Case Summary (G.R. No. 187883)
Key Dates
- Date of House Resolution No. 1109: (not specified in petition)
- Petition Filed: June 16, 2009
- Resolution Issued: April 19, 2010
Applicable Law
- 1987 Constitution, Article VIII, Section 1 (judicial power)
- 1987 Constitution, Article XVII, Section 1 (amendment and revision procedure)
- Doctrines of justiciability: case-or-controversy, ripeness, locus standi
Judicial Power and Justiciability Requirement
The Court reaffirmed its duty to resolve “actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable” and to check grave abuses of discretion. It may not issue advisory opinions or decide abstract, hypothetical, or contingent questions.
Background of the Petition
Petitioners, as concerned citizens and taxpayers, sought to invalidate House Resolution No. 1109—merely a future directive for Congress to convene and consider constitutional amendments. They urged definitive interpretation of Article XVII, Section 1.
Case-or-Controversy and Ripeness Analysis
The resolution remained prospective: no constitutional convention had convened, no procedures adopted, and no proposals advanced. Without a concrete legislative act, the controversy was speculative and unripe for adjudication.
Standing (Locus Standi) Analysis
Petitioners failed to demonstrate personal injury traceable to the resolution. No public funds were disbursed, precluding a taxpayer suit. The potential
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 187883)
Facts
- Two consolidated petitions filed by Atty. Oliver O. Lozano and Atty. Evangeline J. Lozano-Endriano (G.R. No. 187883) and Louis “Barok” C. Biraogo (G.R. No. 187910) as concerned citizens and taxpayers
- Both petitions sought nullification of House Resolution No. 1109 entitled “A Resolution Calling upon the Members of Congress to Convene for the Purpose of Considering Proposals to Amend or Revise the Constitution, Upon a Three-fourths Vote of All the Members of Congress”
- Petitioners contended that the Resolution trampled on Section 1, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution, which prescribes the procedure for amending or revising the Constitution
- No actual constitutional convention, proposals, rules of procedure, or allocation of public funds had yet occurred at the time of filing
Petitioners’ Prayer
- Seek a definitive interpretation of Section 1, Article XVII of the Constitution
- Pray for judicial nullification of House Resolution No. 1109 as ultra vires or a grave abuse of discretion
Issue
- Whether the petitions present a justiciable controversy allowing this Court to exercise its judicial power to review House Resolution No. 1109
Ruling
- The petitions are dismissed for lack of justiciability and locus standi
- The Court reaffirmed its duty to resolve only actual controversies involving legally demandable and enforceable rights (Art. VIII, Sec. 1, 1987 Constitution)
- No actual constitutional question arose because no positive act of amending or revising the Constitution had transpired
Justiciability Doctrine (Case-or-Controversy)
- Judicial power extends only to “actual controversies” with parties having a