SUBJECT TOPIC DIGEST MAKER

Consti 1 Conditions for the Exercise of Niel Fuentes

Judicial Review

IBP vs Zamora
Kapunan, J.
Docket Number: G.R. No. 141284
Petitioner(s): Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Respondent(s): Hon. Ronaldo B. Zamora, Gen. Panfilo Lacson, Gen. Edgar Aglipay
FACTS
• Special civil action for certiorari and prohibition w/ prayer for issuance of a temporary
restraining order seeking to nullify on constitutional grounds the order of Pres. Estrada
commanding the deployment of the Philippine Marines to join the PNP in visibility patrols
around the metropolis.
• Sec. 18, Art 7 of the 1987 Constitution gives the President the, as commander-in-chief,
calling out powers, the power to declare martial law, and the power to suspend the writ of
habeas corpus.
• In the present case, Estrada used his calling out powers to direct the AFP Chief of Stagg
and PNP Chief to coordinate with each other for the proper deployment and utilization of
the Marines to assist the PNP in preventing or suppressing criminal or lawlessness in the
city. Task Force Tulongan was placed under the leadership of the Police Chief of Metro
Manila.
• Estrada declared that the services of the Marines in the anti-crime campaign is only
temporary and for a reasonable period only until such time that the situation will improve.
• Selected areas of deployment under the LOI are: Monumento Circle, North Edsa (SM
City), Araneta Shopping Center, Green Hills, SM Megamall, Makati Commercial Center,
LRT/MRT stations, NAIA and Domestic Airport.
• IBP questions the validity of the deployment and utilization of the Marines to assist the
PNP in law enforcement.
• SolGen defends the constitutionality of the act on the grounds that: petitioner has no legal
standing, the question of deployment of the Marines is not proper for judicial review since
it involves a political question, the organization and conduct of police visibility patrols does
not violate the civilian supremacy clause in the Constitution.
ISSUES and RATIONALE
1. W/N petitioner has legal standing.
2. W/N the president’s factual determination of the necessity of calling the AFP is subject to
judicial review.
3. W/N the calling of the AFP to assist the PNP in joint visibility patrols violate the
Puno, J.
constitutional provisions on civilian supremacy over the military and the civilian character
The case is significant because of the government’s attempt to foist the political question doctrine to
of the PNP.
shield an executive act done in the exercise of the president’s powers from judicial scrutiny. If the
.
attempt succeeded, it would have diminished the power of judicial review and weakened the
DISPOSITION
checking authority of the Court over the Chief Exec.
1. SC ruled that the petition has no merit.
o Petitioner failed to sufficiently show that it is in possession of the requisites of
standing to raise the issues in the petition
o President did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction nor did he commit a violation of the civilian supremacy clause of
the Constitution.
o When questions of constitutional significance are raised, the Court can
exercise its power of judicial review only if the ff requisites are complied with:
▪ Existence of an actual and appropriate case
▪ Personal and substantial interest of the party raising the
constitutional question
▪ Exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity.
▪ Constitutional question is the lis mota of the case.
o Locus standi: personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has
sustained or will sustain direct injury. Interest: material interest, an interest in
issue affected by the decree
o IBP failed to show that they will suffer direct injury upon the deployment of the
marines, therefore, the court cannot take cognizance of the case at bar.
2. President’s discretion in calling of the AFP is not subject to judicial review. Discretion
exercised by the president is a question of wisdom, and not the legality of law.
o Sec. 18, Art. 7 does not say anything about the revocation/review of the
President’s calling out powers. Calling out powers is different compared to the
other 2 emergency powers.
o Calling out powers is treated differently because it is the lesser/more benign
power and it is to give the president the widest leeway and broadest discretion in
using the power to call out.
o Martial law and suspension of the writ of habeas corpus involves the curtailment
of certain basic civil rights and individual freedoms, thus necessitating safeguards
by Congress and review by the Court.
o Petitioners failed to establish that the calling of the AFP for peacekeeping
purposes was without factual basis. Crime and lawlessness were escalating in the
city.
3. SC disagrees with the contention that by deploying the AFP, the civilian task of law
enforcement is militarized in violation of Sec. 3, Art 2.
o No breach of civilian supremacy clause is done.
o Calling of the Marines constitutes permissible use of military assets for civilian
law enforcement.
o PNP is still the authority in Task Force Tulongan. Therefore, the civilian
character of the police force is upheld.
CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINION
SUBJECT TOPIC DIGEST MAKER
Consti 1 Conditions for the Exercise of Niel Fuentes
Judicial Review

