Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DEAN JOSE JOYA v. PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT

This case has been cited 10 times or more.

	GR No. 204819 2014-04-08	JAMES M. IMBONG v. PAQUITO N. OCHOA MENDOZA, J.
(12) Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,[28] filed by John Walter B. Juat and several others,[29] in their capacities as citizens (Juat);
	GR No. 208566 2013-11-19	GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The prevailing rule in constitutional litigation is that no question involving the constitutionality or validity of a law or governmental act may be heard and decided by the Court unless there is compliance with the legal requisites for judicial inquiry,[117] namely: (a) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (b) the person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject act or issuance; (c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (d) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.[118] Of these requisites, case law states that the first two are the most important[119] and, therefore, shall be discussed forthwith.
	GR No. 192986 2013-01-15	ADVOCATES FOR TRUTH IN LENDING v. BANGKO SENTRAL MONETARY BOARD REYES, J.
In the 1993 case of Joya v. Presidential Commission on Good Government,[25] it was held that no question involving the constitutionality or validity of a law or governmental act may be heard and decided by the court unless there is compliance with the legal requisites for judicial inquiry, namely: (a) that the question must be raised by the proper party; (b) that there must be an actual case or controversy; (c) that the question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and (d) that the decision on the constitutional or legal question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself.
	GR No. 185053 2012-02-15	EUSTAQUIO CANDARI v. ROLAND DONASCO SERENO, J.
In Joya v. Presidential Commission on Good Government,[12] we said: For a court to exercise its power of adjudication, there must be an actual case or controversy one which involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution; the case must not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other similar considerations not cognizable by a court of justice. A case becomes moot and academic when its purpose has become stale, such as the case before us.
	GR No. 176951 2008-11-18	LEAGUE OF CITIES OF PHILIPPINES v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
The rule has been adopted in our jurisdiction. In House International Building Tenants Association, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[32] Joya v. Presidential Commission on Good Government,[33] Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora,[34] Francisco, Jr. v. The House of Representatives,[35] and Anak Mindanao Party-List Group v. The Executive Secretary,[36] among others, this Court made similar pronouncements on locus standi. In the last mentioned case, the Court summarized the rule, thus:Locus standi or legal standing has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged. The gist of the question on standing is whether a party alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.
	GR NO. 139554 2006-07-21	ARMITA B. RUFINO v. BALTAZAR N. ENDRIGA CARPIO, J.
For the Court to exercise its power of adjudication, there must be an actual case or controversy " one that involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution.[16] The case must not be moot or based on extra-legal or other similar considerations not cognizable by courts of justice.[17] A case becomes moot when its purpose has become stale.[18]
	GR No. 166645 2005-11-11	VICENTE D. HERCE v. MUNICIPALITY OF CABUYAO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
But then again, what militates against the grant of the instant petition is petitioner's lack of legal standing to raise a legal question. Legal standing denotes a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the act that is being challenged. The term "interest" means material interest as distinguished from a mere incidental interest.[15]
	GR No. 148334 2004-01-21	ARTURO M. TOLENTINO v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
"Legal standing" or locus standi refers to a personal and substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury because of the challenged governmental act.[15] The requirement of standing, which necessarily "sharpens the presentation of issues,"[16] relates to the constitutional mandate that this Court settle only actual cases or controversies.[17] Thus, generally, a party will be allowed to litigate only when (1) he can show that he has personally suffered some actual or threatened injury because of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action.[18]