[04] June 25, 2018

Last meeting we finished our discussion on amendments and revision, and we started our discussion on
the interpretation of the constitution, particularly on the matter of whether or not, in case of doubt, in
case of conflict, doubt in the interpretation of a provision whether it is self-executing or not, how do you
interpret it? The general rule is that we interpret the provision as self-executing and the court explain
the reason for the such an interpretation in many cases. That is what we learn in Manila Prince Hotel
pertaining to the Filipino first policy where the court said that that provision while it may be found in an
article in the constitution that will provide for policies, the court said that reading the provision it
already provides that enforceable right. It can by itself be a basis for a legal right or claim. Therefore,
there is this … it is self-executing.

Domino v. Comelec

The court discussed here that the ?? meaning rule, fermi legis(?), the meaning of the word resident in
Article 6, this came about because there was an issue as to how do you interpret this word resident,
where do you find this term. It’s in article 6 section 6 on the requirements before a person can be a
member of the house of representatives or the senate or you can be a legislator, naa dira ang …
member of the house of representatives lang, before you can be member of the house among others
you have to be a resident of the district where you shall be elected for a period of not less than 1 yr
immediately preceding the day of the election. And so what is contested here is the term “resident”
when are you consider as a resident? How did this issue come about? Domino filed a COC to represent
the province of Sarangani in the House of Representatives. He claims in his COC that he has resided in
that locality for 1 yr and 2 mos. He won the elections. His kalaban challenged that the victory claiming
that he falsified the COC, because in fact, he is not a resident of Sarangani. His presence there was
merely temporary… temporary… wla jud syay intention to reside in totality.. what were the documents
he presented? Lease contract lang daw sya, etc… Of course, on the other hand, Domino argued that, “I
am a resident of this locality.” So, is Domino here a resident of the province of Sarangani for at least 1
yr? The court in this case says he is not. Now, which is this matter is important to our subject, to our
topic, is the interpretation of the word residence. According to the … the term residence in its common
accepted … is used in the law among others, as a requirement for qualification for elected office. And
this term, residence is synonymous, means the same thing as domicile. which requires therefore, if you
are to interpret means that not only you intend to reside in this place, dili lang sya kutob intention,
dapat naa pud kay act. Also, personal presence in that place coupled with conduct indicative of your
intention to stay in that place. How can you change the domicile, because accdg to the kalaban of
Domino, he resided in another locality and then he just transferred to this Sarangani because dili na sya
ma-elect didto sa iyang laing lugar, because probably he exceeded the term limit, so nibalhin daw sya for
purposes of being able to run again as a representative. The court said before u can successfully effect
the change of domicile, you must demonstrate what actual removal..actual change of domicile, dapat
muhawa na ka.. umalis ka na from your previous domicile.. bona fide intention of abandoning,
abandoning the former place of residence AND establishing a new one and definite acts which
correspond to that purpose. What was the contract presented by domino proving that he changed
domicile. Lease contract... nag-lease ko diri… but in this case, this is an old case, in subsequent cases the
court has said, you cannot use subjective grounds to determine whether or not there is proper
qualification, etc. Anyway, in this case, the court said, that that lease contracts purports impermanence,
transiency. It does not engender the kind of permanency required to prove abandonment of law of
one’s original domicile. but in subsequent cases, naging lenient na ang supreme court because if you… if
you.. you require him to have a house in his locality, you will be adding to the reqts set in the
constitution.. nag-add ka ug property reqt which should not be allowed. but In this case, in interpreting
the word domicile synonymous with resident pareha ra silang duha. he was not able to prove that he is
now a resident of this locality and therefore, he is disqualified from representing that district in the
house of representatives.

