List of cases for Constitutional Law 1 (Atty.
Allan Lozare)
Interpretation/Construction of the Constitution
FACTS
An impeachment complaint against Chief Justice
Francisco v. House of Hilario Davide and seven Associate Justices was
Representatives, G.R. filed on 2 June 2003 but was dismissed on 22
No. 160261, October 2003. On 23 October 2003, Representative
November 10, 2003 Gilbert Teodoro and Felix Fuentabella filed a new
impeachment complaint against the Chief Justice.
Thus arose the instant petitions against the House of
Representatives et al, most of which contend that
the filing of the second impeachment complaint is
unconstitutional, “no impeachment proceedings
shall be initiated against the same official more than
once within the period of one year.”
Ignacio P. Lacsina, Luis R. Mauricio, Antonio R.
Quintos and Juan T. David for petitioners in 83896
and Juan T. David for petitioners in 83815. Both
petitions were consolidated and are being resolved
Civil Liberties Union jointly as both seek a declaration of the
v. Executive unconstitutionality of Executive Order No. 284
Secretary, 194 SCRA issued by President Corazon C. Aquino on July 25,
317 1987.
Executive Order No. 284, according to the
petitioners allows members of the Cabinet, their
undersecretaries and assistant secretaries to hold
other than government offices or positions in
addition to their primary positions. The pertinent
provisions of EO 284 is as follows:
Section 1: A cabinet member, undersecretary or
ISSUE RULING
Whether Yes. The second impeachment complaint is barred under Section 3
or not the (5) of Article XI of the Constitution. The Court, in determining
the merits of the issues raised in a petition before it, must
second necessarily turn to the Constitution itself which employs the
impeachment well-settled principles of constitutional construction.
is
unconstitutio In case of doubt, the Court resorts to the following:
nal (1)Verba legis, wherever possible, the words used in the
Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except
where technical terms are employed.
(2) Where there is ambiguity, ratio legis est anima. The words
of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with
the intent of its framers.
(3). Ut magis valeat quam pereat. The Constitution is to be
interpreted as a whole.
Whether or No It is unconstitutional. Petition granted. Executive Order No.
not 284 was declared null and void.
Executive
Order No. In the light of the construction given to Section 13 of Article VII,
284 is Executive Order No. 284 is unconstitutional. By restricting the
number of positions that Cabinet members, undersecretaries
constitutio
or assistant secretaries may hold in addition their primary
nal position to not more than two positions in the government and
government corporations, EO 284 actually allows them to hold
multiple offices or employment in direct contravention of the
express mandate of Sec. 13 of Article VII of the 1987
Constitution prohibiting them from doing so, unless otherwise
provided in the 1987 Constitution itself.
The phrase “unless otherwise provided in this constitution”
must be given a literal interpretation to refer only to those
particular instances cited in the constitution itself: Sec. 3 Art VII
and Sec. 8 Art. VIII.
assistant secretary or other appointive officials of
the Executive Department may in addition to his
primary position, hold not more than two positions
in the government and government corporations
and receive the corresponding compensation
therefor.

Section 2: If they hold more positions more than

what is required in section 1, they must relinquish
the excess position in favor of the subordinate
official who is next in rank, but in no case shall any
official hold more than two positions other than his
primary position.

Section 3: AT least 1/3 of the members of the boards

of such corporation should either be a secretary, or
undersecretary, or assistant secretary.

