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

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion 7 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472 & E-04036 " ... Judicial power includes not only the duty of the courts to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable ai1d enforceable, but also the duty to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government. The courts, as guardians of the Constitution, have the inherent authority to determine whether a statute enacted by the legislature transcends the limit imposed by the fundamental law. Where the statute violates the Constitution, it is not only the right but the duty of the judiciary to declare such act unconstitutional and void." Thus, in Province of North Cotahato v. Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, this Court stated: "[t]hat the law or act in question is not yet effective does not negate ripeness." Subsequently, this Court, m Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc., stated: The Court is not unaware that a reasonable certainty of the occurrence of a perceived threat to any constitutional interest suffices to provide a basis for mounting a constitutional challenge. This, however, is qualified by the requirement that there must be sufficient facts to enable the Court to intelligently adjudicate the issues. This Court's liberality in scrutinizing a petition for an actual case or controversy was more recently illustrated in Belgica and Spouses Imbong v. Ochoa. In Belgica, this Court found that there was an actual case or controversy: The requirement of contrariety of legal rights is clearly satisfied by the antagonistic positions of the parties on the constitutionality of the "Pork Barrel System." Also, the qucst).ons in these consolidated •cases are ripe for adjudication ·since the challenged fu.'1ds and the provisions al!o,v:ing for their utilization-such as the 2013 Gi\A for the PDAF, PD 91-0 for the Malampaya Funds and PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, for the Presidential Social Fund-are currently existing and operational; hence, there exists an immediate or threatened injury to petitioners as a result of the unconstitutionai use of these public f:;mds. Belgica was foliowed by Araullo v. Aquino lll, where this Court stated: An actual aud justkiahle controversy exists in these consolidated cases. The incompatibility of tl1e 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 tlie requisite ripeness considering that the challenged executive acts were already being implemented by the DBM, ac'1d there are avernients by the Auetitioners that• such implementation• • was repugnant to the letter and