Funa, Erwin Antonio

LLB, Constitution I

CASE TITLE
Agan Jr. vs. PIATCO [402
SCRA 612]

Planters vs. Fertiphil [548

SCRA 485]

ASSAILED MEASURES OR
ACTS
Constitutionality of the
concession agreement
between the Philippine
government and PIATCO

ASSAILED BY WHOM

DOES HE HAVE
STANDING? WHY?

COURT'S ACTION

[G.R. No. 155001]

Individual petitioners are
employees of various service
providers having separate
concession contracts with
MIAA and continuing service
agreements
[G.R. No. 155661]
Employees of MIAA and
Samahang Manggagawa sa
Paliparan ng Pilipinas
[G.R. No. 155547]
As members of the House of
Representatives, citizens and
taxpayers

Yes. Petitioners have a direct

and substantial interest to
protect by reason of the
implementation of the
PIATCO Contracts. They
stand to lose their source of
livelihood, a property right
which is zealously protected
by the Constitution

The 1997 Concession

Agreement contains material
and substantial amendments,
which amendments had the
effect of converting the 1997
Concession Agreement into
an entirely different
agreement from the contract
bidded upon, the 1997
Concession Agreement is
similarly null and void for
being contrary to public policy

Petition for review on

PLANTERS PRODUCTS,
certiorari of the Decision of
INC.
the Court of Appeals (CA)
affirming with modification
that of
the RTC in Makati City,
finding petitioner Planters
Products, Inc. (PPI) liable to
private respondent Fertiphil
Corporation (Fertiphil) for the
levies it paid under Letter of
Instruction (LOI) No. 1465.

Yes. Discretion of the Court

to waive the requirement in
view of the serious legal
questions involved and their
impact on public interest.
Yes. Fertiphil has locus
standi because it suffered
direct injury.

The Letter of Instruction

(LOI) No. 1465 is
unconstitutional; the doctrine
of operative fact is
inapplicable.

Osmena vs. COMELEC

[288 SCRA 447]

Petition for prohibition,

EMILIO M. R. OSMEA and
seeking a reexamination of
PABLO P. GARCIA
the validity of 11(b) of R.A.
No. 6646, the Electoral
Reforms Law of 1987, which
prohibits mass media from
selling or giving free of
charge print space or air time
for campaign or other political
purposes, except to the
Commission on Elections.

No Standing. Indeed,
Took no cognizance on the
petitioners do not complain of petition as there is no case or
any harm suffered as a result controversy to decide.
of the operation of the law

Galicto vs Aquino [GR No.

193978, Feb 12, 2012]

Constitutionality of Executive
Order 7, which imposes a
moratorium on increases in
salaries, allowances,
incentives and other benefits
of GOCCs and GFIs, except
salary adjustments.

No Standing. He must show

that he has been or is about
to be denied some right or
privilege to which he is
lawfully entitled or that he is
about to be subjected to
some burdens or penalties by
reason of the statute or act
complained of

President as Chief Executive

in issuing EO 7 was not
oppressive, arbitrary,
capricious or whimsical. No
grave abuse of discretion
may be imputed to the
President.

Namba vs. Lara [608 SCRA

149]

Petition for Annulment of

MANUEL N. MAMBA,
Contracts and Injunction with RAYMUND P. GUZMAN and
prayer for the issuance of a LEONIDES N. FAUSTO
Temporary Restraining
Order/Writ of Preliminary
Injunction for Resolution No.
350-2003 9 and 351-2003.

Petitioners have legal

standing.

REMANDED to the court a

quo for further proceedings.

JELBERT B. GALICTO, in his

capacity as a lawyer and as
an employee of the Philippine
Health Insurance Corporation
(PhilHealth) Regional Office
Butuan City

A taxpayer need not be a

party to the contract to
challenge its validity. 43 As
long as taxes are involved,
people have a right to
question contracts entered
into by the government.

Quinto vs. COMELEC [606

SCRA 258]

Section 4(a) of COMELEC

Resolution No. 8678

Province of Batangas vs.

Romulo [429 SCRA 736]

Certain provisos contained in Hon. Herminaldo Mandanas,

the General Appropriations
Governor of Batangas
Acts (GAAs) of 1999, 2000,
and 2001

Senate vs. Ermita [488 SCRA Executive Order (EO) 464

1]

ELEAZAR P. QUINTO and

GERINO A. TOLENTINO,
JR., who hold appointive
positions in the government
and who intend to run in the
coming elections

Republic of the Philippines

GR NO. 169777

Yes, there is a showing that

the measure has an impact
on voting rights because it
would now limit the choice of
voters.

Section 4(a) of COMELEC

Resolution No. 8678, the
second proviso in the third
paragraph of Section 13 of
Republic Act No. 9369, and
(3) Section 66 of the
Omnibus Election Code not
unconstitutional
The assailed provisos in the
GAAs of 1999, 2000, and
2001, and the OCD
resolutions constitute a
withholding of a portion of
the IRA they effectively
encroach on the fiscal
autonomy enjoyed by LGUs
infringe the constitution.

legislators have standing to

maintain inviolate the
prerogative, powers and
privileges vested by the
Constitution in their office
and are allowed to sue to
question the validity of any
official action which they
claim infringes their
prerogatives as legislators.

PARTLY GRANTED.
Sections 2(b) and 3 of
Executive Order No. 464
(series of 2005), "Ensuring
Observance of the Principle
of Separation of Powers,
Adherence to the Rule on
Executive Privilege and
Respect for the Rights of
Public Officials Appearing in
Legislative Inquiries in Aid of
Legislation Under the
Constitution, and For Other
Purposes," are declared
VOID. Sections 1 and 2(a)
are, however, VALID.

G.R. No. 169659

BAYAN MUNA

G.R. No. 169660

FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ
G.R. No. 169667
ALTERNATIVE LAW
GROUPS, INC. (ALG),
G.R. No. 171246
JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ,
et al., and the
INTEGRATED BAR FOR
THE PHILIPPINES

meets the standing

requirement as it obtained
three seats in the House of
Representatives in the
2004 elections and is,
therefore, entitled to
participate in the legislative
process consonant with the
declared policy underlying
the party list system of
affording citizens belonging
to marginalized and
underrepresented sectors,
organizations and parties
who lack well-defined
political constituencies to
contribute to the formulation
and enactment of
legislation that will benefit
the nation
Yes. Court held that when
the proceeding involves the
assertion of a public right,
the mere fact that he is a
citizen satisfies the
requirement of personal
interest

G.R. No. 169834

PDP- LABAN

No, PDP-Labans alleged

interest as a political party
does not suffice to clothe it
with legal standing.

Ople vs Torres [293 SCRA

141]

Administrative Order No. 308 Senator Blas F. Ople

entitled "Adoption of a
National Computerized
Identification Reference
System"

As a Senator, petitioner is
Petition was denied and held
possessed of the requisite
Administrative Order No. 308
standing to bring suit raising valid and constitutional.
the issue that the issuance of
A.O. No. 308 is a usurpation
of legislative power.

Sanlakas vs Executive [421

SCRA 656]

Proclamation no 47 declaring
a "state of rebellion" &
General Order No. 4 directing
AFP & PNP to supress the
rebellion

petitioners committed to
assert, defend, protect,
uphold, and promote the
rights, interests, and
welfare of the people,
especially the poor and
marginalized classes and
sectors of Philippine
society.
Filipino citizens, taxpayers,
law profs & bar reviewers

Sanlakas

SJS
Pimentel vs. Ermita [472
SCRA 587]

The appointments issued by

President Gloria MacapagalArroyo ("President Arroyo") in
appointing acting secretaries.

AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL,
JR., EDGARDO J. ANGARA,
JUAN PONCE ENRILE,
LUISA P. EJERCITOESTRADA, JINGGOY E.
ESTRADA, PANFILO M.
LACSON, ALFREDO S. LIM,
JAMBY A.S. MADRIGAL, and
SERGIO R. OSMEA III

No Standing. Considering the

independence of the
Commission on Appointments
from Congress, it is error for
petitioners to claim standing
in the present case as
members of Congress

Supreme Court find no abuse

in the present case. The
absence of abuse is readily
apparent from President
Arroyos issuance of ad
interim appointments to
respondents immediately
upon the recess of Congress,
way before the lapse of one
year.

Chavez vs. PEA [384 SCRA

152]

PEA's renegotiations with

Amari Coastal Bay and
Development Corporation
("AMARI" for brevity) to
reclaim portions of Manila
Bay.

FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ

Akbayan vs Aquino [558

SCRA 468]

The full text of the JapanPhilippines Economic

Partnership Agreement
(JPEPA) including the
Philippine and Japanese
offers submitted during the
negotiation process and all
pertinent attachments and
annexes thereto

AKBAYAN CITIZENS
ACTION PARTY
("AKBAYAN"),PAMBANSANG
KATIPUNAN NG MGA
SAMAHAN SA KANAYUNAN
("PKSK), etc.

Chavez vs PCGG [299 SCRA To make public any

Francisco Chavez, former
744]
negotiations and/or
solicitor general and a Filipino
agreements pertaining to the citizen
latter's task of recovering the
Marcoses' ill-gotten wealth.

Yes, the enforcement of

constitutional rights - to
information and to the
equitable diffusion of natural
resources - matters of
transcendental public
importance, the petitioner has
the requisite locus standi.

The Public Estates Authority

and Amari Coastal Bay
Development Corporation are
PERMANENTLY ENJOINED
from implementing the
Amended Joint Venture
Agreement which is hereby
declared NULL and VOID ab
initio.
To recapitulate, petitioners
demand to be furnished with
a copy of the full text of the
JPEPA has become moot and
academic, it having been
made accessible to the public
since September 11, 2006.
As for their demand for
copies of the Philippine and
Japanese offers submitted
during the JPEPA
negotiations, the same must
be denied, respondents
claim of executive privilege
being valid

Yes, because of the

satisfaction of the two basic
requisites laid down by
decisional law to sustain
petitioner's standing which
are ENFORCEMENT OF A
LEGAL RIGHT and
ESPOUSED BY A FILIPINO
CITIZEN

Tatad vs. Secretary [281

SCRA 330]

Republic Act No. 8180

entitled "An Act Deregulating
the Downstream Oil Industry
and For Other Purposes" and
E.O. No. 372

FRANCISCO S. TATAD
[G.R. No. 124360]

Yes. In view of the

transcendental importance,
Supreme Court has brushed
EDCEL C. LAGMAN, JOKER aside technicalities of
P. ARROYO, ENRIQUE
procedure and
GARCIA, WIGBERTO
tookcognizance of the
TANADA, FLAG HUMAN
petitions considering the
RIGHTS FOUNDATION,
importance to the public.
INC., FREEDOM FROM
DEBT COALITION (FDC),
SANLAKAS
[G.R. No. 127867]

David vs. Macapagal [489

SCRA 160]

Presidential Proclamation No. G.R. No. 171396

1017 (PP 1017) and General
PROF. RANDOLF S.
Order No. 5 (G.O. No. 5)
DAVID, et al.
G.R. No. 171409
NIEZ CACHOOLIVARES, et al.
G.R. No. 171485
FRANCIS JOSEPH G. et
al.
G.R. No. 171483
KILUSANG MAYO UNO, et
al.
G.R. No. 171400
ALTERNATIVE LAW
GROUPS, INC. (ALG)

Yes. "direct injury" resulting

from "illegal arrest" and
"unlawful search"
committed by police
operatives pursuant to PP
1017
Yes, Congressmen alleged
there was usurpation of
legislative powers
Yes, they asserted the
declaration violated its right
to peaceful assembly may
be deemed sufficient to
give it legal standing.
Yes, the issue concerns a
public right, it is sufficient
that the petitioner is a
citizen and has an interest
in the execution of the laws

Declared R.A. No. 8180

unconstitutionsl and E.O. No.
372 void

PP 1017 is
CONSTITUTIONAL,
however, decrees
promulgated by the
President, are declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
G.O. No. 5 is
CONSTITUTIONAL.
However, considering that
"acts of terrorism" have not
yet been defined and made
punishable by the
Legislature, such portion of
G.O. No. 5 is declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL

G.R. No. 171489

JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ,
et al.
G.R. No. 171424
LOREN B. LEGARDA

in view of the
transcendental importance
of the issue, this Court
declares that petitioner
have locus standi.
No standing. But
considering once more the
transcendental importance
of the issue involved, this
Court may relax the
standing rules.

Paquia vs. Office of the

President [621 SCRA 600]

Nomination of former Chief

Alan F. Paguia
Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr
as Permanent
Representative to the United
Nations (UN)

No standing. Petitioners
citizenship and taxpayer
status do not clothe him with
standing to bring this suit

Respondent Davide resigned

his post at the UN on 1 April
2010 has rendered this case
academic and the relief
prayed for moot

TELEBAP vs. COMELEC

[289 SCRA 337]

Section 92, B.P. No. 881.

No standing. it was not able

to show that it was to suffer
from actual or threatened
injury as a result of the
subject law.
Yes. Petitioner operates
radio and television
broadcast stations in the
Philippines affected by the
enforcement of Section 92,
B.P. No. 881.

To require the broadcast

industry to provide free air
time for COMELEC is a fair
exchange for what the
industry gets.

Telecommunications And
Broadcast Attorneys Of The
Phils.
GMA Network

Velarde vs. SJS [428 SCRA

283]

declaratory judgment on the Mike Velarde

constitutionality of the acts of
religious leaders endorsing a
candidate for an elective
office, or urging or requiring
the members of their flock to
vote for a specified
candidate.

No legal standing.No showing Supreme Court took no

of` personal and substantial cognizance of the case for
interest in the case, such that lack of justiciable controversy
the party has sustained or will
sustain direct injury as a
result of the challenged act.

IBP vs. Zamora [338 SCRA

81]

the deployment of the

IBP
Philippine Marines to join the
Philippine National Police
(PNP) in visibility patrols
around Metro Manila

No standing. failed to
conclusively prove that such
deployment would harm the
IBP in any way.

De Castro vs. JBC [615

SCRA 666]

Commencement of the
process of nomination to the
Office of the Chief Justice

No Standing. Discretion of
Took cognizance. Act is valid
the Court to waive the
as mandated by Article VII
requirement and so remove Section 4 of the Constitution.
the impediment to its
addressing and resolving the
serious constitutional
questions raised

Arturo de Castro

Petition is DISMISSED