REQUISITES FOR EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER In Francisco Jr v House of Rep: 1. existence of an appropriate case 2.

interest personal and substantial by the party raising the constitutional question (standing to sue) 3. plea that the function be exercised at the earliest possible opportunity 4. necessity that the constitutional question be passed upon in order to decide the case (must be the lis mota of the case)

deflected to any improper purpose, or that there is wastage of public funds

WHEN TO RAISE CONSTITUTIONALITY - must be raised at the earliest opportunity; question must be raised in the complaint or petition

NECESSITY OF DECIDING CONSTITUTIONALITY - Courts will not pass upon the validity of a statute if it can decide the case on some other grounds - Nor will the Courts pass upon the validity of a statute where the issues raised in the case has apparently become moot - Moot and Academic case is one 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

APPROPRIATE CASE - a bona fide case, raises a justiciable controversy (actual controversies) Justiciable refers to a matter which is appropriate for court review; issues inherently susceptible of being decided on grounds recognized by law (except political question) Political Questions concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not the legality, of a particular act or measure being assailed; questions which are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislature or executive Judicial Controversy: by mere enactment of questioned law or approval of the challenged action (ripeness)

SUMMARY OF ESSENTIAL REQUISITES FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW Standing whether such parties have alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy (must not be in an indefinite way) Real party of interest the party who would be benefited or injured by the judgment or the party entitled to the avails of the suit (must not be in an indefinite way) * Duty to preserve the rule of law is not sufficient for standing * On seriousness, novelty, or weight of the case rules of standing may be relaxed e.g. transcendental importance Transcendental importance: 1. character of the funds or other assets involved in the case 2. presence of clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public respondent agency of instrumentality of government 3. lack of any other party with a more direct and specific interest in raising the question being raised Political Question: 1. textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department 2. Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it 3. impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion

STANDING TO SUE Legal Standing or Locus Standi 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; interest means material interests, not a mere interest in the question involved or a mere incidental interest - citizen acquires standing if he can establish that: 1. he has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of government; 2. the injury is fairly traceable to the action; 3. injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action. - some exceptions to standing: 1. when petitioner is able to craft an issue of transcendental significance to the people 2. when issue raised is of paramount importance to the public, the Court may brush aside technicalities of procedure Taxpayer s Suit allowed where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed, or that public money is being