CONCEPT CASE FACTS ISSUES RULING

AMENDMENT VS. REVISION

Amendment - change that adds. LAMBINO VS. Petitioners Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Whether or
Reduces, deletes, without altering the COMELEC, G.R. Aumentado, along with 6,327,952 registered voters, No.
not the
basic principle involved; generally affects No. 174153, filed a petition with the Commission on Elections Lambino
only specific provision being amended October 25, 2006 (COMELEC) on August 25, 2006 to amend the 1987
Group’s
Philippine Constitution to shift from a bicameral- The proposed changes by the Lambino Group
presidential system to a unicameral-parliamentary initiative
Revision – change that alters the a basic which includes a shift from a Bicameral-
system. petition
principle in the Constitution; alters Presidential to a Unicameral-Parliamentary
complies with
substantial entirety of the Constitution system, involving the abolition of the Office of the
COMELEC denied due course to the petition on Section 2,
President and the abolition of one chamber of
August 31, 2006, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Article XVII of
Congress, is beyond doubt a revision, not a mere
Santiago v. COMELEC (1997), which declared there the
amendment.
was no sufficient law to implement the initiative Constitution
A people’s initiative can only AMEND the clause for amending the Constitution. on
constitution; not revise amendments
Under both the quantitative and qualitative tests,
to the
the Lambino Group's initiative is a revision and not
Constitution
merely an amendment. Quantitatively, the
through a
Lambino Group's proposed changes overhaul two
people’s
articles - Article VI on the Legislature and Article
initiative.
VII on the Executive - affecting a total of 105
provisions in the entire Constitution. Qualitatively,
the proposed changes alter substantially the basic
plan of government, from presidential to
parliamentary, and from a bicameral to a
unicameral legislature.

CONSTITUENT VS. LEGISLATIVE POWER

Congress has the legislative power to IMBONG VS. Whether or Yes.

pass, repeal or amend laws or statutes, COMELEC, G.R. Petitioners Manuel B. Imbong and Raul M. not RA 6132
including legislation to provide No. L-32432, Gonzales are members of the Bar and running was
implementing details of the provisions of September 11, as candidates for delegates to the constitutional.
the Constitution. 1970 Constitutional Convention. They filed a case The enactment of R.A. No. 6132 was within
Congress's legislative power to provide necessary
against COMELEC challenging the
implementing details for the Constitutional
constitutionality of the RA 6132 Convention.
(Constitutional Convention Act of 1970)
alleging that Sections 2, 4, 5 and paragraph 1
of Section 8 (a) on the provisions disallowing
candidates to the Convention run for
government positions were unconstitutional.
Lower courts ruled otherwise, hence this
petition.

PROCEDURES IN AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION: BY THE PEOPLE THROUGH INITIATIVE

Section 2. Amendments to this DEFENSOR On December 6, 1996, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin Whether or No. Without implementing legislation from
Constitution may likewise be directly SANTIAGO V. filed with Commission on Elections not Congress, a people’s initiative cannot operate.
proposed by the people through COMELEC, (COMELEC) a "Petition to Amend the COMELEC’s Since this petition is not under RA 6735, it cannot
initiative upon a petition of at least G.R. NO. Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective delegation on be given cognizance by COMELEC.
twelve per centum of the total number 127325, March Officials, by People's Initiative which the the petition
of registered voters, of which every 19, 1997 COMELEC granted. On 18 December 1996, the was valid.
legislative district must be represented petitioners herein -- Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago,
 by at least three per centum of the Alexander Padilla, and Maria Isabel Ongpin -- filed this
registered voters therein. No special civil action for prohibition raising 4 arguments, two
amendment under this section shall be of which state that COMELEC has no power to provide
authorized within five years following the rules and regulations for the exercise of the right of
ratification of this Constitution nor oftener initiative to amend the Constitution. Only Congress is
than once every five years thereafter. authorized by the Constitution to pass the
implementing law and that the extension or lifting of
an official’s term constitutes a revision.
The Congress shall provide for the
implementation of the exercise of this
right.

PROCEDURES IN AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION: RATIFICATION

Section 1, Art XV of the 1935 Constitution. GONZALEZ VS. On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the House of Whether or Yes. There is no provision in the Constitution
The Congress in joint session assembled, COMELEC, 21 Representatives passed the Resolutions 1, 2 and 3 not indicating the “election” referred to is “special”
by a vote of three-fourths of all the SCRA 774, G.R. providing that the amendments to the Constitution and constitutional not general. Previous amendments to Constitution
Members of the Senate and of the House No. L-28196 (9 passed Republic Act No. 4913 providing Resolutions No. amendments which were submitted in special elections merely
of Representatives voting separately, may Nov 1967) 1 and 3 be submitted, for approval by the people, at the may be show that the Congress deemed it best to do so
propose amendments to this Constitution general elections which shall be held on November 14, submitted for under said circumstances. However, it does not
or call a convention for that purpose. Such 1967. ratification in negate Congress’ authority to submit proposed
amendments shall be valid as part of this a general ratification in general elections.
Constitution when approved by a majority election.
of the votes cast at an election at which
the amendments are submitted to the
people for their ratification.

Judicial Review of Amendments: An SANIDAD VS. On September 27, 1976, PABLO C. SANIDAD and PABLITO Whether or Yes. Whether the constitutional provision has been
amendment, as to proposal and COMELEC, V. SANIDAD, father and son, petitioned for a Prohibition not the issue followed or not is the proper subject of inquiry, not
ratification, is regarded as subject to G.R. NO. L- with Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin COMELEC raised is a by the people themselves of course who exercise
judicial review as the issue will boil down 44640, from actualizing PD 1031 holding and conducting the justiciable no power of judicial but by the Supreme Court in
as to whether or not the constitutional OCTOBER 12, Referendum Plebiscite on October 16. They contended question whom the people themselves vested that power, a
provisions have been followed. 1976 that PD 991 and 1033 were amendments to the power which includes the competence to
Constitution proposed by the President who has no determine whether the constitutional norms for
constituent power to do so. amendments have been observed or not. And, this
inquiry must be done a prior not a posterior i.e.,
before the submission to and ratification by the
The Solicitor General maintained that the question people If the Constitution provides how it may be
raised is beyond judicial cognizance of the Court. amended, the judiciary as the interpreter of that
Constitution, can declare whether the procedure
followed or the authority assumed was valid or
not.

Aforementioned PDs were also assailed invalid by

the Court.

Amendments to be proposed must be TOLENTINO A Constitutional Convention was called to propose Whether or No. The Convention’s Organic Resolution No. 1 and all
submitted in a “single” election or VS. COMELEC, amendments and to approve Organic Resolution No. 1, not subsequent acts of the Convention implementing the same
plebiscite. G.R. NO. L- amending section one of Article 5 of the Constitution of amendments
violate the condition in Section 1, Article XV that there should
34150, the Philippines to lower the voting age to 18. can be
OCTOBER 16, presented only be one “election” or plebiscite for the ratification of all
1971 Petitioners question the constitutionality of the separately for the amendments the Convention may propose.
amendment and said it's in contravention to Section 1 ratification.
Article XV of the Constitution. Under the said provision, Thus, submission for ratification of “piece-meal”
the proposed amendment in question cannot be amendments by the Constitutional Convention. All
presented to the people for ratification separately from proposed amendments to the Constitution should be
each and all of the other amendments to be drafted and presented as on to the plebiscite so as to ensure only one
proposed by the Convention. election for ratification to occur.
 JUDICIAL ELABORATION OF THE CONSTITUTION: CONSTRUCTION

When there is ambiguity to the BASCO VS. The Philippine Amusements and Gaming Corporation Whether or No.
interpretation of a constitutional provision, PAGCOR, G.R. (PAGCOR) was created by virtue of P.D. 1067-A dated not PD 1869
ratio legis et anima, reason of the law is NO. 91649, January 1, 1977 and was granted a franchise under P.D. is Gambling, in all its forms, is generally prohibited,
the soul of the law; Constitution should be MAY 14, 1991 1067-B also dated January 1, 1977 "to establish, operate unconstitutio unless allowed by law. P.D. 1869 was enacted to
interpreted with the intent of its framers. and maintain gambling casinos on land or water within nal because it
"regulate and centralize thru an appropriate
the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines." is contrary to
morals, public institution all games of chance authorized by
Petitioner, H.B. Basco & Associates, filed an instant policy and existing franchise or permitted by law”. As was
petition seeking to annul the Philippine Amusement and public order. subsequently proved, PAGCOR is a reliable source
Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) Charter — PD 1869, of much needed revenue for the cash strapped
because it is allegedly contrary to morals, public policy Government. It provided funds for social impact
and order among other issues that were raised by the projects and subjected gambling to "close scrutiny,
petitioners. regulation, supervision and control of the
Government”. Public welfare, then, lies at the
bottom of the enactment of PD 1896.

In case of doubt, constitutional provisions MANILA Respondent GSIS GSIS decided to sell through public WON Sec. 10, Yes. Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the of the
should be considered self-executing, PRINCE bidding 30% to 51% of the outstanding shares of Manila second par., 1987 Constitution is self-executing which needs no
complete in itself and becomes operative HOTEL VS. Hotel. Only two (2) bidders participated: petitioner Art. XII, of further guidelines or implementing laws or rules
without the aid of supplementary or GSIS 267 SCRA Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino corporation, the 1987
for its enforcement. It is per se judicially
enabling legislation. 408 (1997) which offered to buy 51% shares at P41.58/share, and a Constitution
is a self- enforceable The Constitution mandates that
Malaysian firm, at P44.00/share.
executing qualified Filipinos shall be preferred. And when
Pending the declaration of the winning bidder, petitioner provision our Constitution declares that a right exists in
matched the bid price of P44.00 per share tendered by certain specified circumstances an action may be
the Malaysian Firm which respondent GSIS refused to maintained to enforce such right notwithstanding
accept. The petitioner posits that according to Sec. 10, the absence of any legislation on the subject.
second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution, petitioner,
as a Filipino institution, should be preferred in being
granted the privilege considering that shares in question
belong to the national patrimony and after matching the
bid offer of the Malaysian firm

Whenever possible, the words used in DOMINGO VS. On 25 March 1998, DOMINO filed his certificate of Whether or No. It is doctrinally settled that the term
the Constitution must be given their COMELEC 310 candidacy for the position of Representative of the not Domino "residence," as used in the law prescribing the
ordinary meaning except when SCRA 546 Province of Sarangani indicating in his certificate that he was a qualifications for suffrage and for elective office,
technical terms are employed. (1999) had resided in the constituency where he seeks to be resident of
means the same thing as "domicile," which imports
elected for one (1) year and two (2) months immediately the Province
of Sarangani not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but
preceding the election. On 6 May 1998, the COMELEC 2 nd
for at least also personal presence in that place, coupled with
Division promulgated a resolution declaring DOMINO
one year conduct indicative of such intention.
disqualified as candidate for the position of
representative of Sarangani for lack of the one-year immediately
preceding the As a general rule, the principal elements of
residence requirement and likewise ordered the
election. domicile, is physical presence in the locality
cancellation of his certificate of candidacy.
involved and intention to adopt it as a domicile,
Petitioner contends that his actual physical presence in must concur in order to establish a new domicile.
Alabel, Sarangani since December 1996 was sufficiently No change of domicile will result if either of these
established by the lease of a house and lot located elements is absent. Intention to acquire a domicile
therein in January 1997 and by the affidavits and without actual residence in the locality does not
certifications under oath of the residents of that place
result in acquisition of domicile, nor does the fact
that they have seen petitioner and his family residing in
of physical presence without intention.
their locality. While this may be so, actual and physical is
not in itself sufficient to show that from said date he had
transferred his residence in that place. Further, Domino's lack of intention to abandon his
 residence in Quezon City is further strengthened
by his act of registering as voter in one of the
precincts in Quezon City.

For provisions in the Constitution (ex: PAMATONG VS. Petitioner Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy 1. W O N the 1. No. The petitioner has no constitutional right to run or
Article 2) that do not bestow a right nor COMELEC 427 (COC) for President which COMELEC denied. petitioner has a hold public office and, particularly, seek the presidency.
elevate the privilege to the level of an SCRA 96 (2004) constitutional
enforceable right but merely specify the right to run for The "equal access" provision is a subsumed part of Article
Respondent COMELEC declared petitioner and 35 II of the Constitution, entitled "Declaration of Principles and
guidelines for legislative or executive or hold public
others as nuisance candidates who could not wage a State Policies." The provisions under the Article are
action, disregard thereof does not give office and,
nationwide campaign and/or are not nominated by a generally considered not self-executing. Like the rest of
rise to any course of action before the particularly, to
political party or are not supported by a registered the policies enumerated in Article II, the provision does not
courts. seek the
political party with a national constituency. contain any judicially enforceable constitutional right but
presidency and;
merely specifies a guideline for legislative or executive
Pamatong filed a Petition For Writ of Certiorari with action. The disregard of the provision does not give rise to
the Supreme Court claiming that the COMELEC any cause of action before the courts.
violated his right to "equal access to opportunities for
public service" under Section 26, Article II of the
1987 Constitution, by limiting the number of qualified The privilege of equal access to opportunities to public
candidates only to those who can afford to wage a office may be subjected to limitations. Some valid
nationwide campaign and/or are nominated by limitations specifically on the privilege to seek elective
political parties. office are found in the provisions of the Omnibus Election
Code on "Nuisance Candidates.” As long as the limitations
apply to everybody equally without discrimination, the
equal access clause is not violated. Equality is not
sacrificed as long as the burdens engendered by the
limitations are meant to be borne by anyone who is
minded to file a certificate of candidacy. In the case at bar,
there is no showing that any person is exempt from the
limitations or the burdens which they create.
The policy of the courts is to avoid DATU MICHAEL Several laws pertaining to the Autonomous Region in Whether or not No. Given the failure of the petitioners to rebut the
ruling on constitutional questions and ABAS KIDA V. Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) were enacted by RA 10153 is presumption of constitutionality in favor of RA No. 10153,
to presume that the acts of the political SENATE (AND Congress. RA No. 6734 is the organic act that unconstitutional. we must support and confirm its validity.
departments are valid, absent a clear established the ARMM and scheduled the first
COMPANION On the general claim that RA No. 10153 is
and unmistakable showing to the regular elections for the ARMM regional officials. RA
contrary. To doubt is to sustain. This CASES) 659 No. 9054 amended the ARMM Charter and reset the unconstitutional, we can only reiterate the established rule
presumption is based on the doctrine of SCRA 270 (2011) regular elections for the ARMM regional officials to that every statute is presumed valid. Congress, thus, has
separation of powers. This means that and 667 SCRA the second Monday of September 2001. RA No. in its favor the presumption of constitutionality of its acts,
the measure had first been carefully 270 (2012) 9333 reset for the third time the ARMM regional and the party challenging the validity of a statute has the
studied by the legislative and executive elections for the 2nd Monday of August 2005 and on onerous task of rebutting this presumption. Any
departments and found to be in accord the same date every 3 years thereafter. Pursuant to reasonable doubt about the validity of the law should be
with the Constitution before it was RA No. 9333, the next ARMM regional elections resolved in favor of its constitutionality.
finally enacted and approved. should have been held on August 8, 2011.
COMELEC had begun preparations for these
elections and had accepted certificates of
candidacies for various regional offices to be elected.
But on June 30, 2011, RA No. 10153 was enacted,
resetting the next ARMM regular elections to May
2013 to coincide with the regular national and local
elections of the country. In these consolidated
petitions filed directly with the Supreme Court, the
petitioners assailed the constitutionality of RA No.
10153.

Whenever possible, the words used in CHAVEZ VS. JBC Paragraph 1 Section 8, Article VIII of the Constitution Whether the Yes. It is a well-settled principle of constitutional
the Constitution must be given their 696 SCRA 496 states that “(1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby practice of the construction that the language employed in the
ordinary meaning except when (2013 created under the supervision of the Supreme Court JBC to perform Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except
technical terms are employed. composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio its functions where technical terms are employed. As such, it can be
Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a with eight (8) clearly and unambiguously discerned from Paragraph 1,
representative of the Congress as ex officio members, two Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution that in the
Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a (2) of whom are phrase, “a representative of Congress,” the use of the
professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme members of singular letter “a” is unequivocal and leaves no room for
Court, and a representative of the private sector.” Congress was any other construction. It is indicative of what the members
unconstitutional. of the Constitutional Commission had in mind, that is,
Congress may designate only one (1) representative to the
In the year 1994, instead of having only seven
JBC. Had it been the intention that more than one (1)
members, an eighth member was added to the JBC
representative from the legislature would sit in the JBC,
as two representatives from Congress began sitting
the Framers could have, in no uncertain terms, so
in the JBC – one from the House of Representatives
provided.
and one from the Senate, with each having one-half
(1/2) of a vote. In an En Banc meeting held in 2000
and 2001, it was then allowed one full vote each.

Senator Francis Joseph G. Escudero and

Congressman Niel C. Tupas, Jr. (respondents)
simultaneously sit in the Judicial and Bar Council as
representatives of the legislature and argued that the
phrase “a representative of Congress”, they
presented their theory that the two houses, the
Senate and the House of Representatives, are
permanent and mandatory components of
“Congress,”, which Chavez disagreed with.
Whenever possible, the words used in CIVIL LIBERTIES On 25 July 1987, Cory issued EO 284 allowing Whether or not No. is clear that the 1987 Constitution seeks to prohibit the
the Constitution must be given their UNION VS. members of the Cabinet, their undersecretaries and EO 284 is President, Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, their
ordinary meaning except when EXEC. SEC., G.R. assistant secretaries to hold other government constitutional. deputies or assistants from holding during their tenure
technical terms are employed. offices or positions in addition to their primary multiple offices or employment in the government, except
NO. 83896 (1991)
positions subject to limitations set therein. The CLU in those cases specified in the Constitution itself and as
accepted this EO averring that such law is above clarified with respect to posts held without additional
unconstitutional for it violates Sec 13, Art 7 of the compensation in an ex-officio capacity as provided by law.
1987 Constitution stating that the only exceptions
against holding any other office or employment in
Government are those provided in the Constitution,
namely: (i) The Vice-President may be appointed as
a Member of the Cabinet under Sec 3, par. (2),
Article 7; and (ii) the Secretary of Justice is an ex-
officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council by
virtue of Sec 8 (1), Article 8.

For provisions in the Constitution (ex: KILOSBAYAN (KIlosbayan vs. Guingona) held invalidity of the Whether or not No.
Article 2) that do not bestow a right nor VS. MORATO, contract between Philippine Charity Sweepstakes petitioner
elevate the privilege to the level of an Office (PCSO) and the privately owned Philippine Kilosbayan, With regard to the contention of Petitioners, court stated
G.R. NO. 118910,
enforceable right but merely specify the Gaming Management Corporation (PGMC) for the Incorporated that these provisions are not self-executing. They do not
(1995) confer rights which can be enforced in the courts but only
guidelines for legislative or executive operation of a nationwide on-line lottery system. The has a legal
action, disregard thereof does not give contract violated the provision in the PCSO Charter standing to sue. provide guidelines for legislative or executive action. By
rise to any course of action before the which prohibits PCSO from holding and conducting authorizing the holding of lottery for charity, Congress has
courts. lotteries through a collaboration, association, or joint in effect determined that consistently with these policies
venture. and principles of the Constitution, the PCSO may be given
this authority.
Both parties again signed an Equipment Lease With this, a course of action before the courts cannot be
Agreement (ELA) for online lottery equipment and demanded by the petitioners questioning the validity of the
accessories on January 25, 1995. Kilosbayan again law allowing lotteries. Therefore, this case does not raise
filed a petition to declare amended ELA invalid issues of constitutionality but only of contract law, which
because it is the same as the old contract of lease. petitioners, not being privies to the agreement, cannot
raise.
Petitioners invoked that that the Constitution, by
guaranteeing to independent people's organizations
"effective and reasonable participation at all levels of
social, political and economic decision-making" (Art.
XIII, §16), grants them standing to sue on
constitutional grounds.