The petitioners are challenging EO 284’s

constitutionality because it adds exceptions to
Section 13 of Article VII other than those provided in
the constitution. According to the petitioners, the
only exceptions against holding any other office or
employment in government are those provided in
the Constitution namely:
1. The Vice President may be appointed as a
Member of the Cabinet under Section 3 par.2 of
Article VII.
2. The secretary of justice is an ex-officio member of
the Judicial and Bar Council by virtue of Sec. 8 of
article VIII.
Self-executing/non-self-executing provisions
FACTS ISSUE RULING
Pursuant to the privatization program of the Philippine Whether Yes Paragraph 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing
Manila Prince Hotel v. Government, the GSIS sold in public auction its stake in paragraph provision and does not need implementing legislation to carry it into
Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC). effect.
GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, 2, Article
February 03, 1997 XII of the Sec. 10, second par., of Art XII is couched in such a way as not to
Only 2 bidders participated: 1987 make it appear that it is non-self-executing but simply for
 petitioner Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a
Constitutio purposes of style. But, certainly, the legislature is not precluded
Filipino corporation, which offered to buy 51% of from enacting further laws to enforce the constitutional provision so
the MHC or 15,300,000 shares at P41.58 per
n is a self-
long as the contemplated statute squares with the Constitution.
share, executing
 Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, with ITT- provision Minor details may be left to the legislature without impairing the self-
Sheraton as its hotel operator, which bid for and does executing nature of constitutional provisions. the second paragraph
the same number of shares at P44.00 per not need can only be self-executing as it does not by its language require any
share, or P2.42 more than the bid of petitioner. implementi legislation in order to give preference to qualified Filipinos in the grant
Petitioner filed a petition before the Supreme Court ng of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national economy
to compel the GSIS to allow it to match the bid of legislation and patrimony. A constitutional provision may be self-executing in
one part and non-self-executing in another. Thus, a constitutional
Renong Berhad. It invoked the Filipino First Policy to carry it
provision is self-executing if the nature and extent of the right
enshrined in §10, paragraph 2, Article XII of the 1987
into effect? conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the Constitution
Constitution, which provides that “in the grant of itself, so that they can be determined by an examination and
rights, privileges, and concessions covering the construction of its terms, and there is no language indicating that
national economy and patrimony, the State shall give the subject is referred to the legislature for action.
preference to qualified Filipinos.”
Pamatong v. Comelec, Petitioner Pamatong filed his Certificate of Whether or No. What is recognized in Section 26, Article II of the Constitution is
G.R. No. 161872, April Candidacy (COC) for President. not there merely a privilege subject to limitations imposed by law.
13, 2004 is a
Respondent COMELEC declared petitioner and 35 constitutional It neither bestows such a right nor elevates the privilege
others as nuisance candidates who could not wage right to run to the level of an enforceable right. There is nothing in
for or hold the plain language of the provision which suggests such a
a nationwide campaign and/or are not nominated
public thrust or justifies an interpretation of the sort.
by a political party or are not supported by a
registered political party with a national office?
Section 26, Article II of the Constitution neither bestows a right
constituency. nor elevates the privilege to the level of an enforceable
right. Like the rest of the policies enumerated in Article II, the
provision does not contain any judicially enforceable
constitutional right but merely specifies a guideline for
legislative or executive action. The disregard of this provision
does not give rise to any cause of action before the courts
Judicial Review
FACTS ISSUE RULING
Petitioner, Jose Angara won the election for National Whether or not No. The Constitution has rationally provided the Judiciary the power to
Assembly for the first district of Tayabas Province. The the Court has determine the nature, scope and extent of the powers of
National Assembly passed Resolution No 8 declaring jurisdiction to government. And when the judiciary mediates to allocate
Angara v. Electoral the deadline for filing protest on 3 December 1935.On review the constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the
Commission, 63 Phil. the other hand the Electoral Commission set the
rulings of the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act
139 deadline on 9 December 1935. Losing candidate, Pedro
Electoral of the Legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation
Ynsua filed before the Electoral Commission a Motion
of Protest against the election of Angara. Angara Commission assigned to it be by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims
contended in his Motion to Dismiss the Protest that organized under of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in
Resolution No. 8 of the National Assembly was the National an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and
adopted in the legitimate exercise of its constitutional Assembly. guarantees them. This is “judicial supremacy” which properly is the
prerogative to prescribe the period during which power of the judicial review under the Constitution.
protests against the election of its members should be
presented and that the protest was filed out of the
prescribed period.
The petitioners having been arrested and held Whether or not The duty remains to assure that the supremacy of the Constitution is
Aquino v. Enrile, 59 pursuant to General Order No. 2 of the the validity of upheld. The power is inherent in the Judicial Department, by virtue
SCRA 183 President (September 22, 1972), "for being Proclamation of the doctrine of separation of powers.
participants or for having given aid and No. 1081 is
comfort in the conspiracy to seize political subject to
and state power in the country and to take judicial inquiry?
over the Government by force ...", filed the
petitions for habeas corpus. General Order No.
2 was issued by the President in the exercise
of the powers he assumed by virtue of
Proclamation No. 1081 (September 21, 1972)
