G.R. No.

217158 - March 12, 2019 the government” due to these reasons: (1)
bundling of such bids would limit the financial
GIOS VS. DOTC
capability of qualified Filipino corporations since
Petitioner/s Gios-Samar, Inc. the price would be higher, thus it violates the
Represented by “constitutional prohibitions on the anti-dummy
Gerardo Malinao (its and the grant of opportunity to the general
Chairperson) public to invest in public utilities” by citing
Respondent/s Department of Article 12, Section 10 of the 1987 Philippine
Transportation and Constitution; (2) bundling would open the door
Communications for monopolies, which also violates the
(DOTC) and Civil constitutional prohibition on monopolies as
Aviation Authority of
provided in Section 19, Article 12 of the
the Philippines
Constitution; (3) bundling is unreachable for
(CAAP)
medium-sized Filipino corporations and will
Topic/s Role of the Judiciary
as Interpreter of “surely perpetrate an undue restraint of trade”;
Laws (4) when the agency and committee involved
Relevant Legal The doctrine of (DOTC and PBAC) decided to open the option of
Doctrine/s hierarchy of courts bundling without legal authority, they gravely
abused their discretion of using jurisdiction; and
(5) lastly, such bundling mocked the concept of
Facts: public bidding as it made it higher than the
DOTC and CAAP aimed to improve the regional normal reasonable price.
airports by executing concession agreements On the other hand, the DOTC argued the
with the private sector. On December 15, 2014, following: (1) there is no justiciable controversy
they started their objective by posting an in the petition because there has been no actual
invitation about such plan of developing and bidding yet when the petitioner filed it, which
maintaining the airports. It will be conducted makes it premature; (2) there is no legal
through competitive bidding, in which the standing for petitioner to sue; (3) the contention
bundled projects (composed of two bundles: of the petitioner that the bundling violated the
Bundle 1: Bacolod-Silay and Iloilo and Bundle 2: anti-dummy issues provided in the constitution
Davao, Laguindingan, and New Bohol/Panglao) are just speculative; (4) in connection to the
will be awarded to the bidder by undergoing a previous argument, the agency said that the
pre-qualification process. bidding process is not affected by the Section
The mechanic in the bidding process is that 11, Article 12 of the constitution; (5) it does not
either bidders may bid for only one bundle or also violate the prohibitions on monopolies or
both bundles. combinations in restraint of trade; and (6) the
CAAP and the DOTC itself contended that there
Three months after the invitation and seventeen were no grave abuse of discretion.
days after the issuance of the instructions to
bidders, through a representative, petitioner Additionally, according to the CAAP, instead of
Gios-Samar filed a petition as a taxpayer to filing the petition before the proper trial court
urgently prohibit the bidding that will be first for the factual issues to be scrutinized first,
conducted by the DOTC and CAAP “to not cause the petitioner instead files it before the
irreparable damage and injury to the coffers of Supreme Court, which violated the basic
fundamental principle of hierarchy of courts. further overcrowding of the Court's docket; and
Thus, the petitioner did not have the legal (3) prevent the inevitable and resultant delay,
capacity to file the suit which makes the petition intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of
have no cause of action. cases which often have to be remanded or
referred to the lower court as the proper forum
The petitioner answered those arguments by
under the rules of procedure, or as the court
asserting that filing the petition before the
better equipped to resolve factual questions.
Supreme Court is a matter of concern for the
public interest and transcendental importance. The Supreme Court has allowed litigants to
Furthermore, filing it even before the conduct of seek direct relief from It upon allegation of
the bidding is the very purpose of it since there "serious and important reasons." through the
have already been groups that pre-qualified to following circumstances:
the bidding. The petitioner also insisted that he
(1) when there are genuine issues of
had the legal standing to file the suit since he
constitutionality that must be addressed at the
has Malinao as his duly authorized
most immediate time; (2) when the issues
representative.
involved are of transcendental importance; (3)
Issue: cases of first impression; (4) the constitutional
issues raised are better decided by the Court;
Whether or not the petition violated the basic
(5) exigency in certain situations; (6) the filed
fundamental principle of hierarchy of courts?
petition reviews the act of a constitutional
Ruling: organ; (7) when petitioners rightly claim that
they had no other plain, speedy, and adequate
Yes. The doctrine of hierarchy of courts dictates remedy in the ordinary course of law that could
that direct recourse to the Supreme Court is free them from the injurious effects of
allowed only to resolve questions of law, respondents' acts in violation of their right to
notwithstanding the invocation of paramount or freedom of expression; and (8) the petition
transcendental importance of the action. includes questions that are "dictated by
This doctrine is not mere policy, rather, it public welfare and the advancement of
is a constitutional filtering mechanism public policy, or demanded by the broader
designed to enable the Court to focus interest of justice, or the orders complained of
on the more fundamental and essential tasks were found to be patent nullities, or the
assigned to it by the highest law of the land. appeal was considered as clearly an
Thus, although the SC, the CA, and the RTC have inappropriate remedy."
concurrent original jurisdiction over petitions
for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo The court is not a trier of facts, and it is beyond
warranto, and habeas corpus, parties are its function to make its own findings of certain
directed, as a rule, to file their petitions vital facts different from those of the trial court,
before the lower-ranked court. Failure to especially based on the conflicting claims of the
comply is sufficient cause for the dismissal parties and without the evidence being properly
of the petition. before it. While the petitioner asserts that the
arguments it raises involve legal (as opposed to
This doctrine operates to: (1) prevent inordinate factual) issues, the court’s examination of the
demands upon the Court's time and attention petition showed otherwise. Petitioner's
which are better devoted to those matters arguments against the constitutionality of
within its exclusive jurisdiction; (2) prevent the bundling of the Projects are
inextricably intertwined with underlying Provincial Board of Canvassers as the member-
questions of fact, the determination of which elect of the National Assembly. Thereafter, he
require the reception of evidence. took his oath of office.

To summarize, when a question before the After issuing the Resolution No. 8 by the
Court involves determination of a factual issue National Assembly, which confirms the election
indispensable to the resolution of the legal of those who have not received any protest
issue, the Court will refuse to resolve the before adopting the mentioned resolution,
question regardless of the allegation or respondent Ynsua filed a Motion to Protest
invocation of compelling reasons such as petitioner Angara before the Electoral
transcendental importance. It must first be Commission of the National Assembly.
brought before the proper trial courts or CA.
The Electoral Commission then again issued its
Given that the Supreme Court is not a trier of Resolution No. 9, stating that any protest that
facts and cannot resolve these factual issues at was not submitted on or before that day will not
the first instance, it resolved to dismiss the be considered.
petition.
On the other hand, petitioner filed a Motion to
Dismiss the Protest before the Electoral
Commission and argued that the Motion to
G.R. No. L-45081 - July 15, 1936
Protest filed by respondent Ynsua was out of
Angara vs. Electoral Commission the prescribed period since the latter was filed
on December 8, 1935.
Petitioner/s Jose A. Angara
Seven days after, Ynsua replied an Answer to the
Respondent/s The Electoral Motion of Dismissal contending that there is no
Commission, Pedro constitutional provision excepting a protest
Ynsua, Miguel against an elected member of the National
Castillo, and Dionisio Assembly upon confirmation.
C. Mayor
When Petitioner replied to the said answer of
Topic/s Role of the Judiciary respondent Ynsua, the Electoral Commission
as Interpreter of issued a resolution denying the former’s Motion
Laws to Dismiss the Protest.
Relevant Legal Separation of Powers Petitioner then filed for an issuance of a writ of
Doctrine/s prohibition to prevent the Electoral Commission
from taking further cognizance of the protest of
respondent Ynsua. According to Angara, the
Facts: constitution bestows exclusive jurisdiction on
the National Assembly to “regulate the
Petitioner Jose Angara together with the
proceedings of election contests” and the
respondents, Pedro Ynsua, Miguel Castillo, and
Electoral Commission has the power that is
Dionisio Mayor were the candidates for the
limited to the merits of contested elections to
position of member of the National Assembly
the National Assembly only. Therefore, the
for the first district of Tayabas during the 1935
Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear the
elections. Petitioner was then proclaimed by the
case, as argued by the petitioner.
 and is the power and duty to see that no
one branch or agency of government
transcends the Constitution, which is the
Issue: source of all authority.

Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction In the case at bar, there is an actual
over the Electoral Commission controversy because it involves a conflict of
a grave constitutional nature between the
Ruling: National Assembly and the Electoral
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the Commission on the other. The Electoral
separation of powers is a fundamental principle Commission is a constitutional organ, created
in our system of government. It obtains not for a specific purpose to determine all contests
through express provision but by actual relating to the election, returns and
division in our Constitution. Each department qualifications of the members of the
has exclusive cognizance of matters within its National Assembly. Although the Electoral
jurisdiction and is supreme within its own Commission may not be interfered with, when
sphere. But it does not follow from the fact that and while acting within the limits of its
the three powers are to be kept separate and authority, it does not follow that it is
distinct that the Constitution intended them to beyond the reach of the constitutional
be absolutely unrestrained and independent of mechanism adopted by the people and that
each other. The Constitution has provided for it is not subject to constitutional restrictions.
an elaborate system of checks and balances The Electoral Commission is not a separate
to secure coordination in the workings of the department of the government. Thus, the court
various departments of the government. has jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission.

In cases of conflict between several To conclude, the Supreme Court denied the
departments and among agencies, the petition for a writ of prohibition against the
judiciary, with the Supreme Court as the final Electoral Commission with costs against the
arbiter, is the only constitutional mechanism petitioner.
devised finally to resolve the conflict and
allocate constitutional boundaries.
G.R. No. 217910 - September 03, 2019
The Constitution is a definition of the powers of
government. The Constitution itself has Falcis vs. Civil Registrar General
provided for the instrumentality of the judiciary
Petitioner/s Jesus Nicardo M.
as the rational way. And when the judiciary
Falcis, III
mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries,
it does not assert any superiority over the other Respondent/s Civil Registrar
departments; it does not nullify an act of the General
legislature, but only asserts the solemn and
sacred obligation assigned to it by the Topic/s Role of the Judiciary
Constitution. This is in truth all that is involved as Interpreter of
in what is termed “judicial supremacy". Judicial Laws
Supremacy is but the power of judicial review in Relevant Legal Legal Standing
actual and appropriate cases and controversies Doctrine/s
 and injury-in-fact but still sought an opinion
from the Supreme Court.
Facts:
Petitioner together with petitioners-intervenors,
Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of
LGBTS Christian Church, Inc. (LGBTS Church),
the provisions of the Family Code specifically
Reverend Crescencio "Ceejay" Agbayani, Jr.
Articles 1, 2, 46 (Paragraph 4), and 55
(Reverend Agbayani), Marlon Felipe (Felipe),
(Paragraph 6) by filing a petition before the
and Maria Arlyn "Sugar" Ibañez (Ibañez) filed a
Supreme Court.
Motion for Leave to Intervene and Admit
In one of his arguments, he cited various Attached Petition in Intervention. Through the
separate opinions of different Justices from motion, petitioners-intervenors asked the court
their earlier decided cases and claimed that the to allow them to be involved in the proceedings
resort in filing such petition was appropriate. since (1) they offer further procedural and
substantive arguments; (2) their rights will not
According to him, the Supreme Court should be protected in a separate proceeding; and (3)
follow a fresh approach to its judicial power they have an interest in the outcome of this
since his petition is a constitutional case case.
attended by grave abuse of discretion.
Moreover, he also asserted that the issues he Thereafter, a Petition-in-Intervention was filed
raised were of such transcendental importance seeking the same reliefs as those in Falcis'
as to warrant the setting aside of procedural Petition, namely: (1) the declaration of
niceties. unconstitutionality of Articles 1 and 2 of the
Family Code; and (2) the invalidation of Articles
He argued that his petition complied with these 46(4) and 55(6) of the Family Code.
requisites of judicial review: (1) actual case or
controversy; (2) standing (due to him being “an Issue:
open and self-identified homosexual” who
Whether or not the self-identification of
challenged the constitutionality of the Family
petitioner as a member of the LGBTQI+
Code since it has a “normative impact” on the
community gives him standing to challenge the
status of the same-sex marriage in the
Family Code.
Philippines); (3) raised at the earliest
opportunity; and (4) the very lis mota of the Ruling:
case is the constitutional question.
No. The petitioner did not meet the requisite of
He reiterated that there is a facial challenge on direct injury hence he does not have legal
Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code as they standing. To possess this, he must show “a
regulate fundamental rights such as “the right personal and substantial interest in the case
to due process and equal protection, right to such that he sustained or will sustain direct
decisional and marital privacy, and the right to injury as a result of the governmental act that is
find a family in accordance with religious being challenged.” The requirement of direct
convictions.” injury guarantees that the party who sues has
such personal stake in the outcome of the
On the other hand, respondent, Civil Registrar
controversy and, in effect, assures “that
General prays that the petition will be dismissed
concrete adverseness which sharpens the
as it is just a personal matter to petitioner since
presentation of issues upon which the court
he failed to show the actual case or controversy
depends for illumination of difficult impact” is insufficient to establish the
constitutional questions.” connection between the Family Code and his
alleged injury.
The requirements of legal standing and the
actual case and controversy are both “built on Wherefore, all the petitions are dismissed.
the principle of separation of powers, sparing as
it does unnecessary interference or invalidation
by the judicial branch of the actions rendered by
its co-equal branches of government.”

Petitioner’s supposed “personal stake in the

outcome of this case” is not the direct injury
contemplated by jurisprudence as that which
would endow him with standing. Mere
assertions of a “law’s normative impact”;
“impairment” of his “ability to find and enter G.R. No. 209287 – July 1, 2014
into long-term monogamous same-sex
relationships”; as well as injury to his “plans to Maria Carolina vs. Benigno Simeon
settle down and have a companion for life in his
Petitioner/s Maria Carolina P.
beloved country”; or influence over his
Araullo, Chairperson,
“decision to stay or migrate to a more LGBT
Bagong Alyansang
friendly country” cannot be recognized by this
Makabayan; Judy M.
as sufficient interest. Petitioner’s desire “to find
Taguiwalo, Professor,
and enter into long-term monogamous same-
University of The
sex relationships” and “to settle down and have
Philippines Diliman,
a companion for life in his beloved country”
Co-Chairperson,
does not constitute legally demandable rights
Pagbabago; Henri
that require judicial enforcement. This Court will
Kahn, Concerned
not witlessly indulge the petitioner in blaming
Citizens Movement;
the Family Code for his admitted inability to find
Rep. Luz Ilagan,
a partner.
Gabriela Women's
Petitioner presents no proof at all the Party Representative;
immediate, inextricable danger that the Family Rep. Carlos Isagani
Code poses to him. His assertions of injury Zarate, Bay An Muna
cannot, without sufficient proof, be directly Party-List
linked to the imputed cause, the existence of Representative;
the Family Code. His fixation on how the Family Renato M. Reyes, Jr.,
Code is the definitive cause of his inability to Secretary General Of
find a partner is plainly non sequitur. Bayan; Manuel K.
Dayrit, Chairman,
Similarly, anticipation of harm is not equivalent Ang Kapatiran Party;
to direct injury. Petitioner fails to show how the Vencer Mari E.
Family Code is the proximate cause of his Crisostomo,
alleged deprivations. His mere allegation that Chairperson,
this injury comes from “the law’s normative Anakbayan; Victor
 Villanueva, Convenor, Moreover, there was a revelation from Senator
Youth Act Now Jinggoy Ejercita Estrada regarding the incentive
when voting in favor of the Impeachment of
Respondent/s Hon. Paquito N.
Chief Justice Renato Corona, which was taken
Ochoa, Jr., Executive
from the DAP as claimed by Secretary Abad.
Secretary, Hon.
Florencio B. Abad, Because of this, it was discovered that non-
Secretary, executive projects were also funded by the DAP
Department of which was supposedly for the projects inside
Budget and the executive branch only.
Management, Hon.
This is where petitioner filed before the
Enrique T. Ona,
Supreme Court various petitions questioning
Secretary,
the validity of the said above-mentioned
Department of
program. She together with different individuals
Health, Hon. Armin
contended that the DAP is unconstitutional as it
A. Luistro, Secretary,
violates the “no money shall be paid out of the
Department of
Treasury except in pursuance of an
Education, Culture
appropriation made by law”.
and Sports and Hon.
Manuela. Roxas Ii, Issue:
Secretary,
Whether or not the Doctrine of Operative Fact is
Department of
applicable.
Interior and Local
Government Ruling:
Topic/s Role of the Judiciary Yes. The Doctrine of Operative Fact is applicable.
as Interpreter of This doctrine recognizes the existence of the law
Laws or executive act prior to the determination of its
unconstitutionality as an operative fact that
Relevant Legal
produced consequences that cannot always be
Doctrine/s
disregarded. It nullifies the void law or executive
act but sustains its effects. Thus, it provides an
exception to the general rule that a void or
Facts:
unconstitutional law produces no effect.
Due to the country’s slow-moving projects, the
The court finds that this doctrine is applicable to
government came up with a program called the
the adoption and implementation of the
“Disbursement Acceleration Program” to speed
program.
up its project funding. In this program, if a
certain department in the government takes too However, this doctrine does not always apply
much time in implementing a program then the and is not always the consequence of every
funds initially allocated to it will be withdrawn declaration of constitutional invalidity, according
by the Executive. These funds become savings to Justice Brion. Hence, it can only be invoked in
and will be reallocated to other projects. situations where the nullification of the effects
of what used to be a valid law would result in
inequity and injustice; but where no such result
would ensue, the general rule that an The case revolved around the topic of Republic
unconstitutional law is ineffective should apply. Act No. 10354 or the Responsible Parenthood
and Reproductive Health Act of 2012, famously
Therefore, it can apply only to the PAPs that can
known as the RH Law. This law aims to inform
no longer be undone, and whose beneficiaries
and give free access to every person in the
relied in goof faith on the validity of the DAP. It
country about contraception, women’s health,
cannot apply to the authors, proponents and
population control, and the like.
implementors of the program, unless there are
concrete findings of good faith in their favor by However, it was challenged by different groups
the proper tribunals determining their criminal, as, according to them, it violated various
civil, administrative, and other liabilities. constitutional rights (such as the rights to life,
health, freedom of religion and speech, and
privacy).

