prohibit the use of any of said textbooks which it may
In this case, members of TELEBAP failed to show that they
find to be against the law or to offend the dignity and honor of the
have suffered harm as a result of the operation of Sec. 92. Hence,
government and people of the Philippines, or which it may find to be
they are without legal standing. Nor do they have an interest as
against the general policies of the government, or which it may deem
registered voters since this case does not concern their right of
pedagogically unsuitable, saying that this constitutes censorship.
suffrage.
The Government argues that: 1) the matter constitutes no
Neither can they sue in their interest as taxpayers since this
justiciable controversy; 2) PACU is in estoppel to challenge the validity
case does not involve the exercise by Congress of its taxing or
of the said acts; and 3) the Acts are constitutionally valid.
spending power. A party suing as a taxpayer must specifically show
that he has a sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure Issue: W/N PACU is able to show that it has personally suffered
of money raised by taxation and that he will sustain a direct injury some actual or threatened injury as a result of the allegedly
as a result of the enforcement of the questioned statute. illegal conduct of the government.
It does not have standing to assert the rights of radio and Held: No.
television broadcasting companies. Standing jus tertii will be
recognized only if it can be shown that the party suing has some It is a well-settled rule that the courts will not pass upon the
substantial relation to the third party, or that the third party cannot constitutionality of a law upon the complaint of one who fails to show
assert his constitutional right, or that the right of the third party will that he is injured by its operation.
be diluted unless the party in court is allowed to espouse the third

ALAG, Miguel Alleandro M. | 2-Manresa

 8
ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW
Constitutional Law I | Atty. Edgar B. Pascua II

Petitioners all have permits to operate and are actually Petitioners claim that as Filipino citizens, taxpayers and
operating by virtue of their permits. They do not assert that the artists deeply concerned with the preservation and protection of the
respondent Secretary of Education has threatened to revoke their country's artistic wealth, they have the legal personality to restrain
permits. They have suffered no wrong under the terms of the law - respondents Executive Secretary and PCGG from acting contrary to
and, naturally need no relief in the form they now seek to obtain. their public duty to conserve the artistic creations as mandated by the
1987 Constitution, particularly Art. XIV, Secs. 14 to 18, on Arts and
Mere apprehension that the Secretary of Education might
Culture, and R.A. 4846 known as "The Cultural Properties
under the law withdraw the permit of one of petitioners does not
Preservation and Protection Act," governing the preservation and
constitute a justiciable controversy.
disposition of national and important cultural properties. Petitioners
The power of courts to declare a law unconstitutional arises also anchor their case on the premise that the paintings and
only when the interests of litigants require the use of that judicial silverware are public properties collectively owned by them and by
authority for their protection against actual interference, a the people in general to view and enjoy as great works of art. They
hypothetical threat being insufficient. allege that with the unauthorized act of PCGG in selling the art pieces,
petitioners have been deprived of their right to public property
Notwithstanding the failure of the petitioners to show without due process of law in violation of the Constitution.
actual controversy, the court decided to look into the allegation of
violation of a fundamental right. Petitioners' arguments are devoid of merit. They lack basis
in fact and in law. They themselves allege that the paintings were
JOYA et al v. PCGG donated by private persons from different parts of the world to the
G.R. No. 96541 | August 24, 1993 Metropolitan Museum of Manila Foundation, which is a non-profit
and non-stock corporations established to promote non-Philippine
Facts: The Republic of the Philippines through the PCGG entered arts. The foundation's chairman was former First Lady Imelda R.
into a Consignment Agreement with Christie’s of New York, selling 82 Marcos, while its president was Bienvenido R. Tantoco. On this basis,
Old Masters Paintings and antique silverware seized from the ownership of these paintings legally belongs to the foundation or
Malacanang and the Metropolitan Museum of Manila alleged to be corporation or the members thereof, although the public has been
part of the ill-gotten wealth of the late Pres. Marcos, his relatives and given the opportunity to view and appreciate these paintings when
cronies. Prior to the auction sale, COA questioned the Consignment they were placed on exhibit.
Agreement, there was already opposition to the auction sale.
Similarly, as alleged in the petition, the pieces of antique
Nevertheless, it proceeded as scheduled and the proceeds of
silverware were given to the Marcos couple as gifts from friends and
$13,302,604.86 were turned over to the Bureau of Treasury.
dignitaries from foreign countries on their silver wedding and
All thirty-five (35) art lovers, petitioners in this Special Civil anniversary, an occasion personal to them. When the Marcos
Action for Prohibition and Mandamus with Prayer for Preliminary administration was toppled by the revolutionary government, these
Injunction and/or Restraining Order, seek to enjoin the Presidential paintings and silverware were taken from Malacañang and the
Commission on Good Government (PCGG) from proceeding with the Metropolitan Museum of Manila and transferred to the Central Bank
auction sale scheduled on January 11, 1991 by Christie’s of New York Museum. The confiscation of these properties by the Aquino
of the Old Masters Paintings and 18th and 19th century silverware administration however should not be understood to mean that the
seized from Malacañang and the Metropolitan Museum of Manila ownership of these paintings has automatically passed on the
and placed in the custody of the Central Bank, the same being part of government without complying with constitutional and statutory
Filipino heritage. requirements of due process and just compensation. If these
properties were already acquired by the government, any
Issue: W/N petitioners have personal and substantial interest in
constitutional or statutory defect in their acquisition and their
the case.
subsequent disposition must be raised only by the proper parties —
Held: No. the true owners thereof — whose authority to recover emanates
from their proprietary rights which are protected by statutes and
The Court will exercise its power of judicial review only if the Constitution. Having failed to show that they are the legal owners
the case is brought before it by a party who has the legal standing of the artworks or that the valued pieces have become publicly
to raise the constitutional or legal question. "Legal standing" means owned, petitioners do not possess any clear legal right whatsoever to
a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has question their alleged unauthorized disposition.
sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental
act that is being challenged. Moreover, the interest of the party
plaintiff must be personal and not one based on a desire to vindicate
the constitutional right of some third and related party.
There are certain instances however when this Court has
allowed exceptions to the rule on legal standing, as when a citizen
brings a case for mandamus to procure the enforcement of a public
duty for the fulfillment of a public right recognized by the
Constitution, and when a taxpayer questions the validity of a
governmental act authorizing the disbursement of public funds.

ALAG, Miguel Alleandro M. | 2-Manresa