REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

1. There must be an actual case or controversy.

2. The constitutional question must be raised by the proper party.
3. The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible oppurtunity.
4. The decision on the constitutional question must be determinative of the case itself

###
1. 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, lest the decision of the court
would amount to an advisory opinion. It must concern a real, tangible and not merely a
theoretical question or issue.
 General Rule: Courts decline jurisdiction over cases where the issues raised in the case
are moot and academic or because of subsequent developments, have become moot and
academic (one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening
events). Or dismiss it on the ground of mootness.
 Exceptions: Courts will still decide cases otherwise moot and academic if:
1. There is a grave violation of the constitution.
2. There is an exceptional character of the situation and paramount interest is involved.
3. The constitutional issues raised require formulation of controlling principles to guide the
bench, the bar and the public. (Symbolic Function)
4. The case is capable of repetition yet evasive of review.
 the application of this principle presupposes that:
a. the life of the controversy is too short to be fully litigated prior to its termination.
b. that there is reasonable expectation that the plaintiff will again be subjected to the
same problem.
##
2. The constitutional question must be raised by the proper party.
 Proper Party is one who has sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining an injury
because of the act complained of. The party who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment of the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
 LOCUS STANDI – a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question.
 Direct Injury Test – a person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal
and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained or will sustain direct injury
as a result. The term interest means material interest, an interest in issue affected by the
challenged official act as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved or a
mere incidental interest.
 Petitioners may be accorded standing to sue provided that the following requirements
are met:
1. The case involves constitutional issues.
2. For tax-payers, there must be claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the tax
measure is unconstitutional.
3. For voters, there must be showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law
in question.
4. For concerned citizens, there must be a showing that the issues raised are of
transcendental importance which must be settled early. Overarching significance to the
society or of paramount public interest. (KILOSBAYAN vs. Guingona Ruling)
5. For legislators, there must be a claim that the official action complained of encroaches
on their prerogatives as legislators.

Additional Notes:

 A party's standing in court is a procedural technicality which may be set aside by the court
in view of the importance of the issues involved.
 General Rule: A party can question the validity of statute only if applied to him, the said
statute is unconstitutional.
Exception: FACIAL CHALLENGE to a statute. (Exclusive only in areas of freedom of
expression which include religious freedom, freedom of the press and the right of the
people to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances.) In
this instance, the over-breath doctrine permits a party to challenge the validity of a
statute even though as applied to him, it is not unconstitutional, but it might be if applied
to others not before the court whose activities are constitutionally protected. Invalidation
of the statute "on its face" rather than "as applied" is permitted in the interest of
preventing the chilling effect on freedom of expression.
 Facial Challenge must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the act
would be valid.
 VOID FOR VAGUENESS RULE – the law is facially invalid if men of common intelligence
must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. (Exclusive only in
areas of freedom of expression which include religious freedom, freedom of the press and
the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for redress
of grievances.)
The litigant may challenge a statute on its face only if it is vague in all possible applications.
 STRICT SCRUTINY scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the
constitutionality of certain laws. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law
to further a "compelling governmental interest," and must have narrowly tailored the law to
achieve that interest.

##
3. The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity.
 The earliest possible opportunity to raise a constitutional issue is to raise it in the pleadings before
a competent court that can resolve the same. If not raised in the pleadings, it cannot be
considered at the trial and if not considered at the trial it cannot be considered on appeal.
 In criminal cases – the question can be raised at any time at the discretion of the court.
 In civil cases – the question can be raised at any stage of the proceedings if necessary for the
determination of the case itself.
 In every case, except when there is estoppel, it can be raised at any stage if it involves the
jurisdiction of the court.

##

4. The decision on the constitutional question must be determinative of the case itself.
 Lis Mota – the cause of the suit of action.
 The petitioner who claims the unconstitutionality of a law has the burden of showing that the
case cannot be resolved unless the constitutional question that he raised is decided. If there is
some other ground upon which the court may rest it judgment, that course will be adopted and
the question of constitutionality should be avoided.
 Court will not pass upon the question of constitutionality, although properly presented, if the case
can be disposed of on some other ground such as the application of the statute or the general
law.
 Every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. To justify its nullification, there
must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the constitution and not one that is doubtful,
speculative or argumentative.