Statutory

 Construction  (Pre-­‐Midterms)   M  v.  Carale  GR  No.  91636  Apr.  23,  1992  
  Facts:  Pursuant  to  the  law,  President  Aquino  appointed  Chairman  
INTRODUCTION   and  Commissioner  of  the  NLRC  representing  the  public,  workers  and  
The  Essentials   employers  sector.  Petitioners  question  constitutionality  and  legality  
Statutory  construction  –  Art  of  seeking  legislative  intent,  in  enacting   of  the  permanent  appointment  extended  by  the  President  to  the  
a  statute,  and  applying  it  to  a  certain  set  of  facts.   respondent  Chairman  and  Members  of  the  NLRC,  without  submitting  
  the  same  to  the  Commission  on  Appointments  for  confirmation  
 “The  art  or  process  of  discovering  and  expounding  the  meaning  and   pursuant  to  RA  6715  as  amended.  Petitioners  insist  on  the  
intention  of  the  authors  of  the  law,  where  that  intention  is  rendered   Mandatory  compliance  with  RA  6715  which  has  in  its  favor  the  
doubtful  by  reason  of  ambiguity  in  language  or  the  fact  that  given   presumption  of  validity  and  which  he  contends  that  the  law  is  not  an  
case  is  not  explicitly  provided  for  in  the  law”   encroachment  on  the  appointing  power  of  the  executive  as  provided  
  for  by  the  constitution,  as  congress  may,  by  law,  require  
What  is  art?  Is  not  an  exact  science.  Gives  the  SC  the  widest   confirmation  by  the  Commission  on  Appointments  of  other  officers  
discretion  to  interpret  the  law.  Discretion,  you  could  decide  in   appointed  by  the  president.  
anyway  and  still  be  right.  Except  where  there  is  grave  abuse  of   Issue:  WON  congress  may,  by  law,  require  confirmation  by  the  
discretion.     Commission  on  Appointments  of  appointments  extended  by  the  
  president  to  government  officer,  in  addition  to  those  expressly  
Construction  =  Construe   mentioned  in  the  first  sentence  of  Sec.  16,  Art,  VII  of  the  
Ascertain  the  meaning  and  then  apply  the  law.  Interpreting  the  law.   Constitution.  NLRC  Chair  not  part  of  the  First  Sentence.  
  Held:  No.  The  provisions  of  first  paragraph  of  Sec.  16,  Art  VII  of  the  
Legal  hermeneutics  -­‐  Systematic  body  of  rules  which  are  recognized   Constitution  is  exclusive  and  cannot  be  expanded  by  mere  act  of  
as  applicable  to  construction.  Branch  of  science  that  established   legislation.  The  provision  of  the  law  appertaining  to  the  confirmation  
principles  and  rules  of  statutory  construction.   by  the  commission  on  appointments  transgresses  the  constitution  
Exergesis  -­‐  application   and  is  therefore,  without  any  legal  basis.  
   
Distinguish  Legal  Hermeneutics  and  Statutory  Construction?   The  SC  held  that  the  provision  of  RA  6715,  Sec  13.  Is  unconstitutional  
Leal  hermeneutics  apply  the  law  in  a  process  called  Exergesis.   because:  
  1.   It  amends  by  legislation,  the  first  sentence  of  Sec.  16  Art.  
Construction,  Purpose  of:   VII  of  the  Constitution  by  adding  thereto  appointments  
1.   Ascertain  –  the  meaning  of  the  law   requiring  confirmation  by  the  Commission  on  
2.   Give  it  meaning     Appointment  
3.   In  accord  with  legislative  intent   2.   It  amends  the  second  sentence,  by  imposing  the  
4.   In  the  interpretation  of  all  laws,  it  is  to  ascertain  give  effect   confirmation  of  the  Commission  on  Appointments  on  
to  the  intent  of  the  law   appointments  which  are  otherwise  entrusted  only  with  the  
5.   Determine  legislative  intent,  what  intention  is  conveyed   president.  
either  expressly  or  impliedly,  by  the  language  used.   “The  legislature  cannot,  upon  passing  law  which  violates  
  constitutional  provision,  validate  it  so  as  to  prevent  an  attack  
When  will  the  Courts  Construe  the  Law?   thereon  in  the  courts,  by  a  declaration  that  it  shall  be  so  construed  
When  there  is  ambiguity.  When  we  are  left  to  speculate.   as  not  to  violate  the  constitutional  inhibition”  
  SC  said  appointment  to  NLRC  position  do  not  require  confirmation  of  
Construction,  Scope  of:   by  Commission  on  Appointments,  as  the  provision  in  RA  6715  is  
1.   Intention  is  doubtful   declared  unconstitutional.  NLRC  Chairman  and  Commissioners  are  
2.   Ambiguity  in  language   those  among  whom  the  President  may  be  authorized  by  law  to  
  appoint.  
Ambiguity  –  is  thus  a  condition  precedent  to  statutory  construction.    
Being  susceptible  to  more  than  one  interpretation.  A  condition   Congress  you  Cannot  bind  us;  what  part  says  that?  
admitting  2  or  more  interpretations.   If  Congress  tells  them  what  it  means  then  it  would  be  encroaching  
  on  the  power  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  Construe  the  law.  Violates  
Can  we  dictate  upon  the  SC  on  how  to  construe?  Can  we  bind  the   separation  of  powers.  
court  to  use?  Rules  of  StatCon  cannot  bind  the  Supreme  Court.  It  is    
merely  used  to  “persuade”.  Not  mandatory,  only  has  a  persuasive   Whichever  way  you  construe  the  law,  if  it  is  not  the  SC  it  is  not  
effect  to  the  SC.  NOT  rules  of  law  but  merely  axioms  of  experience.   binding.  SC  is  the  legal  arbiter  of  any  and  all  legal  context;  thus  only  
  the  SC  can  construe  the  law.  
So  what’s  the  use  of  studying  StatCon?    
You  can  use  StatCon  to  persuade,  but  not  force.   Exceptions  –  When  Congress  may  construe  the  law?  When  the  
  Congress  indicate  on  how  it  should  be  construed.  (They  advice)  
Remedy  of  courts  in  case  of  Ambiguity:   Example:    
1.   Construe  Statute   1.   Section  4,  Labor  Code:  “All  doubts  in  the  implementation  
2.   Give  it  meaning   and  interpretation  of  the  provisions  of  this  Code,  including  
3.   In  accord  with  legislative  intent   its  implementing  rules  and  regulations  shall  be  resolved  in  
4.   We  construe  only  when  there  is  ambiguity   favor  of  labour.”  
  2.   Article  10,  Civil  Code:  “In  case  of  doubt  in  the  
interpretation  or  application  of  laws,  it  is  presumed  that  
the  law  making  body  intended  right  and  justice  to  prevail.  

  1  
Bernadette  Guanine  Barte  (Babyg)  |  ATTY.  GUJI  
    
Exception  to  the  exception  –  When  it  doesn’t  follow  the  intention  of    
the  law.  The  bottom  line  is  the  SC  still  has  the  last  say  in  construing.   Intent   Purpose  
  Looks  FORWARD   Looks  BACKWARD  
Interpretation   Construction   The  spirit  which  gives  life  to   Reason  why  a  particular  
Meaning  of  words   Read  between  the  lines   legislative  enactment   statute  was  enacted  by  
Finding  the  true  meaning  and   Drawing  unwarranted   legislature  
sense  of  any  form  of  words   conclusions  not  always   Primary  source  is  the  law  itself    
included  in  direct  expressions,    
or  determining  application  of   Different  Kinds  of  Interpretation  
words  to  facts  in  litigation   Close  interpretation  –  literal,  adopted  if  just  reasons  connected  with  
  the  character  and  formation  of  the  text  induce  as  to  take  the  words  
Legislative  meaning  –  is  what  the  law,  by  its  language,  means.  What   in  the  narrowest  meaning.  This  is  generally  known  as  “Literal”  
it  comprehends;  what  it  covers  or  embraces;  what  it  limits  or   interpretation.  Language  and  phrases.  
confines  are.  What  does  the  legislature  really  intend?    
  Extensive  Interpretation  –  “liberal”,  if  adopts  a  more  comprehensive  
Legislative  intent  –  is  the  vital  part,  essence  of  the  law.  Intent  is  the   signification  of  the  words.  Intent.  Depart  from  the  language  of  the  
spirit  which  gives  life  to  legislative  enactment.  FORWARD   law  and  go  to  the  intent  of  the  law.  
   
Legislative  purpose  –  is  the  reason  why  a  particular  statute  was   Republic  v.  Manalo,  GR  No.  221029  Apr.  24,  2018    
enacted  by  the  legislature.  What  did  the  legislature  intend  to   Facts:  Marelyn  Tanedo  Manalo  was  married  to  a  Japanes  National,  
achieve  or  accomplish  by  enacting  a  statute?  BACKWARD   Minoru  Yoshino.  Manalo  filed  for  and  was  granted  divorce  in  Japan  
  sometime  in  2011.  Manalo  filed  with  a  Dagupan  RTC  to  have  her  
Federation  of  Free  Farmers  vs  CA,  G.R.  No.  41161,  Sept.  10,  1981   Japanese  Divorce  recognized  in  the  Philippines.  RTC  denied  her  
 Sec.1  or  RA  809,  Sugar  Act  of  1952  provides:  “In  the  absence  of   petition  Art.  15  Nationality  Principle,  CA  reversed  follow  legislative  
written  milling  agreements  between  the  majority  of  planters  and   intent  of  the  Family  Code.    
the  millers  of  sugarcane  in  any  milling  district  in  the  Philippines  xxx   Issue:  WON  her  the  foreign  divorce  obtained  by  her  abroad  should  
shall  be  divided  between  them”     be  recognized.  
Sec.  9  provides:  “the  proceeds  of  any  increase  in  participation   Held:  Par  2  of  Art  26  “a  divorce  xxx  validly  obtained  abroad  by  the  
granted  the  planters  under  this  Act  and  above  their  present  share   alien  spouse  capacitating  him  or  her  to  remarry.”  Based  on  a  clear  
shall  be  divided  between  the  planter  and  his  laborer  of  the   and  plain  reading  of  the  provision,  it  only  requires  that  there  be  a  
plantation”   divorce  validly  obtained  abroad  by  the  alien  spouse.  The  purpose  is  
Issues:   “to  avoid  the  abused  situation  where  the  Filipino  spouse  remains  
1.   What  is  the  meaning  of  “in  the  absence  of  written  milling   married  to  an  alien  despite  an  effective  foreign  divorce  decree”      
agreements”?  Plain-­‐view,  no  problem.   The  court  will  not  follow  the  letter  of  the  statute,  if  doing  so  would  
2.   Does  RA809  apply  even  if  there  is  a  written  milling   depart  from  the  true  intent  of  legislature  or  yields  results  
agreement  different  from  the  sharing  proportion  provided   inconsistent  with  the  general  purpose  of  the  act.  
by  it?   Statutes  should  be  construed  as  not  to  defeat  but  to  carry  out  the  
3.   Does  the  phrase  “  any  increase  in  participation  granted   ends  and  purposes  of  the  law.  When  the  literal  is  mischievous,  
under  this  Act”  exclude  written  agreement?   follow  the  spirit  and  reason.  
Held:    
RA  809  applies  with  or  without  written  milling  agreements  between   Extravagant  Interpretation  –  substitute  a  meaning  evidently  beyond  
the  planter  and  the  miller,  even  if  its  literal  interpretation  says   the  true  one.  It  is  not  genuine  interpretation.  No  basis  at  all.  
otherwise.    
  Judicial  Activism  –  is  a  term  used  by  political  scholars  to  describe  a  
Legislative  intent  in  enacting  RA  809.  In  the  1950s,  planters  staged  a   tendency  by  judges  to  consider  outcomes,  attitudinal  preferences,  
strike  and  threatened  not  to  plant  sugar  cane  unless  they  were  given   and  other  public  policy  issues  in  interpreting  applicable  existing  laws.  
bigger  share  in  the  sugar  industry  and  sugar  quota  commitment.   Formerly,  judicial  activism  is  considered  the  opposite  of  judicial  
To  remedy  the  problem,  Congress  enacted  RA  809  to  force  planters   restraint,  but  it  is  also  pejoratively  to  denote  judges  who  are  
to  plant,  centrals  to  mill  and  even  allowing  the  government  to  take   perceived  to  endorse  a  particular  agenda.  
over  planting  and  milling.    
  Chavez  v.  JBC,  GR  No.  202242  Apr.  16,  2019  
th
Legislative  purpose:  The  evil  sought  to  be  avoided  by  Congress  is  the   Facts:  Instead  of  having  only  7  members,  an  8  member  was  added  
exploitation  of  laborers  or  “sacada”  in  terms  of  wages  and  benefits.   to  the  JBC  as  two  representatives  from  Congress  began  sitting  in  the  
To  compel  continuous  sugar  production  and  grant  laborer’s  share  in   JBC,  one  from  the  senate  and  one  from  the  House  of  
the  increased  planters’  participation  in  the  sugar  produce.   Representatives.  Each  having  ½  of  a  vote.  Then  JBC  in  a  meeting  
  decided  to  allow  the  representatives  one  full  vote  each.  It  is  their  
Legislative  meaning  in  enacting  RA  809.   theory  that  both  houses  exercise  their  respective  powers.  Thus  Sec.  
 Although  not  clearly  disclosed  in  the  language  of  the  Act,  it  however   8  Art.  VIII.  Of  the  constitution  speaks  of  “a  representative  from  
indicates  that  the  laborers  should  receive  their  share  for  as  long  as   Congress,”  it  should  mean  one  representative  each  from  both  
sugar  is  produced  and  planters  receive  increased  participation.   Houses  which  compromise  the  entire  Congress.  Inadvertence.  
  Unicameral  mindset,  along  the  way  the  changed  into  Bicameral.  
Thus,  to  literally  interpret  these  phrases  is  to  defeat  legislative  intent   They  forgot  about  the  “A”.  Intention  was  Both.  Just  to  
and  purpose,  which  is  to  grant  laborers  fair  share  in  sugar  produce.   accommodate,  they  tried  to  rotate.  

  2  
Bernadette  Guanine  Barte  (Babyg)  |  ATTY.  GUJI  
   The  Supreme  Court,  jurisdiction  
Issue:  WON  through  Judicial  Construction  has  the  power  add   The  power  to  hear  and  decide  a  case.  Congress  shall  have  the  power  
another  member  in  the  JBC  through  Judicial  Construction.   to  define,  prescribe  and  apportion  the  jurisdiction  of  the  various  
  courts,  but  may  not  deprive  the  SC  of  its  jurisdiction  over  cases  
Held:  NO.  From  a  simple  reading  of  the  above  quoted  provision,  it   enumerated  in  Section  5,  Art.  VIII.  1.  
can  readily  be  discerned  that  the  provision  is  clear  and   The  Supreme  Court  shall  have  the  following  powers:  
unambiguous.     1.   Exercise  original  jurisdiction  over  cases  affecting  
  ambassadors,  other  public  ministers  and  consuls,  and  over  
The  use  of  the  singular  letter  “a”  preceding  “representative  is   petitions  for  certiorari,  prohibition,  mandamus,  quo  
unequivocal  and  leaves  no  room  for  any  other  construction.  The   warrants,  and  habeas  corpus.  
court  is  duty  bound  to  protect  the  constitution,  it  cannot  correct      
what  is  perceived  as  a  mistake  in  its  mandate.  The  court  cannot,  in   The  lower  court  jurisdiction  –  Appellate  court  jurisdiction  
the  exercise  of  its  power  to  interpret  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution,   Review,  revise,  reverse  and  modify,  or  affirm  on  appeal  or  certiorari  
something  that  is  contrary  to  it’s  express  provision  and  justify  such   as  the  law  or  Rules  of  court  may  provide,  final  judgment  and  orders  
act  as  an  oversight,  to  do  so  would  otherwise  sanction  the  Court   of  lower  courts  in  
action  of  making  amendment  to  the  Constitution  through  a  judicial   1.   Constitutionality  or  validity  of  any  treaty,  international  or  
pronouncement.   executive  agreement,  law,  presidential  decree,  
  reclamation,  order,  instruction,  ordinance  or  regulation  is  
One  of  the  primary  and  basic  rules  in  StatCon  is  that  where  the   in  question;  
words  of  a  statute  are  clear,  plain  and  free  from  ambiguity,  it  must   2.   Legality  of  any  tax,  impost,  assessment,  or  toll,  or  in  any  
be  given  its  literal  meaning  and  applied  without  attempted   penalty  imposed  in  relation  thereto;  
interpretation.  It  is  a  well-­‐settled  principle  of  constitutional   3.   All  cases  in  which  the  jurisdiction  of  any  court  is  in  issue  
construction  that  the  language  employed  in  the  Constitution  must   4.   All  criminal  cases  reclusion  perpetual  or  higher  
be  given  their  ordinary  meaning  except  where  technical  terms  are   5.   Error  or  question  of  law  is  involved  
employed.  Verbal  legis  non  est  recedenum  –  from  the  words  of  the    
statute  there  should  be  no  departure.   The  Supreme  Court,  expanded  jurisdiction    (Sec.  1,  (2),  Art.  VIII)  
   
“Judicial  Activism  should  never  be  allowed  to  become  judicial   Traditional  Jurisdiction  –  to  settle  actual  controversies  involving  
exuberance.”   rights  which  are  legally  demandable  and  enforceable  
   
Free  or  Unrestricted  Interpretation  –  based  on  general  principles  of   Expanded  Jurisdiction  –  to  determine  where  or  not  there  has  been  
interpretations  in  good  faith,  not  bound  by  any  specific  or  superior   grave  abuse  of  discretion  amounting  to  lack  or  excess  of  jurisdiction  
principle.   on  the  part  of  any  branch  or  instrumentality  of  the  government.  
   
Limited  or  Restricted  Interpretation  –  influenced  by  other  principles   Marcos  time,  courts  would  avoid  by  saying  it  is  a  political  question.    
than  the  strictly  hermeneutics  ones.   Supreme  Courts  asserts  the  Supremacy  of  the  Constitution.  
   
Predestined  Interpretation  –  takes  place  when  the  interpreter,   Judicial  Review,  nature  of.  
laboring  under  a  strong  bias  of  mind,  makes  the  text  subservient  to   Oposa  v.  Factoran,  G.R.  No.  101083,  July  30,  1996  
his  preconceived  views  and  desires.   Facts:  The  Philippine  Ecological  Network,  Inc.  (PENI),  a  non-­‐stock  
  non-­‐profit  corporation  also  joined  the  action.  The  minors  further  
Authority  to  construe  or  review   asserted  that  they  "represent  their  generation  as  well  as  generations  
Who  is  allowed  to  construe  or  review  the  law?     yet  unborn."  Sec.  Factoran  moved  to  dismiss  the  case  due  to  lack  of  
BOTH  the  SUPREME  COURT  and  the  LOWER  COURT.   cause  of  action  and  the  issue  raised  is  a  political  question.  
The  power  to  construe  is  not  exclusive  to  the  Supreme  Court.   The  RTC  granted  the  motion  to  dismiss.  
  Hence,  this  petition.  
En  banc  –  All  the  15  justices    participated  in  the  deliberation.    
  Issue:  Whether  the  court  should  decide  on  the  case  on  the  ground  of  
The  Supreme  Court,  composition.  Section  4  (1)  1987  Constitution   the  respondent  Judge’s  challenged  order  for  having  been  issued  with  
14  Associate  justices,  and  1  Chief  Justice.  It  may  sit  en  banc    or  in  its   grave  abuse  of  discretion  amounting  to  lack  or  excess  of  jurisdiction.  
discretion,  in  divisions  of  3,  5,  or  7  members.  Any  vacancy  shal  be    
filled  within  90  days  from  the  occurrence.   Held:  YES.  The  court  has  the  power  to  decide  on  this  issue  based  on  
  its  expanded  jurisdiction  as  provided  by  the  1987  Constitution.  
The  Members  of  the  Supreme  Court,  qualifications.   JUDICIAL  REVIEW;  NO  LONGER  IMPAIRED  BY  THE  POLITICAL  
1.   Natural  born  citizen   QUESTION  DOCTRINE  —  It  must,  nonetheless,  be  emphasized  that  
2.   At  least  40  years  of  age   the  political  question  doctrine  is  no  longer  the  insurmountable  
3.   15  years  or  more,  a  judge  of  a  lower  court  or  engaged  in   obstacle  to  the  exercise  of  judicial  power  or  the  impenetrable  shield  
the  practice  of  law  in  the  Philippines   that  protects  executive  and  legislative  actions  from  judicial  inquiry  
4.   Congress  shall  prescribe  the  qualifications  of  judges  of   or  review.  The  second  paragraph  of  section  1,  Article  VIII  of  the  
lower  courts,  judge  must  be  a  citizen  of  the  Philippines  and   Constitution  states  that:  "Judicial  power  includes  the  duty  of  the  
a  member  of  the  Philippine  bar   courts  of  justice  to  settle  actual  controversies  involving  rights  which  
5.   Member  of  the  judiciary  –  competence  ,  integrity,  probity,   are  legally  demandable  and  enforceable,  and  to  determine  whether  
and  independence.   or  not  there  has  been  a  grave  abuse  of  discretion  amounting  to  lack  
  or  excess  of  jurisdiction  on  the  part  of  any  branch  or  instrumentality  

  3  
Bernadette  Guanine  Barte  (Babyg)  |  ATTY.  GUJI  
 of  the  Government."  As  worded,  the  new  provision  vests  in  the   There  are  legal  enforceable  rights.  
judiciary,  and  particularly  the  Supreme  Court,  the  power  to  rule    
upon  even  the  wisdom  of  the  decisions  of  the  executive  and  the   LAMP  v.  Secretary  of  Budget  and  Managemet,  GR  No.  164987    
legislature  and  to  declare  their  acts  invalid  for  lack  or  excess  of   An  aspect  of  the  "case-­‐or-­‐controversy"  requirement  is  the  requisite  
jurisdiction  because  tainted  with  grave  abuse  of  discretion.  "In  the   of  "ripeness."  The  issue  of  ripeness  is  generally  treated  in  terms  of  
case  now  before  us,  the  jurisdictional  objection  becomes  even  less   actual  injury  to  the  plaintiff.  Hence,  a  question  is  ripe  for  
tenable  and  decisive.  The  reason  is  that,  even  if  we  were  to  assume   adjudication  when  the  act  being  challenged  has  had  a  direct  adverse  
that  the  issue  presented  before  us  was  political  in  nature,  we  would   effect  on  the  individual  challenging  it.  For  as  long  as  there  is  an  issue  
still  not  be  precluded  from  resolving  it  under  the  expanded   on  Constitutionality  that  in  itself  is  an  actual  case  of  controversies.    
jurisdiction  conferred  upon  us  that  now  covers,  in  proper  cases,    
even  the  political  question.  The  Court  GRANT  the  Petition.   Ripeness  &  Prematurity,  Justiciability  
  Davide  case,  let  there  be  a  second  impeachment  complain  first  
Judicial  Review.  Not  only  a  right  but  also  a  duty.  The  power  of  the   before  we  can  have  an  actual  case  of  controversy.  
courts  to  test  the  validity  of  executive  and  legislative  acts  in  light  of    
their  conformity  with  the  Constitution.  This  is  not  an  assertion  of   (2)  Locus  Standi.  Are  you  the  right  person  to  file?  The  rule  is  that  the  
superiority  over  the  other  departments,  but  merely  an  expression  of   person  who  impugns  the  validity  of  a  statute  must  have  a  personal  
the  supremacy  of  the  Constitution.  The  duty  remains  to  assure  that   and  substantial  interest  in  the  case  such  that  he  has  sustained,  or  
the  supremacy  of  the  Constitution  is  upheld.  The  power  inherent  in   will  sustained,  direct  injury  as  a  result  of  its  enforcement.
the  Judicial  Department,  by  virtue  of  the  doctrine  of  separation  of    
powers.     Citizen  Direct  personal  injury  test.  He  sustained  or  is  in  imminent  
  danger  of  sustaining  some  direct  injury  as  a  result  of  its  
Tatad  v.  Energy  &  Finance  Secretary,  G.R.  No.  160261,  Nov.  2003   enforcement.  
The  principle  of  separation  of  power  mandates  that  challenges  on    
the  constitutionality  of  the  law  should  be  resolved  in  our  courts  of   Taxpayer  -­‐  public  funds  are  illegally  disbursed  or  that  public  money  
justice  while  doubts  on  the  wisdom  of  a  law  should  be  debated  in   is  being  deflected  to  any  improper  purpose,  or  that  public  funds  are  
the  halls  off  Congress.   wasted  through  the  enforcement  of  an  invalid  or  unconstitutional  
  law.  Before  he  can  invoke  Judicial  Review  however,  he  must  
Judicial  Supremacy  –  It  asserts  the  solemn  and  sacred  obligation   specifically  prove  that  he  has  sufficient  interest  in  preventing  the  
assigned  to  it  by  the  Constiution  to  determine  conflicting  claims  of   illegal  expenditure  of  money  raised  by  taxation  and  that  he  would  
authority  under  the  constitution.  It  is  basically  a  Constitutional   sustain  a  direct  injury  as  a  result  of  the  enforcement  of  the  
Supremacy.  If  co-­‐equal  why  can  you  tell  me  what  to  do.  SC  does  not   questioned  statute  
assert  itself,  but  the  constitution  that  is  above  all.    
  Allege  that  there  is  an  illegal  disbursement  of  public  funds,  that  
Ancisco  Jr.  v.  House  of  Representatives,  Nov.  10,  2003     disbursement  will  injure  me,  attach  your  ITR.  What  if  you’re  not  
Petitioners:  The  second  impeachment  complaint  was   working?  Okay.  Because?  Everyday  you  pay  taxes.  VAT.  
unconstitutional  because  it  violates  Section  5,  Article  XI  of  the    
Constitution  which  prohibits  filing  of  impeachment  complaint   Corruption  yet  we  elect  them.  Why?  Because  we  don’t  care,  we  
against  the  same  official  twice  within  a  period  of  one  year.   don’t  see  it’s  our  money.  The  politicians  are  our  servants,  we  pay  
Respondents:  SC  is  without  jurisdiction  to  hear,  much  less  prohibit  or   them.  Taxpayer  mentality.  30%  goes  to  corruption.    
enjoin  the  lower  house  to  perform  its  constitutionally  mandated    
duty  to  initiate  impeachment  proceedings,  it  being  a  co-­‐equal  and   Legislator  –  infringes  his  prerogative  as  a  legislator.  Has  standing  to  
independent  branch  of  the  government.  The  petitions  are   maintain  inviolate  the  prerogatives,  powers  and  privileges  vested  by  
premature;  no  justiciable  issue  has  been  presented  before  it  since  its   the  constitution  in  his  office.  The  SC  or  the  president  if  it  encroaches.  
constitutional  duty  to  constitute  itself  as  impeachment  court    
commences  only  upon  receipt  of  articles  of  impeachment  which  it   Association  As  an  association  it’s  not  enough,  you  need  to  justify  
had  not.     why  you  have  that  legal  standing.  
When  the  judiciary  mediates  issues  on  constitutionality,  it  does  not    
assert  superiority  over  the  other  departments  but  asserts  the   IBP  v.  House  of  Representative  GR.  No.  160343  
constitutionality  of  the  Constitution.   The  mere  invocation  by  the  IBP  or  any  member  of  the  legal  
Is  it  right  for  Congress  to  accept  an  2  impeachment  complain  within   profession  in  the  duty  to  preserve  the  rule  of  law  ad  nothing  more,  
1  year?  If  it  was  “There  might  be”  it  is  merely  speculative.  What  does   although  undoubtedly  true,  does  not  suffice  to  clothe  it  with  
filing  and  initiating  mean?  Is  it  one  and  the  same?     standing.  It’s  interest  is  too  general.  It  is  shared  by  other  groups  and  
Filing-­‐  the  moment  it  accepted   the  whole  citizenry.  However  a  reading  of  the  petition  shows  that  it  
Initiation  –  after  filing,  it  is  referred  to  the  committee  of  justice,  then   has  advanced  constitutional  issues  which  deserve  the  attention  of  
there  can  be  no  impeachment  case  filed.   the  Court  in  view  of  seriousness,  novelty  and  weight  as  precedents.  
  It,  is  therefore,  behooves  this  Court  to  relax  the  rules  on  standing  
Gloria’s  time  –  She  had  an  impeachment  complain  filed  against  her   and  to  resolve  the  issues.  
every  year  which  is  baseless  to  preclude  future  impeachment  cases.    
  Minors  –  Their  personality  to  sue  in  behalf  of  the  succeeding  
Essential  Requisites  for  Judicial  Review   generations  can  only  be  based  on  the  concept  of  intergenerational  
(1)  Actual  Case  or  Controversy   responsibility  insofar  as  the  right  to  a  balanced  and  healthful  ecology  
A  conflict  of  legal  rights,  an  assertion  of  opposite  legal  claims  which   is  concerned.  Minor’s  assertion  of  their  right  to  a  sound  
can  be  resolved  on  the  basis  of  existing  law  and  jurisprudence.   environment  constitutes,  at  the  same  time,  the  performance  of  their  

  4  
Bernadette  Guanine  Barte  (Babyg)  |  ATTY.  GUJI  
 obligation  to  ensure  the  protection  of  the  right  for  the  generations   The  essential  requisites  of  Judicial  review.  Unless  there  is  
to  come.   transcendental  importance.  Not  yet  experienced  but  it  can  be  
  known.  
Opposa  v.  Factoran  GR.  No.  101083,  July  30,  1993    
Deforestation.  In  the  interest  of  our  generation  and  our  future   Other  Limitations  
generations,  please  stop  DENR  from  issuing.  Minors  were  allowed   (1)  Judicial  Legislation  Can  the  judiciary  legislate?  No.    
because  they  were  represented  by  their  parents.    
  Canet  v.  Decena  A  business  man  applied  for  permit  to  operate  and  
Class  suits,  requisites     maintain  a  cockpit.  But  the  mayor  refused  because  there  is  no  
Many  petitioners,  representative  of  the  interest  of  that  class.   ordinance  empowering  her  to  do  so.  Business  man  invokes  a  
Numerous,  it  becomes  impracticable,  as  it  would  be  impossible  to   resolution  authorizing  him  to  operate  a  cockpit  and  a  municipal  tax  
bring  them  all  in  court.  Res  Judicata  principle,  binding  on  all   ordinance  providing  for  issuance  of  a  mayors  permit  to  operate  
members  whether  or  not  they  were  before  the  court.   business.  The  mayor  refused.  Under  the  Local  Government  Code  of  
  1991,  the  authority  to  give  licenses  for  the  establishment,  
Inanimate  -­‐    Things  that  do  not  have  life.  You  need  to  sign,  Marine   maintenance  and  operation  of  cockpits  pertains  to  the  Sanggunian.  
Mammals?  How  do  you  do  that?  Stewards  of  the  Mammals.   Issue:  Can  the  mayor  be  compelled  to  issue  business  permit  in  the  
    absence  of  ordinance  empowering  her  to  do  so?  
River   Held:  No.  While  there  is  a  resolution  allowing  her  to  operate  a  
Resident  Mammals.  Vs.  Reyes   cockpit,  there  is  no  ordinance  giving  her  similar  authority.  The  
Any  Filipino  Citizen,  as  a  steward  of  nature,  to  bring  a  suit  to  enforce   municipal  tax  ordinance  contains  general  provisions  for  issuance  of  
our  environmental  laws.  It  is  worth  nothing  here  that  the  stewards   business  permits  but  is  short  on  specifics  prescribing  reasonable  fees  
are  joined  as  real  parties  in  the  Petition  and  not  just  in   for  cockpit  operation.  The  ordinance  providing  these  specifics  was  
representation  of  the  cetacean  species.  The  Stewards,  Ramos  and   withdrawn  by  the  Sanguninan.  Otherwise,  to  compel  the  mayor  to  
Eisma-­‐Osorio,  having  shown  in  their  petition  that  there  may  be   issue  permit  not  only  violates  the  Local  Government  Code  but  also  
possible  violations  of  laws  concerning  the  habitat  of  resident  Marine   encroaches  on  the  mayors  administrative  prerogatives.  Since  
Mammals,  are  therefore  declared  to  possess  the  legal  standing  to   cockpits  were  not  enumerated  in  the  ordinance,  it  is  excluded.  The  
file  this  petition.   legislature  would  not  have  enumerated  those  covered  if  it  did  not  
  intend  to  limit.  Express  mention  of  on  thing,  person,  act  or  
(3)  Earliest  Opportunity  –  is  to  raise  it  in  the  pleadings  before  a   consequence  excludes  others.  
competent  court  that  can  resolve  the  same,  such  that,  if  not  raised    
in  the  leadings,  it  cannot  be  considered  at  the  trial,  if  not  considered   What  is  expressed  puts  an  end  to  what  is  implied.  An  omission  at  the  
in  the  trial,  it  cannot  be  considered  on  appeal.   time  of  enactment  whether  careless  or  calculated,  cannot  be  
  judicially  supplied  even  if  wisdom  recommends  it.  If  there  is  a  
Umali  v.  Executive  Secretary,  GR  No,  131124,  Mar.  29,  1999   legislative  gap  caused  by  omission,  the  judiciary  cannot  fill  the  gap.  
The  question  of  constitutionality  was  not  entertained  because  the   Otherwise,  it  results  to  judicial  legislation.The  mayor  is  not  
issue  was  raised  by  the  petitioner  only  in  his  motion  for   authorized.  If  you  authorize  that  then  it  will  amount  to  judicial  
reconsideration  before  the  RTC  of  Makati.  It  was  too  late  to  raise  the   legislation.  We  are  not  suppose  to  fill  the  gap  of  the  law.  
issue  for  the  first  time  at  that  stage  of  the  proceeding.    
th
  Aratea  v.  COMELEC  Mayor,  3  term  limit  rule.  He  is  now  on  his  4  
If  you  file  a  petition,  that  is  your  initiatory  pleading,  you  must  allege   term.  They  filed  for  petition  for  disqualification.  Who  are  we  going  
the  unconstitutionality  immediately.  NOT  the  moment  the  law  is   to  proclaim?  Is  it  the  second  placer  or  the  vice  Mayor?  According  to  
passed.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  an  unconstitutional  law     the  minority  –  the  vice  mayor  should  succeed,  Majority  –  the  mayor  
nd
  was  not  a  candidate  in  the  first  place.  So  it  should  be  the  2  placer.  
EXC:  When  estopped.  Hacienda  Luicita,  18  years  has  already  passed,   Disqualified  flower  flower-­‐  disqualified.  However,  another  reason  for  
you  already  waived  your  rights  because  you  have  already  benefited.   disqualification.  Along  the  way  you  violated  other  election  rules  
  (vote  buy,  over  spending,  exceeding  campaign  materials).  You  were  
(4)  Lis  Mota  –  The  courts  will  not  touch  the  issue  of  constitutionality   a  legitimate  candidate,  so  vice  mayor  will  make.  If  we  agree  with  the  
unless  it  is  truly  unavoidable  and  is  the  very  lis  mota  or  crux  of  the   minority,  you  cannot  write  into  the  law  what  is  not  there  to  begin  
controversy.   with,  and  that  is  judicial  legislation.  
   
Must  be  the  main  issue  of  the  case.  The  judicial  restraint  of  the  SC.   Chavez  v.  JBC  
Crux  of  the  controversy.  If  you  raise  other  issues  and  not  raise  the   Where  the  words  of  a  statute  are  clear,  plain  and  free  from  
constitutionality,  then  the  SC  will  evade  encroaching.  Decide  on   ambiguity,  it  must  be  given  its  literal  meaning  and  applied  without  
another  matter.   attempted  interpretation.  “Judicial  Activism  should  never  be  allowed  
  to  become  judicial  exuberance.”  
Limitation  on  Power  to  Construe    
Under  American  Jurisprudence  –  only  impliedly  granted,  bestows   In  these  3  cases  did  not  commit  judicial  legislation.    
sole  power  of  impeachment  to  the  House  of  Representatives    
without  limitation.   Exceptions:    
Under  Philippine  Jurisprudence  –  expressly  provided  for  in  the   Court  Issued  Guidelines  Art.  36  of  the  Family  Code  –  Psychological  
constitution,  is  not  just  a  power  but  also  a  duty,  and  it  was  given  an   incapacity  was  not  defined.  So,  SC  gave  the  8  point  guidelines.  Is  it  
expanded  definition  to  include  the  power  to  correct  any  grave  abuse   not  writing  into  the  law?  No,  because  we  did  not  add,  we  merely  
of  discretion  on  the  part  of  any  government  branch  or   defined  it  and  interpreted  it.  (Republic  vs.  CA  and  Molina)  
instrumentality.    

  5  
Bernadette  Guanine  Barte  (Babyg)  |  ATTY.  GUJI  
 Casus  omissus  –  states  that  a  person,  object  or  thing  omitted  from   Chua  v.  CSC  Too  many  government  employees,  those  who  wants  to  
an  enumeration  must  be  held  to  have  been  omitted  intentionally.   retire  early  can  receive  this  much.  Regular  temporary,  emergency  
If  there  is  something  omitted,  it  was  omitted  in  purpose.  To  make   casual  employees.  Here’s  a  contractual  employee.  Incumbency  
sense  of  the  law.   depends  on  the  appointing  authority.    I  will  avail,  no  no  you  are  not  
  qualified!  Not  part  of  the  enumeration.  SC  said,  what  is  the  purpose  
Correction  of  Clerical  Error  –  the  court  in  order  to  carry  out  its   of  the  law?  The  purpose  is  to  trim  down,  will  you  deny  her  and  
obvious  intent  of  the  legislature,  may  correct  clerical  errors,   defeat  the  purpose  of  the  law?  But  by  the  doctrine  of  necessary  
mistakes  or  misprints  which,  if  uncorrected,  would  render  the   implication  and  inference,  that  is  not  judicial  legislation.  The  court  
statute  meaningless,  empty  or  nonsensical  or  would  defeat  or  impair   ruled  that  a  coterminous  employee  is  no  different  from  a  casual  or  
its  intended  operation,  so  long  as  the  meaning  intended  is  apparent   temporary  employee,  and  by  necessary  implication,  the  inclusion  of  
on  the  face  of  the  whole  enactment  and  no  specific  provision  is   the  latter  in  the  class  of  government  employees  entitled  to  the  
abrogated.    SC  can  correct  a  clerical  error.  Not  mechanically,  it   benefits  of  the  law  necessarily  implies  that  the  former  should  also  be  
construes,  says  “This  could  have  been  how  it  was  written”   entitled  to  such  benefits.  
   
