Legal Technique and Logic Reviewer

LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

F.

VALIDITY AND TRUTH  Validity o Relation between propositions o Does not apply to single propositions o When argument is valid, and its premises are true, it is SOUND.  Truth and Falsity o Attributes of individual propositions o Single statement that serves as a premise might be true but the statement that serves the conclusion might be false o Does not apply to arguments because an argument may be valid even if one or two of its premises is not true.

G.

REASONING  Retrograde analysis is the reasoning that seeks to explain how thins must have developed from what went before.  In a certain flight crew, the positions of pilot, copilot, and flight engineer are held by three persons, Allen, Brown and Carr, though not necessarily in that order.

BASIC LEGAL CONCEPTS A.

LOGIC  The study of methods and principles used to DISTINGUISH CORRECT from INCORRECT reasoning.  Sorting GOOD ARGUMENTS from BAD ARGUMENTS

B.

PROPOSITIONS  Building block of arguments  Can be ASSERTED or DENIED  Can be TRUE or FALSE (do not apply to questions, commands, or exclamations)

C.

D.

E.

ANALYZING ARGUMENTS  Two Common Techniques: o Paraphrasing  Archimedes will be remembered when Aeschylus is forgotten, because language die and mathematical ideas do not. Languages die. The great plays of Aeschylus are in a language. So the work of Aeschylus will eventually dies. o Diagram RECOGNIZING ARGUMENTS  Conclusion and Premise Indicators o Conclusion Indicators o Premise Indicators  Arguments in Context  Premises not in Declarative form o Rhetorical Question - interrogative even though its meaning is declarative o Imperative/Command  Unstated Proposition o Enthymes are propositions that are left unstated but it would be understood.  Arguments vs. Explanation o In determining difference, deciding factor is the INTENTION of the author. CLASSES OF ARGUMENTS  Deductive o Conclusion is supported by premises conclusive.  Are either VALID or INVALID - no additional premises could possibly add to the strength of that argument  “If all humans are mortal, and if Socrates is human, then Socrates is mortal” o Techniques used: Modern Symbolic Logic & Classical Logic  Inductive o Premises provide some support for its conclusion.  The higher the LEVEL OF PROBABILITY, the greater the merit of the argument.  But even when the premises are all true and provide very strong support for the conclusion, the CONCLUSION IS NEVER CERTAIN. o Always possible that additional information will strengthen or weaken it.  Most corporation lawyers are conservatives. Angela Reyes is a corporation lawyer. Therefore Angela Reyes is probably a conservative. Suppose that Angela Reyes is an office of the ACLU. We can also add that Most officers of the ACLU are not conservatives. This additional information weakened the original inductive argument.

Atty. Christopher Lao 2016-2017 1

The Copilot, who is an only child, earns the least. Carr, who married Brown’s sister, earns more than the pilot What position does each of the three persons hold? Answer: Carr – flight engineer, earns more than pilot, co-pilot earns the least. Brown – pilot, Carr is flight engineer, co-pilot is only child Brown has sister Allen – co-pilot  (1) (2) (3) (4)

Alonzo, Kurt, Rudolf and Willard are four creative artists of great talent. One is a dancer, one is a painter, one is a singer, and one is a writer, though not in necessarily in that order.

Alonzo and Rudolf were in the audience the night the singer made his debut on the concert stage. Both Kurt and the writer have had their portraits painted from life by the painter. The writer, whose bibliography of Willard was a best-seller, is planning to write a biography of Alonzo. Alonzo has never heard of Rudolf. What is each man’s artistic field? Alonzo – dancer Kurt – singer Rudolf – writer Willard – painter

FALLACIES A.

GENERAL CLASSIFICATION  Formal Fallacy: a pattern of mistake that appears in deductive arguments of a certain specifiable form  Informal Fallacy: more common, mistakes made in the everyday uses of language arising from confusions concerning the content of the language used

B.

CLASSIFICATION OF FALLACIES  FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE are the most commonly encountered in everyday language wherein the premises of the argument are simply irrelevant to the conclusion. Premises may be psychologically relevant in that they invoke attitudes that may cause acceptance of the conclusion.

o

o

o

o

o

o o



Argument Ad Hominem - A fallacious attack not against a conclusion, but AGAINST A PERSON WHO ASSERTS OR DEFENDS IT.  Abusive - AGAINST THE CHARACTER of the opponent, denying their intelligence or reasonableness, questioning their integrity. Variations: genetic fallacy, unfair accusation, guilt by association  Circumstantial - CIRCUMSTANCES OF ONE WHO MAKES OR REJECTS SOME CLAIM have no bearing on the truth of that claim. Circumstances: his employment, nationality, political affiliation. “Tu quoque”. Appeal to the Populace (argument ad populum) -The passions of the speaker are used to convince listeners that some beliefs are true, as the speaker plays with the emotions of the listeners.  Example: Commercial Advertising, Political Nature of Speeches Appeal to Pity (ad misericordiam) - Premises of an argument boil down to no more than an appeal to feelings as premises. The emotions appealed to are that of generosity and mercy.  Example: The story of a youth who killed his parents and when confronted with overwhelming proof of guilt, his attorney pleads for leniency on the grounds that he is now an orphan. Red Herring (topic not related) - Attention is drawn to some observation or claim that may be associated with the TOPIC BUT IS NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT  Example 1: Economic inequality tempered with the argument that most members of the community are well off, which does not disprove the argument of the huge gap between the social classes.  Example 2: The original topic is legislation to compel corporations to protect the pensions of their employees, but a senator deflects the discussion on the topic of providing advice to retired persons for the investment of their pensions.  Example 3: In a rape case, when a publication supporting the prosecutor diverted the topic to poverty. Straw Man (absolute view) - Position of the opponent is depicted as being more extreme or unreasonable than what was asserted. A strategy used against another which SUPPOSES THAT THE POSITION UNDER ATTACK IS TAKING THE ABSOLUTE VIEW (always wrong, always justified)  Example: Attacks on RH bill presupposing that it supports killing of all unborn children. The Appeal to Force (argument ad baculum) - Use or THREAT OF “STRONG-ARM” METHODS TO COERCE OPPONENTS as a last resort when evidence or rational methods fail. Total abandonment of reason Irrelevant Conclusion (ignoratio elenchi, non sequitur) - Committed when an argument purporting to establish a particular conclusion is instead directed to proving a different conclusion. Premises “MISS THE POINT” – “Non Sequitur”  Example 1: Arguments in social legislation. A program, designed to achieve a national objective, is supported by premises that provide reasons to share the larger end, but tells nothing relevant about the program  Example 2: Tax reforms defended by an emphasis on the need to reduce budget deficits-- when the real issue is the fairness of yield of the specific tax measure proposed

FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION exhibit a special kind of mistake: the tacit supposition of what has not been given support and may even be insupportable. o Complex Question (rhetorical question) - Asking a question in such a way as to presuppose the truth of some conclusion buried in that question  Likely to be a RHETORICAL QUESTION, no answer being genuinely sought o False Clause (post hoc ergo propter hoc, “after the thing, therefore because of the thing”) - Presuming the reality of a causal connection that does not really exist is a

Atty. Christopher Lao 2016-2017 2

o o

●

common mistake  Example 1: Unusual weather conditions are blamed on some unrelated celestial phenomenon that happened to precede them.  Example 2: Infection really caused by a virus is thought to be caused by a chill wind or wet feet  Death penalty in the United States has given us the highest crime rate and greatest number of prisoners per 100,000 population in the industrialized world. (from New York Times). Begging the Question (petitio principia) - Assume the truth of what one seeks to prove, in the effort to prove it. Technically valid - but always worthless Accident and Converse Accident - Accidents which arise as a result of the careless, or deliberately deceptive, use of generalizations.  Fallacy of accident: presume the applicability of a GENERALIZATION TO INDIVIDUAL CASES that it does not properly govern. “from generalization”  Fallacy of converse accident: presume that what is TRUE OF A PARTICULAR CASE IS TRUE OF THE GREAT RUN OF CASES. “to generalization”

FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY meaning of words or phrases may shift as a result of inattention, or may be deliberately manipulated within the course of an argument. o Equivocation (confuse meaning) - Confuse the several meanings of a word or phraseaccidentally or deliberately in an argument. o Amphiboly (grammatical construction) -Formulations are ambiguous because of their grammatical construction. A word’s meaning is indeterminate because of the loose or awkward way in which its words are combined. o Accent (emphasis) - Premise relies for its apparent meaning on one possible emphasis, but a conclusion is drawn from it that relies on the meaning of the same words accented differently. o Composition (attribute of part to whole) - Applied to both of two closely related types of invalid argument:  Reasoning fallaciously from the attributes of the parts of a whole to the attributes of the whole itself  Reasoning fallaciously from the attributes of the individual elements or members of a collection to attributes of the collection or totality of those elements. o Division (attribute of whole to parts) - Arguing fallaciously that what is true of a whole must also be true of its parts. Arguing from the attributes of a collection of elements to the attributes of the elements themselves  Example 1: A certain corporation is important; Mr. Doe is an official of that corporation. Therefore, Mr. Doe is important.  Example: A student must have a large room because it is located in a large dormitory

CASE LAW AND PRECEDENT A.

COURT DECISIONS  These decisions are “law” by their own right o SC decisions: Binding as precedent because of doctrine of stare decisis. They should be “definitive and authoritative, binding on those occupying the lower ranks in the judicial hierarchy.” GENERAL RULE: All lower courts are bound by SC decisions EXCEPT: if case cannot be “decided” if decision subject to MFR. o Stare decisis: Lower courts should adhere to doctrinal rules established by the SC in its final decisions. SC explained: (1) the decisions of higher courts bind lower courts (2) Courts of coordinate authority do not bind each other (3) One highest court does not

 B.

C.

bind itself. Becomes part of law as of the date that the law was originally passed

STARE DECISES – “Doctrine of Precedent” (Stare Decises et non quieta movare)  Judge-made law: Like cases should be decided alike  Works as a bar only against issues litigated in a previous case which are non-procedural (substantial)  Enjoys adherence by the lower courts to doctrinal rules established by the Supreme Court o Once a question of law has been examined, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument  Encourages private settlement of disputes because it discourages individuals from forum and judge shopping.  Stare decisis is not an inexorable command but a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision o Abandoning stare decisis must be based on STRONG and COMPELLING reasons o The court may be guided but it is not controlled by precedent  Bowers v. Hardwick – Only SC can overturn SC decision. Ruling overturned by Lawrence v. Texas.  Gerona v. Secretary of Education - Court sanctioned the expulsion of the students. In 1993, the Court, in Ebralinag v. Division of Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, took the opposite position. SC overturned SC decision.  Maliksi v. Comelec - Sometimes, a doctrine may be abandoned because Congress amended the pertinent law that was the basis of a SC decision. A doctrine, if found contrary to law, must be abandoned because “the principle of stare decisis does not and should not apply when there is conflict between the precedent and the law.”  De Mesa v. Pepsi Cola Products Philippines – “Number Fever”. Despite the difference in the parties involved, the legal rights & relations of the parties, facts, applicable laws, causes of action, issues, and evidence are the same, that’s why the SC dismissed the third complaint on the basis of the previous dismissal of the first two. The SC was bound by finality of judgements.  Villena v. Spouses Chavez - A conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different. SC held this case was similar to a case previously settled by the CA. Thus, the SC ruled the proper action was not unlawful detainer but rescission of contract or specific performance. The earlier ruling should apply by way of stare decisis.  Olaguer v. Military Commission No. 34 - Olaguer asked the SC to revisit the issue of whether military commissions or tribunals had jurisdiction to try civilians for offenses allegedly committed during martial law when civil courts were functioning. SC overturned Aquino Jr. v. Military Commission No. 2 and six other decisions and ruled that the creation of Military Commission No. 34 to try civilians was unconstitutional. All its proceedings were deemed null and void. Precedent is not upheld just because the SC has already ruled on the issue. Precedence can’t prevail when constitutionalism & public interest demand it. RES JUDICATA  REQUISITES o The former judgment or order must be final o the judgment of order must be on the merits o It must have been rendered by the court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties o There must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, of subject matter, and cause of action. 1. Identity of parties – Representing same interests in both parties 2. Identity of rights – Belief being founded on the same facts 3. Identity in two particulars – Any judgment which may be rendered in another will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in consideration  “A matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment”.

Atty. Christopher Lao 2016-2017 3





o Applies only to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, not administrative. o Interlocutory order does not result to res judicata Rests on the principle that parties should not be permitted to litigate the same issue more than once; that when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, so long as it remains unreversed, it should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in law or estate o There should be an end to litigation by the same parties over a subject once fully and fairly adjudicated Res judicata vs. Stare decisis - the focal point of res judicata is the judgement but for stare decisis, it is the doctrine created.

D.

LAW OF THE CASE  Effect of judgment or final orders: (Paragraph 2) “In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged or which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.” (Sec. 47, Rule 39, ROC)  Whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal principle of the decision continues to be the law of the case BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES IN THE SAME CASE, as long as the facts of the case remain the same.  Law of the case v. Stare decisis: o A decision on a prior appeal of the same case usually refers to the law of the case while stare decisis may pertain to other cases with similar nature. o Stare decisis forecloses parties or privies in one case by what has been done in another case. o law of the case deals entirely with questions of law while stare decisis is generally concerned with the effect of adjudication in a wholly independent proceeding.

E.

INCONSISTENSIES  Sweetheart defense in rape cases which suggests that the existence of a romantic relationship precludes the possibility of rape. o The court said that even if the relationship really existed, the fact that they are “sweethearts” does not negate the crime of rape. Love is not a license for love. But what really destroyed the “sweetheart” defense was the declaration of “AAA” that she did not love him. o From the aforementioned case, it seems that evidence can be shown to prove that there is actually a romantic relationship. If the existence of a relationship does not preclude the existence of rape, then why allow the admission of such evidence? o “Sweetheart defense” rashly derides the intelligence of the Court and sorely tests its patience. It may be true that the defendant and the plaintiff were lovers, there was no license for accused-appellant to force himself upon her.  Judicial flip-flopping is another form of inconsistency in SC decisions involving a single case which the SC justices cannot seem to agree on what the correct interpretation of the law should be. o League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC - SC reversed itself three times and it did so in a span of three years. o Indecision on the part of the Court creates little confidence in the Judiciary. It suggests that the law is nothing more than the Justices whims, especially when the members of the Court shift sides in the dispute. This particular case became of the grounds for the impeachment case of Chief Justice Renato Corona in December 2011.

RATIO DECIDENDI & OBITER DICTUM A.

RATIO DECIDENDI  Binding precedent

 B.

C.

apply only to the specific case for which the request was made

Ultimate issue directly before the court, expressly decided in the consideration of the case, so that any resolution thereon must be considered as authoritative precedent.

OBITER DICTUM  Not a binding precedent. It cannot be cited as a doctrinal declaration of the SC and is not safe from judicial examination.  A matter that was not raised expressly and therefore, it was required for the disposition of the case. SC has ruled that a remark made by a judge in a decision upon a cause, and not directly upon the question before the court.  Oposa v. Factoran - Cited as a case that recognizes the standing of future generations to sue on behalf of the environment. A careful analysis of the case will show that Secretary Factoran never challenged petitioner's standing to sue. The pronouncement on standing is obiter dictum as, in this case, it touched upon a matter that was not raised expressly by the petitioner, and therefore, it was not a prerequisite in disposing of the case. Of course, the Philippine Supreme Court has also held that dictum is generally not binding as authority or precedent within the stare decisis rule, but may be followed if sufficiently persuasive.  Mercado v People of the Philippines - Marvin Mercado was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for car napping and was sentenced to prison term of twelve years and one day as a minimum to seventeen years and four months as maximum. In that decision, the Court of Appeals relied on a footnote in the case of People v Omotoy to affirm the conviction of Mercado. In essence, the footnote explained the direct appeal to the Supreme Court from the RTC by reason of imposition of reclusion perpetua and avoidance of delaying the disposition of the case. The Court pronounced that while this footnote was not the ratio decidendi of the case, it still constituted “an important part of the decision since it enunciated a fundamental procedural rule in the conduct of appeals.”  Villanueva v. Court of Appeal - Villadores was charged with the offense of falsification of public documents for falsifying a surety bond in an appeal against Villanueva, Jr. In the course of the proceedings, a second amended information was accepted by the trial court wherein Villanueva was added as an offended party. On the strength of the pronouncement of the Court of Appeals that Villanueva is not an offended party, Villadores filed a Motion to Disqualify Villanueva’s counsel. Villanueva argued that the pronouncement of the Court of Appeals was mere obiter dictum and it lacks the force of adjudication. The Court ruled that the pronouncement of the Court of Appeals was not an obiter dictum because it touched upon the issue of Villanueva’s inclusion as an offended party, a matter clearly raised by Villadores in his petition. It stated that as a rule: “It has been held that an adjudication on any point within the issues presented by the case cannot be considered as obiter dictum, and this rule applied to all pertinent questions, although only incidentally involved which are presented and decided in the regular course of the consideration of the case, and led up to the final conclusion, and to any statement as to matter on which the decision is predicated.” RULINGS PRO HAC VICE  A ruling expressly qualified as pro hac vice cannot be relied upon as a precedent to govern other cases. Decisions qualified as pro hac vice are made only when there are “extremely peculiar circumstance” in a case.  Citizens’ Battle against Corruption v. COMELEC - SC was asked to determine whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it denied CIBAC an additional seat in the HoR under the party-list system. the COMELEC adopted a simplified formula of one additional seat per additional 2% limiting CIBAC to a single seat. The COMELEC defended its decision by citing a SC Resolution. In the said Resolution, the SC granted BUHAY’s Motion for Reconsideration, entitling it to one additional seat for having garnered more than 4% of the total number of votes cast for the party-list system. However, when the Court granted BUHAY an additional seat, it meant to apply it on that specific case alone, not being a precedent- pro hac vice. Thus, that Resolution could not be applied as a precedent to future case.  Decisions pro hac vice are applied to admin matters such as requests for the audio coverage of oral arguments before the SC. In the case questioning the constitutionality of the PDAF, the SC approved the request of pro hac vice of Atty. Te, Chief of the Public Information Office, to “livestream” the audio component of the oral arguments. The approval was meant to

