Philippine State, Structure of Government & Distribution of Powers (PDF)

THE PHILIPPINE STATE, STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT, DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS, AND INTRA- GOVERNMENT RELATIONS  NATIONAL TERRITORY Philippine internal waters under the Constitution or archipelagic waters under the UNCLOS are subject to the inte...

THE PHILIPPINE STATE, STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT, DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS, AND INTRA- GOVERNMENT RELATIONS  NATIONAL TERRITORY Philippine internal waters under the Constitution or archipelagic waters under the UNCLOS are subject to the international law norms, now codified in UNCLOS III, granting innocent passage rights over the territorial sea or sea lane passage over archipelagic waters.  The right of innocent passage is a customary international law. --In the absence of municipal legislation, international law norms, now codified in UNCLOS III, operate to grant innocent passage rights over the territorial sea or archipelagic waters, subject to the treaty’s limitations and conditions for their exercise. Significantly, the right of innocent passage is a customary international law, thus automatically incorporated in the corpus of Philippine law. (Magallona v. Ermita, G.R No. 187167, August 16, 2011)  The right of innocent passage is a customary international law. --In the absence of municipal legislation, international law norms, now codified in UNCLOS III, operate to grant innocent passage rights over the territorial sea or archipelagic waters, subject to the treaty’s limitations and conditions for their exercise. Significantly, the right of innocent passage is a customary international law, thus automatically incorporated in the corpus of Philippine law. (Magallona v. Ermita, G.R No. 187167, August 16, 2011) UNCLOS has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory as it regulates, among others, sea-use rights over maritime zones.  STATE POLICIES AND PRINCIPLES Civilian Supremacy Over the Military A civilian President is the ceremonial, legal and administrative head of the armed forces. -- While the President is still a civilian, Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution mandates that civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military, making the civilian president the nation’s supreme military leader. The Constitution does not require that the President must be possessed of military training and talents,but as Commander-in-Chief, he has the power to direct military operations and to determine military strategy.  Separation of Church and State Why the act of the government in allowing the holding of Catholic masses at the basement of a hall of justice does not violate the principle of separation of Church and State. The State recognizes the inherent right of the people to freely exercise their religion. Our Constitution recognizes the religiosity of our people. The Roman Catholics express their worship through the holy mass and to stop these would be tantamount to repressing the right to the free exercise of their religion. Allowing religion to flourish is not contrary to the principle of separation of Church and State.  The Family Why spousal consent in reproductive help procedures is required: The 1987 Constitution is replete with provisions strengthening the family as the basic social institution. The RH law contain provisions which tend to wreck the family. It bars the husband and/or the father from participating in the decision-making process regarding their common future progeny. It likewise deprives the parents of their authority over their minor daughter simply because she is already a parent or had suffered a miscarriage. Reproductive health procedures like tubal litigation and vasectomy should require mutual consent and decision between the husband and the wife as they affect issues intimately related to the founding of a family. The RH Law cannot be allowed to infringe upon this mutual decision-making. Decision-making involving a reproductive health procedure is a private matter which belongs to the couple, not just one of them.  Protecting the Life of the Unborn The intent of the Framers of the 1987 Constitution in protecting the life of the unborn from conception was to prevent the Legislature from legalizing abortion. The Reproductive Health Law (RH Law) is in line with this intent as the law mandates that protection be afforded from the moment of fertilization. The RHL Law embodies the policy to protect to the fertilized ovum. RH Law itself clearly mandates that protection be afforded from the moment of fertilization. The RH Law mandates that protection must be afforded from the moment of fertilization. By using the word" or“, the RH Law prohibits not only drugs or devices that prevent implantation, but also those that induce abortion and those that induce the destruction of a fetus inside the mother's womb.  The RH Law does not legalize abortion as it recognizes that --one, there is a need to protect the fertilized ovum which already has life; and two, the fertilized ovum must be protected the moment it becomes existent -all the way until it reaches and implants in the mother's womb. Any drug or device that prevents the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother's womb is an abortifacient. RH Law recognizes that: one, there is a need to protect the fertilized ovum which already has life, and two, the fertilized ovum must be protected the moment it becomes existent -all the way until it reaches and implants in the mother's womb.  The Right and Duty of Parents in the Rearing of the Youth The role of the State in rearing the youth. -- Parents have the natural and primary right and duty in rearing the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character. However, when actions concerning the child have a relation to the public welfare or the well-being of the child, the State may act to promote these legitimate interests. State authority is, therefore, not exclusive of, but rather, complementary to parental supervision. As parens patriae, the State has the inherent right and duty to aid parents in the moral development of their children. The Curfew Ordinances are but examples of legal restrictions designed to aid parents in their role of promoting their children's well-being.  Balanced and Healthful Ecology The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases allow a "citizen suit," and permit any Filipino citizen to file an action before our courts for violations of our environmental laws. -- Any Filipino citizen in representation of others, including minors or generations yet unborn, may file an action to enforce rights or obligations under environmental laws. The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases allow any Filipino citizen, as a steward of nature, to bring a citizen’s suit to enforce our environmental laws. Writ of Kalikasan: Remedy when the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated or threatened with violation. -- The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law, people’s organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.”  Self-Reliant and Independent National Economy Effectively Controlled by Filipinos The Constitution declares as State policy the development of a national economy "effectively controlled" by Filipinos. Under the 1987 Constitution, to own and operate a public utility, a corporation’s capital must at least be 60 percent owned by Philippine nationals. The Voting Control Test and the Beneficial Ownership Test must be applied to determine whether a corporation is a "Philippine national.“ -- Mere legal title is insufficient to meet the 60 percent Filipino-owned "capital" required in the Constitution. Full beneficial ownership of 60 percent of the outstanding capital stock, coupled with 60 percent of the voting rights, is required. The legal and beneficial ownership of 60 percent of the outstanding capital stock must rest in the hands of Filipino nationals in accordance with the constitutional mandate. Otherwise, the corporation is "considered as non- Philippine national[s].“ “Capital” refers to shares with voting rights (election of directors) and full beneficial ownership. SEC Requirement: The 60 percent Filipino ownership shall be applied to BOTH (a) the total number of outstanding shares of stock entitled to vote in the election of directors; AND (b) the total number of outstanding shares of stock, whether or not entitled to vote in the election of directors. Where the 60-40 Filipino-foreign equity ownership is in doubt, the Grandfather Rule will apply: The ultimate Filipino ownership of the shares must first be traced to the level of the Investing Corporation. -- The ultimate Filipino ownership of the shares must first be traced to the level of the Investing Corporation and added to the shares directly owned in the Investee Corporation.  Autonomy of Local Governments Local governments are precluded from regulating conduct already covered by a statute involving the same subject matter. Thus, an ordinance that seeks to control and regulate the use of ground water within a City, a power that pertains solely to the National Water Regulatory Board (NWRB) under the Water Code – is ultra vires and void. The President only has general supervision, not control, over an LGU. -- Consistent with the state policy of local autonomy as guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution, the grant and release of the hospitalization and health care insurance benefits given to local government officials and employees, through an ordinance passed by petitioner’s Sangguniang Panlalawigan–is valid –even without approval of the President. An LGU is only under the President’s general supervision, not control.  STATE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT An unincorporated agency enjoys immunity from suit and waives its non- suability only when it enters into proprietary contracts. There is no waiver of immunity when the DPWH enters into road construction contracts, which involve exercise of government functions. -- Contracts for the construction of public roads that the DPWH enter into are done in the exercise of its governmental functions, hence, there is no implied waiver by the DPWH simply by entering into such contract. If the government agency performs proprietary, private or non-governmental functions, it is not immune from suit. -- The Air Transportation Office (ATO) was involved in the management and maintenance of the Loakan Airport, which are primarily private or non-governmental functions. Hence, the ATO has no claim to immunity from suit  The doctrine of state immunity cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice to a citizen. Even an unincorporated agency such as the DOTC may be sued, even when performing sovereign functions, for taking of private property without filing an expropriation case. -- The doctrine of state immunity cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice to a citizen. By necessary implication, the filing of a complaint for expropriation is a waiver of State immunity.  