Board of Optometry vs Colet

title:
BOARD OF OPTOMETRY, represented by its Chairman, DR. PRIMITIVA Y. PEREZ-SISON, P
ROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION, represented by its Commissioner, HERMOGENES P
. POBRE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, represented by its Secretary, DR. HILARION M. RAM
IRO, BUREAU OF FOODS AND DRUGS, represented by its Director, DR. QUINTIN L. KINT
ANAR, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, represented by its Secretary, SALVADO
R M. ENRIQUEZ, JR., and BUREAU OF HIGHER EDUCATION, represented by its Director,
MONA D. VALISNO, petitioners, vs. HON. ANGEL B. COLET, Presiding Judge, Regiona
l Trial Court of Manila, Branch 29, ACEBEDO OPTICAL COMPANY, INC., represented b
y its President and Chairman of the Board, MIGUEL P. ACEBEDO, OPTOMETRY PRACTITI
ONERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (OPAP), represented by its President, DR. M
IRIAM F. LLAVE, CENEVIS OPTOMETRIST ASSOCIATION (COA), represented by its Presid
ent, DR. ROBERTO RODIS, JR., ASSOCIATION OF CHRISTIAN-MUSLIM OPTOMETRIST (ACMO),
represented by its President, DR. CYRIL CORALES, SOUTHERN MINDANAO OPTOMETRIST
ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILS., INC. (SMOAP), represented by its President, DR. ELMER
VILLAROSA, and REPUBLICA A. PANOL, No. 9 Gen. Malvar St., Araneta Center, Cubao
, Quezon City, respondents.
facts:
On 31 July 1995, private respondents (on alleged associations), filed a petition
before the RTC Manila, for a TRO against the implimentation of RA 8050 on the f
f grounds:
1. There were surreptitious and unauthorized instertion of provisions without th
e knowledge of senate panel.
2. It violates teh rights of Filipino against right mentioned in Art 3,sec 1,as
it permits the use of diagnostic pharmaceutical agents thereby exposing and subj
ecting patients with definite hazards which would impair vision, resultant blind
or possible loss of life.
3. It violated the principle against undue delegation of legislative power when
it provides for a penalty of imprisonment for a maximum of eight years and a fin
e not exceeding P40,000.00 upon any person found violating any rule or regulatio
n promulgated pursuant to said law;
4. R.A. No. 8050 suppresses truthful advertising concerning optical goods and se
rvices in violation of the guaranty of freedom of speech and press; and
5. R.A. No. 8050 employs vague ambiguous terms in defining prohibitions and rest
rictions, hence, it falls within the ambit of void-for-vagueness doctrine which
safeguards the guaranty of due process of law.
RTC judge issued an order granting the writ of preliminary injunction forbiddin
g petitioner from performing or undertaking any act in implementation or enforce
ment of RA8050, until further orders in the court.
Issues:
WON the private respondents have locus standi to question the constitutionality
of RA 8050.
WOn the respondent judge erred in ordering the writ of injunction for the implem
entation of RA 8050.
Held:
There is serious doubt as to the existence of private respondents OPAP, COA, ACM
O, and SMOAP.

In the civil case, it makes no mention of these associations nor states their ad
dresses
The ff associations do not support their application to writ of injunction becau
se there were:
-no fact showing the capacity of a party to sue or the legal existence of an org
anized association.
-no sworn statements of the alleged presidents representing the associations.
-the private respondents chose to remain silent on the issue of the juridical pe
rsonality of their associations.
locus standi (legal standing)- (Real party of interest) is a party who stands to
be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to t
he avails of the suit
In the case at bench, since OPAP, COA, ACMO, and SMOAP were not shown to be juri
dical entities, they cannot, for obvious reasons, be deemed real parties in inte
rest.
Requisites for Judicial Review/declaratory relief:
1) there must be an actual case or controversy (ripe for determination) involvin
g a conflict of rights susceptible of judicial determination - no actual controv
ersy on this case yet.Private respondents have no locus standi.
2) the constitutional question must be raised by a proper party
3) the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportunity
4) the resolution of the constitutional question must be necessary to the resolu
tion of the case.
Respondent judge should not have ordered the writ. as Judge Cruz in Drilon vs Li
m said:
every court, including this Court, is charged with the duty of a purposeful hesi
tation before declaring a law unconstitutional, on the theory that the measure w
as first carefully studied by the executive and legislative departments and dete
rmined by them to be in accordance with the fundamental law before it was finall
y approved. To doubt is to sustain. The presumption of constitutionality can be
overcome only by the clearest showing that there was indeed an infraction of the
Constitution, and only when such a conclusion is reached by the required majori
ty may the Court pronounce, in the discharge of the duty it cannot escape, that
the challenged act be struck down.