This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
AMANDO VIRGIL LIGUTAN (JUDICIAL REVIEW NOTES)
Judicial Review Overview PROVISIONS: 1987 Philippine Constitution Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof. No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its Members. Section 4 (2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: 2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in: a. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question. NOTE: “Abuse of discretion” ◦ Not every abuse of, discretion, can be the occasion for the Court to come in by virtue of the second sentence of Section 1, Article VIII—It must be “grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.” ◦ By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgement as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, 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. CASES: • Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
remedy, J. Marshall distinguished political acts from acts specifically required by law. J. Marshall ruled the denial of the Commission fell into the latter category and was reviewable by the courts. The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) determined Marbury was entitled to a remedy. However, Marbury was not entitled to a remedy in the form of a Writ of Mandamus issued by the Supreme Court. J. Marshall explained that Section: 2 of the United States Constitution (the Constitution) gives original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court only in, “[c]ases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party.” This holding was contrary to the Judiciary Act of 1789 (the Act), which did authorize the Supreme Court to issue Writs of Mandamus on behalf of any person holding office in the United States. J. Marshall therefore concluded that the part of the Act authorizing the Supreme Court to Writs of Mandamus under these circumstances was unconstitutional and that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to issue a Writ. The Supreme Court, rather than Congress, determines whether or not a statute is constitutional through judicial review. This was the first case to establish the Supreme Court’s judicial review powers. • Angara v. Electoral Commission, G.R. No. L-45081, 15 July 1936
Justice John Marshall (J. Marshall) held Marbury was entitled to his Commission when Adams signed the Commissions prior to leaving office. To determine whether Marbury had a
The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government. It obtains not through express provision but by actual division in our Constitution. Each department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere. But it does not follow from the fact that the three powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the Constitution intended them to be absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other. The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure coordination in the workings of the various departments of the government. For example, the Chief Executive under our Constitution is so far made a check on the legislative power that this assent is required in the enactment of laws. This, however, is subject to the further check that a bill may become a law notwithstanding the refusal of the President to approve it, by a vote of two-thirds or three-fourths, as the case may be, of the National Assembly. The President has also the right to convene the Assembly in special session whenever he chooses. On the other hand, the National Assembly operates as a check on the Executive in the sense that its consent through its Commission on Appointments is necessary in the appointments of certain officers; and the concurrence of a majority of all its members is essential to the conclusion of treaties. Furthermore, in its power to determine what courts other than the Supreme Court shall be established, to define their jurisdiction and to appropriate funds for their support, the National Assembly controls the judicial department to a certain extent. The Assembly also exercises the judicial power of trying impeachments. And the judiciary in turn, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively checks the other departments in the exercise of its power to determine the law, and hence to declare executive and legislative acts void if violative of the Constitution.
• Requisites: SC Petitions challenging the 6767 by President Aquino but excluding LPG from exemption constitutionality of RA 9372 (October 5. if not entirely obliterated. Bataan was the original choice as the plant site of Commission on the other." The development of a self-reliant and independent national economy 2 . viz: shifting the feedstock from naphtha to LPG. Case or Controversy • Garcia v. It can provide the feedstock requirement of the plant. Petitioners have not presented any personal stake in the outcome of the controversy. the power of judicial investor should disregard or contravene expressed policy by review is limited by four exacting requisites. Upon principle. The local controversy for the purpose of determining the character. the country is short of LPG and there is need to the Electoral Commission and the subject mater of the present import the same for use of the plant in Batangas. the judiciary does not pass upon questions of wisdom. the judiciary does not pass upon questions of wisdom. 1803. Were we to decline to take cognizance of the expensive real estate for the site unlike in the proposed transfer to controversy. The policy determination by both Congress and the President is clear. whether or not it constitutes a grave abuse of discretion for the BOI to yield to the wishes of the investor. 178554.R. naphtha as feedstock has been exempted by law and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly. the great landmarks of the Constitution are apt to be forgotten or marred. courts accord the presumption of constitutionality to legislative enactments. More than that. 178581. (b) petitioners must possess locus standi. the nature of the present the BOI to which the BPC agreed. so must we avoid exhaustion in our constitutional system. Board of Investments. and whether its feedstock originally of naphtha only should be changed to naphtha and/or liquefied petroleum gas as the approved amended application of the BPC. this court has jurisdiction over the other hand. it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature. scope production thereof by Shell can hardly supply the needs of the and extent of the constitutional grant to the Electoral Commission consumers for cooking purposes. The law was enacted specifically for the Nos. it is the duty of the State to "regulate and exercise authority over foreign investments within its national jurisdiction and in accordance with its national goals and priorities. AMANDO VIRGIL LIGUTAN (JUDICIAL REVIEW NOTES) In times of social disquietude or political excitement. Petitiones have no legal standing. Neither BOI nor a foreign In constitutional litigations. reason output of naphtha which can be used as feedstock for the plant in and authority. located in Bataan produces 60% of the national is to answer them. There is no need to buy by the Constitution. The site is the result of careful study long before any were left undecided and undetermined. In our case. (c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity. it does a conflict of a grave constitutional nature between the National Assembly on the one hand. the judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between the several departments and among the integral or constituent units thereof. created in our constitutional system which may be in the long run Second. In the present case. 92024. G. justice or expediency of legislation. which are the most essential. (a) there must be an actual case or controversy. 179461 petrochemical industry.D. SC grants the petition. Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. 178890.179157. but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them. We rule that the Court has a constitutional duty to step into this controversy and Here is then presented an actual controversy involving as determine the paramount issue. the BPC. from ad valorem tax. 9 November 1990 There is before us an actual controversy whether the petrochemical plant should remain in Bataan or should be transferred to Batangas. Narrowed as its function is in this manner. SC are clearly of the opinion that upon the Bataan. On admitted facts of the present case. And in the light of the categorical admission of the BOI that it is the investor who has the final choice of the site and the decision on the feedstock.R. renders the discussion of the last two superfluous. shows. 2010) G. not only because the legislature is presumed to abide by the Constitution but also because the judiciary in the determination of actual cases and controversies must reflect the wisdom and justice of the people as expressed through their representatives in the executive and legislative departments of the governments of the government. No. There is available 576 hectares controversy shows the necessity of a final constitutional arbiter to of public land precisely reserved as the petrochemical zone in determine the conflict of authority between two agencies created Limay. 178552. Bataan under P. it does not assert any superiority over the other departments. returns Third. as "the sole judge of all contests relating to the election." from the ad valorem tax by the approval of Republic Act No.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1—ATTY. None of them faces any charge under RA 9372. and the Electoral First. Fourth. The site is ideal. a government owned Filipino prove destructive of the entire framework? To ask these questions corporation. national interest notwithstanding. now Luzon Petrochemical Corporation (LPC). and (d) the issue of constitutionality must be the lis mota of the case. In cases of conflict. the dismal absence of the first two requisites. justice or expediency of legislation. Narrowed as its function is in this manner. under Section 10. When the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries. Natura vacuum abhorret. who will determine the conflict? And if the conflict Batangas. would not a void be thus covetous interests intruded into the choice.
The disputed be found under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies provisions in the instant case: Sec. The State shall protect and advance the right of securing certain fundamental and inalienable rights of citizens. And when our Thus. 15. Admittedly. some constitutions are merely which. • Oposa v. 3 February 1997 SC do not agree with the trial court's conclusions that ISSUES: 1. In the light of all the clear advantages manifest in the plant's remaining in Bataan. therefore. second par. The State shall protect and promote the right to conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the constitution health of the people and instill health consciousness among them. for the first time in our nation's constitutional history. the right of the petitioners (and all those they Constitution declares that a right exists in certain specified represent) to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as the circumstances an action may be maintained to enforce such DENR's duty — under its mandate and by virtue of its powers right notwithstanding the absence of any legislation on the subject. an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right or rights of the other. Factoran. it does not follow that it is less the of the 1987 Constitution is a mandatory. and concessions covering balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty national economy and patrimony. 16. A cause of action is defined as: . which they claim was done with grave abuse of discretion. XII of and not under the Bill of Rights. 10. G. hence. consequently. 1987 — to protect and advance the said right. if there is no statute especially enacted 3 . No cogent advantage to the government has been shown by this transfer. Jr. From its very words the provision does not and self-perpetuation — aptly and fittingly stressed by the require any legislation to put it in operation. without the aid of enabling legislation . the full protection thereof requires that no further TLAs should be renewed or granted.O. preference to qualified Filipinos. the State shall give to refrain from impairing the environment. 192 and the Administrative Code of Article II of the Constitution. Their provisions command is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law. correlative obligation of the defendant. GSIS. itself. positive important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in command which is complete in itself and which needs no the latter. Whether or not the constitutional provision is selfthe plaintiffs failed to allege with sufficient definiteness a executory-YES specific legal right involved or a specific legal wrong 2. Petitioners maintain that the granting of the TLAs. privileges. .CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1—ATTY. violated their right to a balanced and healthful ecology. the legislature to enact laws and carry out the purposes of the Article II of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides: framers who merely establish an outline of government providing for the different departments of the governmental machinery and Sec. Thus a constitutional provided for in the preceding section of the same article: provision is self-executing if the nature and extent of the right Sec. and functions under E. The Court. and that the complaint is replete with vague Manila Hotel-YES assumptions and conclusions based on unverified data . Whether or not the term "national patrimony" applies to the committed. 122156. Whether or not the term "qualified Filipinos" applies to the MPH-YES The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right — the right to a balanced and healthful ecology HELD: 1. 3. AMANDO VIRGIL LIGUTAN (JUDICIAL REVIEW NOTES) effectively controlled by Filipinos is mandated in Section 19.R. IT GIVES RISE TO A CAUSE OF ACTION OR ACTUAL CONTROVERSY/CASE • Manila Prince Hotel v. . or that which supplies This right unites with the right to health which is sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected is self-executing. No.. A the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the provision which is complete in itself and becomes operative rhythm and harmony of nature. practically nothing is shown to justify the transfer to Batangas except a near-absolute discretion given by BOI to investors not only to freely choose the site but to transfer it from their own first choice for reasons which remain murky to say the least. 30 July 2003 A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the corelative duty or obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action . and its essential elements are legal right of the plaintiff. 101083. G. Art. and there is no language indicating that While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to the subject is referred to the legislature for action.. so that they can be determined by an examination and construction of its terms. It is per se petitioners — the advancement of which may even be said to judicially enforceable When our Constitution mandates that predate all governments and constitutions. Such a right belongs to a different category of rights further guidelines or implementing laws or rules for its altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation enforcement. declarations of policies and principles.R. A reading of the complaint itself belies these conclusions. Section 16. This is a repudiation of the independent policy of the government expressed in numerous laws and the Constitution to run its own affairs the way it deems best for the national interest. and act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right. holds and finds that the BOI committed a grave abuse of discretion in approving the transfer of the petrochemical plant from Bataan to Batangas and authorizing the change of feedstock from naphtha only to naphtha and/or LPG for the main reason that the final say is in the investor all other circumstances to the contrary notwithstanding. NOTE: WHEN THERE'S VIOLATION OF RIGHT/S. it means just that — qualified Filipinos shall be preferred. The right to a [i]n the grant of rights.
Therefore. when proper.the parties only cited provisions under Art II of natural resources but also to the cultural heritage of out the Constitution such as : sec. sec. are prejudicial. as the Constitution could have very well used the legislations. parties to the Filipinos. "Qualified" according to the Consti commission refers to 1) companies whose capital or controlling stock is wholly owned by citizens of the Philippines. They do not embody judially national patrimony. because of credible competency and efficiency. strictly speaking. 12 race. . "in the granting of economic rights. and not only in an indefinite way. with public interest. it will only exercise its constitutional duty "to determine whether or not there had been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack ISSUE: WON petitioners have standing and cause of action HELD: No Standing. the term These are not self-executing provisions. By giving preferrence to Philippine comapnies or entities it does not mean that they should be pampered. We should stress that. prohibition and mandamus are appropriate remedies to raise constitutional issues and to review and/or prohibit/nullify. It also refers to our intelligence in arts. Verily. mines and other natural resources but also the the support of the government. SC agree. the issue is not standing but WON the petitioners are real-party. its existence is impressed bidding but have been illegally excluded from it. It is a question on whether parties alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy to assure the concrete adverseness. sciences and (that the right of the parents in the rearing of the youth for civic letters. AMANDO VIRGIL LIGUTAN (JUDICIAL REVIEW NOTES) to enforce such constitutional right.in-interest as required by Rule 3 sec. when a choice is between a "qualified foreigner " and a "qualified Filipino". the petitioners suing as taxpayers failed to allege that taxes have been misspent. efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive forests. and other import/trade barriers. and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. a member of the 1986 The Senators did not show that their prerogatives as Constitutional Commission 34 explains — legal have been curtailed. Standing is a constitutional law concept which requires a partial consideration of the merits as well as broader policy concerns relating to the proper role of the judiciary in certain areas. 13. Where there is a right there is a remedy. MPH was selected as one of the qualified bidders. spritual. 118295. the latter shall be chosen" • Kilosbayan v. State recognition for the mental ability or faculty of our people. Manila Hotel has become a landmark — a living contract.R. privileges and concessions. Morato. G. we should develop not only our lands. Indeed. 17 July 1995 Yes. • Tańada v.R. it refers not only to the natural resources of enforceable constitutional rights but for guidance for the Philippines. The jurisdiction of this Court to adjudicate the matters raised in the petition is clearly set out in the 1987 Constitution. we have no hesitation at all in holding that this petition should be given due course and the vital questions raised therein ruled upon under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. certiorari. 2 of the Rules on Civil Procedure. When the Constitution speaks of can give rise to a cause of action. intellectual and social well-being. in deciding to take jurisdiction over this petition. sec. In its plain and ordinary meaning. A real-party in interest is the party who would be The patrimony of the Nation that should be benefitted or injured by the judgment or the party entitled to the conserved and developed refers not only to out rich avails of the suit. but also to the cultural heritage of the such as the real parties in interest can only be : a. this Court will not review the wisdom of the decision of the President and the Senate in enlisting the country into the WTO. such right enforces itself by its own inherent potency and puissance.now. WON the Court has jurisdiction over the controversy 3.In the 1st place. As the petition alleges grave abuse of discretion and as there is no other plain. G. taxes. Neither will it rule on the propriety of the government's economic policy of reducing/removing tariffs. subsidies. b. and from which all legislations must take their bearings. the disregard of which patrimony pertains to heritage. parties which are principally or subsidiarily to testimonial of Philippine heritage. 2. which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largly depends for illumination of difficult constitutitonal questions . For more than eight (8) decades one of the parties or whose rights with respect to that party Manila Hotel has bore mute witness to the triumphs and failures. speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. moral. acts of legislative and executive officials.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1—ATTY. quantitative restrictions. as follows: Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. independence and nationhood. 5 (general welfare clause) . which meant that they possessed both requirements. 2) the fact that the company can make viable contributions to the common good. in this case. This is actually a case for annulment of a contract term natural resources. Rather. vital role of the youth in nation-building and promotion of their physical. have a right to be part of the public loves and frustrations of the Filipinos. Angara.A party must show (citing Valmonte vs PCSO) that : a. or pass upon the merits of trade liberalization as a policy espoused by said international body. not only the law is invalid but also 4 . On this. its own historicity associated with our struggle for sovereignty. Neither are they real parties in interest. that he has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining some direcy injury as a result of its enforcement. In this case. we have no equivocation. 118910. c. As regards our national patrimony. 2 May 1997 Manila Hotel has become part of our national economy and patrimony. . rather they should indeed "qualify" first with the requirements that the law provides before they can even be considered as having the preferential treatment of the state accorded to them.