THEORY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW: SEPARATION OF POWERS

The separation of powers is a ANGARA VS. Jose Angara and Pedro Ynsua, Miguel Castillo and Whether or not Yes.
fundamental principle in our system of ELECTORAL Dionisio Mayor were candidates voted for the the SC has
government. Each department of the position of member of the National Assembly for the jurisdiction over In cases of conflict, the judicial department is the only
COMMISSION 63
government has exclusive cognizance 1st district of Tayabas province.On Oct 17 1935 the Electoral constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine
PHIL 139 (1936) the proper allocation of powers between the several
of matters within its jurisdiction, and is Angara won the said elections. On Dec 8, Ynsua filed Commission
supreme within its own sphere. before the Electoral Commission a motion of protest and the subject departments and among the integral or constituent units
against the election of Angara. On Dec 20, Angara matter of the thereof. The Electoral Commission is a constitutional
filed before the Elec. Commission a motion to controversy organ, created for a specific purpose, namely to determine
dismiss the protest that the protest in question was all contests relating to the election, returns and
filed out of the prescribed period. The Elec. qualifications of the members of the National Assembly.
Commission denied Angara's petition. Although the Electoral Commission may not be interfered
with, when and while acting within the limits of its authority,
it does not follow that it is beyond the reach of the
Angara prayed for the issuance of writ of prohibition constitutional mechanism adopted by the people and that it
to restrain and prohibit the Electoral Commission is not subject to constitutional restrictions. The Electoral
taking further cognizance of Ynsua's protest. He Commission is not a separate department of the
contended that the Constitution confers exclusive government, and even if it were, conflicting claims of
jurisdiction upon the said Electoral Commissions as authority under the fundamental law between department
regards the merits of contested elections to the Nat'l powers and agencies of the government are necessarily
Assembly and the Supreme Court therefore has no determined by the judiciary in justifiable and appropriate
jurisdiction to hear the case. cases.

Under the doctrine of separation of METROBANK In 1997, Antonino O. Tobias III opened an account Whether or not No. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision and
powers, the courts have no right to VS. TOBIAS 664 with METROBANK and later applied for a loan, the Court of ruled that the appeal has no merit..
directly decide matters over which full SCRA 165 (2012) offering a property in Malabon City as collateral. Appeals erred in
discretionary authority has been Tobias defaulted on the loan, leading to foreclosure affirming the The settled policy is that the courts will not interfere with
delegated to the Executive Branch of and METROBANK’s acquisition of the property. Secretary of the executive determination, in this case, the Justice
the Government, or to substitute their Upon presenting the certificate of sale for Justice's Secretary, of probable cause for the purpose of filing an
own judgments for that of the Executive registration, the Registry of Deeds found no original resolutions information, in the absence of grave abuse of discretion.
Branch. copy of the title, revealing it to be fictitious. directing the
METROBANK requested an investigation, which withdrawal of The determination of probable cause involves the
confirmed the title and related documents were fake. the criminal discretion of the public prosecutor and the Secretary of
Tobias was charged with estafa through falsification information Justice, and courts will not interfere unless there is a clear
of public documents. against Tobias, showing of abuse of discretion. The Secretary of Justice’s
despite the finding of no probable cause was based on Tobias' good
presumption of faith and lack of criminal intent, which the CA correctly
The City Prosecutor found probable cause, but the upheld. The prosecutor and Secretary of Justice have the
authorship of
Secretary of Justice directed the withdrawal of the discretion to assess evidence and determine probable
the falsified
information due to lack of evidence of Tobias' cause, aiming to prevent malicious prosecutions.
document.
criminal intent. METROBANK challenged the
Secretary of Justice's resolutions through a petition
for certiorari, which the Court of Appeals (CA)
dismissed. METROBANK appealed to the Supreme
Court.
One of the most important aspects of RE: COA COA found an underpayment of P221,021.50 when Whether or not No.
judicial independence is the OPINION 678 five retired Supreme Court justices purchased the COA can
constitutional grant of fiscal autonomy. personal properties (vehicles) assigned to them question the The Court affirmed its fiscal autonomy, emphasizing its
SCRA 1 (2012)
during their incumbency. The underpayment was Supreme authority to use CFAG Joint Resolution No. 35 for
CSC VS. appraising the vehicles. COA's post-audit authority must
attributed to the use of the wrong formula by the Court's method
The fiscal autonomy enjoyed by the RAMONEDA- respect the judiciary's fiscal autonomy and cannot dictate
Property Division of the Supreme Court in computing of appraising
Judiciary, the Constitutional PITA 696 SCRA the formula used by the Supreme Court. The Court
the appraisal value. COA argued that the proper and disposing of
Commissions, and the Office of the 155 (2013) highlighted the principle of separation of powers and
formula should be COA Memorandum No. 98-569-A, its property.
Ombudsman contemplates a guarantee judicial independence, ensuring that the judiciary can
not CFAG Joint Resolution No. 35, which the
of full flexibility to allocate and utilize allocate and utilize its resources without interference from
Supreme Court used. Atty. Candelaria recommended
their resources with the wisdom and COA.
advising COA to respect the in-house computation
dispatch that their needs require.
based on the CFAG formula, noting the historical use
and COA’s prior acceptance of this method.

CSC VS.
RAMONEDA-
PITA 696 SCRA
455 (2013)

By the principle of separation of GARCIA VS. Rosalie Garcia filed a TRO pursuant to R.A. NO. Whether or not No. The court doesn't have jurisdiction to annul the said
powers, it is the legislative that DRILON 699 9262 under VAWC LAW, later on it was granted and the court has law because there is no violation of the constitution.
determines the necessity, adequacy, SCRA 352 (2013) TPO was issued by the RTC and was extended from the jurisdiction
wisdom, and expediency of any law. time to time, however the petitioner Jesus Garcia to annul the It was stated in the deliberation in the senate that they
Judiciary only steps in when there is a appealed that the in the C.A. During the pendency of said law and intended to exclude the male from availing the protection
violation of the Constitution. Civil Case petitioner challenged the constitutionality declare it under R.A. NO. 9262 because the female has the higher
of R.A. 9262 for being violative of the due process invalid. percentage to be abused.
and the equal protection clauses.
The Supreme Court states that It is settled that courts
are not concerned with the wisdom, justice, policy, or
Subsequently, however, on January 24, 2007, the expediency of a statute. Hence, we dare not venture
appellate court dismissed36 the petition for failure of into the real motivations and wisdom of the members
petitioner to raise the constitutional issue in his of Congress in limiting the protection against violence
pleadings before the trial court in the civil case, which and abuse under R.A. 9262 to women and children
is clothed with jurisdiction to resolve the same. only. No proper challenge on said grounds may be
Petitioner claims that the R.A. 9262 is invalid and entertained in this proceeding. Congress has made its
unconstitutional because it excludes the male to avail choice and it is not our prerogative to supplant this
the protection in VAWC judgment. The choice may be perceived as erroneous but
even then, the remedy against it is toeek its
amendment or repeal by the legislative.
Regalian Doctrine (Jura Regalia), a legal HEIRS OF Petitioner Malabanan filed for registration of of his Whether or not No
concept meaning all lands of the public MALABANAN land, stating that the land was alienable and land of the
domain belong to the State. This means disposable. The RTC granted the registration. public domain is A declaration of the conversion of land to be removed from
VS. REPUBLIC
that the State is the source of any However, the OSG appealed arguing that Malabanan alienable and the ambit of public dominion must be made in the form of a
704 SCRA 561 law duly enacted by Congress or by a Presidential
asserted right to ownership of land, and had failed to prove that the property belonged to the disposable rests
is charged with the conservation of (13) alienable and disposable land of the public domain. on the court to proclamation in cases where the President is duly
such patrimony. The CA reversed the decision of the RTC. Thus, decide. authorized by law to that effect. Until the Executive
appeal at bar. Department exercises its prerogative to classify or
reclassify lands, or until Congress or the President
The exclusive prerogative to classify declares that the State no longer intends the land to be
public lands under existing laws is used for public service or for the development of national
vested in the Executive Department, not wealth, the Regalian Doctrine is applicable.
in the courts.