In this regard, through an order, the Supreme

Court prevented the law from going into effect
pending a final judgment.
G. R. No. 204819 - April 8, 2014

Imbong vs. Ochoa

Issue:
Petitioner/s James M. Imbong
and Lovely-Ann C. Whether or not the Court can exercise its power
Imbong, For of judicial review over the controversy.
Themselves And In
Ruling:
Behalf Of Their Minor
Children, Lucia Carlos The Power of Judicial Review
Imbong And
In its attempt to persuade the Court to stay its
Bernadette Carlos
judicial hand, the OSG asserts that it should
Imbong and
submit to the legislative and political wisdom of
Magnificat Child
Congress and respect the compromises made in
Development Center,
the crafting of the RH Law, it being "a product of
Inc.
a majoritarian democratic process" and
Respondent/s Civil Registrar "characterized by an inordinate amount of
General transparency." The OSG posits that the
authority of the Court to review social
Topic/s Role of the Judiciary legislation like the RH Law by certiorari is
as Interpreter of "weak," since the Constitution vests the
Laws discretion to implement the constitutional
Relevant Legal Power of Judicial policies and positive norms with the political
Doctrine/s Review departments, in particular, with Congress. It
further asserts that in view of the Court's ruling
in Southern Hemisphere v. Anti-Terrorism
Facts: Council,78 the remedies of certiorari and
prohibition utilized by the petitioners are
improper to assail the validity of the acts of the
legislature. Moreover, the OSG submits that as times of social disquietude or political
an "as applied challenge," it cannot prosper instability, the great landmarks of the
considering that the assailed law has yet to be Constitution are apt to be forgotten or marred,
enforced and applied to the petitioners, and if not entirely obliterated.87 In order to address
that the government has yet to distribute this, the Constitution impresses upon the Court
reproductive health devices that are abortive. It to respect the acts performed by a co-equal
claims that the RH Law cannot be challenged branch done within its sphere of competence
"on its face" as it is not a speech- regulating and authority, but at the same time, allows it to
measure. cross the line of separation - but only at a very
limited and specific point - to determine
In many cases involving the determination of
whether the acts of the executive and the
the constitutionality of the actions of the
legislative branches are null because they were
Executive and the Legislature, it is often sought
undertaken with grave abuse of discretion.
that the Court temper its exercise of judicial
Thus, while the Court may not pass upon
power and accord due respect to the wisdom of
questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of
its co-equal branch on the basis of the principle
the RH Law, it may do so where an attendant
of separation of powers. To be clear, the
unconstitutionality or grave abuse of discretion
separation of powers is a fundamental principle
results. The Court must demonstrate its
in our system of government, which obtains not
unflinching commitment to protect those
through express provision but by actual division
cherished rights and principles embodied in the
in our Constitution. Each department of the
Constitution. In this connection, it bears adding
government has exclusive cognizance of matters
that while the scope of judicial power of review
within its jurisdiction and is supreme within its
may be limited, the Constitution makes no
own sphere. Thus, the 1987 Constitution
distinction as to the kind of legislation that may
provides that: (a) the legislative power shall be
be subject to judicial scrutiny, be it in the form
vested in the Congress of the Philippines; (b) the
of social legislation or otherwise. The reason is
executive power shall be vested in the President
simple and goes back to the earlier point. The
of the Philippines;83 and (c) the judicial power
Court may pass upon the constitutionality of
shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in
acts of the legislative and the executive
such lower courts as may be established by law.
branches, since its duty is not to review their
The Constitution has truly blocked out with deft
collective wisdom but, rather, to make sure that
strokes and in bold lines, the allotment of
they have acted in consonance with their
powers among the three branches of
respective authorities and rights as mandated of
government.
them by the Constitution. If after said review,
In its relationship with its co-equals, the the Court finds no constitutional violations of
Judiciary recognizes the doctrine of separation any sort, then, it has no more authority of
of powers which imposes upon the courts proscribing the actions under review. This is in
proper restraint, born of the nature of their line with Article VIII, Section 1 of the
functions and of their respect for the other Constitution which expressly provides: Section
branches of government, in striking down the 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one
acts of the Executive or the Legislature as Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may
unconstitutional. Verily, the policy is a be established by law.
harmonious blend of courtesy and caution. It
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
has also long been observed, however, that in
justice to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and operation. Lest it be misunderstood, it bears
enforceable, and to determine whether or not emphasizing that the Court does not have the
there has been a grave abuse of discretion unbridled authority to rule on just any and
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on every claim of constitutional violation.
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Jurisprudence is replete with the rule that the
Government. power of judicial review is limited by four
exacting requisites, viz: (a) there must be an
As far back as Tanada v. Angara, the Court has
actual case or controversy; (b) the petitioners
unequivocally declared that certiorari,
must possess locus standi; (c) the question of
prohibition and mandamus are appropriate
constitutionality must be raised at the earliest
remedies to raise constitutional issues and to
opportunity; and (d) the issue of
review and/or prohibit/nullify, when proper,
constitutionality must be the lis mota of the
acts of legislative and executive officials, as
case.
there is no other plain, speedy or adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law. This ruling Actual Case or Controversy
was later on applied in Macalintal v. COMELEC,
Proponents of the RH Law submit that the
Aldaba v. COMELEC, Magallona v. Ermita, and
subject petitions do not present any actual case
countless others. In Tanada, the Court wrote: In
or controversy because the RH Law has yet to be
seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate
implemented. They claim that the questions
on the ground that it contravenes the
raised by the petitions are not yet concrete and
Constitution, the petition no doubt raises a
ripe for adjudication since no one has been
justiciable controversy. Where an action of the
charged with violating any of its provisions and
legislative branch is seriously alleged to have
that there is no showing that any of the
infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only
petitioners' rights has been adversely affected
the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to
by its operation.98 In short, it is contended that
settle the dispute. "The question thus posed is
judicial review of the RH Law is premature. An
judicial rather than political. The duty (to
actual case or controversy means an existing
adjudicate) remains to assure that the
case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe
supremacy of the Constitution is upheld. " Once
for determination, not conjectural or
a "controversy as to the application or
anticipatory, lest the decision of the court would
interpretation of constitutional provision is
amount to an advisory opinion. The rule is that
raised before this Court (as in the instant case),
courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic
it becomes a legal issue which the Court is
questions to satisfy scholarly interest, however
bound by constitutional mandate to decide. In
intellectually challenging. The controversy must
the scholarly estimation of former Supreme
be justiciable-definite and concrete, touching on
Court Justice Florentino Feliciano, "judicial
the legal relations of parties having adverse
review is essential for the maintenance and
legal interests. In other words, the pleadings
enforcement of the separation of powers and
must show an active antagonistic assertion of a
the balancing of powers among the three great
legal right, on the one hand, and a denial
departments of government through the
thereof, on the other; that is, it must concern a
definition and maintenance of the boundaries
real, tangible and not merely a theoretical
of authority and control between them. To him,
question or issue. There ought to be an actual
judicial review is the chief, indeed the only,
and substantial controversy admitting of specific
medium of participation - or instrument of
relief through a decree conclusive in nature, as
intervention - of the judiciary in that balancing
distinguished from an opinion advising what the Judiciary to settle the dispute. Moreover, the
law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts. petitioners have shown that the case is so
Corollary to the requirement of an actual case because medical practitioners or medical
or controversy is the requirement of providers are in danger of being criminally
ripeness.101 A question is ripe for adjudication prosecuted under the RH Law for vague
when the act being challenged has had a direct violations thereof, particularly public health
adverse effect on the individual challenging it. officers who are threatened to be dismissed
For a case to be considered ripe for from the service with forfeiture of retirement
adjudication, it is a prerequisite that something and other benefits. They must, at least, be
has then been accomplished or performed by heard on the matter NOW.
either branch before a court may come into the
Facial Challenge
picture, and the petitioner must allege the
existence of an immediate or threatened injury The OSG also assails the propriety of the facial
to himself as a result of the challenged action. challenge lodged by the subject petitions,
He must show that he has sustained or is contending that the RH Law cannot be
immediately in danger of sustaining some direct challenged "on its face" as it is not a speech
injury as a result of the act complained of In The regulating measure. The Court is not persuaded.
Province of North Cotabato v. The Government
of the Republic of the Philippines,103 where the In United States (US) constitutional law, a facial
constitutionality of an unimplemented challenge, also known as a First Amendment
Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Challenge, is one that is launched to assail the
Domain (MOA-AD) was put in question, it was validity of statutes concerning not only
argued that the Court has no authority to pass protected speech, but also all other rights in the
upon the issues raised as there was yet no First Amendment. These include religious
concrete act performed that could possibly freedom, freedom of the press, and the right of
violate the petitioners' and the intervenors' the people to peaceably assemble, and to
rights. Citing precedents, the Court petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.107 After all, the fundamental right
ruled that the fact of the law or act in question to religious freedom, freedom of the press and
being not yet effective does not negate peaceful assembly are but component rights of
ripeness. Concrete acts under a law are not the right to one's freedom of expression, as they
necessary to render the controversy ripe. Even a are modes which one's thoughts are
singular violation of the Constitution and/or the externalized.
law is enough to awaken judicial duty. In this
case, the Court is of the view that an actual case In this jurisdiction, the application of doctrines
or controversy exists and that the same is ripe originating from the U.S. has been generally
for judicial determination. Considering that the maintained, albeit with some modifications.
RH Law and its implementing rules have already While this Court has withheld the application of
taken effect and that budgetary measures to facial challenges to strictly penal statues, it has
carry out the law have already been passed, it is expanded its scope to cover statutes not only
evident that the subject petitions present a regulating free speech, but also those involving
justiciable controversy. As stated earlier, when religious freedom, and other fundamental
an action of the legislative branch is seriously rights.109 The underlying reason for this
alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it not modification is simple. For unlike its counterpart
