Constitutional Law 1 | Atty.
Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2| Knowledge Portfolio
JUDICIAL REVIEW PART 2
I. CONDITION FOR THE EXERCISE OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW
(Notes By: Tariman)
Before the Courts can exercise the power of Judicial
Review, the following must be present:
A. Actual Case or Controversy
B. Locus Standi or Legal Standing
C. Timeliness (Question of Constitutionality is
raised at the earliest possible opportunity)
D. Lis Mota
A. ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY
Requirement of Ripeness
Article 8, Sec. 1 1987 Constitution – Clearly
mentions ‘actual case’
A contrariety of legal rights or claims which is ‘ripe for
adjudicaiton’
This means that the act has been done by any branch,
presenting an immediate or threatened injury to the
Petitioner.
Negates hypothetical, moot, and academic question,
which merely requires an advisory opinion.
A.MB: This can be said when something has been
accomplished or performed by the executive and
legislative department and the effect of which is an
existence of immediate or threatened injury to a person
or to a group of people.
There is an actual opposition of legal rights and claims
between the State actor on one hand and the affected
private individuals / person whether natural / juridical
on the other hand.
The injury is actual, hence it is not anticipatory. Why?
Because our Courts only issue decisions, they do not
issue advisory opinions on a hypothetical legal
problem.
Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
In relation to the concept of an actual case, is what
case laws often refer to as a case or question that is
MOOT AND ACADEMIC.
MOOT AND ACADEMIC
One which no longer needs any decision by the
court because, through subsequent development of
events, any decision made by the court would no
longer be needed to resolve the legal question
presented before it.
Ex. You sue someone for non – payment of debt.
However, while the case was ongoing, the debtor paid
you. Hence, the case has become moot and academic
because through subsequent development of events,
the court no longer needs to make any decision to the
issue presented before it.
Once a case is Moot and Academic, the case poses
NO Actual Case or Controversy.
When you relate this to the concept of Judicial Review,
the Court can no longer exercise such power.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE:
a. Grave Constitutional Violation
b. Paramount Public Interest
c. Guidance for the Bench and Bar
d. Capable of Repetition yet Evading Review
IMBONG VS. OCHOA
(This case involves the question of the
constitutionality of the reproductive health law)
Q1. What facts are relevant to this discussion on
the requirement of “actual case or controversy”?
FACTS:
 The increase of the country’s population at an
uncontrollable pace led to the executive and
the legislative’s decision that prior measures
were still not adequate. Thus, Congress
enacted R.A. No. 10354, otherwise known as
the Responsible Parenthood and
Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law), to
provide Filipinos, especially the poor and the
Constitutional Law 1 | Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2| Knowledge Portfolio
marginalized, access and information to the
full range of modern family planning methods,
and to ensure that its objective to provide for
the peoples’ right to reproductive health be
achieved. Stated differently, the RH Law is an
enhancement measure to fortify and make
effective the current laws on contraception,
women’s health and population control.
 Shortly after, challengers from various sectors
of society moved to assail the constitutionality
of RH Law. Meanwhile, the RH-IRR for the
enforcement of the assailed legislation took
effect. The Court then issued a Status Quo
Ante Order enjoining the effects and
implementation of the assailed legislation.
 Petitioners question, among others, the
constitutionality of the RH Law, claiming that
it violates Section 26(1), Article VI of the
Constitution, prescribing the one subject-one
title rule. According to them, being one for
reproductive health with responsible
parenthood, the assailed legislation violates
the constitutional standards of due process by
concealing its true intent – to act as a
population control measure. On the other
hand, respondents insist that the RH Law is
not a birth or population control measure, and
that the concepts of “responsible parenthood”
and “reproductive health” are both interrelated
as they are inseparable.
Q2. What were the arguments raised but the
proponents of Reproductive Health Law
concerning the requirement of “actual case or
controversy”?
Proponents of the RH Law submit that the subject
petitions do not present any actual case or controversy
because the RH Law has yet to be implemented. They
claim that the questions raised by the petitions are not
yet concrete and ripe for adjudication since no one has
been charged with violating any of its provisions and
that there is no showing that any of the petitioners'
rights has been adversely affected by its operation. In
short, it is contended that judicial review of the RH Law
is premature.
An actual case or controversy means an existing case
or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for
determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, lest the
decision of the court would amount to an advisory
opinion. The rule is that courts do not sit to adjudicate
mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest,
Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
however intellectually challenging. The controversy
must be justiciable — definite and concrete, touching
on the legal relations of parties having adverse legal
interests. In other words, the pleadings must show an
active antagonistic assertion of a legal right, on the one
hand, and a denial thereof, on the other; that is, it must
concern a real, tangible and not merely a theoretical
question or issue. There ought to be an actual and
substantial controversy admitting of specific relief
through a decree conclusive in nature, as distinguished
from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a
hypothetical state of facts.
Corollary to the requirement of an actual case or
controversy is the requirement of ripeness. A question
is ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged
has had a direct adverse effect an the individual
challenging it. For a case to be considered ripe for
adjudication, it is a prerequisite that something has
then been accomplished or performed by either branch
before a court may come into the picture, and the
petitioner must allege the existence of an immediate or
threatened injury to himself as a result of the
challenged action. He must show that he has sustained
or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct
injury as a result of the act complained of
Q3. What case law was used by the Supreme Court
as a basis in deciding the issues on ripeness here?
In The Province of North Cotabato v. The
Government of the Republic of the Philippines,
where the constitutionality of an unimplemented
Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain
(MOA-AD) was put in question, it was argued that the
Court has no authority to pass upon the issues raised
as there was yet no concrete act performed that could
possibly violate the petitioners' and the intervenors'
rights. Citing precedents, the Court ruled that the fact
of the law or act in question being not yet effective does
not negate ripeness. Concrete acts under a law are not
necessary to render the controversy ripe. Even a
singular violation of the Constitution and/or the law is
enough to awaken judicial duty.
Q4. Did the Supreme Court find that there was an
actual case here? Why or why not?
In this case, the Court is of the view that an actual case
or controversy exists and that the same is ripe for
judicial determination. Considering that the RH Law
and its implementing rules have already taken effect
and that budgetary measures to carry out the law have
already been passed, it is evident that the subject
Constitutional Law 1 | Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2| Knowledge Portfolio
petitions present a justiciable controversy. As stated
earlier, when an action of the legislative branch is
seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it
not only becomes a right, but also a duty of the
Judiciary to settle the dispute
Moreover, the petitioners have shown that the case is
so because medical practitioners or medical providers
are in danger of being criminally prosecuted under the
RH Law for vague violations thereof, particularly public
health officers who are threatened to be dismissed
from the service with forfeiture of retirement and other
benefits. They must, at least, be heard on the matter
NOW.
BELGICA VS. OCHOA
(This case also involves the constitutionality of the
Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) which
is one of the many forms of Pork Barrel in our
country.)
FACTS:
 The “Presidential Pork Barrel” questioned by
the petitioners include the Malampaya Fund
and the Presidential Social Fund. The
Malampaya Fund was created as a special
fund under Section 8, Presidential Decree
(PD) 910 by then-President Ferdinand
Marcos to help intensify, strengthen, and
consolidate government efforts relating to the
exploration, exploitation, and development of
indigenous energy resources vital to
economic growth.
 The Presidential Social Fund was created
under Section 12, Title IV, PD 1869 (1983) or
the Charter of the Philippine Amusement and
Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), as
amended by PD 1993 issued in 1985. The
Presidential Social Fund has been described
as a special funding facility managed and
administered by the Presidential
Management Staff through which the
President provides direct assistance to
priority programs and projects not funded
under the regular budget.
