Judicial Review; Actual Case or Controversy ripe for adjudication; (3) the person challenging the act must
he person challenging the act must be a proper
ARAULLO vs. AQUINO III
[G.R. No. 209287. July 1, 2014.] BERSAMIN, J p:
Facts
For resolution are the consolidated petitions assailing the
constitutionality of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP),
National Budget Circular (NBC) No. 541, and related issuances of the
Department of Budget and Management (DBM) implementing the DAP.
Issues
A. Whether or not certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus are proper
remedies to assail the constitutionality and validity of the Disbursement
Acceleration Program (DAP),National Budget Circular (NBC) No. 541,
and all other executive issuances allegedly implementing the DAP.
B.whether there is a controversy ripe for judicial determination
C. Whether petitioners have standing to sue.
RULING
Procedural Issue:
a) Yes. The petitions under Rule 65 are proper remedies
Thus, petitions for certiorari and prohibition are appropriate remedies
to raise constitutional issues and to review and/or prohibit or nullify the
acts of legislative and executive officials.
Necessarily, in discharging its duty under Section 1, supra, to set right
and undo any act of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of the Government, the
Court is not at all precluded from making the inquiry provided the
challenge was properly brought by interested or affected parties. The
Court has been thereby entrusted expressly or by necessary implication
with both the duty and the obligation of determining, in appropriate
cases, the validity of any assailed legislative or executive action. This
entrustment is consistent with the republican system of checks and
balances.
b) Requisites for the exercise of them power of judicial review were
complied with
The requisites for the exercise of the power of judicial review are the
following, namely: (1) there must be an actual case or justiciable
controversy before the Court; (2) the question before the Court must be
party; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest
opportunity and must be the very litis mota of the case.
The first requisite demands that there be an actual case calling for the
exercise of judicial power by the Court.
An actual and justiciable controversy exists in these consolidated cases.
The incompatibility of the perspectives of the parties on the
constitutionality of the DAP and its relevant issuances satisfy the
requirement for a conflict between legal rights. The issues being raised
herein meet the requisite ripeness considering that the challenged
executive acts were already being implemented by the DBM, and there
are averments by the petitioners that such implementation was
repugnant to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Moreover, the
implementation of the DAP entailed the allocation and expenditure of
huge sums of public funds. The fact that public funds have been allocated,
disbursed or utilized by reason or on account of such challenged
executive acts gave rise, therefore, to an actual controversy that is ripe
for adjudication by the Court. EHDCAI
c)Did the petitioners have the legal standing to sue?
Under their respective circumstances, each of the petitioners has
established sufficient interest in the outcome of the controversy as to
confer locus standi on each of them.
In addition, considering that the issues center on the extent of the power
of the Chief Executive to disburse and allocate public funds, whether
appropriated by Congress or not, these cases pose issues that are of
transcendental importance to the entire Nation, the petitioners included.
As such, the determination of such important issues call for the Court's
exercise of its broad and wise discretion "to waive the requirement and
so remove the impediment to its addressing and resolving the serious
constitutional questions raised.