ART VIII, SEC 5 -JUDICIAL REVIEW “legal standing”

Macasiano vs NHA
MAIN POINT: A person has standing to challenge the validity of ant act only if he has personal and
substantial interest. Facts: Petitioner, consultant of DPWH, seeks to declare RA 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992) Sec 28 and 44 which provide Eviction and Demolition, and Moratorium on Eviction and Demolition respectively as unconstitutional on the grounds that: (a) They deprive the government, and more so, private property owners of their property without due process of law and without compensation; (b) They reward, instead of punish, what this Honorable Court has categorically declared as unlawful acts; (c) They violate the prohibition against legislation that" takes away one's property to be given to plain interlopers; (d) They sweep overbroadly over legitimate concerns of the police power of the State; and (e) They encroach upon the judicial power to its valid judgments and orders Issue: W/N the petitioner has the standing to challenge the act. Ruling: No. He is not a “property party”. A person has standing to challenge the validity of act only if he has a “personal and substantial interest” in the case. As a consultant under the Contract for Consultancy . . . , he is not vested with any authority to demolish obstructions and encroachments on properties of public domain, much less on private lands. Nor does the petitioner claim that he is an owner of an urban property whose enjoyment and use would be affected by the challenged provisions of R.A. No. 7279.

Issue: W/N the petitioners have legal standing to assail the validity of the EO. the subject of the Secretary of Labor’s disciplinary authority. not even in their capacity as taxpayers.ART VIII. the administrative supervision over the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). respondents contend that the petitioners have not specifically cited how EO No. The EO simply establishes a relation between two offices both under the control of the President. 185 has prejudiced or threatened to prejudice their rights and existence as labor unions and as taxpayers. petitioners also do not have legal standing on this issue since there is no mention of an established disbursement of public funds in contravention of law or the Constitution. SEC 5 – Legal Standing Automotive Industry Workers vs Executive Secretary Facts: Petitioners question the validity of EO 185 placing the NLRC (National Labor Relations Commission) under the supervision of the Secretary of Labor as being in derogation of separation of powers. . Only NLRC personnel. Ruling: No. In their capacity as taxpayers. The rights of the petitioners are unaffected. have a direct and specific interest in this issue. Claiming that the issues does not pose an actual case or controversy. By the said EO. its regional branches and all its personnel including the executive labor arbiters and labor arbiters was transferred from the NLRC Chairperson to the Secretary of Labor and Employment. they argued that the petitioners lacked legal standing to challenge the validity of said EO. Furthermore. considering that labor unions are exempt from paying taxes.

In particular. . 2) the question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party. The petition is premised on the occurrence of many contingent events and considering that these contingencies may or may not happen. petitioners merely pose a hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen to an actual case or controversy. Sec 5 Judicial review Mariano vs COMELEC Facts: The validity of the creation of City of Makati (RA 7854) is challenged on the ground that Sec 51 of the said act attempts to alter or restart the three consecutive term limit for local elective officials. 4) the decision on the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself. The requirements before a litigant can challenge the constitutionality of the law are well delineated. petitioners point that Sec 51 thereof favors the incumbent mayor who has already served 2 consecutive terms. They are: 1) there must be an actual case or controversy.Art VIII. petitioners who are residents of Taguig (except Mariano) are not the proper parties to raise this abstract issue. petitioners have far from complied with these requirements. In the instant case. Issue: W/N the case is subject for judicial review. Ruling: No. Also. 3) ) the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity.

However. the rule now. But to ensure utmost circumspection before the penalty of death. Rule-Making Echegaray vs Sec. SEC 5 Administration of Justice. the Constitution has not proscribed an intermediate review. is that such cases must be reviewed by the CA before they are elevated to SC. Such action by the court was questioned since it already rendered a final judgment on the case. The SC issued a temporary restraining order for the execution until it ensures that there will no longer be any repeal or modification as to the implementation of RA 8177. reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed. . Issue: what is the rule on the review of death penalty imposed? Ruling: Section 5 authorizes the SC of cases where the penalty impose is reclusion perpetua or higher.of Justice Facts: Leo Echegaray is a convict subject to lethal injection (RA 8177).ART VIII.

Valencia alleged that Maelotisia had no cause of action against her because she is not a mistress of Atty. Garrido (husband) and Atty. Garrido and that when things were favourable and beneficial to Maelotisia. Atty. she remained silent. he alleged that Maelotisia is not his legal wife. Romana Valencia. Facts: Maelotisia Sipin Garrido filed a complaint-affidavit and supplemental affidavit for the disbarment against Atty. . Through this present petition for review. SEC 5 Disciplinary authority over the Bar Garrido vs Garrido NOTE: The disciplinary authority of the court over members of the Bar is an aspect of its authority to admit to the Bar. The desistance of a complainant or witnesses does not strip the Court of jurisdiction because this is a matter of public interest and concern. a relief is sought. Angel E. Ruling: Yes. By way of defense. The records show the parties’ pattern of grave and immoral misconduct that demonstrates their lack of mental and emotional fitness and moral character to qualify them for the responsibilities and duties imposed on lawyers as professionals and as officers of the court.ART VIII. Issue: W/N the respondent attorneys should be disbarred for gross immorality. as he was already married to Constancia and further alleged that his marriages were contracted before he became a member of the Bar. his alleged paramour before IBP Committee on Discipline charging them with gross immorality. The Court resolved to disbar them.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful