Arceta vs.

Mangrobang
[GR 152895, 15 June 2004]
Facts:
The City Prosecutor of Navotas, Metro Manila charged Ofelia V. Arceta with violating Batas Pambansa
22. Likewise, Gloria Dy, was charged with the same offense by the City Prosecutor of Caloocan. Both did
not move to have the charge against them dismissed or the Information quashed but instead assailed
the constitutionality of BP 22.
Issue:
Whether or not BP 22 is unconstitutional.
Held:
No. When a law is assailed with regard to its validity, the Court may exercise its power of judicial review
only if the following requisites are present: (1) an actual case or controversy exists; (2) a personal and
substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional question; (3) the exercise of judicial review is
raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the constitutional question raised is the very lis mota of the
case.. The court stated that all the requisites provided have not been met. Earliest opportunity means
that the question of unconstitutionality of the act in question should have been immediately raised in
the proceedings in the court below. The court did not find the constitutional question raised to be the
very lis mota presented in the controversy.

MIRASOL VS CA
[351 SCRA 44; G.R. No. 128448; 1 Feb 2001]
Facts:
The Spouses Mirasols were extended a loan by the PNB secured by a Chattel Mortgage on Standing
Crops. The mortgage entitled PNB the proceeds and to apply the same to the payment of their
obligations. Then, President Marcos issued PD 579. The decree directed that whatever profit PHILEX
might realize was to be remitted to the government. Afterwards, PNB asked petitioners to settle
their due and demandable accounts which the spouses paid insufficiently. They asked PNB to
account the proceeds of the mortgaged property, insisting that said proceeds, if properly liquidated,
could offset their outstanding obligations. PNB refused stating that under P.D. No. 579, there was
nothing to account since under said law, all earnings from the export sales of sugar pertained to the
National Government. The Spouses then filed a suit against PNB.
Issue
Whether or not the PD is subject to judicial review.
HELD
No. As a rule, the courts will not resolve the constitutionality of a law, if the controversy can be
settled on other grounds. The policy of the courts is to avoid ruling on constitutional questions and to
presume that the acts of the political departments are valid, absent a clear and unmistakable showing to
the contrary. To doubt is to sustain. The present case was instituted primarily for accounting and
specific performance. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that PNBs obligation to render an accounting
is an issue, which can be determined, without having to rule on the constitutionality of P.D. No. 579. In
fact there is nothing in P.D. No. 579, which is applicable to PNBs intransigence in refusing to give an
accounting.

Case Digest, 02-2005

BLAS F. OPLE, vs. RUBEN D. TORRES et al
[G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998]
FACTS OF THE CASE:
President Ramos issued Administrative Order 308 on December 12, 1996 entitled Adoption of National
Computerized Identification Reference System or commonly known as National ID System. Senator Blas
F. Ople filed a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of the said executive
issuance on two important grounds, viz: one, it is a usurpation of the power of Congress to legislate, and
two, it impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry's protected zone of privacy. We grant the petition for the
rights sought to be vindicated by the petitioner need stronger barriers against further erosion.

Issue
Whether or not the issuance of A.O. No. 308 is unconstitutional as it is a usurpation of the power of Congress to legislate.
Held
Yes. The Administrative power is concerned with the work of applying policies and enforcing orders as
determined by proper governmental organs. it must be in harmony with the law and should be for the sole purpose of
implementing the law and carrying out the legislative policy. To this end, he can issue administrative orders, rules and
regulations. From these precepts, the Court holds that A.O. No. 308 involves a subject that is not appropriate to be covered
by an administrative order. It cannot be simplistically argued that A.O. No. 308 merely implements the Administrative
Code of 1987as It establishes for the first time a National Computerized Identification Reference System.

Guingona v CA
125532
FACTS:
Potenciano A. Roque was admitted to the witness protection program WPP after he claimed of personal
knowledge of the gambling activites by public officials. The court of appeals upheld his admission into
the WPP but opined that the testimony of the witness must, as a condition precedent to his admission
into said Program, be shown to be capable of substantial corroboration in its material points. Petitioner
now assails the decision made by the CA.
Issue
Whether or not a witness testimony requires prior or simultaneous corroboration at the time he is
admitted into the witness protection, security and benefit program.
HELD
The petition is dismissed. Judicial review, which is merely an aspect of judicial power, demands the
following: (1) there must be an actual case calling for the exercise of judicial power; (2) the question
must be ripe for adjudication; and (3) the person challenging must have standing; that is, he has
personal and substantial interest in the case, such that he has sustained or will sustain direct injury.
There is no actual case or controversy as Roque has already been admitted into the Program and has
actually finished testifying. The issue presented by petitioners has become moot. The courts did not go
into the merits of the case as the petition is fundamentally defective.

IBP v. Zamora, 141284

FACTS: Pres. Estrada ordered the deployment of the Phil. Marines to join in visibility patrols around the
metropolis as a result of an alarming increase in violent crimes in Metro Manila Invoking his powers as
Commander-in-Chief under Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution. The petitioner now seeks to nullify
the order on constitutional grounds.
ISSUE: w/n the petitioner has locus standi?
HELD: NO. Locus standi is defined as personal & substantial interest in the case such that the party has
sustained or will sustain direct injury as result of the challenged act. In the case at bar, IBP primarily
anchors its standing on its alleged responsibility to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution. The
mere invocation by the IBP of its duty to preserve the rule of law & nothing more, while undoubtedly
true, is not sufficient to clothe it w/ standing. Their interest is too general that is shared by other groups
& the whole citizenry. Further, IBPs fundamental purpose that is to elevate the standards of the law
profession & improve the administration of justice, cannot be affected by the deployment of the
Marines.

G.R. No. L-16263

July 26, 1960

DR. JOSE CUYEGKENG, ET AL., petitioners,

vs.
DR. PEDRO M. CRUZ, as member of Board of Medical Examiners, respondent.
Facts:
DR. JOSE CUYEGKENG, ET AL. filed a petition to declare them qualified for the position of member of the
Board of Medical Examiners and declaring the appointment of Dr. Pedro Cruz as null and void ousting
him as he is not included in the nominee list submitted to the President for appointment in relation to
Sec 13 of RA 2382.
Whether or not sec 13 of RA 2382 is unconstitutional
HELD
No. The court deemed it unnecessary to inquire into the constitutionality of said section 13, or to
determine whether the same is mandatory or directory. The petition is a quo warranto proceeding,
which, pursuant to Rule 68 of the Rules of Court, may be brought either by the Government or by a
private individual claiming to be entitled to a public office usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by
another. In the case at bar, petitioners do not claim to entitled to the office held by respondent herein.
Therefore, that none of them has a cause of action against respondent herein.

Isagani Cruz vs DENR

135385
FACTS
The RA 8371 entitled the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) was assailed by Isagani Cruz on the
ground that the law amount to an unlawful deprivation of the States ownership over lands of the public
domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine
embodied in Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution. The petitioners asserted that, by providing for an
all-encompassing definition of ancestral domains and ancestral lands which might even include
private lands found within said areas, Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of said law violate the rights of private
landowners.
ISSUE: Whether or not the IPRA law is unconstitutional.
HELD
The deliberation of the Court in the Petition resulted into a 7-7 tie. As the votes were equally divided
and the necessary majority was not obtained, the case was redeliberated upon. However, after
redeliberation, the voting remained the same. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 56, Section 7 of the Rules
of Civil Procedure, the petition is DISMISSED.

MATIBAG VS. BENIPAYO

G.R. No. 149036, April 2, 2002
FACTS:
Petitioner Matibag was appointed Acting Director IV of the Comelecs EID in a temporary capacity. Then,
respondent Benipayo ordered the transfer of the petitioner to the Law Department. Petitioner
requested Benipayo to reconsider her relief as Director IV of the EID and her reassignment to the Law
Department. Benipayo denied her request so petitioner appealed the denial of her request for
reconsideration to the COMELEC enbanc. After a series of suits against the respondent, Petitioner claims
that the ad interim appointments of Benipayo, Borra and Tuason violate the constitutional provisions on
the independence of the COMELEC.
ISSUE
Whether or not the instant petition satisfies all the requirements before this Court may exercise its
power of judicial review in constitutional cases.
HELD
The Court may review the constitutionality of the ad interim appointments if the four elements are
present. These are: (1) the existence of an actual and appropriate controversy; (2) a personal and
substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional issue; (3) the exercise of the judicial review is
pleaded at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the constitutional issue is the lis mota of the case. In the
case at bar, all the requisites are present. The Petitioners personal and substantial injury in her transfer,
if Benipayo is not the lawful COMELEC Chairman, clothes her with the requisite locus standi to raise the
constitutional issue in this petition. The petitioner also raised the issue when she filed her petition
before this Court, which is the earliest opportunity for pleading the constitutional issue before a
competent body. Finally, the legality of petitioners reassignment hinges on the constitutionality of
Benipayos ad interim appointment and assumption of office.