ARTICLE VI: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
32
(Pp. 675-685)
SECTION 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the
Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a
House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the
people by the provision on initiative and referendum.
1. A bicameral body.
● Unicameralism
○ 35’s National Assembly and 73’s Batasang Pambansa
○ Advantages:
■ Easy to organize → economic and efficient
■ Facility to pinpoint responsibility for legislation
■ Avoidance of duplication
■ Strengthens legislature in relation to the executive
● Bicameralism (1987 Constitution)
○ Bicameral congress consisting of a Senate, elected by
the nation at large, and a House of Representatives,
elected by district.
○ Advantages:
■ Upper house looks at problems from national
perspective; avoids parochial tendencies if a body
is elected by district.
■ Allows a more careful study of legislation.
■ Less vulnerable to control by the executive.
7. Non-delegability of legislative power.
2. Nature of legislative power.
● Legislative power
○ The authority to make, alter, and repeal laws.
○ A derivative and delegated power through Constitution
■ Consti is people’s will in their sovereign capacity
Law is legislature’s will as a subordinate
capacity
● Plenary legislative power
○ Power granted to Philippine legislature
○ Any power, deemed legislative by usage and tradition,
is necessarily possessed by Congress.
■ Therefore, only Congress can make laws.
■ And, Congress can’t pass irrepealable laws.
● Principle of Non-delegability of legislative power
○ Congress can’t delegate its law making power to others.
3. Separation of powers.
● Principle of Separation of Powers
○ Main essence:
■ Legislation with Congress
■ Execution to executive
■ Settlement of legal controversies to judiciary.
○ Contrary to parliamentary system of 1973 where
legislative and executive powers were combined.
■ Here, cooperation principle was followed instead
● Purpose:
○ A form of “checks and balances”
○ Prevent concentration of powers and avoid tyranny
4. Limits on legislative power.
● From Government v. Springer
○ “Limited within the four walls of the Constitution”
● Other limits:
○ Bill of Rights
○ Manner of passing bills and forms it should take
○ “Parliament can do everything but make a woman a
man, and a man a woman.”
5. The holders of legislative power: Congress; people
through initiative and referendum; President in
emergency.
● Congress: National legislation
● People: Initiative and Referendum (from Sec. 32, Art. 6)
Philippine International Trading Corporation v. Angeles.
○ Directly propose and enact laws; approve/reject laws
○ Through petition by >10% of total registered voters
■ Each legislative district represented >3%
○ R.A. 6735: Initiative and Referendum Act
○ Congress to pass such act “as soon as possible” -Sec.
● President: Emergency legislative power (discussed below)
6. The Once and Former Legislative power of President
Marcos and President Aquino.
● Marcos Era (1972-1987)
○ Amendment No. 6: Grants the president (prime
minister) legislative powers. Elements:
■ There’s a grave emergency or threat
■ Batasang Pambansa fails to act adequately
■ President, in his judgment, can issue decrees,
orders, which becomes law of the land.
● Can also repeal or amend old laws without
debate or three-readings rule.
○ Intent (according to Justice Barredo):
■ President, who has substantive executive powers
should, by nature, also have legislative powers to
act on emergency matters.
■ Not to set up a dictatorship.
● Aquino Era
○ Proclamation No. 3: Vested legislative power on Pres
■ “Until a legislature is elected under Constitution”
■ March 25, 1986 to July 26, 1987 only.
○ During this stint, she signed 42 legislative acts.
● Three ideas on Principle of Non-delegability (Corwin)
o Doctrine of separation of powers
o Due process of law
o Delegata potestas non potest delegari (no delegated
powers can be further delegated)
● A breach of the National fundamental law if Congress gives
up its legislative power to the President, or to the Judicial
branch, or if by law it attempts to invest itself or its members
with either executive power or judicial power.
● Theories authorizing administrative agencies to exercise
vast regulatory powers.
● Non-legislative body may be authorized to "fill up the
details" of a statute- Congress may certainly delegate to
others powers which the legislature may rightfully exercise
itself. ... The line has not been exactly drawn which separate
those important subjects, which must be entirely regulated by
the legislature itself, from those of less interest, in which a
general provision may be made, and power given to those
who are to act under such general provisions, to fill up the
details
○ Congress may pass contingent legislation- legislation
which leaves to another body the business of
ascertaining the facts necessary to bring the law into
actual operation.
○ Under both of the above theories, the function
performed by the administrative agency is not law-
making but law-execution.
● In order to ensure that the power delegated by the
legislature is not law-making power, the statute making
the delegation must:
○ Be complete in itself -if must set forth therein the
policy to be carried out or implemented by the delegate.
○ Fix a standard -the limits of which are sufficiently
determinate or determinable — to which the delegate
must conform in the performance of his functions.
● Provided the above requirements of completeness and
sufficiency of standards are satisfied, the regulations passed
by an administrative body pursuant to the delegation made by
the statute are just as binding as if the regulation had been
written in the original statute itself.
· As result of the growing complexity of the modern
society, it has become necessary to create more and more