only becomes a right, but also a duty of the in the U.S., this Court, under its expanded
jurisdiction, is mandated by the Fundamental Locus standi or legal standing is defined as a
Law not only to settle actual controversies personal and substantial interest in a case such
involving rights which are legally demandable that the party has sustained or will sustain
and enforceable, but also to determine whether direct injury as a result of the challenged
or not there has been a grave abuse of governmental act. It requires a personal stake in
discretion amounting to lack or excess of the outcome of the controversy as to assure the
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or concrete adverseness which sharpens the
instrumentality of the Government. Verily, the presentation of issues upon which the court so
framers of Our Constitution envisioned a largely depends for illumination of difficult
proactive Judiciary, ever vigilant with its duty to constitutional questions. In relation to locus
maintain the supremacy of the Constitution. standi, the "as applied challenge" embodies the
Consequently, considering that the foregoing rule that one can challenge the constitutionality
petitions have seriously alleged that the of a statute only if he asserts a violation of his
constitutional human rights to life, speech and own rights. The rule prohibits one from
religion and other fundamental rights challenging the constitutionality of the statute
mentioned above have been violated by the grounded on a violation of the rights of third
assailed legislation, the Court has authority to persons not before the court. This rule is also
take cognizance of these kindred petitions and known as the prohibition against third-party
to determine if the RH Law can indeed pass standing.
constitutional scrutiny. To dismiss these
Transcendental Importance
petitions on the simple expedient that there
exist no actual case or controversy, would Notwithstanding, the Court leans on the
diminish this Court as a reactive branch of doctrine that "the rule on standing is a matter of
government, acting only when the Fundamental procedure, hence, can be relaxed for non-
Law has been transgressed, to the detriment of traditional plaintiffs like ordinary citizens,
the Filipino people. taxpayers, and legislators when the public
interest so requires, such as when the matter is
of transcendental importance, of overreaching
significance to society, or of paramount public
interest." In Coconut Oil Refiners Association,
Locus Standi
Inc. v. Torres,117 the Court held that in cases of
The OSG also attacks the legal personality of the paramount importance where serious
petitioners to file their respective petitions. It constitutional questions are involved, the
contends that the "as applied challenge" lodged standing requirement may be relaxed and a suit
by the petitioners cannot prosper as the may be allowed to prosper even where there is
assailed law has yet to be enforced and applied no direct injury to the party claiming the right of
against them, and the government has yet to judicial review. In the first Emergency Powers
distribute reproductive health devices that are Cases, ordinary citizens and taxpayers were
abortive. The petitioners, for their part, allowed to question the constitutionality of
invariably invoke the "transcendental several executive orders although they had only
importance" doctrine and their status as citizens an indirect and general interest shared in
and taxpayers in establishing the requisite locus common with the public.
standi.
With these said, even if the constitutionality of
the RH Law may not be assailed through an "as-
applied challenge, still, the Court has time and Mindful of all these and the fact that the issues
again acted liberally on the locus s tandi of contraception and reproductive health have
requirement. It has accorded certain individuals already caused deep division among a broad
standing to sue, not otherwise directly injured spectrum of society, the Court entertains no
or with material interest affected by a doubt that the petitions raise issues of
Government act, provided a constitutional issue transcendental importance warranting
of transcendental importance is invoked. The immediate court adjudication. More
rule on locus standi is, after all, a procedural importantly, considering that it is the right to life
technicality which the Court has, on more than of the mother and the unborn which is primarily
one occasion, waived or relaxed, thus allowing at issue, the Court need not wait for a life to be
non-traditional plaintiffs, such as concerned taken away before taking action.
citizens, taxpayers, voters or legislators, to sue
The Court cannot, and should not, exercise
in the public interest, albeit they may not have
judicial restraint at this time when rights
been directly injured by the operation of a law
enshrined in the Constitution are being
or any other government act. As held in
imperiled to be violated. To do so, when the life
Jaworski v. PAGCOR: Granting arguendo that the
of either the mother or her child is at stake,
present action cannot be properly treated as a
would lead to irreparable consequences.
petition for prohibition, the transcendental
importance of the issues involved in this case Declaratory Relief
warrants that we set aside the technical defects
and take primary jurisdiction over the petition The respondents also assail the petitions
at bar. One cannot deny that the issues raised because they are essentially petitions for
herein have potentially pervasive influence on declaratory relief over which the Court has no
the social and moral well being of this nation, original jurisdiction.120 Suffice it to state that
specially the youth; hence, their proper and just most of the petitions are praying for injunctive
determination is an imperative need. This is in reliefs and so the Court would just consider
accordance with the well-entrenched principle them as petitions for prohibition under Rule 65,
that rules of procedure are not inflexible tools over which it has original jurisdiction. Where
designed to hinder or delay, but to facilitate and the case has far-reaching implications and prays
promote the administration of justice. Their for injunctive reliefs, the Court may consider
strict and rigid application, which would result them as petitions for prohibition under Rule 65.
in technicalities that tend to frustrate, rather
than promote substantial justice, must always
be eschewed. One Subject-One Title

