C.

CONDITIONS FOR THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

ARAULLO VS AQUINO iii 728 SCRA 1 (2014), 749 SCRA 283 (2015)

PONENTE: BERSAMIN, J. DIVISION: EN BANC

FACTS: - Petitions were raised against Aquino in the question of the constitutionality of the acts and
practices under the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), particularly with Art. 6, Sec,
25(5) of the Constitution and the principles of separation of powers and equal protection.

- Alleged grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Executive in the implementation of the
DAP.
- Respondents say that the Executive has not violated because savings as a concept is an
ordinary species of interpretation that calls for legislative, instead of judicial determination.

ISSUE: W/N the DAP realignments/transfers are constitutional.

RULING: No, it is unconstitutional for violation of Sec25 (5), Art6 of the 1987 Constitution and the
doctrine of separation of powers. Realignment of funds is allowed only if they are made within their
respective offices. Thus, no cross-border transfers/augmentations may be allowed.

*The matter is entirely in the Court’s competence, and its determination does not pertain to the
exclusion of the courts. Interpretation of and its definition is a judicial function. That is because the
power of judicial review vested in the court is exclusive.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KALIPUNAN VS ROBREDO 730 SCRA 322

PONENTE: BRION, J. DIVISION: EN BANC

FACTS: - Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap contends the unconstitutionality of the demolition

without any court order.

- Respondents gravely abused their discretion in implementing Sec28 (a) and (b) of RA 7292
which are patently unconstitutional and offends their right to due process because of Sec6,
Art3 of the1987 Constitution expressly prohibits the impairment of liberty of abode unless
there is a court order.

ISSUES: W/N Sec28 (a) and (b) of RA 7292 re violative of Sects 1 and 6 of the 1987 Constitution.

RULING: No, the resolution of the constitutionality of Sec28 (a) and (b) of RA 7279 is not the lis
mota (the cause or suit of action) of the case. It is a rule firmly entrenched in the Court’s
jurisprudence that the courts will not determine the constitutionality of the law unless the requisites
of said law are present. This means that the petitioner who claims the unconstitutionality of a law has
the burden of showing first that the case cannot be resolved unless the disposition of the
constitutional question that he raised is unavoidable.

Case was dismissed due to procedural defects.

*Thus to justify the nullification of a law, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the
Constitution, and not one that is doubtful, speculative, or argumentative.