1. Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No.

146710-15, March 2, 2001

2. Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003
3. The Province of North Cotabato v. The Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral
Domain, G.R. No. 183591, October 14, 2008, 568 SCRA 402
4. In the Matter of: Save the Supreme Court Judicial Independence and Fiscal Autonomy Movement v. Abolition of
Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and Reduction of Fiscal Autonomy, UKD-15143, January 21, 2015.

5. Dumlao, Igot, and Salapantan v. COMELEC

G.R. No. L-52245 January 22, 1980
Melencio-Herrera, J:

Facts:
Petitioners:
1. Patricio Dumlao – former Governor of Nueva Vizcaya
2. Romeo Igot – taxpayer, voter, and member of the Bar
3. Alfredro Salapantan – taxpayer, voter, resident of Ilo-ilo

Petitioner Dumlao is a former Governor of Nueva Vizcaya who has filed his certificate of candidacy for the
same office in the forthcoming elections. He impugns the constitutionality of Sec 4 of BP 52 which disqualifies
from running in office one who is a retired elective provincial official of 65 years of age at the commencement
of the term of office sought to be elected in. He claims it is a class legislation.
Petitioners Igot (member of the bar) and Salapantan are taxpayers and qualified voters. They assail BP 51
which disqualifies from running in office those who have committed any act of disloyalty to the State.

Issue:
May the petitioners validly challenge the constitutionality of the foregoing provisions of law?

Held:
No. Save for the third requisite, all the requisites for the successful judicial inquiry into the constitutionality
of a law have not been complied with. There is no actual case and controversy. Dumlao has not been adversely
affected by the application of the provision he seeks to invalidate. No petition seeking Dumlao’s disqualification
has been filed before COMELEC. His is a question posed in the abstract, a hypothetical issue, and in effect, a
petition for an advisory opinion. Igot and Salapantan are not proper parties. Neither has been convicted nor
charged with acts of disloyalty to the State, nor disqualified from being candidates. Theirs is a generalized
grievance. They have no personal nor substantial interest at stake. And there is no necessity to pass upon the
constitutionality of the assailed laws for none of the petitioners are with cause of action.
Only when the act complained of directly involves an illegal disbursement of public funds raised by taxation
will the taxpayer’s suit be allowed.
Requisites of judicial inquiry
1. Actual case and controversy (not complied)
a. Dumlao – not adversely affected because no disqualification has been filed against him
b. Igot – not charged with disloyalty nor disqualified from being candidate
c. Salapantan - not charged with disloyalty nor disqualified from being candidate
2. Proper Party (not complied)
a. Dumlao -
b. Igot - not taxpayer’s suit since no actual illegal disbursement of public funds
c. Salapantan – not taxpayer’s suit since no actual illegal disbursement of public funds
3. The issue of constitutionality is raised at the EPO (complied)
4. Unavoidability of constitutional question (not complied)
a. Dumlao
i. Not discriminatory against him because several petitions for disqualifications were already filed
ii. Does not violate equal protection since 65 years of age is validly classified differently from
younger employees
iii. Retirement – the prohibition is valid since the employee has already declared that he is tired
from office by virtue of its retirement.
6. Kabataan Party List v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 221318, Dec. 16, 2015
7. Agan v. Philippine International Air Terminal Co., Inc. (PIATCO), G.R. Nos. 155001, 155547, 155661, May 5,
2003
8. Mamba v. Lara G.R. No. 165109, December 14, 2009

9. Kilosbayan v. Guingona
G.R. No. 113375 May 5, 1994
Davide, Jr., J.:
Special civil action for prohibition and injunction with a prayer for TRO, which seeks to prohibit and restrain the
implementation of the Contract of Lease between PCSO and PGMC in connection with the on-line lottery system.

Facts:
Petitioners
a. KILOSBAYAN - non-stock domestic corporation composed of civic-spirited citizens, pastors, priests, nuns,
and lay leaders who are committed to the cause of truth, justice, and national renewal
b. Senators Freddie Webb, Wigberto Tañ ada, and Representative Joker Aroyo - suing in their capacities as
members of Congress and as taxpayers and concerned citizens of the Philippines.
c. Rest of the petitioners - suing in their capacities as members of the Board of Trustees of KILOSBAYAN and
as taxpayers and concerned citizens

Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), with the approval of the President, entered into a Contract of
Lease with Phil. Gaming Management Corp. (PGMC) which was organized through the initiative of the Berjaya
Group Berhad, a foreign company. This was executed despite vigorous opposition from petitioner Kilosbayan
on account of its alleged immorality and illegality:
a. PCSO cannot validly enter into the assailed Contract of Lease with the PGMC because it is an
arrangement wherein the PCSO would hold and conduct the on-line lottery system in "collaboration" or
"association" with the PGMC, in violation of Section 1(B) of R.A. No. 1169, as amended by B.P. Blg. 42
b. The petitioners also point out that paragraph 10 of the Contract of Lease requires or authorizes PGMC
to establish a telecommunications network that will connect all the municipalities and cities in the
territory. However, PGMC cannot do that because it has no franchise from Congress to construct, install,
establish, or operate the network pursuant to Section 1 of Act No. 3846, as amended.
c. Furthermore, since "the subscribed foreign capital" of the PGMC "comes to about 75%, as shown by
paragraph EIGHT of its Articles of Incorporation," it cannot lawfully enter into the contract in question
because all forms of gambling — and lottery is one of them — are included in the so-called foreign
investments negative list under the Foreign Investments Act (R.A. No. 7042) where only up to 40%
foreign capital is allowed.
d. Finally, the petitioners insist that the Articles of Incorporation of PGMC do not authorize it to establish
and operate an on-line lottery and telecommunications systems
Answers of the private respondent:
a. It is merely an independent contractor for a piece of work, (i.e., the building and maintenance of a
lottery system to be used by PCSO in the operation of its lottery franchise);
b. PGMC is not a co-operator of the lottery franchise with PCSO, nor is PCSO sharing its franchise, 'in
collaboration, association or joint venture' with PGMC — as such statutory limitation is viewed from
the context, intent, and spirit of Republic Act 1169, as amended by Batas Pambansa 42.
c. Claims that as an independent contractor for a piece of work, it is neither engaged in "gambling" nor in
"public service" relative to the telecommunications network, which the petitioners even consider as an
"indispensable requirement" of an on-line lottery system.
d. It states that the execution and implementation of the contract does not violate the Constitution and the
laws; that the issue on the "morality" of the lottery franchise granted to the PCSO is political and not
judicial or legal, which should be ventilated in another forum; and that the "petitioners do not appear to
have the legal standing or real interest in the subject contract and in obtaining the reliefs sought.
 Kilosbayan, an organization of “civic-spirited citizens,” filed the instant petition as taxpayers and concerned
citizens. Respondents challenge the petitioners’ legal standing to file this petition.

Issues:
1. Must the action fail for the alleged lack of a legal standing?
2. The legality and validity of the Contract of Lease in the light of Section 1 of R.A. No. 1169, as amended
by B.P. Blg. 42

Held:
1. No. We find the instant petition to be of transcendental importance to the public, and the issues it
raised are of paramount public interest. The ramifications of such issues immeasurably affect the social,
economic, and moral wellbeing of the people even in the remotest barangays of the country and the
counter-productive and retrogressive effects of the envisioned on-line lottery system are as staggering
as the billions in pesos it is expected to raise. In the exercise of its sound discretion, in keeping with its
duty to determine whether or not the other branches of govt have exercised grave abuse of discretion
given them, this Court hereby brushes aside the procedural barrier which the respondents tried to take
advantage of. The Court voted 7-6 on this issue.
2. In the light of the PCSO's RFP and the above highlighted provisions, as well as the "Hold Harmless
Clause" of the Contract of Lease, it is even safe to conclude that the actual lessor in this case is the PCSO
and the subject matter thereof is its franchise to hold and conduct lotteries since it is, in reality, the
PGMC which operates and manages the on-line lottery system for a period of eight years. We thus
declare that the challenged Contract of Lease violates the exception provided for in paragraph B,
Section 1 of R.A. No. 1169, as amended by B.P. Blg. 42, and is, therefore, invalid for being contrary to
law. This conclusion renders unnecessary further discussion on the other issues raised by the
petitioners.

10. Matibag v. Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036, April 2, 2002

11. League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 176951, August 24, 2010
12. In re Cunanan, 94 Phil. 534
13. Central Bank Employees Association v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and the Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
148208, December 15, 2004.
14. Ocampo v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. L-7910, January 18, 1955.
15. De la Llana v. Alba, 112 SCRA 294 (1982)
16. Bengzon v. Drilon, G.R. No. 103524, April 15, 1992
17. Mondiguing v. Abad, G.R. No. 41313, November 6, 1975
18. In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Edillion, G.R. No. AC-1928, August 3, 1978
19. Jardeleza v. Sereno, G.R. No. 213181, August 19, 2021
20. Nitafan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 152 SCRA 284
21. Romero v. Estrada, G.R. No. 174105, April 2, 2009
22. Nicos Industrial Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88709, February 11, 1992