32 (CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ity the country sorely needed at the time. When the votes were tallied, it appeared that 76.29% the elector- ate had voted to ratify, with only 22.74% against. Suggested Reading: Imbong v. Commission on Elections, 25 SCRA 28 ‘Tolentino v. Commission on Elections, 41 SCRA 715, [Almariov. All, 127 SCRA 69 ‘Santiago v, Commission on Elections, 270 SCRA 106 Chapter 3 ‘THE CONSTITUTION AND THE COURTS ALTHOUGH HOLDING “neither purse nor sword,” the Judiciary occupies a vital and indispensable part in our system of government, for itis the ultimate guardian of the Constitution. The politcal departments, if only be- cause of the nature of their powers, have a tendency to bend inot actually break the laws, sometimes forthe best of motives or out of mistaken zea, but more often because of @ desire for self-aggrandizement. When they do so, the judiciary is expected to rectify the wrong and affirm its “sacred and solemn duty” to uphold the Constitution and the laws ofthe land, AAs this role of the judiciary is particularly needed in the protection of the individusl liberties guaranteed hy the Bill of Rights, it is important to consider att point the scope and limitations of the power of judicial review and, especially, the requisites of a judicial in Guiry into a constitutional question, Voting ‘The now rule in Article VIII, Section 4 on en bane cases is as follows: (2) Allcase invelvng the cnatituioaly of eay i ternational rexcitive erect, law, which shal be herd ty the Supreme Court en anc and all ther eas which ude the Ral of Court are required to be bard en Bore, edi those lvelving the ematetonalt,apleation,o operation af Destin decresyprocamatons, der insrucionn, rd 334 (CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ‘anes, and other regulations, shall be decided ith the occur ‘ence ofa majority ofthe Members who actualy nk parts the ‘aiveratione onthe sue nthe eave and weed there, ese oye ee er nee a ee ep a Gh ne Omni iets Be ee pare no cr can lee ‘The rule on the pede ote for a delratin of copra it lo claborate and gga ol to say ill-advised, While the Commonwealth Constitution called for a vote of two-thirds of the Supreme Court and the 1973 Constitution fixed the flat number of ten, the Constitution of 1987 evidently will have no truck with such simplicity. Instead, it requires for such declaration “the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actu- ally took part in the deliberations on the issues in the ‘case and voted thereon,” in a masterpiece of quibbling and verbosity. Significantly, whereas under the two previous charters no less than two-thirds of the Court were needed for a declaration of unconstitutionality, Requisites of a Judicial Inquiry Unlike the political departments, courts are passive {instruments that can aet only when their jurisdiction is invoked. It has already been remarked that, even then, THE CONSTITUTION AND THE COURTS 35, the quostion raised will ordinarily not be entertained by them if itis political in nature. Furthermore, by virtue of a judge-made policy, no constitutional question will be heard and decided by them unless there is compli- ance with what are known as the nga: e ae) ‘These requisites are the following:* (1) ‘There must be an actual case or controversy; (2) The question of constitutionality my "raised by the proper party; . =" (8) ‘The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and (4) ‘The decision of the constitutional question ‘must be necessary to the determination ofthe ease @) Actual Case wei cerca eat Rost rami or elo xtra er oh i oe ee oe ee ‘There must be a it ean be interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing lew and jurisprudence, "Dum v. Commission on Eeetons, 96 SCRA 392, * See Senate rita 488 SCRA6 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW concrete, touching the legal relations of parties adverse legal interests. It must be a real and substan- tial controversy admitting of specific relief through decree that is conclusive in character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts. Where there is such a con- crete caso admitting of an immediate and definitive determination of the legal rights of the parties in an adversary proceeding upon the facts alloged, the adjudi- cation of the rights of the litigants may not require the award of process or the payment of damages. And it is not essential to the exercise ofthe judicial power that an injunction be sought; allegations that irreparable injury is threatened are not required." ‘A request for advisory opinion cannot come under he category of an actual case or controversy since the ssue raised does not involve any eonflit in law that ha assumed the proportions of a full-blown dispute, The ” court in this cuse is being asked only to counsel and not to decide. Counseling by courts is contrary to the doe: tine of separation of powers since their advice will not hhave the force of law but of a mere suggestion or re- ‘commendation that may be accepted or rejected at will by the department requesting it. But where the purpose is to solicit from the court a declaratory judgment involving the interpretation of the rights and duties of a person under the provisions of dod, wil, contract, or other written instrument, or a statute or ordinance; the case is deemed an actual con- * Asta Life ns Co. v. Haworth, 300 US. 227 "Rate 64, See 1, Rls of Court. ‘THE CONSTITUTION AND THE COURTS 7 troversy over which the courts may validly assume ju- risdietion, ‘The Supreme Court however took cognizance of a constitutional challenge filed by taxpayers against the practice of direct allocation and release of funds to ‘Members of Congress and the authority given to them to propose and select projects. It considered said petition as pertaining to what may constitute a “serious eonsti- tutional transgression involving the expenditure of pub- Tie funds.” It said that a “finding of unconstitutionality ‘would necessarily be tantamount to a misapplication of public funds which, in turn, [would] cause injury or hhardship to taxpayers." In Senate v. Ermita,* the Court proceeded to resolve the petitions questioning the constitutionality of Bxecu- tive Order No. 464, which allowed President Arroy subordinates not to appear before Congress in connec. tion with its legislative inquiries, despite the absence of any showing that she had actually invoked it or prohib- ited them from participating in said legislative investi gations. The Court found the “assertion that the Presi- dent has not withheld her consent or prohibited the appearance of the officials concerned immaterial in de- termining the existence of an actual case or controversy insofar as £.0. 464 is concerned.” In Pimentel v. Aguirre, the Supreme Court, citing Tafada v. Angara," where it held that “when an act of the legislative department is seriously alleged to have “Lawyers Agsinst Monopaly and Poverty v. Secretary of Budget ‘and Management, GR. No, 16407, April 242012, 610 SoRA S73. Supe, {1G No, 182088, July 1, 2000, 336 SCRA 201, "272 SCRA 181997),