 administrative bodies to help in the regulation of its ramified
activities. Specialized in the particular field assigned to them,
they can deal with the problems thereof with more expertise
and dispatch than can be expected from the legislature or the
courts of justice.
Compahia General de Tabacos v. Board of Public Utility
● The respondent is heretofore ordered to present annually on
or before March first of each year a detailed report of
finances and operations of such vessels as are operated by it
as a common carrier within the Philippine Islands, in the
form and containing the matters indicated in the model of
annual report.
Declaring the statute to be an unlawful delegation of
legislative power, the Supreme Court said:
o provision conferring authority on the board is general
o not expressing its own will or the will of the State with
respect to the public utilities to which it refers.
o The Legislature seems simply to have authorized the
Board of Public Utility Commissioners to require what
information the board wants.
A price control act unconstitutional in 1919
● The question here involves an analysis and construction of
Act No. 2868, in so far as it authorizes the Governor-General
to fix the price at which rice should be sold.
● It will be noted that section 1 authorizes the Governor-
General, with the consent of the Council of State, for any
cause resulting in an extraordinary rise in the price of palay,
rice or com, to issue and promulgate temporary rules and
emergency measures for carrying out the purposes of the Act.
● The Supreme Court analyzed the statute thus:
○ The legislature does not undertake to specify or define
the terms “for any cause”, “an extraordinary rise”,
“with the consent of the council state”, "temporary rules
and emergency measures for carrying out the purposes
of this Act." which creates confusion and vagueness on
the said provision.
People v. Rosenthal
● The Supreme Court found the broad standard of "public
interest" a sufficient guide for the Insular Treasurer in
determining the cancellation of a permit to engage in the sale
of speculative securities.
● However, it was found sufficient only in the context of the
purpose of the law, which was to protect the public against
speculative schemes.
Araneta v. Gatmaitan
● The Supreme Court had no difficulty in upholding, in the
context of the entire law, the prohibition of the use of trawls
in San Miguel Bay pursuant to a statute which authorized the
Secretary of Agriculture to impose restrictions "on the use of
any fishing net or fishing device for the protection of fish fry
or fish eggs.”
For an administrative regulation to have the force of penal law
it is necessary:
(1) That such violation be made a crime by the delegating
statute itself;
(2) That the penalty be provided by the statute itself; and
(3) That the regulation be published.
8. Developments in jurisprudence.
● Edu v. Ericta:
○ What cannot be delegated is the authority under the
Constitution to make laws and to alter and repeal them;
the test is the completeness of the statute in all its term
and provisions when it leaves the hands of the
legislature.
● Agustin vs Edu
○ Upheld a traffic regulation requiring the use of "early
warning devices"
● Free Telephone Workers Union v. Minister of Labor and
Employment
○ Upheld the power given to the Minister of Labor to
certify a labor dispute to the National Labor Relations
Commission for compulsory arbitration.
● Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA
○ The standard "fair and equitable employment practices"
was found sufficient basis for a regulation prescribing a
model contract for overseas workers.
● Employers Confederation v. National Wages and
Productivity Commission
○ The power of expert commissions to fix wages under
strict standards set by the legislature was recognized.
● Rosenthal, in Tablarin v. Gutierrez
○ The authority of the Board of Medical Education to set
rules for the closure of medical schools was drawn from
the general standard of "standardization and regulation
of medical education" taken together with other
provisions of the delegating statute.
● Osmefia v. Orbos
○ The authority of the Energy Regulatory Board to fix the
domestic prices of petroleum products was found to be
sufficiently specified "by the general policy of the law
to protect local consumers by stabilizing and
subsidizing domestic pump rates," by the authority
given to impose additional amounts "to augment the
resources of the [Oil Price Stabilization] Fund."
● Tatad v. Secretary of the Department of Energy
○ The Court invalidated Executive Order No. 392
because, in effecting the full deregulation of the oil
industry, President Ramos added a standard which did
not appear in the delegating law, R.A. No. 8180.
● Gerochi v. DENR
○ The power delegated to the Energy Regulator Board to
fix and impose a universal charge on electricity end-
users was challenged as an undue delegation of the
power to tax. The Court, however, said that, since the
purpose of the law was not revenue generation but
energy regulation, the power involved was more police
power than the power to tax.
● R.A. No. 9335, the Attrition Act of 1995
○ The Attrition Act was also challenged on the argument
that the oversight function of Congress was
unconstitutional. But in this case, the oversight had
already been done and was functus officio.
The Court set down the following guidelines to maintain
separation of powers:
Any post-enactment congressional measure should be limited
to scrutiny and investigation. In particular, congressional
oversight must be confined to the following:
(1) Scrutiny based primarily on Congress' power of
appropriation and the budget hearings conducted in
connection with it, its power to ask heads of departments to
appear before and be heard by either of its Houses on any
matter pertaining to their departments and its power of
