EDUARDO, RAY BRADLEY B.

19-00327
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

a. What are the requisites for judicial review? Please explain each requisite. 20 pts.
- The requisites for judicial review are (1) actual case or controversy, (2) constitutional
question or inquiry should be raised by the proper party or locus standi, (3) it should be raised at
the earliest opportunity, and (4) lis mota.
1. Actual case or controversy
- A case must have a justiciable controversy and legal claims that can be
resolved based on the existing laws and jurisprudence. It must be judicially determinative and not
a request for an advisory opinion.
2. Locus Standi
- It is defined as a right of appearance in court on a given question. A real
party in interest is the one who stands to be benefited or injured by a judgment. Such judgment
must establish a personal or substantial effect on the party.
3. Earliest Opportunity
- A constitutional question must be raised in the pleading and not in the latter
phase of the proceeding. In criminal cases, it is different because the question can be raised at any
time at the discretion of the competent court.
4. Lis Mota
- Lastly, a constitutional question must be indispensable to the determination
of a case. Such question should be clear, concise and unequivocal, not mere speculations,
arguments and doubts.

b. Does EP have standing to question the draft Bangsamoro Basic Law bill in the Supreme
Court? 5 pts.

- None. A bill confers no rights and imposes no duties. It cannot inflict detriments or yield
rights to anybody because it has no legal effect to give rise to an alleged controversy. Here, EP
does not stand to be benefited or injured because the bill is not yet enforceable by the competent
court. His case can only be judicially reviewed when it is ripe for judicial determination. Hence,
EP cannot stand to question the bill in the Supreme Court.

c. May the Supreme Court declare the draft Bangsamoro Basic Law bill which is in the
Legislature as unconstitutional? State the reasons for your answer. 5 pts.

- No. Since the constitutional question is not valid for judicial review, there is no justiciable
controversy that can be resolved. The bill cannot be an actual case or controversy because it confers
no rights such that no person has legal standing to the same. Moreover, should the Court declare a
bill unconstitutional, it will be violative of the separation of powers as provided in the Constitution.
Hence, the Court cannot declare the BBL bill as unconstitutional.