III.

JUDICIAL REVIEW addressing potential danger of direct damage to action,

Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities (PACU) private individual must show damage sustained or
v. SEC. of EDUC interest common to the public.
Topic: 2. Requisites for Judicial Review A hypothetical threat is not sufficient

Keywords/Summary:
The Petitioner is requesting certain Acts requiring the
inspection and recognition of private and college
schools to be unconstitutional.
The Petitioner had raised the issues of rights of citizens
to operate schools and the requiring government
permits serves to censor their rights.
The Petitioners was operating under these permits and
have not stated any wrong to have occurred since their
permit where to operate havent been revoked.

Vocabulary:
Bona fide suit: Judicial power is limited to the decision of
actual cases and controversies. The authority to pass on the
validity of statutes is incidental to the decision of such cases
where conflicting claims under the Constitution and under a
legislative act assailed as contrary to the Constitution are
raised. It is legitimate only in the last resort, and as necessity
in the determination of real, earnest, and vital controversy
between litigants." (Taada and Fernando, Constitution of the
Philippines)

Doctrine:
Judicial Controversy: the mere threat that the
Secretary of Education might revoke the license of the
petitioner is not constituted as judicial controversy.
The action of suit made by the petitioner is for a
positive purpose and not to acquire actual reliefs.
Locus Standi: Its not sufficient to invoke judicial power
on validity of executive or legislative action when
III. JUDICIAL REVIEW
Province of North Cotobato v. GRP
Topic: 3. Actual Controversy
Keywords/Summary:
Petitioners are requesting the unconstitutionality of the
MOA-AD (Memorandum Agreement on Ancestral
Domain) that declares recognition of the Bangsamoro
Judicial Entity (BMP) as a state and will encomprise the
territory of Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan in response to
negotiation with the MILF.
o On the contention that the respondent (GRP)
have been disbanded by the President, the
exceptions of dismissing petitioner on Moot and
Academic (David v Gloria Arroyo) does not
include the suspension of the personality of the
Respondent is not part of grounds of moot.
Locus Standi:
o The fact that government funds will expended in
conducting the plebiscite, without communities
affected by the said agreement being involved,
then that gives the petitioners legal standing.

Vocabullary:
Ripeness: By enactment of questioned law or approval
of agreement, the dispute has ripen to a judicial
controversy.

Doctrine:
Ripeness:
o Although the law in question is not in effect and
is simply drafted for proposal to be signed for
the GRP and the MILF, the drafting of the
agreement without consulting with local
government units or communities affected is in
violation of E.O. 3 which mandates it.
o Grave abuse of Discretion is present due to
violation of the EO 3 as such regardless of non-
effectivity of Agreement the issue is ripe for
applying judicial review.
o The fact that the substance provision of the
Agreement is not necessary and the law is not
yet in effect does not negate ripeness.
Moot & Academic:
III. JUDICIAL REVIEW
Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works & Communications
Topic: 6. Taxpayers suit

Keywords/Summary:
Petitioner assailing the constitutionality of an act
involving the use of public funds for the construction,
and improvements of Pasig road terminals.
Petitioner raises that the constructed government
property does not connect to the main highway

Doctrine:
Taxing power must be of public purpose: Statutes
requiring use of public funds must be designed for
public purpose and not incidental beneficial to the
public through promoting private interest or
prosperity of private business.
The right of taxpayers to asail the constitutionality of
statutes involving use of public funds in comparison to
the U.S. is applicable due to the simple and unitary
national government of Republic of the Philippines
deals more directly with the people than the Federal
Government thats imposed by its Union States as well
as those imposed by the Federal Government imposed
to the Union States.
Attacking Constitutionality: Taxpayers have sufficient
interest in preventing illegal expenditure by taxation.
US SC However does not favor taxpayer interest as far
as federal laws.