Necssity of Deciding Constitutional Cases Arceta v Mangrobang G.R. No.

152895 June 15, 2004 Facts: Petitioner Arceta willfully, unlawfully and feloniously draw and issued Castro a check which at that time, petitioner had insufficient balance with the drawee bank for payment. The check, when presented for payment was dishonored. Despite of the receipt of notice of herein petitioner, she failed to pay the payee with the amount of said check or make arrangements for payment within five (5) banking days. The city prosecutor of Navotas charged herein petitioner for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 but Arceta prays to desist from hearing the case filed against her and contends that B.P. Blg. 22 was unconstitutional. Arceta was pleaded not guilty to the charge but she manifested that her arraignment should be without prejudice to the present petition to any other actions she would take to suspend proceedings in the trial court. Issue: Whether or not the constitutional question raised was the very lis mota of the controversy presented. Held: No. Petition dismissed for lack of merit. The requisites of judicial review have not been met. They did not come with sufficient cause of action. Petitioner did not move to quash the case in the proceedings in the trial court on the ground of unconstitutionality. The court should not entertain questions on the invalidity of a statute where that issue was not specifically raised. The said petition was premature. As long as there is some other basis that can be used by the court for decision, the constitutionality of the law will not be touched.

Public Use Moday v Court of Appeals G.R. No. 107916 March 31, 1995 Facts: Petitioner seeks the resolution of his Omnibus Motion for the Enforcement of Restraining Order and Contempt and the court resolved to issue a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining and restraining the incumbent Mayor from using and occupying all buildings constructed within and from further constructing any building on the land, but the Mayor continued to use the buildings on the subject land and further constructed blocktiendas. Respondent Mayor admits the construction of temporary booths for a certain municipal project which was due to be demolished but no proofs were presented showing its demolition. Issue: Whether or not the property of herein petitioner was used for public service purposes. Held: Yes. The land owned by petitioner was indeed used for public service purposes and not for the Mayors personal purposes. The constructed temporary booths, as well as the use of the buildings, were for public serviceoriented activities.