Pamatong v. comelec

Here the pamatong.. Eli Pamatong who is a candidate, filed a COC to run for president but the comelec,
declared him and 35 other people as nuisance candidates. Because among others he could not mount,
doubt a nationwide campaign. And so, pamatong went to the supreme court challenging this resolution
of the comelec because accdg to him under Article 2 section 26 of the constitution he has the right to
run for public office. It violates daw his right to equal access to opportunities for public service. Is he
correct? The court said that he’s wrong… this provision is not self-executing. He can find this provision
under art. 2 which enumerates what… declaration… declarations of principles and state policies and
therefore, these are guidelines, not enforceable rights. The court emphasize here that there is no such
thing as a constitutional right to run for or hold public office. You hold that office … trust. You may hold
it as privilege. Nothing in the plain language of the provision invoked by pamatong here justifies an
interpretation of the sort naa daw syay right to run for public office. Now, what about the nature of
article 2, this provision, this article declares merely general principles which are as a rule not self-
executing. When we say that the provision is not self-executing, there will a need for an implementing
legislation before this can be a source of enforceable rights. Since makita man nimo si article… si equal
access clause in section 26 of article 2, the court said that just like the rest of the policies enumerated
therein, this provision does not contain any judicially enforceable constitutional right but a mere
guidleline for legislative or executive action. That is the purpose ngano nay mga enumeration diri of
policies and state principles. These are not supposed to give you an enforceable right but these are
guidelines, not only for the executive and for legislature for formulation of laws to guide them in policy
making, judiciary to guide them in decision making. So, no enforceable right, pamatong cannot claim
therefore that there is a violation thereof.

Tondo Medical v. court of appeals

Now what is the legal value of this article. In 1999, the DOH launched this HSRA… health sector reform
agenda which provides for five general areas of reform. The 1st area is, to provide fiscal autonomy to
government hospitals… what do u mean fiscal autonomy? Autonomy insofar as the Management of
your finances or concern can become imposed ug kanang fees, etc. so that you can, kanang dili ka
maging dependent from subsidy of support from national government. That is one of the agenda /
agendas that is plural, agenda for these HSRAs, isa didto. Now this was challenged, this first agendum of
this HSRA challenged by Tondo Medical here beacuse, what was the reason? According to it, you are
going… if you follow this reform you grant this entity fiscal autonomy, you will grant this hospital...
public hospital… government hospital the power to impose fees on its clientele. And therefore when
we’re talking of govt hospitals, indigents… mga people who are not so financially well-off, they go there
because of libre man sya… and if you impose this fiscal autonomy, ma-singil na hinuon ni sila. What was
the argument of those who would seek to uphold this agenda? The argument is that, what was your
basis… what is your basis Tondo Medical for the invocation or claiming that this is unconstitutional. Kuan
kaning Article 2 sections 5, 9 10, 11, 13, 18 among the other provisions na iyahang gienumerate as
having been violated by this reform. Ang point daw aning mga articles na iyahang gi-invoke ni tondo
medical is that dapat tagaan ug access ang poor, indigents, to hospitals… if you charge fees then you
would limit their access to medicine as well as to medical services. The tondo medical filed a case before
the court of appeals. And The court of appeals disagreed with tondo medical because accdg to the CA,
this cannot be, this agenda cannot be considered to have violated the provisions of the constitution,
because in the first place, they are not self-executing provisions. Who is correct, the CA or this tondo
medical? The Court said CA is correct. As a general rule, we follow that rule na a provision is self-
executing. The provisions of the constitution are considered self-executing as a rule, and therefore do
not require future legislation. Why? What is the reason? ngano why is that dapat self-executing, instead
of not self-executing? If they are not treated as self-executing, that’s not the general rule, the mandate
of the constitution can be easily nullified by the inaction of congress. Wala man syay himuon, wlay laws
na-enact. So the court said na in order to not let that happen, we interpret the provisions as a general
rule to be self-executing para dili dependent ang effectivity sa constitution and its provisions sa
legislature. Now, what is the legal value again of these principles in Article 2… they are not self-
executing and therefore they are only used by the executive and legislative in formulation of policy as
well as the judiciary as guides to its exercise of judicial review. But they cannot give rise to a cause of
action in the courts. Because they do not embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights. Why is this
the rule for general principles and policies? Why can these policies be sources of enforceable rights. The
court said, to declare that these provisions are enough to guarantee full exercise of the rights therein
would be impractical if not unrealistic because the provisions or the concepts espoused within these
provisions are very broad. The state shall promote social justice in all places … Social justice how do you
interpret that? Is that your own interpretation? There has to be a valid, or acceptable parameter. Dili
nimo pwde ma-(litik?) this provision as is and use it as a source … it is overly broad, impractical,
unrealistic. So the HSRA is not unconstitutional.