confirmation; and
(2) Investigation and monitoring of the implementation of laws
pursuant to the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid
of legislation.
Any action or step beyond these will undermine the separation
of powers guaranteed by the Constitution. Legislative vetoes
fall in this class.
9. Exceptions to non-delegability
● One recognized exception to the rule on non-delegability of
legislative power is that local governments may be allowed to
legislate on purely local matters.
● On the local level the principle of separation of powers does
not apply strictly between the executive and the law-making
body.
● People v. Vera
○ The Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a statute
which left the activation of a probation system to the
discretion of the Provincial Board.
● Other exceptions to the rule on non-delegability.
○ Article VI, Section 23(2), authorizes Congress, in
times of war and other national emergency, to give to
the President "powers necessary and proper to carry out
a declared national policy,"
○ Section 28(2) authorizes Congress to delegate power to
fix tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and
wharfage dues, and other duties and imposts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE VII: EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in the President of
the Philippines.
1. The Executive Power.
● 1935- Executive power is vested in the President.
● 1973- Attempted to modify the system into
parliamentary type
○ Executive power was exercised by the Prime
Minister
○ President was reduced to a mere “symbolic head
of the State” but died before it was tested
○ President Marcos became ceremonial President
and Prime Minister through numerous
amendments- more powerful that he was also the
de facto Legislature.
● 1987- returned to the presidential system of government
and restored three branches of government with
provisions for check and balances.
● Enumerated Powers of the President:
○ To appoint, to ensure laws are faithfully
executed, to be Commander-in-Chief, to grant
clemency, and to contract foreign loans.
● Inevitable Question: Are the powers of the President
limited to what is specifically enumerated in the
Constitution and no others?
Marcos vs. Manglapus
● Laid down the existence of “residual power” of the
President not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
U.S. Presidency as basis after which Philippines’ is legally
patterned.
● The executive branch, was a chameleon, taking its color
from the character and personality of the President. The
thrust of the office, its impact on the constitutional order
altered from President to President.
● Constitution provides that execution of laws is only one
of the powers of the president.
○ It maintains what is traditionally within the
scope of the executive power but not limited to
the specific powers enumerated in the
Constitution. It is more than the sum of specific
powers so enumerated.
Springer vs Government of the Philippine Islands
● Issue: Who between the Governor- General and
legislature may vote the shares of stock held by
government to elect directors of the National Coal
Company and the Philippine National Bank.
● U.S. SC upheld the power of the Governor-General.
● Whatever is inherent in the government that is neither
legislative nor judicial has to be executive.
Court, in a per curiam resolution
● President has unstated residual powers which are implied
and are necessary to comply with the duties under the
Constitution.
● The limitation of powers of the President was a reaction
to the abuses of the Marcos regime.
● The result was limitation of specific powers of the
President, particularly on commander-in-chief clause, but
not a diminution of the general grant of executive
power.
Myers vs. United States
● SC concludes that Executive can exercise power from
sources not enumerated so long as not forbidden in the
Constitution.
● Concept of inherent power is not a synonym of power
without limit
● Residual Powers (implied powers) not to be confused
with 1973 Consti power to legislate pursuant to
Amendment No. 6.
● Amendment no. 6 refers to express, not implied, grant of
powers to the president that if there exists a grave
emergency or a threat or imminence thereof, president
may issue necessary decrees, orders or letters of
instructions, which shall form part of the law of the land.
● The two doctrines enunciated will be regretted when
another Ferdinand Marcos emerges as President.
2. Ceremonial Functions
● In presidential system, presidency includes many other
functions than just being chief executive.
● President must take part with real apparent enthusiasm in
a range of activities that would keep him running and
posing from sunrise to bedtime.
● Some activities can be priestly in nature; others, through
no fault of his own, are flirtations with vulgarity.
○ First lady, depending on her inclinations, can get
a fair share of flirtations with vulgarity. (Imelda
Marcos as first lady).
● President still retains the lion’s share of the glory.
3. Immunity from suit
● 1973 Constitution had a specific provision guaranteeing
the President's immunity and that of other executive
employees.
● The 1987 Constitution did not preserve this provision. no
provision in the Constitution clothing the President with
immunity from suit during his tenure.
● Commissioner Suarez suggested that the President's
immunity at least should be preserved, Father Bernas
replied it was already understood in PH jurisprudence that
the Pres may not be sued during his tenure.
The basis for this was Forbes etc. vs Tiaco and
Crossfield:
● The principle of non-liability, does not mean that the
judiciary has no authority to touch the acts of the
Governor-General; that he may, under cover of his office,
do what he will, unimpeded and unrestrained.
● The thing which the judiciary can not do is mulct the
