Re: ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY

CASE EXCERPT
An actual case or controversy means an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe
Imbong vs. Ochoa for determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, lest the decision of the court would amount to an
advisory opinion. The rule is that courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy
GR No. 204819 scholarly interest, however intellectually challenging. The controversy must be justiciable-definite
and concrete, touching on the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests. In other words,
April 8, 2014 the pleadings must show an active antagonistic assertion of a legal right, on the one hand, and a
denial thereof, on the other; that is, it must concern a real, tangible and not merely a theoretical
question or issue. There ought to be an actual and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief
through a decree conclusive in nature, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law
would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.

PRECEDENT: The Province Of North Cotabato v. The Government of the Republic of the Philippines, 589
Phil. 387, 481 (2008)
“The fact, of the law or act in question being not yet effective, does not negate ripeness. Even a
singular violation of the Constitution and/or the law is enough to awaken judicial duty.”
In this case, the Court is of the view that an actual case or controversy exists and that the same is
ripe for judicial determination. Considering that the RH Law and its implementing rules have
already taken effect and that budgetary measures to carry out the law have already been passed, it
is evident that the subject petitions present a justiciable controversy.
To dismiss these petitions on the simple expedient that there exist no actual case or controversy,
would diminish this Court as a reactive branch of government, acting only when the Fundamental
Law has been transgressed, to the detriment of the Filipino people.
Samahan ng mga Facts: SPARK filed a petition for certiorari arguing that the Curfew Ordinances are unconstitutional
Progresibong Kabataan because they deprive the minors their right to liberty and right to travel, among others.
(SPARK) vs. Quezon City
Excerpt: "Basic in the exercise of judicial power - whether under the traditional or in the expanded
G.R. No. 225442 setting - is the presence of an actual case or controversy." "An actual case or controversy is one which
'involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims, susceptible of judicial
August 8, 2017 resolution as distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute.' In other
words, 'there must be a contrariety of legal rights that can be interpreted and enforced on the basis
 of existing law and jurisprudence." According to recent jurisprudence, in the Court's exercise of its
expanded jurisdiction under the 1987 Constitution, this requirement is simplified "by merely
requiring a prima facie showing of grave abuse of discretion in the assailed governmental act."

"Corollary to the requirement of an actual case or controversy is the requirement of ripeness. A

question is ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on
the individual challenging it. For a case to be considered ripe for adjudication, it is a prerequisite
that something has then been accomplished or performed by either branch before a court may
come into the picture, and the petitioner must allege the existence of an immediate or threatened
injury to himself as a result of the challenged action. He must show that he has sustained or is
immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of the act complained of."
Applying these precepts, this Court finds that there exists an actual justiciable controversy in this
case given the evident clash of the parties' legal claims, particularly on whether the Curfew
Ordinances impair the minors' and parents' constitutional rights, and whether the Manila Ordinance
goes against the provisions of RA 9344. The case is likewise ripe for adjudication, considering that
the Curfew Ordinances were being implemented until the Court issued the TRO enjoining their
enforcement. The purported threat or incidence of injury is, therefore, not merely speculative or
hypothetical but rather, real and apparent.
Belgica v. Ochoa Facts: Petition for Certiorari assailing the constitutionality of the Pork Barrel System

GR 208566 Excerpt: By constitutional fiat, judicial power operates only when there is an actual case or
controversy. Jurisprudence provides that an actual case or controversy is one which "involves a
November 19, 2013 conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims, susceptible of judicial resolution as
distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute. In other words, "there must be a
contrariety of legal rights that can be interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing law and
jurisprudence." Related to the requirement of an actual case or controversy is the requirement of
"ripeness," meaning that the questions raised for constitutional scrutiny are already ripe for
adjudication. "A question is ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged has had a direct
adverse effect on the individual challenging it. It is a prerequisite that something had then been
accomplished or performed by either branch before a court may come into the picture, and the
petitioner must allege the existence of an immediate or threatened injury to itself as a result of the
challenged action." "Withal, courts will decline to pass upon constitutional issues through advisory
opinions, bereft as they are of authority to resolve hypothetical or moot questions."
 Based on these principles, the Court finds that there exists an actual and justiciable controversy in
these cases.
The requirement of contrariety of legal rights is clearly satisfied by the antagonistic positions of
the parties on the constitutionality of the "Pork Barrel System." Also, the questions in these
consolidated cases are ripe for adjudication since the challenged funds and the provisions allowing
for their utilization – such as the 2013 GAA for the PDAF, PD 910 for the Malampaya Funds and PD
1869, as amended by PD 1993, for the Presidential Social Fund – are currently existing and
operational; hence, there exists an immediate or threatened injury to petitioners as a result of the
unconstitutional use of these public funds.