June 26, 2019 (PART 1)
departments, which it stands to review are co-equal
Last meeting, we finished our discussion on the
amendments and revisions of the constitution,
except proposal, ratification that can be done by
CON-ASS. The Congress itself constitutes
assembly, which requires a 3/4 vote - Both Houses
in JOINT SESSION, voting separately.  possible to take-hand in the identity checking, the
It can also constitute by CON-CON (Constitutional
Convention) that requires 2/3 of votes, but they
cannot agree creating this CON-CON, they can set  Power of Judicial Review is exercised:
the question presenting the proposal to the people
and they only need  a majority vote. They can
propose. 
Also through people's initiative but the proposal is
only limited through amendment. After the proposal
will be presented, this proposal will be ratified by
the people whose benefit is called for the
interpose(?). There has to be a fend from the
people.  very lis  mota - the question of constitutionality
We started our discussion on the condition for the
exercise of judicial review. Now, the question here
is "When is this concept of Judicial Review, where
did it originate?"Where did the Supreme Court got
its power?"
This is actually in American Commonwealth  it can be decided, the issue in that case can be
Concept.
Marvorie Vs. Madison
An 1803 case cited by the ends before the United
States SC. There was an issue involving this
validity of a law. It was at that time where the SC of
the US said that it is the duty of the judicial
department to stay what the law is. 
They also applied the rules of particular cases must
(05:50) and interpret the rules. If the two laws are in
conflict with each other, the court must decide the
operation of each. So, because of this, the rule is:
IT IS THE COURT THAT WILL DECIDE WHAT
THE LAW IS, WHICH IS INTERPRETED, WHICH
INCLUDES THE CONSTITUTION - this rule was
transplanted to the Philippines after we were
colonized by the Americans.  acting Secretary of Justice and he was also the
So now, we have this concept of JUDICIAL
REVIEW - the courts can determine, review the
acts of the executive and the legislative as to WON
they are constitutional for  the exercise of grave
abuse of discretion or not.
Now, the court recognizes that these two
with it. That is why when the court, the power of
judicial review of the court are invoked,can the SC,
or the appropriate court for that matter should at the
very least examine it, note to the conditions to
exercise the said power. Because it is much
acts of co-equal branch of  the government.
That is why there exist a requirement before the
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 
a. there must be an actual case or controversy
b. there person challenging the act must have the
locus standi (Legal Standing)
c. the question of its constitutionality must be raised
at the earliest opportunity 
d. the question of constitutionality must be the
must not be a mere afterthought. 
Lis mota  it is the cause or motivation of a legal
action or law suit. It moves the litigation, which is
the reason why you are filing this case. 
So if it is presented before the Supreme Court, and
decided without resolving the constitutionality of
any act thereto, then the court will not rule on the
constitutionality of that act if it can resolve the case
without doing so.It must be the very lis mota.
If one of the requirements for a judicial review to be
exercised by the court is wanting, then such power
cannot be exercised and usually decline the case. 
IF THERE ARE  GENERAL REQUIREMENT, there
are also EXCEPTIONS: 
The following are the cases wherein the
requirements of Judicial Review is involved. 
FUNA vs. AGRA
AGRA, he is very smart as he was appointed as
ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL. This holding of
two positions was challenged by FUNA, because
according to him, under:
 ART. VII Sec. XIII, the Executive Department,
if you are a cabinet member of the President, you
cannot, as a rule, hold 2 positions at once.

