017 Mariano vs.

COMELEC
[G.R. 118577; March 7, 1995 ]
TOPIC: Judicial Review; requisites of Judicial Review
PONENTE: Puno, J.

AUTHOR: Arthur Archie Tiu
NOTES: (if applicable)


FACTS:

1. In the case are 2 petitions questioning certain provisions of RA 7854 as unconstitutional (An Act Converting the
Municipality of Makati Into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Makati)
2. GR 118577 involves a petition for prohibition and declaratory relief. It was filed by petitioners Juanito Mariano,
et al, as tax payers, they assail as unconstitutional Sec. 2 [did not properly identify the land area or territorial
jurisdiction of Makati by metes and bounds, with technical descriptions, in violation of Section 10, Article X of the
Constitution, in relation to Sections 7 and 450 of the Local Government Code]. Sec. 51 [attempts to alter or restart
the "three consecutive term" limit for local elective officials, in violation of Section 8, Article X and Section 7,
Article VI of the Constitution] and Sec. 52 [a) it increased the legislative district of Makati only by special law (the
Charter in violation of the constitutional provision requiring a general reapportionment law to be passed by
Congress within three (3) years following the return of every census;(b)the increase in legislative district was not
expressed in the title of the bill; and(c)the addition of another legislative district in Makati is not in accord with
Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution for as of the latest survey (1990 census), the population of Makati stands
at only 450,000.]
3. 118627 was filed by Osmena as Senator and Tax Payer and assails the same grounds



ISSUE(S): 1. Whether or not the requisites for a judicial review are present in the case (lis mota, actual
controversy, locus standi and ripeness?)
2. Constitutional Issue Whether or not there was actual controversy in the case?
HELD: No Merit to the case, Dismissed
RATIO:
- We cannot entertain this challenge to the constitutionality of section 51. The requirements before a litigant can challenge
the constitutionality of a law are well delineated. They are: 1) there must be an actual case or controversy; (2) the question
of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party; (3) the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible
opportunity; and (4) the decision on the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself. 5

Petitioners have far from complied with these requirements. The petition is premised on the occurrence of many contingent
events, i.e., that Mayor Binay will run again in this coming mayoralty elections; that he would be re-elected in said
elections; and that he would seek re-election for the same position in the 1998 elections. Considering that these
contingencies may or may not happen, petitioners merely pose a hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen to an actual case
or controversy. Petitioners who are residents of Taguig (except Mariano) are not also the proper parties to raise this
abstract issue. Worse, they hoist this futuristic issue in a petition for declaratory relief over which this Court has no
jurisdiction.
- Section 2 of RA 7854 did not change the present territory of Makati and left the resolution of territorial boundaries to the
court to decide by virtue of the then existing boundary dispute between Makati and Taguig which was under court
litigation.. It is not unconstitutional because Congress had a legitimate reason for not delineating Makatis territory by
metes and bounds.
- The basis for assailing the constitutionality of Section 51 of RA 7854 is premised on contingent events i.e. if Mayor
Binay will run again, if he will seek a re-election, etc. There is, therefore, no actual controversy, laid down by the
petitioners but merely hypothetical issues which have yet to happen. Petitioners are also not the proper parties to raise the
abstract issue as they are residents of Taguig (except Mariano, Jr.) They are also asking for declaratory relief where the
Court has no jurisdiction since resolution of the boundary dispute is dependent on the outcome of the litigation.
- Section 52 is not unconstitutional because: 1) Constitution did not prevent Congress from creating another legislative
district where the law demands so, such as when population has exceeded 250,000 in a certain area 2) the Constitution
provides that should the population increase to more than 250,000, a legislative district is entitled to more than one
representative 3. the creation of an additional legislative district does not need one title in the assailed law, Court upheld a
liberal interpretation of the one title-one subject rule where a general title can encompass the provisions related to the
title.

CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
We cannot entertain this challenge to the constitutionality of section 51. The requirements before a litigant can challenge
the constitutionality of a law are well delineated. They are: 1) there must be an actual case or controversy; (2) the question
of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party; (3) the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible
opportunity; and (4) the decision on the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself. 5

Petitioners have far from complied with these requirements. The petition is premised on the occurrence of many contingent
events, i.e., that Mayor Binay will run again in this coming mayoralty elections; that he would be re-elected in said
elections; and that he would seek re-election for the same position in the 1998 elections. Considering that these
contingencies may or may not happen, petitioners merely pose a hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen to an actual case
or controversy. Petitioners who are residents of Taguig (except Mariano) are not also the proper parties to raise this
abstract issue. Worse, they hoist this futuristic issue in a petition for declaratory relief over which this Court has no
jurisdiction.
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):
Included Concurring is not relevant to the case