GOBENCIONG VS.

COURT OF APPEALS 550 SCRA 502 (2008)

NERI VS. SENATE COMMITTEE 564 SCRA 52 (2008)

-Petitioner appeared before respondent Committees and testified for about 11 hours on matters concerning NBN Project. -when probed further on PGMA and petitioners discussions relating to the NBN Project, petitioner refused to answer invoking executive privilege -Respondent committees persisted in knowing petitioners answers to these 3 questions by requiring him to appear and testify once more. -Petitioner did not appear upon the orders of the President invoking executive privilege. -He manifested his willingness to appear and testify should there be new matters to be taken up. -Respondent Committees found the petitioners explanation unsatisfactory. -They issued the Order citing the petitioner in contempt of respondent Committees and ordering his arrest and detention at the Office of the Senate Sergeant-atArms until such time that he would appear and give his testimony.

TANADA VS. ANGARA 272 SCRA 18 (1997)

-same facts-

If it refers to wisdom or propriety, that is still a political question

LALICAN VS. VERGARA July 31, 1997

-Petitioners without lawful authority or permit in possessing 1,800 board feet of assorted species and dimensions of lumber on board 2 passenger jeeps. -Petitioner contends that Sec. 68 of P.D. No. 705 refers to timber and other forest

-matter of constitutionality shall be considered if it is the lis mota of the case and raised and argued at the earliest opportunity. -the earliest opportunity to raise a constitutional issue is to raise it in the pleadings before a competent court, it cannot be considered at the trial, and if not considered in the trial, it cannot be considered on appeal. -This means before the Office of the Ombudsman, or at least before the C.A., it was raised here for the first time. -There was a grave abuse of discretion. The Courts exercise of its power of judicial review is warranted because there appears to be clear abuse of the power of contempt on the part of respondent Committees. -According to the rules, the Committee by a vote of majority of all its members, may punish for contempt any witness answer proper questions by the Committee or any of its members. -During the deliberation of the 3 respondent Committees, only 7 senators were present. -Obviously the deliberation of the respondent Committees that led to the issuance of the contempt order is flawed. The contempt order was not a faithful representation of the proceedings that took place on said date. Records clearly show that not all of those who signed the contempt order were present during the deliberation when the matter was taken up. -In seeking to nullify the act of the Philippine Senate on the ground that it contravenes the Constitution, the petition no doubt raises a justiciable controversy. -The question thus posed is judicial rather than political. The duty to adjudicate remains to assure that the supremacy of the Constitution is upheld. -The jurisdiction of this Court to adjudicate the matters raised in the petition is clearly set out in the 1987 Constitution under Sec. 1 Art. VIII. The provision emphasizes the judicial departments duty and power to strike down grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government including Congress. -Certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are appropriate remedies to raise constitutional issues and to review and/or prohibit/nullify, when proper, acts of legislative and executive officials. On this we have no equivocation. -Court will not review the wisdom of the decision of the President and the Senate in enlisting the country into the WTO, or pass upon the merits of trade liberalization as a policy espoused by said international body. -it will only exercise its constitutional duty to determine whether or not there had been grave abused of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Senate in ratifying the WTO Agreement and its 3 annexes. -the term lumber defined, inter alia, as timber or logs after being prepared for the market. Simply put, lumber is a processed log or timber. -it is settled that in the absence of legislative intent to the contrary, words and phrases used in a statute should be given their plain, ordinary and common usage

products and not to the lumber and asserting the timber becomes lumber only after it is sawed into beams, planks or boards, petitioner alleged that said decree does not apply to lumber

TELEBAP VS. COMELEC 289 SCRA 337 (1998)

-Petitioner Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines Inc. is an organization of lawyers of radio and television broadcasting companies. -They are suing as citizens, taxpayers, and registered voters. -GMA was affected by the enforcement of 92 of B.P. Blg. 881 requiring radio and television broadcast companies to provide free airtime to the COMELEC for the use of candidates for campaign and other political purposes. -GMA claims that it suffered losses running to several million of pesos in providing COMELEC Time in connection with the 1992 presidential election and the 1995 senatorial election and that it stands to suffer even more should it be required to do so again this year -it will suffer losses again because it is required to provide free airtime is sufficient to give it standing to question the validity of 92. -Petitioners challenge the validity of 92 of BP Blg. 881 on the ground that: 1. it takes property w/o due process of law and without just compensation 2. it denies radio and television broadcast companies the equal protection of the laws 3. it is in excess of the power given to the COMELEC to supervise/ regulate the operation of media of communication or information during period of election

meaning. -Section 68 of PD No. 705 makes no distinction between raw or processed timber -even if all requisites for judicial review of a constitutional matter are present in a case, this Court will not pass upon constitutional question unless it is the lis mota of the case or if the case can be disposed of on some other grounds, such as the application of the statute or general law. -if there is another way of avoiding the ruling on the constitutional question, the courts will not rule on the constitutional question. -Partys standing is determined by the substantive merit of his case or preliminary estimate thereof, petitioner TELEBAP must be held to be without standing. -a citizen will be allowed to raise a constitutional question only when he can show that he has personally suffered some actual/ threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government; the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action and the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action. -members of petitioner have not shown that they have suffered harm as a result of the operation of 92 BP Blg. 881. -nor do members of the petitioner have an interest as registered voters since this case does not (voters suit) concern their right of suffrage. -Much less do they have an interest as taxpayers since this case does not (tax payers suit) involve the exercise by Congress of its taking or spending power. -party suing as a taxpayer must specifically show that he has a sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation and that he will sustain in a direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the questioned statute. -nor indeed as corporate entity does TELEBAP have standing to assert the rights of radio and television broadcasting companies. -Standing jus tertii will be recognized only if it can be shown that the party suing has some substantial relation to the third party, or that the third party cannot assert his constitutional right, or that the right of the third party will be diluted unless the party in court is allowed to espouse the third partys constitutional claim. -The mere fact that TELEBAP is composed of lawyers in the broadcast industry does not entitle them to bring this suit in their name as representatives of the affected companies.

GUINGONA VS. C.A.