CASE NO.

636
Article 8, Sec. 5. Judicial Review Requisites
Macasiano v. NHA, 224 SCRA 236, 1993

FACTS: Petitioners sought for the declaration of the unconstitutionality of the Urban Development
Act of 1992, he alleged that sections 28 and 44 of the said Act will render him unable to continue
the demolition of illegal structures which he carried out in the past. The Solicitor General
contended that the instant petition is devoid of any merit for non-compliance with the essential
requisites for the exercise of extrajudicial review in cases involving the constitutionality of a law.

ISSUE: W/N judicial review can be exercise in the case at bar

RULING: NO. Two of the fundamental requisites are absent. There is no actual controversy.
Moreover, petitioner does not claim that, in either or both of the capacities in which he is filing the
petition, he has been actually prevented from performing his duties as a consultant and exercising
his rights as a property owner because of the assertion by other parties of any benefit under the
challenged sections of the said Act.

In the exercise of judicial review involving cases that questioned the constitutionality of the laws,
the following requisites must be present:
(a) the existence of an actual case or controversy involving a conflict of legal rights susceptible of
judicial determination,
(b) the constitutional question must be raised by a proper party,
(c) the constitutional question must be raised at the opportunity, and
(d) the resolution of the constitutional question must be necessary to the decision of the case.
CASE NO. 637
Article 8, Sec. 5. Judicial Review Requisites
Liban v. Gordon, 639 SCRA 709 (2011)

FACTS: This is a motion for clarification and/or for Reconsideration filed by respondent Gordon of
the decision promulgate by the Court. In its decision, the Court declared void the PNRC Charter
insofar as it creates the PNRC as a private corporation and consequently ruled that it should
incorporate under the Corporation Code and register with SEC if it wants to be a private
corporation.
ISSUE: W/N the Court went beyond the case when it declared void the PNRC Charter insofar as no
question of constitutionality was raised.

RULING: Yes, it is a well-established rule that the court should not pass upon a constitutional
question and decide a law to be unconstitutional or invalid, unless such question is raised by the
parties. The second sentence in the previous Decision rendering void the PNRC charter was deleted
hence, modifying the Court Decision. The Court cannot decide on the constitutionality of a law when
the question itself was not raised in the proper proceeding.

CASE NO. 638

Article 8, Sec. 5. Administrative Agencies; No power
Serrano v. Gallant, 582 SCRA 254, (2009)

FACTS: Petitioner is a seafarer who was repatriated back to the Philippines upon his refusal to
accept a downgraded employment contract contrary to what was promised to him. He appealed to
the NLRC on his entitlement to salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract. He later on filed
for a Motion for Partial Reconsideration questioning the constitutionality of the clause in RA No.
8042.

ISSUE: W/N the NLRC has the competence to resolve the constitutional issue in the clause of RA No.
8042

RULING: NO. Administrative Agencies have no competence to resolve cases involving

constitutionality of the laws. The NLRC is a labor tribunal that merely performs a quasi-judicial
function which in this case is limited to determining the questions of facts to which the legislative
policy of RA No. 8042 is to be applied and to resolving such questions in accordance with the
standards laid down by the law itself. Its foremost function is to administer and enforce RA No 8042
and not to inquire into the validity of its provision.
CASE NO. 639
Article 8, Sec. 5. First: Ripe for Adjudication
PACU v. Secretary of Education, 97 Phil 806 (1995)

FACTS: Petitioners requested that Act No. 2706 be declared unconstitutional because they deprive
the owners of schools and colleges as well as teachers and parents of liberty and property without
due process of law; and their provisions conferring on the Secretary of Education unlimited power
and discretion to prescribe rules and standards constitute unlawful delegation of legislative power.
ISSUE: W/N the case at bar calls for judicial review.

RULING: NO. Petitioners suffered no wrong from the enforcement of the criticized statute. Mere
apprehension of the adverse effect to the petitioner does not constitute justiciable controversy. The
first requisite for the exercise of judicial review is the existence of actual case before the court. The
question in the case must also be ripe for adjudication, that is, the governmental act being
challenged must have an adverse effect on the person challenging it.

CASE NO. 640

Article 8, Sec. 5. First: Ripe for Adjudication
Tan v. Macapagal, 43 SCRA 678 (1972)

FACTS: Petitioners sought declaration of the alleged nullity of a resolution (Laurel-Leido

Resolution) of the Constitutional Convention in their capacity as taxpayers but purportedly suing
on behalf of themselves and Filipino people.

ISSUE: W/N the case at bar merits judicial review at the instance of the petitioner

RULING: NO. The proposed amendment by the Constitutional Convention was still unacted upon
hence, not yet ripe for judicial review. First requisite for judicial review is ripe for adjudication, that
is, the governmental act being challenged must have an adverse effect on the person challenging it.