placing the entire country under martial law.
Bondoc v. Pineda, 201 Emigdio Bondoc and Marciano Pineda were rivals for Whether or not Yes. The SC can settle the controversy in the case at bar without encroaching upon
a Congressional seat in the 4th District of Pampanga. the Supreme the function of the legislature particularly a part thereof, HRET. The issue here is
SCRA 792
Pineda was a member of the Laban ng Demokratikong Court may a judicial question. It must be noted that what is being complained of is the act
Pilipino(LDP) while Bondoc was a member of the inquire upon the of HRET not the act of Congress. In here, when Camasura was rescinded by the
Nacionalista Party (NP). Pineda won in that election. validity of the said tribunal, a decision has already been made, members of the tribunal have
However, Bondoc contested the result in the HRET act of the HRET already voted regarding the electoral contest involving Pineda and Bondoc
(House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal). without violating wherein Bondoc won. The LDP cannot withdraw their representative from the
HRET after the tribunal has already reached a decision. They cannot hold the
Bondoc won in the protest and he was subsequently the doctrine of
same election since the issue has already become moot and academic. LDP is
declared as the winner by the HRET. Pineda contends separation of
merely changing their representative to change the outcome of the election.
that the issue is already outside the jurisdiction of the powers? That duty is part of the judicial power vested in the courts by an express grant
Supreme Court because Camasura’s removal is an under Sec. 1, Art. VIII of the Constitution which states: “Judicial power includes
official act of Congress and by virtue of the doctrine of the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights
 separation of powers, the judiciary may not interfere.
Who may exercise the power?
FACTS
There had been an existing law which prohibited the
slaughtering of carabaos (EO 626). To strengthen the
Ynot v. Intermediate law, Marcos issued EO 626-A which not only banned the
Appellate Court, 148 movement of carabaos from interprovinces but as well
SCRA 659
as the movement of carabeef.
On 13 Jan 1984, Ynot was caught transporting 6
carabaos from Masbate to Iloilo. He was then charged
in violation of EO 626-A. Ynot averred EO 626-A as
unconstitutional for it violated his right to be heard or
his right to due process. He said that the authority
provided by EO 626-A to outrightly confiscate carabaos
even without being heard is unconstitutional. The lower
court ruled against Ynot ruling that the EO is a valid
exercise of police power in order to promote general
welfare so as to curb down the indiscriminate slaughter
of carabaos.
which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of Government.
ISSUE RULING
Whether Yes The challenged measure is an invalid exercise of Police
or not . power because the method employed to conserve the
the law is carabaos is not reasonably necessary to the purpose of
valid. the law and, worse, is unduly oppressive. To justify the
State in the imposition of its authority in behalf of the
Who may
public, it must be:
exercise
the 1) The interest of the public generally, as distinguished from
power ? those of a particular class, require such interference
2) that the means employed are reasonably necessary
for the accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly
oppressive upon individuals.
This Court has declared that while lower courts should
observe a becoming modesty in examining constitutional
questions, they are nonetheless not prevented from
resolving the same whenever warranted, subject only to
review by the highest tribunal. 6 We have jurisdiction under
the Constitution to "review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm
on appeal or certiorari, as the law or rules of court may
provide," final judgments and orders of lower courts in,
among others, all cases involving the constitutionality of
certain measures. 7 This simply means that the resolution of
such cases may be made in the first instance by these lower
courts. Judicial power authorizes this; and when the exercise
is demanded, there should be no shirking of the task for fear
of retaliation, or loss of favor, or popular censure, or any
other similar inhibition unworthy of the bench, especially this
Court.
Commissioner of
Internal Revenue v.
Court of Tax Appeals,
195 SCRA 444
Ongsuco v. Malones, Petitioners are stall holders at the Maasin Public Market.
604 SCRA 499 (2009) After a meeting with the stall holders, Sangguniang Bayan of
Maasin approvedMunicipal Ordinance No. 98-01, entitled
"The Municipal Revised Revenue Code."The Code contained a
provision for increased rentals for the stalls and the
imposition of goodwill fees in the amount of P20,000.00
andP15,000.00 for stalls located on the first and second floors
of the municipal public market, respectively. The same Code
authorized respondent to enter into lease contracts over the
said market stalls, and incorporated a standard contract of
lease for the stall holders at the municipal public
market.Sangguniang Bayan of Maasin approved Resolution
No. 68, series of 1998, moving to have the meeting declared
inoperative as a public hearing, because majority of the
persons affected by the imposition of the goodwill fee failed
to agree to the said measure.
Petitioners, together with other similarly situated stall
holders at the municipal publicmarket filed before the RTC a
Petition for Prohibition/Mandamus. The RTC dismissedthe
petition. The RTC found that petitioners could not avail
themselves of the remedy ofmandamus or prohibition. It
reasoned that mandamus would not lie in this case
wherepetitioners failed to show a clear legal right to the use
of the market stalls without payingthe goodwill fees imposed
by the municipal government. Prohibition likewise would
Whether or Yes In a petition for prohibition against any tribunal, corporation,
not the board, or person --whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial,
petitioners or ministerial functions -- who hasacted without or in
availed excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion,
themselves thepetitioner prays that judgment be rendered, commanding
of the the respondent to desist from further proceeding in the
wrong action or matter specified in the petition.32On the other
remedy in hand, the remedy of mandamus lies to compel performance
filing of aministerial duty. 33 The petitioner for such a writ
aPetition should have a well-defined, clearand certain legal right to the
for performance of the act, and it must be the clear
Prohibition andimperative duty of respondent to do the act required to
