Case Title: Mamba v. Lara (G.R. No.

165109)
Assailed Measures or Act:
Petitioner questions several resolutions issued by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cagayan, allowing
public respondent Lara as Governor of Cagayan, to engage the services of and appoint Preferred Ventures
Corporation as financial advisor for the issuance of flotation bonds to fund priority projects. Ordinance No. 192002 was also questioned which authorized bond flotation of the provincial government in an amount not
exceeding P500 Million to fund the New Cagayan Town Centre together with the issuance of project fee
amounting P213,795,732.39 for Asset Builders Corporation for planning, designing and construction of the said
town centre.
Assailed by Whom?
The resolutions and ordinance was assailed by petitioners Manuel Mamba, who was the Representative
of 3rd Congressional District of Cagayan at the time of filing, together with Guzman and Fausto who were
members of Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
Does He Have Standing? Why?
Yes, the petitioner has the legal standing to sue public respondents as tax payers. A tax payer is allowed
to sue when there is a claim that public funds are illegally disburse. For a taxpayers suit to prosper, two
requisites must be met; first: public funds derived from taxation are disbursed by a political subdivision or
instrumentality and in doing so, a law is violated or some irregularity is committed; second: the petitioner is
directly affected by the alleged act. In the first requisite is met since that government money is used which
amounted to P187 Million for the interest of the bond, in line with this records also showed that the Governor
requested the Sanggunian to appropriate P25 Million for the interest in 2004. Similarly, public respondent used
the IRA and other revenues as payment and security for the bond. Hence the first requisite is met. As to the
second requisite, the court ruled in the recent cases that direct injury may be relaxed by invoking transcedental
importance. With this, ordinary citizens and taxpayers were allowed to sue even without showing direct injury
provided that serious legal issues were raised or where public expenditure of millions of pesos were involved.
The provincial government would be shelling out a total amount of P187 million for seven years for interests of
the bonds; hence the second requisite is present.
Courts Action
The court partially granted the petition decided that indeed the petitioners have the legal standing to
initiate the suit hence the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao is reversed and set aside insofar
concerning the dismissal of the petition. Accordingly, the case remanded for further proceedings.
Case Title: Quinto v. COMELEC (GR No. 189698)
Assailed Measures or Act:
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari assailing the validity of section 4(a) of Resolution No. 8678 of
the Commissions on Election. The assailed provision states that public appointive officials shall be ipso facto
resigned from their offices the moment they file their Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for the upcoming
automated election election.
Assailed by Whom?
The said provision was assailed by Quinto and Tolentino, Jr., who hold appointive positions in the
government and who intended to run in the incoming elections.
Does He Have Standing? Why?
Yes, the petitioners have the legal standing to file suit as voters. Although the Office of Solicitor General
(OSG) contended that the petitioners could not be affected by the Resolution itself since that they havent filed
their CoC yet, however the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. Supreme Court held that a restriction on candidacy,

such as the challenge measure herein, affects the rights of voters to choose their public officials. The Court
believes that both candidates and voters may challenge, on grounds of equal protection, assailed measure
because of its impact on voting rights.
As what the Court held in the previous cases, the stringent injury test was relaxed and it now observes a
liberal policy allowing citizens, members of Congress and civil organizations to prosecute actions involving the
constitutionality of laws, regulations or rulings. This case is one of those; hence it is exempt from the direct
injury test.
Lastly, in recent cases it has been stressed that the Courts judicial power is limited to determination and
resolution of actual cases and controversies. In this case, there is actual controversy between the parties,
COMELEC which is charged with administration and enforcement of election laws; and the petitioners that
would trigger the enforcement of the assailed provision, if they would file their COCs.
Courts Action
The Supreme Court Granted the petition, declaring section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678 as
well as the other provisions similar to it including third paragraph of section 13 of RA No. 9369 and section 66
of the Omnibus Election Code as UNCONSTITUTIONAL on the ground of equal protection clause.
Case Title: The Province of Batangas v. Romulo
Assailed Measures or Act:
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari to declare the provisions in General Appropriations Acts (GAA)
of 1999, 2000, and 2001 insofar as they uniformly earmarked for each corresponding year an amount of P5
billion of the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) for the Local Government Service Equalization Fund (LGSEF)
and the conditions for the released thereof as unconstitutional. Such provisions violates the constitution (Article
X, section 6) as to the mandate of just share of the LGUs which shall be automatically released to them; also
such provisions violates the local government code (Sections 18 and 286) which state that just share must be
automatically given to them without need of further action.
Assailed by Whom?
The provisions were assailed by the province of Batangas, represented by its Governor, Mandanas.
Does He Have standing? Why?
Yes the petitioner has locus standi to file the suit. It has been held that the interest of a party assailing the
constitutionality of a statute must be direct and personal. Such party must be able to show, not only that the law
or any government act is invalid, but also that he has sustained some direct injury as a result of its enforcement.
In this case, the petitioner possesses standing as a local government unit, which seeks relief in order to protect
its interest and of other LGUs. The interest pertains to LGUs share in the national taxes. Further, the injury that
the petitioner claims to suffer is the diminution of its share in the IRA, as provided for in the LGC.
Courts Action:
The court thus declared the provisions of GAA as well as the OCD resolutions issued by the Oversight
Committee in pursuant thereto are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Case Title: Anak Mindanao (AMIN) and Mamalo Descendants Organization, Inc. (MDOI) v. Executive
Secretary
Assailed Measures or Acts:
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of EO No. 364 for transforming the Department of Agrarian
Reform into Department of Land Reform and placing PCUP under the said agency; and EO No. 379 for
transferring National Commission on Indigenous People under DAR as an attached agency. Such Executive
Orders violates the principle as separation of powers, since that the office is created pursuant to law, hence it
cannot be transformed or merged by executive order but also by statute. Other grounds were the constitutional

scheme and policies for the departments concerned and the constitutional right of the people and their
organization to effective and reasonable participation in decision making.
Assailed by Whom?
The executive orders were assailed by the Anak Mindanao (AMIN) and Mamalo Descendants
Organization, Inc. (MDOI)
Does he have legal standing? Why?
As to the AMIN Partylist, they have the legal standing to file the suit as member of the congress. They
posit that an act of the Executive injures the institution of the Congress causes a substantial injury which can be
questioned by a member of the Congress. Indeed, a member of the House of Representative has a standing to
maintain inviolate the prerogatives, powers and privileges vested by the Constitution in his office.
However, as to the standing of MDOI, which is a registered organization of Teduray and Lambingan
tribesfolk is questionable. It alleges that it is concerned with the NCIPs becoming an attached agency of the
DAR on the processing of the ancestral domain claims of its members. As what the court held in the previous
cases, locus standi is defined as a personal and substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or
will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged.. Their claim of negative
impact is too abstract to be considered as judicially cognizable and the line of causation it proffers between the
challenged action and alleged injury is too attenuated.
Moreover, MDOI does not raise transcendental importance to justify a relaxation of the rule in legal
standing. To be accorded standing on the ground of transcendental importance the following requisites must be
met: 1) public character of the funds or other assets involved in the case 2) presence of a clear case of disregard
of a constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public agency or instrumentality of the government and 3) lack
of any other party with a more direct and specific interest in raising the question. MDOI has failed to establish
this, much less allege.
Courts Action:
The court dismissed the petition thus declaring the executive orders not unconstitutional.