Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Roy vs. Herbosa

    Uploaded by

    Aimie Razul-Aparecio
    26 views1 page
    1) Jose M. Roy III filed a motion for reconsideration seeking to reverse a decision that denied his petition and declared that the SEC did not abuse its discretion in issuing Memorandum Circular No. 8. 2) The motion did not present any new compelling arguments to justify reconsidering the decision. 3) For a court to exercise judicial review over a case, there must be an actual case or controversy, the petitioner must have standing, the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportunity, and the constitutional question must be the central issue; the petitioner failed to establish these requirements.

    Original Description:

    A digested case of herbosa

    Original Title

    16. roy vs. herbosa

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Jose M. Roy III filed a motion for reconsideration seeking to reverse a decision that denied his petition and declared that the SEC did not abuse its discretion in issuing Memorandum Circular No. 8. 2) The motion did not present any new compelling arguments to justify reconsidering the decision. 3) For a court to exercise judicial review over a case, there must be an actual case or controversy, the petitioner must have standing, the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportunity, and the constitutional question must be the central issue; the petitioner failed to establish these requirements.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    26 views1 page

    Roy vs. Herbosa

    Uploaded by

    Aimie Razul-Aparecio
    1) Jose M. Roy III filed a motion for reconsideration seeking to reverse a decision that denied his petition and declared that the SEC did not abuse its discretion in issuing Memorandum Circular No. 8. 2) The motion did not present any new compelling arguments to justify reconsidering the decision. 3) For a court to exercise judicial review over a case, there must be an actual case or controversy, the petitioner must have standing, the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportunity, and the constitutional question must be the central issue; the petitioner failed to establish these requirements.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Jose M.

    Roy III Vs Chairperson Teresita Herbosa, The Securities and Exchange


    Commission and Philippine Long Distance Company
    G.R. No. 207246
    April 18, 2017

    Subject: Civil Procedure


    Topic: Judicial Review

    Facts:

    Before the Court is the Motion for Reconsideration dated January 19, 2017 (the Motion) filed by
    petitioner Jose M. Roy III (movant) seeking the reversal and setting aside of the Decision dated
    November 22, 2016 (the Decision) which denied the movant's petition, and declared that the
    Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing
    Memorandum Circular No. 8, Series of 2013 (SEC-MC No. 8) as the same was in compliance
    with, and in fealty to, the decision of the Court in Gamboa v. Finance Secretary Teves (Gamboa
    Decision) and the resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration therein (Gamboa
    Resolution).

    The Motion presents no compelling and new arguments to justify the reconsideration of the
    Decision.
    The Decision has already exhaustively discussed and directly passed upon these grounds.
    Movant's petition was dismissed based on both procedural and substantive grounds.

    Issue: Whether the Court may take cognizance of the case and exercise its power of judicial
    review

    Ruling: No.The Court may exercise its power of judicial review and take cognizance of a case
    when the following specific requisites are met: (1) there is an actual case or controversy calling
    for the exercise of judicial power; (2) the petitioner has standing to question the validity of the
    subject act or issuance, i.e., he has a personal and substantial interest in the case that he has
    sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the act or issuance; (3)
    the question of constitutionality is raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the constitutional
    question is the very lis mota of the case. Petitioners' failure to sufficiently allege, much less
    establish, the existence of the first two requisites for the exercise of judicial review warrants the
    perfunctory dismissal of the petitions.

    You might also like