Presumption against Unconstitutionality -legislators-claim that the official action complained of

infringes upon their prerogatives as legislators

Fariñas v. The Executive Secretary: “Every statute is
presumed valid. The legislature intended to enact a valid,
sensible and just law and one which operates no further than
may be necessary to effectuate the specific purpose of the
law. Every presumption should be indulged in favor of the
constitutionality and the burden of proof is on the party
alleging that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of
the Constitution.
Requisites for judicial inquiry in constitutional litigation
a. There must be an actual case or controversy
calling for the exercise of judicial power;
-One which involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion
of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution as
distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract difference or
disputes
and that must be ripe for adjudication (when the act has
direct adverse on the one challenging it)
c. The question of constitutionality must be raised at
the earliest opportunity; and
Section 5(2)(a), Article VII, of the 1987 Constitution
Sec.5. The SC shall have the ff powers:
(2) review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as
the law of the Rules of Court may provide, final judgements and orders
of lower courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality of validity of any treaty,
international or executive agreement, law presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or regulation is in question.
A party may raise its unconstitutionality or invalidity in every
occasion that the regulation is being enforced.
A law, otherwise unconstitutional, would lapse into
constitutionality by the mere failure of the proper party to
promptly file a case to challenge the same.

Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution – Judicial power
includes the duty of the Courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.
Moot and Academic Principle
-it describes a situation where a pending case loses its
justiciability because it no longer presents a real problem as
between the parties.
-where the issue has become moot and academic, there is no
justiciable controversy, so that a declaration thereon would be
of no practical use or value.
Exception:
-there is a grave violation of the Constitution;
-the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount
public interest is involved;
-when the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of
controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar and the
public; and
-the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.
d. The issue of constitutionality must be the very lis
mota of the case.
“litigation moved”- cause or motivation of a legal
action
The statute is unconstitutional
-the one challenging the constitutionality of the statute had
discharged his burden of presenting evidence necessary to
establish his claim by the amount of evidence required by law
in order to overcome such presumption.
The statute is not constitutional
-the statute has never been constitutional
Effects of the unconstitutionality:
GENERAL RULE- where part of the statute is void as
repugnant to the Constitution, while another part is valid, the
valid portion, if separable from the invalid, may stand and be
enforced.
-separability clause
EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE- when the parts of a
statute are so mutually dependent and connected, as
conditions, considerations, inducements or compensations for
each other, the nullity of one part will vitiate the rest.

b. the person challenging the act must have the legal

standing or locus standi to question the validity of
the subject act or issuance;

In private suits, governed by the real parties in interest rule as

contained in:
Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure- “Every
action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real
party in interest. (the party who stands to be benefited or injured
by the judgement in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of
the suit.

In public suits, (Tileston v. Ullman) for a private individual to

invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of an executive
or legislative action, he must show that he has sustained a direct
injury as a result of that action, and is not sufficient that he has
a general interest common to all members of the public.

Locus standi may be waived by the Court, provided the

following requirements are met:
-case involve constitutional issues
-taxpayers-illegal disbursement of public funds or tax
measure is unconstitutional
-voters-interest in the validity of election law in question
-concerned citizens-issues raised are of
transcendental importance which must be settled early