CITIZENSHIP Those who take the Oath of Allegiance under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225 reacquire natural- born citizenship. -- Repatriation involves the restoration of former status or the recovery of one's original nationality. This means that a naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other hand, if he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino. Natural-born Filipinos, who have been naturalized as citizens of a foreign country and who reacquire or retain their Philippine citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance under RA 9225, must additionally execute a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before an authorized public officer prior or simultaneous to the filing of their certificates of candidacy, to qualify as candidates in Philippine elections. Note: A natural-born Filipino who maintains or continuously carries foreign passport is deemed to have recanted his personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship, thus disqualifying him from running for public office. Citizenship, being a continuing requirement for Members of the House of Representatives, may be questioned at any time.  Foundlings as Natural-Born Citizens  As a matter of law, foundlings are natural-born citizens.  The framers of the 1935 Constitution intended foundlings to be covered by the enumeration on natural-born Filipino citizens.  The Constitution does not permit discrimination against foundlings. -- The constitutional provisions on equal protection, social justice, human rights, and the rights of children contradict an intent to discriminate against foundlings.  Domestic laws on adoption also support the principle that foundlings are Filipinos. -- These laws do not provide that adoption confers citizenship upon the adoptee. Rather, the adoptee must be a Filipino in the first place to be adopted.  Foundlings are citizens under international law. Under customary international law, a child whose parents are both unknown shall have the nationality of the country of birth, which is presumed to be where it was found. Also, under customary international law, a foundling is presumed born of citizens of the country where it is found.--  To establish that a foundling is a natural-born citizen, sufficient evidence can be presented to sustain a reasonable inference that at least one or both of his or her parents is Filipino.  The assumption should be that foundlings are natural-born, unless there is substantial evidence to the contrary. The Constitution mandates the State to defend the well-being of children, guarantee equal protection of the law, equal access to opportunities for public service, and respect human rights. This is also consistent with related legislative enactments, executive and administrative actions, and international instruments.  Concluding that foundlings are not natural-born Filipino citizens is tantamount to permanently discriminating against foundling citizens. The Constitution guarantees equal protection of the laws and equal access to opportunities for public service. No substantial distinction differentiates foundlings from children with known Filipino parents. They are both entitled to the full extent of the state's protection from the moment of their birth.  SUFFRAGE Sec. 1, Article 5, 1987 Constitution. “No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.” Biometrics validation is not a qualification to vote but merely regulates the exercise of the right to vote. It is a procedural, not a substantive requirement.  STRUCTURE AND POWERS OF GOVERNMENT JUDICIAL REVIEW Judicial review and constitutional interpretation: Unless the provisions clearly express the contrary, the provisions of the Constitution should be considered self-executory. Actual Case or Controversy Requirement Actual case - A conflict of legal rights susceptible of judicial resolution, ripe for determination, and not conjectural. The conflict must not be conjectural or anticipatory; otherwise, the Court's decision will amount to an advisory opinion.  The Court cannot render an advisory opinion. Courts have not authority to resolve hypothetical or moot questions. Examples: No Actual Case or Controversy  A petition to declare an SEC circular void based on a hypothetical case of a fictional corporation is not ripe for decision because any pronouncement from the Court is a purely advisory opinion and not a decision binding on identified and definite parties and on a known set of facts.  A petition to declare a proposed bill unconstitutional does not present an actual justiciable controversy. The filing of bills is within the legislative power of Congress and the judiciary cannot speculate on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of a bill that Congress may or may not pass.  A case that has become moot and academic does not present an actual case. Moot case: Nothing for the court to resolve. -- The matter in dispute has already been resolved. Moot case: A decision would be of no practical value. A case becomes moot when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. Exceptions to the moot and academic principle: (1) there was a grave violation of the Constitution; (2) the case involved a situation of exceptional character and was of paramount public interest; (3) the issues raised required the formulation of controlling principles to guide the Bench, the Bar and the public; and (4) the case was capable of repetition yet evading review.  EXCEPTION to the actual case or controversy requirement in judicial review: Facial challenges A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of possible "chilling effect" upon protected speech. “On its face" invalidation of statutes results in striking them down entirely on the ground that they might be applied to parties not before the Court whose activities are constitutionally protected.  The Standing Requirement Legal standing defined: A personal, substantial and material interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the challenged governmental act. Legal standing as a taxpayer: The case must involve illegal disbursement of public funds or the exercise of the spending or taxing power of Congress. Legal standing as a legislator: There must be an invasion of the powers, prerogatives and privileges of Congress. Locus standi: Mere membership in the Bar is not sufficient. When the case is of transcendental or paramount importance to the public: The standing requirement may be relaxed and the suit may be allowed even where there is no direct injury to the petitioner. If the petition is anchored on a public right, such as the people’s right to information, any citizen can be the real party in interest. In case of a facial challenge on grounds of overbreadth or vagueness: Petitioner need not claim a violation of his own rights. In a facial challenge, the party need not claim that a statute is unconstitutional as applied to him.  Doctrine of Operative Fact Under the doctrine of operative fact, in the interest of fair play, the actions previous to the declaration of unconstitutionality are legally recognized, because the existence of a law or executive act prior to its invalidation is an operative fact.  THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT Privilege of Speech and Debate The "speech or debate" covered by the parliamentary immunity of Members of Congress refers to utterances made by Congressmen in the performance of their official functions, such as speeches delivered, statements made, or votes cast in the halls of Congress, while the same is in session, as well as bills introduced in Congress, and other acts in the official discharge of their duties as members of Congress.  Purpose of Speech or Debate Clause: Not to make Members of Congress absolutely impervious to prosecution or civil action, and not to protect them against prosecutions for their own benefit, but to enable them, as the people's representatives, to perform the functions without fear of being made responsible before the courts or other forums outside Congress. Prerogative to Choose its Own Officers andSole Authority to Determine the Rules of its Proceedings Why the Supreme Court cannot rule on the issue of who is the validly elected Minority Leaderof the House: The House has the prerogative on the method and manner of choosing officers other than the Speaker. The House has the sole authority to"determine the rules of its proceedings." The Supreme Court has no authority to interfere and intrude into this exclusive realm.  Why the Congressional Pork Barrel System(under PDAF) is void The PDAF/”Pork Barrel System” violates the principle of separation of powers, as it authorizes legislators to participate in the post-enactment phases of project implementation, such as project identification, fund release and fund realignment, thus allowing legislators to intervene and/or assume duties that properly belong to the sphere of budget execution. The PDAF/”Pork Barrel System” violates the principle of non-delegation of legislative power considering that an individual legislator is given the authority to dictate (a) how much fund would go to (b) a specific project or beneficiary that he himself also determines, two (2) acts that comprise the exercise of the power of appropriation, which is lodged in Congress. The PDAF/”Pork Barrel System” undermines the system of checks and balance by impairing the President’s item veto power. For the President to exercise his item-veto power, there must be a proper "item" which may be the object of the veto. Because PDAF is a lump-sum appropriation, the actual items of PDAF appropriation would not have been written into the General Appropriations Bill and thus effectuated without veto consideration. The legislator‘s identification of the projects after the passage of the GAA denies the President the chance to veto that item later on.  The PDAF/”Pork Barrel System” undermines public accountability by impairing Congress’ oversight functions considering that legislators would, in effect, be checking on activities in which they themselves participate. It also violates the constitutional prohibition on legislators’ intervention on matters where he may be called upon to act. The PDAF/”Pork Barrel System” violates the constitutional principles on local autonomy as it allows district representatives who are national officers to substitute the judgement of local officials on use of public funds for local development. A Congressman can simply bypass the local development council and initiate projects on his own.  Why the Presidential Pork Barrel System is void Failure to comply with the sufficient standard test for delegated rule-making: The phrase "and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President" under Section 8 of PD 910 constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power insofar as it does not lay down a sufficient standard to adequately determine the limits of the President‘s authority. Legislative Inquiry and the Contempt Power The Senate as an institution is "continuing", but in the conduct of its day-to-day business, the Senate of each Congress acts separately and independently of the Senate of the Congress before it. All pending matters and proceedings, i.e., unpassed bills and even legislative investigations, of the Senate of a particular Congress are considered terminated upon the expiration of that Congress.  The Constitution states that Congress, in conducting inquiries in aid of legislation, must respect the rights of persons appearing in or affected therein. An indefinite and unspecified period of detention for being cited for contempt will amount to excessive restriction and will certainly violate any person's right to liberty.  The Constitution states that Congress, in conducting inquiries in aid of legislation, must respect the rights of persons appearing in or affected therein. An indefinite and unspecified period of detention for being cited for contempt will amount to excessive restriction and will certainly violate any person's right to liberty. The period of imprisonment for contempt during inquiries in aid of legislation should only last until the termination of the legislative inquiry under which the said power is invoked. The legislative inquiry of the Senate terminates on two instances: First, upon the approval or disapproval of the Committee Report. At that point, the power of contempt simultaneously ceases and the detained witness should be released. Second, upon the expiration of one Congress. As the legislative inquiry ends upon that expiration of one Congress, the imprisonment of the detained witnesses likewise ends.  Martial law and the Role of Congress Congress is not constitutionally mandated to convene in joint session following the President's proclamation of martial law, except for the specific purpose of revoking the President's declaration.  THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT Power of the President to Defend the State The President as the guardian -The power to defend the State and to act as its representative in the international sphere inheres in the person of the President. -- Hence, the President of the Philippines, as the sole repository of executive power, is the guardian of the Philippine archipelago, sole organ in the conduct of foreign relations. Only the President can exercise the powers of the Commander-in-Chief, which must be exercised by him in person. Thus, the provincial governor does not possess the same calling-out powers as the President. The calling-out powers contemplated under the Constitution is exclusive to the President.  Power to Declare Martial Law and Judicial Review of such Exercise The power of the Supreme Court – to determine the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Supreme Court’s review of the proclamation of martial law can be simultaneous with and independent from Congress’ power to revoke. Facial review of the proclamation of martial law on the grounds of vagueness is unwarranted because the proclamation does not regulate speech and judicial review does not cover the constitutionality of the implementing and/or operational guidelines issued after the proclamation.  Nullification of a proclamation of martial law declaration will not affect a proclamation in the exercise of calling out powers because the President can exercise one power independently of the other. Scope of judicial review is limited to the sufficiency of the factual basis, not correctness of the President’s decision. The Court does not need to satisfy itself that the President's decision is correct, rather it only needs to determine whether the President's decision had sufficient factual basis. Basis for determination of the sufficiency of the factual basis: Facts or information known by or available to the President at the time he made the declaration or suspension, which facts or information are found in the Proclamation and the written Report to Congress. No need for the Supreme Court to conduct an independent investigation. --The determination by the Supreme Court of the sufficiency of factual basis must be limited only to the facts and information mentioned in the Report and Proclamation. The Supreme Court cannot "undertake an independent investigation beyond the pleadings."  What the Supreme Court must determine --only sufficiency, not accuracy, of the factual basis; only the sufficiency of the factual basis as to convince the President that there is probable cause that rebellion exists. The public safety requirement: Rebellion alone does not justify the declaration of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; the public safety requirement must likewise be present. Parameters for determining the sufficiency of the factual basis for the declaration of martial law: 1) actual invasion or rebellion; 2) public safety requires the exercise of such power; and 3) there is probable cause for the President to believe that there is actual rebellion or invasion. Territorial coverage: The President's duty to maintain peace and public safety is not limited only to the place where there is actual rebellion. It extends to other areas where the present hostilities are in danger of spilling over. The discretion to determine the territorial scope of martial law lies with the President.  Diplomatic Power The President is the sole organ in the conduct of foreign relations. Executive agreements are international agreements embodying adjustments of detail carrying out well-established national policies. Treaties require Senate ratification, executive agreement do not. NOTE: The President cannot unilaterally withdraw from international agreements where the Senate concurred and expressly declared that any withdrawal must also be made with its concurrence. (Pangilinan vs. Cayetano) The Court does not look into whether an international agreement should be in the form of a treaty or an executive agreement; it is the President’s prerogative. Power to Transfer Appropriations The transfer of appropriated funds, to be valid, must be made upon a concurrence of the following requisites, namely: (1) There is a law authorizing the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of the Constitutional Commissions to transfer funds within their respective offices; (2) The funds to be transferred are savings generated from the appropriations for their respective offices; and (3) The purpose of the transfer is to augment an item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices.  Why the transfer of funds under DAP is invalid Funds transferred were not necessarily savings. Transfers were made to non-existing items or non-existing provisions in the GAA. Cross-border transfers are prohibited.  Power of Appointment Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety. Elements for a valid appointment: (1) authority to appoint and evidence of the exercise of the authority; (2) transmittal of the appointment paper and evidence of the transmittal; (3) a vacant position at the time of appointment; and (4) receipt of the appointment paper and acceptance of the appointment. There is no valid appointment if the process lacks even one step.  The constitutional prohibition on midnight appointments only applies to presidential appointments; it does not apply to appointments made by local chief executives. Power to Discipline Presidential Appointees A presidential appointee comes under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the President in line with the principle that the "power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint.“ Pardoning Power The only instances in which the President may not extend pardon remain to be in: (1) impeachment cases; (2) cases that have not yet resulted in a final conviction; and (3) cases involving violations of election laws, rules and regulations in which there was no favorable recommendation coming from the COMELEC.  Power of General Supervision over Local Governments The President’s authority over LGUs is limited to general supervision: No Presidential approval is required for an LGU to grant additional benefits to LGU officials and employees. Thus, the grant of additional compensation like hospitalization and health care insurance benefits by the LGU to its officials and employees does not need the approval of the President to be valid. Presidential Immunity from Suit The President, during his tenure of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it in the Constitution or law. A non-sitting President does not enjoy immunity from suit, even for acts committed during the latter’s tenure. Even if the proceedings for the writ of habeas data do not involve the determination of administrative, civil, or criminal liabilities, the Presidential immunity applies because the immunity does not hinge on the nature of the suit.  THE JUDICIARY The Supreme Court’s rule making power is not shared with Congress or the Executive. Congress cannot grant exemptions from payment of legal fees as it will infringe on the rule- making power of the Supreme Court and impair the judiciary’s fiscal autonomy. The Supreme Court’s rule-making power does not confer on it primary and direct jurisdiction over legal education. The supervision and regulation of legal education is an Executive function. The Rules of Court provide for the requisites and qualifications for admission to the practice of law and not for admission to the study of law. Requiring aspiring law students to take PHILSAT is a clear violation of academic freedom. Academic Freedom of the educational institutions: A. What to teach B. Who may teach C. How it shall be taught D. Who may be admitted to study  Quo Warranto Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over an action for quo warranto, including a quo warranto proceeding against an impeachable officer like the Chief Justice. Judicial Review: Basic Requirements ACTUAL CASE - there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power. LOCUS STANDI - the person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject act or issuance (locus standi). EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY -the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and LIS MOTA -the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.