Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may,
by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their
respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not the petitioners have legal standing.
2. Whether or not the Supreme Court is barred from settling the issue.
3. Whether or not Paragraph 1, Section 44 of Presidential Decree No. 1177 is
constitutional.
HELD:
1. The petitioners have legal standing.
It is a well-settled rule that the validity of a statute may be contested only by
one who will sustain a direct injury in consequence of its enforcement. However, in
regards to taxpayers suits, the Supreme Court enjoys the open discretion whether or
not to entertain it. A taxpayers suit is grounded on the theory that the taxpayers have
sufficient interest in preventing illegal expenditures of funds raised by taxation. They
may, therefore, question the constitutionality of statutes requiring expenditure of
public funds.
In this case, the questioned law involves the disbursement of public funds not
in accordance with what is mandated in the Constitution. The petitioners, therefore,
has complied with the requirements for a taxpayers suits.
2. The Supreme Court is not barred from settling the issue.
When an act of the Legislative branch or the Executive branch is beyond of
what is provided in the Constitution, it becomes the duty of the Judicial branch to
nullify what the other branch has assumed to do. This is part of its judicial power as
conferred by the Constitution under Section 1 of Article VIII.
3.