Here, we have Secretary of Justice who is also
the Acting Solicitor General. In the meantime,
AGRA vacated from his position, admitting that this
is unconstitutional in holding 2 offices, and it must
be given the other position to another person.  that happen that the court can no longer decide the
The case reached the SC. In addition, thereby
presented an issue:
ISSUE: WON Judicial Review must be exercised by
the SC
HELD:
The court examined if the General Requisites for a
Judicial Review exists. 
The court pointed out the 2nd requisite - Locus
Standi
Locus Standi -  it is necessary for the person suing
sustained or will he have sustained a direct injury
because of this act.  QUESTION: IS THERE STILL A NEED FOR THE
ISSUE: Is FUNA will stand to suffer an injury
because of the appointment of AGRA
HELD:
The court said NO.
But the court discussed here the exception to the
rule:
THIS LOCUS STANDI CAN BE LIBERALLY
CONSTRUED BY THE COURT. IT CAN SET A
REQUIREMENT ASIDE IF the
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE of CRITICAL
SIGNIFICANCE is at stake or if the issue is of
TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE.
There are instances here when the person suing
has standing.
The court APPLIED here the EXCEPTION to the
GENERAL RULE on standing because the issue
here is of TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE.  COA?" What is the nature of this MECO?" Is it a
WHY?
The discussion as to the validity of the dual
appointment of this person has far reaching
implication, which may happen in the future again.
Thus, the court must rule in the issue so that it will
not be repeated anymore.
Even if FUNA has no standing, the court said to set
the requirements aside that clear this case. 
MOOT AND ACADEMIC REQUIREMENT - no
more issue to decide because a supervening fact
matter.
Note: There must be an actual case or
controversy. 
Here, while the case  is still pending, AGRA already
stepped down from one of the two offices assigned
to him as someone else took the position. AGRA
further argued that the case is already moot and
academic.
HELD:  The court said that a MOOT and
ACADEMIC CASE is the one that ceases to
present a justiceable controversy by virtue of
supervening event. So that the declaration thereon
will  be of no practical use or valid. 
COURT TO DECIDE ON THE MATTER  SINCE
THERE IS NO LONGER AN ISSUE EXISTING
So the present year on PDAF is the issue not the
following year. Thus, the issue is not yet moot and
academic. 
Locus Standi - the petitioners challenging the PDAF
has a legal standing. Belgica suing as a tax payer.
Of course, because it talks about the
unconstitutional spending of the public funds. 
So, the court said that, discussing the other
requirement, they are all present. That is why it led
the court decide on the matter and ultimately held
that PDAF is unconstitutional.
FUNA VS MECO
The question involved in this case:
"Is MECO an entity that should be audited by the
government entity, whose fund is subject to COA
audit?"
FUNA went to COA, COA internally had an auditing
with MECO, which is a government entity. So there
are funds that should be account for. However, the
COA said that it has no power to audit MECO since
the latter is not a government entity, thus, the COA
has no jurisdiction to audit.
FUNA thereafter filed a case before the SC to
compel COA to audit the MECO. In the meantime
while the case is still pending, the COA said that
"You know what, I wiill proceed in auditing MECO
so there will have no conflict to arise.  Sereno, where she discussed the concept of the
In the SC, it has been decided that it ordered to
audit the MECO.  Therefore, where the case is
moot and academic. There is no need to resolve
this issue.  It was argued in this case that this law not yet
ISSUE: Is the issue here Moot and Academic?
HELD: Yes, but the court says that it has to resolve
the issue.  But Justice Sereno argues that there are certain
May this case be dismissed by  the  happening of
the supervening event that would   render the
issues moot?
Yes, it is moo and academic by reason of
participatory of a supervening event. But, the rule
that is required for it to be dismissed is not
absolute. Because we already know that the
mootness doctrine has and exception.
There should be the presence of four requirements
that even such case is already moot, the SC may
still  review the same.  was challenged, it was not yet effective. But the
ISSUE: Is the issuance of the COA circular saving
that the audit of MECO renders the case moot?
HELD: YES
The case is already moot. Nonetheless, the court
still resolved the issue because the case  is
exceptional.The requirements of a mootness
doctrine are present in this case. They did not
dismiss the case because of mootness and decided
to rule on the issue.
Here in this case challenges the constitutionality of
RA 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act. 
We focus on the descending opinion of SCJ
reinforcement of judicial review.
Why? Where did she anchor the discussion?
operational. So why would the question focus on
the validity, well in fact there is no actual case or
controversy at bar yet. 
cases which have existed before that the court
where the latter, despite the law did not take effect
yet or the act, the IRR, the SC already resolved the
issue. A pre-enforcement judicial review of the
cyber-crime prevention act here is warranted.   
To support her argument, SCJ Sereno cited the
case of Engagement Network involving the Anti-
Terrorism Council. There was a law here the anti-
terrorism law which was challenged for being
unconstitutional for  several reasons.
One of the arguments here is that, when the law
court decided the case despite that factuality. In
that case, the court succeeded the possibility of
pre-enforcement judicial review of a penal
statute.The has a real and credible threat of
prosecution involving the exercise of the
constitutionally protected conduct or activity. And
Justice Sereno enumerated the requirement of the
pre-enforcement judicial review.
a. the law forbids a constitutionally protected
conduct or activity that is supposed to be done by
the person challenging it. 

