Arguments and Discussion

I. Jurisdiction
Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, explicitly grants the Judicial
power to the Supreme Court and lower courts. In line with this, Supreme Court is
capable to conduct judicial review with regard to actions taken by the Legislative
and Executive branch. It is regarded as an essential part of checks and balances
within the government, giving the Supreme Court equal power with the other two
branches of government.
The Constitution defined judicial power to wit:
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.
It has been established that a case may be decided before the Court provided
that it has met the four requisites of the Judicial Review:
1.
2.
3.
4.

There must be an actual case or controversy;

The question before it must be ripe for adjudication;
The person challenging the act must be a proper party; and
The issue of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest
opportunity and must be the very lis mota of the case.1

Given the power of judicial of review, the Court can inquire into questions
of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Executive and Legislative
departments even in cases involving political questions. It is being said that the
power to construe as a judicial function means that the court has the final word as
to what the law means, as to whether or not it is held as constitutional or
unconstitutional.
It is not argued that the Court decides cases based on facts and the laws
interpreted in the context of a peculiar factual situation of each case. From the
1

Funa v. Villar, G.R. No. 192791, April 24, 2012.

onset, the Organic Law endowed with the principle of separation of powers which
provide the principle of equality among the three branches of government.
The Supreme Court may only exercise its power of judicial review if there
is actual case or controversy in addition to other requisites.
The substantive arguments encourage the need to sternly act in accordance
with the procedural requirements for judicial review. The Honorable Courts partial
criticism of procedural necessities as mere technicalities to be set aside whenever it
finds the issues of transcendental importance cannot be reconciled with the high
estate as held in the case of Lozano v. Nograles. (G.R 187883, June 16, 2009) to
footer, please.
THERE IS NO ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY
The Constitution states that judicial power includes the duty of the Court 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. It has thereby expanded the concept of
judicial power, which up to then was confined to its traditional ambit of settling
actual controversies involving rights that were legally demandable and
enforceable.
Actual Case or Controversy is one which involves a conflict of legal rights, an
assertion of opposite legal claims, susceptible of judicial resolution as
distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute. In other words,
there must be a contrariety of legal rights that can be interpreted and enforced on
the basis of existing law and jurisprudence. (Belgica v. Executive Secretary Ochoa,
G.R 208566 November 19, 2013) to footer, please.
Judicial review is possible only if there is a clear showing that there is an
actual case or controversy. In order to successfully invoke the Courts power of
judicial review, it must satisfy the first requirement to establish the need for the
exercise of expanded power of judicial review.
The legal presumption is that the petition lacked actual case or controversy. Just
because people have incompatible perspectives on a constitutional question does
not mean they have a justiciable controversy that any of them can ask the court to
decide when, in such a case, all that is necessary is to stage a public debate and ask

the board of judges to decide. El fallodeljuezesinapelable.2 indicate the meaning

in the footer, please.
In the case of Aetna Life Insurance Co. of Hartford Conn. v. Haworth (300
U.S 227, (1937), the Court defined controversy as:
A controversy must be one that is appropriate for judicial
determination. A justiciable controversy is thus distinguished from a
difference or dispute of a hypothetical or abstract character or from
one that is academic or moot. The controversy must be definite and
concrete, touching the legal relations of arties having adverse legal
interests. It must be real and substantial controversy admitting of
specific relief through a decree that is conclusive in character, as
distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a
hypothetical state of facts. Where there is such a concrete case
admitting of an immediate and definitive determination of the legal
rights of the parties in an adversary proceedings upon the facts
alleged, adjudication of the rights of the litigants may the award of
process or the payment of damages. And it is not essential to the
exercise of judicial power that an injunction be sought; allegations
that irreparable injury is threatened are not required.
We find that the petitioners in this case may have hypothetical controversy
in their minds, but they failed to present an actual case that is clear and existing
in fact; not just mere allegations, expectations or belief. Thus, it is pleaded that
before the Court lay down their pen and subject the DAP in their beady eyes, it
must be proven, not alleged, that there exist an actual case.
It is worthy to note that Justice Leonen in his dissenting opinion for the
above case argues that the decision strike down the DAP as an abstract concept and
there were scant concrete facts presented regarding concrete acts. He really
invoked lack of actual case, which technically means the high court has no
jurisdiction.

RIPENESS vis--vis MOOTNESS

2

Motion for Reconsideration, OSG, Araullo v. Aquino III.

Ripeness means that the questions raised for constitutional scrutiny are
already ripe for adjudication. A question is ripe for adjudication when the act being
challenged has a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it. It is a
prerequisite that something had then been accomplished or performed by either
branch before a court may come into the picture, and the petitioner must alleged
the existence of an immediate or threatened injury to itself as a result of the
challenged action.3
Mootness, in contrast, is a case that ceases to present a justiciable
controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be
of no practical use or value.4
This Honorable Court pointed out that the Court cannot agree that the
termination of the DAP as a program was a supervening event that effectively
mooted these consolidated cases5
The termination of the DAP, however, had already mooted the challenges to
the DAPs constitutionality, to wit:
DAP as a program, no longer exists, thereby mooting these
present cases brought to challenge its constitutionality. Any
constitutional challenge should no longer be at the level of the
program, which is now extinct, but at the level of its prior applications
or the specific disbursements under the now defunct policy. We
challenge the petitioners to pick and choose which among the 116
DAP projects they wish to nullify, the full details we will have
provided by February 5. We urge this Court to be cautious in limiting
the constitutional authority of the President and the Legislature to
respond to the dynamic needs of the country and the evolving
demands of governance, lest we end up straight jacketing our elected
representatives in ways not consistent with our constitutional structure
and democratic principles.6
3

Belgica vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2003.
Joya v. PCGG, 225 SCRA 568 (1993).
5
Araullo v. Aquino III, G.R. 209287, 01 July 2014.
4

Please double check the citations, like this one. Lets pay attention when to
use supra et. al.
6

Supra.

The Honorable Court has the power to try case of transcendental importance,
of which it can bypass the absence of any of the requisite of judicial review. The
discretion to decide whether a case is of transcendental importance or not,
however, is for the Court to decide.
On the other hand, it is a general rule that the Court left no discretion but to
dismiss the case in cases which are already moot and academic. The mootness of
the case signifies that (1) the purpose has become stale, (2) no practical relief can
be granted, and (3) relief has no practical effect.
In the case of Pormento v. Estrada, (G.R 191988, August 31, 2010)
to footer, please.
the Supreme Court held that:
As a rule, this Court may only adjudicate actual, ongoing
controversies. The Court is not empowered to decide moot
questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles
or rules of law which cannot affect the result as to the thing
in issue in the case before it.[10] In other words, when a
case is moot, it becomes non-justiciable.
Moreover, jurisprudence in the case of Imbong v. Ochoa, (G.R
204819, April 8, 2014) to footer, please.
teaches that:
Necessarily, too, a matter is ripe for adjudication if the assailed
law or rule is already in effect. The traditional rules on hierarchy
of courts and transcendental importance, far from being grounds
for the dismissal of the petition raising the question of unconstitutionality, may be reduced to rules on the level of court that should
handle the controversy, as directed by the Supreme Court.
DAP has already been discontinued and no longer exists hence making the
issue moot and academic. The case should no longer be decided because of the
mootness of the issue. The constitutional challenge posed by the petitioners must
not be assailed at the time of the termination of the program but must be at the time
prior to its application. Further, DAP did not commit grave violation to the
constitution because the mere fact that the function of DAP is also provided in the
constitution.

The actual case or controversy is just the first of four requisites that needs to
be complied with in order that the Supreme Court can exercise its power of
judicial review. And as a general rule, courts will not pass upon a constitutional
question unless it is the lis mota of the case, or if the case can be disposed of on
some other grounds, in which as the respondents pose, DAPs case is already moot
and academic.
PETITIONERS LACKED LEGAL STANDING
Petitioners lacked legal standing to sue since no allegations were made to the
effect that they had suffered any injury as a result of the adoption of the DAP and
issuance of NBC No. 541; that their being taxpayers did not immediately confer
upon the petitioners the legal standing to sue considering that the adoption and
implementation of the DAP and the issuance of NBC No. 541 were not in the
exercise of the taxing or spending power of Congress; and that even if the
petitioners had suffered injury, there were plain, speedy and adequate remedies in
the ordinary course of law available to them, like assailing the regularity of the
DAP and related issuances before the Commission on Audit (COA) or in the trial
courts.
It is a prerequisite that something had been accomplished or performed by
either branch before a court may come into the picture, and the petitioner must
allege the existence of an immediate or threatened injury to itself as a result of a
threatened injury to itself as a result of the challenged action.7
Petitioner must be able to show not only that the law or any government act
is invalid but also that he sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining some
direct injury as a result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers thereby in
some indefinite way. It must appear that the person complaining has been or is
about to be denied some right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that
he is about to be subjected to some burden or penalties by reason of the statute or
act complained of. 8

7
8

Belgica vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2003
De Castro vs. JBC, G.R. No.191002, March 17, 2010 and April 20, 2010

It must appear that the person complaining has been or is about to be denied
some right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that he is about to be
subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act complained
of. (Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc.) to footer,
please.
Direct Injury Test is a test in determining whether a petitioner in a
public action had locus standi: "a personal and substantial interest in the case such
that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result" (People v. Vera), and
verily, the petitioners failed, by presenting enough evidence that will give them
locus standi. Here, none of the petitioners have proved that they had a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct
injury as a result.
Without these considerations, we respectfully believed that the court erred in
deciding and trying the case insofar as to the locus standi is concerned.
LIS MOTA OF THE CASE vis--vis LOCUS STANDI
Justifiability depends on the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion
under the expanded judicial power. This is illustrated from circumstances where
the issue of constitutional validity is elevated within the premise of a traditional
case that demands the existence of permissible rights on actual controversies. It has
to be noted that even if the requirements under the customary definition of judicial
power are applied, these requisites should be adhered once grave abuse of
discretion is resolved as prima facie evidence.
In the expanded judicial power, any citizen of the Philippines to whom the
assailed law is effective has locus standi. If at all, a less stringent requirement of
locus standi was presented as grounds for the dismissal of the petition raising the
question of unconstitutionality, the traditional Rules on Hierarchy of Courts and
transcendental importance should be followed as directed by the Supreme Court.
Therefore, all courts have the power of expanded judicial review; provided that a
petition involves a matter of transcendental importance should it be directly filed
before this Court. Otherwise, the Court may either dismiss the petition or remand it
to the appropriate lower court, based on its consideration of the urgency,
importance, or the evidentiary requirements of the case.

The assertion of a public right, however, as a predicate for challenging an

alleged unconstitutional Executive or Legislative action rests on the theory that the
petitioner represents the general public. It is enough that the petitioners adequately
demonstrate on its petition that its entitlement of the Courts protection and relief
from vindication of public.
Quite often, as here, the petitioner in a public action sues as a citizen on its
capacity as taxpayer to gain locus standi. That is not surprising, for even if the
issue may appear to concern only the public in general, such capacities nonetheless
equip the petitioner with adequate interest to sue. In David v. Macapagal-Arroyo,
the Court explains aptly why:
Case law in most jurisdictions now allows both citizen and
taxpayer standing in public actions. The distinction was first laid
down in Beauchamp v. Silk, where it was held that the plaintiff in a
taxpayers suit is in a different category from the plaintiff in a citizens
suit. In the former, the plaintiff is affected by the expenditure of public
funds, while in the latter, he is but the mere instrument of the public
concern. As held by the New York Supreme Court in People ex rel
Case v. Collins: In matter of mere public right, howeverthe people
are the real partiesIt is at least the right, if not the duty, of every
citizen to interfere and see that a public offence be properly pursued
and punished, and that a public grievance be remedied. With respect
to taxpayers suits, Terr v. Jordan held that the right of a citizen and a
taxpayer to maintain an action in courts to restrain the unlawful use of
public funds to his injury cannot be denied.
DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY
Before an injured party can ask the court to decide within the merits of their
actual case, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedy must be satisfied
first.
It has been consistently held by the Supreme Court, that before a party is allowed
to seek the intervention of the court, it is an antecedent that he should have
afforded all the means of administrative processes; therefore, if a remedy within
the administrative machinery can be resorted to by giving the administrative officer
concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his
jurisdiction, then such remedy should be exhausted first before the courts judicial
power can be sought. The premature invocation of a courts intervention is fatal to

