271059/271347/E-02472/E-04036  Concurring and Dissenting Opinion: Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez — Official PDF

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion 5 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472 & E-04036 considering that it has been alleged that another branch of government went outside the limits of the Constitution and the laws,23 and that the issues raised involve matters of first impression,24 the interest of justice dictates that this Court take an exception from the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts and take cognizance of the petitions. The foregoing notwithstanding, it is settled that this Court's power of judicial review may be exercised only when the following elements are present: (!) an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (2) the person challenging the act must have "standing" to challenge; [he/she] must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of this enforcement; (3) the question on constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity: and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.25 (Citation omitted) The existence of the third and fourth elements are not disputed in this case. '!' As to the first element, there is an actual case or controversy if there is a "conflict of legal right, an opposite legal claim susceptible of judicial resolution."26 It must involve issues that are definite and concrete and affect the legal relations of parties with adverse interests.27 It must also be demonstrated that there is grave abuse of discretion in the assailed governmental act in the context of actual, not merely theoretical, facts.28 This requirement goes into the nature of the judiciary as a coequal branch of government. "It is bound by the doctrine of separation of powers and will not rule on any matter or cause the invalidation of any act, law, or regulation, if there is no actual or sufficiently imminent breach of or injury to a right."29 Corollary ,to the requirement .of an actual case or controversy is the requirement of ripeness. A case is ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it. 30 It is required that something has been accomplished or performed by either 23 The Province of North Cotabato v. The G"vernment t.if1,he Republic qfthe Philippines Peace Panel on AncestraZ-Domain, 589 Ph1i. 387,488 (2008) fPer l Carpio~l•Aorales, En Banc]. 14 Joint Ship ~Wanning Group, fnc. !'. Social Securit_-,; Syst0m,-.876 Phil. 596,.615 (2020) [Per J. Gesmundo, En Banc]. • 25 Francisco, Jr., ei aL v. The House of Representatives, ei al., 460 PhiL 830, 892 (2003) [Per J. Carpio- Morales, En Banc]. . 26 David v. lvfacapagal-Arro_yo, 522 P!:iL 705, 753 (2006) fPer J. Sandoval~Gutierrez, En Banc]. 27 J. Peralta, Separate Opinion in Falcis !Ii v. Civil Registrar Genera/, 861 Phil. 388,595 (2019) [Per J. Leonen, En Banc]. 28 Association ofMedical Clinics for Overseas Workers, Inc. f AJtfCOW) v. GCC Approved Medical Centers Association, Inc., 802 Phil. 116, 149 (2016) [Per J. Brion, En Banc]. (Citation omitted) 29 Kilusang Nlayo Uno v, Aquino, 85y Phil. l i 68, 1188 (2019) [Per J. ~eon en, En Banc]. . . 30 Lawyers Against Monopoly and Pdverty (LA,\1P,J v. Secretary ofBu4get:and J,,1anagement, 686 Phil. 357, ~ 369 (2012) (Per J. Mendoza, En Hime]. ( i I I