1.

) In relation to Section 5 (2a) article X (THE AMELITA DELA CRUZ, Petitioners,

JUDICIARY) of the 1973 Constitution which is now vs.
Section 5 (2a) Art. VIII Supreme court has the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
power to review cases which the constitutionality
or validity of a law, Where in the case of Dumlao the Supreme Court exercised their power provided Sec 5
v COMELEC G.R. No. L-52245. January 22, 1980 (2d) in this case there is a petition for review on
the court held that in order to he can assail the
certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
constitutionality of a provision of a law (where in
this case He specifically questions the Procedure, as amended, seeking the reversal of the
constitutionality of section 4 of Batas Pambansa Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 31 May 2001, in
Blg. 52 as discriminatory and contrary to the CA-G.R. CR No. 23302, and its Resolution dated 29
equal protection and due process guarantees of October 2001, which affirmed in toto the Decision of the
the Constitution) three requisites should be Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Manila, dated 07 April
present: a. actual case and controversy; b. proper 1999, finding the accused, herein petitioner, guilty of the
party; c. existence of a constitutional question…
crime of estafa as defined by Article 315, paragraph 1(b)
Where in
a. Dumlao has not yet been affected by the statute. No of the Revised Penal Code, in Criminal Case No. 95-
petition has yet been filed for his disqualification. It was 142464.
only a hypothetical question.
b. Did they sustain direct injury as a result of the The Supreme court reversed the decision made by the
enforcement? No one has yet been adversely affected by lower courts in favor of the accused-petitioner, after
the operation of the statutes. thoroughly reviewing the records of this case and
c. They are actually without cause of action. It follows weighing the testimonial evidence on the scale of
that the necessity for resolving the issue of creditworthiness and materiality, however, the Court
constitutionality is absent, and procedural regularity finds that the circumstantial evidence present in the case
would require that his suit be dismissed. at bar are grossly insufficient to sustain a conviction.

4.) G.R. No. 118910 November 16, 1995

2.) Bugnay Construction v. Laron G.R. No. 79983 This case explains “Locus Standi or standing to sue” as a
August 10, 1989 requirement of judicial review the petitioners is not a real
City of Dagupan issued a resolution granting the lease of parties in interest. For the fact that petitioners'
said lot to the petitioner Bugnay COnstruction for the opposition to the contract in question is nothing more
establishment of a Magsaysay Market building. As a than an opposition to the government policy on lotteries.
result, respondent Ravanzo filed a taxpayer's suit against The court provided more case on traditional rule that
the City assailing the validity of the lease contract only real parties in interest or those with standing, as the
between the petitioner and the city. Ravanzo was the case may be, may invoke the judicial power. The
counsel of P&M Agro in the earlier case. jurisdiction of this Court, even in cases involving
constitutional questions, is limited by the "case and
The court held that the respondent has no standing to file controversy" requirement of Art. VIII, §5
the case. There was no disbursement of public funds It is nevertheless insisted that this Court has in the past
involved in this case since it is the petitioner, a private accorded standing to taxpayers and concerned citizens in
party which will fund the planned construction of the cases involving "paramount public interest."
market building. Taxpayers, voters, concerned citizens and legislators
have indeed been allowed to sue but then only (1) in
cases involving constitutional issues and
3.) section (2d), Article VIII of the 1987 Constituion (2) under certain conditions.
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following Petitioners DO NOT meet these requirements on
powers: (2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on standing.
(THE COURT EXPLAINED BY GIVING MORE EXAMPLE OF
appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may
OTHER CASES HAHAHA)
provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in: (d) Taxpayers are allowed to sue, FOR EXAMPLES,
All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is A.) where there is a claim of illegal disbursement of
reclusion perpetua or higher. public funds.
(Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works, 110 Phi. 331 H.) or that there is a misapplication of such funds by
(1960); Sanidad v. Comelec, 73 SCRA 333 (1976); Bugnay respondent COMELEC (see Pascual vs. Secretary
Const. & Dev. v. Laron, 176 SCRA 240 (1989); City Council of Public Works, 110 Phil. 331 [1960]),
of Cebu v. Cuizon, 47 SCRA 325 [1972])
I.) or that public money is being deflected to any
B.) or where a tax measure is assailed as improper purpose. Neither do petitioners seek to
unconstitutional. restrain respondent from wasting public funds
(VAT Cases [Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance], 235 SCRA through the enforcement of an invalid or
630 [1994]) unconstitutional law. (Philippine Constitution
Association vs. Mathay, 18 SCRA 300
C.) Voters are allowed to question the validity of [1966]), citing Philippine Constitution Association
election laws because of their obvious interest in vs. Gimenez, 15 SCRA 479 [1965]).
the validity of such laws.
(Gonzales v. Comelec, 21 SCRA 774 [1967]) J.) Besides, the institution of a taxpayer's suit, per
se, is no assurance of judicial review. As held by
D.) Concerned citizens can bring suits if the this Court in Tan vs. Macapagal (43 SCRA 677
constitutional question they raise is of [1972]),
"transcendental importance" which must be
settled early.
(Emergency Powers Cases [Araneta v. Dinglasan], 84 Phi. speaking through our present Chief Justice, this Court is
368 (1949); Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Ass'n v. vested with discretion as to whether or not a taxpayer's
Feliciano, 121 Phi. 358 (1965); Philconsa v. Gimenez, 122 suit should be entertained. (Emphasis added)
Phi. 894 (1965); CLU v. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317 Petitioners' suit does not fall under any of these
[1991]) categories of taxpayers' suits.
Neither do the other cases cited by petitioners support
E.) Legislators are allowed to sue to question the their contention
validity of any official action which they claim
infringes their prerogatives qua legislators. K.) that taxpayers have standing to question
(Philconsa v. Enriquez, 235 506 (1994); Guingona v. government contracts regardless of whether
PCGG, 207 SCRA 659 (1992); Gonzales v. Macaraig, public funds are involved or not. In Gonzales
191 SCRA 452 (1990); Tolentino v. Comelec, 41 SCRA v. National Housing, Corp., 94 SCRA 786 (1979),
702 (1971); Tatad v. Garcia, G.R. No. 114222, April 16, petitioner filed a taxpayer's suit seeking the
1995 (Mendoza, J., concurring)) annulment of a contract between the NHC and a
(THE COURT RELATED IT TO MOOOORE OTHER CASES foreign corporation. The case was dismissed by
HAHAHA) the trial court. The dismissal was affirmed by this
ON TAXPAYER SUITS Court on the grounds of res judicata and
Petitioners do not have the same kind of interest that pendency of a prejudicial question, thus avoiding
these various litigants have. the question of petitioner's standing.
F.) Petitioners assert an interest as taxpayers, but L.) On the other hand, in Gonzales v. Raquiza, 180
they do not meet the standing requirement for SCRA 254 (1989), petitioner sought the
bringing taxpayer's suits as set forth in Dumlao annulment of a contract made by the
v. Comelec, 95 SCRA 392, 403 (1980), to wit: government with a foreign corporation for the
purchase of road construction equipment. The
G.) While, concededly, the elections to be held question of standing was not discussed, but even
involve the expenditure of public if it was, petitioner's standing could be sustained
moneys, nowhere in their Petition do said because he was a minority stockholder of the
petitioners allege that their tax money is "being Philippine National Bank, which was one of the
extracted and spent in violation of specific defendants in the case.
constitutional protections against abuses of M.) In the other case cited by petitioners, City
legislative power" (Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S., 83 Council of Cebu v. Cuizon, 47 SCRA 325 (1972),
[1960]), members of the city council were allowed to sue
to question the validity of a contract entered into
by the city government for the purchase of road
 construction equipment because their contention conferring provision which can be enforced in the courts.
was that the contract had been made without That provision states:
their authority. In addition, as taxpayers they had The State shall protect and advance the right of the
an interest in seeing to it that public funds were people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with
spent pursuant to an appropriation made by law. the rhythm and harmony of nature. (Emphasis)
In contrast, the policies and principles invoked by
But, in the case at bar, there is an allegation that public petitioners in this case do not permit of such
funds are being misapplied or misappropriated. The categorization.
controlling doctrine is Indeed, as already stated, petitioners' opposition is not
really to the validity of the ELA but to lotteries which they
N.) that of Gonzales v. Marcos, 65 SCRA 624 (1975) regard to be immoral. This is not, however, a legal issue,
where it was held that funds raised from but a policy matter for Congress to decide and Congress
contributions for the benefit of the Cultural has permitted lotteries for charity.
Center of the Philippines were not public funds Nevertheless, although we have concluded that
and petitioner had no standing to bring a petitioners do not have standing, we have not stopped
taxpayer's suit to question their disbursement by there and dismissed their case.
the President of the Philippines.Thus, petitioners'
right to sue as taxpayers cannot be sustained.
Nor as concerned citizens can they bring this suit 5.) GR 113375 (KIlosbayan vs. Guingona) held
because no specific injury suffered by them is invalidity of the contract between Philippine
alleged. As for the petitioners, who are members Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) and the
of Congress, their right to sue as privately owned Philippine Gaming Management
legislators cannot be invoked because they do Corporation (PGMC) for the operation of a
not complain of any infringement of their rights nationwide on-line lottery system. The contract
as legislators. violated the provision in the PCSO Charter which
FINAAALLLLLYYYY prohibits PCSO from holding and conducting
O.) Finally, in Valmonte v. PCSO, G.R. No. 78716, lotteries through a collaboration, association, or
September 22, 1987, we threw out a petition joint venture.
questioning another form of lottery conducted by Tcourt held that Petitioners do not have a legal standing
the PCSO on the ground that petitioner, who to sue.
claimed to be a "citizen, lawyer, taxpayer and STARE DECISIS cannot apply. The previous ruling
father of three minor children," had no direct and sustaining the standing of the petitioners is a
personal interest in the lottery. We said: "He departure from the settled rulings on real parties
must be able to show, not only that the law is in interest because no constitutional issues were
invalid, but also that he has sustained or is in a former actually involved.
immediate danger of sustaining some direct LAW OF THE CASE (opinion delivered on appeal)
injury as a result of its enforcement, and not cannot also apply. Since the present case is not
merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite the same one litigated by the parties before in
way. Kilosbayan vs. Guingona, Jr., the ruling cannot be
in any sense be regarded as “the law of this
It must appear that the person complaining has been case”. The parties are the same but the cases are
or is about to be denied some right or privilege to not
which he is lawfully entitled or that he is about to be
subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of
the statute complained of." In the case at bar, 6.) G.R. No. 118577 March 7, 1995
petitioners have not shown why, unlike petitioner in JUANITO MARIANO, JR. et al., petitioners,
the Valmonte case, they should be accorded standing vs.
to bring this suit. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE MUNICIPALITY OF
The case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. 224 SCRA 792 (1993) is MAKATI, HON. JEJOMAR BINAY, THE MUNICIPAL
different. Citizens' standing to bring a suit seeking the TREASURER, AND SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF MAKATI,
cancellation of timber licenses was sustained in that case respondents.
because the Court considered Art. II, §16 a right- G.R. No. 118627 March 7, 1995
JOHN R. OSMEÑA, petitioner,
vs. 7.) G.R. No. L-329 April 16, 1946
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE MUNICIPALITY OF
MAKATI, HON. JEJOMAR BINAY, MUNICIPAL TREASURER, VICENTE SOTTO, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON
AND SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF MAKATI, respondents. ELECTIONS, ET AL., respondents.

Petitioners stress that under these provisions, elective In this case unless there is an actual controversy the court
local officials, including Members of the House of cannot review on the constitutionality or validity of a law
Representative, have a term of three (3) years and are in accord with requirement of judicial review
prohibited from serving for more than “The presumption is that it is constitutional. It is a well-
three (3) consecutive terms. They argue that by providing established rule that a court should not pass upon a
that the new city shall acquire a new corporate existence, constitutional question and decide a law to be
section 51 of R.A. No. 7854 restarts the term of the unconstitutional or invalid, unless such question is raised
present municipal elective officials of Makati and by the parties, and that when it is raised”
disregards the terms previously served by them. In
particular, petitioners point that section 51 favors the (Kahit na unconstitutional kung walang magququestion sc
incumbent Makati Mayor, respondent Jejomar Binay, ay walang kakayahan to review)
who has already served for two (2) consecutive terms.