ones cause of action as aptly explained by the Supreme Court in the case of
University of the Philippines v. Catungal, Jr., et al., (G.R. No. 121863, May 5,
1997) to footer, please.
, to wit:
The underlying principle of the rule on exhaustion of
administrative remedies rests on the presumption that the
administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance to pass upon the
matter, will decide the same correctly. There are both legal and
practical reasons for the principle. The administrative process is
intended to provide less expensive and speedier [sic] solutions to
disputes. Where the enabling statute indicates a procedure for
administrative review and provides a system of administrative appeal
or reconsideration, the courts for reasons of law, comity, and
convenience will not entertain a case unless the available
administrative remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate
authorities have been given an opportunity to act and correct the
errors committed in the administrative forum.
It is also important to note that the primordial effect of non-compliance and
failure to exhaust administrative remedies is that it deprives the complainants of a
cause of action, which is, under the Rules of Court, a ground for a motion to
dismiss. Such failure, therefore, is fatal and calls for the dismissal of the case.9
The constitutionality of DAP, if this will be reconsidered by this court, will
be an apparent indication that, if ever a party suffers direct injury by its
implementation, the party may seek the remedy from administrative body (i.e.
COA) to rectify the injury allegedly caused by any program, and not to this
Honorable Court alone.
DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT
Under the operative fact doctrine, the law is recognized as constitutional but the
effects of the unconstitutional law, prior to its declaration of nullity, may be left
undisturbed as a matter of equity and fair play. In fact, the invocation of the
operative fact doctrine is an admission that the law is unconstitutional. (League of
Cities of the Philippines (LCP) vs. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 176951, August
24, 2010) to footer, please.
9

http://www.abogadomo.com/law-professor/law-professor-archives/exhaustion-of-administrativeremedies.

It is a general rule that an when a law is declared unconstitutional by the

Courts it renders the law void which means it produces no rights, imposes no
duties, affords no protection and no legal effect. When the doctrine of operative
fact is applied, it nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing the
existence of that law before the declaration of its unconstitutionality. It is said that
the past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. The doctrine does
not validate an unconstitutional law.
The Supreme Court in its decision invoked the doctrine of operative fact to
let the prior unconstitutional transfers stand. The decision ruled on
unconstitutionality and not on liability as stated Bersamins ominous last sentence:
The doctrine of operative fact cannot apply to the authors, proponents and
implementors of the DAP, unless there are concrete findings of good faith in their
favor by the proper tribunals determining their criminal, civil, administrative and
other liabilities.
The implementation of DAP had reached its noble end, from the positive
results of DAP program such as schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, etc. On the
other hand, the doctrine of operative fact do not guarantee protection to the
authors, proponents, and implementers of the DAP program. The implementers of
the program have acted in good faith in accordance to the presumption of
innocence and regularity. Unless it is established that they acted in good faith
through concrete findings of good faith in their favor by the proper tribunals, the
liabilities criminal, civil, or administrative) of the proponents and implementers of
the DAP are held to BE exonerated.
Gumamit po tayo ng footer. Paki-check po yong consistency ng citation
natin. Use Georgia, size 14, single spacing po. Lahat po ng cited materials na
nilagay natin sa center dapat ay size 12. Paki emphazise po kung alin sa ni-cite
natin ang binibigyang diin natin. Thanks po!