Kilosbayan vs Morato CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINION

Mendoza, J.
REVIEW NOTES
Docket Number: G.R. No. 118910
Petitioner(s): Kilosbayan Incorporated, Jovito Salonga, et al. This part is optional. Highly encouraged and very much appreciated, but not required.
Respondent(s): Manuel Morato,

FACTS
• Petitioners seek reconsideration of our decision in this case.
• This case involves the petitioner’s moral crusade against gambling (a non-justiciable issue)
wherein the petitioners seek to declare the Executive Lease Agreement (ELA) invalid on
the ground that it is substantially the same as the Contract of Lease nullified in the previous
case’s decision (Kilosbayan vs Guingona) w/c invalidated the Contract of Lease between
PCSO and PGMC.
• January 25, 1995, the parties signed the ELA whereby the PGMC leased online lottery
equipment and accessories to the PCSO.
• Petitioners maintain that:
o The ELA is a different lease contract with none of the vestiges of a joint venture
w/c were found in the Contract of Lease nullified in the prior case
o The ELA did not have to be submitted to a public bidding because it fell w/in the
exception provided in EO No. 301, Sec. 1 (e)
o That the power to determine whether the ELA is advantageous to the government
is vested in the Board of Directors of the PCSO
o That for lack of funds the PCSO cannot purchase its own online lottery
equipment and has ahd to enter into a lease contract
o That what petitioners are actually seeking in this suit is to further their moral
crusade and political agenda, using the SC as their forum
ISSUES and RATIONALE
1. W/N the petitioner have cause against the respondents.

DISPOSITION
1. No. Petitioners have neither standing to bring this suit nor substantial interest to make
them real parties in interest within the meaning of Sec. 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.
o Suing in their individual and collective capacities as “taxpayers and concerned
citizens,” they have no personal and substantial interest likely to be injured by the
enforcement of the contract. There are also no allegations that public funds are
being misspent or misused, both substantial requisites to effectively sue as a
taxpayer.
o In actions for the annulment of contracts, the real parties are those who are
parties to the agreement or are bound either (1) principally or subsidiarily or are
prejudiced in their rights with respect to one of the contracting parties and can
show the detriment w/c would positively result to them from the contract even
though they did not intervene in it, or (2) who claim a right to take part in a
public bidding but have been illegally excluded from it.
SUBJECT TOPIC DIGEST MAKER
Consti 1 Conditions for the Exercise of Niel Fuentes
Judicial Review

Serrano vs Gallant Maritime Services o There exists an actual controversy directly involving petitioner who is aggrieved
Austria-Martinez, J. that the labor tribunals and the CA computed his monetary award based on the
salary period of 3 months only as provided under the subject clause.
Docket Number: G.R. No. 167614 o Constitutional challenge is also timely.
Petitioner(s): Antonio Serrano o It is not the NLRC but the CA that has the competence to resolve the
constitutional issue. NLRC is a labor tribunal while the CA is vested with the
Respondent(s): Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc. power of judicial review or the power to declare unconstitutional a law or a
provision thereof, such as the subject clause.
FACTS
• Petitioner was hired by Gallant Maritime Services and Marlow Navigation Co. under a DISPOSITION
POEA-approved Contract of Employment. • The Court grants the petition
• March 19, 1998, the date of his departure, petitioner was constrained to accept a • The subject clause is declared unconstitutional.
downgraded employment contract for the position of Second Officer with a monthly salary • December 8, 2004 Decision and April 1, 2005 resolution of the CA is modified
of US$1000, as opposed to the $1400 he was supposed to get as a Chief Officer. • Petitioner is awarded his salaries for the entire unexpired portion of his employment
• Petitioner refused to stay on as second offcer and was repatriated to the Philippines on May consisting of 9 months and 23 days computed at the rate of $1400 per month.
26, 1998. CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINION
• Petitioner’s employment contract was for a period of 12 years, from March 19, 1998 to
March 19, 1999, but he only stayed until May 26, 1998, which is just 2 months and 7 days. REVIEW NOTES
Unexpired portion of 9 months and 23 days.
• Filed with the LA a complaint against respondents for constructive dismissal and for This part is optional. Highly encouraged and very much appreciated, but not required.
payment of his money claims.
• LA rendered the dismissal of the petitioner illegal and awarded him the monetary benefits.
• Respondents appealed to the NLRC to question the findings of the LA. Likewise, petitioner
appealed to the NLRC that the LA erred in not applying the ruling of the Court in Triple
Integrated Services Inc. vs NLRC.
• Petitioner filed a motion for partial reconsideration; he questioned the constitutionality of
the subject clause of RA 8042, Sec 10, 5th paragraph.
• Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, reiterating the constitutional challenge
against the subject clause. CA affirmed the NLRC ruling on the reduction of the applicable
salary rate; however, the CA skirted the constitutional issue raised by petitioner.
• Applying the subject clause, the NLRC and CA computed the lump sum salary of petitioner
and held that it is a total of $4200 (1400 x 3 months out of the unexpired portion of nine
months and 23 days)
• Petitioner impugned the constitutionality of the subject clause and contends that in addition
to the $4200, he is entitled to $21,182.23 more or a total of $25,382.23.