1970 a criminal case against NILO TAYAG and others was filed for subversion – respondent was a member of the Kabataang Makabayan." The counterpart of definition. If the executive and the legislature failed to heed the directives of the article. They were rather directives addressed to the executive and to the legislature. 10. In short. upon the foregoing authorities. before the tribunal. the disregard of which can give rise to a nor quasi judicial functions in the performance of its assigned cause of action in the courts. ISSUES: WON RA 1700 is a bill of attainder HELD: No. in turn. 2. for at least two (2) reasons: 1. The electorate could express their displeasure with the failure of the executive and the legislature through the language of the ballot. Where a specific violation of law or applicable regulation is not alleged or proved. this Court has not even been appraised by appellant of the pertinent provisions of the Service Manual of Teachers for Public Schools appellees allegedly violated in the composition of the committee they constituted thereunder. It refers to exceptions rather than the rule. operable legal right. It is per se judicially enforceable. the 1935 provisions were not intended to be self-executing principles ready for enforcement through the courts. what the law is and what legal rights of parties are. Leuterio. in other words. 27 December 1972 A criminal complaint was filed against respondent FELICIANO CO charging him as a ranking leader of the Communist Party of the Philippines. et al citing a decision regarding an oratorical contest: A contestant has no right to the prize unless and until he or she is declared winner by the board of referees or judges. however. the available remedy was not judicial but political. The guilt of CPP members must first be established. Bautista. there must be: a. generally. Art. the principles and state policies enumerated in called committee on the rating of students for honor whose Article II and some sections of Article XII are not "self. should be read and understood in relation to the other sections in said article. board or officer clothed with power and authority to determine what that law is and thereupon adjudicate the respective rights of the contending parties. it is necessary that there be a law that give rise to some specific rights of persons or property under which adverse claims to such rights are made. From its very words the provision does not require any legislation to put it in operation.. etc. rather than a constitutional or statutory policy. or officer may exercise In general. Government Service Insurance System. A law that gives rise to some creed of the nation" by Dean Vicente Sinco. the petitioner cannot claim a right that has been violated.. and by the legislature in its enactment of laws. G. as the constitutional provision itself states. p. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a mandatory. same controversy is ready for enforcement through the courts. b.. They do not embody judicially task. it is not a bill of attainder. 30 March 1970 5 judicial or quasi judicial acts. such function involves the determination of what the law is and that they are therefore automatically vested with judicial or quasi judicial functions.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1—ATTY. there is nothing on record about any rule of law that provides that when teachers sit down to assess the individual merits of their pupils for purposes of rating them for honors. As pointed out by appellees.actions are questioned in this case exercised neither judicial executing provisions. that the so Morato. it implies the construction of Declaration of Principles Not Self-Executing laws and the adjudication of rights. 2). They are used by brought before a body of officer clothed with authority to the judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its power of make a determination of law and adjudication of rights. in the performance of that committee's duties. Felipe vs." However. and. as well as ." be gleaned that before tribunal board. Worse still. in violation of RA 1700 (Anti-Subversion Law). a subversive group. It is true that in the recent case of Manila Prince Hotel vs. Notable. petitioners can be expected to fall back on the expanded conception of judicial power in the second paragraph of Section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution Secs. Following such "declaration of principles and state policies. L-32613-14. AMANDO VIRGIL LIGUTAN (JUDICIAL REVIEW NOTES) or excess of jurisdiction" on the part of the Senate in ratifying Judicial power. It is evident. (Bernas. second par. this Court held that "Sec. Ferrer. there are due process dimensions to this matter. Vol. privileges and concessions covering national economy and patrimony" and not to every aspect of trade and commerce. it will enforceable constitutional rights but guidelines for legislation. II. The focus is not on individuals but on conduct relating to subversive purposes. These principles in specific rights of persons or property. and the controversy ensuing therefrom is brought. is the authority to determine the WTO Agreement and its three annexes. and tried to invite others to revolt against the government. Adverse claims are Article II are not intended to be self-executing principles made resulting in a controversy. Article II of the Constitution is a discharge of judicial or quasi-judicial functions. On May 25. with respect to a matter in controversy. That unless the legal right claimed to have been violated or disregarded is given specification in operational terms. G. judicial review. From the above-quoted portions of the decision cited. et al. It is not the office that matters but the nature of the action taken to determine WON there was a By its very title. positive command which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or implementing laws or rule for its enforcement. It seems to me important that the legal right which is an essential component of a cause of action be a specific. L-25024. it is enforceable only in regard to "the grants of rights. c. As held in the leading case of Kilosbayan.R. the court said that for judicial or quasi-judicial acts to this article in the 1935 Constitution is called the "basic political be exercised. defendants may well be unable to defend themselves intelligently and effectively.R.There is only a privilege to compete that did not ripen into a demandable right unless and until they were proclaimed • People v. 10 and 12 of Article XII. • Santiago v. Incorporated vs. The act does not specify which CPP members are to be punished.
Tuason v. prerogatives under the Revised Penal Code.R.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1—ATTY. Rafael Salas. the exercise by the Chief Executive of the political powers of his office. now in question. The matter of whether an alien who violated the laws in this country may remain or be deported is a political question that should be left entirely to the Chief Executive to decide. in recommitting him to prison exercised his invocation of as-yet-to-be instituted expropriation proceedings. of its denial of due process & equal protection. 2. Sec. It discretionary authority has been delegated to the was simply called upon to determine whether Ang Cho Kio legislative or executive branch of the government. Wherefore. However. The Sol. 23 June 1970 2. WON procedural mistakes invalidate the statute FACTS: Ang Cho Kio had been previously convicted of various crimes and sentenced to more than 45 years of jail time. Ang Chio Kio filed a petition for a write of habeas corpus drafted in light of Cuatico vs. alone and by himself. then ordered him to be recommitted RA 2616 in order to address this precise problem (sec4 of RA to the National Penitentiary to serve his unexpired prison 3453 previously held to be unconstitutional. No. AMANDO VIRGIL LIGUTAN (JUDICIAL REVIEW NOTES) their cognizance as shown by overt acts. it shall not be a bill of attainder – not unless specific individuals were named. Article 8) the findings may be. or in regard to which full to review any sentence that was imposed on Ang Cho Kio. courts should not interefere. as urged by the Solicitor General. By authority of the President. For the court to The first part of the authority represents the traditional suggest to the Chief Executive to modify his decision to recommit Ang Cho Kio to prison by allowing him to leave the concept of judicial power. the recommendation in the majority opinion of the special division of the Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals where the but was denied by both trial court and CA on the ground that the landowner’s right to due process was impaired by tenants’ president. not authorized under the aforequoted provision of Article 5 of the under the Constitution. in the insular penitentiary under the Director of Prisons. Inaccuracies committed by Congress in determining who owns the land does not invalidate the statute. instead of activities. says: that the Chief Executive had decided that Ang Cho Kio should be dealt with that way under the circumstances. involving the settlement of conflicting country instead is indeed to interfere with the functions of the rights as conferred as law. Ang Chio Kho. thus come to the SC to ask that the recommendation be deleted saying that it was beyond the issue raised by the petition of Ang Chio Kho and that it is not inherent or incidental to the exercise of judicial functions.” recommendation that would suggest a modification or a • It must. G. be emphasized that the political correction of the act of the Chief Executive. The statute is held to be constitutional given the while serving his sentence he was given pardon on the condition opportunity and protection it affords to land owners in that he’ll voluntarily leave the Phil and never to return. represents a broadening of judicial power to enable the courts of 6 . The Court of Appeals was not called upon their sovereign capacity. Section 4 of RA 1700 expressly states that the act will be applied prospectively to give members time to renounce their affiliations. However HELD: 1. is • Political Questions are “those questions/issues which. or not. and was arrested. an interference on. Mr. L-21064. that would reflect on the wisdom or propriety of the action of the Chief Executive on matters purely political in nature. • J. it is not within the province of the judiciary to express an opinion. The legislature is with reasonable relation to public health. It is settled in jurisprudence that the Pres by himself can determine if the conditions of a pardon were violated." When the Chief Executive. Justice Isagani A. was illegally confined. L-30001. No. a prerogative which the Courts may not interfere with.) The amendment was term. It is political in character. Dominical rights cannot be conferred on those obviously not entitled to them. LTA. it is assumed distinguished member of this Court. WON section 4 RA2616 is unconstitutional by virtue punishment without judicial trial. exercising his Commenting on this provision in his book. are to be decided by the people in Revised Penal Code. the CA decision contained a recommendation that Ang Chio Kho be allowed to leave the country. after the same question doctrine is no longer. whether the condition attached impenetrable shield that protects executive and to a pardon given by him had been violated. the courts may not interfere. the insurmountable justices have said in their opinion "that the Chief Executive may obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the determine.M. ordered Ang Cho Kio recommitted to prison. The second part of the authority Chief Executive. RA 3453 amended sec4 of Exec. proceedings and just compensation. He came recognizing their right to evict subject to expropriation back to Manila. a Code. Philippine powers pursuant to Section 64(i) of the Revised Administrative Political Law. (I forgot what part of the syllabus/when Sir discussed the Political question so I just put it here) ^_^ • It is an established rule that courts have no jurisdiction to pass upon “political questions” HELD: Certainly. SC does not consider it proper • Politicl questions are concerned with “issues dependent that the majority of the justices in the special division make a upon the wisdom. Gen. G. and safety – and the government is with right to protect itself against subversion. morals. Cruz. Even if acts specified individuals. It would be.R. however erroneous the findings may be. The court has consistently upheld the CPP’s activities as inimical to public safety and welfare. nonetheless. The government will only compensate rightful owners. A bill of attainder must also reach past conduct and applied retroactively. this prerogative. or an attempt to influence. 18 February 1970 NOTE: Bill of Attainder is a legislative act which inflicts ISSUES: 1. Judgement AFFIRMED. or express a suggestion. and in the exercise of legislative actions from judicial inquiry or review. • Director v. however erroneous (Look: the second paragraph of Section 1. Under the principle of separation of powers. Appellee’s fears are without legal basis. not legality of a particular measure.
