G.R. No.

201501 January 22, 2018

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE POLLUTION

ADJUDICATION BOARD, Petitioner vs. N. DELA MERCED & SONS, INC., Respondent

The Constitutionality of Section 28 of R.A. 9275 Was Not Properly Questioned

Another main contention of Dela Merced & Sons is that Section 2850 of R.A. 9275
violates Section 19 (1), Article III of the Constitution, because the former section
provides for the imposition of excessive fines.

We note at the outset that Dela Merced & Sons' attempt to assail the constitutionality of
Sec. 28 of R.A. 9275 constitutes a collateral attack. This is contrary to the rule that
issues of constitutionality must be pleaded directly.51 Unless a law is annulled in a direct
proceeding, the legal presumption of the law's validity remains.52

Nevertheless, even if the issue of constitutionality was properly presented, Dela Merced
& Sons still failed to satisfy the fourth requisite for this Court to undertake a judicial
review.53 Specifically, the issue of constitutionality of Sec. 28 of R.A. 9275 is not the lis
mota of this case.

The lis mota requirement means that the petitioner who questions the constitutionality
of a law must show that the case cannot be resolved unless the disposition of the
constitutional question is unavoidable.54 Consequently, if there is some other ground
(i.e. a statute or law) upon which the court may rest its judgment, that course should be
adopted and the question of constitutionality avoided.55

In this case, Dela Merced & Sons failed to show that the case cannot be legally resolved
unless the constitutional issue it has raised is resolved. Hence, the presumption of
constitutionality of Sec. 28 of R.A. 9275 stands.

G.R. No. 200903 July 22, 2014

KALIPUNAN NG DAMAY ANG MAHIBIRAP, INC., et al. , vs. JESSIE ROBREDO, in

his capacity as Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government, et al.

The resolution of the constitutionality of Section 28 (a) and (b) of RA 7279 is not the lis
mota of the case.

What further constrains this Court from touching on the issue of constitutionality is the
fact that this issue is not the lis mota of this case. Lis motaliterally means "the cause of
the suit or action"; it is rooted in the principle of separation of powers and is thus merely
an offshoot of the presumption of validity accorded the executive and legislative acts of
our coequal branches of the government.

This means that the petitioner who claims the unconstitutionality of a law has the
burden of showing first that the case cannot be resolved unless the disposition of the
constitutional question that he raised is unavoidable. If there is some other ground upon
which the court may rest its judgment, that course will be adopted and the question of
constitutionality should be avoided.22 Thus, to justify the nullification ofa law, there
must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, and not one that is doubtful,
speculative or argumentative.23