ISSUES and RATIONALE

1. W/N the labor arbiter has jurisdiction or is it the court that has jurisdiction.
o SC only exercises its power of judicial review of the acts of its co-equals, such as
Congress when:
▪ There is an actual case or controversy involving a conflict of rights
susceptible of judicial determination
▪ That the constitutional question is the very lis mota of the case
▪ Constitutional question is raised by a proper party.
SUBJECT TOPIC DIGEST MAKER
Consti 1 Conditions for the Exercise of Niel Fuentes
Judicial Review

Umali vs. Guingona 3. W/N the PCAGC is validly constituted govt agency and whether the petitioner can raise the
Kapunan, J. issue of its constitutionality belated in its motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s
decision.
Docket Number: G.R. No. 131124 o Constitutionality of the PCAGC was only posed by the petitioner in his
Petitioner(s): Osmundo Umali motion for reconsideration before the RTC of Makati. It is too late to raise the
said issue for the first time at such late stage of the proceedings.
Respondent(s): Exec. Sec. Teofisto Guingona Jr. 4. W/N in the light of the ombudsman resolution dismissing the charges against
petitioner, there is still basis for petitioner’s dismissal with forfeiture of benefits as ruled in
FACTS AO No. 152.
• On Oct. 27, 1993, petitioner was appointed RD of the BIR by then Pres. Fidel Ramos. He o The administrative action against petitioner was taken prior to the institution of
was assigned in Manila from Nov. 29, 1993 to March 15, 1994, and in Makati, from March the criminal case. AO No. 152 is based on the results of the investigation
16, 1994 to August 4, 1994. conducted by PCAGC and not on the criminal charges before the ombudsman
• On August 1, 1994, Pres. Ramos received a confidential memorandum against petitioner
for alleged violations of internal revenue laws, rules, and regulations during his ➢ The petition is dismissible because the issues raised by the petitioner does not constitute
incumbency as RD. any valid legal basis for overturning the findings and conclusions by the CA. However,
• On Oct. 6, 1994, Pres. Ramos issued AO No. 152 dismissing the petitioner from service considering the antecedent facts and circumstances, the Court has decided to consider the
with forfeiture of retirement and all benefits provided by law. dismissal and because the Commissioner of the BIR is no longer interested in pursuing the
• On Oct. 24, 1994, petitioner moved for reconsideration of his dismissal but the OP denied case. SolGen has no more bases to enact AO No. 152.
the motion for reconsideration on November 28, 1994.
• On December 3, 1994, RTC dismissed his petition. On January 10, 1995, petitioner DISPOSITION
presented a motion for reconsideration, this time, theorizing that the PCAGC is an • Court grants the petition.
unconstitutional office without jurisdiction to conduct the investigation against him. • AO No. 152 is considered LIFTED and petitioner can be allowed to retire with full
• Case was re-raffled because petitioner alleged that the rtc judge was biased since he was a benefits.
former solicitor in the OSG. CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINION
• Hon. Teofilo Guadiz Jr. amended the previous decision of the RTC and granted the
petition, reversing the original decision. REVIEW NOTES
• Not satisfied with the amended decision, the respondents appealed to the CA, who reversed
the amended decision. This part is optional. Highly encouraged and very much appreciated, but not required.
• On July 25, 1995, Ombudsman Investigators Merba Waga and Arnulfo Pelagio issued a
resolution finding a probable cause and recommending the institution in the courts of
proper Jurisdiction criminal cases for falsification of public documents (13 counts) and
open disobedience (2 counts) against petitioner.
ISSUES and RATIONALE
1. W/N AO No. 152 violated the petitioner’s right to security of tenure
o No. Neither can it be said that there was a violation of what petitioner asserts as
his security of tenure.
o Petitioner claimed that as a RD of BIR he is CESO eligible entitled to security of
tenure. However, it is anemic of evidentiary support. It was fatal that he wasn’t
able to provide sufficient evidence on this matter.
2. W/N petitioner was denied of due process in the issuance of AO No. 152.
o No. CA ruled correctly on the first 3 issues. Petitioner was not denied the right to
due process. Records show that the petitioner filed his answer and other
pleadings with respect to his alleged violations of internal revenue laws and
regulations and he attended the hearings before the investigatory body.
SUBJECT TOPIC DIGEST MAKER
Consti 1 Conditions for the Exercise of Niel Fuentes
Judicial Review