A clear constitutional or legal basis to OCAMPO VS. During the campaign period for the 2016 Presidential Whether or not No, President Duterte's decision to have the remains of
hold that there was a grave abuse of ENRIQUEZ, G.R. Election, then candidate Rodrigo R. Duterte (Duterte) the court had Marcos interred at the LNMB involves a political question
discretion amounting to lack or excess NO. 225973, publicly announced that he would allow the burial of jurisdiction in that is not a justiciable controversy.
of jurisdiction is required to justify the former President Ferdinand E. Marcos (Marcos) at overriding a
NOVEMBER 8, In the exercise of his powers under the Constitution and
Court to interpose its authority to check the Libingan Ng Mga Bayani (LNMB). He won the memorandum
and override an act entrusted to the 2016 May 9, 2016 election. In compliance, he issued a by the President the Executive Order (E.O.) No. 292 (otherwise known as
judgment of another branch of the memorandum with all the necessary planning and the Administrative Code of 1987) to allow the interment of
government. preparations to facilitate the coordination of all Marcos at the LNMB, which is a land of the public domain
agencies concerned especially the provisions for devoted for national military cemetery and military shrine
ceremonial and security requirements. purposes, President Duterte decided a question of policy
based on his wisdom that it shall promote national healing
and forgiveness. There being no taint of grave abuse in
the exercise of such discretion, as discussed below,
President Duterte's decision on that political question is
outside the ambit of judicial review.

PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY

A statute should be construed PEREZ VS. On December 28, 1988, an audit team headed by WON the No.
whenever possible in harmony with, PEOPLE 544 Auditor I Arlene R. Mandin, conducted a cash penalty is cruel
rather than in violation of, the examination on the account of petitioner, who was and therefore An accountable public officer may be found guilty of
SCRA 532 (2008)
Constitution. The presumption is that then the acting municipal treasurer of Tubigon, unconstitutional malversation even if there is no direct evidence of
CITY OF malversation because the law establishes a presumption
the legislature intended to enact a valid, Bohol. The following day, the audit team counted the since petitioner
sensible and just law and one which CAGAYAN DE cash contained in the safe of petitioner in his returned the that mere failure of an accountable officer to produce
operates no further than may be ORO VS. presence and discovered a shortage of P72,784.57. money. public funds which have come into his hands on demand
necessary to effectuate the specific CEPALCO, G.R. by an officer duly authorized to examine his accounts is
purpose of the law. It is presumed that NO. 224825 prima facie case of conversion.
When asked as to the location of the missing funds,
the legislature has acted within its (2018) petitioner verbally explained that part of the money Failing to overcome its presumption of constitutionality, a
constitutional powers.
was used to pay for the loan of his late brother, claim that a law is cruel, unusual, or inhuman, like the
He who attacks the constitutionality of a another portion was spent for the food of his family, stance of petitioner, must fail.
law has the onus probandi to show why and the rest for his medicine. As a result, Mandin
such law is repugnant to the prepared a memorandum dated recommending the
Constitution. filing of the appropriate criminal case against
petitioner.

In 2003, petitioner was convicted by the

Sandiganbayan for malversation of public funds and
was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of
ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as
minimum to fourteen years (14) and eight (8) months
of reclusion temporal as maximum plus perpetual
 special disqualification.

CITY OF
CAGAYAN DE
ORO VS.
CEPALCO, G.R.
NO 224825 (2018)

CONDITIONS FOR THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

A constitutional question must be HACIENDA The case revolves around the revocation of the Stock WHETHER Yes. Supervisory Group, AMBALA and their respective
raised by a proper party. A proper party LUISITA VS. Development Agreement (SDA), in compliance with THE leaders are real parties-in-interest
is one who has sustained or is in PARC 653 SCRA RA 6657, and the distribution of land to farm workers PETITIONERS
imminent danger of sustaining an injury in the Hacienda Luisita case. THEREIN ARE The agreement mentions "the SDP qualified beneficiaries"
154 (2011) 660 as "the farmworkers who appear in the annual payroll,
as a result of the act complained of. To THE REAL
be a proper part, one must have legal SCRA 525 (2011) PARTIES-IN- inclusive of the permanent and seasonal employees, who
RA 6657, Sec. 31, provides two (2) alternative are regularly or periodically employed by HLI." AMBALA
standing or locus standi. INTEREST
modalities, i.e., land or stock transfer, pursuant to (Alyansa ng Manggawang Bukid ng HL) were employed by
TO FILE SAID
either of which the corporate landowner can comply HLI, and are qualified beneficiaries of the SDP; they come
PETITIONS.
with CARP, but subject to well-defined conditions within the definition of a real party-in-interest under Sec. 2,
and timeline requirements. The SDA was approved Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, meaning, one who stands to
by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council. be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or is the
party entitled to the avails of the suit.
In 2003, some farm workers filed petitions to revoke
the SDA, claiming that HLI failed to fulfill their The same holds true with respect to the Supervisory
obligations under the agreement. They argued that Group whose members were admittedly employed by HLI
distribution of the land was necessary for the true and whose names and signatures even appeared in the
implementation of agrarian reform. DAR agreed. annex of the SDOA. Being qualified beneficiaries of the
SDP, Suniga and the other 61 supervisors are certainly
parties who would benefit or be prejudiced by the
HLI challenged the revocation of the SDA arguing judgment recalling the SDP or replacing it with some other
that PARC did not have the authority to revoke the modality to comply with RA 6657.
agreement and that it violated their constitutional
rights. They also argued that the revocation would Even assuming that members of the Supervisory Group
result in the disposition of all of the corporation’s are not regular farmworkers, but are in the category of
assets, which should be governed by the Corporation "other farmworkers" mentioned in Sec. 4, Article XIII of the
Code. Constitution, thus only entitled to a share of the fruits of the
land, this does not detract from the fact that they are still
identified as being among the "SDP qualified
beneficiaries." As such, they are, thus, entitled to bring an
action upon the SDP.
A taxpayer, or group of taxpayers is a DELA LLANA VS. This is a Petition sought to annul and set aside Whether or not Yes.
proper party to question the validity of a CHAIRPERSON Commission on Audit (COA) Circular No. 89-299, the petitioner
law appropriating public funds. which lifted its system of pre-audit of government has legal This Petition is a taxpayer’s suit. Petitioner claims that the
665 SCRA176
financial transactions. The rationale for the circular standing. issuance of Circular No. 89299 has led to the dissipation of
(2012) public funds through numerous irregularities in government
was, first to reaffirm the concept that fiscal
responsibility resides in management as embodied in financial transactions. These transactions have allegedly
the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines; been left unchecked by the lifting of the pre- audit
and, second, to contribute to accelerating the performed by COA, which petitioner argues, is its
delivery of public services and improving government Constitutional duty. Thus, petitioner has standing to file
operations. As a taxpayer, Petitioner alleged that pre- this suit as a taxpayer, since he would be adversely
audit duty on the part of the COA cannot be lifted by affected by the illegal use of public money
mere circular, considering the pre-audit is a
constitutional mandate enshrined in Section 2 of
Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution. Moreover, he
claims that because of the lack of pre-audit by COA,
serious irregularities in the government transactions
have been committed.
For a court to exercise its power of CANDARI VS. Respondents were members of the board of directors Whether or not No. There is no cause of action since the issue had
adjudication, there must be an actual DONASCO 666 of Dolefil Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Cooperative, respondents still already become moot.
case or controversy — one which SCRA 279 (2012) Incorporated (DARBCI). They were elected into office have a cause of
involves a conflict of legal rights, an and their terms should have ended on 12 July 2000. action to file the The GA has clearly expressed its intentions by the
assertion of opposite legal claims However, they continued to occupy their positions in case. subsequent amendment of DARBCI’s Articles of
susceptible of judicial resolution; the a holdover capacity. On 23 November 2005, Cooperation and By-Laws and through the election of new
case must not be moot or academic or respondents instituted Civil Case in RTC of officers. The supervening events had rendered the case
based on extra-legal or other similar Polomolok, South Cotabato to enjoin petitioners from moot through the voluntary act of the GA – as the highest
considerations not cognizable by a holding a special general assembly (GA) and an policy-making body of the cooperative – to declare the
court of justice. election of officers. Respondents alleged that the contested positions vacant and to elect a new set of
process by which the GA had been called was not in officers.
A case becomes moot and academic accordance with Sec. 35 of Republic Act No. 6938,
when its purpose has become stale, otherwise known as the Cooperative Code of the As a consequence, respondents no longer had the
Philippines. personality or the cause of action to maintain the case
against the petitioners herein.

Despite the TRO, but without the participation of

petitioners, 78.68% of the total membership of the
cooperative – went through with the GA and elected
petitioners in absentia as new members of the board.
During the 20 December 2008 meeting, the GA
ratified the Amended Articles of Cooperation and the
Amended By-Laws of the cooperative.
As a general rule, a party is allowed to GALICTO VS. Pres. Aquino, issued EO 7, which provided for the Whether or not No.
"raise a constitutional question" when AQUINO 667 guiding principles and framework to establish a fixed the case should
(1) he can show that he will personally compensation and position classification system for prosper In the present case, the petitioner has no material interest
SCRA 255 (2012)
suffer some actual or threatened injury Government-owned and controlled corporations in the outcome of the case. The curtailment of future
because of the allegedly illegal conduct (GOCCs) and government financial institutions increases in his salaries and other benefits cannot but be
of the government; (2) the injury is fairly (GFIs) following Senate Resolution No. 17 "urging characterized as contingent events or expectancies. He
traceable to the challenged action; and the President to order the immediate suspension of has no vested rights to salary increases and, therefore, the
(3) the injury is likely to be redressed by the unusually large and apparently excessive absence of such right deprives the petitioner of legal
a favorable action. allowances, bonuses, incentives and other perks of standing to assail EO 7.
members of the governing boards of GOCCs and
Jurisprudence defines interest as GFIs.
"material interest, an interest in issue
and to be affected by the decree, as
distinguished from mere interest in the The petitioner claims that as a PhilHealth employee,
question involved, or a mere incidental he contends that as an employee of PhilHealth, he
interest. By real interest is meant a "stands to be prejudiced by EO 7 which suspends or
present substantial interest, as imposes a moratorium on the grants of salary
distinguished from a mere expectancy increases or new or increased benefits to officers
or a future, contingent, subordinate, or and employees of GOCC[s] and curtail[s] the
consequential interest." prerogative of those officers who are to fix and
determine his compensation."
An aspect of the "case-or-controversy" LAMP VS. SEC Petitioner Lawyers Against Monopoly and Poverty WHETHER OR Yes. Case-or-controversy and locus standi requirements
requirement is the requisite of OF DBM 670 (LAMP), a group of lawyers who have banded NOT THE are met.
"ripeness." Hence, a question is ripe for SCRA 373 (2012) together with a mission of dismantling all forms of MANDATORY
adjudication when the act being political, economic or social monopoly in the country, REQUISITES According to LAMP, the practice of direct allocation and
challenged has had a direct adverse sought the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction FOR THE release of funds to the Members of Congress and the
effect on the individual challenging it. or temporary restraining order to enjoin respondent EXERCISE OF authority given to them to propose and select projects is
Secretary of DBM from making and releasing JUDICIAL the core of the law’s flawed execution resulting in a serious
The gist of the question of standing is budgetary allocations to individual members of REVIEW ARE constitutional transgression involving the expenditure of
whether a party alleges "such a Congress as "pork barrel" funds out of Priority MET IN THIS public funds. Undeniably, as taxpayers, LAMP would
personal stake in the outcome of the Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). LAMP CASE somehow be adversely affected by this. A finding of
controversy as to assure that concrete likewise aimed to stop the National Treasurer and unconstitutionality would necessarily be tantamount to a
adverseness which sharpens the COA from enforcing the questioned provision. misapplication of public funds which, in turn, cause injury
presentation of issues upon which the or hardship to taxpayers. This affords "ripeness" to the
court so largely depends for present controversy. Furthermore, the sufficient interest
illumination of difficult constitutional preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by
questions taxation required in taxpayers’ suits is established.