a. there must be a grave violation of the constitution In Disini, there are a lot.
b. the case involves a situation of an exceptional 1. Freedom of expression - you are already afraid
character, a paramount public interest.  to post  on your facebook as you might be
prosecuted etc. There is a possibility that your
 It ruled that MECO is not within the audit Constitutional Right to discretion will be curtailed. 
jurisdiction of COA except from those funds which
the MECO collects taht redounds to the public b. A realistic (26:08) or incredible threats or danger
treasury. It pertains to the minimal account that is sustaining direct injury obtained in the prosecution
collected by MECO is subject to COA audit but the awaits the petitioner. 
rest of the MECO is beyond the jursisdiction of the
COA.  So, the prohibited conduct or activity be carried out
and the facts of circumstances surrounding the
DISINI VS SEC. of JUSTICE  prohibited conduct sought to be carried out are real
and not hypothetical and speculative or
suspiciously alleged and proven.
Here, he submit all the requirements are present.
That is why the court decided this case and ruled
that there provisions that are unconstitutional. But
not on its entirety. 
IMBONG VS OCHOA
This challenges the Constitutionality or
Reproductive Health Law.
One of the assertions of the Solicitor General here,
defending the validity of this law, is that this law is a
product of a majoritarian democratic process.
What does that mean?
This law was processed in the Congress, they
(Congress) casted their votes and was approved by
the president and became a law. And now the SC
here is sought to declare this law to be
unconstitutional.  the constitution, then , the court may exercise
In the case of Marjorie Vs. Madison, it was at that
point that the courts were imbued with political
power so to speak because they can actually rule
as to whether  or not the acts are valid or not. This
is to say that  courts have this kind of power.
Considering, however, that this law came  from an
equal branch, the SC should not meddle because it
is a product of majoritarian democratic process.
The court said:
a. The law is presumed to be constitutional or valid 
This is because the acts of the legislative and the
executive cannot be (tuga-tuga) to declare
unconstitutional. 
So it needs to exercise proper restraint only when
this laws or acts are declared to be unconstitutional
when the courts set in.
This does not violate that rule because the exercise
of the courts of their power of Judicial Review is not
indiscriminate. It respects the acts of the co-equal
branches, but they must remain faithful to the
fundamental law. Of course, the courts can decide
whether or not there is a violation or none. 
In this case, is there an actual case or controversy?
The law was submitted and was considered as
valid by the proponents of the law because there
was no actual case or controversy. Because the
law is yet to be implemented. 
Remember the case of Southern Hemisphere
and the separate opinion of Justice Sereno in
DISINI. 
The court said that the compression of the fact of
the law is not yet effective negates the requisite of
ripeness. Is it automatic that it is no longer right to
question or adjudication because the act is not yet
enforceable.
The court said that the facts of the law or acts in
question being not yet effective does not negate
ripeness. Complete act under a law are not exempt
to render this controversy ripe.
WHY?
Because even if violation of the constitution and or
the law, it does not weaken  judicial duty. So, if it  is
properly alleged that even such a law was not yet in
effect, but there is already an apparent violation of
judicial  review.
Here, is the  case ripe for adjudication?
Yes, because this law was apparently proved
before the SC that it already took effect as the
same has already an IRR and the same is already
implemented. So, the court may already take
cognizance of the case as the same has already
evident effects that could give rise to actual issues. 
Do they have a legal standing?
The court said that this requirement submits for
transcendental importance exception, which the
court applied in this case. 
ARAULLO vs. AQUINO
This challenges the constitutionality of the 
disbursement acceleration program - DAP.
This program was adapted. In the guise of the
Chief Executive, it is authorized under the
constitution to transfer saving in his department.
But,  he exceeded the limitation, in fact, it gave out
money to the other branches of the government. 
This DAP act was challenged its constitutionality
based on several grounds. 
The republic, depending this program argued that
judicial review should have not been exercised
because the requirement thereto are not present.  constitution in their office.
1. Is  there an actual case here?
Yes, because of the incompatibility of the
perspectives of the parties as to the compatibility of
the parties of DAP. There was this proponent that
the DAP was valid. There is the other party saying
that it is unconstitutional.
Ripe for adjudication?
Yes, what is involved here is the spending of
money. Has the money been spent? Had the
President exercised its power pursuant to the DAP?
Now, in the mean time, the case is about to lose, so
the Secretary for Finance here, manifested that
during the arguments that they have stopped the
DAP because it has fully served its purpose.
Therefore the case is already is moot.
The court said that it cannot say that the
determination of the DAP as a program has a
supervening event that mooted the case. Because
the exception to the mootness doctrine applies.
All of the four requirements are present. 
2. Do they have standing?
Yes, they are tax payers.  awarding of MCIA -Mactan Cebu International
OSMENA VS TAN
Senator Osmena challenged the sale of the NAGA
POWERPLANT COMPLEX to this FCC POWER
CORPORATION for violating, as it is contrary to
Public Policy. Since the violation here of the law is
not transparent as to the bidding process as to who
must have the access.
The challenge reached the Supreme Court to
enjoin the sale.
One of the issues in this case is, DOES OSMENA
have LEGAL STANDING?
When do legislators have the legal standing in the
capacity as the senator or as a chairman in the
senate.
Legislator have the standing to maintain inviolate
the prerogative powers and privileges vested by the
 
So if the there is a legislative prerogative violated
due to a certain act, that is when standing arises.
Here, Sen. Osmena suing in his capacity as
chairman of the committee created under this epira.
That if not by itself sufficient to give any standing to
sue in this case. Nevertheless, the requirement of
standing admits of the exception on transcendental
importance. 
If there is an assertion of a public right.
What are the public rights included in this case?
Accountability, does the transaction here in this
case have transparency?
The people have the right to know. The assertion of
the public right. The mere fact that the petitioner
here is a citizen satisfies the requirement. 
The privatization of a power plant in a manner that
ensures the  reliability and affordability of electricity
in the country pursuant to the law in the issue of
paramount public interest. 
OSMENA vs. ABAYA
Sen. Osmena challenging taking to restrain the
Airport.
This GMR infrastructure limited and megawide
construction corporation. 
Senator wants to stop from building this project
because there was no proper bidding for the
project. 
He alleged that these two entities are not qualified
to bid for the projects. Because those two did not
fulfill the requirement. Also, after digging up the
history of one of these contractors, it was found that
there were issues involving unfinished projects.
Thus, the petitioner said that these entities are not
qualified and why was the project awarded to
them?
One of the assertions of the petitioner(senator) is
that he has the legal standing because it is a public
suit. Again, in public suit, the plaintiff who asserts a
public right in a sale allegedly believe that official
action. 

