You are on page 1of 1

Judicial Review; Actual Case or Controversy ripe for adjudication; (3) the person challenging the act must

he person challenging the act must be a proper


ARAULLO vs. AQUINO III party; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest
[G.R. No. 209287. July 1, 2014.] BERSAMIN, J p: opportunity and must be the very litis mota of the case.
The first requisite demands that there be an actual case calling for the
Facts exercise of judicial power by the Court.
For resolution are the consolidated petitions assailing the An actual and justiciable controversy exists in these consolidated cases.
constitutionality of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), The incompatibility of the perspectives of the parties on the
National Budget Circular (NBC) No. 541, and related issuances of the constitutionality of the DAP and its relevant issuances satisfy the
Department of Budget and Management (DBM) implementing the DAP. requirement for a conflict between legal rights. The issues being raised
Issues herein meet the requisite ripeness considering that the challenged
A. Whether or not certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus are proper executive acts were already being implemented by the DBM, and there
remedies to assail the constitutionality and validity of the Disbursement are averments by the petitioners that such implementation was
Acceleration Program (DAP),National Budget Circular (NBC) No. 541, repugnant to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Moreover, the
and all other executive issuances allegedly implementing the DAP. implementation of the DAP entailed the allocation and expenditure of
B.whether there is a controversy ripe for judicial determination huge sums of public funds. The fact that public funds have been allocated,
C. Whether petitioners have standing to sue. disbursed or utilized by reason or on account of such challenged
executive acts gave rise, therefore, to an actual controversy that is ripe
RULING for adjudication by the Court. EHDCAI
Procedural Issue:
a) Yes. The petitions under Rule 65 are proper remedies c)Did the petitioners have the legal standing to sue?
Thus, petitions for certiorari and prohibition are appropriate remedies Under their respective circumstances, each of the petitioners has
to raise constitutional issues and to review and/or prohibit or nullify the established sufficient interest in the outcome of the controversy as to
acts of legislative and executive officials. confer locus standi on each of them.
Necessarily, in discharging its duty under Section 1, supra, to set right In addition, considering that the issues center on the extent of the power
and undo any act of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of the Chief Executive to disburse and allocate public funds, whether
of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of the Government, the appropriated by Congress or not, these cases pose issues that are of
Court is not at all precluded from making the inquiry provided the transcendental importance to the entire Nation, the petitioners included.
challenge was properly brought by interested or affected parties. The As such, the determination of such important issues call for the Court's
Court has been thereby entrusted expressly or by necessary implication exercise of its broad and wise discretion "to waive the requirement and
with both the duty and the obligation of determining, in appropriate so remove the impediment to its addressing and resolving the serious
cases, the validity of any assailed legislative or executive action. This constitutional questions raised.
entrustment is consistent with the republican system of checks and
balances.

b) Requisites for the exercise of them power of judicial review were


complied with
The requisites for the exercise of the power of judicial review are the
following, namely: (1) there must be an actual case or justiciable
controversy before the Court; (2) the question before the Court must be