In view of the seriousness, novelty and weight The petitioners also question the
as precedents, not only to the public, but also to constitutionality of the RH Law, claiming that it
the bench and bar, the issues raised must be violates Section 26(1), Article VI of the
resolved for the guidance of all. After all, the RH Constitution,122 prescribing the one subject-
Law drastically affects the constitutional one title rule. According to them, being one for
provisions on the right to life and health, the reproductive health with responsible
freedom of religion and expression and other parenthood, the assailed legislation violates the
constitutional rights. constitutional standards of due process by
concealing its true intent - to act as a population
control measure. To belittle the challenge, the
respondents insist that the RH Law is not a birth subject/one bill rule. In Benjamin E. Cawaling, Jr.
or population control measure, and that the v. The Commission on Elections and Rep. Francis
concepts of "responsible parenthood" and Joseph G Escudero, it was written: It is well-
"reproductive health" are both interrelated as settled that the "one title-one subject" rule
they are inseparable. Despite efforts to push the does not require the Congress to employ in the
RH Law as a reproductive health law, the Court title of the enactment language of such
sees it as principally a population control precision as to mirror, fully index or catalogue all
measure. The corpus of the RH Law is geared the contents and the minute details therein. The
towards the reduction of the country's rule is sufficiently complied with if the title is
population. While it claims to save lives and comprehensive enough as to include the
keep our women and children healthy, it also general object which the statute seeks to effect,
promotes pregnancy-preventing products. As and where, as here, the persons interested are
stated earlier, the RH Law emphasizes the need informed of the nature, scope and
to provide Filipinos, especially the poor and the consequences of the proposed law and its
marginalized, with access to information on the operation. Moreover, this Court has invariably
full range of modem family planning products adopted a liberal rather than technical
and methods. These family planning methods, construction of the rule "so as not to cripple or
natural or modem, however, are clearly geared impede legislation." In this case, a textual
towards the prevention of pregnancy. analysis of the various provisions of the law
shows that both "reproductive health" and
For said reason, the manifest underlying
"responsible parenthood" are interrelated and
objective of the RH Law is to reduce the number
germane to the overriding objective to control
of births in the country. It cannot be denied that
the population growth.
the measure also seeks to provide pre-natal and
post-natal care as well. A large portion of the As expressed in the first paragraph of Section 2
law, however, covers the dissemination of of the RH Law:
information and provisions on access to
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State
medically-safe, non-abortifacient, effective,
recognizes and guarantees the human rights of
legal, affordable, and quality reproductive
all persons including their right to equality and
health care services, methods, devices, and
nondiscrimination of these rights, the right to
supplies, which are all intended to prevent
sustainable human development, the right to
pregnancy. The Court, thus, agrees with the
health which includes reproductive health, the
petitioners' contention that the whole idea of
right to education and information, and the
contraception pervades the entire RH Law. It is,
right to choose and make decisions for
in fact, the central idea of the RH Law. Indeed,
themselves in accordance with their religious
remove the provisions that refer to
convictions, ethics, cultural beliefs, and the
contraception or are related to it and the RH
demands of responsible parenthood.
Law loses its very foundation. As earlier
explained, "the other positive provisions such as The one subject/one title rule expresses the
skilled birth attendance, maternal care including principle that the title of a law must not be "so
pre-and post-natal services, prevention and uncertain that the average person reading it
management of reproductive tract infections would not be informed of the purpose of the
including HIV/AIDS are already provided for in enactment or put on inquiry as to its contents,
the Magna Carta for Women." Be that as it may, or which is misleading, either in referring to or
the RH Law does not violate the one indicating one subject where another or
different one is really embraced in the act, or in rights which are legally demandable and
omitting any expression or indication of the real enforceable, and to determine whether or not
subject or scope of the act." Considering the there has been a grave abuse of discretion
close intimacy between "reproductive health" amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
and "responsible parenthood" which bears to the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
the attainment of the goal of achieving Government.
"sustainable human development" as stated
Actual Case or Controversy
under its terms, the Court finds no reason to
believe that Congress intentionally sought to Proponents of the RH Law submit that the
deceive the public as to the contents of the subject petitions do not present any actual case
assailed legislation. or controversy because the RH Law has yet to be
implemented. They claim that the questions
Wherefore, the petitions are Partially Granted.
raised by the petitions are not yet concrete and
ripe for adjudication since no one has been
charged with violating any of its provisions and
that there is no showing that any of the
petitioners' rights has been adversely affected
by its operation. In short, it is contended that
judicial review of the RH Law is premature. An
actual case or controversy means an existing
case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe
for determination, not conjectural or
anticipatory, lest the decision of the court would
amount to an advisory opinion. The rule is that
courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic
questions to satisfy scholarly interest, however
intellectually challenging. The controversy must
be justiciable-definite and concrete, touching on
the legal relations of parties having adverse
legal interests. In other words, the pleadings
must show an active antagonistic assertion of a
legal right, on the one hand, and a denial
thereof, on the other; that is, it must concern a
The Power of Judicial Review real, tangible and not merely a theoretical
question or issue. There ought to be an actual
In many cases involving the determination of and substantial controversy admitting of specific
the constitutionality of the actions of the relief through a decree conclusive in nature, as
Executive and the Legislature, it is often sought distinguished from an opinion advising what the
that the Court temper its exercise of judicial law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.
power and accord due respect to the wisdom of Corollary to the requirement of an actual case
its co-equal branch on the basis of the principle or controversy is the requirement of ripeness. A
of separation of powers. question is ripe for adjudication when the act
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of being challenged has had a direct adverse effect
justice to settle actual controversies involving on the individual challenging it. For a case to be
considered ripe for adjudication, it is a largely depends for illumination of difficult
prerequisite that something has then been constitutional questions. In relation to locus
accomplished or performed by either branch standi, the "as applied challenge" embodies the
before a court may come into the picture, and rule that one can challenge the constitutionality
the petitioner must allege the existence of an of a statute only if he asserts a violation of his
immediate or threatened injury to himself as a own rights. The rule prohibits one from
result of the challenged action. challenging the constitutionality of the statute
grounded on a violation of the rights of third
persons not before the court. This rule is also
Facial Challenge known as the prohibition against third-party
standing.

The OSG also assails the propriety of the facial

challenge lodged by the subject petitions, Transcendental Importance
contending that the RH Law cannot be
Notwithstanding, the Court leans on the
challenged "on its face" as it is not a speech
doctrine that "the rule on standing is a matter of
regulating measure. The Court is not persuaded.
procedure, hence, can be relaxed for non-
traditional plaintiffs like ordinary citizens,
taxpayers, and legislators when the public
Locus Standi interest so requires, such as when the matter is
of transcendental importance, of overreaching
significance to society, or of paramount public
The OSG also attacks the legal personality of the interest." In Coconut Oil Refiners Association,
petitioners to file their respective petitions. It Inc. v. Torres, the Court held that in cases of
contends that the "as applied challenge" lodged paramount importance where serious
by the petitioners cannot prosper as the constitutional questions are involved, the
assailed law has yet to be enforced and applied standing requirement may be relaxed and a suit
against them, and the government has yet to may be allowed to prosper even where there is
distribute reproductive health devices that are no direct injury to the party claiming the right of
abortive. The petitioners, for their part, judicial review. In the first Emergency Powers
invariably invoke the "transcendental Cases, ordinary citizens and taxpayers were
importance" doctrine and their status as citizens allowed to question the constitutionality of
and taxpayers in establishing the requisite locus several executive orders although they had only
standi. an indirect and general interest shared in
common with the public.

Locus standi or legal standing is defined as a

personal and substantial interest in a case such The Court cannot, and should not, exercise
that the party has sustained or will sustain judicial restraint at this time when rights
direct injury as a result of the challenged enshrined in the Constitution are being
governmental act. It requires a personal stake in imperiled to be violated. To do so, when the life
the outcome of the controversy as to assure the of either the mother or her child is at stake,
concrete adverseness which sharpens the would lead to irreparable consequences.
presentation of issues upon which the court so
 natural or modem, however, are clearly geared
towards the prevention of pregnancy.
Declaratory Relief
Wherefore, the petitions are Partially Granted.
The respondents also assail the petitions
because they are essentially petitions for Yes. The court may exercise power of judicial
declaratory relief over which the Court has no review. Thus, in this case, the court believes that
original jurisdiction. Suffice it to state that most an actual case or controversy exists and is ripe
of the petitions are praying for injunctive reliefs for judicial determination.
and so the Court would just consider them as
petitions for prohibition under Rule 65, over
which it has original jurisdiction. Where the case Wherefore, the petitions are Partially Granted.
has far-reaching implications and prays for
injunctive reliefs, the Court may consider them
as petitions for prohibition under Rule 65.

One Subject-One Title

The petitioners also question the

constitutionality of the RH Law, claiming that it
violates Section 26(1), Article VI of the
Constitution, prescribing the one subject-one
title rule. According to them, being one for
reproductive health with responsible
parenthood, the assailed legislation violates the
constitutional standards of due process by
concealing its true intent - to act as a population
control measure. To belittle the challenge, the
respondents insist that the RH Law is not a birth
or population control measure, and that the
concepts of "responsible parenthood" and
"reproductive health" are both interrelated as
they are inseparable. Despite efforts to push the
RH Law as a reproductive health law, the Court
sees it as principally a population control
measure. The corpus of the RH Law is geared
towards the reduction of the country's
population. While it claims to save lives and
keep our women and children healthy, it also
promotes pregnancy-preventing products. As
stated earlier, the RH Law emphasizes the need
to provide Filipinos, especially the poor and the
marginalized, with access to information on the
full range of modem family planning products
and methods. These family planning methods,