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 grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part
of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

legal requisites for judicial inquiry, namely: (a) that the question must be raised by the
proper party; (b) that there must be an actual case or controversy; (c) that the question
must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and (d) that the decision on the
constitutional or legal question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself
(constitutional question must be the very lis mota).

Proper party (must have legal standing) when party has sustained or threatened by an
injury by virtue of the act.

Legal standing or locus standi refers to a party's personal and substantial interest in a case,
arising from the direct injury it has sustained or will sustain as a result of the challenged
governmental action.

***sufficient interest, material interest, personal interest

"a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question."

every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest," who 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."

"direct injury" test 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 or will
sustain direct injury as a result."

The term "interest" means a material interest, an interest in issue affected by the governmental
action, as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental
interest. Unless a person's constitutional rights are adversely affected by a statute or
governmental action, he has no legal standing to challenge the statute or governmental action.

In determining whether or not a particular information is of public concern there is no rigid

test which can be applied. 'Public concern' like 'public interest' is a term that eludes exact
definition. Both terms embrace a broad spectrum of subjects which the public may want to
know, either because these directly affect their lives, or simply because such matters naturally
arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen. In the final analysis, it is for the courts to determine
on a case by case basis whether the matter at issue is of interest or importance, as it relates to
or affects the public.

Requirements before taxpayers, voters, concerned citizens, and legislators can be accorded a
standing to sue, viz.:

(1) the cases involve constitutional issues;

(2) for taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds (funds [taxes
collected from the people] allocated by government for certain governmental projects) or that
the tax measure is unconstitutional;

(3) for voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law
in question;

(4) for concerned citizens, there must be a showing that the issues raised are of
transcendental importance () which must be settled early; and

(5) for legislators, there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes
upon their prerogatives as legislators.

***exception where the transcendental importance of the issues has been established,
notwithstanding the petitioners' failure to show a direct injury (exception to locus
standi)

Instructive guides as determinants in determining whether a matter is of transcendental

importance: (1) the character of the funds or other assets involved in the case; (2) the
presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public
respondent agency or instrumentality of the government; and (3) the lack of any other party
with a more direct and specific interest in the questions being raised.

***exception

1. Transcendental importance
2. Paramount public interest
3. Issue of overarching significance to society

TIMELINESS

It is not the date of filing of the petition that determines whether the constitutional issue was
raised at the earliest opportunity. The earliest opportunity to raise a constitutional issue is to
raise it in the pleadings before a competent court that can resolve the same, such that, "if it
is not raised in the pleadings, it cannot be considered at the trial, and, if not considered at the
trial, it cannot be considered on appeal."

Petitioner questioned the constitutionality of the ad interim appointments of Benipayo, Borra

and Tuason when she filed her petition before this Court, which is the earliest opportunity for
pleading the constitutional issue before a competent body. Furthermore, this Court may
determine, in the exercise of sound discretion, the time when a constitutional issue may be
passed upon. There is no doubt petitioner raised the constitutional issue on time.||| (Matibag v.
Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036, [April 2, 2002], 429 PHIL 554-607)

LIS MOTA

Lis mota literally means "the cause of the suit or action"; it is rooted in the principle of
separation of powers and is thus merely an offshoot of the presumption of validity accorded
the executive and legislative acts of our co-equal branches of the government.
This means that the petitioner who claims the unconstitutionality of a law has the
burden of showing first that the case cannot be resolved unless the disposition of
the constitutional question that raised is decided. If there is some other ground upon
which the court may rest its judgment, that course will be adopted and the question of
constitutionality should be avoided. Thus, to justify the nullification of a law, there must be a
clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, and not one that is doubtful, speculative or
argumentative.||| (Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap, Inc. v. Robredo, G.R. No. 200903, [July
22, 2014])

**Indispensability of resolving the constitutional question.

***Underlying Principles: Presumption of Regularity + Separation of Powers

2 views on the effects of a declaration of the unconstitutionality of a statute:

1. orthodox view - an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no right; it imposes no

duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation,
inoperative, as if it had not been passed at all.
It is therefore stricken from the statute books and considered never to have existed at
all. Not only the parties but all persons are bound by the declaration of
unconstitutionality, which means that no one may thereafter invoke it nor may the
courts be permitted to apply it in subsequent cases. It is, in other words, a total nullity.

The orthodox view is expressed in Article 7 of the Civil Code, providing that
"when the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the
former shall be void and the latter shall govern . . ."

"The actual existence of a statute, prior to such a determination [of

unconstitutionality], is an operative fact and may have consequences which
cannot justly be ignored. The past cannot always he erased by a new judicial
declaration. — The effect of the subsequent ruling as to invalidity may have to be
considered in various aspects, - with respect to particular relations, individual and
corporate, and particular conduct, private and official."

**effect is prospective as well as retroactive

2. Modern view - the court in passing upon the question of constitutionality does not
annul or repeal the statute if it finds it in conflict with the Constitution. It simply refuses
to recognize it and determines the rights of the parties just as if such statute had no
existence. The court may give its reasons for ignoring or disregarding the law, but the
decision affects the parties only and there is no judgment against the statute. The
opinion or reasons of the court may operate as a precedent for the determination of
other similar cases, but it does not strike the statute books; it does not repeal,
supersede, revoke, or annul the statute. The parties to the suit are concluded by the
judgment, but not one else is bound.
Modern view//operative fact doctrine
 **effect is only prospective

Doctrine of Operative Fact

The doctrine of operative fact recognizes the existence of the law or executive act prior
to the determination of its unconstitutionality as an operative fact that produced
consequences that cannot always be erased, ignored or disregarded. In short, it
nullifies the void law or executive act but sustains its effects. It provides an exception
to the general rule that a void or unconstitutional law produces no effect. But its use must be
subjected to great scrutiny and circumspection, and it cannot be invoked to validate an
unconstitutional law or executive act, but is resorted to only as a matter of equity and fair play.
It applies only to cases where extraordinary circumstances exist, and only when the
extraordinary circumstances have met the stringent conditions that will permit its application. It
can be invoked only in situations where the nullification of the effects of what used
to be a valid law would result in inequity and injustice.

The operative fact doctrine does not only apply to laws subsequently declared
unconstitutional or unlawful, as it also applies to executive acts subsequently declared as
invalid.

The term "executive act" is broad enough to encompass decisions of administrative bodies
and agencies under the executive department which are subsequently revoked by the agency in
question or nullified by the Court.

**Separability clause – Congress intent to retain valid portions of a law, some provisions of
which are declared unconstitutional.

**The valid portions can stand independently

To identify under which principle the cases fall

To identify the relevant facts of the cases and understand how they …

Affinity map

mlcbadayos@gmail.com

QUOTE the relevant ruling of the SC. Proceed by illustrating the relevant facts

Answering style:

1st paragraph: Categorical + Reason +Name of Doctrine/Name of Case/statement used by

cases/a rewording of provision as close as possible

2nd paragraph: Application