FOR PETITIONER - PEARL HUB

CASES FOR MOOT COURT - NOVE AND ABBY

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez,

G.R. No. 113105| En Banc | August 19, 1994
Quiason, J.

One-Liner Facts: Court is called upon to rule on the conflicting claims of authority between the Legislative
and the Executive, focusing on the contest between the President and the Congress over control of the
national budget (General Appropriations Bill).

Doctrine:
(1) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power;
(2) the person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject act or
issuance
(3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and
(4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.

Notes: Solicitor General did not question the locus standi of petitioners; he claimed that the remedy of the
Senators in the other petitions is political (i.e., to override the vetoes) in effect saying that they do not have
the requisite legal standing to bring the suits.

HIERARCHY OF COURTS / TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE

Gios-Samar v. DOTC
G.R. No. 217158 | En Banc | March 12, 2019
Jardaleza, J.

One-Liner Facts: Gios-Samar, as a taxpayer, is questioning the constitutionality of the bundling of two (2)
projects by CAAP and DOTC.

Doctrine:
The principle of hierarchy of courts applies generally to cases involving questions of law. As it is
not a trier of facts, the Court cannot entertain cases involving factual issues. The instant case,
however, raises constitutional issues of transcendental importance to the public.

Transcendental Importance: “Of paramount public interest”. Transcendental importance doctrine

could, apart from its original purpose to overcome objections to standing, stand as a justification
for disregarding the proscription against direct recourse to the Court.

Notes: The Supreme Court is a court of last resort. Only when there is an issue of transcendental
importance may the doctrine be waived.

HIERARCHY OF COURTS
 Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 205728 | En Banc | January 21, 2015
Leonen, J.

One-Liner Facts: COMELEC ordered the Diocese to take down an election tarpaulin related to the
passage of the RH Law inside the church’s private property.

Doctrine:
a.) When there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most immediate time.
b.) When the issues involved are of transcendental importance.
c.) Cases of first impression warrant a direct resort to this court.
d.) The constitutional issues raised are better decided by this court.

Notes: The order of removal of the tarps by COMELEC infringed on the fundamental right to freedom of
expression and violate the principle of separation of church and state.

FACIAL CHALLENGE

Celdran v. People
GR No. 220127 | Special First Division | November 21, 2018
[NOTICE]

One-Liner Facts: Carlos Celdran was charged with Offending the Religious Feelings under Art. 133 of the
RPC, which he now seeks to declare as unconstitutional.

Doctrine: A facial challenge grounded on the void-for-vagueness doctrine may be allowed when the subject
penal statute encroaches upon the freedom of speech.

Notes: Petition denied, Article 133 of the RPC unconstitutional.

Locus Standi

Roy III v. Herbosa

GR No. 207246 | En Banc |November 22, 2016
Caguioa, J.

One-Liner Facts: Supreme Court affirmed that the guidelines issued by the Philippine Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) (SEC Guidelines) on determining compliance with foreign equity
restrictions of corporations engaged in nationalized activities are valid.

Doctrine: (1) he will personally suffer some actual or threatened injury because of the allegedly illegal
conduct of the government; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and (3) the injury is
likely to be redressed by a favorable action. 42 If the asserted injury is more imagined than real, or is merely
superficial and insubstantial, an excursion into constitutional adjudication by the courts is not warranted.

Notes: No locus standi; failed to establish direct injury

MATERIAL INTEREST

1
 Ifurung v. Office of the Ombudsman
GR No. 232131 | En Banc | April 4, 2018
Martires, J.

One-Liner Facts: RA 6770, which grants the Ombudsman a full new term in case of his/her predecessor’s
untimely demise, removal, resignation or permanent disability, is constitutional.

Doctrine:To have legal standing, therefore, a suitor must show that he has sustained or will sustain a "direct
injury" as a result of a government action, or have a "material interest" in the issue affected by the
challenged official act. However, the Court has time and again acted liberally on the locus standi
requirements and has accorded certain individuals, not otherwise directly injured, or with material interest
affected, by a Government act, standing to sue provided a constitutional issue of critical significance is at
stake..

Notes: Petition dismissed. Suing as a taxpayer and as member of the bar does not grant immediate locus
standi.

CONCERNED CITIZENS / TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE

David v. Constantino-David
G.R. No. 171396 | En Banc | May 3, 2006
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.

One-Liner Facts: Arroyo declared a state of national emergency; permits to hold rallies issued earlier by the
local governments were revoked and the police arrested petitioner David and Llamas without a warrant.

Doctrine:
(1) the cases involve constitutional issues;
(2) for taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure is
unconstitutional;

(3) for voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question;

(4) for concerned citizens, there must be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental
importance which must be settled early; and

(5) for legislators, there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes upon their
prerogatives as legislators.

Notes:To paraphrase Justice Laurel, the whole of Philippine society now waits with bated breath the ruling
of this Court on this very critical matter. The petitions thus call for the application of the “ transcendental
importance” doctrine, a relaxation of the standing requirements for the petitioners in the “PP 1017 cases.”

2
AS APPLIED / ON ITS FACE CHALLENGE

Romualdez v. COMELEC
GR No. 167011 | En Banc | April 30, 2008
Chico-Nazario, J.

One-Liner Facts: Petitioners contend that the Voter’s Registration Act was void for being vague as it did
not refer to a definite violation of which would constitute an election offense; hence, it ran contrary to the
due process clause.

Doctrine: Only statutes on free speech, religious freedom, and other fundamental rights may be facially
challenged. Under no case may ordinary penal statutes be subjected to a facial challenge.

Notes: COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion when it premised its resolution on a
misapprehension of facts in relation to election offenses.

US JURISPRUDENCE ON FALSE STATEMENTS

Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus

814 F.3d 466 | 2016
Sutton

One-Liner Facts: Ohio’s political false-statements law which prohibit persons from disseminating false
information about a political candidate in campaign materials during the campaign season is
unconstitutional.

Doctrine: Ohio’s political false-statements laws are content-based restrictions targeting core political speech
that are not narrowly tailored to serve the state’s admittedly compelling interest in conducting fair elections.

Notes: The law is both over-inclusive and underinclusive.

RIPE FOR ADJUDICATION

Province of North Cotabato v. The Government of the Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. 183591 | EN BANC | October 14, 2008
Carpio-Morales, J.

One-Liner Facts: The MOA-AD (Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain) was
unconstitutional as it cannot be reconciled with the present Constitution and laws for the concept
presupposes that the associated entity is a state and implies that the same is on its way to independence.

Doctrine:
1.) Something had then been accomplished or performed by either branch before a court may come
into the picture
2.) Petitioner must allege the existence of an immediate or threatened injury to itself as a result of the
challenged action.

3
 3.) He must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as
a result of the act complained of.

Notes: As the petitions allege acts or omissions on the part of respondent that exceed their authority, by
violating their duties under E.O. No. 3 and the provisions of the Constitution and statutes, the petitions
make a prima facie case for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus, and an actual case or controversy ripe for
adjudication exists. When an act of a branch of government is seriously alleged to have infringed the
Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute.

ASSIGNMENT: Look for a case where the law has yet to be effective but petitioners were given
legal standing and that the issue was deemed ripe for adjudication.

ANSWER: Province of North Cotabato v. The Government of the Republic of the Philippines. Here, the
MOA-AD was set to be signed on August 8, 2008. From July to August 25 of the same year, multiple
petitions were filed against the said Memorandum, questioning its constitutionality.

The Court cited New York v. US, stating that that the law or act in question is not yet effective does not
negate ripeness. The US Supreme Court held that the action by the State of New York challenging the
provisions of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act was ripe for adjudication even if the questioned
provision was not to take effect until January 1, 1996, because the parties agreed that New York had to take
immediate action to avoid the provision's consequences.

