Lawyerly

GR No. 167614

2009-03-24

ANTONIO M. SERRANO v. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

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;[47] (2) that the constitutional question is raised by a proper party[48] and at the earliest opportunity;[49] and (3) that the constitutional question is the very lis mota of the case,[50] otherwise the Court will dismiss the case or decide the same on some other ground.[51]

GR No. 168792

2009-02-23

ANTONIO B. GUNSI v. COMMISSIONERS

NACHURA, J.

A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical value. As a rule, courts decline jurisdiction over such case, or dismiss it on ground of mootness.[11]

GR No. 170338

2008-12-23

GARCILLANO v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC INFORMATION

NACHURA, J.

However, considering that locus standi is a mere procedural technicality, the Court, in recent cases, has relaxed the stringent direct injury test. David v. Macapagal-Arroyo[23] articulates that a "liberal policy has been observed, allowing ordinary citizens, members of Congress, and civic organizations to prosecute actions involving the constitutionality or validity of laws, regulations and rulings."[24] The fairly recent Chavez v. Gonzales[25] even permitted a non-member of the broadcast media, who failed to allege a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy, to challenge the acts of the Secretary of Justice and the National Telecommunications Commission. The majority, in the said case, echoed the current policy that "this Court has repeatedly and consistently refused to wield procedural barriers as impediments to its addressing and resolving serious legal questions that greatly impact on public interest, in keeping with the Court's duty under the 1987 Constitution to determine whether or not other branches of government have kept themselves within the limits of the Constitution and the laws, and that they have not abused the discretion given to them."[26]

GR No. 183591

2008-10-14

PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO v. GOVERNMENT OF REPUBLIC PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN

CARPIO MORALES, J.

When suing as a citizen, the person complaining must allege that he has been or is about to be denied some right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that he is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act complained of.[80] When the issue concerns a public right, it is sufficient that the petitioner is a citizen and has an interest in the execution of the laws.[81]

GR No. 183591

2008-10-14

PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO v. GOVERNMENT OF REPUBLIC PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN

CARPIO MORALES, J.

The MOA-AD proceeds to refer to the "Bangsamoro homeland," the ownership of which is vested exclusively in the Bangsamoro people by virtue of their prior rights of occupation.[32] Both parties to the MOA-AD acknowledge that ancestral domain does not form part of the public domain.[33]

GR No. 183591

2008-10-14

PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO v. GOVERNMENT OF REPUBLIC PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN

CARPIO MORALES, J.

This initial petition was followed by another one, docketed as G.R. No. 183752, also for Mandamus and Prohibition[11] filed by the City of Zamboanga,[12] Mayor Celso Lobregat, Rep. Ma. Isabelle Climaco and Rep. Erico Basilio Fabian who likewise pray for similar injunctive reliefs. Petitioners herein moreover pray that the City of Zamboanga be excluded from the Bangsamoro Homeland and/or Bangsamoro Juridical Entity and, in the alternative, that the MOA-AD be declared null and void.

GR No. 183591

2008-10-14

PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO v. GOVERNMENT OF REPUBLIC PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN

CARPIO MORALES, J.

The Province of Zamboanga del Norte,[17] Governor Rolando Yebes, Vice-Governor Francis Olvis, Rep. Cecilia Jalosjos-Carreon, Rep. Cesar Jalosjos, and the members[18] of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Zamboanga del Norte filed on August 15, 2008 a petition for Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition,[19] docketed as G.R. No. 183951. They pray, inter alia, that the MOA-AD be declared null and void and without operative effect, and that respondents be enjoined from executing the MOA-AD.

GR No. 183591

2008-10-14

PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO v. GOVERNMENT OF REPUBLIC PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN

CARPIO MORALES, J.

The Province of Zamboanga del Norte,[17] Governor Rolando Yebes, Vice-Governor Francis Olvis, Rep. Cecilia Jalosjos-Carreon, Rep. Cesar Jalosjos, and the members[18] of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Zamboanga del Norte filed on August 15, 2008 a petition for Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition,[19] docketed as G.R. No. 183951. They pray, inter alia, that the MOA-AD be declared null and void and without operative effect, and that respondents be enjoined from executing the MOA-AD.

GR No. 166886

2008-07-30

MATTEL v. EMMA FRANCISCO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In David v. Arroyo,[33] seven petitions for certiorari and prohibition were filed assailing the constitutionality of the declaration of a state of national emergency by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. While the declaration of a state of national emergency was already lifted during the pendency of the suits, this Court still resolved the merits of the petitions, considering that the issues involved a grave violation of the Constitution and affected the public interest. The Court also affirmed its duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional precepts, doctrines or rules, and recognized that the contested actions were capable of repetition.

GR No. 178830

2008-07-14

ROLEX SUPLICO v. NATIONAL ECONOMIC

REYES, R.T., J.

In David v. Macapagal-Arroyo,[18] We took judicial notice of the announcement by the Office of the President banning all rallies and canceling all permits for public assemblies following the issuance of Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 and General Order No. 5.

GR No. 167011

2008-04-30

SPS. CARLOS S. ROMUALDEZ AND ERLINDA R. ROMUALDEZ v. COMELEC

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The void-for-vagueness doctrine holds that a law is facially invalid if men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.[34] However, this Court has imposed certain limitations by which a criminal statute, as in the challenged law at bar, may be scrutinized. This Court has declared that facial invalidation[35] or an "on-its-face" invalidation of criminal statutes is not appropriate.[36] We have so enunciated in no uncertain terms in Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, [37] thus:In sum, the doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth, and vagueness are analytical tools developed for testing on their faces statutes in free speech cases or, as they are called in American law, First Amendment cases. They cannot be made to do service when what is involved is a criminal statute. With respect to such statute, the established rule is that 'one to whom application of a statute is constitutional will not be heard to attack the statute on the ground that impliedly it might also be taken as applying to other persons or other situations in which its application might be unconstitutional.' As has been pointed out, 'vagueness challenges in the First Amendment context, like overbreadth challenges typically produce facial invalidation, while statutes found vague as a matter of due process typically are invalidated [only] 'as applied' to a particular defendant.' (underscoring supplied)

GR No. 166006

2008-03-14

PLANTERS PRODUCTS v. FERTIPHIL CORPORATION

REYES, R.T., J.

In public suits, this Court recognizes the difficulty of applying the doctrine especially when plaintiff asserts a public right on behalf of the general public because of conflicting public policy issues. [24] On one end, there is the right of the ordinary citizen to petition the courts to be freed from unlawful government intrusion and illegal official action. At the other end, there is the public policy precluding excessive judicial interference in official acts, which may unnecessarily hinder the delivery of basic public services.

GR No. 168338

2008-02-15

FRANCISCO CHAVEZ v. RAUL M. GONZALES

PUNO, C.J.

Respondents[16] denied that the acts transgress the Constitution, and questioned petitioner's legal standing to file the petition. Among the arguments they raised as to the validity of the "fair warning" issued by respondent NTC, is that broadcast media enjoy lesser constitutional guarantees compared to print media, and the warning was issued pursuant to the NTC's mandate to regulate the telecommunications industry.[17] It was also stressed that "most of the [television] and radio stations continue, even to this date, to air the tapes, but of late within the parameters agreed upon between the NTC and KBP."[18]

GR No. 178920

2007-10-15

SPO2 GERONIMO MANALO v. PNP CHIEF OSCAR CALDERON

REYES, R.T., J.

In the recent landmark cases of David, et al. v. Arroyo, et al.,[19] involving seven petitions for certiorari and prohibition, the President lifted the declaration of a state of national emergency during the pendency of the suits. In effect, Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 and General Order No. 5 were withdrawn. The OSG thus moved and prayed for the dismissal of the petitions, arguing there is no more justiciable controversy as the issue has been mooted.

GR No. 140656 & 154482

2007-09-13

MAYOR FELIPE K. CONSTANTINO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

TINGA, J.

The "moot and academic" principle is not a magica formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case. Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if: First, there is a grave violation of the Constitution;[27] Second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved;[28] Third, when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public;[29] and Fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.[30] In the instant case, the exceptional character of the appeals of Constantino and Lindong in relation to each other, as well as the higher interest of justice, requires that the Court determine the merits of the petition and not dismiss the same outright on the ground of mootness.

GR NO. 167324

2007-07-17

TONDO MEDICAL CENTER EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Even granting that these alleged errors were adequately proven by the petitioners, they would still not invalidate Executive Order No. 102. Any serious legal errors in laying down the compensation of the DOH employees concerned can only invalidate the pertinent provisions of Department Circular No. 312, Series of 2000. Likewise, any questionable appointments or transfers are properly addressed by an appeal process provided under Administrative Order No. 94, series of 2000;[39] and if the appeal is meritorious, such appointment or transfer may be invalidated. The validity of Executive Order No. 102 would, nevertheless, remain unaffected. Settled is the rule that courts are not at liberty to declare statutes invalid, although they may be abused or misabused, and may afford an opportunity for abuse in the manner of application. The validity of a statute or ordinance is to be determined from its general purpose and its efficiency to accomplish the end desired, not from its effects in a particular case.[40]

GR NO. 167919

2007-02-14

PLARIDEL M. ABAYA v. SECRETARY HERMOGENES E. EBDANE

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Briefly stated, locus standi is "a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question."[38] More particularly, it is a party's 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. It calls for more than just a generalized grievance. The term "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.[39] Standing or locus standi is a peculiar concept in constitutional law[40] and the rationale for requiring a party who challenges the constitutionality of a statute to allege such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy is "to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions."[41]

	GR No. 167614 2009-03-24	ANTONIO M. SERRANO v. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
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;[47] (2) that the constitutional question is raised by a proper party[48] and at the earliest opportunity;[49] and (3) that the constitutional question is the very lis mota of the case,[50] otherwise the Court will dismiss the case or decide the same on some other ground.[51]
	GR No. 168792 2009-02-23	ANTONIO B. GUNSI v. COMMISSIONERS NACHURA, J.
A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical value. As a rule, courts decline jurisdiction over such case, or dismiss it on ground of mootness.[11]
	GR No. 170338 2008-12-23	GARCILLANO v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC INFORMATION NACHURA, J.
However, considering that locus standi is a mere procedural technicality, the Court, in recent cases, has relaxed the stringent direct injury test. David v. Macapagal-Arroyo[23] articulates that a "liberal policy has been observed, allowing ordinary citizens, members of Congress, and civic organizations to prosecute actions involving the constitutionality or validity of laws, regulations and rulings."[24] The fairly recent Chavez v. Gonzales[25] even permitted a non-member of the broadcast media, who failed to allege a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy, to challenge the acts of the Secretary of Justice and the National Telecommunications Commission. The majority, in the said case, echoed the current policy that "this Court has repeatedly and consistently refused to wield procedural barriers as impediments to its addressing and resolving serious legal questions that greatly impact on public interest, in keeping with the Court's duty under the 1987 Constitution to determine whether or not other branches of government have kept themselves within the limits of the Constitution and the laws, and that they have not abused the discretion given to them."[26]
	GR No. 183591 2008-10-14	PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO v. GOVERNMENT OF REPUBLIC PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN CARPIO MORALES, J.
When suing as a citizen, the person complaining must allege that he has been or is about to be denied some right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that he is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act complained of.[80] When the issue concerns a public right, it is sufficient that the petitioner is a citizen and has an interest in the execution of the laws.[81]
	GR No. 183591 2008-10-14	PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO v. GOVERNMENT OF REPUBLIC PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN CARPIO MORALES, J.
The MOA-AD proceeds to refer to the "Bangsamoro homeland," the ownership of which is vested exclusively in the Bangsamoro people by virtue of their prior rights of occupation.[32] Both parties to the MOA-AD acknowledge that ancestral domain does not form part of the public domain.[33]
	GR No. 183591 2008-10-14	PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO v. GOVERNMENT OF REPUBLIC PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN CARPIO MORALES, J.
This initial petition was followed by another one, docketed as G.R. No. 183752, also for Mandamus and Prohibition[11] filed by the City of Zamboanga,[12] Mayor Celso Lobregat, Rep. Ma. Isabelle Climaco and Rep. Erico Basilio Fabian who likewise pray for similar injunctive reliefs. Petitioners herein moreover pray that the City of Zamboanga be excluded from the Bangsamoro Homeland and/or Bangsamoro Juridical Entity and, in the alternative, that the MOA-AD be declared null and void.
	GR No. 183591 2008-10-14	PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO v. GOVERNMENT OF REPUBLIC PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN CARPIO MORALES, J.
The Province of Zamboanga del Norte,[17] Governor Rolando Yebes, Vice-Governor Francis Olvis, Rep. Cecilia Jalosjos-Carreon, Rep. Cesar Jalosjos, and the members[18] of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Zamboanga del Norte filed on August 15, 2008 a petition for Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition,[19] docketed as G.R. No. 183951. They pray, inter alia, that the MOA-AD be declared null and void and without operative effect, and that respondents be enjoined from executing the MOA-AD.
	GR No. 183591 2008-10-14	PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO v. GOVERNMENT OF REPUBLIC PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN CARPIO MORALES, J.
The Province of Zamboanga del Norte,[17] Governor Rolando Yebes, Vice-Governor Francis Olvis, Rep. Cecilia Jalosjos-Carreon, Rep. Cesar Jalosjos, and the members[18] of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Zamboanga del Norte filed on August 15, 2008 a petition for Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition,[19] docketed as G.R. No. 183951. They pray, inter alia, that the MOA-AD be declared null and void and without operative effect, and that respondents be enjoined from executing the MOA-AD.
	GR No. 166886 2008-07-30	MATTEL v. EMMA FRANCISCO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In David v. Arroyo,[33] seven petitions for certiorari and prohibition were filed assailing the constitutionality of the declaration of a state of national emergency by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. While the declaration of a state of national emergency was already lifted during the pendency of the suits, this Court still resolved the merits of the petitions, considering that the issues involved a grave violation of the Constitution and affected the public interest. The Court also affirmed its duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional precepts, doctrines or rules, and recognized that the contested actions were capable of repetition.
	GR No. 178830 2008-07-14	ROLEX SUPLICO v. NATIONAL ECONOMIC REYES, R.T., J.
In David v. Macapagal-Arroyo,[18] We took judicial notice of the announcement by the Office of the President banning all rallies and canceling all permits for public assemblies following the issuance of Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 and General Order No. 5.
	GR No. 167011 2008-04-30	SPS. CARLOS S. ROMUALDEZ AND ERLINDA R. ROMUALDEZ v. COMELEC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The void-for-vagueness doctrine holds that a law is facially invalid if men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.[34] However, this Court has imposed certain limitations by which a criminal statute, as in the challenged law at bar, may be scrutinized. This Court has declared that facial invalidation[35] or an "on-its-face" invalidation of criminal statutes is not appropriate.[36] We have so enunciated in no uncertain terms in Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, [37] thus:In sum, the doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth, and vagueness are analytical tools developed for testing on their faces statutes in free speech cases or, as they are called in American law, First Amendment cases. They cannot be made to do service when what is involved is a criminal statute. With respect to such statute, the established rule is that 'one to whom application of a statute is constitutional will not be heard to attack the statute on the ground that impliedly it might also be taken as applying to other persons or other situations in which its application might be unconstitutional.' As has been pointed out, 'vagueness challenges in the First Amendment context, like overbreadth challenges typically produce facial invalidation, while statutes found vague as a matter of due process typically are invalidated [only] 'as applied' to a particular defendant.' (underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 166006 2008-03-14	PLANTERS PRODUCTS v. FERTIPHIL CORPORATION REYES, R.T., J.
In public suits, this Court recognizes the difficulty of applying the doctrine especially when plaintiff asserts a public right on behalf of the general public because of conflicting public policy issues. [24] On one end, there is the right of the ordinary citizen to petition the courts to be freed from unlawful government intrusion and illegal official action. At the other end, there is the public policy precluding excessive judicial interference in official acts, which may unnecessarily hinder the delivery of basic public services.
	GR No. 168338 2008-02-15	FRANCISCO CHAVEZ v. RAUL M. GONZALES PUNO, C.J.
Respondents[16] denied that the acts transgress the Constitution, and questioned petitioner's legal standing to file the petition. Among the arguments they raised as to the validity of the "fair warning" issued by respondent NTC, is that broadcast media enjoy lesser constitutional guarantees compared to print media, and the warning was issued pursuant to the NTC's mandate to regulate the telecommunications industry.[17] It was also stressed that "most of the [television] and radio stations continue, even to this date, to air the tapes, but of late within the parameters agreed upon between the NTC and KBP."[18]
	GR No. 178920 2007-10-15	SPO2 GERONIMO MANALO v. PNP CHIEF OSCAR CALDERON REYES, R.T., J.
In the recent landmark cases of David, et al. v. Arroyo, et al.,[19] involving seven petitions for certiorari and prohibition, the President lifted the declaration of a state of national emergency during the pendency of the suits. In effect, Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 and General Order No. 5 were withdrawn. The OSG thus moved and prayed for the dismissal of the petitions, arguing there is no more justiciable controversy as the issue has been mooted.
	GR No. 140656 & 154482 2007-09-13	MAYOR FELIPE K. CONSTANTINO v. SANDIGANBAYAN TINGA, J.
The "moot and academic" principle is not a magica formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case. Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if: First, there is a grave violation of the Constitution;[27] Second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved;[28] Third, when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public;[29] and Fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.[30] In the instant case, the exceptional character of the appeals of Constantino and Lindong in relation to each other, as well as the higher interest of justice, requires that the Court determine the merits of the petition and not dismiss the same outright on the ground of mootness.
	GR NO. 167324 2007-07-17	TONDO MEDICAL CENTER EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Even granting that these alleged errors were adequately proven by the petitioners, they would still not invalidate Executive Order No. 102. Any serious legal errors in laying down the compensation of the DOH employees concerned can only invalidate the pertinent provisions of Department Circular No. 312, Series of 2000. Likewise, any questionable appointments or transfers are properly addressed by an appeal process provided under Administrative Order No. 94, series of 2000;[39] and if the appeal is meritorious, such appointment or transfer may be invalidated. The validity of Executive Order No. 102 would, nevertheless, remain unaffected. Settled is the rule that courts are not at liberty to declare statutes invalid, although they may be abused or misabused, and may afford an opportunity for abuse in the manner of application. The validity of a statute or ordinance is to be determined from its general purpose and its efficiency to accomplish the end desired, not from its effects in a particular case.[40]
	GR NO. 167919 2007-02-14	PLARIDEL M. ABAYA v. SECRETARY HERMOGENES E. EBDANE CALLEJO, SR., J.
Briefly stated, locus standi is "a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question."[38] More particularly, it is a party's 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. It calls for more than just a generalized grievance. The term "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.[39] Standing or locus standi is a peculiar concept in constitutional law[40] and the rationale for requiring a party who challenges the constitutionality of a statute to allege such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy is "to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions."[41]

PROF. RANDOLF S. DAVID v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO