Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 - in The Matter of Save The Supreme Court

    Uploaded by

    Nice Raptor
    71 views2 pages
    This document discusses a case involving a petitioner who seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the court to exercise judicial independence and fiscal autonomy against perceived hostility from Congress regarding proposed bills. The court denies the petition, finding the petitioner did not have standing or show an actual case or controversy, as he failed to demonstrate a personal and substantial interest or direct injury from the bills. The power of judicial review has certain limitations, including compliance with requirements like standing, which presents an actual case or controversy.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    16 - In The Matter Of Save the Supreme Court

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document discusses a case involving a petitioner who seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the court to exercise judicial independence and fiscal autonomy against perceived hostility from Congress regarding proposed bills. The court denies the petition, finding the petitioner did not have standing or show an actual case or controversy, as he failed to demonstrate a personal and substantial interest or direct injury from the bills. The power of judicial review has certain limitations, including compliance with requirements like standing, which presents an actual case or controversy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    71 views2 pages

    16 - in The Matter of Save The Supreme Court

    Uploaded by

    Nice Raptor
    This document discusses a case involving a petitioner who seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the court to exercise judicial independence and fiscal autonomy against perceived hostility from Congress regarding proposed bills. The court denies the petition, finding the petitioner did not have standing or show an actual case or controversy, as he failed to demonstrate a personal and substantial interest or direct injury from the bills. The power of judicial review has certain limitations, including compliance with requirements like standing, which presents an actual case or controversy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    FILING FEES

    (16)
    In The Matter of: Save the Supreme Court Judicial Independence and Fiscal
    Autonomy Movement v. Abolition of Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and
    Reduction of Fiscal Autonomy

    UDK-15143, January 21, 2015

    DOCTRINE:

    Locus standi is defined as “a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given


    question.” In private suits, standing is governed by the “real-parties-in interest” rule as
    contained in Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. It
    provides that “every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real
    party in interest.” Accordingly, the “real-party-in interest” is “the party who stands to
    be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of
    the suit.”

    FACTS:

    This case involves the proposed bills abolishing the Judiciary Development Fund and
    replacing it with the “Judiciary Support Fund.” Funds collected from the proposed
    Judiciary Support Fund shall be remitted to the national treasury and Congress shall
    determine how the funds will be used.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    Petitioner Rolly Mijares (Mijares) prays for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in order
    to compel this court to exercise its judicial independence and fiscal autonomy against
    the perceived hostility of Congress.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    In the letter-petition, Mijares alleges that he is “a Filipino citizen, and a concerned


    taxpayer.” He filed this petition as part of his “continuing crusade to defend and
    uphold the Constitution” because he believes in the rule of law. He is concerned about
    the threats against the judiciary after this court promulgated Priority Development
    Assistance Fund case on November 19, 2013 and Disbursement Acceleration Program
    case on July 1, 2014.

    The complaint implied that certain acts of members of Congress and the President after
    the promulgation of these cases show a threat to judicial independence.
    ISSUE:

    Whether petitioner Rolly Mijares has sufficiently shown grounds for this court to grant
    the petition and issue a writ of mandamus.

    RULING:

    This court resolves to deny the petition.

    The power of judicial review, like all powers granted by the Constitution, is subject to
    certain limitations. Petitioner must comply with all the requisites for judicial review
    before this court may take cognizance of the case. The requisites are:

    1. there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial
    power;
    2. the person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity
    of the subject act or issuance; otherwise stated, he must have a personal and
    substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct
    injury as a result of its enforcement;
    3. the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and
    4. the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.

    Petitioner’s failure to comply with the first two requisites warrants the outright
    dismissal of this petition.

    You might also like