 It is sourced from the share of the government
in the aggregate gross earnings of PAGCOR.
Q1 Did the Supreme Court find that there was an
actual case here? Why or why not?
YES. There exists an actual and justiciable
controversy in these cases. The requirement of
contrariety of legal rights is clearly satisfied by the
antagonistic positions of the parties on the
constitutionality of the “Pork Barrel System.” Also,
the questions in these consolidated cases are ripe for
adjudication since the challenged funds and the
Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
provisions allowing for their utilization – such as
the 2013 GAA for the PDAF, PD 910 for the
Malampaya Funds and PD 1869, as amended by PD
1993, for the Presidential Social Fund – are currently
existing and operational; hence, there exists an
immediate or threatened injury to petitioners as a result
of the unconstitutional use of these public funds.
Q2. Considering the reforms to the PDAF, were the
issues raised relating thereto considered moot and
academic?
As for the PDAF, the Court dispelled the notion that the
issues related thereto had been rendered moot and
academic by the reforms undertaken by respondents.
A case becomes moot when there is no more actual
controversy between the parties or no useful
purpose can be served in passing upon the merits.
The respondents’ proposed line-item budgeting
scheme would not terminate the controversy nor
diminish the useful purpose for its resolution since said
reform is geared towards the 2014 budget, and not
the 2013 PDAF Article which, being a distinct
subject matter, remains legally effective and
existing. Neither will the President’s declaration that
he had already “abolished the PDAF” render the issues
on PDAF moot precisely because the Executive
branch of government has no constitutional
authority to nullify or annul its legal existence.
Q3. Assuming that the issues in the case were
moot and academic, should the Supreme Court be
dissuaded in resolving the case?
Even on the assumption of mootness, nevertheless,
jurisprudence dictates that “the ‘moot and academic’
principle is not a magical formula that can automatically
dissuade the Court in resolving a case.” The Court will
decide cases, otherwise moot, if:
i.) There is a grave violation of the Constitution:
This is clear from the fundamental posture of
petitioners – they essentially allege grave violations
of the Constitution with respect to the principles of
separation of powers, non-delegability of
legislative power, checks and balances,
accountability and local autonomy.
ii.) The exceptional character of the situation and
the paramount public interest is involved: This is
also apparent from the nature of the interests involved
– the constitutionality of the very system within
which significant amounts of public funds have
been and continue to be utilized and expended
Constitutional Law 1 | Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2| Knowledge Portfolio
undoubtedly presents a situation of exceptional
character as well as a matter of paramount public
interest. The present petitions, in fact, have been
lodged at a time when the system’s flaws have
never before been magnified. To the Court’s mind,
the coalescence of the CoA Report, the accounts
of numerous whistle-blowers, and the
government’s own recognition that reforms are
needed “to address the reported abuses of the
PDAF” demonstrates a prima facie pattern of abuse
which only underscores the importance of the matter.
It is also by this finding that the Court finds petitioners’
claims as not merely theorized, speculative or
hypothetical. Of note is the weight accorded by the
Court to the findings made by the CoA which is the
constitutionally-mandated audit arm of the
government. if only for the purpose of validating the
existence of an actual and justiciable controversy in
these cases, the Court deems the findings under
the CoA Report to be sufficient.
iii.) When the constitutional issue raised requires
formulation of controlling principles to guide the
bench, the bar, and the public: This is applicable
largely due to the practical need for a definitive
ruling on the system’s constitutionality. There is a
compelling need to formulate controlling principles
relative to the issues raised herein in order to guide the
bench, the bar, and the public, not just for the
expeditious resolution of the anticipated disallowance
cases, but more importantly, so that the government
may be guided on how public funds should be utilized
in accordance with constitutional principles.
iv.) The case is capable of repetition yet evading
review. This is called for by the recognition that the
preparation and passage of the national budget is,
by constitutional imprimatur, an affair of annual
occurrence. The myriad of issues underlying the
manner in which certain public funds are spent, if not
resolved at this most opportune time, are capable of
repetition and hence, must not evade judicial review.
DAVID V. ARROYO
(Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of former
president Gloria Arroyo’s declaration of a State of
National Emergency through various presidential
issuances.)
(Notes by Oliver)
Q1. What facts are relevant to the discussion on the
requirement of ‘actual case or controversy’?
Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
● In February 26, 2006, as the nation was about to
celebrate the 20th Anniversary of EDSA, Pres.
Arroyo issued PP 1017 declaring a State of
National Emergency.
● For the reason that Extreme leftist were alleged
to be plotting of over taking the government
● The President then issued PP 1021 lifting the
state of national emergency on March 3, 2006,
after all the petitions were filed.
○ The petitioners contended that after the
declaration of state of national emergency
through the issuance of PP 1017 there was:
■ Numerous warrantless arrests,
inclusive of:
■ Protesters of KMU (Kilusang Mayo
Uno)
■ Ronal Llamas from Akbayan party list
○ Take over of facilities, including the media
Q2. Respondents OSG argued that the questions
presented here were rendered moot and academic
by the issuance of PP 1021? Explain PP 1021 in
relation to the questions raised by the Petitioners.
Normally, it would render the case moot and academic.
PP 1017 is merely an invocation of the President’s
calling-out power. Its general purpose is to command
the AFP to suppress all forms of lawless violence,
invasion, or rebellion. It had accomplished the end
desire which prompted President Arroyo to issue PP
1021.
But, there is nothing in PP 1017 that allows the police,
expressly or impliedly, to conduct illegal arrest,
searches, or violate the constitutional rights of the
citizens. There is no guarantee that PP 1017 may not
again be issued. Already, there have been media
reports in April 30, 2006 that alleged PP 1017 would be
re-imposed “if the May 1 rallies become unruly or
violent.”
Q3. Where the questions presented by the
Petitioner moot and academic?
No, because the court says that there was an actual
case and controversy.
Q4. Assuming that the questions presented were
moot and academic, should the Supreme Court be
dissuaded from resolving the same?
No, because even if it was moot The SC also says that
even if it was moot and academic, the Court will still
need to make a decision if:
i. Grave Violation of the Constitution
Constitutional Law 1 | Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2| Knowledge Portfolio

• Which was a definite issue because, the petitioners the President Arroyo's declaration of state of
alleged that there were warrantless arrests of rebellion.
protesters, which is a violation of the constitution.
Q2. Were the questions raised here moot and
ii. Exceptional character of the situation and paramount academic?
to public interest
• It is clear in the case that this was an exceptional Yes. The Court held that the case is moot and
since this was a declaration of state of national academic, judicial power being limited to the
emergency which does not happen all the time and that determination of "actual controversies." However,
• obviously, it is public interest because it has the Court treated the immediate case as one that is
something to do with the basic rights of the people. "capable of repetition yet evading review." Hence, the
discussion of the merits and demerits of the issues
iii. When constitutional issue raised requires presented
formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench,
the bar and the public. Q3. Could the case have been decided on the
• It is also to be noted that the Court has the symbolic ground that the issue is capable of repetition yet
function to educate the bench the bar, and in this case, evading review?
the police and the military on the extent of the
protection given by constitutional guarantees. Yes. The Court agrees with the Solicitor General
that the issuance of Proclamation No. 435,
iv. Case it capable of repetition yet evading review declaring that the state of rebellion has ceased to
• It is to be known that circumstances that happened exist, has rendered the case moot. As a rule, courts
may happen in the future. do not adjudicate moot cases, judicial power being
limited to the determination of "actual controversies."