Four exceptions to the mootness rule FUNA VS. Villar was designated as Acting Chairman of COA Whether or not Yes. The case may be moot but Court assumes a liberal
discussed in David vs Macapagal VILLAR 670 from February 4, 2008 to April 14, 2008 following the the petition of stance and allow petitioner to institute the instant petition
Arroyo namely: SCRA 570 (2012) retirement of Chairman Carague. Villar was Funa was
nominated and appointed as Chairman of COA. He valid. This case is of transcendental importance, since it has far-
a. There is a grave violation of the was to serve until February 2, 2011. reaching implications and there is a need to promulgate
Constitution; rules that will guide the bench, bar, and the public in future
b. The case involves a situation of analogous cases.
exceptional character and is of Funa challenges the constitutionality of the
paramount public interest; appointment of Villar as Chairman. Petitioner now Note: The main issues in this case were the term of office
c. The constitutional issue raised asseverates the view that Sec. 1(2), Art. IX(D) of the of the commissioners, rotational plan, etc.
requires the formulation of controlling 1987 Constitution proscribes reappointment of any
principles to guide the bench, the bar kind within the commission, the point being that a
and the public; second appointment, be it for the same position
d. The case is capable of repetition yet (commissioner to another position of commissioner)
evading review. or... upgraded position (commissioner to
chairperson) is a prohibited reappointment and is a
nullity ab initio.

The determination of whether or not a CAPALLA VS. Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM entered into a Whether or not No. Comelec was given until December 31, 2010 within
modification or amendment of a VILLAR 673 Contract of Lease with Option to Purchase the Capalla was which to exercise the
SCRA 1 (2012) PCOS, both software and hardware for an correct
contract bidded out constitutes a Automated Election System for the May 10, 2010 OTP. The option was, however, not exercised within said
substantial amendment rests on Synchronized National and Local Elections (AES period. But the parties later
whether the Contract).
entered into an extension agreement giving the Comelec
contract, when taken as a whole, would until March 31, 2012 within
contain substantially different terms Comelec was given until December 31, 2010 to
and exercise the option but opted not to exercise the which to exercise it. With the extension of the period, the
same except for the 920 units of PCOS machines. Comelec validly exercised
conditions that would have the effect of Comelec seriously considered to exercise the option
altering the technical and/or financial and so it was given until March 31, 2012, the the option and eventually entered into a contract of sale of
extended period to exercise the option to purchase. the subject goods. The
proposals previously submitted by
other bidders. extension of the option period, the subsequent exercise
According to Capalla, et al the extended option to thereof, and the eventual
It must be pointed out that public purchase the PCOS, as well as the AES Contract is
biddings are held for the best contrary to law and the Constitution. execution of the Deed of Sale became the subjects of the
protection of the petitions challenging their
The SC already rendered a decision on June 13,
public and to give the public the best validity in light of the contractual stipulations of
2012 dismissing the petitions of Capalla, et al. This
possible advantages by means of open respondents and the provisions of RA
case is a motion for reconsideration of the SC’s
decision. 9184.
competition between the bidders, and
to change them without complying with
the Based on the AES Contract, we sustained the parties’ right
to amend the same by
bidding requirement would be against extending the option period. Considering that the
public policy. What are prohibited are performance security had not been

modifications or amendments which released to Smartmatic-TIM, the contract was still effective
give the winning bidder an edge or which can still be
advantage
amended by the mutual agreement of the parties, such
over the other bidders who took part in amendment being reduced in
the bidding, or which make the signed
writing.
contract unfavorable to the
government.

Determinants established in CHAVEZ VS. JBC Art 8 sec 8 of the Constitution provides: Whether or not Yes. Chavez seeks judicial intervention as a
jurisprudence are attendant in this 676 SCRA 579 (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created the conditions taxpayer, a concerned citizen and
case: (2012) under the supervision of the sine qua non a nominee to the position of Chief Justice of the SC.
SC composed of x x x a representative of the for the As a taxpayer, he invokes his
1. The character of the funds Congress x x x exercise of the right to demand that the taxes he and the rest of
In compliance therewith, Congress designated power of the citizenry have been paying to
or other assets involved in the case; 2. one representative to sit in the JBC to judicial review the government are spent for lawful purposes
The presence of a clear case of act as one of the ex officio members. Perhaps have been met
disregard of a in order to give equal opportunity to in this case. The allegations of
both houses to sit in the exclusive body, the
constitutional or statutory prohibition constitutional violations in this case are not empty
HR and the Senate would send alternate
by the public respondent agency or attacks on the wisdom of the
representatives to the JBC. In other words,
instrumentality of the government; and Congress had only 1 representative.
other brances of the government. The allegations are
3. The lack of any other party with a In 1994, the composition of the JBC was
substantiated by facts, and
more substantially altered. Instead of having only
7 members, an 8th member was added to the therefore, deserve an evaluation from the Court.
direct and specific interest in the JBC as 2 representatives from Congress
questions being raised. began sitting in the JBC- 1 from HR and 1 from
the Senate, with each having . of a
vote.
Chavez filed a petition alleging that JBC shall
have only 1 representative from

Congress as mandated by Art 8 sec 8 par 1 of

the Constitution.
On requisites to judicial review IDEALS VS. EPIRA (RA 9136) mandated PSALM to manage Whether or not Yes. The petition was thus filed not only as a
PSALM 682 the orderly sale, disposition and IDEALS, et al means of enforcing the State’s obligation to
SCRA 602 (2012) privatization of NPC generation assets, real possess the protect the citizens’ right to water but also to
estate and other disposable assets, and requisite. bar a foreign corporation from
Independent Power Producer contracts. exploiting our water resources in violation of
On May 5, 2010, and after a post-bid Art 12 sec 2 of the 1987 Constitution.
evaluation, PSALM’s Board of Directors
approved and confirmed the issuance of a Ensuring adequate water supply for domestic
Notice of Award to the highest bidder, use is of paramount importance to the
Korea Water Resources for the sale of Angat public. That the continued availability of
Hydro-Electric Power including the Angat water in Metro Manila might be
Dam, Angat Reservoir and the outlying compromised if PSALM proceeds with the
watershed areas. privatization of the hydroelectric power
IDEALS, et al contended that PSALM gravely plant confers upon IDEALS et al such personal
abused its discretion when in conducting stake in the resolution of legal issues.
the bid, it disregarded and violated the
people’s right to information guaranteed
under the Constitution. It also alleged that
PSALM violated the constitutional
provisions on the appropriation and utilization
of water limiting water rights to Filipino
citizens and corporations which are at least
60% Filipino-owned.
 PSALM prayed for the dismissal of the petition
because it was rendered moot by the
issuance of a Notice of Award in favor of K-
Water.
On locus standi ADVOCATES The case involves Advocates for Truth in Lending, WON the No.
FOR TRUTH VS. Inc. (AFTIL) and its founder Eduardo B. Olaguer. AFTIL have
Direct injury test – a person who They filed a Petition challenges the authority of the locus standi to while petitioners assert a public right to
BANGKO
impugns the validity of a statute must Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board (BSP- file the petition assail CB Circular No. 905 as an illegal
have a personal and substantial interest SENTRAL 688
MB) to enforce Central Bank Circular No. 905.They executive action, it is nonetheless required of
in the case as such that he has SCRA 530 (2013) contended that the CB-MB exceeded its authority by them to make out a sufficient interest in the
sustained or will sustain direct injury as removing all interest ceilings. They claimed the vindication of the public order and the
result circular was unconstitutional and violated due securing of relief. It is significant that in this
process and equal protection clauses. petition, the petitioners do not allege that
they sustained any personal injury from the
issuance of CB Circular No. 905