Judicial notice was also taken of the fact that contraceptives are readily available in drug stores which invite more the attention of enforcement officials. AMANDO VIRGIL LIGUTAN (JUDICIAL REVIEW NOTES) justice to review what was before forbidden territory. 497 (1961) This case deals with the statute as in Griswold vs. Macapagal. the courts are Sierra Club v. • U. would have this Court declare that it is "without power. FACTS: Eugene A. The allegations merely state that in the course of his public duty he intends to prosecute any violation of Connecticut law. 166 (1974) HELD: Respondent's claim: without detailed information on CIA expenditures. but purportedly suing on behalf of themselves and the Filipino people. and particularly the Supreme Court. to wit. respectively. He has not alleged that. NOTE: AMERICAN DECISIONS ARE NOT BINDING ON US. discuss and adopt proposals which seek to revise the present Constitution through the adoption of a form of government other than the form now outlined in the present Constitution [the Convention being] merely empowered to propose improvements to the present Constitution without altering the general plan laid down therein. That is implicit in the rule of law.As worded. The Court goes on to say that in the over 75 years of its existence. BUT THEY HAVE ONLY PERSUASIVE EFFECT. v. of Roxas City. Its autonomy is to be respected. Romblon and Davao City. in assailing the validity of the Laurel-Leido Resolution. 29 February 1972 force by being overruled or a new precedent being announced. Silvestre J. in this case. It is therefore much more imperative that the rule of noninterference be strictly adhered to until the appropriate time comes. only at the instance of one who is himself immediately harmed or immediately threatened with harm. The judiciary as Justice Laurel emphatically asserted "will neither direct nor restrain executive [or legislative] action . 418 U. Connecticut where. it is controlling. Until then. of course. At such a time. Ullman. Judicial inquiry has to be postponed in the meanwhile. Richardson. properly challenged in an ***Although ripeness is the central issue in Poe. HELD: No. Given the fact that federal judicial power is to be exercised to strike down legislation. nor can he properly fulfill his obligations as a member of the electorate in voting for candidates seeking national office. the new provision vests in the judiciary.S. to consider. Nonetheless.. Morton: "A mere `interest in a devoid of jurisdiction. ." Court of the United States does not articulate any clear Such a principle applies as well when the inquiry guidelines to evaluate ripeness." which is a very elastic phrase that can expand or contract according to the disposition of the judiciary. It is a prerequisite that something had by then been accomplished or performed by either branch before a court may come into the picture. The judiciary must leave it free to fulfill its been enforced is not ripe for judicial review.. responsibility according to its lights. whether state or federal. ISSUE: WON the allegations raised by petitioners regarding the constitutionality of the Connecticut statute raise a justiciable question before the Court. • Poe v. the circumstances of the case do not justify the exercise of judicial power as it lacks the requisites for “case” and “controversy”.. two couples and their physician sued the State and its Attorney-General. Ullman. Ullman threatens to prosecute them for their use of or for giving advice regarding contraceptives. That is the command of the Constitution problem. he cannot intelligently follow the actions of Congress or the Executive. Such should be the case not only because it is a coordinate agency but also because its powers are transcendent. G. for declaratory relief as taxpayers." HELD: It is not ripe for adjudication. Tan. as a taxpayer. There is to be no interference. asking the Court to declare the Connecticut statute prohibiting the use of contraceptives unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. it may pass on the validity of what was done but only "when . Article XV of the Constitution and Republic Act 6132. the discretion of the political departments of the government. L-34161. Ripeness • Tan v. as long as any proposed members of the public. the Supreme appropriate legal proceeding...CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1—ATTY. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration cannot therefor be sustained." The legislative and executive branches are not bound to seek its advice as to what to do or not to do. Petitioners do not allege that appellee. The catch. 367 U. under Section 1. Acejas and Rogelio V.S. by the challenged action. the Supreme concerns the scope of the competence lodged in the Constitutional Court seems to articulate that a penal statute that has not Convention. It cannot be otherwise if it is to perform its function well.' no matter how longstanding the interest and no as interpreted by this Court.S. There is thus no imminent or impending threat of arrest on the petitioners. amounting as it does to submitting for popular ratification proposals which may radically alter the organization and functions of all three departments. dealing with the range of the authority of the 1971 Constitutional Convention. the power to rule upon even the wisdom of the decisions of the executive and the legislature and to declare their acts invalid for lack or excess of jurisdiction because tainted with grave abuse of discretion. including the courts. Only after it has made result of the operation of this statute. Fernandez. amendment is still unacted on by it. concrete what it intends to submit for ratification may the appropriate case be instituted. is the meaning of "grave abuse of discretion.R. prosecutions for violation of the statute seems never to have been initiated according to counsel nor the researchers of the Court. there is no room for the he is in danger of suffering any particular concrete injury as a interposition of judicial oversight. Unless and until such a doctrine loses matter how qualified the organization is in evaluating the 7 . SC says: This is surely the kind of a generalized grievance described in both Frothingham and Flast since the impact on him is plainly undifferentiated and common to all More specifically.
SP No. It render the case moot especially when the plaintiff seeks does not matter that there admission policy issues involved. the CA’s dismissal of CA-G. the application of the moot-and-academic representative Government. in Province of North Cotabato v. (a) There is a grave violation of the Constitution. controversy existed when a case was filed. the Bar. but circumstances Suntay (G. The exception of voluntary cessation of the activity without assuring the non-recurrence of the violation squarely covers this case. Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (GRP).” the petition for certiorari unnecessary and moot. not the unilateral change in admissions procedure. In such a situation. The controvrsy between the parties is no longer "definite and concrete" and "no longer xxx once a suit is filed and the doer voluntarily ceases touches the legal relations of parties having adverse interests". the case is moot. the explanation for the exception being Rationale: A US SC deision would no longer be necessary to that: compel the result nor prevent it. and ultimately to the political process. Suntay. 159145) and Land Bank v. the earlier ones NOTE: A case is considered “moot” if a justiciable being DARAB v. No. the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is not invoked. the challenged conduct. AMANDO VIRGIL LIGUTAN (JUDICIAL REVIEW NOTES) problem. The CA itself conceded that Lubrica could still assail the validity of RARAD Casabar’s recall order. This is not exception to doctrine in Southern Pacific Terminal Co v ICC. Therefore. An issue is said to become moot and academic when it ceases to present a In the absence of any particular individual or class to justiciable controversy. 188376. damages or prays for injunctive relief against the possible DeFunis will no longer be affected. RARAD Casabar’s December `adversely affected' or `aggrieved' within the meaning of the 15. Doctrine of "mere voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not moot case" is irrelevant because mootness arose from the fact that Defunis is in his final term. Hence. not an Athenian Democracy. and the Court will not even hear Legal Standing the other issues presented. because they will decide cases. NOTES: • Land Bank of the Phils. 416 U. v. ISSUE: WON the case is moot? (d) A case is capable of repetition yet evading review. Macapagal-Arroyo. the Court has come to consider a voluntary cessation by the defendant or the doer of the activity complained of as another exception to the moot-andacademic principle. otherwise moot and academic. DeFunis was denied admission. G. and paramount public interest is involved. 14 December 2011 8 . actual controversy must exist at stages of appelate or certiorari review. That possibility underscores the need to definitely resolve the controversy between the parties to avoid further delay. (b) The situation is of exceptional character. "Federal courts are w/o power to decide questions that cannot affect the right of litigants before them" (this doctrine stems from Consti that judicial power can only be exercised when there exists an actual case or controversy) All parties agree that DeFunis will be allowed to complete his term and graduate. Lubrica (G. with the principle is subject to several exceptions already recognized in representatives directly responsible to their constituents during this jurisdiction. The issue will never be raised again in review. recurrence of the violation. and the public. 106104 on the ground of mootness must be undone. Odegaard. and not simply at the date the action is initiated. so that a declaration on the issue litigate these claims gives support to the argument that the subject would be of no practical use or value. yet evading review" also irrelevant because Defunis will never again be required to enter admission processes. He then commenced with this suit contending that the procedures and criteria will be employed by the admissions committee discriminated against him because of race in violation of the Equal Protection clause. 2008 order seemingly rendered the reliefs prayed for by APA. Doctrine of "capable of repetition. The Constitution created a However.R. He already had that remedy and is in his final term. As herein shown. declared that the moot-and-academic principle is not a magical formula that automatically dissuades courts from Mootness resolving cases. (c) The constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the Bench.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1—ATTY. indeed. 157903). The need to put an end to the after filing indicate the litigant no longer has a stake in the controversy thus becomes all the more pressing and practical. No. If admissions procedures are left unchanged. this appeal is the third time that the intervention of the Court has been invoked regarding the controversy. 312 (1974) Marco Defunis applied for admission at University of Washington Law School of w/c Charles Odegaard is president.S. if they find that: • DeFunis v. In David v.R.R. the Court has election periods. it does not automatically deprive the Defunis suit is not a class action. In addition.R. his only remedy was that he be tribunal of power to hear and determine the case and does not admitted. matter is committed to the surveillance of Congress. controversy. there is no reason to suppose that a subsequent case will not come to court. or Yet another reason why the Court should still resolve derives from the fact that the supervening RARAD Casabar’s recall order did not at all resolve and terminate the controversy between the parties. is not sufficient by itself to render the organization At first glance.