They further argue that should Mayor Binay decide to run CA# 657 sec (9) which states that , Supreme Court
and eventually win as city mayor in the coming elections, cannot, therefore, review the rulings or findings of fact of
he can still run for the same position in 1998 and seek the Commission on Elections.
another three-year consecutive term since his previous Under section 2, Article VIII of the Constitution of the
three-year consecutive term as municipal mayor would Philippines, as well as our Rules of Court, final judgment
not be counted. Thus, petitioners conclude that said and decrees of the inferior or lower courts may be
section 51 has been conveniently crafted to suit the reviewed by this Court by appeal, writ of error, or
political ambitions of respondent Mayor Binay. certiorari. By appeal the appellate court reviews all the
We cannot entertain this challenge to the findings of law and of fact of the court a quo, as in special
constitutionality of section 51. proceedings (Rule 105, Rules of Court). By writ of error
the appellate court reviews only the findings of law or of
The requirements before a litigant can challenge the fact of the lower court assigned in the assignment of
constitutionality of a law are well delineated. They are: 1) errors of the appellant, as in ordinary civil actions
there must be an actual case or controversy; (2) the (section 19, Rule 48). And by certiorari the appellate or
question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper superior Court can only review questions or errors of law
party; (3) the constitutional question must be raised at decided or committed by the lower court, as provided in
the earliest possible opportunity; and (4) the decision on Rules 43, 44 and 46 of the Rules of court. Questions or
the constitutional question must be necessary to the findings of fact of the inferior tribunal, can not be
determination of the case itself.5 reviewed on certiorari. "Evidence which is made a part of
the record can not be examined to determine whether or
Petitioners have far from complied with these not it justifies the finding on which the decision or
requirements. The petition is premised on the occurrence judgment was made. (See the following rule.).
of many contingent events, i.e., that Mayor Binay will run The general rule is that, in the absence of statue or local
again in this coming mayoralty elections; that he would practice otherwise, questions or findings of fact, in the
be re-elected in said elections; and that he would seek re- inferior tribunal, are not reviewable on certiorari, and
election for the same position in the 1998 elections. that evidence which is made a part of the record cannot
Considering that these contingencies may or may not be examined to determine whether or not it justified the
happen, petitioners merely pose a hypothetical issue findings on which the decision or judgment was made;
which has yet to ripen to an actual case or controversy. nor will rulings on questions of fact, within the inferior
Petitioners who are residents of Taguig (except Mariano) tribunal's jurisdiction, be reviewed. (14 Corpus Juris
are not also the proper parties to raise this abstract issue. Secundum, pp. 311, 312.) (Emphasis supplied.) .
Worse, they hoist this futuristic issue in a petition for
declaratory relief over which this Court has no we have to apply said provision of Act No. 657, since its
jurisdiction. constitutionality is not assailed by the parties in this case,
and the presumption is that it is constitutional. It is a
well-established rule that a court should not pass upon a
constitutional question and decide a law to be among the essential requisites of a petition for
unconstitutional or invalid, unless such question is raised declaratory relief are controversy,
by the parties, and that when it is raised, if the record (a) there must be a justiciable controversy,
also presents some other ground upon which the court (b)the controversy must be between persons whose
may rest its judgment, that course will be adopted and interests are adverse and
the constitutional will be left for consideration until a (c) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal
case arises in which a decision upon such question will be interest in the controversy.
unavoidable (Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, seventh Furthermore, an action for declaratory relief does not
edition, p. 231). The contention in the dissenting opinion fall within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
that "whether the point (unconstitutionality) of the even if only questions of law are involved. 14 True, we
provision of section 9, Act No. 657, is raised or not by have said that such a petition may be treated as one for
either party, we can not close our eyes to the prohibition 15 or mandamus 16 if it has far reaching
constitutional mandate," is therefore evidently implications and raises questions that need to be
erroneous. resolved; but the exercise of such discretion presupposes,
at the outset, that the petition is otherwise viable or
8.) G.R. No. 107921 July 1, 1993 meritorious.
POLICE GENERAL LEVY MACASIANO vs nha, hlurb The petitioner is not likewise a "proper party." As a
In this case it explains the requirement of an actual consultant of the DPWH under the "Contract for
controversy as a requirement of judicial review. Consultancy . . .," he is not vested with any authority to
declaratory relief does not fall within the original demolish obstructions and encroachments on properties
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court even if only questions of the public domain, much less on private lands.
of law are involved And the petioner is proper party
is not affected of the law question.. Nor does the petitioner claim that he is an owner of an
urban property whose enjoyment and use would be
Petitioner seeks to have this Court declare as affected by the challenged provisions of R.A. No. 7279.
unconstitutional Sections 28 and 44 of Republic Act No.
7279, otherwise known as the Urban Development and
Housing Act of 1992. He predicates his locust standi on 9.) [G.R. No. 102782. December 11, 1991.] THE
his being a consultant of the Department of Public Works SOLICITOR GENERAL, RODOLFO A. MALAPIRA,
and Highways (DPWH) pursuant to a Contract of STEPHEN A. MONSANTO, DAR. CALDERON, and
Consultancy on Operation for Removal of Obstructions
GRANDY N. TRIESTE, Petitioners, v. THE
and Encroachments on Properties of Public Domain
(executed immediately after his retirement on 2 January METROPOLITAN MANILA AUTHORITY and the
1992 from the Philippine National Police) and his being a MUNICIPALITY OF MANDALUYONG,
taxpayer. As to the first, he alleges that said Sections 28 Respondents.
and 44 "contain the seeds of a ripening controversy that
serve as drawback" to his "tasks and duties regarding In relation section 5 (2a) ART. VIII (Section 5. The
demolition of illegal structures"; because of the said Supreme Court shall have the following powers: (2)
sections, he "is unable to continue the demolition of Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or
illegal structures which he assiduously and faithfully certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide,
carried out in the past."1 As a taxpayer, he alleges that final judgments and orders of lower courts in: (a) All
"he has a direct interest in seeing to it that public funds
cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any
are properly and lawfully disbursed."2
Republic Act No. 7279 was approved on 24 March 1992 treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
and published in the 4 May 1992 issue of the Official presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
Gazette.3 ordinance, or regulation is in question.) to the case the
Supreme Court has the power to review ordinances and
In reality, his petition is one for declaratory relief as he instruction. As decided in the case the Supreme Court
prays therein that, "his rights as well as those of private
declaring Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1991, of the
landowners be clearly defined and his duties under the
Constitution and the pertinent laws be dearly stated with Metropolitan Manila Authority and Ordinance No. 7,
respect to the demolition of illegal structures on public Series of 1988, of the Municipality of Mandaluyong, NULL
and private lands." 12 Even so, it is still not viable since and VOID; and
 11.) [G.R. No. 106531. November 18, 1999.]
(2) enjoining all law-enforcement authorities in
FERNANDO GARCIA, JUANITO GARCIA, and
Metropolitan Manila from removing the license plates of WENCESLAO TORRES, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE
motor vehicles (except when authorized under LOI 43) OF THE PHILIPPINES, and HON. RICARDO P.
and confiscating driver’s licenses for traffic violations GALVEZ, in his official capacity as the
Presiding Judge of Branch 29, Regional Trial
within the said area.
Court of Iloilo, Respondents.

NATIONAL LAWS PREVAILS OVER LOCAL LAWS In relation to section 5 (2d)

At issue is whether the Supreme Court must automatically

review a trial court’s decision convicting an accused of a
10.) [G.R. No. 129742. September 16, 1998] capital offense and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. In
TERESITA G. FABIAN petitioner, vs. HON. ANIANO other words, is the accused not required to interpose an
appeal from a trial court’s decision sentencing him
A. DESIERTO, in his capacity as ombudsman; to reclusion perpetua to the Supreme Court because the
HON. JESUS F. GUERRERO, in his capacity as latter’s review of the sentence is automatic?
Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon; and NESTOR V.
The issue is not new. We have consistently ruled that it is
AGUSTIN respondents.
only in cases where the penalty actually imposed is death
that the trial court must forward the records of the case to
In relation to Section (5) (5) (Section 5. The Supreme the Supreme Court for automatic review of the conviction.
Court shall have the following powers (5) Promulgate
rules concerning the protection and enforcement of Powers of the SC
1. SC has ORIGINAL jurisdiction over
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in a. Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the consuls.
Note: This refers to foreign ambassadors, etc., stationed in the
integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under- Philippines.
privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and b. Petitions for certiorari, prohibiton, mandamus, quo warranto,
and habeas corpus.
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of 2. SC has APPELLATE jurisdiction over final judgments and
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, orders in the following:
a. All cases involving the constitutionality or validity of any
and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive 1. treaty
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi- 2. international or executive agreement
3. law
judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved 4. presidential decree
by the Supreme Court. ) to the case the court laid down 5. proclamation
6. order
In determining whether a rule prescribed by the Supreme 7. instruction
Court, for the practice and procedure of the lower courts, 8. ordinance, or
9. regulation;
abridges, enlarges, or modifies any substantive right, the
test is whether the rule really regulates procedure, that b. All cases involving the legality of any
1. tax
is, the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties
2. impost
recognized by substantive law and for justly 3. assessment or
administering remedy and redress for a disregard or 4. toll or
5. any penalty imposed in relation thereto;
infraction of them.[31] If the rule takes away a vested
right, it is not procedural. If the rule creates a right such c. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue
d. Criminal cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion
as the right to appeal, it may be classified as a perpetua or higher; and
substantive matter; but if it operates as a means o e. All cases where ONLY errors or questions of law are involved.
3. Temporarily assign lower court judges to other stations in the
implementing an existing right then the rule deals merely public interest.
with procedure. Note: Temporary assignment shall not exceed 6 months without
the consent of the judge concerned.
4. Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a
miscarriage of justice.
5. Promulgate rules concerning:
a. The protection and enforcement of constitutional rights;
b. Pleading, practice and procedure in all courts;
c. Admission to the practice of law;
d. The Integrated Bar; and
e. Legal assistance to the underprivileged.
Limitations on Rule Making Power
a. It should provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for
the speedy disposition of cases.
b. It should be uniform for all courts of the same grade.
c. It should not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.
6. Appoint ALL officials and employees of the Judiciary, in
accordance with Civil Service Law.
7. Exercise administrative supervision over ALL courts and the
personnel thereof.
Decisions of the Supreme Court:
1. Reached in consultation before being assigned to a member
for the writing of the opinion.
2. A certification to this effect must be signed by the Chief
Justice and attached to the record of the case and served upon
the parties.
3. Members of the SC who took no part, or who dissented or
abstained must state the reasons therefore.
Note: This procedure shall also be observed by all lower
collegiate courts (CA, CTA, and the Sandiganbayan).
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Definition
1. Judicial Review is the power of the SC to declare a law,
treaty, ordinance etc. unconstitutional.
2. Lower courts may also exercise the power of judicial review,
subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the SC.
3. Only SC decisions are precedent, and thus, only SC decisions
are binding on all.
Requisites Code: [A R S Co R]
1. An ACTUAL CASE calling for the exercise of judicial power
2. The question involved must be RIPE FOR ADJUDICATION,
i.e. the government act must have had an adverse effect on the
person challenging it.
3. The person challenging the governmental act must have
„STANDING‟, i.e. a personal and substantial interest in the case
such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a
result of its enforcement.
4. The question of Constitutionality must be raised in the first
instance, or at the earliest opportunity.
5. Resolution of the issue of constitutionality is unavoidable or is
the very lis mota.
Effect of a declaration of unconstitutionality:
1. Prior to the declaration that a particular law is unconstitutional,
it is considered as an „operative fact‟ which at that time had to
be complied with.
2. Thus, vested rights may have been acquired under such law
before it was declared unconstitutional.
3. These rights are not prejudiced by the subsequent declaration that
the law is unconstitutional.