G.R. No. 187883

Tags

Top Highlights

• This Court’s power of review may be awesome, but it is limited to actual cases and controversies dealing with parties having adversely legal claims, to be exercised after full opportunity of argument by the parties, and limited further to the constitutional question raised or the very lis mota presented.4

• It is well settled that it is the duty of the judiciary to say what the law is

• ts judicial power to settle "actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.

• concerned citizens and taxpayers

• prayed for the nullification of House Resolution No. 1109 entitled "A Resolution Calling upon the Members of Congress to Convene for the Purpose of Considering Proposals to Amend or Revise the Constitution, Upon a Three-fourths Vote of All the Members of Congress."

• both petitions seek to trigger a justiciable controversy that would warrant a definitive interpretation by this Court of Section 1, Article XVII, which provides for the procedure for amending or revising the Constitution.

• Court cannot indulge petitioners’ supplications.

• "case-or-controversy"

• "abstract, hypothetical or contingent questions,"5

• lest the court give opinions in the nature of advice concerning legislative or executive action.

• courts accord the presumption of constitutionality to legislative enactments, not only because the legislature is presumed to abide by the Constitution but also because the judiciary in the determination of actual cases and controversies must reflect the wisdom and justice of the people as expressed through their representatives in the executive and legislative departments of the government.

• twofold aspect of ripeness:

• requirement is the requisite of "ripeness."

• first,

• the fitness of the issues for judicial decision

• second

• the hardship to the parties entailed by withholding court consideration

• the issue of ripeness is generally treated in terms of actual injury to the plaintiff. Hence, a question is ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it

• In the present case, the fitness of petitioners’ case for the exercise of judicial review is grossly lacking.

• have not sufficiently proven any adverse injury or hardship from the act complained of