BCDA v. COA.

In 1992 we have the passage of RA 7225 creating this bcda bases conversion and development
authority. And in this law, RA 7227 the board of directors of this bcda has the power to include in its
organization … determine its own organizational structure and in the course thereof adopt a
compensation and benefit scheme which is equivalent to the bangko sentral ng pilipinas. That’s a very
generous compensation package or scheme … Anyway, so using that authority under the law, nag-issue
si bcda ug issuance which granted this yearend benefits to contractual employees, as well as regular …
employees and board members that started in 1996. But it was disallowed sometime in 2003 by the
commission on audit because it violated daw a circular by the DBM. Now bcda claims that COA can’t do
this because otherwise it’d violate several provisions of the constitution particularly Article 2 sections 15
and 18, what do these provide? Maintenance of peace and order, protection of life, liberty, promotion
of general welfare, state affirms labor and requiring socio-economic force. If tanggalon daw nimo ang
10,000 nga yearend benefit, you would violate … there would no longer be peace and order, protection
of life, liberty, etc. Is the bcda correct? The court said NO. Article 2 again is not a source of enforceable
right. Article 2 provides declaration of policies, principles and state policies… general ideological priciples
and policies would not be a source of enforceable rights. These provisions are not self–executing.
Therefore, you cannot claim that you have a right under these articles. So we are done with that. Let’s
continue with concept

In the case of Kida v. Senate, the court emphasized here the principle of constitutional supremacy. You
cannot deviate as we learned from the first meeting, constitution is supreme over all.

What happened in Kida v. Senate?

What happened in this case, sir, was RA 9054(?) was passed, that amended the ARMM charter and reset
their elections for regional officials, on the 2nd Monday of September 2001.

Let’s start with the history before we go the issues. After the effectivity of the 1987 constitution, what
was enacted, 2 yrs, on Aug 1, 1989?

RA 6734

Which is?

The organic act that establishes ARMM and scheduled the first regular elections…

OK.. This law was passed which created this ARMM… this Autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao.
Then purportedly, there were laws that succeeded this RA 6734 which daw amended it, what are these
laws?

RA 9054 that moved it to the 2nd Monday of Sept 2001, RA 9140 that further reset the first regular
elections to Nov 6, 2001, RA 933 that reset for the 3rd time the ARMM original elections to the 2nd
Monday …

And finally, RA(?)?

10153 that originate from the house of representatives …

These laws daw, purportedly, allegedly amended RA 6734, this organic act. Now why were these laws
challenged to be… what is the problem of these laws?

Firstly, sir, Article 18 Section 1 mandates the synchronization of elections, sir, tama sir? so the …

Relax lang …

*laughs* the amendment, sir, that would move the elections to another day would be unconstitutional,
sir

The issue on synchronization… what about the…? there was a reqt … in RA 9054, na before daw you can
amend this law, etc. there is this reqt of this blank and blank. What does RA 9034 impose?
To comply with the super majority

Super majority what?

Super majority reqt for amendment, sir

What does that mean? What does super majority mean?

That would mean more than the majority that is mandated by the constitution, sir

For? Majority of what?

*laughs* for the… House of Representatives, sir

House of Representatives lang?

And the Senate, sir… so, the congress

Congress. This... what law prescribe the super majority reqt? Kadtong mga laws nga imong gipang-
enumerate… one of them imposed this super majority reqt, what law is that? RA?

