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

Concurring ru:Jd Dissenting Opinion 6 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472 & E-04036 branch before a court may come into the picture, and the petitioner must allege the existence of an immediate or threatened injury to himself as a result of the challenged action. Petitioner "must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury because of the act complained of.''31 Here, petitioners were able to demonstrate that an actual case or controversy exists and the same is ripe for judicial determination. , This Court has already· ruled, on numerous· occasions,· that mere enactment of the assailed law and issuance of its implementing rules, or approval of the challenged action, are considered sufficient for a case to be justiciable, thus: In Pimentel, Jr. ·v.'Aguirre, this Court fixed the point at which a legal issue matures into an actual case or cm1troversy--at the pre-occurrence of an "overt act": . ,, In the unanimous en b,mc case Tanada v. Angara, this Court held that when an act of the legislative department is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, settling the controversy becomes the duty of this Court. By the mere enactment of the questioned law or the approval of the challenged action, the dispute is said to have ripened into a judicial controversy even without any other uvert act. Indeed, even a singular violation of the Constitution and/or the law is enough lo awaken judicial duty. Said the Court: "In, seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate on the ground that it contravenes the Constitution, the petition no. doubt raises a justiciable controversy. Where an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have •injring~d the Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute . .. The duty (to adjudicate) remains to assure that the supremacy of the Constitution is upheld.' Once a 'conrroversy as lo the application or znterpretation of.a constitutional provision is raised before this Court . .. , it becomes a legal issue which the Court is bound by constirutional mandate to decide.' "As this Com-t has repeatedly and i'irmly emphasized in many cases, it will not shirk, digress from or abandon its sacred duty and .authorit-y to uphold the Constitution in matters that involve grave abuse of discretion brought before it in appropriate cases, committed by· any officer, agency, instrurnent~ity or dep~:rt~e:nt-oft.11.e g<;rye~ent,." In the same vein, the Court also held in Tatad v. Secretary of the Department of Energy: 31 Spouses Jmbong.v. Ochoa, Jr., 'i32 Phil. 1, 124.(2014) [Per J. Mendoza, f;n Banc]. (Citation omitted) ~