Atty. Christopher Lao 2016-2017 4

JUDICIAL POWER “Section 1. The judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights that are legally demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess or jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of Government.” (Art.VIII, Sec. 1, Constitution) A.

SUPREME COURT POWERS  Original: “Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari (grave abuse of discretion), prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.” (Art. VIII, Sec. 5, par. 1. Const.)  Appellate: “Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in: o All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of and treaty, international or executive agreement, law, executive order, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question o All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto o All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue o All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher o All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved” (Art VIII, Sec. 5, par. 2, Const.)

B.

DIVISIONS  The Court sits in division of three, five and seven. The SC only sits En Banc on the following matters and cases: o Cases in which the constitutionality or validity of and treaty, international or executive agreement, law, executive order, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question; o Criminal cases in which the appealed decision imposes the death penalty or reclusion perpetua o Cases raises the novel questions of law o Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls o Cases involving decisions, resolutions, and order of the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit o …(p. 27-29 of Philippine History and the Legal System Book)  SC En Banc not an appellate court for decisions of divisions. The only constraint is any doctrine or principle of law laid down by the Court, either rendered en banc or in division, may be overturned or reversed only by the Court sitting en banc.

C.

JUDICIAL HEIRARCHY

4TH LEVEL

Supreme Court (SC)

3RD LEVEL

Court of Appeals (CA)

Exercises the power to settle actual controversies involving rights that are legally demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess or jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of Government. The Court of last resort Exercises power, functions, and duties

through twenty-three divisions of three members each.

Sandiganbayan

Court of Tax Appeals

Shari’a Appellate Court (SAC)

Regional Trial Courts (RTCs)

2ND LEVEL

1ST LEVEL

Shari’a District Courts (SDC) Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs) Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs) Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs) Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs) Shari’a Circuit Courts (SCC)

Assigned to review cases elevated to it from the RTCs as well as quasi-judicial agencies. Anti-Graft court that tries public officers charged with criminal cases involving graft, corrupt practices and corresponding civil cases for recovery of civil liability. Exclusive jurisdiction to review on appeal decisions in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees, or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs Code. Exercise original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus, and other auxiliary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, and to exercise exclusive appe;ate jurisdiction over all cases tried in the SDCs.



Established in thirteen regions of the Philippines and exercise appellate jurisdiction over decisions of 1st Level courts (MeTC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC) in their respective jurisdiction. Can appeal to Shari’a Appellate Courts Created in each metropolitan area established by law Created in every city which does not form part of the metropolitan area Established in each of the other cities or municipalities Created in each circuit composing such cities and/or municipalities as grouped by law Established in Islamic regions and provinces to interpret and apply the Code of Muslim Personal Laws (P.D. 1083)





B.

POLITICAL QUESTIONS  Those question which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government. o Marcos regime – what the Courts did SC hid behind the “political question doctrine” as an excuse not to question the acts of the administration.  Never precludes judicial review when the act of a constitutional organ infringes upon a fundamental individual or collective right.

C.

EFFECT OF DECLARATION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY  GENERAL RULE: An unconstitutional act is not a law. Iit confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protection, it creates no office, it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.  OPERATIVE FACT DOCTRINE: A law or executive issuance must first be invalidated by the Court. o The doctrine is concerned with the consequences with the acts performed under the unconstitutional law. o The SC applies the doctrine “when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law.” o No rule that automatically applies the operative fact doctrine where law is found to be unconstitutional. o The courts may also require that certain acts can be undone if they were performed under an unconstitutional law.

JUDICIAL REVIEW “Section 4. (2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement,, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.” (Art. VIII, Sec. 4, par 2. Const.) “…whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess or jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of Government.” (Art.VIII, Sec. 1, Constitution) = Expanded certiorari jurisdiction A.

REQUISITES  Actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power o There must be a case that is ripe and existing for determination. o No case or controversy when as issue becomes moot (when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy because of supervening events, so that the determination of the issue would have no practical use)

Atty. Christopher Lao 2016-2017 5

When to relax rule for mootness: (1) there is grave violation of the Constitution (2) the situation has an exceptional character and the paramount public interest is involved (3) constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public (4) case is capable of repetition but has evaded review The person challenging the stand must have locus standi (legal standing) o 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 o Must have suffered come actual or threatened injury o EXCEPTIONS:  Case involves constitutional issues  Taxpayers – must be a claim of illegal disbursement or public funds, or tax measure is unconstitutional  Voters – must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of election law in question  Concerned citizens – must be a showing that issues raised are of transcendental importance which must be settled early  Legislators – claim that official actions complained of infringes upon their prerogatives as legislators Question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity o The question of unconstitutionality must have been raised in the proceedings in the court below o But court, in the exercise of sound discretion, can take cognizance of the constitutional issue raised by the parties. Issue of constitutionality must be the lis mota of the case o Rooted in the principle of separation of powers and arises from the presumption of validity accorded to executive and legislative acts of our co-equal branches of the government o Legislative act has presumed validity, therefore the burden is on the petitioner to prove that the case cannot be resolved unless the constitutional issue he raised is determined by the court. 

Planters Products Inc. V. Fertiphil Corporation: The court refused to apply the doctrine and explained that they do not find anything iniquitous in ordering PPI to refund the amounts paid by Fertiphil under LOI No. 1465. PPI unduly benefited from the levy. Quite the reverse, it would be inequitable and unjust not to order a refund. To do so would unjustly enrich PPI at the expense of Fertiphil. The court cannot allow PPI to profit from an unconstitutional law. Justice and equity dictate that PPI must refund the amounts paid by Fertiphil. Araullo v Aquino III (DAP Case) - the doctrine may only apply to program, projects and activities that can no longer be undone and whose beneficiaries relied in good faith on the validity of the DAP. The doctrine cannot be applied to authors, proponents and implementers of DAP unless concrete findings of good faith in their favor.

absurd result. The separability clause cannot be invoked if it will defeat the intent of the legislature.



o

D.

PARTIAL UNCONSTITUTIONALITY; THE SEPARABILITY CLAUSE  Partial unconstitutionality - when a statute is declared unconstitutional in part and it is possible to only disregard the unconstitutional part without affecting the valid part, only the unconstitutional part of the statute will be discarded.  Separability Clause - creates the presumption that Congress intended separability rather than complete nullity of the statute. o However, a statute may still be declared unconstitutional as a whole despite the presence of a separability clause: o Tatad v Secretary of DOE - Separability clause only creates a presumption, it is an aid in statutory construction, and not a command. It also cannot be applied if it will create an

Atty. Christopher Lao 2016-2017 6

●

E. WHEN JUDICIAL REVIEW IS NOT EXERCISED 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. o Montesclaros v. COMELEC - Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of a proposed bill postponing the SK elections to a later date, thereby rendering such petitioners ineligible for participation as a function of the age requirement. Court ruled it cannot exercise the power of judicial review over a proposed bill because there was no actual controversy. The bill was not passed into law yet and intervention from the judiciary would amount to giving advisory opinions on an act of Congress (against principle of co-equal branches of government). o In re Supreme Court Judicial Independence v. Judiciary Development Fund - A bill produces no legal effects until passed into law. The judiciary cannot rule on mere speculations or issues that are not ripe for judicial determination. Ergo, SC cannot stop Congress from passing laws that will abolish JDF.