/Mandamu be done. 34 For a writ of prohibition, the requisites
s before are: (1) the impugned act must be that of a"tribunal,
the RTC corporation, board, officer, or person, whether exercising
judicial, quasi-judicialor ministerial functions"; and (2) there is
no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in theordinary course
of law."(1) The Court holds that respondent herein is
performing a ministerial function. It bearsto emphasize that
Municipal Ordinance No. 98-01 enjoys the presumption of
validity,unless declared otherwise. Furthermore,
petitioners’ primary intention is to preventrespondent
from implementing Municipal Ordinance No. 98-01, i.e., by
collecting thegoodwill fees from petitioners and barring
them from occupying the stalls at themunicipal public
 notapply to the present case where respondent’s acts, market. Obviously, the writ petitioners seek is more in the
sought to be enjoined, did notinvolve the exercise of nature ofprohibition (commanding desistance), rather
judicial or quasi-judicial functions.Petitioners, in their appeal than mandamus (compellingperformance). (2) There is no
before the Court of Appeals, challenged the dismissal of other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy for petitionersin
theirPetition for Prohibition/Mandamus by the RTC. the ordinary course of law, except to seek from the courts
Petitioners explained that they didappeal the the issuance of a writ ofprohibition commanding respondent
enactment of Municipal Ordinance No. 98-01 before to desist from continuing to implement what isallegedly
the Department ofJustice, but their appeal was not acted an invalid ordinance
upon because of their failure to attach a copy ofsaid
municipal ordinance. Court of Appeals again ruled in
respondent’s favor. The Courtof Appeals held that even if
respondent acted in grave abuse of discretion,
petitioners’resort to a petition for prohibition was improper,
since respondent’s acts in questionherein did not involve the
exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions,
asrequired under Section 2, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
Functions of Judicial Review
c.symbolic
FACTS ISSUE R
UL
Salonga v. Pano, 134 IN
SCRA 438 G
Requisites of Judicial Review
a. Actual Case or Controversy: Prematurity
 FACTS
The petitioners challenged a regulation of the
PACU vs Secretary of respondent requiring all private colleges and universities
Education, 97 Phil. 806 to first obtain a permit from the Department of
(1955) Education before they could open and operate. It
appeared, however, that all the petitioners had
previously obtained the required permit and that they
were questioning the regulation only because of the
possibility that such permit might be denied them in the
future
Juanito Mariano, resident of Makati filed a petition for
Mariano vs Comelec, prohibition and declaratory relief, assailing
G.R. No. 119694 March unconstitutional sections in RA 7854 (“An Act
7, 1995 Converting the Municipality of Makati Into a Highly
Urbanized City to be known as the City of Makati”).
Petitioners contend that that the new corporate
existence of the new city will restart the term of the
present municipal elective making it favorable to
incumbent Mayor Jejomar Binay.
Cutaran v. DENR, G.R.
No. 134958, January 31,
2001
Montesclaros v. The Local Government Code of 1991 limited its
Comelec, G.R. No. membership to youths “at least 15 but no more than 21
152295. July 9, 2002 years of age.” On 11 March 2002 the Bicameral
Committee consolidated Senate Bill 2050 and House Bill
4456, resetting the SK election to 15 July 2002 and
lowered the membership age to at least 15
but no more than 18 years of age. This was signed by
the President on 19 March 2002. The petitioners filed
prohibition and mandamus for temporary restraining
order seeking the prevention of postponement of the SK
election and reduction of age requirement on 11 March
2002.
ISSUE RULING
Whether or not No. The Supreme Court declared that the case was
there is premature as there was no showing at the time of
justiciable any conflict of legal rights that would justify
controversy to assumption of jurisdiction by the judiciary. The Court
be settled by the said that “mere apprehension that the Secretary of
Court? Education might, under the law, withdraw the permit
of one of the petitioners does not constitute a
justiciable controversy.” A request for an advisory
opinion is not an actual case or controversy. But an
action for declaratory relief is proper for judicial
determination.
Whether or not Dismissed. Petition was premised on a contingent events the
RA 7854 is happening of which was uncertain (Binay is not yet
unconstitutional sure if will run or will win); the petitioner, thus, posed
? a hypothetical issue which had not yet ripened into
an actual or controversy.
Whether or not No. Petitioner’s prayer to prevent Congress from
the proposed bill enacting into law a proposed bill lowering
is subject to membership age in the SK does not present an actual
judicial review. justiciable controversy. A proposed bill is not subject
to judicial review because it is not a law. A proposed
bill creates no rights and imposes no duty legally
enforceable by the Court. A proposed bill, having no
legal effect, violates no constitutional right or duty.
The Court has no power to declare a proposed bill
constitutional or unconstitutional because that would
be in the nature of rendering an advisory opinion on a
proposed act of Congress.
Requisites of Judicial Review
a. Actual Case or Controversy:Mootness
FACTS ISSUE RULING
Petitioner, Atlas Fertilizer engaged in the aquaculture Whether or not Dismissed The provisions that the petitioners are refuting are
industry utilizing fishponds and prawn farms. Assailed RA 6657 is now repealed and excluded from the coverage of
Atlas Fertilizer v. Sec, Sections 3 (b), 11, 13, 16 (d), 17 and 32 of R.A. 6657 unconstitutional CARL. In view of the foregoing, the question
DAR, G.R. No. 93100, (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law), as well as the ? concerning the constitutionality of the assailed
June 19, 1997 implementing guidelines and procedures contained in provisions has become moot and academic with the
Administrative Order Nos. 8 and 10 Series of 1988 passage of a new law which repealed the same.
issued by public respondent Secretary of the
Department of Agrarian Reform as unconstitutional.
They contend that R.A. 6657, by including the raising of
fish and aquaculture operations including fishponds and
prawn ponds, treating them as in the same class or
classification as agriculture or farming violates the equal
protection clause of the Constitution and therefore void.