Governor-General personally in damages which result
from the performance of his official duty, any more than
it can a member of the Philippine Commission or the
Philippine Assembly. Public policy forbids it.
 ● Neither does this principle of non-liability mean that the
chief executive may not be personally sued at all in
relation to acts which he claims to perform as such
official.
● He is entitled to protection in determining the question of
his authority.
● If he decide wrongly, he is still protected provided the
question of his authority was one over which two men,
reasonably qualified for that position, might honestly
differ;
-- but he is not protected if the lack of authority to act is
so plain that two such men could not honesdy differ over
its determination. In such case, he acts, not as Governor-
General but as a private individual, and, as such, must
answer for the consequences of his act.
Soliven v. Judge Makaisar
● Doctrine under 1987 consti that confirmed that the pres
enjoys immunity.
● The rationale for the grant to the President of the privilege
of immunity from suit is to assure the exercise of
Presidential duties and functions free from any hindrance
or distraction,
● Requiring all of the office-holder's time, also demands
undivided attention
● But this privilege of immunity from suit, pertains to the
President by virtue of the office and may be invoked only
by the holder of the office; not by any other person in the
President's behalf.
● There is nothing in our laws that would prevent the
President from waiving the privilege. It is a decision that
cannot be assumed and imposed by any other person.
Estrada v. Desierto
● Estrada, prosecuted for plunder after having left the
presidency, pleaded presidential immunity from suit as his
defense.
● He claimed that he could not be sued before the
impeachment could be terminated.
● Finally the Court went on to resolve the issue:
-- We now come to the scope of immunity that can be
claimed by petitioner as a non-sitting President.
-- Cases filed against pe- titioner Estrada are criminal in
character.
-- They involve plunder, bribery and graft and corruption.
By no stretch of the imagination can these crimes,
especially plunder which carries the death penalty, be
covered by the alleged mantle of immunity of a non-
sitting president.
-- The rule is that unlawful acts of public officials are not
acts of the State and the officer who acts illegally is not
acting as such but stands in the same footing as any other
trespasser.
● It should be noted that the language of the Court goes
beyond merely saying that a non-sitting President does
not enjoy immunity from suit.
-- It suggests that even a sitting President, unlike under
the 1973 Constitution, is not immune from suit for non-
official acts or for wrong- doing.
US v. Nixon
● US President Richard Nixon, a sitting President, was
subpoenaed to produce certain recordings and documents
relating to his con- versations with aides and advisers.
● Seven advisers of President Nixon's associates were
facing charges of conspiracy to obstruct justice and other
offenses which were committed in a burglary of the
Democratic National Headquarters in Washington's
Watergate Hotel during the 1972 presidential campaign.
● Nixon was named an unindicted co-conspirator.
● President Nixon moved to quash the subpoena on the
ground that the President was not subject to judicial
process
-- that he should first be impeached and removed from
office before he could be made amenable to judicial
proceedings.
● This was rejected by US SC.
● SC ruled: when the ground for asserting privilege as to
subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is
based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it
cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due
process of law in the fair administration of criminal
justice."
Clinton vs. Jones
● Held that the US President's immunity from suits for
money damages arising out of their official acts is
inapplicable to unofficial conduct.
(going back to Estrada’s case)
● These constitutional policies will be devalued if we
sustain petitioner's claim that a non-sitting president
enjoys immunity from suit for criminal acts committed
during his incumbency.
● We reject his argument that he cannot be prosecuted for
the reason that he must first be convicted in the
impeachment proceedings.
● The impeachment trial of petitioner Estrada was aborted
by the walkout of the prosecutors and by the events that
led to his loss of the presidency.
● February 7, 2001, the Senate passed Senate Resolution
No. 83 Recognizing that the Impeachment Court is
Functus Officio.(of no further legal effect)
● Since the Impeachment Court is now functus officio, it is
untenable for petitioner to demand that he should first be
impeached and then convicted before he can be
prosecuted.
● In sum, although the new Constitution has not reproduced
the explicit guarantee of presidential immunity from suit
under the 1973 Con-titution, presidential immunity during
tenure remains part of the law.
● What has been rejected by the new Constitution is the
expansive notion of immunity in the Marcos Constitution.
● Once out of office, however, even before the end of the
six year term, immunity for non-official act is lost
4. Executive Privilege
● Executive privilege was discussed extensively in Senate
v. Ermita
-- which dealt with Executive Order 464 imposing a gag
on executive officials summoned to a Senate legislative
investigation.
● In simplest terms, executive privilege is the power of the
President to withhold certain types of information from
the courts, the Congress, and ultimately
● The types of information include those which are
- of a nature that disclosure would subvert military
or diplomatic objectives,
 - information about the identity of persons who
