CONSTI – G4 NOTES
MODULE 4 – JUDICIAL REVIEW PART
2 they do not issue advisory opinions on a
I. CONDITION FOR THE EXERCISE OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW
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?
CONSTI 1 – GROUP 4 |BAGUIO | FERNANDEZ | ILUSTRISIMO | MANINGO | ORTEGA | POLICARPIO | ROSALES | TURRECHA
Because our Courts only issue decisions,
hypothetical legal problem.
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
SPS. IMBONG V. OCHOA
This case involves the question of the
constitutionality of the reproductive health
law.
Q1. What facts are relevant to the
discussion on the requirement of
‘actual case or controversy?’
CONSTI – G4 NOTES
Q2. What were the arguments raised
by the proponents of Reproductive
Health Law concerning the
requirement of ‘actual case or
controversy’?
Q3. What case law was used y the SC
as a basis in deciding the issue on
ripeness here?
Q4. Did the SC find that there was an
actual case here? Why or why not?
BELGICA V. EXECUTIVE SEC.
This case illustrates the concept of an actual
case or controversy and the exceptions to
the Moot and Academic principle.
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.
Q1. Did the SC find that there was an
actual case here? Why or why not?
Q2. Considering the reforms to the
PDAF, were the issues raised relating
thereto considered moot and
academic?
Q3. Assuming that the issues in the
case were moot and academic, should
the SC be dissuaded in resolving the
case?
CONSTI 1 – GROUP 4 |BAGUIO | FERNANDEZ | ILUSTRISIMO | MANINGO | ORTEGA | POLICARPIO | ROSALES | TURRECHA
DAVID V. ARROYO
Petitioners challenged the constitutionality
of former president Gloria Arroyo’s
declaration of a State of National
Emergency through various presidential
issuances.
Q1. What facts are relevant to the
discussion on the requirement of
‘actual case or controversy’
Q2. Respondent 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.
Q3. Were the questions presented by
the Petitioner Moot and Academic?
Q4. Assuming that the questions
presented were moot and academic,
should the SC be dissuaded from
resolving the same?
SANLAKAS V. REYES
Petitioners challenged the constitutionality
of the presidential declaration of a State of
Rebellion.
Q1. What facts are relevant to the
discussion on the requirement of
‘actual case or controversy’
Q2. Were the questions raised here
moot and academic?
CONSTI – G4 NOTES
Q3. Could the case have been decided
on the ground that the issue is capable
of repetition yet evading review?
B. LEGAL STANDING or LOCUS STANDI
Also known as ‘locus standi’. It is the right
of appearance before a court on a given
question. Using 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 result of the governmental act
that is being challenged.
A.MB: The petitioner challenging the
constitutionality of a governmental act or
law must pass the test of Direct Injury.
Direct Injury Test
He/she who alleges direct injury must show
a personal, substantial, and material
interest in the outcome of the case. It is not
enough that they are interested for
academic or any other reason not involving
the injury sustained or immediately
sustained because of the governmental act.
STANDARDS in DAVID V. ARROYO for
a petitioner to have Legal Standing
Taxpayers
A claim of illegal disbursement of public
funds or that the tax measure is
unconstitutional.
Voters
A showing of obvious interest in the validity
of the Election law questioned in this
specific case.
Concerned Citizens
CONSTI 1 – GROUP 4 |BAGUIO | FERNANDEZ | ILUSTRISIMO | MANINGO | ORTEGA | POLICARPIO | ROSALES | TURRECHA
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
Q1. What does Section 2.6 of the DSOAR
provide?
Q2. How will you characterize the Petitioner
and how did it argue that it has legal
standing in the case?
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?
CONSTI – G4 NOTES
Q4. What are the determinants of a matter
which is of transcendental importance?
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?
ADVOCATES FOR TRUTH V. BSMB
Petitioners challenged the constitutionality
of the act of Bangko Sental nang 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?
Q2. Do Petitioners have the legal standing o
question the constitutionality of CB Circular
No. 905
Q3. 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?
IBP V. ZAMORA
Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of
former Erap’s act of deploying the Marines
and PNP in visibility patrols in Metro Manila.
Q1. How did IBP argue its legal standing to
question the constitutionality of the
President’s act?
CONSTI 1 – GROUP 4 |BAGUIO | FERNANDEZ | ILUSTRISIMO | MANINGO | ORTEGA | POLICARPIO | ROSALES | TURRECHA
Q2. Does IBP have the legal standing in
relation to the question raised in this case?
Q3. Assume that IBP has no legal standing,
has it raised issues of transcendental
importance that would allow judicial review?
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.
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?
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.
Q1. What facts are relevant to the Supreme
Court’s resolution of the issue on Legal
Standing?
Q2. How did the SC resolve the issue on
legal standing?
CONSTI – G4 NOTES
Q3. What public right was involved in the
present case?
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.
They were praying that all timber licenses
agreements in the country be cancelled and
to stop the processing of all applications for
the same.
Q1. What facts are relevant to the SC’s
resolution of the issue on legal standing?
Q2. Do Petitioners have legal standing in
the present case? How did the SC decide
such issue?
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.
Q1. Who are the Petitioners in this case and
how did they respectively argue relating to
their legal standing to file the petition?
Q2. What were the arguments forwarded by
the Respondent to meet the claim that the
Petitioners have legal standing?
CONSTI 1 – GROUP 4 |BAGUIO | FERNANDEZ | ILUSTRISIMO | MANINGO | ORTEGA | POLICARPIO | ROSALES | TURRECHA
Q3. Do the Petitioners have the legal
standing to file the petition? Why or why
not?
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.
Q1. What are the facts and dates relevant
to the issue of timeliness in raising the
constitutional issue?
Q2. What was the theory forwarded by the
Respondent in arguing against the
timeliness of raising the constitutional
issue?
Q3. Was the constitutional issue raised at
the earliest opportunity?
D. LIS MOTA
CONSTI – G4 NOTES

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.

Q1. Is the constitutionality of the aforesaid

provisions the Lis Mota of the case? Why or
why not?

CONSTI 1 – GROUP 4 |BAGUIO | FERNANDEZ | ILUSTRISIMO | MANINGO | ORTEGA | POLICARPIO | ROSALES | TURRECHA