FUNA VS. AGRA The Supreme Court of the Philippines declares the WON Here, the OSG does not dispute the
691 SCRA 196 concurrent appointment of Alberto C. Agra as Acting Petitioner has justiciability and ripeness for consideration
(2013) Secretary of Justice and Acting Solicitor General to locus standi and resolution by the Court of the matter
be unconstitutional and void, in response to a case raised by the petitioner. Also, the locus
filed by Dennis A.B. Funa challenging the standi of the petitioner as a taxpayer, a
constitutionality of Agra's appointments. concerned citizen and a lawyer to bring a suit
The petitioner alleges that on March 1, 2010, of this nature has already been settled in his
President Gloria M. Macapagal Arroyo appointed favor in rulings by the Court on several other
Agra as the Acting Secretary of Justice following the public law litigations he brought.
resignation of Secretary Agnes VST Devanadera in
order to vie for a congressional seat in Quezon
Province; that on March 5, 2010, President Arroyo
designated Agra as the Acting Solicitor General in a
concurrent capacity; that on April 7, 2010, the
petitioner, in his capacity as a taxpayer, a concerned
citizen and a lawyer, commenced this suit to
challenge the constitutionality of Agra’s concurrent
appointments or designations, claiming it to be
prohibited under Section 13, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution.

No question involving the constitutionality BELGICA VS. On September 3, 2013, petitioners filed an Urgent Whether or not No. These petitions are subject for judicial
or validity of a law or governmental act OCHOA 710 Petition For Certiorari and Prohibition With Prayer the issues review.
may be heard and decided by the Court SCRA 1 (2013) For The Immediate Issuance of Temporary raised in the
unless there is compliance with the legal Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary consolidated  The applicability of the first exception
requisites for judicial inquiry,namely: Injunction dated August 27, 2013 under Rule 65 of petitions are is clear from the fundamental posture
(a) there must be an actual case or the Rules of Court (Belgica Petition), seeking that the matters of of petitioners – they essentially
controversy calling for the exercise of annual "Pork Barrel System," presently embodied in policy not allege grave violations of the
judicial power; the provisions of the GAA of 2013 which provided for subject to Constitution with respect to, inter
(b) the person challenging the act must the 2013 PDAF, and the Executive‘s lump-sum, judicial review. alia, the principles of separation of
have the standing to question the validity discretionary funds, such as the Malampaya Funds powers, non-delegability of
of the subject act or issuance; and the Presidential Social Fund, be declared legislative power, checks and
(c) the question of constitutionality must be unconstitutional and null and void for being acts balances, accountability and local
raised at the earliest opportunity ; constituting grave abuse of discretion. autonomy.
(d) the issue of constitutionality must be  If only for the purpose of validating the existence
the very lis mota of the case of an actual and justiciable controversy in these
cases, the Court deems the findings under the
CoA Report to be sufficient. (locus standi)
 The Court also finds the third exception to be
applicable largely due to the practical need for a
 definitive ruling on the system‘s constitutionality.
 that the preparation and passage of the national
budget is, by constitutional imprimatur, an affair
of annual occurrence. The myriad of issues
underlying the manner in which certain public
funds are spent, if not resolved at this most
opportune time, are capable of repetition and
hence, must not evade judicial review.

When a penal statute encroaches upon the DISINI VS. SOJ The Philippine Congress enacted Republic Act (R.A.) WON the Yes.
freedom of speech, a facial challenge 716 SCRA 237 10175 or known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of petitioners As already stated, the cyberspace is an
grounded on the void-for-vagueness (2014) 2012 which seeks to protect individuals from crimes have locus incomparable, pervasive medium of
doctrine is acceptable. or unlawful acts that can be committed through the standi communication. It is inevitable that any
internet. While it is admitted that the use of internet government threat of punishment regarding
or cyberspace gives access to research, certain uses of the medium creates a chilling
The rationale for this exception is
advertisements, business, inquiries and connection effect on the constitutionally-protected
to counter the "chilling effect" on
with a greater number of audience, it is also an freedom of expression of the great masses
protected speech that comes
instrument to commit crimes which the law itself is that use it. In this case, the particularly
from statutes violating free
trying to prevent and regulate. complex web of interaction on social media
speech. A person who does not
Petitioners in these consolidated cases, contended websites would give law enforcers such
know whether his speech that this law violated certain constitutional rights thus latitude that they could arbitrarily or
constitutes a crime under an praying that it be declared void and unconstitutional. selectively enforce the law.
overbroad or vague law may The Temporary Restraining Order issued on October
simply restrain himself from 9, 2012 is extended for 120 days, pending resolution
speaking in order to avoid being of the case.
charged of a crime. The
overbroad or vague law thus
chills him into silence.67

The Supreme Court is vested by the BROKENSHIRE Employees filed a complaint against petitioner
Constitution with the power to ultimately VS. MINISTER (Brokenshire Hospital) with the Regional office of Whether or not No. The Regional Director cannot decide on constitutionality
declare a law unconstitutional 182 SCRA 5 DOLE for non-compliance of Wage Order No.5 and
the Regional of Wage Order Nos. 5 and 6.
Wage Order No.6 with respect to living allowance.
(1990) Director has
In its answer, petitioner raised the affirmative
defense of Unconstitutionality of Wage Orders No. 5 jurisdiction over The Regional Director is plainly, without authority to declare
and No. 6. The Regional Director resolved the matter the constitutional an order or law unconstitutional and his duty is merely to
in favor of the employees stating that "only the court questions raised enforce the law which stands valid, unless otherwise declared
can declare a law or order unconstitutional and until by this Tribunal to be unconstitutional.
so declared by the court, the Office of the Regional
Director is duly bound to enforce the law or order."
Petitioner appealed the case before the Minister of
Labor which was subsequently dismissed for lack of
merit. Thereafter, petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration which was likewise denied by the
Minister of Labor. Aggrieved, petitioners filed the
instant petition for review on certiorari including a
contention that the Regional Director erred in skirting
the constitutional and legal questions raised.