• Gonzales v. which increased the number of persons entitled to share in the final distribution of lands and funds of the Cherokees beyond those enrolled in Sept. G. The objective is not to assert a property right as against the government or demand compensation for alleged wrongs. This court has no veto power over legislation enacted by Congress. As a general rule. there is no justiciable controversy because none of them have been closed down in fact. producers and landowners in the Philippines who wish to dispose 9 . (The parties have not cited a right violated by the Act of Congress. Republic Act No. It was not shown either that the Sec. i. and to the extent that. the US is made defendant but it has not adverse interest against them.) a result of the governmental act that is being • PACU v. AMANDO VIRGIL LIGUTAN (JUDICIAL REVIEW NOTES) • • Locus standi or legal standing has been defined as a Congress. 346 (1911) An act of Congress that provide for the allotment of lands of Cherokee Nation. HELD: No there is none. concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation Petitioners reason out. judicial power is limited to cases and legislative act assailed as contrary to the Constitution are raised. A case or controversy implies the existence of is legitimate only in the last resort. against actual interference. 22 October 1963 Sufficiency of petitioner's interest. department. in Section 1 thereof. It controversies. growers. Reversed and remanded with orders to dismiss to lack of jurisdiction. G. U. ISSUE: WON there is a justiciable controversy with regard to permits.R. Conferring advise to the legislative was never contemplated in the constitution as a function of the court. no reason exists for them to assail the validity of the power nor the exercise of the power by the Secretary of Education. Thus the decision that court will render if the actions were allowed to proceed will be nothing more than an expression of opinion upon the validity of the acts in question. Secretary of Education . of Education has threatened to revoke their permits. it is directly and necessarily involved in a justiciable controversy and is essential to the protection of the rights of the parties concerned. *** In this action. Congress does not have the power to provide for a suit of this nature to be brought in federal court to test the constitutionality of prior acts of Congress because such a suit is not a case or controversy. 1902 in accordance with the act of Congress passed in July 1902. Petitioners do not show how these standards have injured any of them or interfered with their operation.R. It is an established principle that to entitle a private individual immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury as the result of that action and it is not sufficient that he has merely a general to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislative action he must show that he has sustained or is interest common to all members of the public. that "the policy of the Government" is to "engage in the purchase of these basic foods directly from those tenants. only allowed the personal and substantial interest in a case such that Court to settle the doubtful character of the leg in question not the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as actual conflicts. It had the effect of permitting the enrollment of children who were minors living in March 1906. insufficient.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1—ATTY.—Judicial power is limited to the neither the legislative nor the executive branch can assign to the decision of actual cases and controversies. earnest. 31October 1955 Locus standi or legal standing requires a personal stake Petitioners complain that before opening a school the in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that owner must secure a permit from the Secretary of Education . The Congress brought to this Court with an appeal to test the constitutionality of prior acts of Congress. 3452 declares. L-5279. and vital controversy between submitted to the court for adjudication. Wherefore. litigants. As per Marbury v. 219 U. or the prevention. “this section leaves everything to the of issues upon which the court so largely depends for uncontrolled discretion of the Secretary of Education or his illumination of difficult constitutional questions. whose parents had theretofore been enrolled as members of the Cherokee tribe or had applications pending for that purpose. challenged. a hypothetical threat being redress. The authority to pass judicial branch any duties other than those that are properly on the validity of statutes is incidental to the decision of such judicial and to be performed in a judicial manner. L-21897. unconstitutional arises only when the interests of litigant the claims of litigants brought before the courts for the require the use of that judicial authority for their protection protection or enforcement of rights. The power of courts to declare a law The judicial power is limited to “cases and controversies”. or punishment of wrongs.e.. by allowing them to sue the govt. hence the grant of law upon the complaint of one who fails to show that he is jurisdiction is invalid. Hechanova. injured by its operation.S. the constitutionality of a statute will be passed on only if. Apart from prohibiting the importation of rice and corn "by the Rice and Corn Administration or any other government agency".S. In the first place. farmers. Bona fide suit. Madison. and as necessity in the present or possible adverse parties whose contentions are determination of real. HELD: It is not within the authority of the Court to take Courts will not pass upon the constitutionality of a cognizance of the claims of Muskrat. CASES: • Muskrat v. Under the cases where conflicting claims under the Constitution and under a Constitution. and its right to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional can only be exercised when a proper case between opposing parties is submitted for determination.
