G.R. No. 236118 , January 24, 2023
ACT TEACHERS REP. ANTONIO TINIO, BAYAN MUNA REP. PARTY-LIST REP. CARLOS ISAGANI ZARATE, AND ANAKPAWIS REP. PARTY-LIST ARIEL “KA AYIK” CASILAO, PETITIONERS, VS. PRESIDENT RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SPEAKER PANTALEON ALVAREZ, DEPUTY SPEAKER RANEO ABU, MAJORITY LEADER RODOLFO FARIÑAS, AND DEPUTY MAJORITY LEADER REP. ARTHUR DEFENSOR, JR., RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 236295] LABAN KONSYUMER, INC. AND ATTY. VICTORIO MARIO A. DIMAGIBA, PETITIONERS, VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE SECRETARY CARLOS G. DOMINGUEZ III, BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE COMMISSIONER CAESAR R. DULAY, HOUSE SPEAKER PANTALEON D. ALVAREZ IN REPRESENTATION OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND SENATE PRESIDENT AQUILINO D. PIMENTEL III IN REPRESENTATION OF THE SENATE, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

This is a consolidation of two petitions ( G.R. No. 236118 and G.R. No. 236295) challenging the constitutionality of a tax reform law. Justice Leonen, in his Separate Opinion, concurs in the result of dismissing the petitions but bases his reasoning on specific procedural grounds. The opinion focuses on the requirements for the exercise of the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its power of judicial review over the petitions challenging the tax reform law.

RULING

Justice Leonen votes to DISMISS the Petitions. His separate opinion provides two primary grounds for dismissal:
1. Lack of an Actual Case or Controversy: The exercise of judicial power, including the expanded certiorari jurisdiction to determine grave abuse of discretion, requires the presence of an actual case or controversy. This constitutional requirement, rooted in the doctrine of separation of powers, means there must be a real, concrete, and ripe conflict of legal rights susceptible to judicial resolution, not a hypothetical or anticipatory one. The opinion emphasizes that the Court cannot rule on the constitutionality of a statute merely because it has been passed; to do so without an actual case would be to rule on the wisdom of the legislative policy. The petitioners failed to show a direct, concrete, and adverse effect from the challenged law sufficient to constitute an actual case.
2. Violation of the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts: The petitions directly invoked the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction without first seeking relief from lower courts. The doctrine of hierarchy of courts is a procedural rule requiring that petitions must first be filed with the appropriate lower courts, except in certain exceptional cases. The opinion finds no compelling reason to justify a direct resort to the Supreme Court, as the factual questions involved do not fall under recognized exceptions such as those involving national interest or the constitutionality of a treaty. Strict adherence to this doctrine is necessary to respect the hierarchy of courts.