Still, even if there is such a way of proving your
standing in a public suit, you have to  show that you
are entitled to seek judicial protection. You should
be able to proof that you are seeking a relief as a
student or a tax payer.
ISSUE: Here, was he able to prove that he was
suing as a citizen? If you are a citizen, you must
prove that there was a violation of a republic right.
Or, as a tax payer, was he able to prove that this
involves a tax payer suit?
HELD:  controversy. Even the case is moot, it will decide on
Yes, in any case, transcendental importance.
 NOTE: If you are a tax payer, you must alleged
that there is a suspending of funds illegally. If a
legislator, there should be an infringement of your
right or prerogative?
Here, Osmena has no standing to sue as he is a
legislator etc,. BUT THE COURT RELAXED THIS
RULE because of the TRANSCENDENTAL
IMPORTANCE doctrine.
At the end of the day, the court denied this petition
and allowed the building of MCIA.
LAUDE vs. CABALDE
This case involves the killing of a transgender.
(PEMPERTON)
The US soldier, who was in the Philippines, found
that Laude is not a female etc. so the former
murdered the latter.
Thus, the US soldier was sued before the court.
The public prosecutor here filed for murder against
PEMPERTON before the RTC.
The question involved is, who has custody over
PEMPERTON during the pendency of the case?
There was a provision in the Visiting Forces
Agreement that he can be confined in a very
comfortable facility.
It was the argument of the sister of Laude that
Pemperto shall be confined in a common jail so he
must feel what he has done.
That such provision of VFA on the custody of
Pemperton is uncosntitutional.   be funded by their PDAF.
One of the arguments in this case against the sister
of LAUDE is that she has no standing:
1. The Sister did not obtain a consent from the
public prosecutor to sue against Pemperton
The court said that, indeed it is the peak, when you
are accused in the criminal case- who is your
opponent?, you are not really against the private
complainant especially if the same is already dead.
But, you are against people. That is why we have
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ACCUSED
because the real party of interest/injured is the
state - people. 
HELD: There is an exception for this actual case or
the matter if the following exception are all present:
a. there must be a grave violation of the constitution
b. the case involves a situation of an exceptional
character, a paramount public interest. 
Can this person hold this office?
Again, this constitutional provision, the
constitutional issue raise required the promulgation
of CONTROLLING PRINCIPLE to guide the public. 
DISCUSSION: Of course if the case will already be
decided by the Supreme Court, it will no longer be
disturbed (res judicata). And finally, if the case is 
capable of repetition, yet invading review. 
All of these requirements are present in this case.
So, even if it is already moot, the court will still
decide it. Ruling on the merit, just to jump on the
issue, the Court said that the holding of 2 offices of
AGRA is unconstitutional.
BELGICA VS. OCHOA
This case involves the PDAF - Priority
Development Assistance Fund
There are provisions in the General Appropriation
Act of 2013. What is this?
GAA refers to the provisions of the law for that
year. As how the funds shall be allocated, when it
shall be disbursed for one project, etc. 
There are provisions in the GAA of 2013 that
allowed the legislators to select the project  that will
So they were given money and they are given the
discretion to implement the pending of said money.
Of course this issue was raised before the SC
because according to Belgica et al., the spending of
of the legislators having a handing the execution of The court said that the stopping of this practice is
law is unconstitutional.  not here towards the 2013 PDAF but rather on the
2014 by Jef. 
Once the law leads the hands of the legislators,
they can no longer meddle in executing the law. As explained  the mere change of mind, it will not
Their job is done in creating the law, except in a affect because it was already in force. What we are
very limited instances wherein they can review the trying to stop is actually the PDAF articles in the
proper execution of the law. next fiscal year. 

Here, they are given a direct hand, isn't it an

encroachment the power of the executive?
Prior to this case, there was already a 1994 case
validated the PDAF, which was dubbed as CWDF -
Country Wide Development Fund (Pork Barrel).The
court allowed it to continue as the same is
constitutional. 

But, in this case, the court held several reasons

that this practice of inserting this provisions of
PDAF in the GAA is unconstitutional. Of course,
those who would enjoy the benefits of the PDAF
argued that it is not unconstitutional.
 
ISSUE: WON the requisites for Judicial Review is
present

HELD: NO

1. Actual case - Is there an assertion of an opposite

legal claim here?
Yes, on the one hand the unconstitutionality as to
the encroachment of power of the executive on the
other hand the party says that it is valid as the
same practice was observed since 1994 and the
same was challenged and decided by the court. 

2. Is the case ripe for adjudication? 

There is a requisite that there must be an
accomplished or performed by either branch before
a court may come in to the picture.

So, is it already ripe for adjudication through the

use of Judicial Review?

YES, because we are talking here about the

provision in the GAA that has been enforced
already. The PDAF is already being exercised. The
provisions of PDAF are currently existing and
operational. 

The court decided here that there is no longer

actual case or controversy because the case is
already moot and academic.WHY??
Accordingly, the congress has stopped the 
practices of PDAF.