EN BANC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Decision 24 G.R. Nos. 171396, 171400 171409, 171424, 171483 171485, 171489 Thus, the Court has adopted a rule that even where the petitioners have failed to show direct injury, they have been allowed to sue under the principle of “transcendental importance.” Pertinent are the following cases: (1) Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, 52 where the Court ruled that the enforcement of the constitutional right to information and the equitable diffusion of natural resources are matters of transcendental importance which clothe the petitioner with locus standi; (2) Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v. Zamora, 53 wherein the Court held that “given the transcendental importance of the issues involved, the Court may relax the standing requirements and allow the suit to prosper despite the lack of direct injury to the parties seeking judicial review” of the Visiting Forces Agreement; (3) Lim v. Executive Secretary, 54 while the Court noted that the petitioners may not file suit in their capacity as taxpayers absent a showing that “Balikatan 02-01” involves the exercise of Congress’ taxing or spending powers, it reiterated its ruling in Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v. Zamora, 55 that in cases of transcendental importance, the cases must be settled promptly and definitely and standing requirements may be relaxed. By way of summary, the following rules may be culled from the cases decided by this Court. Taxpayers, voters, concerned citizens, and legislators may be accorded standing to sue, provided that the following requirements are met: (1)the cases involve constitutional issues; importance” to the public of the cases involved demands that they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside technicalities of procedures; De Guia v. Comelec, G.R. No. 104712, May 6, 1992, 208 SCRA 420, where the Court held that the importance of the issues involved concerning as it does the political exercise of qualified voters affected by the apportionment, necessitates the brushing aside of the procedural requirement of locus standi. 52 G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002, 384 SCRA 152. 53 G.R. Nos. 138570, 138572, 138587, 138680, 138698, October 10, 2000, 342 SCRA 449. 54 55 G.R. No. 151445, April 11, 2002, 380 SCRA 739. Supra.
Decision 25 G.R. Nos. 171396, 171400 171409, 171424, 171483 171485, 171489 (2) for taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure is unconstitutional; (3) for voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question; (4) for concerned citizens, there must be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental importance which must be settled early; and (5) for legislators, there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes upon their prerogatives as legislators. Significantly, recent decisions show a certain toughening in the Court’s attitude toward legal standing. In Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Morato, 56 the Court ruled that the status of Kilosbayan as a people’s organization does not give it the requisite personality to question the validity of the on-line lottery contract, more so where it does not raise any issue of constitutionality. Moreover, it cannot sue as a taxpayer absent any allegation that public funds are being misused. Nor can it sue as a concerned citizen as it does not allege any specific injury it has suffered. In Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc. v. Comelec, 57 the Court reiterated the “direct injury” test with respect to concerned citizens’ cases involving constitutional issues. It held that “there must be a showing that the citizen personally suffered some actual or threatened injury arising from the alleged illegal official act.” In Lacson v. Perez, 58 the Court ruled that one of the petitioners, Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP), is not a real party-in-interest as it had not demonstrated any injury to itself or to its leaders, members or supporters. 56 G.R. No. 118910, November 16, 1995, 250 SCRA 130. 57 G.R. No. 132922, April 21, 1998, 289 SCRA 337. 58 G.R. No. 147780, 147781, 147799, 147810, May 10, 2001, 357 SCRA 756.
Page 1 and 2: EN BANC PROF. RANDOLF S. DAVID, LOR
Page 3 and 4: Decision 3 G.R. Nos. 171396, 171400
Page 23: Decision 23 G.R. Nos. 171396, 17140
Page 75 and 76:
Decision 75 G.R. Nos. 171396, 17140
Page 77:
Decision 77 G.R. Nos. 171396, 17140
show all

EN BANC

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?