FOR RESPONDENT - OSG

CASES FOR MOOT COURT - NOVE AND ABBY

4
JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY

Information Technology Foundation v. COMELEC

G.R. No. 159139| En Banc | June 15, 2005
Quiason, J.

One-Liner Facts: SC nullified the COMELEC's award involving the automated counting machines (ACMs)
for the 2004 national elections when it awarded the contract to an entity which failed to establish itself as a
proper consortium.

Doctrine:
The controversy must be justiciable -- definite and concrete, touching on the legal relations of parties
having adverse legal interests. In other words, the pleadings must show an active antagonistic assertion of a
legal right, on the one hand, and a denial thereof on the other; that is, it must concern a real and not a
merely theoretical question or issue.

Notes: Petition was granted.

LOCUS STANDI

IBP v. Zamora
392 Phil. 618| En Banc | 2000
Kapunan, J.

One-Liner Facts: In the case at bar, the IBP primarily anchors its standing on its alleged responsibility to
uphold the rule of law and the Constitution. Apart from this declaration, however, the IBP asserts no other
basis in support of its locus standi.

Doctrine:
"Legal standing" or locus standi has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the case such that
the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being
challenged. The term "interest" means a material interest, an interest in issue affected by the decree, as
distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest.

Notes: The mere invocation by the IBP of its duty to preserve the rule of law and nothing more, while
undoubtedly true, is not sufficient to clothe it with standing in this case. This is too general an interest
which is shared by other groups and the whole citizenry

LOCUS STANDI

Lozano v. Nograles
G.R. No. 187883| En Banc | 2000
Kapunan, J.

One-Liner Facts: IBP seeks to nullify the order of President Joseph Ejercito Estrada commanding the
deployment of the Philippine Marines (the "Marines") to join the Philippine National Police (the "PNP") in
visibility patrols around the metropolis.

Doctrine:

5
"Legal standing" or locus standi has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the case such that
the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being
challenged. The term "interest" means a material interest, an interest in issue affected by the decree, as
distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest.

Notes: The mere invocation by the IBP of its duty to preserve the rule of law and nothing more, while
undoubtedly true, is not sufficient to clothe it with standing in this case. This is too general an interest
which is shared by other groups and the whole citizenry

TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE

Chavez v. PCGG
G.R. No. 130716| En Banc | December 9, 1998
Panganiban, J.

One-Liner Facts: Petitioner, invoking his constitutional right to information and the correlative duty of the
state to disclose publicly all its transactions involving the national interest, demands that respondents make
public any and all negotiations and agreements pertaining to PCGG's task of recovering the Marcoses' ill-
gotten wealth.

Doctrine:
Transcendental public importance dispenses with the requirement of suffering direct and personal injury in
cases involving the constitutionality of penal legislation as it is a different genus of constitutional litigation.
Hence, the liberality of applying locus standi should not be abused.

Notes: Standing is rendered moot by the intervention of the Jopsons, who are among the legitimate
claimants to the Marcos wealth.

AS APPLIED / ON ITS FACE CHALLENGE

Dans v. People
GR No. 127073 | En Banc | January 29, 1998
Romero, J.

One-Liner Facts: The validity of a provision is being assailed by Marcos on grounds of vagueness and
superfluity for it does not set a definite standard by which the court will be guided, thus, leaving it open to
human subjectivity.

Doctrine: There is, however, nothing "vague" about the statute. The assailed provision answers the basic
query "What is the violation?"

Notes: Charged with Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act but Imelda was acquitted.

JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY

6
 Velarde v. Social Justice Society
GR No. 159357 | En Banc | April 28, 2004
Panganiban, J.

One-Liner Facts: The issue was whether or not the act of a religious leader, in endorsing the candidacy of a
candidate for elective office or in urging or requiring the members of his flock to vote for a specified
candidate, is violative of the letter or spirit of the constitutional provisions.

Doctrine: A 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.

Notes: Counsel for SJS has utterly failed to convince the Court that there are enough factual and legal bases
to resolve the paramount issue.