This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-06-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We decline to rule on the issue of constitutionality as all the requisites for the exercise of judicial review are not present herein. 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,[38] and is necessary to a determination of the case, particularly where the issue of constitutionality is the very lis mota presented.[39] In herein case, the constitutional question was raised belatedly by PVB only in its memorandum filed before this Court. | |||||
|
2004-06-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Instead, it appears to us that herein petitioners have placed the cart before the horse, figuratively speaking. Simply put, they have ignored the hierarchy of courts outlined in Rule 65, Section 4[11] of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Seeking judicial review at the earliest opportunity does not mean immediately elevating the matter to this Court. 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. Thus, the petitioners should have moved to quash the separate indictments or moved to dismiss the cases in the proceedings in the trial courts on the ground of unconstitutionality of B.P. Blg. 22. But the records show that petitioners failed to initiate such moves in the proceedings below. Needless to emphasize, this Court could not entertain questions on the invalidity of a statute where that issue was not specifically raised, insisted upon, and adequately argued.[12] Taking into account the early stage of the trial proceedings below, the instant petitions are patently premature. | |||||