Tan vs Macapagal

Macalinao, Romielyn P. Subject: Constitional Law 1 Topic: Ripeness of Controversy Controversy Title: T! vs MCP"L Reference: #$ SCR %&'

(ebruary )*, 1*&) (CTS

Petitioners Petitioners Eugene A. Tan, an, Silvestre J. Acejas and Rogelio Rogelio V. Fernan Fernandez dez filed filed a petition petition for declara declaratory tory relief as tapayer tapayers, s, !ut purportedly suing on !e"alf of t"e#selves and t"e Filipino people $uestioning t"e range of t"e aut"ority of t"e %&'% (onstitutional (onvention and "ave t"e court declare t"at t"e (on)(on is *+it"out po+er po+er,, under under Se Secti ction on %, Articl Article e V of t"e %&-(o %&-(onst nstitu itutio tion n and Repu!lic Act /%-0, to consider, discuss and adopt proposals +"ic" see1 to revise t"e present (onstitution t"roug" t"e adoption of a for# of govern#ent ot"er t"an t"e for# no+ outlined in t"e present (onstitu (onstitution tion t"e (onvent (onvention ion !eing !eing #erely #erely e#po+ere e#po+ered d to propose propose i#pro i#prove ve#e #ents nts to t"e prese present nt (onsti (onstitut tution ion +it"o +it"out ut alter altering ing t"e general plan laid do+n t"erein.* Suc" Su c" a plea plea +as +as soug"t soug"t to !e co#pre co#presse ssed d in a five) five)pag page e pleading. pleading. 2t is understa understanda!l nda!le, e, t"erefor t"erefore, e, +"y t"e petition petition could "ardly !e c"aracterized as possessed of #erit. Accordingly, t"e (ourt issued a resolution dis#issing it. T"en ca#e on t"e last day of t"e sa#e #ont" a printed t"irty)t+o page #otion for reconsideration. 3ased 3ased on suc" #otion, #otion, it can !e conclude concluded d t"at petitione petitioners rs are o!livious of t"e aut"oritative precedents in t"e jurisdiction. T"e approac" is not distinguis"ed !y its confor#ity +it" t"e la+ as it stands. (onsidering, "o+ever, t"e co#pulsion of t"e funda#ental

principle of separation of po+ers, t"is (ourt cannot eercise t"e co#pete co#petence nce petitione petitioners rs +ould +ould erroneou erroneously sly assu#e assu#e it possess possesses, es, even assu#ing t"at t"ey "ave t"e re$uisite standing, +"ic" is t"e first $uestion to !e faced. +SS-S %.

4"et"e t"er or or no not t" t"e pe petit titione ionerrs "as "as locu locus s st standi andi5 5

0.

4"et 4"et"e "err or or not not t"e t"e co cour urtt "as "as juri jurisd sdic icti tion on ov ove er t"e t"e ca case se5 5 RL+!"S

%.

6o, !ec !ecause it is is an un unc"allenged rul rule t"a t"at t"e t"e per person +"o +"o

i#pu i#pugn gns s t"e t"e valid alidit ity y of a stat statut ute e #ust #ust "ave "ave a pers person onal al and and su!stantial interest in t"e case suc" t"at "e "as sustained, or +ill sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforce#ent .* T"e validity of a statute #ay !e contested only !y one +"o +ill +ill sust sustai ain n a dire direct ct inju injury ry,, in co cons nse$ e$ue uenc nce e of its its enfo enforc rce# e#en entt .Ta .Tapayers

only

"ave

standing

on

la+s providing

for

t"e

dis!urse#ent dis!urse#ent of pu!lic funds. 0.

6o, 6o, !ec !ecau ause se at t"e t"e ti# ti#e e t"e t"e ca case se +as file filed d t"e t"e (ons (onsti titu tuti tion onal al

(onvention "as not yet finalized any resolution t"at +ould radically alter t"e %&- constitution t"erefore not yet ripe for judicial revie+. T"e case !eco#es ripe +"en t"e (on)(on "as actually does so#et" so#et"ing ing alread already y. T"en T"en t"e co court urt #ay actual actually ly in$ui in$uire re into into t"e  jurisdiction of t"e !ody. Separation Separation of po+er depart#ents s"ould !e left

alone to

do

duties

as t"ey

see

f it.

T"e

Eecutive

and

t"e 7egislature are not !ound to as1 for advice in carrying out t"eir duties, judiciary #ay not interfere so t"at it #ay fulfil its duties

+ell +ell.. T"e T"e co cour urtt #ay #ay no nott inte interf rfer ere e unti untill t"e t"e prop proper er ti#e ti#e co co#e #es s ripeness 8ore specifically, as long as any proposed a#end#ent is still unacted on !y it, t"ere is no roo# for t"e interposition of judicial oversig"t. 9nly after it "as #ade concrete +"at it intends to su!#it for ratification #ay t"e appropriate case !e instituted. :ntil t"en, t"e courts are devoid of jurisdiction. T"at is t"e co##and of t"e (onstitution as interpreted !y t"is (ourt. :nless and until suc" a doctrine loses force !y !eing overruled or a ne+ precedent !eing anno announ unce ced, d, it is co cont ntro roll llin ing. g. T"at T"at is i#pl i#plic icit it in t"e t"e rule rule of la+ la+. Petitioners; #otion for reconsideration cannot t"erefor !e sustained.