You are on page 1of 1

-seven (7) petitions challenging the constitutionality of PP 1017 and G.O. No.

5 were filed with this Court -Concept of judicial review as laid down in Marbury vs Madison: If the governme nt consciously or unconsciously oversteps these limitations (Constitutional) the re must be some authority competent to hold it in control, to thwart its unconst itutional attempt, and thus to vindicate and preserve inviolate the will of the people as expressed in the Constitution. This power the courts exercise. This is the beginning and the end of the theory of judicial review -Courts may exercise such power only when the following requisites are present: 1. there must be an actual case or controversy; 2. petitioners have to raise a question of constitutionality; 3. the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportunit y; and 4. the decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself -An actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal right, an opposite l egal claims susceptible of judicial resolution. It is definite and concrete, tou ching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interest; a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief -olicitor General refutes the existence of such actual case or controversy, cont ending that the present petitions were rendered moot and academic by President Arr oyo s issuance of PP 1021 -A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controvers y by virtue of supervening events,[26] so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. Generally, courts decline jurisdiction over such cas e or dismiss it on ground of mootness Held: -The Court holds that President Arroyo s issuance of PP 1021 DID NOT render the pr esent petitions moot and academic -During the eight (8) days that PP 1017 was operative, the police officers, acco rding to petitioners, committed illegal acts in implementing it -Petitioners alleged that the issuance of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 violates the Co nstitution. -There is no question that the issues being raised affect the pu blic s interest, involving as they do the people s basic rights to freedom of expres sion, of assembly and of the press -the Court has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutio nal precepts, doctrines or rules, symbolic function of educating the bench and t he bar, and in the present petitions, the military and the police, on the extent of the protection given by constitutional guarantees -respondents contested actions are capable of repetition Court has power to conduct judicial review (Marbury vs Madison) This is not automatic, 4 requisites In cases moot and acad, no justiciable issue But, in this case, during the 8 days that PP 1017 was implemented, AFP and offic ers implemented it: there was seizure of of public utilities and media offices which leads to question whether or not PP 1017 and Go 5 were constitutional