Governor L-Ray Villafuerte, then governor of the province of Camarines Sur, filed a petition for

certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 against the then Secretary of Interior and Local
Government, Sec. Jesse Robredo, to enjoin the implementation of the following circulars:
(a) Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 2010-83 dated August 31, 2010, pertaining to the full disclosure

Political ofLaw:
Autonomy
Does
Notofferings;
Make Local
local budget
and finances, and bids
and public
(b) MCSovereign
No. 2010-138 dated
December
2010, pertaining to the use of the 20% component of the
Government
Within
A2,State...
annual internal revenue allotment shares; and
(c) MC No. 2011-08 dated January 13, 2011, pertaining to the strict adherence to Section 90 of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10147 or the General Appropriations Act of 2011.
They argue that the enactment of the circulars violate the principles of local autonomy and fiscal
autonomy enshrined under the Constitution and the Local Government Code. On the other hand,
the respondent posits that the petition is not ripe for judicial determination hence not proper for
judicial review.
The Supreme Court:
The present petition is ripe for
judicial review.
At the outset, the respondent is questioning the propriety of the exercise of the Courts power of
judicial review over the instant case. He argues that the petition is premature since there is yet any
actual controversy that is ripe for judicial determination. He points out the lack of allegation in the
petition that the assailed issuances had been fully implemented and that the petitioners had
already exhausted administrative remedies under Section 25 of the Revised Administrative Code
before filing the same in court.[1]
It is well-settled that the Courts exercise of the power of judicial review requires the concurrence
of the following elements: (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.[2]
The respondent claims that there is yet any actual case or controversy that calls for the exercise of
judicial review. He contends that the mere expectation of an administrative sanction does not give
rise to a justiciable controversy especially, in this case, that the petitioners have yet to exhaust
administrative remedies available.[3]
The Court disagrees.
In La Bugal-Blaan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Ramos[4],the Court characterized an actual case or
controversy, viz:
An actual case or controversy means an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for
determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, lest the decision of the court would amount to an
advisory opinion. The power does not extend to hypothetical questions since any attempt at
abstraction could only lead to dialectics and barren legal questions and to sterile conclusions
unrelated to actualities.[5] (Citations omitted)
The existence of an actual controversy in the instant case cannot be overemphasized. At the time
of filing of the instant petition, the respondent had already implemented the assailed memorandum
circulars. In fact, on May 26, 2011, Villafuerte received Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) No.
2011-009 dated May 10, 2011[6]from the Office of the Provincial Auditor of Camarines Sur, requiring