Lozano V Nograles

Lozano v. Nograles, G.R. Nos. 187883 and 187910, 16 Jun 2009.
Facts:
The two petitions, filed by their respective petitioners in their capacities as

concerned citizens and taxpayers, prayed for the 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." In essence, both petitions seek to trigger a justiciable controversy
that would warrant a definitive interpretation by the Supreme Court of
Section 1, Article XVII, which provides for the procedure for amending or
revising the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court cannot indulge
petitioners’ supplications. While some may interpret petitioners’ moves as
vigilance in preserving the rule of law, a careful perusal of their petitions
would reveal that they cannot hurdle the bar of justiciability set by this Court
before it will assume jurisdiction over cases involving constitutional disputes.
Issue:
Whether or not the instant petitions to annul House Resolution No. 1109
involves a justiciable question upon which the power of judicial review could
be invoked.
Ruling:
No.
It is well settled that it is the duty of the judiciary to say what the law is. The
determination of the nature, scope and extent of the powers of government is
the exclusive province of the judiciary, such that any mediation on the part of
the latter for the allocation of constitutional boundaries would amount, not to
its supremacy, but to its mere fulfillment of its "solemn and sacred obligation"
under the Constitution. This Court’s power of review may be awesome, but
it is limited to actual cases and controversies dealing with parties having
adversely legal claims, to be exercised after full opportunity of argument by
the parties, and limited further to the constitutional question raised or the
very lis mota presented. The "case-or-controversy" requirement bans this
court from deciding "abstract, hypothetical or contingent questions," lest the
court give opinions in the nature of advice concerning legislative or executive
action.
An aspect of the "case-or-controversy" requirement is the requisite of

"ripeness."
In the present case, the fitness of petitioners’ case for the exercise of judicial
review is grossly lacking. In the first place, petitioners have not sufficiently
proven any adverse injury or hardship from the act complained of. In the
second place, House Resolution No. 1109 only resolved that the House of
Representatives shall convene at a future time for the purpose of proposing
amendments or revisions to the Constitution. No actual convention has yet
transpired and no rules of procedure have yet been adopted. More
importantly, no proposal has yet been made, and hence, no usurpation of
power or gross abuse of discretion has yet taken place. In short, House
Resolution No. 1109 involves a quintessential example of an uncertain
contingent future event that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not
occur at all. The House has not yet performed a positive act that would
warrant an intervention from the Supreme Court.
Yet another requisite rooted in the very nature of judicial power is locus standi
or standing to sue. Thus, generally, a party will be allowed to litigate only
when he can demonstrate that (1) he has personally suffered some actual or
threatened injury because of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government;
(2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and (3) the injury is
likely to be redressed by the remedy being sought.
The lack of petitioners’ personal stake in this case is no more evident than in
Lozano’s three-page petition that is devoid of any legal or jurisprudential
basis.
In the final scheme, judicial review is effective largely because it is not

available, concrete injury. When warranted by the presence of indispensable
minimums for judicial review, the Supreme Court shall not shun the duty to
resolve the constitutional challenge that may confront it.
Petitions were dismissed.

Lozano V Nograles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lozano V Nograles

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lozano V Nograles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lozano v. Nograles, G.R. Nos. 187883 and 187910, 16 Jun 2009.

The two petitions, filed by their respective petitioners in their capacities as

An aspect of the "case-or-controversy" requirement is the requisite of

In the final scheme, judicial review is effective largely because it is not

Petitions were dismissed.

You might also like