Legal Question in Constitutional Law in Philippines

Re: transcendental importance

This can be illustrated in a situation wherein the constitutionality of a governmental act is being challenged. I tis expected that the first line of defense is to question the standing of petitioners and the justiciability of the case.

It is hornbook doctrine that the exercise of the power of judicial review requires the concurrence of the following requisites, namely: (1) the existence of an appropriate case; (2) an interest personal and substantial by the party raising the constitutional question; (3) the plea that the function be exercised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the necessity that the constitutional question be passed upon in order to decide the case.

While it is a established rule that judicial review cannot be exercised in vacuo. The function of the courts is to determine controversies between litigants and not to give advisory opinions. The power of judicial review can only be exercised in connection with a bona fide case or controversy which involves the statute sought to be reviewed.

Even with the presence of an actual case or controversy, the Court may refuse to exercise judicial review unless the constitutional question is brought before it by a party having the requisite standing to challenge it. Legal standing or locus standi is defined as a �personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged.� For a citizen to have standing, he must establish that he has suffered some actual or 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.

If the strict rule on locus standi will be followed, a petition filed by a party without any legal standing should be forthwith dismissed on that score. But the rule on standing, however, is a matter of procedure, can be relaxed for nontraditional plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers and legislators when the public interest so requires, such as when the matter is of transcendental importance, of overarching significance to society, or of paramount public interest.

Simply stated, the Courts will not hesitate to exercise power of judidicial review when matter in controversy is of transcendental importance, of overarching significance to society, or of paramount public interest.