Alunan III vs Mirasol
Mendoza, J.
Docket Number: G.R. No. 108399
Petitioner(s): Rafael Alunan III, et al.
Respondent(s): Robert Mirasol, et al.
FACTS
• Petition for review on certiorari of the Jan. 19, 1993 decision of the RTC Manila (Branch
36), nullifying an order of the DILG, which in effect cancelled the general elections for the
SK slated on Dec. 4, 1992 in the City of Manila, on the ground that the elections previously
help on May 26, 1990 served the purpose of the first elections for the SK under the Local
Govt Code of 1991 (RA No. 7160)
• The cancellation of the SK elections was issued in relation to the letter of Joshue R.
Santiago, acting president of the KB City Federation of Manila.
• In its resolution, DILG stated:
o A close examination of…. RA 7160 would readily reveal the intention of the
legislature to exempt from the upcoming SK elections those Kabataang barangay
chapters w/c may have conducted their elections w/in the period of Jan 1, 1988
and Jan 1, 1992 under BP 337. The term of office of those elected KB officials
have been correspondingly extended to coincide w/ the term of office of those
who may be elected under RA 7160.
• Respondents filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus in the RTC-Manila, w/c then
issued an injunction ordering petitioners to desist from implementing the order of the
DILG.
• Trial of the case ensued and a decision was issued holding:
o The DILG had no power to “exempt” the city of Manila from holding SK
elections because Sec. 2(1), Art. 9 of Consti states that the power to enforce and
administer “all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election,
plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall” is vested solely in the Comelec.
o Comelec had already in effect determined that there had been no previous
elections for KB by calling for a general elections in every barangay w/out
exeption
o The exemption of the city of Manila is violative of the EPC
• The exemption is violative of the EPC because out of the 5,000 barangays that previously
held elections, only in Manila, 897 barangays had no elections.
ISSUES and RATIONALE
1. W/N Comelec can validly vest the DILG with the power of direct control and supervision
over the SK elections with the technical assistance of Comelec. W/N DILG can exempt an
LGU from holding SK elections.
o DILG had the authority to determine whether Mnl would be required to hold SK
elections.
▪ COMELEC vesting DILG with such powers is not unconstitutional.
▪ Election for SK officers are not subject to the supervision of Comelec,
in the same way that contests involving elections of SK officials do not
fall w/in the jurisdiction of the Comelec.
▪ In Mercado v Board of Election Supervisors, Justice Davide
states that the provision of the Omnibus Election Code states that
Comelec shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over contest
involving elective barangay officials only refer to elective barangay
officials under the laws in force at the time the Code was enacted.
o DILG was only acting or performing tasks in accordance to the framework of
detailed and comprehensive rules embodied in a resolution of Comelec. Although
no barangays were named in the resolution, DILG was not given discretionary
powers because they merely used the time period set by Comelec as a reference
in designating exempted barangays.
o LGC of 1991 was held to be curative, has retroactive effect.
o The contention of violation of the EPC could not be determined in the records of
this case.
2. W/N the case has been moot and academic.
o SC held that the issue is not moot and it is necessary in fact to decide the case on
the issues raised by the parties.
o Doubt may be cast on the validity of the acts of those elected in the May 26, 1990
KB elections in Mnl because this Court enjoined the enforcement of the decision
of the trial court and these officers continued in office until May 13, 1996.
o This case comes within the rule that courts will decide a question otherwise moot
and academic if it is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.”
o Southern Pacific Terminal Case and Roe v Wade case: issue was still decided on
despite the fact that the order had expired and the woman is not pregnant
anymore, respectively.
▪ Case will continue to be tried by the SC as long as it is capable of
repetition, yet evading review.
DISPOSITION
• Decision of the RTC-Manila 36 is reversed and the case filed by respondents against
petitioner is dismissed.
CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINION
REVIEW NOTES
This part is optional. Highly encouraged and very much appreciated, but not required.
SUBJECT TOPIC DIGEST MAKER
Consti 1 Conditions for the Exercise of Niel Fuentes
Judicial Review

Malaluan vs Comelec ▪ He exercised the duties of an elective office under color of election
Hermosisima, Jr., J. thereto. He was a de facto officer, who, in good faith, has had
possession of the office and had discharged the duties pertaining
Docket Number: G.R. No. 120193 thereto and is thus legally entitled to the emoluments of the office.
Petitioner(s): Luis Malaluan
Respondent(s): Comelec and Joseph Evangelista DISPOSITION
• Petition for certiorari is granted
FACTS • Uphold the decision of Comelec that Evangelista is the winner in the election for mayor,
• Luis Malaluan and Joseph Evangelista are mayoralty candidates in the municipality of but it is deemed moot and academic since the term of office for mayor has long expired.
Kidapawan, North Cotabato in the SNLE held on May 11, 1992. • Portion of the decision awarding actual damages to private respondent Evangelista is
• The nat’l board of canvassers proclaimed Evangelista as the duly elected mayor. hereby declared null and void for having been issued in grave abuse of discretion and in
• Malaluan filed an electoral protest with the RTC contesting 64 out of the total 181 precincts excess of jurisdiction.
of the said municipality. CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINION
• Trial court declared Malaluan as the duly elected mayor. Lower court found Evangelista
liable for Malaluan’s protest expenses, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. REVIEW NOTES
• On February 3, 1994, Evangelista appealed the trial court decision to the Comelec.
• Feb 4, 1994, petitioner filed a motion for execution pending appeal, which was granted by This part is optional. Highly encouraged and very much appreciated, but not required.
the trial court. Petitioner assumed office of Municipal Mayor of Kidapawan and exercised
the powers and functions of said office.
• However, the First Division of the Comelec ordered Malaluan to vacate the office, having
found and so declared Evangelista to be the duly elected Mayor. Comelec En Banc
affirmed said decision.
• Malaluan filed the present petition on May 31, 1995. The term of officials elected in the
May 1992 elections expired on June 30, 1995. This petition has become moot and academic
insofar as it concerns the petitioner’s claim to the mayoralty seat.
• However, the question as to damages remains ripe for adjudication.
• Comelec found Malaluan liable for atty’s fees, actual expenses for xerox copies, and
unearned salary and other emoluments from March 1994 to April 1995.
ISSUES and RATIONALE
1. W/N the Comelec gravely abused its discretion in awarding the aforecited damages in favor
of private respondent.
o GR: notwithstanding his subsequent ouster as a result of an election protest, an
elective official who has been proclaimed by Comelec as winner in an electoral
contest and who assumed office and entered into the performance of the duties of
that office is entitled to the compensation, emoluments and allowances legally
provided for the position.
o If you assume position of office when in truth and in fact, he was not so elected,
he would be liable for damages. If this happens, the salary, fees, and emoluments
received by or paid to him during his illegal incumbency would be a proper item
of recoverable damage.
o In the present case, the award of salaries and other emolument to Evangelista is
improper since Malaluan was not a usurper.
SUBJECT TOPIC DIGEST MAKER
Consti 1 Conditions for the Exercise of Niel Fuentes
Judicial Review

Gonzales vs Narvasa CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINION

Gonzaga-Reyes, J.
REVIEW NOTES
Docket Number: G.R. No. 140835
Petitioner(s): Ramon A. Gonzales This part is optional. Highly encouraged and very much appreciated, but not required.
Respondent(s): Andres Narvasa, Ronaldo Zamora, et al.