9054, sir

Yes… this law imposed this super majority reqt before you can amend daw RA 9054, as well as the
organic act… congress has to make this super majority reqt.. what is the super majority reqt? How many
votes?

2/3 sir

2/3 votes of?

Both senate and congress

Voting…?

Voting separately.

Yes, That is the reqt of the super majority. 2/3. Before you can amend this law, 2/3 dapat imong
achieved votes from both houses, voting separately. what else? Super majority reqt and? Another reqt
before you can validly effect an amendment that is the blank reqt?

Plebiscite, sir

Yes. Kailangan daw naay plebiscite. i-subject pa ni nimo sa mga inhabitants aning locality… mu-approve
ba mo? to effect and amendment thereof… So let’s go now to the ruling of the supreme court. Now,
insofar as the issue on synchronization is concerned, there is a discussion here by the supreme court on
the verba legis of … meaning rule, now what was the provision or article of the constitution requires the
synchronization of legal elections?

Article 18 section 12, sir

What was the word that was zeroed in(?) by the supreme court here to be an issue? *silence* There is
an issue here that the election daw on ARMM should not be synchronized because it’s not in the
constitution.. It is not a blank election, what is being held in the ARMM is a regional election… not a
blank election, therefore is no need na i-synchronize na sya. What was the word? ___ election

Local election, sir

Local election. Is ‘regional’ inside or within the definition of ‘local?’

Yes, sir. Yes?

The supreme court said, “although called a regional elections, the ARMM election should be included
among the elections to be synchronized because it is a local election…” region gani.. local election based
on wording and structure of the constitution… and diri na the discussion, basic rule in constitution
construction is that the words should be used should be understood in the sense that they are in
common use and given ordinary meaning. Okay that was how supreme court interpreted that, local
includes regional. Reason ngano … why there is this lay meaning rule because constitution is not a
lawyer’s document, it’s supposed to be understood by all… or should be given ordinary meaning except
for technical terms employed. Now, let’s go to the super majority reqt issue… why is this a constitutional
issue? Where? What provision in the constitution is this in consistent with?

Art 6, sec 16, par 8

Yes. What was this article provide? briefly

Each… majority of each house shall constitute (dili klaro tubag sa audio)…

So?

Super majority is clearly in excess of what the constitution requires

As a general rule before congress can pass … amend certain… laws, what’s the required general number
of voting

Majority, sir

Majority vote lang ang required. This is the provision that is that clashes with the reqt in RA 9034 which
requires a 2/3 vote. It’d be more difficult daw for future congresses to amend these laws because we
are to contend with this 2/3 voting reqt. And the court said, that reqt gives this law what kind of nature,
characteristic?

(di klaro answer)

It becomes an imputable (akong pagdungog jud is irreparable… ambot, paminawa nlg sa audio), which is
repugnant to this system of govt. why is that? Because Congress is supposed to be plenary and current
congress cannot bind or limit the powers of future congresses by enacting irreparable laws. The court
said that 2/3 concept gives the kind of law a semblance… lisod sya i-irepient(?) Now let’s go to the
plebiscite reqt. Is it reqd in the supposed amendments here?

No, sir.

Why?

Art 10 sec 18 par 2 states that only amendments … has the reqt for plebiscite
The constitution only requires in art 10 sec 18 that you can impose a plebiscite reqt if you have the
following amendments… or laws… creation of the autonomous region, determination of which
provinces, cities, geographic areas are included in that autonomous region… unsa pa? basic structure of
the regional govt, region’s judicial system. If your amendments touched these matters, then a plebiscite
is reqd, which means that, the constitution does not really proscribe or prohibit totally plebiscites, for as
long as mahulog ka diri, you fall within the instances wherein a plebiscite maybe reqd. Now, are these
supposed laws… do they fall under the instances that’d require a plebiscite?

No, sir

Now, let’s… in 2012, the court resolved the motion for reconsideration of this case, … with finality …
emphasized that synchronization is mandated in the constitution and It includes the ARMM elections.
Now Also the court ruled that the laws challenged here really do not amend RA 9054, the organic law,
because these laws do not change anything …, but just set the definite schedule when the elections are
to be held. Those changes are not considered amendments. Nevertheless, even if if are considered
amendments, they cannot be… the reqt in 1954, even if considered as amendments because the reqt of
the super majority vote and plebiscite are inscositent to the provisions of the constitution… they are
unconstitutional . there is no need therefore, for a super majority vote and a plebiscite before this
supposed amendments can take effect

Chavez v. JBC.

We have here the case involving the composition of jbc and interpretation of the phrase, “a
representative of congress” When we say a plebiscite, an election, a representative, how many objects
are you referring to? Are you referring to 50? 50 elections? 50 plebiscite? You are talking about 1 (one)…
a representative. That is under the constitution sec 8 art 8 which provides for composition of the jbc.
what is the jbc, anyway? It’s a body, The Judicial Bar Council which sala or sifts the applicants for
positions in judiciary, office of ombudsman, among other govt positions. So this the strainer, yang pang
determine who are qualified. This Jbc is composed of how many members only?

7.

7 members, as enumerated in this article. Who are these? The chief justice, the secretary of justice, and
a representative of congress. These are the 3 ex-oficio members. When you say ex-oficio, they hold their
membership in the jbc because they are the chief justice, secretary of justice, and the representative of
congress. There is no need nga i-appoint sila holding those positions in an ex-oficio capacity, part of their
duties. Those are the 3, who are the rest? A representative of the Integrated bar, professor of Law, a
retired member of SC, and a representative of the private sector. Seven members in all. In 1994,
however, this composition was changed by the jbc. Instead of having 7 members, an 8th member was
added to the jbc. Because Two (2) representatives of congress began sitting in the jbc, and they have ½
vote each. So, nagka-yagagaw na. The case, this was challenged by Chavez, former solicitor-general,
because accdg to him, this jbc is not following the provision of the constitution insofar as its composition
is concerned. We now have 8 members, the constitution only allows 7. So, who is correct here? Now
what we need to discuss here is the unambiguity of the provision. When we say unambiguous, it is not
confusing. It is clear. Klaro. There is no need for any interpretation and the phrase involved here is the
“a representative of congress.” Do you need to calculate, use a calculator to compute how many
representatives are needed from congress? The court said that jbc must be composed only of 7
members because of the word use of the singular letter “a” preceding the representative of congress is
unequivocal, Clear, and leaves no room for any other construction. When the provisions are clear, there
is no room, there’s no need for construction. The words of a statute or the constitution are clear… free
from ambiguity or confusion, it must be given/ they must be given literal meaning and applied in any
attempted interpretation. That’s what the court said here. also, there’s this maxim, “nociture e socis(?),”
I don’t know if I pronounced that correctly, which means that, in reading a word (??) in its accompanying
words ... the meaning of questionable words or phrases in a statute maybe answered then by reference
to word/s associated with it (dili klaro ang words in ser) whats the point? You do not read the provisions
of the law/ constitution in isolation, you read it entire document. That’s how you interpret it. That’s the
concept of nositur. That concept Now here, the court applied that doctrine, the word congress used in
this provision use its generic sense and what are the words nga kauban niya? A representative of
Congress. Chief Justice, secretary of justice. A representative of the integrated bar. A professor of Law.
Aside sa fact nga They denote singularity, there is this use of the word congress. Congress was not
emphasized here by the provision kung represent or to mean both houses. Beacause ang point sa
provision is that the three great departments of the govt are represented in the jbc. The executive, the
judiciary, and the congress or the legislature. 1 representative each. Thats nositur. That latin term. In the
empire of this law, the court, ofc, have held its own decision and emphasized that… yeaahh there was an
argument here, raised in ... There was just an oversight, because There was a failure daw of the framers
of the constitution to make the proper adjustments, when there was a shift from unicameralism to
bicameralism because of that oversight daw, kay sa una, unicameral but because they wanted it to be
bicameral nga 2 Houses of Congress, nalimtan daw, congress ang gigamit… by oversight, congress
gihapon ang nagamit even if bicameral na ang character sa legislature. Is that argument correct? The
court said that NO. The framework’s repose(?) their wisdom envisioned in one supreme constitution to
be the ultimate expression of the principles in the framework upon which govt, society were to operate,
and therefore when we interpret constitutional provision/s, the court relies on the basic postulate that
the frameworks MEANT what they said, while they use the words of the constitution, the language used
in the constitution must be taken deliberately chosen, for a definite purpose. Wala na gipatak-an diha…
every word there was selected with precision because they are supposed to mean this way. every word
must be interpreted to exude its deliberate intent, Must be maintained inviolate against disobedience
and defiance. So, the court cannot accept that this was an error of the framers. We have to hold that
this WAS an error.