Nevertheless, courts will decide a question, otherwise
SANLAKAS V. REYES moot, if it is "capable of repetition yet evading review."
The case at bar is one such case.
(Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the
presidential declaration of a State of Rebellion)
B. LEGAL STANDING or LOCUS STANDI
(Notes by Pestano)
Also known as ‘locus standi’. It is the right of
.
Q1. What facts are relevant to the discussion on the appearance before a court on a given question. Using
requirement of ‘actual case or controversy’? the direct injury test, one must have a personal,
substantial, and material interest in the case such that
the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a
FACTS:
result of the governmental act that is being challenged.
 On July 27, 2003, some 300 junior officers
A.MB: The petitioner challenging the constitutionality
and enlisted men of the Armed Forces of the
of a governmental act or law must pass the test of
Philippines stormed into the Oakwood
Direct Injury.
Premiere apartments in Makati City.
Bewailing the corruption in the AFP, the
Direct Injury Test
soldiers demanded, among other things, the
He/she who alleges direct injury must show a personal,
resignation of President Gloria Arroyo,
substantial, and material interest in the outcome of the
Secretary of Defense Angelo Reyes, and
case. It is not enough that they are interested for
PNP Chief Hermogenes Ebdane. In the wake
academic or any other reason not involving the injury
of the Oakwood occupation, the President
sustained or immediately sustained because of the
issued later in the day Proclamation No. 427
governmental act.
("Declaring a State of Rebellion") and General
Order No. 4 ("Directing the AFP and the PNP
STANDARDS in DAVID V. ARROYO for a petitioner
to Suppress the Rebellion"), both declaring “a
to have Legal Standing
state of rebellion” and calling out the Armed
Forces to suppress the rebellion.
 Taxpayers
 By the evening of July 27, 2003, the Oakwood
A claim of illegal disbursement of public funds
occupation had ended. After hours-long
or that the tax measure is unconstitutional.
negotiations, the soldiers agreed to return to
barracks. The President, however, did not
 Voters
immediately lift the declaration of a state of
A showing of obvious interest in the validity of
rebellion and did so only on August 1, 2003,
the Election law questioned in this specific
through Proclamation No. 435 ("Declaring
case.
that the State of Rebellion Has Ceased to
Exist"). Subsequently, several petitions have
been filed challenging the constitutionality of  Concerned Citizens

Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
Constitutional Law 1 | Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2| Knowledge Portfolio
A showing that the issues raised are of
transcendental importance which must be
settled early.
 Legislators
A claim that the official action complained of
infringes upon their prerogatives as
legislators.
EXCEPTIONS TO LEGAL STANDING
REQUIREMENT
What this means is that despite the lack of legal
standing on the part of the petitioner, courts may still
pursue the exercise of judicial review when the
following can be shown:
a. Case or issues presented are of
Transcendental Importance
b. Case involves an Assertion of Public Right
c. Case involves a Facial Challenge to the
validity of laws that touch on the right to Freedom
of Expression.
CREBA V. ERC
(Petitioner’s challenged the Constitutionality of Sec.
2.6 of the Distribution Services and Open Access
Rules promulgated by the Energy Regulatory
Commission)
(Notes by Chan)
FACTS:
 Chamber of Real Estate and Builders’
Associations Inc., A.K.A. CREBA, (Petitioner)
is a non-profit corporation under the laws of
the Philippines composed of developers,
brokers, appraisers, contractors,
manufacturers, suppliers, engineers,
architects, and other persons or entities
engaged in real estate
 The Energy Regulatory Commission, A.K.A.
ERC, (Respondent) is a quasi-judicial and
quasi-legislative regulatory body. Its
administrative agency is vested with broad
regulatory and monitoring functions over the
Philippine electric industry to ensure its
successful restructuring and modernization
while promoting consumer interest
 Manila Electric Company, AKA MERALCO,
(Respondent) is the largest distributor of
electricity in the Philippines
 ERC amended Article 14 of the Magna Carta
of for Residential Electricity Consumers to
create Section 26 of the DSOAR which has
the following relevant provisions
 Those that are within 30 meters of an existing
line can avail an extension for free
 Those beyond 30 m must pay the costs of the
requested lines and facilities
Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
 CREBA applied for electrical power and
MERALCO required them to sign contracts
that obligated them to advance the cost of the
construction of new lines and the annual
refunds at 25% of the gross distribution
 CREBA claims that Section 26 is
unconstitutional as it is oppressive to the
affected end-users who must advance the
amount for installation as it defeats the
objective of the law – the electrification of
residential areas
 Section 26 violates the equal protection
clause
 The ERC avers that Section 26 was issued as
an exercise of police power directed at
promoting general welfare
 Equal protection clause was observed
because it made a distinction between end-
users residing within 30 meters and beyond
30 meters of existing lines is based on real
and substantial differences
 ERC claims that the CREBA lacks the
standing to file the present suit since CREBA
is not an end-user who will sustain direct
injury as a result of Section 26
Q1. What does Section 2.6 of the DSOAR provide?
Modified Article 14 of the Magna Carta for
Residential Electricity Consumers:
i. “a residential end-user located within 30 meters from
the distribution utilities’ existing lines has the right to an
extension of lines or installation of additional facilities”
ii. “If a customer is beyond said distance, the customer
shall advance the amounts necessary to cover the
expenditures on the facilities beyond thirty meters
iii. “To recover the aforementioned payment, the
customer may either demand the issuance of a notes
payable or a refund at the rate of 25% of the gross
distribution revenue until such amounts are fully
refunded or for 5 years whichever is shorter”
Q2. How will you characterize the Petitioner and
how did it argue that it has legal standing in the
case?
The Supreme Court deemed the Petitioner as a non-
residential end-user as they only work in the real estate
industry, and not necessarily residing in the areas of
these extension lines. CEBRA does not deny that they
are non-residential end-users, but they claim they have
legal standing due to subdivision developers are
directly affected because MERALCO has asked them
to follow the rules of Section 26 of the DSOAR.
Q3. Did the SDoes and the Petitioner have legal
standing to assail hte validity of Section 2.6 of the
DSOAR? Did the Supreme Court fund that there
was an actual case here? Why or why not?
Constitutional Law 1 | Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2| Knowledge Portfolio
a. The petitioner does not have legal standing as they
are not
residential end-users and have no substantial interest
to Section 26, as Section 27 covers non-residential
end-users. The Supreme Court declared their claim for
legal standing as specious or misleading.
b. The Supreme Court found that there was no actual
case as the petitioner has no conflict of legal rights to
Section 26 nor can they claim any injury as residential
end-users arising from Section 26.
Q4. What are the determinants of a matter which is
of transcendental importance?
Associate Justice Feliciano provided the following
guides as determinants:
i. The character of the funds or other assets involved in
the case
ii. The presence of a clear case of disregard of a
constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public
respondent agency or instrumentality of the
government
iii. Lack of any other party with a more direct and
specific interest in the questions being raise
Q5. If the petitioner lacks legal standing, may the
case still be decided on the ground that the issues
involved in the case is one of transcendental
importance?
The case cannot be decided on the ground that the
issues included in the case is one of transcendental
importance as all three determinants are not met:
i. Public funds are not involved
ii. Allegations of constitutional and statutory violations
of public respondent agency are unsubstantiated by
facts and are mere challenges on wisdom of rules
iii. Residing end-users is a party that has a more direct
and specific interest in the questions being raised
ADVOCATES FOR TRUTH V. BSMB
(Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the act
of Bangko Sental ng Pilipinas in enforcing Central
Bank Circular 905 which suspended the Usury Law)
Q1. What facts are relevant leading to the issue of
constitutionality of the continued enforcement of
CB Circular No. 905 and the legal standing of the
Petitioners?
FACTS:
 Advocates for Truth in Lending Inc., AKA
AFTIL (Petitioner), is a non-profit, non-stock
corporation to engage in pro bono concerns
and activities relating to money lending issues
 RA No. 265 created the Central Bank (CB) of
the Philippines which empowered the Central
Bank Monetary Board (CM-MB) to set the
maximum interest rates for all types of loans
and credit operations within Usury law
Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
 CM-MB eventually issued CB Circular No.
905 which removed the ceilings on interest
rates on loans
 RA No. 7653 was signed into law which
established the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
(BSP) to replace the CB
 AFTIL sent a petition for certiorari straight to
the Supreme Court to contend that their
transcendental importance of their petitions
ISSUES:
 Whether under RA No. 265, the CB-MB had
the constitutional authority to prescribe
maximum interest rates beyond the limits of
the Usury law
 Whether the CB-MB exceeded its authority
when it issued CB Circular No. 905
 Whether under RA No. 7653, the new BSP-
MB may continue to enforce CB Circular No.
905
Q2. Do Petitioners have the legal standing o
question the constitutionality of CB Circular No.
905?
a. No, they don’t have legal standing due to failing
the “direct injury test”
b. Result of the test showed that petitioners did not
have a personal and substantial interest to allow them
to impugn the validity of Circular No. 905
Q3. If the Petitioner lacks legal standing, may the
case still be decided on the ground that the issues
included in the case is one of transcendental
importance?
a. The petitioners case has no issues of
transcendental importance
b. The Supreme Court used the determinants of
transcendental importance from CREBA v. ERC
Petitioners did not pass all requisites as No allegation
of misuse of public funds in the implementation of CB
Circular No. 905 Borrowers who were actually affected
by the suspension of the Usury law did not join this
petition.
IBP V. ZAMORA
(Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of former
Erap’s act of deploying the Marines and PNP in
visibility patrols in Metro Manila.)
(Notes by Oliamot)
FACTS:
 Under Sec. 18, Art. VII of the Constitution,
President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, as
commander in chief of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines, directed the AFP Chief of
Staff and PNP Chief to coordinate with each
other for the proper deployment and utilization
Constitutional Law 1 | Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2| Knowledge Portfolio
of the Marines to assist the PNP in preventing
or suppressing criminal or lawless violence in
Metro Manila in the light of the escalating
cases of crime and lawlessness in the city.
 The President declared that the services of
the Marines in the anti-crime campaign are
merely temporary in nature and for a
reasonable period only, until such time when
the situation shall have improved.
 Subsequently, the IBP filed a special civil
action for certiorari and prohibition with prayer
for issuance of a temporary restraining order
seeking to nullify on constitutional grounds
the order of President Joseph Ejercito
Estrada commanding the deployment of the
Philippine Marines (the “Marines”) to join the
Philippine National Police (the “PNP”) in the
visibility patrols around the metropolis.
Q1. How did IBP argue its legal standing to
question the constitutionality of the President’s
act?
The IBP primarily anchors its standing on its
alleged responsibility to uphold the rule of law and
the Constitution. The invocation by the IBP of its
duty to preserve the rule of law.
The IBP projects as injurious is the supposed
"militarization" of law enforcement which might
threaten Philippine democratic institutions and may
cause more harm than good in the long run.
Q2. Does IBP have the legal standing in relation to
the question raised in this case?
The petition has no merit. The petitioner failed to
sufficiently show that it is in possession of the
requisites of standing to raise the issues in the
petition. The IBP has not sufficiently complied with
the requisites of standing in this case.
In the case at bar, the IBP primarily anchors its
standing on its alleged responsibility to uphold the rule
of law and the Constitution. Apart from this declaration,
however, the IBP asserts no other basis in support of
its locus standi. The mere invocation by the IBP of its
duty to preserve the rule of law and nothing more, while
undoubtedly true, is not sufficient to clothe it with
standing in this case.
The IBP has failed to present a specific and substantial
interest in the resolution of the case. Its fundamental
purpose which is to elevate the standards of the law
profession and to improve the administration of justice
is alien to, and cannot be affected by the deployment
of the Marines.
The IBP has not shown any specific injury which it has
suffered or may suffer by virtue of the questioned
governmental act. What the IBP projects as injurious is
the supposed "militarization" of law enforcement which
Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
might threaten Philippine democratic institutions and
may cause more harm than good in the long run. Not
only is the presumed "injury" not personal in character,
it is likewise too vague, highly speculative and
uncertain to satisfy the requirement of standing.
Since petitioner has not successfully established a
direct and personal injury as a consequence of the
questioned act, it does not possess the personality to
assail the validity of the deployment of the Marines.
Q3. Assume that IBP has no legal standing, has it
raised issues of transcendental importance that
would allow judicial review?
The IBP had raised transcendental importance that
would allow judicial review. In this case, a reading of
the petition shows that the IBP has advanced
constitutional issues which deserve the attention of this
Court in view of their seriousness, novelty and weight
as precedents.
Moreover, because peace and order are under
constant threat and lawless violence occurs in
increasing tempo, undoubtedly aggravated by the
Mindanao insurgency problem, the legal controversy
raised in the petition almost certainly will not go away.
It, therefore, behooves the Court to relax the rules on
standing and to resolve the issue now, rather than
later.
PHILCONSA V. ENRIQUEZ
(This is a case concerning the constitutionality of a fund
in the appropriation bill which was alleged to be a form
of pork barrel. The issue on legal standing came about
because there was an issue on the limitation on the
power of the president in vetoing an item in the
appropriation bill.)
FACTS:
 House Bill No. 10900, the General
Appropriation Bill of 1994 (GAB of 1994), was
passed and approved by both houses of
Congress on December 17, 1993. As passed,
it imposed conditions and limitations on
certain items of appropriations in the
proposed budget previously submitted by the
President. It also authorized members of
Congress to propose and identify projects in
the “pork barrels” allotted to them and to
realign their respective operating budgets.
 Pursuant to the procedure on the passage
and enactment of bills as prescribed by the
Constitution, Congress presented the said bill
to the President for consideration and
approval.
 On December 30, 1993, the President signed
the bill into law, and declared the same to
have become Republic Act NO. 7663, entitled
“AN ACT APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR
Constitutional Law 1 | Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2| Knowledge Portfolio
THE OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE PHILIPPINES FROM JANUARY
ONE TODECEMBER THIRTY ONE,
NINETEEN HUNDRED AND NINETY-FOUR,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES” (GAA of
1994). On the same day, the President
delivered his Presidential Veto Message,
specifying the provisions of the bill he vetoed
and on which he imposed certain conditions.
Q1. Does a legislator have the legal standing to
question the validity of a presidential vote or a
condition imposed on an item in an appropriation
bill? Why or why not?
We rule that a member of the Senate, and of the House
of Representatives for that matter, has the legal
standing to question the validity of a presidential veto
or a condition imposed on an item in an appropriation
bill.
Where the veto is claimed to have been made without
or in excess of the authority vested on the President by
the Constitution, the issue of an impermissible intrusion
of the Executive into the domain of the Legislature
arises (Notes: Congressional Standing To Challenge
Executive Action, 122 University of Pennsylvania Law
Review 1366 [1974]).
To the extent the power of Congress are impaired, so
is the power of each member thereof, since his office
confers a right to participate in the exercise of the
powers of that institution (Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S.
433 [1939]; Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 484 F. 2d 1307
[1973]).
An act of the Executive which injures the institution of
Congress causes a derivative but nonetheless
substantial injury, which can be questioned by a
member of Congress (Kennedy v. Jones, 412 F. Supp.
353 [1976]). In such a case, any member of Congress
can have a resort to the courts.
AKBAYAN V. AQUINO
(This case illustrates an exception to the legal standing
requirement, which is when a public right is asserted
by the petitioner. Here, petitioner sought to obtain from
the respondents the full text of the Japan Philippines
Economic Partnership Agreement, including both
countries offers during the negotiation process.)
(Notes by Pestano)
Q1. What facts are relevant to the Supreme Court’s
resolution of the issue on Legal Standing?
FACTS:
 Petitioners seek to obtain from respondents
the full text of the Japan-Philippines
Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA)
Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
including the Philippine and Japanese offers
submitted during the negotiation process and
all pertinent attachments and annexes
thereto.
 The JPEPA, which will be the first bilateral
free trade agreement to be entered into by the
Philippines with another country in the event
the Senate grants its consent to it, covers a
broad range of topics which includes trade in
goods, rules of origin, customs procedures,
paperless trading, trade in services,
investment, intellectual property rights,
government procurement, movement of
natural persons, cooperation, competition
policy, mutual recognition, dispute avoidance
and settlement, improvement of the business
environment, and general and final
provisions.
 Congress through the House Committee are
calling for an inquiry into the JPEPA, but at
the same time, the Executive is refusing to
give them the said copies until the negotiation
is completed. While the final text of the
JPEPA has now been made accessible to the
public since September 11, 2006,
respondents do not dispute that, at the time
the petition was led up to the ling of
petitioners’ Reply—when the JPEPA was still
being negotiated—the initial drafts thereof
were kept from public view
Q2. How did the SC resolve the issue on legal
standing?
In a petition anchored upon the right of the people to
information on matters of public concern, which is a
public right by its very nature, petitioners need not
show that they have any legal or special interest in the
result, it being sufficient to show that they are citizens
and, therefore, part of the general public which
possesses the right.
As the present petition is anchored on the right to
information and petitioners are all suing in their
capacity as citizens and groups of citizens including
petitioners-members of the House of Representatives
who additionally are suing in their capacity as such, the
standing of petitioners to le the present suit is grounded
in jurisprudence.
Q3. What public right was involved in the present
case? Right to information.
OPOSA V. FACTORAN
(This case is a novel case where the petitioners were
all minors represented by their parents. They filed for a
class suit which was anchored on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility and intergenerational
justice.
Constitutional Law 1 | Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2| Knowledge Portfolio
They were praying that all timber licenses agreements
in the country be cancelled and to stop the processing
of all applications for the same.)
(Notes by Alcular)
Q1. What facts are relevant to the SC’s resolution
of the issue on legal standing?
FACTS:
 A certiorari was filed for Civil Case – 90-77.
43 minors represented by their parents and
Philippine Ecological Network Inc, filed a
complaint against the Secretary of DENR –
Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr.
 The complaint was filed as a taxpayer’s class
suit claiming that the petitioners “are all
citizens of the RP, taxpayers, and entitled to
full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural
resource treasure that is the country’s virgin
tropical forest”
 Further, the petitioners claimed that they
represent their generation as well as
generations yet unborn, thus the concept of
intergenerational responsibility
 The complaint revolves around the
unconstitutionality of DENR’s actions in
carrying out Timber Land Agreements to
corporations which granted more than what
was available (3.89 million hectares – for
commercial logging purposes) … this in turn,
as alleged, constitutes a misappropriation
and/or impairment of the natural resource
 They mentioned that the deforestation is
unconstitutional since it is against Sec16 of
Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution and
subsequently Sec15
 They further alleged that deforestation of such
magnitude be submitted as a matter of judicial
notice
 The petitioners prayed that:
(a) All TLA’s be cancelled
(b) Stop receiving, accepting, processing,
renewing or approving new timber licenses
 DURING: The petition was dismissed by the
RTC due to two (3) grounds, namely: (1) the
plaintiffs have no cause of action against him;
(2) the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a
political question; and (3) that granting the
relief prayed would result in the impairment of
contracts which is unconstitutional
 PREVIOUS RULING: RTC: the petitioner
must seek for help from the Congress to pass
a law regarding the cancellation of TLAs and
that the subject will not be entertained by SC
since it is not subject to Judicial Review.
 APPEAL: Cause of Action: the right to
balanced and healthful ecology, self-
preservation and self-perpetuation
Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
 Judicial Review: DENR’s alleged grave abuse
of discretion in granting TLAs which
contravenes the original agreement
ISSUES:
 Whether or not the complaint has a cause of
action?
 Whether or not the issue raised by the
plaintiffs is a political question?
 Whether or not discriminately cancelling the
TLA’s would result in the impairment of
contracts?
RULING:
YES. As defined, cause of action is an act or omission
of one party in violation of the legal right or rights of the
other; and its essential elements are legal right of the
plaintiff, correlative obligation of the defendant, and act
or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal
right.
***Based on the arguments presented by the
petitioners under the sub heading “Cause of Action”.
The actions done by the DENR is against sec16 Art2
which was primarily invoked by the petitioners.
Furthermore, the respondent, in his duty as the
Secretary of DENR, by issuing TLA’s more than the
allotted area (3.89million hectares) is a grave abuse of
discretion.**
Q2. Do Petitioners have legal standing in the
present case? How did the SC decide such issue?
YES. The concept of intergenerational responsibility
applies to the pursuit of balanced and healthful
ecology. It is every generation’s every generation’s
responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and
harmony in nature for the full enjoyment of a balanced
and healthful ecology.
RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS V. REYES
(This case concerns the legality of a service contract
which allowed the exploration, development, and
exploitation of petroleum services within the Tanyon
Strait.)
(Notes by Yray)
Q1. Who are the Petitioners in this case and how
did they respectively argue relating to their legal
standing to file the petition?
FACTS:
 Petitioners, collectively referred to as the
"Resident Marine Mammals" in the petition,
are the toothed whales, dolphins, porpoises,
and other cetacean species, which inhabit the
waters in and around the Tañon Strait.
 They are joined by Gloria Estenzo Ramos and
Rose-Liza Eisma-Osorio as their legal
guardians and as friends (to be collectively
Constitutional Law 1 | Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2| Knowledge Portfolio
known as "the Stewards") who allegedly
empathize with, and seek the protection of,
the aforementioned marine species.
 Also impleaded as an unwilling co-petitioner
is former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo,
for her express declaration and undertaking in
the ASEAN Charter to protect Tañon Strait,
among others.
Q2. What were the arguments forwarded by the
Respondent to meet the claim that the Petitioners
have legal standing?
The Respondents in both petitions are: the late Angelo
T. Reyes, DOE Secretary; Jose L. Atienza, DENR
Secretary; Leonardo Sibbaluca, DENR-Region VII
Director and Chairman of Tañon Strait PMB; JAPEX, a
Japanese company; and Supply Oilfield Services, Inc.
(SOS) as the alleged Philippine agent of JAPEX.
Their counter-allegations are:
 The “Resident Marine Mammals” and
“Stewards” have no legal standing to file the
petition.
 SC-46 in Constitutional.
 The Environmental Compliance Certificate
(ECC) was legally issued.
 The case is moot and academic since SC-46
is mutually terminated on June 21, 2008.
