An actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal

claims susceptible of judicial adjudication.

Cruz, Isagani, Phil. Constitutional Law (1995)
Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima

A closely related requirement [for actual case or controversy] is ripeness, that is, the question
must be ripe for adjudication. And a constitutional question is ripe for adjudication when the
governmental act being challenged has a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it.
Bernas, Joaquin, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (1996)
Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima

... to be ripe for judicial adjudication, the petitioner must show a personal stake in the outcome
of the case or an injury to himself that can be redressed by a favorable decision of the Court.
Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources
Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima

... where an action of the legislative branch is alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it
becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute.
Tañada v. Angara
Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima

The exercise by the SC of judicial power is limited to the determination and resolution of actual
cases and controversies.

The standards that have to be followed in the exercise of the power of judicial review, namely:
1. the existence of an appropriate case
2. an interest personal and substantial by the party raising the constitutional question
3. the plea that the function be exercised at the earliest opportunity
4. the necessity that the constitutional question be passed upon in order to decide the
case
Dumlao v. COMELEC
Garcillano v. House of Representatives

By actual cases, we mean existing conflicts appropriate or ripe for judicial determination, not
conjectural or anticipatory, for otherwise the decision of the SC will amount to an advisory
opinion. The power of judicial inquiry does not extend to hypothetical questions because any
attempt at abstraction could only lead to dialectics and barren legal questions and to sterile
conclusions unrelated to actualities.
La Bugan-B'laan Tribal Assoc., Inc. v. Ramos
Garcillano v. House of Representatives

Neither will the SC determine a moot question in a case in which no practical relief can be
granted. A case becomes moot when its purpose has become stale.
 Rufino v. Endriga
Garcillano v. House of Representatives

It is unnecessary to indulge in academic discussion of a case presenting a moot question as a

judgment thereon cannot have any practical legal effect or, in the nature of things, cannot be
enforced.
Lanuza, Jr. v. Yuchengco
Garcillano v. House of Representatives

Where an action of the legislative branch seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it
becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. The
question thus posed is judicial rather than political. The duty (to adjudicate) remains to assure
that the supremacy of the Constitution is upheld. Once a controversy as to the application or
interpretation of constitutional provision is raised before the SC, it becomes a legal issue which
the SC is bound by constitutional mandate to decide.
Tañada v. Angara
Macalintal v. COMELEC

... despite the inhibitions pressing upon the SC when confronted with constitutional issues, it will
not hesitate to declare a law or act invalid when it is convinced that this must be done. In
arriving at this conclusion, its only criterion will be the Constitution and God as its conscience
gives it in the light to probe its meaning and discover its purpose. Personal motives and political
considerations are irrelevancies that cannot influence its decisions. Blandishment is as
ineffectual as intimidation, for all the awesome power of the Congress and Executive, the SC will
not hesitate "to make the hammer fall heavily," where the acts of these departments, or of any
official, betray the people’s will as expressed in the Constitution...
Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform
Macalintal v. COMELEC

When issues of constitutionality are raised, the SC can exercise its power of judicial review only
if the following requisites are compresent:
5. the existence of an actual and appropriate case
6. a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional question
7. the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity
8. the constitutional question is the lis mota of the case
Phil. Constitutional Assoc. v. Enriquez
Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform
Dumlao v. COMELEC
People v. Vera

The judicial power to declare a law or an executive order unconstitutional, accd. to Justice
Laurel, is "limited to actual cases and controversies to be exercised after full opportunity of
argument by the parties, and limited further to the constitutional question raised or the very lis
mota presented".
Angara v. Electoral Commission
Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary

Following this long-held principle, the SC has thus always been guided by these fourfold
requisites in deciding constitutional law issues:
9. there must be an actual case or controversy involving a conflict of rights susceptible of
judicial determination
10. the constitutional question must be raised by a proper party
11. the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportunity
12. adjudication of the constitutional question must be indispensable to the resolution of
the case
Mirasol v. Court of Appeals
Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary

In Lansang, the SC upheld its authority to inquire into the factual bases for the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and held that this inquiry raises a judicial rather than a
political question.
Lansang v. Garcia
Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary

Courts will decide a question otherwise moot and academic if it's capable of repetition, yet
evading review.
Salva vs. Makalintal
Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary