Marbury v Madison

Angara v Elecom
But it does not follow from the fact that the three powers are to be kept separate and
distinct that the Constitution intended them to be absolutely unrestrained and independent
of each other. The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and
balances to secure coordination in the workings of the various departments of the
government.

Miranda v Aguirre (political question)
Section 1 of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution which defines judicial power as
including the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether 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 of the government.
The term political question connotes what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a
question of policy. It refers 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. It
is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular
measure.
A purely justiciable issue implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an
act or omission violative of such right, and a remedy granted and sanctioned by law, for
said breach of right.

David v GMA
Mootness
Actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal right, an opposite legal claims
susceptible of judicial resolution
A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue
of supervening events
The eight (8) days that PP 1017 was operative, the police officers, according to
petitioners, committed illegal acts in implementing it.
First, there is a grave violation of the Constitution; second, the exceptional character of
the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; third, when constitutional
issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and
the public; and fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.
o Petitioners alleged that the issuance of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 violates the
Constitution
o Affect the publics interest, involving as they do the peoples basic rights to
freedom of expression, of assembly and of the press.
o Formulate guiding and controlling constitutional precepts, doctrines or rules. It
has the symbolic function of educating the bench and the bar, and in the present
petitions, the military and the police, on the extent of the protection given by
constitutional guarantees
o Respondents contested actions are capable of repetition. Certainly, the petitions
are subject to judicial review.
Locus Standi
For private suits
Locus standi is defined as a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given
question.
Real-party-in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
Public Suits
The difficulty of determining locus standi arises in public suits. Here, the plaintiff who
asserts a public right in assailing an allegedly illegal official action, does so as a
representative of the general public
He has to make out a sufficient interest in the vindication of the public order and the
securing of relief as a citizen or taxpayer.
Direct injury test in our jurisdiction. In People v. Vera, it held that the 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 requirement of locus standi may be waived by the Court in the exercise of its
discretion. Transcendental importance
o That in cases of transcendental importance, the cases must be settled promptly
and definitely and standing requirements may be relaxed.

Gonzalez v narvasa (mootness)
An action is considered moot when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy
because the issues involved have become academic or dead. Under E.O. No. 43, the
PCCR was instructed to complete its task on or before June 30, 1999. However, on
February 19, 1999, the President issued Executive Order No. 70 (E.O. No. 70), which
extended the time frame for the completion of the commissions work,
A citizen acquires standing only if he can establish that he has suffered some actual
or threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government; the
injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action
The interest of the person assailing the constitutionality of a statute must be direct and
personal. He must be able to show, not only that the law is invalid, but also that he has
sustained or in immediate danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its
enforcement, and not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way
In the final analysis, it must be stressed that the Court retains the power to decide whether
or not it will entertain a taxpayers suit.
PCCR submitted its recommendations to the Pres on December 20, 1999 and was
dissolved by President on the same day. PCCR has ceased to exist

Abs-cbn v Phil Multimedia (earliest opportunity)
With regard to the issue of the constitutionality of the must-carry rule, the Court finds
that its resolution is not necessary in the disposition of the instant case. One of the
essential requisites for a successful judicial inquiry into constitutional questions is that
the resolution of the constitutional question must be necessary in deciding the case
The question of constitutionality will not be passed upon by the Court unless, at the first
opportunity, it is properly raised and presented in an appropriate case, adequately
argued, and is necessary to a determination of the case, particularly where the issue of
constitutionality is the verylis mota presented.
The records show that petitioner assailed the constitutionality of Memorandum Circular
No. 04-08-88 by way of a collateral attack before the Court of Appeals.
As a general rule, the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest
opportunity so that if not raised in the pleadings, ordinarily it may not be raised in the
trial, and if not raised in the trial court, it will not be considered on appeal
The records show that petitioner assailed the constitutionality of Memorandum Circular
No. 04-08-88 by way of a collateral attack before the Court of Appeals.
A law is deemed valid unless declared null and void by a competent court; more so when
the issue has not been duly pleaded in the trial court.
Specifically, the question of constitutionality will not be passed upon by the Court unless,
at the first opportunity, it is properly raised and presented in an appropriate case,
adequately argued, and is necessary to a determination of the case, particularly where the
issue of constitutionality is the very lis mota presented.

Serrano v Gallant
When the Court is called upon to exercise its power of judicial review of the acts of its
co-equals, such as the Congress, it does so only when these conditions obtain: (1) that
there is an actual case or controversy involving a conflict of rights susceptible of judicial
determination;(2) that the constitutional question is raised by a proper party and at the
earliest opportunity; and (3) that the constitutional question is the very lis mota of the
case, otherwise the Court will dismiss the case or decide the same on some other ground.
The constitutional challenge is also timely. It should be borne in mind that the
requirement that a constitutional issue be raised at the earliest opportunity entails the
interposition of the issue in the pleadings before a competent court, such that, if the
issue is not raised in the pleadings before that competent court, it cannot be considered
at the trial and, if not considered in the trial, it cannot be considered on appeal. Records
disclose that the issue on the constitutionality of the subject clause was first raised, not in
petitioner's appeal with the NLRC, but in his Motion for Partial Reconsideration with
said labor tribunal

IBP v Zamora (Locus Standi)
Legal standing or locus standi has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in
the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the
governmental act that is being challenged
Interest means a material interest, an interest in issue affected by the decree, as
distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest
The gist of the question of standing is whether a party alleges such personal stake in the
outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the
presentation of issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult
constitutional questions
The mere invocation by the IBP of its duty to preserve the rule of law and nothing more,
while undoubtedly true, is not sufficient to clothe it with standing in this case
Having stated the foregoing, it must be emphasized that this Court has the discretion to
take cognizance of a suit which does not satisfy the requirement of legal standing when
paramount interest is involved
Thus, when the issues raised are of paramount importance to the public, the Court may
brush aside technicalities of procedure
In this case, a reading of the petition shows that the IBP has advanced constitutional
issues, which deserve the attention of this Court in view of their seriousness, novelty and
weight as precedents.

PHAP v Secretary of health
The modern view is that an association has standing to complain of injuries to its
members. This view fuses the legal identity of an association with that of its
members. An association has standing to file suit for its workers despite its lack of direct
interest if its members are affected by the action. An organization has standing to assert
the concerns of its constituents.
We note that, under its Articles of Incorporation, the respondent was organized to act as
the representative of any individual, company, entity or association on matters related to
the manpower recruitment industry, and to perform other acts and activities necessary to
accomplish the purposes embodied therein. The respondent is, thus, the appropriate
party to assert the rights of its members, because it and its members are in every
practical sense identical. The respondent [association] is but the medium through which
its individual members seek to make more effective the expression of their voices and the
redress of their grievances.
Purok Bagong Silang Association, Inc. v. Yuipco, where the Court ruled that an
association has the legal personality to represent its members because the results of
the case will affect their vital interests
Sections which are unconstitutional: 4(f) and 11 (Advertisments) / 46 (Penalties)
o We take exceptions and standards have been set. One of which is that, the Inter-
Agency Committee can allow if the advertising and promotions will not
undermine breastmilk and breastfeeding
o Milk Code nor the Revised Administrative Code grants the DOH the authority to
fix or impose administrative fines. Thus, without any express grant of power to
fix or impose such fines, the DOH cannot provide for those fines in the RIRR

ITF v COMELEC (Taxpayers)
Suing in their capacities as taxpayers, registered voters and concerned citizens -- respond
that the issues central to this case are of transcendental importance and of national
interest.
Flawed bidding and questionable award of the Contract to an unqualified entity would
impact directly on the success or the failure of the electoral process.
Our nations political and economic future virtually hangs in the balance, pending the
outcome of the 2004 elections.
Hence, there can be no serious doubt that the subject matter of this case is a matter of
public concern and imbued with public interest
Taxpayers are allowed to sue when there is a claim of illegal disbursement of public
funds, or if public money is being deflected to any improper purpose; or when
petitioners seek to restrain respondent from wasting public funds through the
enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law.

Jumamil v Cafe
There is an unbending rule that courts will not assume jurisdiction over a constitutional
question unless the following requisites are satisfied: (1) there must be an actual case
calling for the exercise of judicial review; (2) the question before the Court must be ripe
for adjudication; (3) the person challenging the validity of the act must have standing to
do so; (4) the question of constitutionality must have been raised at the earliest
opportunity, and (5) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.
Legal standing or locus standi is a partys personal and substantial interest in a case such
that he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act being
challenged.
In not a few cases, the Court has liberalized the locus standi requirement when a petition
raises an issue of transcendental significance or paramount importance to the people.
Recently, after holding that the IBP had no locus standi to bring the suit, the Court in IBP
v. Zamora nevertheless entertained the Petition therein. It noted that "the IBP has
advanced constitutional issues which deserve the attention of this Court in view of their
seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents.
There being no doctrinal definition of transcendental importance, the following
determinants formulated by former Supreme Court Justice Florentino P. Feliciano are
instructive: (1) the character of the funds or other assets involved in the case; (2) the
presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition by the
public respondent agency or instrumentality of the government; and (3) the lack of any
other party with a more direct and specific interest in raising the questions being
raised
Therefore, since petitioner had no locus standi to question the ordinances, there is no
need for us to discuss the constitutionality of said enactments.

Planters Products Inc. v Fertphil (Effect of Declaration of Unconstitutionality)
The general rule is that an unconstitutional law is void. It produces no rights, imposes no
duties and affords no protection. It has no legal effect. It is, in legal contemplation,
inoperative as if it has not been passed.
Being void, Fertiphil is not required to pay the levy. All levies paid should be refunded in
accordance with the general civil code principle against unjust enrichment.
The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general rule, only applies as a
matter of equity and fair play. It nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by
recognizing that the existence of a statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality
is an operative fact and may have consequences, which cannot always be ignored. The
past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration.
It was proven during the trial that the levies paid were remitted and deposited to its bank
account. Quite the reverse, it would be inequitable and unjust not to order a refund. To do
so would unjustly enrich PPI at the expense of Fertiphil.

HLI v PARC
Echoing the stance of DAR and PARC, AMBALA submits that the operative fact
doctrine should only be made to apply in the extreme case in which equity demands it
The operative fact doctrine does not only apply to laws subsequently declared
unconstitutional or unlawful, as it also applies to executive acts subsequently declared as
invalid.