Gonzales v. Narvasa,
G.R. No. 140835.
August 14, 2000

On 01 May 2001, Gloria Arroyo, faced by an angry and Whether or not Dismissed The instant petitions have been rendered moot and
violent mob armed with deadly weapons assaulting and the Proclamation academic as Gloria Arroyo ordered the lifting of the
Lacson v. Perez, G.R. attempting to break into Malacanang, issued No 38 and declaration of a state of rebellion on 06 May 2001.
No. 147780, May 10, Proclamation No. 38 declaring that there was a state of General Order
2001 rebellion in the National Capital Region. She likewise No 1 are
issued General Order No. 1 directing the Armed Forces unconstitutional.
of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police to
suppress the rebellion in the National Capital Region. On
06 May 2001 she ordered the lifting of the declaration
of a state of rebellion in Metro Manila. Petitioners assail
the declaration of a state of rebellion by Gloria Arroyo
and the warrantless arrests allegedly effected by virtue
thereof, as having no basis both in fact an in law.
Defunis v. Odegaard,
416 U.S. 312 (1974)

Requisites of Judicial Review

a. Actual Case or Controversy:Exceptions to Mootness
FACTS ISSUE RULING
.
Acop v. Guingona,
G.R. No. 134855, July 2,
2002

Some 300 junior officers of AFP, stormed the Oakwood
Sanlakas v. Executive in Makati demanding for the resignation of the
Secretary, G.R. 159085, President, Sec of Defense and Chief of the PNP. State of
February 3, 2004 rebellion was declared and the AFP and PNP were
directed to suppress the rebellion. The state of rebellion
was lifted. Petitions were filed challenging the validity of
Proclamation of State of Rebellion and calling out of the
AFP. Sanlakas contend that Section 18, Article VII of the
Constitution does not require the declaration of a state
of rebellion to call out the armed forces. Because of the
cessation of the Oakwood occupation, there exists no
sufficient factual basis for the proclamation by the
President of a state of rebellion for an indefinite period.
Solicitor General argues that the petitions have been
rendered moot by the lifting of the declaration.
Gloria Arroyo issued appointments to various acting
Whether or not Dismissed The state of rebellion has ceased to exist and has
declaring state rendered the case moot. Nevertheless, courts will
of rebellion is decide a question, otherwise moot, if it is capable of
needed to repetition yet evading review. The case at bar is one
declare General such case.
order No 4? The President, in declaring a state of rebellion and in
calling out the armed forces, was merely exercising a
wedding of her Chief Executive and Commander-in-
Chief powers. These are purely executive powers,
vested on the President by Sections 1 and 18, Article
VII, as opposed to the delegated legislative powers
contemplated by Section 23 (2), Article VI.
Whether or not Dismissed Due to the appointment of Gloria Arroyo to the
 secretaries on 23 August 2004. The Congress the President respondents as ad interim immediately after the
Pimentel v. Ermita, commenced regular session on 26 July 2004 and some may appoint in recess of the Congress, the petition has become
G.R. 164978, October senators filed petition for certiorari and prohibition an acting moot. However as an exemption to the rule of
13, 2005 against respondents. The Senators contended that secretaries mootness, courts will decide a question otherwise
pursuant to Section 10 (2) Book IV of EO 292 the without the moot if it is capable of repetition yet evading review.
undersecretary shall be designated as acting secretary in consent of the
case of vacancy. Also, petitioners assert that while Commission on
Congress is in session there can be no appointments Appointments
without first obtaining consent from Commission on while Congress is
Appointments. When Congress adjourned on 22 in session.
September 2004, Gloria Arroyo issued ad interim
appointments to the same respondents.

Requisites of Judicial Review

b. Proper Party
FACTS
The PCGG Chairman wrote to President Corazon Aquino
regarding the scheduled sale between the Republic of
Joya vs PCGG, G.R. the Philippines and Christie’s of 82 Old Masers Painting
96541, August 24, 1993 housed in Metropolitan Museum of Manila and 7 boxes
of antique silverware in the custody of Central Bank. The
assets subject of auction were historical relics and had
cultural significance and thereby prohibited by law. As
Filipino citizens, taxpayers and artists, petitioners Dean
Jose Joya et al contended that they have legal
personality to restrain respondent from acting contrary
to preserving artistic creations pursuant to Sec 14-18
Article XIV of the Constitution.
Petitioners filed instant petitions for prohibition seeking
to prohibit the Manila International Airport Authority
Agan v. PIATCO, G.R. (MIAA) and the Department of Transportation and
No. 155001, May 5, Communications (DOTC) and its Secretary from
2003 implementing the various agreement executed by the
Philippine Government through the DOTC and the MIAA
ISSUE RULING
Whether or not No. Legal standing means a personal and substantial
the petitioners interest in the case such that the party has sustained
have legal or will sustain direct injury as a result of the
standing? governmental act that is being challenged. One
having no rights or interest to protect cannot invoke
the jurisdiction of the court as party-plaintiff in an
action. The courts will exercise its power of judicial
review only if the case is brought before by a party
who has legal standing to raise the constitutional or
legal question.
Do petitioners Yes. Petitioners have direct and substantial interest to
have legal protect by reason of the implementation of the
standing? PIATCO contracts. They stand to lose their source of
livelihood, a property right which is protected by the
Constitution. Subsisting agreements between MIA
and petitioners stand to be terminated by the PIATCO
 and the Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc.
(PIATCO)
Petitioner Commission on Human Rights Employee
Association challenged the CA and Civil Service
CHR Employees Commission’s decision affirming the upgrading and
Assoc. v. CHR, G.R. reclassification of certain personnel positions in the CHR
155336, Nov. 25, 2004 despite the disapproval of Department of Budget and
Management. The assail that the reclassification and
upgrading only benefited select few in the upper level
resulting to demoralization on the rank and file
members.
David vs. Arroyo, G.R.
No. 171396, May 3,
2006
Requisites of Judicial Review
b. Proper Party
Citizen Standing
FACTS
Invoking the people's right to be informed on matters of
public concern, a right recognized in Section 6, Article IV
Tanada vs. Tuvera, 136 of the 1973 Philippine Constitution, 1 as well as the
SCRA 27 (1985) principle that laws to be valid and enforceable must be
published in the Official Gazette or otherwise effectively
promulgated, petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to
compel respondent public officials to publish, and/or
cause the publication in the Official Gazette of various
presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general
contracts. The financial prejudice brought about by
the PIATCO contract to petitioners is legitimate
interests sufficient to give them legal standing to file
the petition.
Whether or not Yes. A proper party is one who has sustained or is in
CHREA has legal immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a result
standing to file of the act complained of. Petitioner protests that the
petition for upgrading and collapsing of positions benefited only a
review against select few in the upper level positions in the
CHR? Commission. This sufficiently meet the injury test.
ISSUE RULING
Whether or not Yes. Clearly, the right sought to be enforced by petitioners
the petitioners herein is a public right recognized by no less than the
have legal fundamental law of the land. If petitioners were not
standing allowed to institute this proceeding, it would indeed
be difficult to conceive of any other person to initiate
the same, considering that the Solicitor General, the
government officer generally empowered to
represent the people, has entered his appearance for
respondents in this case.
 orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of
implementation and administrative orders. The
respondents, through the Solicitor General, would have
this case dismissed outright on the ground that
petitioners have no legal personality or standing to bring
the instant petition.
The petition seeks to compel the Public Estates
Chavez v. PEA and Authority to disclose all facts on PEA’s then on-going
Amari, G.R. 133250, renegotiations with Amari Coastal Bay and Development
July 9, 2002 Corporation to reclaim portions of Manila Bay. PEA
argues that petitioner has no standing to institute
mandamus proceedings to enforce his constitutional
right to information without a showing that PEA refused
to perform an affirmative duty imposed on PEA by the
Constitution. PEA also claims that petitioner has not
shown that he will suffer any concrete injury because of
the signing or implementation of the Amended JVA.
Thus, there is no actual controversy requiring the
exercise of the power of judicial review.
Requisites of Judicial Review
b. Proper Party
Associational Standing
FACTS
Petition for certiorari was filed by labour group KMU to
assail the constitutionality and validity of certain
KMU Labor Center vs. memoranda, circulars and / or orders from DOTC in
Garcia, G.R. 115381, relation to increase in public transportation fares.
Dec. 23, 1994 Respondent contend that petitioner has no legal
standing to sue and that it is within DOTC and LTFRB’s
authority to set a fare range scheme.
Whether or not Yes. The petitioner has standing to bring this taxpayer’s
petitioner has suit because the petition seeks to compel PEA to
legal standing to comply with its constitutional duties. The right of
compel PEA to citizens to information on matters of public concern
comply with its and the application of a constitutional provision
constitutional intended to insure the equitable distribution of
duties? alienable lands of the public domain among Filipino
citizens are two constitutional rights involved.
ISSUE RULING
Whether or not Yes. The rule requires that a party must show a personal
KMU has legal stake in the outcome of the case or an injury to
standing to himself that can be redressed by a favorable decision
maintain the so as to warrant
suit? an invocation of the court’s jurisdiction and to justify
the exercise of the court’s remedial powers in his
behalf. KMU members, who avail of the use of buses,
trains and jeepneys everyday, are directly affected by
the burdensome cost of arbitrary increase in
passenger fares. They are part of the millions of
commuters who comprise the riding public. Certainly,
their rights must be protected, not neglected nor
 ignored.

During March 13, 1992, Republic Act 7227 were Whether No. It is settled that when questions of constituional
John Hay PAC. v. Lim, enacted. The R.A. 7227 is also known as “ Bases Proclamation signifance are raised, the court can exercise its power
G.R. No. 119775, Oct. Conversion and Development Act of 1992” . This grants no. 420 is of judicial review only if the following requisites are
24, 2003 Subic SEZ incentives which provides tax and duty free constitutional present: (1) existence of actual and appropriate case;
importations, exemption of business therein from by providing for (2) person challenging the act must have the standing
local and national taxes, to other hallmarks of liberated national and to question or have personal/substantial interest in
financial and bhsiness climate. This also gave authority local tax the case; (3) question of constitutionality must be
to the President to create through executive exemption raised at earliest opportunit; (4) issue of
proclamation, subject to the concurrence of local within and constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the
government units directly affected, other Special granting other case. There is none that have been mentioned in R.A
Economic Zones in the areas covered respectively by the economic 7227, a grant of tax exemption to SEZ yet to be
Clark Military reservation, the Wallace Air Station in San incentives to the established in base areas, unlike the grant under
Fernando, La Union and Camp John Hay. John Hay SEZ? Section 12 which provides for tax exemption to the
July 5, 1994, President Ramos issued proclamation established Subic SEZ.
no. 420 which established a SEZ on a portion of Camp It was held that the controversy must be definite and
John Hay. concrete, bearing upon the legal relations of parties
who are pitted against each other due to their
adverse legal interests. It is not enough that the
controversy exists at the outset; to qualify for
adjudication, it is necessary that the actual
controversy be extant at all stages of the review, not
merely at the time the complaint is filed.
President Ejercito Estrada directed the AFP Chief of Staff Whether or not No. The IBP primarily anchors its standing o its alleged
IBP v. Zamora, G.R. and PNP Chief to coordinate with each other for the IBP has legal responsibility to uphold the rule of law and the
No. 141284, August 15, proper deployment and utilization of the Marines to standing to assail Constitution.
2000 assist the PNP in preventing or suppressing criminal or constitutionality Apart from this declaration, however, the IBP asserts
lawless violence. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines of calling the AFP no other basis in support of its locus standi. The mere
filed a petition seeking to declare the deployment of the to assist PNP to invocation by the IBP of its duty to preserve the rule
Philippine Marines null and void and unconstitutional. suppress lawless of law
Solicitor General contend that petitioner has no legal violence, and nothing more is not sufficient to clothe it with
standing to assail. invasion or standing in the case.
rebellion?

Republic Act 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Whether or not No. An association has standing to complain of injuries of
Executive Secretary v. Filipino Act of 1995) took effect on 15 July 1995. Prior to ARCO-Phil has its members. This view fuses the legal identity of an
CA, 429 SCRA 781, its effectivity, Asian Recruitment Council Philippine legal standing to association with that of its members. An association
May 25, 2004 CHaptr Inc (ARCO-Phil) filed petition for declaratory assail RA 8042? has standing to file
relief. They alleged that Section 6, subsections (a) to (m) suit for its workers despite its lack of interest if its
is unconstitutional because licensed and authorized members are affected by their action. An organization
 recruitment agencies are placed on equal footing with
illegal recruiters. It contended that while the Labor Code
distinguished between recruiters who are holders of
licenses and non-holders thereof in the imposition of
penalties, Rep. Act No. 8042 does not make any
distinction. In their answer to the petition, they contend
that ARCO-Phil has no legal standing, it being a non-
stock, non-profit organization; hence, not the real party-
in-interest as petitioner in the action.
Sometime before March 1993, after learning that the
Kilosbayan v. PCSO was interested in operating an on-line lottery
Guingona, 232 SCRA system, the Berjaya Group Berhad (PGMC) became
110 (1994) interested to offer its services and resources to PCSO.
KILOSBAYAN submit that the PCSO cannot validly enter
into the assailed Contract of Lease with the PGMC
because it is an arrangement wherein the PCSO would
hold and conduct the on-line lottery system in
“collaboration” or “association” with the PGMC, in
violation of Section 1(B) of R.A. No. 1169, as amended
by B.P. Blg. 42. Respondents allege that the petitioners
have no standing to maintain the instant suit.
Requisites of Judicial Review
b. Proper Party
Taxpayer’s Standing
FACTS
has standing to assert the concerns of its
constituents.
However, the respondent has no locus standi to file
the petition for and in behalf of unskilled workers. We
note that it even failed to implead any unskilled
workers in its petition.
Whether or not Yes. We find the instant petition to be of transcendental
Kilosbayan has importance to the public. The issues it raised are of
standing to paramount public interest and of a category even
maintain instant higher than those involved in many of the aforecited
suit? cases. The ramifications of such issues immeasurably
affect the social, economic, and moral well-being of
the people even in the remotest barangays of the
country and the counter-productive and retrogressive
effects of the envisioned on-line lottery system are as
staggering as the billions in pesos it is expected to
raise. The legal standing then of the petitioners
deserves recognitio
Issue on the locus standi of the petitioners should,
indeed, be resolved in their favor. A party’s standing
before this Court is a procedural technicality which it
may, in the exercise of its discretion, set aside in view
of the importance of the issues raised. In the
landmark Emergency Powers Cases, this Court
brushed aside this technicality because “the
transcendental importance to the public of these
cases demands that they be settled promptly and
definitely, brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of
procedure.
ISSUE RULING
U.S. v. Richardson, 418
U.S. 166 (1974)

ITF v. Comelec, G.R.

No. 159139. Jan. 13,
2004

Jumamil v. Café, G.R.

144570, September 21,
2005

Requisites of Judicial Review

b. Proper Party
Voter’s Standing
FACTS ISSUE RULING

Tolentino v. Comelec,
420 SCRA 438, January
21, 2004

Requisites of Judicial Review

b. Proper Party
Legislative Standing
 FACTS ISSUE RULING

Ople v. Torres, 293

SCRA 141 (1998)

Requisites of Judicial Review

b. Proper Party
Governmental Standing
FACTS ISSUE RULING

People v. Vera, 65 Phil

56, November 16, 1937

Requisites of Judicial Review

b. Proper Party
Facial Challenge
FACTS ISSUE RULING

Estrada v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 148560, Nov. 19,
2001
Requisites of Judicial Review
c. Earliest Opportunity
FACTS ISSUE RULING
Umali v. Guingona,
305 SCRA 533 (1999)

Requisites of Judicial Review

d. Necessity of Deciding Constitutional Questions
FACTS ISSUE RULING

Arceta v. Mangrobang,
G.R. No. 152895. June
15, 2004

Mandatory Notice
FACTS ISSUE RULING

Mirasol v. CA, G.R.

No. 128448, February 1,
2001
Functions of Judicial Review
FACTS ISSUE RULING

Mitra vs Comelec, 104

SCRA 58 (1981)

Salonga vs Cruz-Pano,
134 SCRA 438 (1985)

Javier v. Comelec, 144

SCRA 194 (1988)

The Exercise of Judicial Review

FACTS ISSUE RULING

Ynot vs. IAC, 148

SCRA 659 (1987)
Political Questions / Justiciable Questions
FACTS ISSUE RULING

Velarde v. SJS, 428

SCRA 283 (2004)

Oposa v. Factoran, 224

SCRA 792 (1993)

Vinuya v. Romulo, 619

SCRA 533 (2010)

Defensor-Santiago v.
Guingona, G.R. No.
134577, November 18,
1998

Presumption of Constitutionality
FACTS ISSUE RULING
Perez v. People, 544
SCRA 532 (2008)

Effects of Declaration of Unconstitutionality

a. Orthodox view
FACTS ISSUE RULING

Art. 7, Civil Code of the

Philippines

Effects of Declaration of Unconstitutionality

b. Modern view
FACTS ISSUE RULING

Serrano de Agbayani v.
PNB, 35 SCRA 429
Belgica v. Ochoa, 710
SCRA 1 (2013)

Araullo v. Aquino III,

G.R. No. 209287, July 1,
2014

Cocofed v. Republic, 663

SCRA 514 (2012)

Sameer Overseas v.
Cabilles, G.R.
No.170139, August 5,
2014

League of Cities vs.

Comelec, August 24,
2010
 CIR vs.
San Roque, G.R.
No. 187485,
October 08, 2013

Partial unconstitutionality
FACTS ISSUE RULING

In Re: Cunanan, 94 Phil.

534

Salazar v. Achacoso, 183

SCRA 145

Amendment
1. Amendment vs Revision
FACTS ISSUE RULING
Lambino v. Comelec, G.R.
No. 174153, October 25,
2006

Amendment
2. Constituent vs Legislative Power
FACTS ISSUE RULING

Imbong v. Comelec, 35
SCRA 28

Amendment
3. Steps in the amendatory process:
FACTS ISSUE RULING
a. Proposal (Secs. 1-3,
Art. XVII)

Occena v. Comelec, 104

SCRA 1

i. Congress
ii. Constitutional
Convention
iii. People
Republic Act No. 6735 -
An Act Providing for a
System of Initiative and
Referendum

Amendment
3. Steps in the amendatory process:
FACTS ISSUE RULING
b. Ratification (Sec. 4,
Art. XVII)

Gonzales v. Comelec,
21 SCRA 774

Tolentino v. Comelec,
41 SCRA 702

Sanidad v. Comelec, 78
SCRA 333