Q3. Do the Petitioners have the legal standing to
file the petition? Why or why not?
Yes, the Petitioners have the legal standing to file
the petition. In our jurisdiction, locus standi in
environment case has been given a more liberalized
approach.
The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases allow
for a “citizen suit,” and permit any Filipino citizen to file
an action before our courts for violation of our
environmental laws on the principle that humans are
stewards of nature:
“Section 5. Citizen Suit. - Any Filipino Citizen in
representation of others, including minors or
generations yet unborn, may file an action to enforce
rights or obligations under environmental laws. Upon
the filing of a citizen suit, the court shall issue an order
which shall contain a brief description of the cause of
action and the reliefs prayed for, requiring all interested
parties to manifest their interest to intervene in the case
within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof. The plaintiff
may publish the order once in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines or furnish all affected
barangays copies of said order.
Citizen suits filed under R.A. No. 8749 and R.A. No.
9003 shall be governed by their respective provisions.
(Emphasis supplied)”
Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
Although the petition was filed in 2007, years before
the effectivity of the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases, it has been consistently held
that rules of procedure may be retroactively applied to
actions pending and undetermined at the time of their
passage and will not violate any right of a person who
may feel that he is adversely affected, inasmuch as
there is no vested rights in rules of procedure.
Moreover, even before the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases became effective, the Supreme
Court has already taken a permissive position on the
issue of locus standi in environmental cases. In Oposa,
the Supreme Court allowed the suit to be brought in the
name of generations yet unborn “based on the concept
of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to
a balanced and healthful ecology in concerned.”
It is also worth noting that the Stewards in the present
case are joined as real parties in the Petition and not
just in representation of the named cetacean species.
C. TIMELINESS
The issue must be raised in the pleading at the earliest
opportunity before a competent court.
The issue of constitutionality must be 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.
A.MB: Take note once again that all judicial bodies are
competent courts, meaning all of them can exercise the
power of judicial review. Other tribunals not part of the
judicial structure are not qualified to rule on issues
pertaining to constitutionality of laws.
MATIBAG V. BENIPAYO
(This is a case concerning the constitutionality of
appointments of a COMELEC Chairman and 2
COMELEC Commissioners.)
(Notes by Duran)
Q1. What are the facts and dates relevant to the
issue of timeliness in raising the constitutional
issue?
FACTS:
 On February 2, 1999, the COMELEC en
banc, appointed petitioner Ma. J. Angelina G.
Matibag as “Acting Director IV” of the EID.
 Feb. 15, 2000: Chairperson Harriet O.
Demetrio followed by Commissioner Rufino
S.B. Javier renewed the appointment of the
petitioner as Director IV of EID in a
“temporary” capacity.
 On March 22, 2001: Pres. Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo appointed, ad interim, Benipayo as
COMELEC Chairman, and Borra and Tuason
Constitutional Law 1 | Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2| Knowledge Portfolio
as COMELEC Commissioners, each for a
term of 7 years and all expiring on Feb. 2,
2008. Benipayo, Borra, and Tuason took their
oath of office respectively and assumed their
positions.
 The Office of the President submitted to the
Commission on Appointments on May 22,
2001 the ad interim appointments of
Benipayo, Borra and Tuason for
confirmations. However, the Commission on
Appointments did not act on said
appointments.
 On June 1, 2001 Pres. Arroyo renewed their
ad interim appointments to the same positions
and for the same term of 7 years expiring on
Feb. 2, 2008 for the second time. They took
their oaths to office for the second time. The
Office of the President transmitted on June 5,
2001 their appointments to the Commission
on Appointments for confirmation. The
Congress adjourned before the Commission
on Appointments could act on their
appointments.
 June 5, 2001, Pres. Arroyo again renewed the
ad interim their appointments to the same
positions for the third time. The Office of the
President submitted their appointments for
their confirmation to the Commission on
Appointments and they took their oaths of
office again.
 In his capacity as COMELEC Chairman,
Benipayo issued a Memorandum dated April
11, 2001 addressed to petitioner as Director
IV of the EID and to Cinco as Director III also
of the EID, designating Cinco Officer-in-
Charge of the EID and reassigning petitioner
to the Law Department.
 On April 16, 2006, the petitioner requested
Benipayo to reconsider her relief as Director
IV of the EID and her reassignment to the Law
Department. Petitioner cited Civil Service
Commission Memorandum Circular No. 7
dated April 10, 2001.
 Benipayo denied her request for
reconsideration on April 18, 2001, citing
COMELEC Resolution No. 3300 dated Nov.
6, 2000.
 Petitioner appealed the denial of her request
for reconsideration to the COMELEC en bank
in a Memorandum dated April 23, 2001 and
filed an administrative criminal complaint with
the Law Department against Benipayo
alleging that her reassignment violated
Section 261 (h) of the Omnibus Election
Code, COMELEC Resolution No. 3258, Civil
Service Memorandum Circular No. 07, s. 001,
and other pertinent administrative civil service
laws, rules, and regulations.
 During the pendency of her complaint before
the Law Department, petitioner filed the
instant petition questioning the appointment
Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
and the right to remain in office of the
respondents as Chairman and
Commissioners of the COMELEC,
respectively.
 Petitioner claimed that the ad interim
appointments of the three violate the
constitutional provisions on the independence
of the COMELEC, as well as on the
prohibitions on temporary appointments and
reappointments of its Chairman and
members.
 Petitioner also assailed as illegal her removal
as Director IV of the EID and her
reassignment to the Law Department.
 On Sept 6, 2001 Pres. Arroyo, for the fourth
time , renewed the respondents’ ad interim
appointments for a term of 7 years expiring on
Feb. 2, 2008 still. They all took their oaths of
office anew.
Q2. What was the theory forwarded by the
Respondent in arguing against the timeliness of
raising the constitutional issue?
Respondents assert that the petition failed to satisfy all
the 4 requisites before this Court may exercise its
power judicial review in constitutional cases.
They also urged the Court to refrain from reviewing the
constitutionality of the ad interim appointments issued
by the President to BBT unless all the 4 requisites are
present. They argued that the second, third, and fourth
requisites absent in this case and that the petitioner
failed to question the constitutionality of the ad interim
appointments at the earliest opportunity.
4 REQUISTIES:
1. The existence of an actual and appropriate
controversy.
2. A personal and substantial interest of the party
raising the constitutional issue.
3. The exercise of the judicial review is pleaded at
the earliest opportunity, and the constitutional issue
is the lis mota of the cases.
4. The constitutional issue is the lis mota of the case
Q3. Was the constitutional issue raised at the
earliest opportunity?
Petitioner questioned the constitutionality of the ad
interim appointments of Benipayo, Borra, and Tuason
when she filed her petition the Court, which is the
earliest opportunity for pleading the constitutional
issue before a competent body.
The Court may determine, in the exercise of sound
discretion, the time when a constitutional issue
may be passed upon. There is no doubt the petitioner
raised the constitutional issue on time.
Constitutional Law 1 | Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2| Knowledge Portfolio
The legality of petitioner’s reassignment hinges on the
constitutionality of Benipayo’s ad interim appointment
and assumption of office. Unless the constitutionality of
Benipayo’s ad interim appointment and assumption of
office is resolves, the legality of the petitioner’s
reassignment from the EID to the Law Department
cannot be determined. The lis mota then in this case is
the very constitutional issue raise by petitioner.
The issues raised by petitioner is of paramount
importance to the public and public interest requires
the resolution of the constitutional issue raised by
petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner has complied
with all the requisite technicalities.
