Facts:

1. Senator Viserys authored a bill entitled An Act Appropriating Emergency Funds for
the Philippine Amusement Gaming Corporation and for Other Purposes.

2. Below are the significant provisions of the bill which was later on approved into law:

Section 2. Declaration of policy. It shall be the policy of the State to

invigorate the government-sanctioned gambling industry by making a
long-term commitment of building at least one (1) casino in every
province and city in the country.

Section 3. Appropriation. The amount of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY

MILLION PESOS (Php 120,000,000.00) is hereby appropriated for the
use of PAGCOR to start the urgent need for the construction of new
casinos in the different provinces of the Philippines.

Section 5. Donations to PAGCOR exempt from donors tax and other

kinds of taxes. All donations made to the PAGCOR by any person shall be
exempt from donors tax and any from other kind of taxes as defined in
the National Internal Revenue Code.

3. Petitioner Rhaegar, a Filipino citizen and dutiful taxpayer, filed before the Supreme
Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition against respondents Executive Secretary
Tywin and Budget Secretary Balerion.

4. Petitioner seeks to enjoin the government from spending public funds for the
furtherance of legalized gambling on the ground that it is detrimental to public
morality. Petitioner also avers that the law is void for being created in violation of the
Constitution. However, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued for the laws
constitutionality.

5. Due to the doctrine of judicial hierarchy, the Supreme Court forwarded the petition to
the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch No. 991 for judgment. After reception
of evidence, the RTC ordered the parties to file their respective trial memorandum.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the Judiciary may exercise judicial review.
2. Whether or not the assailed law was created in violation of the Constitution.

Arguments:

The Legislative, the Executive and the

Judiciary are supreme within its own
sphere and independent from one another
The Constitution made each of the three branches of the government supreme within its
own sphere and independent from one another. This is also known as the principle of
separation of powers which was explained by the court in Angara v. The Electoral
Commision:

The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of

government. It obtains not through express provision but by actual
division in our Constitution. Each department of the government has
exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme
within its own sphere. But it does not follow from the fact that the three
powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the Constitution intended
them to be absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other. The
Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances
to secure coordination in the workings of the various departments of the
government. x x x And the judiciary in turn, with the Supreme Court as the
final arbiter, effectively checks the other departments in the exercise of its
power to determine the law, and hence to declare executive and legislative
acts void if violative of the Constitution. (Angara v. The Electoral
Commision, et al., G.R. No. L-45081, 15 July 1936)

The power of the courts to review is not

absolute

Although the Judiciary has the duty to determine whether a law is constitutional or
unconstitutional, this power is not absolute. It requires that the following requisites be
met: (1) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial
power; (2) the person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity
of the subject act or issuance; otherwise stated, he must have a personal and substantial
interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of
its enforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest
opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.
(LAMP v. The Secretary of Budget and Management, et al., G.R. No. 164987, 24 April
2012)

Presumption of validity accorded to

statutory acts of Congress

In LAMP v. The Secretary of Budget and Management, the Court held that:

In determining whether or not a statute is unconstitutional, the Court does

not lose sight of the presumption of validity accorded to statutory acts of
Congress. x x x. To justify the nullification of the law or its
implementation, there must be a clear and unequivocal, not a
doubtful, breach of the Constitution. In case of doubt in the
sufficiency of proof establishing unconstitutionality, the Court must
sustain legislation because to invalidate [a law] based on x x x baseless
 supposition is an affront to the wisdom not only of the legislature that
passed it but also of the executive which approved it. This presumption of
constitutionality can be overcome only by the clearest showing that there
was indeed an infraction of the Constitution, and only when such a
conclusion is reached by the required majority may the Court pronounce,
in the discharge of the duty it cannot escape, that the challenged act must
be struck down. (LAMP v. The Secretary of Budget and Management, et
al., G.R. No. 164987, 24 April 2012) (emphasis supplied)

This means that the burden of proof is on the party alleging that there is a clear and
unequivocal breach of the Constitution. And absence of such requires application of the
presumption that the law is valid.

In this case, the petitioner simply alleged that the law is void without the clearest showing
that there was indeed an infraction of the Constitution. Therefore, the presumption in
favor of the constitutionality of the assailed law must be respected and upheld.