G.R. No. 254001 , July 11, 2023
BAYYO ASSOCIATION, INC. AND ANSELMO D. PERWEG, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION, PETITIONERS, VS. SECRETARY ARTHUR P. TUGADE, SECRETARY CARLOS S. DOMINGUEZ, SECRETARY WENDEL ELIOT AVISADO, AND ATTY. MARTIN B. DELGRA, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

This is a Concurring Opinion by Justice Leonen in an En Banc decision. The main petition, filed by Bayyo Association, Inc. and its President, sought relief against various government secretaries and an attorney. Justice Leonen concurs in the dismissal of the petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its power of judicial review over the petition, given the requirements of justiciability.

RULING

The Petition must be dismissed outright for lack of justiciability. The Supreme Court must exercise restraint and await a proper pleading to rule on the merits.
The power of judicial review, while vested in the Court by the Constitution, is subject to discretion and requires the presence of justiciability requisites. These essential requisites are: (1) an actual case or controversy; (2) petitioners must possess locus standi; (3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the resolution of the question is unavoidably necessary to the decision of the case itself.
The most important requirement is the existence of an actual case or controversy, which involves a real conflict of rights or duties arising from actual facts, properly established, and not based on speculation. An actual case or controversy exists when: (a) there are actual facts to enable courts to intelligently adjudicate the issues; or (b) there is a clear and convincing showing of a contrariety of legal rights. The party asserting a contrariety of legal rights must demonstrate that the law is so contrary to their rights that there is no interpretation other than a factual breach of rights—that the only possible interpretation is unconstitutional.
Without the necessary findings of fact or a demonstrable contrariety of legal rights, any review would be theoretical and abstract. The Court does not issue advisory opinions, resolve academic questions, or rule on hypothetical problems. The existence of a law, its implementing orders, or a budget for its implementation does not substitute for real facts where concrete rights or duties arise. Therefore, the Court must await a proper case with a justiciable controversy before exercising judicial review.