RULING:
Petitioner filed the instant petition only on Aug. 3, 2001,
when the first ad interim appointments were issued as
early as March 22, 2001. HOWEVER, 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 the trial, it cannot
be considered on appeal.”
D. LIS MOTA
Here, one must show that the question of
constitutionality is the very Lis Mota of the case.
One who questions the constitutionality of a law must
show that the case cannot be resolved unless the
disposition of the constitutional question is
unavoidable. Otherwise, the question of
constitutionality must be avoided.
A.MB: This means that the issue of constitutionality is
decisive of the outcome of the case. That is to say, the
resolution of the constitutional question is unavoidable
if only to dispose of the case in court.
Such that, if the case may be decided by simply looking
into statutes, ordinances, or municipal ordinances,
without touching on the Constitution to solve the issue,
then judicial review may NOT prosper.
KALIPUNAN NG DAMAYANG MAHIHIRAP V.
ROBREDO
(Here, respondent DILG evicted petitioners from their
dwellings without any Court Order. They used the
Urban Development Housing Act as their legal basis to
carry out the eviction. However, petitioners went to
court to prohibit DILG from carrying out the same and
questioned the constitutionality of Sec. 28 (a) & (b) of
the law.)
(Notes by Alcular)
Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
FACTS:
 The petitioners lodged a case questioning the
constitutionality of Sections 28 (a)(b) of RA
7279 otherwise known as "Urban
Development Housing Act"
 The petitioners are a set of illegal settlers in
the cities of San Juan, Navotas and Quezon
 A writ of mandamus was filed compelling the
respondents to present a court order before
evicting the petitioners from their domicile.
 Section 28(a)(b) of RA7279 is violative of
Sections (1)(6) of Article III of the Constitution
 The petitioners alleged that the respondents
gravely abused their discretion in
implementing Sections 28 (a)(b) of RA 7279
which contravenes Sec6 Art3 of the 1987
Constitution (the impairment of liberty of
abode through court order), Art25 of Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (right to
adequate housing) and Sec2 of RA 7279
(Declaration of State Policy and Program
Objectives). The petitioners further alleged
that, in the past, the respondents have carried
out evictions violently
 RESPONDENTS MOTION TO DISMISS THE
PETITION:
 1. Dismiss the petition due to serious
procedural defects
 2. the petitioners, by directly filing to the SC
has disregarded the hierarchy of courts (Rule
65 petition for certiorari)
 3. That the petition for prohibition and writ of
mandamus do not apply to Sections 28 (a)(b)
of RA 7279
 4. faithful adherence to Sections 28 (a)(b) of
RA 7279 should not be construed as
unconstitutional
 Grave abuse of discretion was not specified
 Does not present any justiciable question
 The petition was not filed on time (filed: March
2012, notified: Sept 2011)
 Except for Quezon: the petitioners were
successfully evicted before the petition was
filed, thus the petition is moot and academic
 That the law referred to in Sec 10, Art13 is
RA7279
 That the petitioners were notified 30 days
before said demolition thus they were
afforded the procedural due process
 Sec 6 Art 3 only pertains to the right to occupy
properties that a person owns...in this case,
the petitioners
ISSUES:
 if by directly going to the SC, the petitioners
violated the hierarchy of courts
 whether it is right to avail of motion for
prohibition and writ of mandamus
Constitutional Law 1 | Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2| Knowledge Portfolio
 whether or not Sections 28 (a)(b) of RA7279
is unconstitutional
 whether or not to dismiss the petition for
procedural defects
RULING:
(1) YES. Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari. The SC is not
a trier of facts and does not normally undertake an
examination of the contending parties’ evidence.
Jurisdiction falls to RTC
(2) YES. A writ of prohibition only lies against the
tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person’s
exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial
functions. A writ of mandamus will only issue to compel
an officer to perform a ministerial duty.
Judicial and Quasi-Judicial - involve the
determination of what the law is, and what the legal
rights of the contending parties are, with respect to the
matter in controversy and, on the basis thereof and the
facts obtaining, the adjudication of their respective
rights.
Ministerial duty – one which an officer or tribunal
performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed
manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal
authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own
judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act
done.
The use of the word “may” in the provision - Section 28
RA7279 means that the respondents have discretion
when their duty to execute evictions and/or demolitions
shall be performed. (NO AMBIGUITY, THUS, NO
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION)
(3) NO. Except for Quezon: the illegal settlers from
other LGUs have been successfully ejected already
thus this petition no longer presents a justiciable
controversy. In Magkalas v. NHA where NHA was
given authority to summarily eject all informal settlers'
colonies on government resettlement projects and
other home lot, dwelling or apartments owned by NHA.
Decision
(4) when government infrastructure projects with
available funding are about to be implemented
pursuant to Section 28(b) of R.A. No. 7279.
Section 10 Art 13 of the 1987 Constitution - eviction in
accordance with law in a just and humane manner. IN
ACCORDNACE WITH LAW - Sec 28 (a)(b) of RA
7279. HUMANE AND JUST - Par 2 Section 28 of RA
7279.
Grave abuse of discretion by the respondents is merely
speculative. Since the petitioners failed to establish
that the public respondents’ alleged abuse of discretion
was so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or
to a unilateral refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to
act in contemplation of law, this petition must
necessarily fail.
Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
YES. with the above stated justifications, the court
dismisses the petition due to serious procedural
defects.
Q1. Is the constitutionality of the aforesaid
provisions the Lis Mota of the case? Why or why
not?
No, it is not the Lis Mota of the case. The petitioners
failed to substantiate their allegations that the public
respondents gravely abused their discretion in
implementing Sec. 28 (a) and (b) of R.A. 7276. Instead,
they merely imputed jurisdictional abuse to the public
respondents through general averments in their
pleading, bur without any basis to support their claim.
This is precisely the reason why the Court frown upon
the direct filing of Rule 65 petitions before the Court.
The petitioners must establish facts that are
necessarily linked to the jurisdictional problem they
presented in this case, i.e., whether the public
respondents exercised their power in an arbitrary and
despotic manner by reason of passion or personal
hostility in implementing Section 28 (a) and (b) of RA
7279.
HACIENDA LUISITA, INC. VS. PARC
(Notes by Yray)
FACTS:
 On July 5, 2011, the Supreme Court en banc
voted unanimously (11-0) to DISMISS/DENY
the petition filed by HLI and AFFIRM with
MODIFICATIONS the resolutions of the
PARC revoking HLI’s Stock Distribution Plan
(SDP) and placing the subject lands in
Hacienda Luisita under compulsory coverage
of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP) of the government.
 The Court however did not order outright land
distribution. Voting 6-5, the Court noted that
there are operative facts that occurred in the
interim and which the Court cannot validly
ignore. Thus, the Court declared that the
revocation of the SDP must, by application of
the operative fact principle, give way to the
right of the original 6,296 qualified
farmworkers-beneficiaries (FWBs) to choose
whether they want to remain as HLI
stockholders or [choose actual land
distribution]. It thus ordered the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) to “immediately
schedule meetings with the said 6,296 FWBs
and explain to them the effects,
consequences and legal or practical
implications of their choice, after which the
FWBs will be asked to manifest, in secret
voting, their choices in the ballot, signing their
signatures or placing their thumbmarks, as
the case may be, over their printed names.”
Constitutional Law 1 | Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2| Knowledge Portfolio
 The parties thereafter filed their respective
motions for reconsideration of the Court
decision.
Q1. Is the constitutionality of Section 31 of RA 6657
the lis mota of the present case? If not, what is?