Rufino  Lopez  &  Sons,  Inc.  v.  CTA  They  are  merely  endeavoring  to   COA  v.  Province  of  Cebu  1%  RPT  goes  to  special  education  fund.  
rectify  and  correct  a  clearly  clerical  error  in  the  wording  of  a  statute,   Extension  classes,  it  hired  teachers,  it  paid  them  salaries.  COA,  you  
in  order  to  give  due  course  and  carry  out  the  evident  intention  of  the   cannot  pay  the  teachers,  it  only  says  establishment  of  extension  
legislature.  This  the  Court  should  and  can  validly  do.  We  are  in  entire   classes.  COMMON  SENSE.  It’s  there!  How  to  have  extension  classes,  
accord  with  the  Tax  Court  and  the  Solicitor  General  that  a  clerical   you  need  to  have  a  teacher.  Not  too  literal,  it’s  implied.  The  services  
error  was  committed  in  section  11,  mentioning  therein  the  Collector   and  the  compensation  of  these  teachers  are  necessary  and  
of  Customs.  It  should  be,  as  it  was  meant  to  be,  the  Commissioner  of   indispensable  to  the  establishment  and  maintenance  of  extension  
Customs.  From  the  commissioner  of  customs,  then  suddenly   classes.    
collector  of  customs?  All  others  says  commissioner  of  customers,  so    
SC  said  this  is  a  clerical  error.   (2)  Doctrine  of  Political  Question  is  a  question  of  policy,  which  is  to  
  be  decided  by  the  people  in  their  sovereign  capacity  or  by  the  
Farinas  v.  Barba     legislative  or  the  executive  branch  of  the  government  to  which  full  
To  be  sure  the  President  of  the  Philippines  can  not  be  referred  to  as   discretionary  authority  has  been  delegated.  Now  superseded,  by  the  
"local  chief  executive"  in  §45(c)  but  it  is  apparent  that  the  phrase  is  a   expanded  jurisdiction.  Provided  there  is  grave  abuse  of  discretion  
misnomer  and  that  the  choice  of  this  phrase  was  simply  dictated  by   amounting  to  lack  of  or  excess  of  jurisdiction.    
the  need  to  avoid,  for  stylistic  reasons,  interminably  repeating  the    
officials  on  whom  the  power  to  appoint  is  conferred.  Perhaps   IT  IS  NOT  DEAD!  
"authorities  concerned"  would  have  been  a  more  accurate  generic    
phrase  to  use.  Vacancy  in  the  SP,  who  will  appoint?  In  case  of   Purely  Political  Question  
vacancy,  the  appointing  officer  will  be  the  Local  Chief  Executive.  The   Guingona  vs.  Carague  
other  provisions  of  the  law,  MAYOR.  Not  Barangay  Captain.  XXX.  So   This  is  a  case  of  first  impression  whereby  petitioners  question  the  
if  it  say  Local  Chief  Executive,  so  the  President  can’t.  So  SC  said,  oh   constitutionality  of  the  automatic  appropriation  for  debt  service  in  
this  is  a  clerical  error.  It  should  have  been  “Authorities  concern”   the  1990  budget.  Respondents  contend  that  the  petition  involves  a  
rather  than  Local  Chief  executive.   pure  political  question  which  is  the  repeal  or  amendment  of  said  
  laws  addressed  to  the  judgment,  wisdom  and  patriotism  of  the  
Doctrine  of  Necessary  implication  and  inferences  –  what  is  implied   legislative  body  and  not  this  Court.    Highest  shall  be  budget  to  
in  a  statute  is  as  much  a  part  thereof  as  that  which  is  expressed.   education,  if  it  is  non  self  executing  you  cannot  invoke  it  as  a  right.  
What  may  be  properly  and  logically  inferred  from  and  read  into  the   They  need  an  enabling  law.  Prioritize  Debt  servicing.  Even  if  “shall”  
statute.  It  includes  such  inferences  as  may  logically  be  drawn  from   cannot  deprive  congress  from  budget  allocation.  Cannot  interfere.  
the  purpose  or  object  of  the  statute,  presumed  to  have  intended,   BUT,  it’s  up  to  the  Supreme  Court  to  decide  whether  there  is  Grave  
necessity  of  making  the  statue  effective  and  operative.  You  cannot   abuse  of  discretion.      
write  something  into  the  law  that  wasn’t  there  to  begin  with,    
otherwise  it  would  be  judicial  legislation.   Francisco  Jr.  vs.  HR    
  The  first  issue  goes  into  the  merits  of  the  second  impeachment  
complaint  over  which  this  Court  has  no  jurisdiction.  More  
importantly,  any  discussion  of  this  issue  would  require  this  Court  to  
make  a  determination  of  what  constitutes  an  impeachable  offense.  
Such  a  determination  is  a  purely  political  question  which  the  
Constitution  has  left  to  the  sound  discretion  of  the  legislation.  Such  
an  intent  is  clear  from  the  deliberations  of  the  Constitutional  
Commission.  Guidelines  for  transcendental  importance  and  
paramount  interest.  Interpretation  of  filing  and  initiation  –  that  is  a  
purely  political  question,  if  you  file,  okay  there  is  probable  cause.  It  is  
sufficient  form  and  substance,  possible  betrayal  of  trust.    ???  
 
Estrada  v.  desierto  
Political  questions  refer  "to  those  questions  which,  under  the  
Constitution,  are  to  be  decided  by  the  people  in  their  sovereign  
capacity,  or  in  regard  to  which  full  discretionary  authority  has  been  
delegated  to  the  legislative  or  executive  branch  of  the  government.  

  6  
Bernadette  Guanine  Barte  (Babyg)  |  ATTY.  GUJI  
 It  is  concerned  with  issues  dependent  upon  the  wisdom,  not  legality   Morales  vs  CA  
of  a  particular  measure."  To  a  great  degree,  the  1987  Constitution   Doctrine  of  stare  decisis  does  not  preclude  this  Court  from  revisiting  
has  narrowed  the  reach  of  the  political  question  doctrine  when  it   existing  doctrine.  Jurisprudence,  after  all,  is  not  a  rigid,  temporal  
expanded  the  power  of  judicial  review  of  this  court  not  only  to  settle   abstraction;  it  is  an  organic  creature  that  develops  and  devolves  
actual  controversies  involving  rights  which  are  legally  demandable   along  with  the  society  within  which  it  thrives.270  In  the  words  of  a  
and  enforceable  but  also  to  determine  whether  or  not  there  has   recent  US  Supreme  Court  Decision,  "what  we  can  decide,  we  can  
been  a  grave  abuse  of  discretion  amounting  to  lack  or  excess  of   undecide."  
jurisdiction  on  the  part  of  any  branch  or  instrumentality  of    
government.  If  tired  want  to  take  a  leave  of  absence,  president  shall   Morales  –  Aguinaldo  Doctrine,    If  you  win  the  election  people  
say  say  I  am  temporarily  unable  to  perform  my  duties.  Congress  will   condone  you.  SC  said,  NOT  anymore!  In  the  case  of  Junjun  Binay,  it  
accept,  what  if  the  president  says  I’m,  cabinet  says  no  he  is  not.   has  no  basis  in  law  and  jurisprudence.  What  is  being  invoked  is  a  
Congress  will  decide.  That  is  a  purely  political  question.   foreign  jurisprudence.  No  more  condonation  doctrine.  But  Junjun  
  Binay  will  be  the  last.    
Tolentino  v.  Secretary  of  Finance      
Any  question  as  to  its  necessity,  desirability  or  expediency  must  be   TO  REVERSE,  has  to  be  en  banc.  (ALL).  
addressed  to  Congress  as  the  body  which  is  electorally  responsible,    
remembering  that,  as  Justice  Holmes  has  said,  "legislators  are  the   Calderon  vs.  Carale  (Appointing  needs  confirmation)    
ultimate  guardians  of  the  liberties  and  welfare  of  the  people  in  quite   The  provisions  of  first  paragraph  of  Sec.  16,  Art  VII  of  the  
as  great  a  degree  as  are  the  courts."It  is  not  right,  as  petitioner  does   Constitution  is  exclusive  and  cannot  be  expanded  by  mere  act  of  
in  arguing  that  we  should  enforce  the  public  accountability  of   legislation.  The  provision  of  the  law  appertaining  to  the  confirmation  
legislators,  that  those  who  took  part  in  passing  the  law  in  question   by  the  commission  on  appointments  transgresses  the  constitution  
by  voting  for  it  in  Congress  should  later  thrust  to  the  courts  the   and  is  therefore,  without  any  legal  basis.  
burden  of  reviewing  measures  in  the  flush  of  enactment.  This  Court    
does  not  sit  as  a  third  branch  of  the  legislature,  much  less  exercise  a   Obiter  Dictum  Does  not  address  the  main  issue,  mere  passing  
veto  power  over  legislation.eVAT,  urgent  bill,  3  readings  will   statement.    
dispensed,  will  be  done  in  1  day.  What  is  urgent?  There  is  no  public    
calamity  there  is  no  emergency.  SC  the  factual  determination  of   Ratio  Decidiendi  –  Reason  for  the  ruling  
urgency  is  purely  political.  To  meet  a  growing  budget  deficit  is  not    
urgent.  It’s  up  to  the  president.  It  is  purely  political.   (5)  Moot  and  academic  Principle  –  There  was  a  justiciable  
  controversy  but,  now  no  more  issue.  
(3)  Legislative  wisdom  –  courts  cannot  pass  upon  questions  of    
wisdom,  justice  or  expediency  of  legislation.  For  as  long  as  laws  do   Funa  v.  COA  Chair  
not  violate  constitution,  the  courts  are  limited  to  interpret  and  apply   Case  is  considered  moot  and  academic  when  its  purpose  has  
them,  whether  or  not  they  are  wise  or  salutary,   become  stale,  or  when  it  ceases  to  present  a  justiciable  controversy  
  owing  to  the  onset  of  supervening  events,3  so  that  a  resolution  of  
Tatad  v.  Energy  &  Finance  Secretary,  G.R.  No.  160261,  Nov.  2003   the  case  or  a  declaration  on  the  issue  would  be  of  no  practical  value  
The  principle  of  separation  of  power  mandates  that  challenges  on   or  use.  In  such  instance,  there  is  no  actual  substantial  relief  which  a  
the  constitutionality  of  the  law  should  be  resolved  in  our  courts  of   petitioner  would  be  entitled  to,  and  which  will  anyway  be  negated  
justice  while  doubts  on  the  wisdom  of  a  law  should  be  debated  in   by  the  dismissal  of  the  basic  petition.  As  a  general  rule,  it  is  not  
the  halls  off  Congress.   within  Our  charge  and  function  to  act  upon  and  decide  a  moot  case.    
   
  Exception:        
Francisco  Jr.  v.  House  of  Representatives,  Nov.  10,  2003   Belgica  v.  Ochoa  
Wisdom,  experience,  and  logic.  SC  only  comes  into  the  picture  when   However,  in  David  v.  Macapagal-­‐Arroyo,  We  acknowledged  and  
it  touches  unconstitutionality.   accepted  certain  exceptions  to  the  issue  of  mootness,  thus:  
  The  "moot  and  academic"  principle  is  not  a  magical  formula  that  can  
Dura  Lex  Sed  Lex  PP.  VS.  Veneracion     automatically  dissuade  the  courts  in  resolving  a  case.  Courts  will  
The  law  may  be  harsh  but  the  law  is  the  law.     decide  cases,  otherwise  moot  and  academic,  if:    
The  law  is  harsh  but  it  is  the  law.   1.   There  is  a  grave  violation  of  the  Constitution,    
  2.   The  exceptional  character  of  the  situation  and  the  
Exception  (When  law  can  rule  on  legislative  wisdom)   paramount  public  interest  is  involved,    
Oposa  v.  Factoran,  G.R.  No.  101083,  July  30,  1996   3.   When  constitutional  issue  raised  requires  formulation  of  
The  power  to  rule  upon  even  the  wisdom  of  the  decisions  of  the   controlling  principles  to  guide  the  bench,  the  bar,  and  the  
executive  and  the  legislature  and  to  declare  their  acts  invalid  for  lack   public,    
or  excess  of  jurisdiction  because  tainted  with  grave  abuse  of   4.   The  case  is  capable  of  repetition  yet  evading  review.  
discretion.Supreme  Court  when  there  is  grave  of  abuse…  Gives  the    
SC  the  license.   Joseph  Estrada,  president,  but  in  2001,  he  was  removed.  The  
  president  cannot  run  for  re-­‐election.  He  cannot  run  against  Aquino.  
(4)  Doctrine  of  Stare  decisis  Same  set  of  facts,  same  principles,  same   COMELEC  said,  when  it  is  not  said  any  re-­‐election  it  applied  only  to  
law,  it  is  bound  to  decide  the  same  way  it  did.  NOT  a  hard  and  fast   incumbent  president.  We  can  be  wrong,  but  the  People  cannot  be  
rule  because,  the  SC  can  reverse  itself.     wrong.  Election  was  done,  Estrada  already  didn’t  win.  Moot  and  
  Academic.  Purpose  is  not  to  repeat  Marcos  time.  
Exceptions    
Subsequent  Reversal  

  7  
Bernadette  Guanine  Barte  (Babyg)  |  ATTY.  GUJI  
 How  about  GMA?  Not  4  years.  3  months  and  something,  
incumbency  did  not  reach  4  years.  Became  president  twice  without  
being  elected.  
 
(6)  Advisory  Opinion  It  only  settles  actual  case  or  controversy,  not  
opinions.    
 
Ang  Cho  Kio,  33  SCRA  454  (1970)  
The  function  of  the  courts  is  to  determine  controversies  between  
litigants.They  do  not  give  advisory  opinions.  The  giving  of  such  
opinions  is  not  the  exercise  of  the  judicial  function.  
 
(7)  Judicial  restraint  –  SC  is  hesitant  to  rule  on  its  constitutionality.  It  
controls  itself.  They  will  disregard  the  issue  on  constitutionality.  Out  
of  respect  to  congress.    
 
Abakada  Guro  Party  List  v.  Purisima  
A  law  enacted  by  Congress  enjoys  the  strong  presumption  of  
constitutionality.  To  justify  its  nullification,  there  must  be  a  clear  and  
unequivocal  breach  of  the  Constitution,  not  a  doubtful  and  equivocal  
one.  To  invalidate  RA  9335  based  on  petitioners’  baseless  
supposition  is  an  affront  to  the  wisdom  not  only  of  the  legislature  
that  passed  it  but  also  of  the  executive  which  approved  it.  
 
 

  8  
Bernadette  Guanine  Barte  (Babyg)  |  ATTY.  GUJI