No violation of equal protection.

Petitioners claim that the Executive discriminated against some

legislators on the ground alone of their receiving less than the others could not of itself warrant a finding
of contravention of the Equal Protection Clause. The denial of equal protection of any law should be an
issue to be raised only by parties who supposedly suffer it, and, in these cases, such parties would be the
few legislators claimed to have been discriminated against in the releases of funds under the DAP. The
reason for the requirement is that only such affected legislators could properly and fully bring to the fore
when and how the denial of equal protection occurred, and explain why there was a denial in their
situation. The requirement was not met here.

Operative fact doctrine. The doctrine of operative fact recognizes the existence of the law or executive act
prior to the determination of its unconstitutionality as an operative fact that produced consequences that
cannot always be erased, ignored or disregarded. In short, it nullifies the void law or executive act but
sustains its effects. It provides an exception to the general rule that a void or unconstitutional law
produces no effect. But its use must be subjected to great scrutiny and circumspection, and it cannot be
invoked to validate an unconstitutional law or executive act, but is resorted to only as a matter of equity
and fair play. It applies only to cases where extraordinary circumstances exist, and only when the
extraordinary circumstances have met the stringent conditions that will permit its application.

The operative fact doctrine applies to the implementation of the DAP. To declare the implementation of
the DAP unconstitutional without recognizing that its prior implementation constituted an operative fact
that produced consequences in the real as well as juristic worlds of the Government and the Nation is to
be impractical and unfair. Unless the doctrine is held to apply, the Executive as the disburser and the
offices under it and elsewhere as the recipients could be required to undo everything that they had
implemented in good faith under the DAP. That scenario would be enormously burdensome for the
Government. Equity alleviates such burden.