or will sustain. 4221 really violates the Constitution. the proper party — to bring this action. have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained. i. HELD: No. the well-settled rule that the state can challenge the validity of its own laws. issues upon which the court so largely depends for On the hypothesis that the Hongkong & Shanghai illumination of difficult consti issues”.Y. in whose type of name the present action is brought. The act allegedly vitiates the establishment and the • People v. It was therein pointed out as "one more valid reason" The mere fact that the Probation Act has been repeatedly why such an outcome was unavoidable that "the funds administered by the President of the Philippines came from relied upon the past and all that time has not been attacked as donations [and] contributions [not] by taxation. L-31685. 31 July 1975 by the illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal wound inflicted upon the fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid statute. . Vera. For courts will pass upon a constitutional followed in Pascual v. where the doctrine of standing was first fully determination. direct injury as a result of its enforcement. The main of the legislature will not be determined by the courts unless that question is WON the party seeking reliefe has “alleged such a question is properly raised and presented in appropriate cases and personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure is necessary to a determination of the case. 16 November 1937 exercise clause of the 1st amendment of the US consti as it provides funding for sectarian/religious schools.R. . is no reason for monetary interest." Pursuant to this provision. HELD: Yes. the Supreme Court of Kansas said: ." invalidate sections of the Elementary and Secondary Education The lower court thus did not err in so viewing the situation. 83 (1968) validity of a legislative or executive act has to be passed upon. The unchallenged rule is between the status asserted and the claim sought to be that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must adjudicated. it is not relevant It is a well-settled rule that the constitutionality of an act whether or not the substantive issues are justiciable.e. since the purchase of said commodity will have to be effected with public funds mainly raised by taxation. Secretary of Public Works. and as a rice producer and landowner petitioner must necessarily be a taxpayer. for instance. is such a proper another purpose. "is not Appellants filed a suit in a N. AMANDO VIRGIL LIGUTAN (JUDICIAL REVIEW NOTES) of their products at a price that will afford them a fair and just return for their labor and capital investment. represented by the private prosecution. district court seeking to devoid of discretion as to whether or not it should be entertained. . Cohen." Accordingly. The state is always interested where the integrity of its Constitution or statutes is involved. it does not proper cases. has there was that absence of the "requisite pecuniary or been impliedly regarded by him as constitutional. 392 U.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1—ATTY. "It has an interest in seeing that the will of the ISSUE: Has a taxpayer the capacity to question the validity of the Legislature is not disregarded.substantive issues to decide on the issue of standing for General and the Fiscal of the City of Manila. and the fact that the question has not been raised discussed. show grounds of fearing more specific injury. In deciding question of standing. as a planter with a rice land of substantial proportion. foreshadowed questions only when presented before it in bona fide cases for by People v. on the contrary. (Baker vs Carr). Of greater import than the damage caused Establishing that “logical nexus” involves 2 things: a) A logical link bet a taxpayer (i. necessarily follow that such kind of an action to assail the • Flast v.S. has a substantial interest in involve having it set aside. Hence. In disposing of the question whether or not the state may bring the action. Vera. the court will look at the the People of the Philippines. unconstitutional by the Fiscal of Manila but. G.e. which is to establish the “logical nexus” party in the present proceedings. . Macapagal. is a party may be granted standing but the court won’t pass on the not the proper party to raise the constitutional question here — a subs issues because they are. Moreover. The fiscal and all others are justified in relying upon the for a taxpayer's suit. G. Banking Corporation. This Court. is entitled to a chance to sell to the Government the rice it now seeks to buy abroad . as an individual issuance in this case? plaintiff must. In State vs. Moreover. the issue of that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of constitutionality must be the very lis mota presented. It goes without saying that if Act No.. This is not to retreat from the liberal approach assailing its validity. the People of the Philippines. Marcos. Hence. political questions. as held in the recent case of Tan v. it follows that he has sufficient personality and interest to seek judicial assistance with a view to restraining what he believes to be an attempt to unlawfully disburse said funds.. Thus. the state is a proper party — indeed." The stand of the lower court finds support in considering the People of the Philippines estopped from nor judicial precedents. the latter must the exercise of congressional power under the taxing 10 . Doane. and need not. L-45685.. an original action (mandamus) was brought by the Attorney-General of Kansas to test the constitutionality of a statute of the state. represented by the Solicitor. Act of 1965. In point we do not now have to decide — we are of the opinion that the case of a taxpayer’s suit. even on the assumption that statute and treating it as valid until it is held void by the courts in public funds raised by taxation were involved. It is only to make clear that petitioner. judged by before is not a valid reason for refusing to allow it to be raised orthodox legal learning. NOTE: STATE is the proper party in questioning the vaidity ISSUE: WON appellants have locus standi of the laws. has not satisfied the elemental requisite later. petitioner. • Gonzales v. the status) and the legislative enactment attacked.R.
public of these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely. v. Guingona. An organization may indeed represent result in the disruption of the state criminal justice system. he is violating the interest as the issue is not enough otherwise. establishment. federal intervention will not the ski resort is built. (even though nonPetioner was threatened with arrest for distributing antieconomic in nature) may be considered injury-in-fact and sufficient to merit judicial review under Sec. become more expensive as a result of the increase rates of • Francisco v. personal stake in the outcome of it should be entertained or that it enjoys an open discretion to the controversy must be asserted to ensure adverseness. and concerned citizens. Morton. the Sierra Club has failed to allege that any of its held that the court incorrectly dismissed the pet when no state members may be affected in their past times or recreation if criminal proceeding is pending. irreparable injurt is not a prerequisite since forests. Except that the party invoking said returned and such being stipulated as unlawful in the Criminal section must still show that he is among the injured party. streams. 10 of the war handbills and further threatened with future arrest if her Administrative Procedure Act. In claiming standing. its members in a suit provided that it can show that said Rather.S. and other resources in the what is required is an injunction. 405 U. 452 (1974) hand fall within the purview of said law. transportation. 415 U. set aside in view of the importance of the preservation/conservation of environment sued the Forest Service issues raised in this petition. SC discussed Standing. The court brushed aside this to prevent the development of a ski resort at Mineral King Area of technicality because the transcendental importance to the Sequoia National Park. petitioners plea for the SC to exercise the power of judicial review to determine the validity of the second impeachment complaint. they claim will assigned by Congress to protect constitutional rights where an be disturbed by the use of non. In Club. Hence. AMANDO VIRGIL LIGUTAN (JUDICIAL REVIEW NOTES) and spending clause and not merely an incidental expenditure that they cam assail the claims of SCRAP. The b) A nexus bet status and the nature of constitutional National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) cannot be construed as infringement alleged. Although a declaratory relief will not make an unconstitutional law disappear. public knowing that by continuing his activities. The harm claimed by SCRAP should indeed be perceptible rather than merely conceivable. This constitutional amendment was put Petitioner corporation composed of citizens suing in there exactly to prevent taxation in favor of any religious their capacities as senators. the recourse is not an appeal to the SC but a motion for summary judgment in the lower courts so This Case is about the impeachment complaint filed against Chief Justice Davide. brushing aside the technicalities of procedure. Declaratory relief has been Washington Metropolitan area. any group or law. Locus standi or legal standing or has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in 11 . mountains. Unlike in Sierra unconstitutionality will limit the statute’s applicability. The petitioners herein alleged that their tax money is Congress instructs that the Act shall not in any way affect the being used in violation of a specific constitutional protection specific statutory obligation of any federal agency. rates is an exclusive prerogative of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICC) so the court had no authority to issue the injunction. he is depriving individual with special interest in the issue can be given himself of a constitutional right. opposed the Contract of Lease between PCSO and PGMC which sets up an on-line lottery system on the basis or serious moral and • Sierra Club v. The SC ruled that a party’s standing is a procedural technicality which the courts may. more timber and other natural resources 10 November 2003 will be used/destroyed in lieu of the recyclables. taxpayers. SCRAP . 727 (1972) ethical considerations. in the exercise Sierra Club.S. The change in aesthetics and ecology of the Mineral King area. However.S. 160261. This met the logical nexus. it is nevertheless useful since a • U. petitioners herein alleged that their members used the declaratory relief. It is correct that pleadings must be more than academic exercise. a long standing organization advocating of its discretion. which is when no case has been filed.recyclable material which had injunction is not available. ISSUE: WON Sierra has standing to sue Insofar as taxpayers’ suit are concerned. Rule: Where no specific statue authorizaing the declared that it is not devoid of discretion as to whether or not invocation of judicial review. This is a petition for declaratory relief. 669 (1973) declaration of full unconstitutionality will result in the reversal of SCRAP has standing. In this Trespass Law. 412 U. Unlike Sierra Club. against abuses of leg powers. or that by desisting from the same.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1—ATTY.R. non-action would result in the individual’s not members are injured parties. 5 May 1994 spending) and they alleged that the Act violates the establishment and free exercise clauses. G. 113375. The SC case. if there is that statute. House of Representatives . the Court has Held: None. Their petition is distinguishable previous convictions and a declaration of partial from the failed petition of the Sierra Club. Congress clearly standing which may undermine adverseness requisites of intended that a declaratory relief be more available when an injunction is not in order to test the constitutionality of state judicial review. Thompson. were the effect of the assailed project is limited to a special geographic area. The suspension of of tax funds in the admin of essentially regulatory statute. Further. entertain the suit or not. The Education Act involves the spending power of Congress (direct • Kilosbayan v. criminal statutes. the federal action complained here is applicable to all railroads in the country and therefore its alleged environmental impact is nationwide. In fact in passing the NEPA.R. the question is does the case at • Steffel v. However. G. having repealed that exclusive grant by Congress because there was never such an intention. Their activities.S.
persons intervening must be sufficiently actually sue in the public interest. Executive Secretary. they invariably invoke the vindication of their own former Supreme Court Justice Florentino P. G.82 Indeed.R. Feliciano are rights – as taxpayers.'" While rights personal to the Chief Justice may have their petition will stand. however. Since petitioners or injured by the judgment. the interest of the petitioner assailing the constitutionality of a statute must be direct and personal. the question as to "real party in raised in the numerous petitions before this Court. In fine. and not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way. a member of the House areas. is very different from questions relating to whether a particular plaintiff is the real party in interest or has capacity to sue. Hence the question in numerous to fully protect the interests of all concerned to standing is whether such parties have "alleged such a enable the court to deal properly with all interests involved in personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure the suit. standing restrictions require a As for a legislator. He must be able to show. and members of the bar and of the legal involved in the case. The difference between the rule on standing and real party in interest has been noted by authorities thus: "It is important to note . members of Congress." before the court. taxpayers or voters who behalf of all citizens. that standing because of its constitutional and public policy underpinnings. citizens. AMANDO VIRGIL LIGUTAN (JUDICIAL REVIEW NOTES) the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged. In the case of a taxpayer. when dealing with class suits filed in action taken. G. when the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right. be subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act complained of.R. It must appear that the person complaining has been or is about to be denied some right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that he is about to • Sanlakas v. as well as broader policy validity of any official action which he claims infringes his concerns relating to the proper role of the judiciary in certain prerogatives as a legislator. of Representatives has standing to maintain inviolate the prerogatives. for the former is a concept of civil procedure while the latter has constitutional underpinnings. The gist of the question of standing is whether a party alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. Applying these determinants. Where it clearly appears that not all interests xxx can be sufficiently represented as shown by the divergent issues On the other hand. courts are vested with discretion as to whether or not a taxpayer's suit should be entertained. 159085. under the res judicata principle. is. (2) the presence of a clear case of profession – which were supposedly violated by the alleged disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition by the unconstitutional acts of the House of Representatives. direct and specific interest in raising the questions being taxpayers and legislators when specific requirements have raised. It is not sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public. whether favorable or that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of unfavorable to the class. for a judgment in a class suit. been injured by the alleged unconstitutional acts of the House of Representatives. Sanlakas & PM have no standing by analogy with LDP in Lacson v Perez " … petitioner has not demonstrated any injury to itself which would 12 . he must specifically prove that he has sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation and that he would sustain a direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the questioned statute or contract. interest" is whether he is "the party who would be benefited 160365 as a class suit ought to fail. not only that the law or any government act is invalid. No. but also that he sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement. powers and privileges vested by the Constitution Standing is a special concern in constitutional law in his office.78 the mere fact that he is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest. of the suit. however. however. individually instructive: (1) the character of the funds or other assets or in a class suit. 3 February 2004 ISSUES: Whether or not petitioners have standing HELD: NOT EVERY PETITIONER. . At all events. because in some cases suits are brought not by parties who have been personally injured by the operation of a law or by official In the same vein. this Court is satisfied that been met have been given standing by this Court. Only members of the House and Sen Pimentel have standing. he is allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed. none of the petitioners before us asserts a There being no doctrinal definition of transcendental violation of the personal rights of the Chief Justice. the following instructive determinants formulated by contrary. concerned citizens. public respondent agency or instrumentality of the government. or the 'party entitled to the avails additionallyallege standing as citizens and taxpayers. issues upon which the court so largely depends for binding on all members of the class whether or not they were illumination of difficult constitutional questions. Although all three requirements are directed towards ensuring that only certain parties can maintain an action. or that there is a wastage of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. and (3) the lack of any other party with a more In a long line of cases. Before he can invoke the power of judicial review. When suing as a citizen. or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose. he is allowed to sue to question the partial consideration of the merits. Difference between the rule on real-party-in-interest and the rule on standing. .CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1—ATTY. the issues raised herein are indeed of transcendental importance. but by concerned citizens. On the importance.
Court is not devoid of discretion as to whether or not it should be entertained. upon the theory that the "expenditure of public funds.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1—ATTY. The jurisdiction of this Court. a member of the Philippine Bar. though alleging to be taxpayers. the general rule is that not only persons individually affected. Thus in Mabanag vs." which may be enjoined at the request of a taxpayer. Lopez Vito.R. Lawmakers. 27 February 1987 The petitioners have standing to bring the suit as taxpayers. Narvasa. as the case may be. is not endowed with standing since "A taxpayer may bring suit where the act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived from taxation. Macapagal. • Gonzales v. Yet." Court has ruled out the doctrine of "transcendental importance" regarding constitutional questions in this particular case. upon the theory that the expenditure of public funds by an officer of the state for the purpose of administering anunconstitutional act constitutes a misapplication of such funds which may be enjoined at the request of a taxpayer. 71977. as far as a taxpayer's suit is concerned." There has been a relaxation of this rule. and the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action .O. In the categorical and succinct language of Justice Laurel: "The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained. the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action. laws providing for the disbursement of public funds. as the Court held. • Demetria v. G. Petitioner is a juridical person not subject to arrest. Nor should petitioners feel discriminated against just because in Gonzales v." Moreover. laws providing for the disbursement of public funds. it is well settled that the validity of a statute may be contested only by one who will sustain a direct injury. AMANDO VIRGIL LIGUTAN (JUDICIAL REVIEW NOTES) justify the resort to the Court. Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office standing was denied to a petitioner who sought to declare a form of lottery known as Instant Sweepstakes invalid because. which is not in the original jurisdiction of SC. or will sustain. Moreover. We said that as regards taxpayers' suits. in the latest case in point. was allowed to prosecute his action for prohibition instituted by him as a taxpayer. at the instance of taxpayers. 29 February 1972 case cannot be heard to assert that they do qualify under such a category. Likewise. Thus: "Again. Alba. the prevailing view in the United States is stated in the American Jurisprudence as follows: In the determination of the degree of interest essential to give the requisite standing to attack the constitutionality of a statute. Nos. No such illegal disbursement is alleged. 73 SCRA 333. G. He was quite sucessful too. whose powers as provided in the Constitution on giving the President's emergency powers are allegedly being impaired. This requirement lies at the very heart of the judicial function. there are many decisions nullifying. a Senator has usually been considered as possessed of the requisite personality to bring a suit . Only members of Congress. where a constitutional question is raised. 14 August 2000 What calls for prior determination is whether or not petitioners had the requisite standing to seek a declaration of the alleged nullity of a resolution of the Constitutional Convention. Yet. is limited by the "case and controversy" requirement of Section 5. Commission on Elections.Art8. Comelec. 43 and 70. Although there are some decisions to the contrary. can question the legality of the proclamation of the state of rebellion." SJS. 140835.” In assailing the constitutionality of E. 43 SCRA 677 and Sanidad v. but also taxpayers have sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditures of moneys raised by taxation and may therefore question the constitutionality of statutes requiring expenditure of public moneys. The question in standing is whether a party has “alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. it was a Senator who brought action challenging the validity of Organic Resolution No. A citizen acquires standing only if he can establish that he has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government. it is well-settled that the validity of a statute may be contested only by one who will sustain a direct injury in consequence of its enforcement. this Court enjoys that open discretion to entertain the same or not. Voters & Concerned Citizens Suits • Tan v. there are many decisions nullifying at the instance of taxpayers. Moreover. members. In Valmonte v. Macapagal. Nor is it alleged that its leaders.R. Thus. may invoke the judicial power. in consequence of its enforcement. now Delegate Ramon Gonzales. it was a member of the Senate who was heard by this Court in a suit for prohibition to prevent the enforcement of the congressional resolution proposing the parity rights amendment. Petitioners in the present NOTE: TAXPAYER & CITIZEN'S SUIT Petitioner’s lack of standing constitutes another obstacle to the successful invocation of judicial power insofar as the PCCR is concerned. even in cases involving constitutional questions. by an officer of the State for the purpose of administering an unconstitutional act constitutes a misapplication of such funds. Even assuming that Sanlakas & PM are "people's organizations" in the language of Sections 15-16. 1 of the 1971 Constitutional Convention. The Secretary of Public Works. 13 . they are still not endowed with standing for as in Kilosbayan v Morato "These provisions have not changed the traditional rule that only real parties in interest or those with standing. Petitioners have no cause for legitimate resentment as such suit could be distinguished from the present. Requisites for Taxpayers. It is our view that a negative answer is indicated. petitioner asserts his interest as a citizen and taxpayer. it cannot claim to be threatened by a warrantless arrest. and supporters are being threatened with warrantless arrest and detention for the crime of rebellion. Art13 of the Consti. Tolentino v. So it was announced by the present Chief Justice inPascual v. Again. in Tan v. direct injury as a result of its enforcement." At best they seek for declaratory relief. Commission on Elections.
the plaintiff who asserts a “public right” in assailing an allegedly illegal official action. but also that he has sustained or in immediate danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement. He may be a person who is affected no differently from any other person. there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes upon their prerogatives as legislators. As held by the New York Supreme Court in People ex rel Case v.” In either case. while in the latter. Thus payer’s action is properly brought only sue. In other words. voters. petitioner has not shown that he has sustained or is in danger of sustaining any personal injury attributable to the creation of the PCCR. for voters.R. according to petitioner. He could be suing as a “stranger. the plaintiff is affected by the expenditure of public funds. 176278.” or in the category of a “citizen. petitioner has failed to establish his locus standi so as to enable him to seek judicial redress as a citizen. The difficulty of determining locus standi arises in public suits. there must be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental importance which must be settled early. spending power. the President has encroached upon the legislature’s powers to create a public office and to propose amendments to the Charter by forming the PCCR. Dinglasan. Office of the President. there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question. if not the duty. the plaintiff’s standing is based on his own right to the relief sought. the “real-party-in interest” is “the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. filed this original action for the writ of certiorari to invalidate President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s nomination of respondent former Chief Justice Davide as Permanent Representative to the United Nations (UN) for violation of Section 23 of RA 7157.” Succinctly put. however…the people are the real parties…It is at least the right. The distinction was first laid down in Beauchamp v. Neither does he claim that his rights or privileges have been or are in danger of being violated. The interest of the person assailing the constitutionality of a statute must be direct and personal. lawyer. he has to adequately show that he is entitled to seek judicial protection. Collins: “In matter of mere public right.” In private suits. Such liberality was neither a rarity nor accidental.R. and it is not sufficient that he has a general interest common to all members of the public. provided that the following requirements are met: when there is an exercise by Congress of its taxing or (1) the cases involve constitutional issues. standing is governed by the “real. A taxpayer is deemed to have the standing to raise a By way of summary. Silk. as amended. This was done in the 1949 Emergency Powers Cases. However. It must appear that the person complaining has been or is about to be denied some right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that he is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute complained of. have been disbursed in alleged contravention of the law or the concerned citizens. of every citizen to interfere and see that a public offence be properly pursued and punished. If at all. 3 May 2006 (2) for taxpayers. Taxpayers. nor that he shall be subjected to any penalties or burdens as a result of the PCCR’s activities. not only that the law is invalid. Clearly.” The Court ruled that for a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of an executive or legislative action. he is but the mere instrument of the public concern. AMANDO VIRGIL LIGUTAN (JUDICIAL REVIEW NOTES) Valmonte brings the suit as a citizen. the requirement of locus standi may be waived by the Court in the exercise of its discretion. Araneta v. 171396. G. there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure is unconstitutional. and for legislators. G. Petitioner argues that respondent Davide’s age at that time of his nomination in March 14 . Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. It provides that “every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. He must be able to show. where it was held that the plaintiff in a taxpayer’s suit is in a different category from the plaintiff in a citizen’s suit. Terr v. which can claim any “injury” in this case since. But nowhere in his petition does petitioner claim that his rights and privileges as a lawyer or citizen have been directly and personally injured by the operation of the Instant Sweepstakes. or even any indirect. Here. injury. he must show that he has sustained a direct injury as a result of that action.” Accordingly. and that a public grievance be remedied. • David v. for concerned citizens.parties-in interest” rule as contained in Section 2. taxpayer and father of three (3) minor children. where the “transcendental importance” of the cases prompted the Court to act liberally. being a mere procedural technicality. Petitioner has sustained no direct. In the former. and not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way.” With respect to taxpayer’s suits. (3) (4) (5) • Paguia v.” or ‘taxpayer. the following rules may be culled constitutional issue when it is established that public funds from the cases decided by this Court. Jordan held that “the right of a citizen and a taxpayer to maintain an action in courts to restrain the unlawful use of public funds to his injury cannot be denied. does so as a representative of the general public. and legislators may be accorded standing to Constitution. the Philippine Foreign Service Act of 1991. Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. not petitioner. 25 June 2010 Petitioner Paguia as citizen and taxpayer. Locus standi is defined as “a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question. Case law in most jurisdictions now allows both “citizen” and “taxpayer” standing in public actions. he has to make out a sufficient interest in the vindication of the public order and the securing of relief as a “citizen” or “taxpayer. it is only Congress.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1—ATTY. In the instant case.
that course will be adopted and the constitutional exceptions. in the exercise of sounds discretion. SC have granted access to 3. however. the constitutionality of the respondents’ appointments is not the lis mota of the case. Petitioner’s citizenship and taxpayer status do not clothe him with standing to bring this suit. None of dwelt lengthily on the issue of constitutionality of the petitioner’s allegations comes close to any of these parameters. of “transcendental” importance calling for urgent resolution. this means that forced to leave the service at the mandated retirement age SC ought to refrain from resolving any constitutional issue unquestionably hold interest far more substantial and personal "unless the constitutional question is the lis mota of the case. the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity. it has been held that it is Department of Foreign Affairs at 65. No. Vera. and the lack of any other party with SC dismiss the petition for lack of merit. Taxpayers’ contributions to the state’s coffers entitle them to question appropriations for expenditures which are claimed to be unconstitutional or illegal. G. RULING: The petition presents no case or controversy for though raised for the first time on appeal. it is said that the question may 15 . Petitioner be raised for the first time at any stage of the proceedings. constitutionality of a statute should be presented: 1." than petitioner’s generalized interest as a citizen in ensuring enforcement of the law.” Raised at Earliest Opportunity • People v.O. Courts. Even in civil cases. It is true that. 45685. a clear disregard of constitutional or statutory prohibition. if the record also presents some other ground upon which the court may rest its But SC must state that the general rule admits of judgment.R. although there is a very sharp conflict of authorities. the petitioner who claims otherwise has the burden of showing first that the case cannot be resolved unless the constitutional question he raised is determined by the Court. determination of the question is necessary to a decision of the case. the funding for which was included in the appropriations for the DFA’s total expenditures contained in the annual budgets Congress passed since respondent Davide’s nomination. In criminal cases. Both parties a more direct and specific interest to bring the suit . In the present case. where it involves the jurisdiction of the court below Three factors are relevant in our determination to allow third party suits so SC can reach and resolve the merits of the Lis Mota of the Case crucial issues raised – the character of funds or assets • Luis General v. so that if not raised by the pleadings. implicit in a petition seeking a judicial interpretation of a subsequent filing before the Court of several petitions questioning statutory provision on the retirement of government personnel this Executive Order. if it appears that a petitioner’s lack of capacity to sue and mootness. In constitutional law terms. may question will be left for consideration until a case arises in determine the time when a question affecting the which a decision upon such question will be unavoidable. mandatory retirement age of all officers and employees of the 2. And it has been held that a constitutional citizen’s suits on the narrowest of ground: when they raise issues question will be considered by an appellate court at any time. it will not considered on appeal.” Career ambassadors some other ground. what is decisive is the determination of whether the petitioner has a cause of action to institute and maintain this present petition – a quo warranto against respondent Urro. if the case can be disposed of on direct and specific interest to bring the suit. unless such question is raised by the parties and that when it is raised. respondents’ appointments in light of E. grounds his argument on Section 23 of RA 7157 pegging the either in the trial court or on appeal. If the petitioner fails to establish his cause of action for quo warranto. However. Given the presumed validity of an executive act. the salaries and benefits respondent Davide received commensurate to his diplomatic rank are fixed by law and other executive issuances. Lis mota literally means "the cause of the suit or The same conclusion holds true for petitioner’s invocation of his taxpayer status. disqualifies him from holding his post. 16 November 1937 action. the DFA is not devoid of personnel with “more although properly presented. absent. as a general rule. the duty of a court to pass on the constitutional question.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1—ATTY. Further. appear to have occasioned by its seemingly ambiguous crafting is the admission overlooked the basic principle in constitutional adjudication that that a “clear disregard of constitutional or statutory prohibition” is enjoins the Court from passing upon a constitutional question. From the submitted pleadings. No. AMANDO VIRGIL LIGUTAN (JUDICIAL REVIEW NOTES) 2006. negating petitioner’s claim of “illegal expenditure of scarce public funds. Ultimately. ordinarily it may not be raised at the trial. respondent Davide is at least a de facto officer entitled to draw salary. it is rooted in the principle of separation of powers. Having assumed office under color of authority (appointment). and if not raised in the trial court." This last requisite of judicial review is simply an offshoot of the presumption of validity accorded the executive and legislative acts of our co-equal branches of the government. 70. Urro. G.R. The parties. NOTE: It is a well-established rule that a court should not pass upon a constitutional question and decide a law to be unconstitutional or invalid. a discussion of the constitutionality of the appointments of the respondents is rendered completely unnecessary. 29 March 2011 involved in the controversy. 191560. 2 and the Indeed.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.