Case Summary (UDK-15143)
Alleged Threat to Judicial Independence
Mijares argued that the filing of bills to abolish the JDF constituted a despotic, passion-driven usurpation of judicial independence and a blatant congressional hostility toward the High Tribunal.
Legislative Actions Challenged
• House Bill No. 4690 (Fariñas) required remittance of JDF collections to the national treasury.
• House Bill No. 4738 (Tupas) sought to repeal Presidential Decree No. 1949 and establish a Judiciary Support Fund managed by Congress.
Presidential Commentary
President Aquino’s national address criticized the Supreme Court’s recent rulings as detrimental to executive and legislative efforts, urging the Court to reconsider its decisions for the nation’s welfare.
Requirements for Exercising Judicial Review
Under the 1987 Constitution and Supreme Court jurisprudence, four requisites must be met before the Court may adjudicate constitutional validity:
- Existence of an actual case or controversy.
- Standing with personal and substantial interest (direct injury).
- Timely raising of the constitutional question.
- Centrality of the constitutional issue as the gist of the case.
Absence of a Justiciable Controversy
The petition sought review of proposed bills, which are not laws and create no enforceable rights or duties. The Court cannot issue advisory opinions on speculative legislative proposals, per Montesclaros v. COMELEC and related precedents.
Lack of Legal Standing
Mijares failed to demonstrate direct injury or personal stake in the outcome. His status as a taxpayer and civic advocate does not confer locus standi absent a clear, imminent, and irreparable harm or transcendental importance sufficient to relax standing rules.
Inappropriateness of Mandamus Relief
A writ of mandamus lies only to compel performance of a ministerial duty. Mijares did not identify a specific, mandatory legal obligation of the Supreme Court to act in the manner he requested; hence, mandamus was not available.
Denial of the Petition
Because the petition lacked a justiciable controversy, proper standing, and a ministerial duty to enforce, the Court denied re
...continue readingCase Syllabus (UDK-15143)
Procedural History
- Petition filed by Rolly Mijares via letter dated August 27, 2014, addressed to the Chief Justice and Associate Justices.
- Captioned “Petition for Mandamus with Manifestation to invoke the Judicial Independence and Fiscal Autonomy as mandated under the Constitution.”
- Referred by the Chief Justice to the Clerk of Court En Banc and docketed as UDK-15143 on January 21, 2015.
- Heard and resolved by the Supreme Court En Banc in Resolution reported at 751 Phil. 30; 111 OG No. 29, 4144 (July 20, 2015).
Factual Background
- Presidential Decree No. 1949 (1984) established the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) to augment the judiciary’s budget.
- Two bills filed in July 2014:
- House Bill No. 4690 (Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas) to remit JDF collections to the National Treasury.
- House Bill No. 4738 (Rep. Niel Tupas, Jr.) to repeal PD 1949 and create a “Judicial Support Fund” under the Treasury.
- President Aquino’s national address (July 14, 2014) publicly criticized Supreme Court decisions on the Priority Development Assistance Fund and Disbursement Acceleration Program cases and urged the Court to review its rulings.
- Petitioner, a self-described “concerned taxpayer” and citizen, fears these bills threaten judicial independence and fiscal autonomy.
Issue
- Whether petitioner Rolly Mijares has shown sufficient grounds to compel the Supreme Court, by writ of mandamus, to assert i