EN BANC
EN BANC
EN BANC
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Decision 24<br />
G.R. Nos. 171396,<br />
171400<br />
171409, 171424, 171483<br />
171485, 171489<br />
Thus, the Court has adopted a rule that even where the petitioners<br />
have failed to show direct injury, they have been allowed to sue under the<br />
principle of “transcendental importance.” Pertinent are the following<br />
cases:<br />
(1) Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, 52 where the Court<br />
ruled that the enforcement of the constitutional right to<br />
information and the equitable diffusion of natural resources<br />
are matters of transcendental importance which clothe the<br />
petitioner with locus standi;<br />
(2) Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v. Zamora, 53 wherein<br />
the Court held that “given the transcendental importance of<br />
the issues involved, the Court may relax the standing<br />
requirements and allow the suit to prosper despite the lack<br />
of direct injury to the parties seeking judicial review” of the<br />
Visiting Forces Agreement;<br />
(3) Lim v. Executive Secretary, 54 while the Court noted<br />
that the petitioners may not file suit in their capacity as<br />
taxpayers absent a showing that “Balikatan 02-01” involves the<br />
exercise of Congress’ taxing or spending powers, it<br />
reiterated its ruling in Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v.<br />
Zamora, 55 that in cases of transcendental importance, the<br />
cases must be settled promptly and definitely and standing<br />
requirements may be relaxed.<br />
By way of summary, the following rules may be culled from the<br />
cases decided by this Court. Taxpayers, voters, concerned citizens, and<br />
legislators may be accorded standing to sue, provided that the following<br />
requirements are met:<br />
(1)the cases involve constitutional issues;<br />
importance” to the public of the cases involved demands that they be settled promptly and definitely,<br />
brushing aside technicalities of procedures;<br />
De Guia v. Comelec, G.R. No. 104712, May 6, 1992, 208 SCRA 420, where the Court held that<br />
the importance of the issues involved concerning as it does the political exercise of qualified voters<br />
affected by the apportionment, necessitates the brushing aside of the procedural requirement of locus<br />
standi.<br />
52<br />
G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002, 384 SCRA 152.<br />
53<br />
G.R. Nos. 138570, 138572, 138587, 138680, 138698, October 10, 2000, 342 SCRA 449.<br />
54<br />
55<br />
G.R. No. 151445, April 11, 2002, 380 SCRA 739.<br />
Supra.