FACTS
• In this petition for prohibition and mandamus filed on Dec. 9, 1999, petitioner Ramon A.
Gonzales, in his capacity as a citizen and taxpayer, assails the constitutionality of the
creation of the Preparatory Commission on Constitutional Reform (PCCR) and of the
positions of presidential consultants, advisers, and assistants.
o EO 43 – creation of the PCCR
o EO 70 – extension of the timeframe of PCCR to complete its task.
• In his capacity as citizen and as taxpayer, petitioner seeks to enjoin the Commission on
Audit from passing in audit expenditures for the PCCR and the presidential consultant,
advisers, and assistants; as well as to ask this Court to enjoin the PCCR and presidential caa
from acting as such and enjoin Exec. Sec. Ronaldo B. Zamora from enforcing their advice
and recommendations.
• Petitioner also prays for an order compelloing Zamora to furnish petitioner with
information on certain matters.
ISSUES and RATIONALE
• W/N the petitioner possesses the requisites of filing a suit as a citizen and as taxpayer.

DISPOSITION
• No. Petitioner did not show what particularized interest they have to bring the suit.
• Petitioner has not shown that he has sustained or is in danger of sustaining any personal
injury attributable to the creation of the PCCR. If at all, it is only Congress which can claim
any “injury” in this case since, according to petitioner, the President has encroached upon
the legislative powers to create a public office and to propose amendments to the Charter
by forming the PCCR.
• No exercise by Congress of its taxing or spending power, therefore, filing as a taxpayer has
no grounds.
• With regards to the petitioner’s request of disclosure of public information, the Court
upheld that citizens may invoke before the courts the right to information. When a
mandamus proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the requirement of personal
interest is satisfied by the mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen.
• Furthermore, the action of petitioner is erroneous. He prayed for prohibition but the PCCR
no longer exists. Prohibition is a preventive remedy and does not lie to restrain an act that is
already fait accompli. Thus, making the issue moot and academic.

• SC dismissed the petitioner, with the exception that Zamora is ordered to furnish petitioner
with the information requested.
SUBJECT TOPIC DIGEST MAKER
Consti 1 Conditions for the Exercise of Niel Fuentes
Judicial Review

Bayan vs Zamora o All the requirements in Sec. 25, Art. 18 are met.
Buena, J. ▪ First 2 requirements, the concurrence of 2/3 of the members of Senate
is sufficient. No need for ratification by the people because Congress
Docket Number: G.R. No. 138570 October 10, 2000 did not require it.
Petitioner(s): Bagong Alyansyang Makabayan, et al. ▪ 3rd requirement, even if US treats the VFA as an executive
agreement, in int’l law, an Executive Agreement is as binding as a
Respondent(s): Exec. Sec. Zamora, et al. treaty. In fact, as long as the VFA possesses the elements of an
agreement under Int’l Law, the said agreement is to be taken equally as
FACTS a treaty.
• The US panel met with the Philippine panel to discuss, among others, the possible elements o Also, the US gov’t has stated that it is fully committed to living up to the terms of
of the VFA. VFA provides the mechanism for regulating the circumstances and conditions the VFA.
under w/c the US Armed Forces and defense personnel may be present in the Philippines. 2. W/N the power to ratify treaties, like the VFA, is lodged with the Senate?
Pres. Fidel V. Ramos approved the VFA w/c was respectively signed by public respondent o Ratification is generally held to be an executive act, undertaken by the head of
Secretary Siazon and US ambassador Thomas Hubbard on Febraury 10, 1998. the state, through w/c the formal acceptance of a treaty is proclaimed. Hence, the
• On October 5, 1998, newly elected Pres. Estrada, through the country’s secretary of power to ratify treaty is vested in the President and not in the legislature.
Foreign Affairs, ratified the VFA. It was then officially transmitted to the Senate for o The role of Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its consent or
concurrence, pursuant to Sec. 21, Art 7 of the 1987 constitution. Senate gave its concurrence to the ratification, in accordance with the principle of a healthy
concurrence to the VFA by a 2/3 vote of its members. system of checks and balances. However, per the principle of separation of
• June 1, 1999, VFA officially entered into force after an exchange of Notes between the powers, into the field of negotiation, the Senate cannot intrude and Congress
Philippines’ Secretary of Foreign Affairs and US ambassador. itself is powerless to evade it.
• Petitioners assert that Sec. 25, Art. 18 is applicable and not Sec 21, Article 7 in questioning
the validity of the VFA.
• Petitioners also argue that the President acted w/ grave abuse of discretion when it ratified DISPOSITION
the VFA, a treaty, as the power to ratify is lodged with the senate and not with the chief • Instant petitions are hereby dismissed.
exec.
• Under the provision cited by petitioners, the “foreign military bases, troops, or facilities” CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINION
may be allowed in the Phils. As long as the ff conditions are sufficiently met:
o It must be a treaty REVIEW NOTES
o It must be duly concurred in by the senate, ratified by a majority of the votes cast
in a nat’l referendum held for that purpose if so required by congress, and This part is optional. Highly encouraged and very much appreciated, but not required.
o Recognized as such by other contracting state.
ISSUES and RATIONALE
1. W/N Sec. 25, Art 18 and not Sec. 21, Art. 7 is the applicable provision on treaties that
involve presence of foreign military troops in the country?
o Both are applicable on a treaty, like the VFA, w/c involves the presence of
foreign military troops in the country.
o Sec. 21, Article 7 deals w/ treaties or int’l agreements in general, in w/c case, the
concurrence of at least 2/3 of all the members of the Senate is required to make
the same valid and binding on the part of the Philippines.
o Sec. 25, Art. 18 is a special provision that applies to treaties w/c involve the
presence of foreign military bases, troops or facilities in the Philippines. In this
case, concurrence of Senate in the abovementioned provision is only one of the
requisites to comply with the constitutional requirements and to make it binding.
o SPECIAL PROVISION PREVAILS OVER A GENERAL ONE. Lex specialis
derogate generali.
SUBJECT TOPIC DIGEST MAKER
Consti 1 Conditions for the Exercise of Niel Fuentes
Judicial Review