The SC said that the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of R.A.
6657 is not the lis mota of the case and it was not
raised at the earliest opportunity and did not rule on the
constitutionality of the law.
The lis mota in this case, proceeding from the basic
positions originally taken by AMBALA (to which the
FARM members previously belonged) and the
Supervisory Group, is the alleged non-compliance by
HLI with the conditions of the SDP to support a plea for
its revocation. And before the Court, the lis mota is
whether or not PARC acted in grave abuse of
discretion when it ordered the recall of the SDP for
such non-compliance and the fact that the SDP, as
couched and implemented, offends certain
constitutional and statutory provisions.
To be sure, any of these key issues may be resolved
without plunging into the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of
RA 6657. Moreover, looking deeply into the underlying
petitions of AMBALA, et al., it is not the said section per
se that is invalid, but rather it is the alleged application
of the said provision in the SDP that is flawed.
II. EFFECTS OF DECLARATION OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY
(Notes by Grengia)
A.Two Views: Orthodox & Modern
 Orthodox View
Expressed in Article 7 of the Civil Code. It
implies that 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 has
not been passed.
 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.
OPERATIVE FACT DOCTRINE (Controlling
Precept)
- The operative fact doctrine exhorts the recognition
that until the judiciary, in an appropriate case, declares
the invalidity of a certain legislative or executive act,
Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
such act is presumed constitutional and thus, entitled
to obedience and respect and should be properly
enforced and complied with.
ARAULLO VS. AQUINO & CASE: BELGICA VS.
OCHOA
FACTS:
 2012- allegedly used DAP as fund source to
reward senators-judges who voted to convict
former Supreme Court chief justice Renato
Corona, whom Aquino badly wanted
impeached.
 On September 25, 2013, Sen. Jinggoy
Estrada revealed that some Senators,
including himself, had been allotted an
additional ₱50 Million each as "incentive" for
voting in favor of the impeachment of Chief
Justice Renato C. Corona.
 The DBM claims that the funds released to
Senators had been part of the DAP, a
program designed by the DBM to ramp up
spending to accelerate economic expansions.
DBM claims the DAP releases had been
sourced from savings generated by the
Government, and from unprogrammed funds;
 DAP violated constitutional provisions that bar
cross-border transfer of savings to agencies
outside the executive branch and to projects
outside the approved national budget.
 The respondents submit that there is no
actual controversy that is ripe for adjudication
in the absence of adverse claims between the
parties; that the petitioners lacked legal
standing to sue because no allegations were
made to the effect that they had suffered any
injury as a result of the adoption of the DAP
and issuance of NBC No. 541;
 Respondents further contend that there is no
authorized proceeding under the Constitution
and the Rules of Court for questioning the
validity of any law unless there is an actual
case or controversy.
ISSUE:
Are the acts and practices under the DAP, particularly
their non-conformity with Section 25(5), Article VI of the
Constitution and the principles of separation of power
and equal protection, constitutional?
DECISION:
The Constitution states that judicial power includes the
duty of the courts of justice not only "to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable" but also "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."
Constitutional Law 1 | Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2| Knowledge Portfolio
Expanded the concept of judicial power, which up
to then was confined to its traditional ambit of settling
actual controversies involving rights that were legally
demandable and enforceable.
The requisites for the exercise of the power of judicial
review are the following:
 there must be an actual case or justiciable
controversy before the Court;
 the question before the Court must be ripe for
adjudication;
 the person challenging the act must be a
proper party;
 the issue of constitutionality must be raised at
the earliest opportunity and must be the very
litis mota of the case.
DAP as a program, no longer exists, thereby mooting
these present cases brought to challenge its
constitutionality.
However, the assertion of a public right as a predicate
for challenging a supposedly illegal or unconstitutional
executive or legislative action supports the idea that
the petitioner represents the public in general.
Although such petitioner may not be as adversely
affected by the action complained against as are
others, it is enough that he sufficiently demonstrates in
his petition that he is entitled to protection or relief from
the Court in the vindication of a public right.
DAP was not an appropriation measure; hence, no
appropriation law was required to adopt or to
implement it.
WHEREFORE, the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS the
petitions for certiorari and prohibition; and DECLARES
the following acts and practices under the
Disbursement Acceleration Program, National Budget
Circular No. 541 and related executive issuance
UNCONSTITUTIONAL for being in violation of Section
25(5), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and the
doctrine of separation of powers.
Q1. How did the Supreme Court apply the Doctrine
in the following case?
Question of the Court: “Should we not recognize the
need to except from the rigid application of the rule the
instances in which the void law or executive act
produced an almost irreversible result?”
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.
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.
Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
To be clear, the doctrine of operative fact extends to a
void or unconstitutional executive act.
The Court found the Doctrine of Operative Fact
applicable to the adoption and implementation of
the DAP. Its application to the DAP proceeds from
equity and fair play. The consequences resulting
from the DAP and its related issuances could not
be ignored or could no longer be undone.
BELGICA VS. OCHOA
(Notes by Luzon)
FACTS:
 Several petitions were filed before the court
seeking for declaration of unconstitutionality
of the “Pork Barrel System”. (G.R. No.
208493, G.R. No. 208566, UDK-14951)
 "Pork Barrel" refers to an appropriation of
government spending meant for localized
projects and secured solely or primarily to
bring money to a representative's district. 7
Some scholars on the subject further use it to
refer to legislative control of local
appropriations.
 Six sworn affidavits of whistle-blowers who
declared that JLN(Janet Lim Napoles)
corporation has swindled billions of pesos
with “ghost projects” using dummy NGO’s.
 Whistle-blowers alleged that" at least P900
Million from royalties in the operation of the
Malampaya gas project off Palawan province
intended for agrarian reform beneficiaries has
gone into a dummy NGO.
ISSUES:
 Whether or not the 2013 PDAF Article and all
other Congressional Pork Barrel Laws similar
thereto are unconstitutional considering that
they violate the principles of/constitutional
provisions on (a) separation of powers; (b)
non-delegability of legislative power; (c)
checks and balances; (d) accountability; (e)
political dynasties; and (f) local autonomy. •
Whether or not the phrases (under Section 8
of PD 910,116 relating to the Malampaya
Funds, and under Section 12 of PD 1869, as
amended by PD 1993, relating to the
Presidential Social Fund, are unconstitutional
insofar as they constitute undue delegations
of legislative power.
RULING:
The court declares the 2013 PDAF article and other
provisions of law with similar nature therewith as
unconstitutional.
PDAF and other Congressional Pork Barrel laws
similar thereto violates the principles/constitutional
provisions of separation of powers, non-delagability of
Constitutional Law 1 | Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2| Knowledge Portfolio

legislative power, checks and balances, accountability,

political dynasties, and local autonomy. • Post-
enactment authority in the implementation or
enforcement of the budget, unrelated to congressional
oversight, as violative of the separation of powers
principle are acts which is considered as
unconstitutional.

Q1. How did the supreme court apply the doctrine

of operative fact in the case?

“As a final point, it must be stressed that the Court's

pronouncement of the unconstitutionality of said
provisions must only be treated as prospective in effect
in view of the operative fact doctrine.”

The court stressed that the effects of the

declaration of the unconstitutionality must be
treated prospectively, further noting “that until the
judiciary, in an appropriate case, declares the
invalidity of a certain legislative or executive act,
such act is presumed constitutional and thus,
entitled to obedience and respect and should be
properly enforced and complied with.”

The court further pointed out that any laws of the same
nature shall not be passed and adopted in any system
of government.

Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray