Back

James M. Imbong, et al. Vs. Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., et al. [Separate Concurring Opinion J. Brion]

G.R. No. 204819 - James M. Imbong, et al. v. Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., et al. and G.R. No. 204934 - Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines, Inc., et al. v. Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., Executive Secretary, et al.; G.R. No. 204957 - Task Force for Family and Life Visayas, Inc. and Valeriano S. Avila v. Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., Executive Secretary, et al.; G.R. No. 204988 - Serve Life Cagayan de Oro City, Inc., et al. v. Office of the President, et al.; G.R. No. 205003 - Expedito A. Bugarin v. Office of the President of the Republic of the Philippines, et al,; G.R. No. 205043 - Eduardo B. Olaguer and the Catholic Xyberspace Apostolate of the Philippines v. DOH Secretary Enrique T. Ona, et al.; G.R. No. 205138 - Philippine Alliance of Xseminarians, Inc., et al. v. Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., Executive Secretary, et al.; G.R. No. 205478 - Reynaldo J. Echavez, M.D., et al. v. Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., Executive Secretary, et al.; G.R. No. 205491 - Spouses Francisco S. Tatad and Maria Fenny C. Tatad, et al.; v. Office of the President of the Republic of the Philippines; G.R. No. 205720 - Pro-Life Philippines Foundation, Inc., et al. v. Office of the President, et al.; G.R. No. 205355 - Millennium Saint Foundation, Inc., et al. v. Office of the President, et al.; G.R. No. 207111 - John Walter B. Juat, et al. v. Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., Executive Secretary, et al.; G.R. No. 207172 - Couples for Christ Foundation, Inc., et al. v. Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., Executive Secretary, et al.; G.R. No. 207563 - Alamrim Centi Tillah and Abdulhussein M. Kashim v. Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., et al. [Separate Concurring Opinion J. Brion]

G.R. Nos. 204819, 204934, 204957, 204988, 205003, 205043, 205138, 205478, 205491, 205720, 206355, 207111, 207172 & 207563 | 2014-08-04

 

 

SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION

 


BRION,J.:

 

I submit this Separate Concurring Opinion to reflect my views on selected constitutional issues submitted to the Court.


I agree with the ponencia's conclusion that the petitions before the Court are ripe for judicial review, but I do so under a fresh approach that meets head-on the recurring problems the Court has been meeting in handling cases involving constitutional issues. My discussions on this point are likewise submitted to reply to the position of Mr. Justice Marvic Leonen that the petitions are not appropriate for the exercise of the...