Lawyerly

GR No. 212426

2016-01-12

SERENO, C.J.

The power of judicial review has since been strengthened in the 1987 Constitution. The scope of that power has been extended to the determination of whether in matters traditionally considered to be within the sphere of appreciation of another branch of government, an exercise of discretion has been attended with grave abuse.[97] The expansion of this power has made the political question doctrine "no longer the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions from judicial inquiry or review."[98]

GR No. 191672

2014-11-25

DENNIS A. B. FUNA v. CHAIRMAN

BERSAMIN, J.

Like almost all powers conferred by the Constitution, the power of judicial review is subject to limitations, to wit: (1) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (2) the person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject act or issuance; otherwise stated, he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.[23]

GR No. 204819

2014-04-08

JAMES M. IMBONG v. PAQUITO N. OCHOA

MENDOZA, J.

Corollary to the requirement of an actual case or controversy is the requirement of ripeness.[101] A question is ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it. For a case to be considered ripe for adjudication, it is a prerequisite that something has then been accomplished or performed by either branch before a court may come into the picture, and the petitioner must allege the existence of an immediate or threatened injury to himself as a result of the challenged action. He must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of the act complained of.[102]

GR No. 204819

2014-04-08

JAMES M. IMBONG v. PAQUITO N. OCHOA

MENDOZA, J.

(2) Petition for Prohibition,[6] filed by the Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines, Inc., through its president, Atty. Maria Concepcion S. Noche[7] and several others[8] in their personal capacities as citizens and on behalf of the generations unborn (ALFI);

GR No. 204429

2014-02-18

SMART COMMUNICATIONS v. MUNICIPALITY OF MALVAR

CARPIO, J.

and Poverty (LAMP) v. Secretary of Budget and Management,[29] the Court held, thus: To justify the nullification of the law or its implementation, there must be a clear and unequivocal, not a doubtful, breach of the Constitution. In case of doubt in the sufficiency of proof establishing unconstitutionality, the Court must sustain legislation because "to

GR No. 197676

2014-02-04

REMMAN ENTERPRISES v. PROFESSIONAL REGULATORY BOARD OF REAL ESTATE SERVICE

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Indeed, "all presumptions are indulged in favor of constitutionality; one who attacks a statute, alleging unconstitutionality must prove its invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt; that a law may work hardship does not render it unconstitutional; that if any reasonable basis may be conceived which supports the statute, it will be upheld, and the challenger must negate all possible bases; that the courts are not concerned with the wisdom, justice, policy, or expediency of a statute; and that a liberal interpretation of the constitution in favor of the constitutionality of legislation should be adopted."[30]

GR No. 208566

2013-11-19

GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Thereafter, or in 2004, several concerned citizens sought the nullification of the PDAF as enacted in the 2004 GAA for being unconstitutional. Unfortunately, for lack of "any pertinent evidentiary support that illegal misuse of PDAF in the form of kickbacks has become a common exercise of unscrupulous Members of Congress," the petition was dismissed.[95]

GR No. 208566

2013-11-19

GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

"Pork Barrel" is political parlance of American-English origin.[3] Historically, its usage may be traced to the degrading ritual of rolling out a barrel stuffed with pork to a multitude of black slaves who would cast their famished bodies into the porcine feast to assuage their hunger with morsels coming from the generosity of their well-fed master.[4] This practice was later compared to the actions of American legislators in trying to direct federal budgets in favor of their districts.[5] While the advent of refrigeration has made the actual pork barrel obsolete, it persists in reference to political bills that "bring home the bacon" to a legislator's district and constituents.[6] In a more technical sense, "Pork Barrel" refers to an appropriation of government spending meant for localized projects and secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative's district.[7] Some scholars on the subject further use it to refer to legislative control of local appropriations.[8]

GR No. 208566

2013-11-19

GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Significantly, it was during this era that provisions which allowed formal participation of non-governmental organizations (NGO) in the implementation of government projects were introduced. In the Supplemental Budget for 2006, with respect to the appropriation for school buildings, NGOs were, by law, encouraged to participate. For such purpose, the law stated that "the amount of at least P250 Million of the P500 Million allotted for the construction and completion of school buildings shall be made available to NGOs including the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Inc. for its "Operation Barrio School" program[,] with capability and proven track records in the construction of public school buildings x x x."[62] The same allocation was made available to NGOs in the 2007 and 2009 GAAs under the DepEd Budget.[63] Also, it was in 2007 that the Government Procurement Policy Board[64] (GPPB) issued Resolution No. 12-2007 dated June 29, 2007 (GPPB Resolution 12-2007), amending the implementing rules and regulations[65] of RA 9184,[66] the Government Procurement Reform Act, to include, as a form of negotiated procurement,[67] the procedure whereby the Procuring Entity[68] (the implementing agency) may enter into a memorandum of agreement with an NGO, provided that "an appropriation law or ordinance earmarks an amount to be specifically contracted out to NGOs."[69]

GR No. 208566

2013-11-19

GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

On the other hand the Presidential Social Fund was created under Section 12, Title IV[84] of PD 1869,[85] or the Charter of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR). PD 1869 was similarly issued by Marcos on July 11, 1983. More than two (2) years after, he amended PD 1869 and accordingly issued PD 1993 on October 31, 1985,[86] amending Section 1287 of the former law. As it stands, the Presidential Social Fund has been described as a special funding facility managed and administered by the Presidential Management Staff through which the President provides direct assistance to priority programs and projects not funded under the regular budget. It is sourced from the share of the government in the aggregate gross earnings of PAGCOR.88

GR No. 179267

2013-06-25

JESUS C. GARCIA v. GARCIA

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

It is settled that courts are not concerned with the wisdom, justice, policy, or expediency of a statute.[67] Hence, we dare not venture into the real motivations and wisdom of the members of Congress in limiting the protection against violence and abuse under R.A. 9262 to women and children only. No proper challenge on said grounds may be entertained in this proceeding. Congress has made its choice and it is not our prerogative to supplant this judgment. The choice may be perceived as erroneous but even then, the remedy against it is to seek its amendment or repeal by the legislative. By the principle of separation of powers, it is the legislative that determines the necessity, adequacy, wisdom and expediency of any law.[68]

GR No. 179267

2013-06-25

JESUS C. GARCIA v. GARCIA

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Petitioner controls the family businesses involving mostly the construction of deep wells. He is the President of three corporations 326 Realty Holdings, Inc., Negros Rotadrill Corporation, and J-Bros Trading Corporation of which he and private respondent are both stockholders. In contrast to the absolute control of petitioner over said corporations, private respondent merely draws a monthly salary of P20,000.00 from one corporation only, the Negros Rotadrill Corporation. Household expenses amounting to not less than P200,000.00 a month are paid for by private respondent through the use of credit cards, which, in turn, are paid by the same corporation together with the bills for utilities.[15]

GR No. 191644

2013-02-19

DENNIS A.B. FUNA v. ACTING SECRETARY OF JUSTICE ALBERTO C. AGRA

BERSAMIN, J.

The power of judicial review is subject to limitations, to wit: (1) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (2) the person challenging the act must have the standing to assail the validity of the subject act or issuance, that is, he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.[18]

GR No. 202242

2012-07-17

FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ v. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL

MENDOZA, J.

In public suits, the plaintiff, representing the general public, asserts a "public right" in assailing an allegedly illegal official action. The plaintiff may be a person who is affected no differently from any other person, and can be suing as a "stranger," or as a "citizen" or "taxpayer." Thus, taxpayers have been allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. Of greater import than the damage caused by the illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal wound inflicted upon the fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid statute.[29]

	GR No. 212426 2016-01-12	SAGUISAG v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OCHOA SERENO, C.J.
The power of judicial review has since been strengthened in the 1987 Constitution. The scope of that power has been extended to the determination of whether in matters traditionally considered to be within the sphere of appreciation of another branch of government, an exercise of discretion has been attended with grave abuse.[97] The expansion of this power has made the political question doctrine "no longer the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions from judicial inquiry or review."[98]
	GR No. 191672 2014-11-25	DENNIS A. B. FUNA v. CHAIRMAN BERSAMIN, J.
Like almost all powers conferred by the Constitution, the power of judicial review is subject to limitations, to wit: (1) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (2) the person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject act or issuance; otherwise stated, he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.[23]
	GR No. 204819 2014-04-08	JAMES M. IMBONG v. PAQUITO N. OCHOA MENDOZA, J.
Corollary to the requirement of an actual case or controversy is the requirement of ripeness.[101] A question is ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it. For a case to be considered ripe for adjudication, it is a prerequisite that something has then been accomplished or performed by either branch before a court may come into the picture, and the petitioner must allege the existence of an immediate or threatened injury to himself as a result of the challenged action. He must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of the act complained of.[102]
	GR No. 204819 2014-04-08	JAMES M. IMBONG v. PAQUITO N. OCHOA MENDOZA, J.
(2) Petition for Prohibition,[6] filed by the Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines, Inc., through its president, Atty. Maria Concepcion S. Noche[7] and several others[8] in their personal capacities as citizens and on behalf of the generations unborn (ALFI);
	GR No. 204429 2014-02-18	SMART COMMUNICATIONS v. MUNICIPALITY OF MALVAR CARPIO, J.
and Poverty (LAMP) v. Secretary of Budget and Management,[29] the Court held, thus: To justify the nullification of the law or its implementation, there must be a clear and unequivocal, not a doubtful, breach of the Constitution. In case of doubt in the sufficiency of proof establishing unconstitutionality, the Court must sustain legislation because "to
	GR No. 197676 2014-02-04	REMMAN ENTERPRISES v. PROFESSIONAL REGULATORY BOARD OF REAL ESTATE SERVICE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Indeed, "all presumptions are indulged in favor of constitutionality; one who attacks a statute, alleging unconstitutionality must prove its invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt; that a law may work hardship does not render it unconstitutional; that if any reasonable basis may be conceived which supports the statute, it will be upheld, and the challenger must negate all possible bases; that the courts are not concerned with the wisdom, justice, policy, or expediency of a statute; and that a liberal interpretation of the constitution in favor of the constitutionality of legislation should be adopted."[30]
	GR No. 208566 2013-11-19	GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Thereafter, or in 2004, several concerned citizens sought the nullification of the PDAF as enacted in the 2004 GAA for being unconstitutional. Unfortunately, for lack of "any pertinent evidentiary support that illegal misuse of PDAF in the form of kickbacks has become a common exercise of unscrupulous Members of Congress," the petition was dismissed.[95]
	GR No. 208566 2013-11-19	GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
"Pork Barrel" is political parlance of American-English origin.[3] Historically, its usage may be traced to the degrading ritual of rolling out a barrel stuffed with pork to a multitude of black slaves who would cast their famished bodies into the porcine feast to assuage their hunger with morsels coming from the generosity of their well-fed master.[4] This practice was later compared to the actions of American legislators in trying to direct federal budgets in favor of their districts.[5] While the advent of refrigeration has made the actual pork barrel obsolete, it persists in reference to political bills that "bring home the bacon" to a legislator's district and constituents.[6] In a more technical sense, "Pork Barrel" refers to an appropriation of government spending meant for localized projects and secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative's district.[7] Some scholars on the subject further use it to refer to legislative control of local appropriations.[8]
	GR No. 208566 2013-11-19	GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Significantly, it was during this era that provisions which allowed formal participation of non-governmental organizations (NGO) in the implementation of government projects were introduced. In the Supplemental Budget for 2006, with respect to the appropriation for school buildings, NGOs were, by law, encouraged to participate. For such purpose, the law stated that "the amount of at least P250 Million of the P500 Million allotted for the construction and completion of school buildings shall be made available to NGOs including the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Inc. for its "Operation Barrio School" program[,] with capability and proven track records in the construction of public school buildings x x x."[62] The same allocation was made available to NGOs in the 2007 and 2009 GAAs under the DepEd Budget.[63] Also, it was in 2007 that the Government Procurement Policy Board[64] (GPPB) issued Resolution No. 12-2007 dated June 29, 2007 (GPPB Resolution 12-2007), amending the implementing rules and regulations[65] of RA 9184,[66] the Government Procurement Reform Act, to include, as a form of negotiated procurement,[67] the procedure whereby the Procuring Entity[68] (the implementing agency) may enter into a memorandum of agreement with an NGO, provided that "an appropriation law or ordinance earmarks an amount to be specifically contracted out to NGOs."[69]
	GR No. 208566 2013-11-19	GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
On the other hand the Presidential Social Fund was created under Section 12, Title IV[84] of PD 1869,[85] or the Charter of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR). PD 1869 was similarly issued by Marcos on July 11, 1983. More than two (2) years after, he amended PD 1869 and accordingly issued PD 1993 on October 31, 1985,[86] amending Section 1287 of the former law. As it stands, the Presidential Social Fund has been described as a special funding facility managed and administered by the Presidential Management Staff through which the President provides direct assistance to priority programs and projects not funded under the regular budget. It is sourced from the share of the government in the aggregate gross earnings of PAGCOR.88
	GR No. 179267 2013-06-25	JESUS C. GARCIA v. GARCIA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
It is settled that courts are not concerned with the wisdom, justice, policy, or expediency of a statute.[67] Hence, we dare not venture into the real motivations and wisdom of the members of Congress in limiting the protection against violence and abuse under R.A. 9262 to women and children only. No proper challenge on said grounds may be entertained in this proceeding. Congress has made its choice and it is not our prerogative to supplant this judgment. The choice may be perceived as erroneous but even then, the remedy against it is to seek its amendment or repeal by the legislative. By the principle of separation of powers, it is the legislative that determines the necessity, adequacy, wisdom and expediency of any law.[68]
	GR No. 179267 2013-06-25	JESUS C. GARCIA v. GARCIA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Petitioner controls the family businesses involving mostly the construction of deep wells. He is the President of three corporations 326 Realty Holdings, Inc., Negros Rotadrill Corporation, and J-Bros Trading Corporation of which he and private respondent are both stockholders. In contrast to the absolute control of petitioner over said corporations, private respondent merely draws a monthly salary of P20,000.00 from one corporation only, the Negros Rotadrill Corporation. Household expenses amounting to not less than P200,000.00 a month are paid for by private respondent through the use of credit cards, which, in turn, are paid by the same corporation together with the bills for utilities.[15]
	GR No. 191644 2013-02-19	DENNIS A.B. FUNA v. ACTING SECRETARY OF JUSTICE ALBERTO C. AGRA BERSAMIN, J.
The power of judicial review is subject to limitations, to wit: (1) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (2) the person challenging the act must have the standing to assail the validity of the subject act or issuance, that is, he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.[18]
	GR No. 202242 2012-07-17	FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ v. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL MENDOZA, J.
In public suits, the plaintiff, representing the general public, asserts a "public right" in assailing an allegedly illegal official action. The plaintiff may be a person who is affected no differently from any other person, and can be suing as a "stranger," or as a "citizen" or "taxpayer." Thus, taxpayers have been allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. Of greater import than the damage caused by the illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal wound inflicted upon the fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid statute.[29]

LAWYERS v. SECRETARY OF BUDGET