The Petition for Declaratory Relief shall not be given due course.

Jurisprudence lineated the requisites for an action for declaratory relief as follows:

(1) the subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, statute, executive order or
regulation, or ordinance; (2), the terms of said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful and require judicial
construction;(3), there must have been no breach of the documents in question; (4) there must be an actual justiciable
controversy or the "ripening seeds" of one between persons whose interests are adverse;(5) the issue must be ripe for judicial
determination; and (6) adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of action or proceeding. 1

It suffices to say that prior implementation, the first to third requisites are present in the case.

However, the fourth requisite is wanting.

It is well-settled that justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for judicial
determination, not one that is conjectural or merely anticipatory.2 In the case of Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network,
Inc. vs Anti-terrorism Council, the private respondents only asserted general interests as citizens, and taxpayers and infractions
which the government could commit if the enforcement of the said law would remain unrestricted. However, they failed to
show how the remarks of certain government officials tended towards any prosecutorial or governmental action geared
towards the implementation of RA 9372 against them. In other words, there was no particular, real or imminent threat to any
of them.

In this case, no demonstrable threat has been established, much less a real and existing one. From these allegations, the Court
is being lured to render an advisory opinion, which is not its function.3

The Supreme Court also opined that while it is not unaware that a reasonable certainty of the occurrence of a perceived threat
to any constitutional interest suffices to provide a basis for mounting a constitutional challenge, this, however, is qualified by
the requirement that there must be sufficient facts to enable the Court to intelligently adjudicate the issues.4

For instance, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition in Philippine Press Institute v. Commission on Elections for failure to cite
any specific affirmative action of the Commission on Elections to implement the assailed resolution. Also, in Abbas v.
Commission on Elections, the Supreme Court did not rule on the religious freedom claim of the therein petitioners based merely
on a perceived potential conflict between the provisions of the Muslim Code and those of the national law, there being no
actual controversy between real litigants.

With regard to the fifth requisite for an action for declaratory relief, neither can it be inferred that the controversy at hand is
ripe for adjudication since the possibility of abuse remain highly-speculative and merely theorized.1âwphi1 It is well-settled that
a question is ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging
it. This private respondents failed to demonstrate in the case at bar. 5
1 Almeda v. Bathala Marketing Industries, Inc., 566 Phil. 458, 467 (2008).

2 Velarde v. Social Justice Society, G.R. No. 159357, April 28, 2004

3 Automotive Industry Workers Alliance v. Romulo, G.R. No. 157509, January 18, 2005

4 Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. vs Anti-terrorism Council G.R. No. 178552               October 5, 2010

5 Ibid.