SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421 8/8/15, 6:13 AM

G.R. No. 127882. January 27, 2004.

LA BUGAL-BLAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION, INC.,

represented by its Chairman FLONG MIGUEL M.
LUMAYONG, WIGBERTO E. TAADA, PONCIANO
BENNAGEN, JAIME TADEO, RENATO R.
CONSTANTINO, JR., FLONG AGUSTIN M. DABIE,
ROBERTO P. AMLOY, RAQIM L. DABIE, SIMEON H.
DOLOJO, IMELDA M. GANDON, LENY B. GUSANAN,
MARCELO L. GUSANAN, QUINTOL A. LABUAYAN,
LOMINGGES D. LAWAY, BENITA P. TACUAYAN, minors
JOLY L. BUGOY, represented by his father UNDERO D.
BUGOY, ROGER M. DADING, represented by his father
ANTONIO L. DADING, ROMY M. LAGARO, represented by
his father TOTING A. LAGARO, MIKENY JONG B.
LUMAYONG, represented by his father MIGUEL M.
LUMAYONG, RENE T. MIGUEL, represented by his mother
EDITHA T. MIGUEL, ALDEMAR L. SAL, represented by his
father DANNY M. SAL, DAISY RECARSE, represented by
her mother LYDIA S. SANTOS,
EDWARD M. EMUY, ALAN P. MAM

_______________

* EN BANC.

149

VOL. 421, JANUARY 27, 2004 149

La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. Ramos

PARAIR, MARIO L. MANGCAL, ALDEN S. TUSAN,

AMPARO S. YAP, VIRGILIO CULAR, MARVIC M.V.F.
LEONEN, JULIA REGINA CULAR, GIAN CARLO
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guest Page 1 of 124
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421 8/8/15, 6:13 AM
CULAR, VIRGILIO CULAR, JR., represented by their father
VIRGILIO CULAR, PAUL ANTONIO P. VILLAMOR,
represented by his parents JOSE VILLAMOR and
ELIZABETH PUA-VILLAMOR, ANA GININA R. TALJA,
represented by her father MARIO JOSE B. TALJA,
SHARMAINE R. CUNANAN, represented by her father
ALFREDO M. CUNANAN, ANTONIO JOSE A. VITUG III,
represented by his mother ANNALIZA A. VITUG, LEAN D.
NARVADEZ, represented by his father MANUEL E.
NARVADEZ, JR., ROSERIO MARALAG LINGATING,
represented by her father RIO OLIMPIO A. LINGATING,
MARIO JOSE B. TALJA, DAVID E. DE VERA, MARIA
MILAGROS L. SAN JOSE, SR,, SUSAN O. BOLANIO,

OND, LOLITA G. DEMONTEVERDE, BENJIE L.

NEQUINTO, ROSE LILIA S. ROMANO, ROBERTO S.

VERZOLA, EDUARDO AURELIO C. REYES, LEAN LOUEL A.
PERIA, represented by his father ELPIDIO V.
2
PERIA, GREEN FORUM PHILIPPINES, GREEN
FORUM WESTERN VISAYAS, (GF-WV),
ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE CENTER
(ELAC), PHILIPPINE KAISAHAN TUNGO SA
KAUNLARAN NG KANAYUNAN AT REPORMANG
3
PANSAKAHAN (KAISAHAN), KAISAHAN TUNGO SA
KAUNLARAN NG KANAYUNAN AT REPORMANG
PANSAKAHAN (KAISAHAN), PARTNERSHIP FOR
AGRARIAN REFORM and RURAL DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES, INC. (PARRDS), PHILIPPINE
PARTNERSHIP FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN
RESOURCES IN THE RURAL AREAS, INC.
(PHILDHRRA), WOMENS LEGAL BUREAU (WLB),
CENTER FOR ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT
INITIATIVES, INC. (CADI), UPLAND DEVELOPMENT
INSTITUTE (UDI), KINAIYAHAN FOUNDATION, INC.,
SENTRO NG ALTERNATIBONG LINGAP PANLIGAL
(SALIGAN), LEGAL RIGHTS AND NATURAL
RESOURCES

_______________
 1 Appears as Nequito in the caption of the Petition by Nequinto in
the body. (Rollo, p. 12.)
2 As appears in the body of the Petition. (Id., at p. 13.) The caption of
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guest Page 2 of 124
 ripe
dete
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421
inati
not
the petition does not include Louel A. Peria as one of the petitioners but the
conj
name of his father Elpidio V. Peria appears therein.
ural
antic
atory
3 Appears as Kaisahan Tungo sa Kaunlaran ng Kanayunan at Repormang lest
Pansakahan (KAISAHAN) in the caption of the Petition by Philippine deci
Kaisahan Tungo sa Kaunlaran ng Kanayunan at Repormang Pansakahan n
(KAISAHAN) in the body. (Id., at p. 14.) the
cour
150
wou
amo
150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED t to
La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. Ramos advi
y
opin
CENTER, INC. (LRC), petitioners, vs. VICTOR O. RAMOS, . T
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND pow
NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), HORACIO RAMOS, does
DIRECTOR, MINES AND GEOSCIENCES BUREAU not
exte
to
(MGB-DENR), RUBEN TORRES; EXECUTIVE hypo
etica
4 ques
ns
sinc
any
SECRETARY, and WMC (PHILIPPINES), INC.,
respondents. attem
t
abst
Judicial Review; Requisites.When an issue of constitutionality is tion
raised, this Court can exercise its power of judicial review only if the coul
following requisites are present: (1) The existence of an actual and only
appropriate case; (2) A personal and substantial interest of the party lead
raising the constitutional question;
diale
(3) The exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity;
and (4) The constitutional question is the lis mota of the case.

Same; Same; Words and Phrases; An actual case or controversy

means an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for
determination, not conjectural or anticipatory.An actual case or
controversy means an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or
 cs and barren legal questions and to sterile conclusions unrelated to
actualities.
8/8/15, 6:13 AM

Same; Same; Same; Locus Standi; Legal standing or locus

standi has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guest Page 3 of 124
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421 8/8/15, 6:13 AM

case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a
result of the governmental act that is being challenged, alleging more
than a generalized grievance.Legal standing or locus standi has
been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the case such that
the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the
governmental act that is being challenged, alleging more than a
generalized grievance. The gist of the question of standing is whether a
party alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as
to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of
issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult
constitutional questions. Unless a person is injuriously affected in any
of his constitutional rights by the operation of statute or ordinance, he
has no standing.

_______________

4
Erroneously designated in the Petition as Western Mining Philippines
Corporation. (Id., at p. 212.) Subsequently, WMC (Philippines), Inc. was renamed
Tampakan Mineral Resources Corporation. (Id., at p. 778.)

151

VOL. 421, JANUARY 27, 2004 151

La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. Ramos

Same; Same; As the case involves constitutional questions, this

Court is not concerned with whether petitioners are real parties in
interest, but with whether they have legal standing.The present action is
not merely one for annulment of contract but for prohibition and
mandamus. Petitioners allege that public respondents acted without or
in excess of jurisdiction in implementing the FTAA, which they submit is
unconstitutional. As the case involves constitutional questions, this Court
is not concerned with whether petitioners are real parties in interest, but
with whether they have legal standing. As held in Kilosbayan v. Morato: x
x x. It is important to note . . . that standing because of its constitutional
and public policy underpinnings, is very different from questions relating
to whether a particular plaintiff is the real party in interest or has capacity
to sue. Although all three requirements are directed towards ensuring
that only certain
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guest Page 4 of 124
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421 8/8/15, 6:13 AM

parties can maintain an action, standing restrictions require a partial

consideration of the merits, as well as broader policy concerns relating
to the proper role of the judiciary in certain areas.
[] (FRIEDENTHAL, KANE AND MILLER, CIVIL PROCEDURE
328 [1985]) Standing is a special concern in constitutional law because
in some cases suits are brought not by parties who have been
personally injured by the operation of a law or by official action taken,
but by concerned citizens, taxpayers or voters who actually sue in the
public interest. Hence, the question in standing is whether such parties
have alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy
as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation
of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of
difficult constitutional questions. (Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 7
L.Ed.2d 633 [1962].)
Same; Same; The third requisite for judicial review should not be
taken to mean that the question of constitutionality must be raised
immediately after the execution of the state action complained ofthat
the question of constitutionality has not been raised before is not a valid
reason for refusing to allow it to be raised later. Misconstruing the
application of the third requisite for judicial reviewthat the exercise of
the review is pleaded at the earliest opportunityWMCP points out that
the petition was filed only almost two years after the execution of the
FTAA, hence, not raised at the earliest opportunity. The third requisite
should not be taken to mean that the question of constitutionality must
be raised immediately after the execution of the state action complained
of. That the question of constitutionality has not been raised before is not
a valid reason for refusing to allow it to be raised later. A contrary rule
would mean that a law, otherwise unconstitutional, would lapse into
constitutionality by the mere failure of the proper party to promptly file a
case to challenge the same.

Same; Prohibition; Words and Phrases; Prohibition is a preventive

remedy; While the execution of the contract itself may be fait accompli,
its implementation is not.Prohibition is a preventive remedy. It seeks a

152

152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. Ramos

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guest Page 5 of 124