Lozano vs Nograles
Puno, J.
Docket Number: G.R. No. 187883 June 16, 2009
Petitioner(s): Atty. Oliver Lozano, Evangeline Lozano-Endriano
Respondent(s): Speaker Prospero Nograles
FACTS
• 2 petitiones were filed to pray for the nullification of House Resolution No. 1109 entitled
“A resolution calling upon the members of Congress to Convene for the purpose of
considering proposals to amend or revise the constitution, upon a 3/4th vote of all the
members of congress.”
• Both petitions seek to trigger a justiciable controversy that would warrant a definitive
interpretation by this Court of Sec. 1 Art 17, w/c provides for the procedure for amending
or revising the Constitution.
• It is the duty of the judiciary to say what the law is. The determination of the nature, scope,
and extent of the powers of gov’t is the exclusive province of the judiciary.
• The SC’s power of review is limited to: • Petitions are dismissed.
o Actual cases and controversies dealing w/ parties having adversely legal claims
o Exercised after full opportunity of argument by the parties
o Limited further to the constitutional question raised/the very lis mota presented.
• The case-or-controversy requirement bans the SC from deciding “abstract, hypothetical, or
contingent questions.”
• An aspect of the “case-or-controversy” requirement is the requisite of “ripeness”. A
question is ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse
effect on the individual challenging it.
• Another approach is the 2-fold aspect of ripeness (in the US):
o The fitness of the issues for judicial decision
o The hardship to the parties entailed by withholding court consideration
o The House has not yet performed a positive act that would warrant an
intervention from this Court.
o There is no room for the interposition of judicial oversight since the
proposed amendments are still unacted. Only after it has made concrete what it
intends to submit for ratification may the appropriate case be instituted.
• W/N petitioners have locus standi.
o No.
o Requirements to have locus standi:
▪ Personally suffered some actual or threatened injury because of the
allegedly illegal conduct of the gov’t
▪ Injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action
▪ Injury is likely to be redressed by the remedy being sought
o Rule of locus standi is not a plain procedural rule. It is a constitutional
requirement (Sec. 1, Art. 8)
▪ Abovementioned article mandates courts of justice to settle only actual
controversies involving rights w/c are legally demandable and
enforceable.
DISPOSITION
CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINION
REVIEW NOTES
This part is optional. Highly encouraged and very much appreciated, but not required.

ISSUES and RATIONALE

• W/N petitioners’ case has met the requirements for a judicial review.
o The fitness of petitioners’ case for the exercise of judicial review is grossly
lacking.
▪ Petitioners have not sufficiently proven any adverse injury or hardship
from the act complained of.
▪ House Resolution No. 1109 only resolved that the HoR shall convene
at a future time for the purpose of proposing amendments or revisions
to the Constitution.
• No actual convention has yet transpired and no rules of
procedure have yet been adopted.
▪ No proposal has yet been made, and hence, no usurpation of power or
gross abuse of discretion has yet taken place.