furnish information of violations of law,
- information about internal deliberations
comprising the process by which government
decisions are reached
● Section 2(a) of E.O. No. 464 enumerated the following
which are taken from earlier decisions:
1. Conversations and correspondence between the
President and the public official covered by this executive
order;
2. Military, diplomatic and other national security
matters which in the interest of national security should
not be divulged;
3. Information between inter-government agencies prior
to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements
4. Discussion in close-door Cabinet meetings
5. Matters affecting national security and public order.
● The trickiest ones are those about internal deliberations
leading to a government decision.
● But the decision itself, once reached, unless it is about
confidential military or diplomatic matters, can become a
matter of public concern. For instance, if a decision
reached is criminal, it cannot be privileged.
● Ermita said: Executive privilege is recognized with
respect to information the confidential nature of which is
crucial to the fulfillment of the unique role and
responsibilities of the executive branch, or in those
instances where exemption from disclosure is necessary
to the discharge of highly important executive
responsibilities.
● The doctrine of Executive privilege is premised on the
fact that certain information must, as a matter of
necessity, be kept confidential in pursuit of the public
interest.
● The privilege being an exemption from the obligation to
disclose information, the necessity must be of such high
degree as to outweigh the public interest in enforcing that
obligation in a particular case
● The Court said that a claim of privilege may be valid or
not
-- "depending on the ground invoked to justify it and the
context in which it is claimed. For in determining the
validity of a claim of privilege, the question that must be
asked is not only whether the requested information falls
within one of the traditional privileges, but also whether
that privilege should be honored in a given procedural
setting."
● Court concluded that it is not for one claiming executive
privilege "to unilaterally determine that respondents' duly-
issued Subpoena should be totally disregarded."
● One must also see executive privilege vis-a-vis the power
of Congress to use compulsory process.
-- "While the executive branch is a co- equal branch of the
legislature, it cannot frustrate the power of Congress to
legislate by refusing to comply with its demands for
information.... Only one executive official may be
exempted from this power — the President."
● Ermita: a claim of privilege must be stated with
sufficient particularity to enable Congress or the court to
determine its legitimacy.
● Congress must not require the executive to state the
reasons for the claim with such particularity as to compel
disclosure of the information which the privilege is meant
to protect.
● Senate v. Ermita was followed by Neri v. Senate.
-- In a Senate hearing involving a contract with a Chinese
firm, Neri in his capacity as Chairman of National
Economic Development Authority (NEDA) was asked
three questions:
(a) Whether the President followed up the (NBN) project;
(b) Whether the President directed him to prioritize the
ZTE?
(c) Whether the President said to go ahead and approve
the project after being told about the alleged bribe?
-- Neri claimed executive privilege.
-- The type of executive privilege claimed here was
"presidential communication privilege." Presidential
communication is presumptively privileged; but the
presumption is subject to rebuttal.
-- whoever challenges it, must show good and valid
reasons related to the public welfare. --
-- Parliamentary rules are merely procedural, and with
their observance, the courts have no concern. They maybe
waived or disregarded by the legislative body.'" Provided,
of course, private rights are not violated.
-- The Court too does modify or even dispense with its
own rules. What is good for the goose should be good for
the gander.
5. The Cabinet
● The Cabinet itself as an institution is extra-
constitutionally created.
● It essentially consists of the heads of departments who
through usage have formed a body of presidential advisers
who meet regularly with the President.
● Although they are the principal officers through whom the
President executes the law,
-- the President, through his power of control over them
and his power to remove them at will, remains the chief of
administration.
● Cabinet members as individuals and the Cabinet as
institution possess no authority over the President.
● They serve at the behest and pleasure of the President.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE VIII: JUDICIARY DEPARTMENT
(SECTION I. see pp. 946)
1.Judicial Power
● Courts are given "judicial power"
o Judicial power – the authority to settle justiciable
controversies involving rights that are enforceable and
demandable before the courts of justice.
● The exercise of power goes beyond the final decision,
o Echegaray v Secretary of Justice –
§ Convicted of final judgment still possesses collateral
rights and these rights can still be claimed in courts.
§ Most important part of litigation is the process of
evaluation.
● It is not only the Executive which can protect life after final
conviction.
2. Intrinsic limit on judicial power
● Courts cannot perform non judicial functions.
o Manila Electric Co v. Pasay Transportation Co. – It is
judicial power only exercised by the SC.
o SC cannot perform any trust or assume duty which is not
connected to judiciary functions.
 ● No inherent power in the Executive or Legislative to charge
judiciary with administrative functions except reasonably
incidental to judicial functions.
● Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if:

