Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Actual Case or Controversy

Actual Case or Controversy

Ratings: (0)|Views: 734|Likes:
Published by Budoy
case requirements
case requirements

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Budoy on Jul 11, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Requisites of Judicial ReviewA.
Actual Case or Controversy
PACU vs. Secretary of Education
acts:The Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities made a petition that Acts No. 2706otherwise known as the ³Act making the Inspection and Recognition of private schools andcolleges obligatory for the Secretary of Public Instruction´ and was amended by Act No. 3075and Commonwealth Act No. 180 be declared unconstitutional on the grounds that 1) the actdeprives the owner of the school and colleges as well as teachers and parents of liberty and property without due process of Law; 2) it will also deprive the parents of their Natural Rightsand duty to rear their children for civic efficiency and 3) its provisions conferred on theSecretary of Education unlimited powers and discretion to prescribe rules and standardsconstitute towards unlawful delegation of Legislative powers.The petitioner also complain that securing a permit to the Secretary of Education before openinga school is not originally included in the original Act 2706. And in support to the first proposition of the petitioners they contended that the Constitution guaranteed the right of acitizen to own and operate a school and any law requiring previous governmental approval or  permit before such person could exercise the said right On the other hand, the defendant LegalRepresentative submitted a memorandum contending that 1) the matters presented no justiciablecontroversy exhibiting unavoidable necessity of deciding the constitutional question; 2)Petitioners are in estoppels to challenge the validity of the said act and 3) the Act isconstitutionally valid. Thus, the petition for prohibition was dismissed by the court.Issue:Whether or not Act No. 2706 as amended by Act no. 3075 and Commonwealth Act no. 180 may be declared void and unconstitutional?Held:The Petitioner suffered no wrong under the terms of law and needs no relief in the form theyseek to obtain. Moreover, there is no justiciable controversy presented before the court. It is anestablished principle that to entitle a private individual immediately in danger of sustaining adirect injury and it is not sufficient that he has merely invoke the judicial power to determinedthe validity of executive and legislative action he must show that he has sustained commoninterest to all members of the public.
urthermore, the power of the courts to declare a lawunconstitutional arises only when the interest of litigant require the use of judicial authority for their protection against actual interference. As such, Judicial Power is limited to the decision of actual cases and controversies and the authority to pass on the validity of statutes is incidental tothe decisions of such cases where conflicting claims under the constitution and under thelegislative act assailed as contrary to the constitution but it is legitimate only in the last resort andit must be necessary to determined a real and vital controversy between litigants. Thus, actionslike this are brought for a positive purpose to obtain actual positive relief and the court does notsit to adjudicate a mere academic question to satisfy scholarly interest therein. The courthowever, finds the defendant position to be sufficiently sustained and state that the petitioner remedy is to challenge the regulation not to invalidate the law because it needs no argument toshow that abuse by officials entrusted with the execution of the statute does not per sedemonstrate the unconstitutionality of such statute. On this phase of the litigation the courtconclude that there has been no undue delegation of legislative power even if the petitionersappended a list of circulars and memoranda issued by the Department of Education they fail toindicate which of such official documents was constitutionally objectionable for being capriciousor pain nuisance. Therefore, the court denied the petition for prohibition.
an vs. Macapagal
acts:On October 6, 1971, a five page petition was filed by Eugene A. Tan, Silvestre J. Acejas andRogeli V.
ernandez for declaratory relief as taxpayers. They challenged the validity of theLaurel-Leido resolution that deals with the authority of the 1971 Constitutional Convention. The petitioners contended that the Constitutional Convention did not have the power to consider,discuss and adopt proposal that seek to revise the present Constitution through the adaptation of a form of government other that the form currently outlined in the 1935 Constitution.Issue:Whether or not the petition filed contains the requisite of actual case or controversy as a requisitefor judicial review.Whether or not petitioner has complied with the requisites of making a taxpayers suit as basis for legal standing.Held:Judicial inquiry is to be postponed in the meanwhile. It is a prerequisite that the ConstitutionalConvention has already accomplished or performed an enactment of proposed amendments.Only after concrete actions that shows what it intends to submit for ratification can the courtinterpose judicial oversight.The doctrine of separation of powers calls for other departments being left alone to discharge of their duties as they see fit. The judiciary will neither direct nor restrain executive or legislativeaction. Such a principle also applies when the competence of the Constitutional Convention isconcerned. The judiciary ought to leave it to fulfill its responsibility and its autonomy respected.Otherwise, it cannot perform its function well. It is therefore imperative that the rule of non-interference be strictly adhered to until the appropriate time comes.On the other hand, as to the requirement in making a taxpayers suit as a basis for legal standing,a negative answers has been contemplated. The person who impugns validity of a statue musthave a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained or will sustaindirect injury as a result to its enforcement. The case of Gonzales v Comelec is different with thecase at bar.
urthermore, a Senator is usually considered as possessed of the requisite personalityto bring such a suit.Motion for reconsideration is DENIED. No costs.
umlao vs. Comelec
acts:A petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injuction and/or Restraining Order filed by PatricioDumlao a former Governor of Nueva Viscaya, seeking to enjoin Comelec from implementingsection 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52, for being unconstitutional, discriminatory and contrary tothe equal protection rights. Petitioner Dumlao join the suit filled by petitioner Igot and Salapatanto declare the said provision as null and void for being violative of the Constitution.Issue:Whether or not the petition filed contains the requisite of actual case or controversy as a requisitefor a review on certiorari?Held:It is basic that the power of judicial review is limited to the determination of actual cases andcontroversies. The petitioner assails the constitutionality of the said provision and seeks to prohibit the respondent COMELEC from implementing such, yet the petitioner has not beenadversely affected by the application of that provision. There is no ruling of that constitutional body on the matter on which the court is being asked to review on certiorari.Courts are practically unanimous in the pronouncement that laws shall not be declared invalidunless the conflict with the Constitution is clear beyond reasonable doubt. It is within thecompetence of the legislature to prescribe qualifications for one who desires to become acandidate for office provided they are reasonable, as in this case.The constitutionality of paragraph 1 section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 is clear andunequivocal thus it does not discriminate and violate the equal protection rights of the petitioner.The first paragraph of section 4 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 52 is declared VALID.

Activity (16)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Layne Isnain liked this
Jennifer Duyogan liked this
betsy_355563481 liked this
Claire Culminas liked this
Joel Longos liked this
ofoy liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->