Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

-petitioners filed petition for declaratory relief, assailing the validity of th e Laurel-Leido Resolution, dealing with the range

of authority of the 1971 Const itutional Convention -want for the Court to declare that CC has no power (pursuant to Section 1 of Ar ticle 15 and RA 6132) to consider, discuss, and adopt proposals which seek to re vise the present Constitution -that CC's power is merely limited to merely propose improvements to the present Constitution without altering the general plan laid down therein -Court dismissed it, found no merit -petitioners filed and MR, -now longer -relying on American Jurisprudence -but disregarding authoritative precedents in this jurisdiction Issues: whether or not petitioners had the requisite standing to seek a declaration of t he alleged nullity of a resolution of the Constitutional Convention Held: -Justice Laurel: "The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns the valid ity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforce ment." -Pascual v. The Secretary of Public Works. 6 Thus: "Again, it is well settled th at the validity of a statute may be contested only by one who will sustain a dir ect injury, in consequence of its enforcement. -ex: taxpayer's suit: "expenditure of public funds, by an officer of the State f or the purpose of administering an unconstitutional act constitutes a misapplica tion of such funds," which may be enjoined at the request of a taxpayer -ex: where a constitutional question is raised, a Senator has usually been consi dered as possessed of the requisite personality to bring a suit. -Petitioners in the present case cannot be heard to assert that they do qualify under such a category. -after the enactment of the statute: only then will the matter be ripe for adjud ication -prior to this, the judiciary has to keep its hands off -by virtue of separation of powers: leave other departments alone to dis charge their duties as they see fit -Such a principle applies as well when the inquiry concerns the scope of the com petence lodged in the Constitutional Convention -judiciary must leave it free to fulfill its responsibility according to its lights -autonomy respected -otherwise, it cannot perform its function well - Such should be the case not only because it is a coordinate agency but also because its powers are transcendent, amounting as it does to submitting fo r popular ratification proposals which may radically alter the organization and functions of all three departments, including the courts. -rule of non-interference be strictly adhered to UNTIL THE APPROPRIATE TIME COME S -as long as any proposed amendment is still unacted on by it, there is no room f or the interposition of judicial oversight -Only after it has made concrete what it intends to submit for ratification may the appropriate case be instituted. Until then, the courts are devoid of jurisdi ction.

-won pets may seek the dec of nullity of con com -only after enactment of electorate of certain wait before filing his suit until after the enactment of the statute 11 for the submission to the electorate of certain proposed amendments to the Constitution.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen