Palencia v. People, G.R. No.

219560, July 1, 2020

Facts:

On April 22, 2008, Palencia was charged with possession of dangerous drugs in violation of
Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. Upon arraignment, Palencia pleaded not guilty to the charge
against him. The prosecution evidence showed that a team of law enforcers was formed to
conduct an anti narcotics operation near Chicos in Zone 4, Barangay Looc, Dumaguete City.
The team began the operation when they saw Palencia walking toward their direction, his head
bowed down as he looked at the plastic sachets he was holding in his left hand which was later
identified as shabu or Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug under RA 9165.

The defense denied all the allegations made by the prosecution and contended that the alleged
shabu taken from the accused is planted. After the trial, the RTC rendered a decision convicting
Palencia beyond reasonable doubt of illegally possessing a dangerous drug.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Palencia. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the
petitioner questions the constitutionality of Section 21(a) of the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act's Implementing Rules and Regulations for supposedly going beyond the confines of
the law. He claims that the implementing rules "trivialized the rigid requirements of the 'chain of
custody' rule.’’

Issue:
Whether or not Section 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and Section
21(a) of its Implementing Rules and Regulations are invalid for being unconstitutional;

Ruling:
The court held that delving into the constitutionality of the assailed provisions of the law and
implementing rules is not essential to the disposition of the case.

A court's power of judicial review, which includes the power to "declare executive and legislative
acts void if violative of the Constitution” is provided in Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution. It
states:
SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in
such lower courts as may be established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights 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 the government.
For the court to exercise its power of judicial review, the constitutional issue (a) must be properly
raised and presented in the case, and (b) its resolution is necessary to a determination of the
case, i.e., the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota presented. Thus, a court will
only pass upon the constitutionality of a statute to the extent that it is directly and necessarily
involved in a justiciable controversy and is essential to the protection of the rights of the parties
concerned. This is called the constitutional policy of avoidance.

Additionally, the issue of a statute's constitutionality can only be assailed through a direct attack,
with the purported unconstitutionality pleaded directly before the court.

Here, the order of the trial court was a patent nullity. In resolving the pending incidents of the
motion to transfer and motion to quash, the trial court should not have allowed petitioners to
collaterally attack the validity of A.O. Nos. 113-95 and 104-96. There is a legal presumption of
validity of these laws and rules. Unless a law or rule is annulled in a direct proceeding, the legal
presumption of its validity stands.

A legal presumption exists that an enacted law is valid. Thus, if the controversy on the
constitutionality of a statute can be settled on other grounds, this Court stays its hand from
ruling on the constitutional issue. The policy of constitutional avoidance finds its genesis in a
concurring opinion on the United States case of Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority.
As the rules of avoidance summarized in Francisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives,

The foregoing "pillars" of limitation of judicial review, summarized in Ashwander v. TVA from
different decisions of the United States Supreme Court, can be encapsulated into the following
categories:

1. that there be absolute necessity of deciding a case

2. that rules of constitutional law shall be formulated only as required by the facts of the
case
3. that judgment may not be sustained on some other ground
4. that there be actual injury sustained by the party by reason of the operation of the
statute
5. that the parties are not in estoppel
6. that the Court upholds the presumption of constitutionality.

Here, it is of no moment that petitioner only raised the issue of constitutionality for the first time
on appeal, as it was still properly and timely raised in a direct action. However, delving into the
constitutionality of the assailed provisions of the law and implementing rules is not essential to
the disposition of the case. It can still be resolved in favor of petitioner on other grounds without
resorting to a review of the law.