2.

Topic: Requisites for a Valid Judicial Inquiry (actual case or controversy)

ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR., vs. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

G.R. No. 160261             November 10, 2003

Facts:
On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a Resolution which directed
the Committee on Justice "to conduct an investigation, in aid of legislation, on the
manner of disbursements and expenditures by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF).
On June 2, 2003, former President Estrada filed an impeachment complaint (first
impeachment complaint) against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. and seven
Associate Justices for "culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of the public trust
and other high crimes."
The House Committee on Justice ruled on October 13, 2003 that the first impeachment
complaint was "sufficient in form," but voted to dismiss the same on October 22, 2003
for being insufficient in substance.
Four months and three weeks since the filing on June 2, 2003 of the first complaint or
on October 23, 2003, a day after the House Committee on Justice voted to dismiss it,
the second impeachment complaint was filed with the Secretary General of the
House by Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William B. Fuentebella
against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., founded on the alleged results of the
legislative inquiry initiated by above-mentioned House Resolution.
Thus arose the instant petitions against the House of Representatives, petitions contend
that the filing of the second impeachment complaint is unconstitutional as it violates the
provision of Section 5 of Article XI of the Constitution that "no impeachment proceedings
shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year."

Issue:
Whether or not the essential pre-requisites for the exercise of the power of judicial
review have been fulfilled.
Ruling:

Yes. The Essential Requisites for Judicial Review is subject to several limitations,
namely: (1) an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (2)
the person challenging the act must have "standing" to challenge; he must have a
personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain,
direct injury as a result of its enforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality must be
raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be
the very lis mota of the case.

In this case:

A. Standing- petitioners have standing since this Court had, in the past, accorded
standing to taxpayers, voters, concerned citizens, legislators in cases involving
paramount public interest and transcendental importance, and those procedural
matters are subordinate to the need to determine whether or not the other
branches of the government have kept themselves within the limits of the
Constitution and the laws and that they have not abused the discretion given to
them
B. Ripeness and Prematurity- the futility of seeking remedies from either or both
Houses of Congress before coming to this Court is shown by the fact that, as
previously discussed, neither the House of Representatives nor the Senate is
clothed with the power to rule with definitiveness on the issue of constitutionality,
whether concerning impeachment proceedings or otherwise, as said power is
exclusively vested in the judiciary by the earlier quoted Section I, Article VIII of
the Constitution. 
C. Justiciability- by virtue of Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, courts can
review questions which are not truly political in nature.
D. Lis Mota- consolidated petitions, while all seeking the invalidity of the second
impeachment complaint, collectively raise several constitutional issues upon
which the outcome of this controversy could possibly be made to rest.