C2.

Conditions for the Exercise of Judicial Review

Funa vs. Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita, Office of the President

(GR No. 184740, February 11, 2010)

Case Digest

Facts:

A petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to declare as unconstitutional the

designation of respondent Undersecretary Maria Elena H. Bautista as officer-in-charge of the
Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA, for brevity). On Oct. 4, 2006, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo
(GMA, for brevity) appointed Bautista as Undersec. of DOTC. On Oct. 23, 2006, Bautista was
designated as Undersec. for Maritime Transport of the Department under Special Order No.
2006-171. Consequently she was designated as OIC, Office of the Administrator, MARINA, in
current capacity as DOTC Undersecretary right after the resignation of then MARINA
Administrator Vicente Suazo.

Then on October 21, 2008, Dennis Funa, in his capacity as taxpayer, lawyer, and
concerned citizen, challenged the constitutionality of Bautistas appointment. He argues that
there exists a prohibition on the President, VP, cabinet members, and their deputies and
assistants to hold any other office of employment. Such appointment is a violation of Sec. 13,
Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution, even if her appointed position is of temporary bearing.
Respondent Bautista in her opposing reply said, requisites for judicial inquiry are no longer
present, in fact, there is no longer an actual controversy that needs to be resolved, such that it
is already moot and academic because of her relinquishment from her post as DOTC
Undersecretary on Feb. 2, 2009.

Issue:

W/N the requisites of a judicial review are (still) present in the case

W/N Bautista violated Sec. 13, Article VII of the Constitution

Held:

The petition is meritorious and warrants the courts resolution. The court sides with the
Petitioner in affirming that judicial review can be exercised. Established in a litany of cases are
the requisites for judicial review, which are: a) there must be an actual case or controversy, b)
the question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party, c) the constitutional
question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity, and d) the decision of the
constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself.

Respondents averment that the second requisite of judicial review is absent in this case
in gainsaid. The fact that petitioner filed this suit as a concerned citizen sufficiently confers
him with standing to sue for redress of such illegal act by public officals. With regards to
mootness of the issue, as held in Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Elma, supervening events,
whether intended or accidental, cannot prevent the Court from rendering a decision if there is a
grave violation of the Constitution.

The petition is granted. The concurrent appointment of Respondent Bautista as OIC of

MARINA is hereby declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL for being violative of Sec. 13, Article VII of
the 1987 Constitution, thus, null and void.
 Macalintal vs. PET (GR No. 191618, Nov. 23,2010)

Case Digest

Facts:

Petitioner Macalintal brought the issue questioning the constitution of the Presidential
Electoral Tribunal as it is an illegal body contradicting the intent of Section 4, Article VII of the
Phil. Constitution. Further, the petitioner asserts that the constitution of the PET, as manned by
the justices of the Supreme Court, offends Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution, where it
prohibits the designation of Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by
law to any agency performing quasi-judicial functions (emphasis supplied). The Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG, for brevity), in his reply, primordially assails the legal standing of the
petitioner in the case.

Issue:

W/N Petitioner Macalintal has legal standing to file the petition given his averment of
transcendental importance of the issues therein.

Held:

No. Petitioner has no locus standi. The following requisites of judicial inquiry are as
follows: a) there must be an actual case or controversy, b) the question of constitutionality
must be raised by the proper party, c) the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest
possible opportunity, and d) the decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to
the determination of the case itself. In a familiar case of People vs. Vera, wherein the court
formulated that in assailing the validity of any law, a person must have a substantial and
personal interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result.

Contrary to the actual and direct injury test, petitioner has simply alleged a generalized
interest in the outcome of this case. More so other than this, petitioner is estopped from
assailing the case for he appeared in the same court way back 2004, where he represented
Gloria Arroyo in an election protest filed by Fernando Poe, Jr. Simply put, that moment should
have been the earliest possible opportunity to raise the question.

Petition is dismissed.
Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc, et al vs. Anti-Terrorism Council, et. al

x x x

(GR Nos. 178552, 178554, 178581, 178890, 179157, 179461, October 5, 2010)

Case Digest

Facts:

A total of six (6) petitions were filed before the Supreme Court on the grounds of
prohibition and certiorari to invalidate RA 9372, following its effectivity on July 15, 2007. RA
9372 is otherwise known as the Human Security Act of 2007. KARAPATAN and its alliance
members, alleged that they have been subjected to security surveillance by state forces, their
members followed by suspicious persons, among others, that endangers their privacy and
security. BAYAN et al., prayed to the court to take judicial notice of respondents alleged action
of tagging them as militant organizations, adding further that such acts were tantamount to the
proscription of the law.

Issues:

W/N the remedy for certiorari is proper

W/N petitioners have presented an actual case or controversy
W/N the petitioners have locus standi

Held:

As for the first issue, the highest court of the land held that a petition for certiorari does
not lie against respondents who do not exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Further,
petitioners failed to alleged how respondents acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in
implementing RA 9372.

For the second and third issue, the present case is obvious in its deficiency in proving
that the petitioners hold valid grounds to warrant judicial review in assailing the petition. We
remember four requisites, to wit: a) there must be an actual case or controversy, b) the
question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party, c) the constitutional question
must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity, and d) the decision of the constitutional
question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself. Evinced by the Supreme
Court, the petitioners, none of them possessed the first two (A and B). The Supreme Court
ruled the first two requisites as the most essential, although with due recognition of the
remaining two (C and D). Judicial Power operates only when there is an actual case or
controversy. An actual case or controversy means an existing case or controversy that is
appropriate or ripe for determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, otherwise the
decision of the court would merely be advisorial in nature. In the present case, no
demonstrable threat is established, much less a real and existing one.

The court is also firm in adjudicating that any of the petitioners do not possess locus
standi. They have not presented any personal stake in the outcome of the controversy. None of
them face any charges under RA 9372. Indispensably, locus standi has been defined as a
personal and substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain
direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged. With regards to the
penology of the Republic Act 9372, neither an actual charge nor a credible threat of prosecution
are the petitioners facing. The courts must not be used as a body to contemplate speculative
counseling on a statutes effect base on hypothetical questions.

Petitions are dismissed.