1. There is a grave violation of the Constitution;

2. The exceptional character of the situation and the paramount
public interest is involved;
3. When the constitutional issue raised requires formulation
of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the
public.
4. The case is capable of repetition yet evading review
3. Grave abuse of discretion
● It must be grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction.
1. When an act is done contrary to the Constitution, the law
or jurisprudence.

2. When executed whimsically, capriciously, or arbitrarily out

of malice, ill will or bias.

● Courts’ authority to check

1. Electoral Tribunal
2. Political Parties
3. House of Representatives
4. Administrative Agencies

● Court can check acts of Congress and of the President, but with
great hesitation. The principle must sometimes yield to
separation of powers.

4. Advisory Opinions

● It is beyond competence of the court to give advisory opinion.

○ Not a judicial function.

5. Declaratory Relief or Judgment

● Difference between a declaratory judgment and an advisory

opinion.
● Declaratory judgment involves parties with real conflicting
legal interests whereas an advisory opinion is a response to a
legal issue posed in the abstract in advance of any actual case in
which it may be presented.
§ Advisory opinion binds no one
§ Declaratory judgment is a final one and is forever
binding on the parties. The former is thus not a judicial
act but the latter is.

· Requisites:

1. Justifiable Controversy
2. Controversy between persons whose interests are adverse.
3. Party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interesting in
the controversy.
4. The issue involved must be ripe for the judicial determination.

● Original petitions for declaratory relief are disregarded by SC.