Macalinao, Romielyn P.

Subject: Constitutional Law 1

Topic: Legal Standing
Title:

PROF.

RANDOLF

DAVID

vs

GLORIA

MACAPAGAL-

ARROYO
Reference: G.R. No. 171396

May 3, 2006

FACTS
On February 24, 2006, as the nation celebrated the 20th
Anniversary of the Edsa People Power I, President Arroyo issued PP
1017 declaring a state of national emergency, thus:
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of
the Republic of the Philippines and Commander-in-Chief of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested
upon me by Section 18, Article 7 of the Philippine Constitution
which states that: The President. . . whenever it becomes
necessary, . . . may call out (the) armed forces to prevent or
suppress. . .rebellion. . ., and in my capacity as their
Commander-in-Chief, do hereby command the Armed Forces of
the Philippines, to maintain law and order throughout the
Philippines, prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence as
well as any act of insurrection or rebellion and to enforce
obedience to all the laws and to all decrees, orders and
regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my direction;
and as provided in Section 17, Article 12 of the Constitution do
hereby declare a State of National Emergency.
On the same day, the President issued G. O. No. 5
implementing PP 1017.

Respondents stated that the proximate cause behind the

executive issuances was the conspiracy among some military
officers, leftist insurgents of the New Peoples Army (NPA), and
some members of the political opposition in a plot to unseat or
assassinate President Arroyo. They considered the aim to oust or
assassinate the President and take-over the reigns of government
as a clear and present danger.
ISSUES
Whether or not petitioners have legal standing?
RULINGS
Yes, all the petitioners have legal standing in view of the
transcendental importance of the issue involved.
It has been held that the person who impugns the validity of
a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case
such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result.
Taxpayers, voters, concerned citizens, and legislators may be
accorded standing to sue, provided that the following requirements
are

met:

(a)the

cases

involve

constitutional

issues;

(b)for

taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public

funds or that the tax measure is unconstitutional; (c)for voters,
there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the
election law in question; (d)for concerned citizens, there must be a
showing that the issues raised are of transcendental importance
which must be settled early; and (e)for legislators, there must be a
claim that the official action complained of infringes upon their
prerogatives as legislators.

Being

mere

procedural

technicality,

however,

the

requirement of locus standi may be waived by the Court in the

exercise of its discretion. The question of locus standi is but
corollary to the bigger question of proper exercise of judicial power.
Undoubtedly, the validity of PP No. 1017 and G.O.
Locus standi is defined as a right of appearance in a court of
justice on a given question. In private suits, standing is governed
by the real-parties-in interest rule as contained in Section 2, Rule
3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. It provides that
every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the
real party in interest. Accordingly, the real-party-in interest is
the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in
the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Succinctly
put, the plaintiffs standing is based on his own right to the relief
sought.
Case law in most jurisdictions now allows both citizen and
taxpayer standing in public actions. However, to prevent just
about any person from seeking judicial interference in any official
policy or act with which he disagreed with, and thus hinders the
activities of governmental agencies engaged in public service the
Supreme Court laid down the more stringent direct injury test. For
a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the
validity of an executive or legislative action, he must show that he
has sustained a direct injury as a result of that action, and it is not
sufficient that he has a general interest common to all members of
the public. However, being a mere procedural technicality, the
requirement of locus standi may be waived by the Court in the
exercise of its discretion in cases of transcendental importance and
far-reaching implications.