Okay, so we’re done with those concepts. In your syllabus, we have this the syllabus of the bar exams,
we have to discuss the general provisions in the constitution, Art 16. So let’s just discuss some of them,
some of them we’ll discuss in more detail in the future. Section One on the Flag of the Philippines. Do
not take that for granted because we have a law that requires us to sing with fervor whenever there is a
flag ceremony. Is it required nga naay flag sa imong atubangan, before ka magtindog? NO! We’ll discuss
that law sometime in the future. So when you’re in the cinema, you reprimand those who do not stand
up because you are a law student. You are supposed to be superior with these pedestrians. I can arrest
you. Citizen’s arrest. *laughs* The pertinent provisions, among others, is Sec 3 state immunity from suit.
The state may not be sued without its consent. In the discussion here, it’s very lengthy. In the future.
Section 4 and 5 on the armed forces. The armed forces of the Philippines shall be composed of a
citizen’s arm force, which shall undergo military training as provided by the law and the members of the
AFP shall take an oath of affirmation to uphold and defend the constitution. Yes, because they are our
first line of defense against invaders, against CHINA. *laughs* We have to have a loyal complement, as
emphasized in the case of the kudiya(?). What about the police? Is it under the armed forces of the
Philippines? Learning from the Marcos regime, where the police under the AFP, now, the state under
Sec 6 Art 16, the state shall establish a … one police force, which shall be nationalistic, and civilian in
character … civilian authority is supreme or superior to military authority, So, civilian ang atong police.
What else? Sec 11. Ownership of mass media and the advertising industry. That’s why there is so many
fake news because our mass media is owned fully by Filipinos. This provides the ownership and
management of mass media shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, corporations … associations
fully owned by Filipinos ... 100% Filipino ang ownership sa corporation before you can engage in mass
media. this is what happened to rappler, foreign intervention … in the advertising industry, … required
ownership by Filipinos or … at least 70% ownership threshold as so far as the advertising industry is
concerned

Now let’s go to some of the general considerations before we continue our study of the constitution.
The most important of which is the reqts or conditions for the exercise of judicial review. You need to
memorize and understand these reqts if you want to pass this subject. At least kani man lang ma-carry
ninyo to your grave. So, We have the case of Funa v. Agra. Here, there’s an issue on the holding of
multiple offices of Ms. Agra. Agra is so smart that he held the Office of the Secretary of Justice and the
Solicitor General, all at once, concurrently, but under the constitution, particularly Art 7 Sec 13, cabinet
members among other officials enumerated in that article cannot hold any other position. Members of
the cabinet etc from holding any other office or employment during their tenure unless otherwise
provided in the Constitution. Now, Agra was appointed as the Acting Secretary of Justice. He is the SOJ,
and therefore a cabinet member. But he was appointed also as acting SolGen. So Now, he has 2 offices.
He is holding 2 offices in violation of the constitution. Agra admitted that he held the 2 offices
concurrently. So the case went to the supreme court and one of the many issues here which was
discussed with supreme court is what are the reqts before any court can entertain a case challenging an
act or law to be unconstitutional. We have the reqts for judicial review of the constitutionality of a
certain act or law. What is the purpose? Ngano kailangan maning mga reqts? The Sumpreme court is
already swamped with many cases, left and right, dapat nay parameters before the court can rule or to
even accept these cases challenging the constitutionality of an act or law. What are these 4 requisites?
… (name ng clasm8)?

The 4 requisites are: (A) there must be a violation of the constitution …

Are you sure?

THE FOUR requisites are…

THE FOUR requisites. That’s how you answer in the essay… dili diretso nga (1) there must be.. you have
to assume that your reader of your answer has no idea what he’s reading. Dapat naay introduction
The 4 essential requisites for judicial review are, first, actual case or controversy; 2nd, is the locus
standi(?)

Locus standi(?) what does that mean?

It’s a .. the case … arising from the direct injury … (dili klaro ang answer huhu)

The third?

The third is, constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. Then the 4th is,
decision on the constitutional question is terminative on the case itself.

So, those are the 4 requisites. Remember, 1st, there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the
exercise of judicial power. The case is not hypothetical. Supreme court i-kuan lang gud, para naa miy
guidance, i-lecture lang gud mi, but NO. there has to be parties, rights involved etc. there has to be an
actual case, not and corollary to the concept the case … meaning humana na ang issue, there is no need
to solve anymore. There must be an actual case. Number 2, the person must have locus standi, legal
standing, so that there is a point, para naay ma-victor jud sa case. Kay kung walay locus, what’s the
point? Why would the court grant you a relief, na you’re not entitled to that relief … Third is the
constitutionality, question thereof must be raised at the earliest opportunity. Dapat dili belated, near
afterthought. So dapat at the earliest opportunity you raised it already. And finally, this reqt of lis mota
(?). The resolution of a constitutionality of this act or law resolves the case. Dili sya impassing(?) lang,
dpat ma-resolve, kung whether or not, this an act or law is unconstitutional, so that the case is fully
resolved. Anyway, so these legal standing, how is this interpreted by the Supreme Court? Is it strictly
construed … how? How is it interpreted? Applied? How? Amar, would you like to help? How is this legal
standing interpreted by the supreme court?

(quotes reference… dili klaro tubag ni ate gurl)

In your own words? What does that mean? Does the 4th dismissed pagka-kita niya sa rule, … how is this
interpreted? Ctrl+F liberally. *laughs* Anyway, the court here, to have legal standing, you have to show
… the petitioner a direct injury, however, the court enacted liberally on the standing of reqt, what is a
rule is exception that is usually invoked? When the party has legal standing … ? What if you exceed the
standard? The act of exceeding, unsa mana? Nag-kuan ka? You? Brand sa UST? *silence* you transcend.
TRANSCENDENTAL. Transcendence. Unsay ground importance? Thank you, ms (name). Transcendental
importance. … meaning, far-reaching in effect. Anyway, going back, as tax payer you can challenge an
act if it involves an illegal disbursement because you are a tax payer. If you are a voter, etc..
Transcendental importance is far-reaching implications. There is a need now for the court to promulgate
in benchmark in future analougous cases. Now, going back to … (words too fast; murmurs) When is the
case … not academic? If it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by vitue of supervening events. So
that the declaration will have no practical value or use. This reqt, however, …. the court can still resolve
the case if the following requisites are present: 1. Grave violation of the constitution; 2. Case involves an
exceptional character and paramount public interest; 3. Constitutional issue raised requires the
formulation of guiding, controlling principles as guide to benchmarking, and the case is capable of
repetition for review. Every requirement has an exception. And every exception has an exception. NOW,
in ruling of this case, the court said, gi-question ang technicality on standing as well as the fact kay ning
resign si Agra as SolGen. No issue. The court resolved it, Agra cannot hold any office while he is the
SolGen or if he is SOJ, bcuz he would be a member of the cabinet.

We will continue next meeting.

END.