Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
30Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Locus Standi

Locus Standi

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,214|Likes:
Published by Budoy

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Budoy on Jul 12, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
B. Locus Standi
Dumlao vs. Comelec
Facts:A petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injuction and/or Restraining Order filed by PatricioDumlao a former Governor of Nueva Viscaya, seeking to enjoin Comelec from implementingsection 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52, for being unconstitutional, discriminatory and contrary tothe equal protection rights. Petitioner Dumlao join the suit filled by petitioner Igot and Salapatanto declare the said provision as null and void for being violative of the Constitution.Issue:Whether or not the petition filed contains the requisite of actual case or controversy as a requisitefor a review on certiorari?Whether or not paragraph 1 Section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 is constitutional?Held:It is basic that the power of judicial review is limited to the determination of actual cases andcontroversies. The petitioner assails the constitutionality of the said provision and seeks to prohibit the respondent COMELEC from implementing such, yet the petitioner has not beenadversely affected by the application of that provision. There is no ruling of that constitutional body on the matter on which the court is being asked to review on certiorari.Courts are practically unanimous in the pronouncement that laws shall not be declared invalidunless the conflict with the Constitution is clear beyond reasonable doubt. It is within thecompetence of the legislature to prescribe qualifications for one who desires to become acandidate for office provided they are reasonable, as in this case.The constitutionality of paragraph 1 section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 is clear andunequivocal thus it does not discriminate and violate the equal protection rights of the petitioner.The first paragraph of section 4 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 52 is declared VALID.
 
De Guia vs. Comelec
Facts:Petitioner Manuel T. De Guia is an incumbent member of the Sangguniang Bayan of theMunicipality of Paranaque, Metro Manila. He prays, more particularly, for reversal of the position of respondent insofar as it affects the municipality of Paranaque and all the other municipalities in the Metro Manila Area. He Claims that the second proviso of par. (c), Sec. 3 of RA 7166, which requires the apportionment into district of said municipalities does not specifywhen the members of their Sangguniang Bayan will be elected by district. He wouldconsequently lean on par. (d) of Sec. 3, which immediately succeeds par. (c), to support his viewthat the elected members of these municipalities mentioned in par. (c) should continue to beelected at large in the May 11, 1992 elections.Paragraph (d) states that ³for purposes of the regular elections on May 11, 1992, electivemembers of the Sangguniang Panglungsod and Sangguniang Bayan shall be elected at large inaccordance with existing laws. However, beginning with the regular elections in 1995, they shall be elected by district.´ Petitioner therefore insists that elected members of the SangguniangBayan of Paranaque fell under this category so that they should continue to be elected at largeuntil the 1995 regular elections.Issue:WON petitioner has legal standingHeld:The Court observes that petitioner does not allege he is running for reelection, much less, that heis prejudiced by the election, by district, in Paranaque. As such, he does not appear to have alocus standi, a standing in law, a personal or substantial interest. He does not also allege anylegal right that has been violated by respondent. If for this alone, petitioner does not appear tohave any cause of action.
 
Op
osa vs. Factoran Jr.
Facts:The principal plaintiffs therein, now the principal petitioners are all minors duly represented and joined by their respective parents and Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. ordering defendant,his agents, representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to (1) Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country; (2) Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing,renewing or approving new timber license agreements.On 22 June 1990, Secretary Factoran, Jr., filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint based on two(2) grounds, namely: (1) the plaintiffs have no cause of action against him and (2) the issueraised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains to the legislative or executive branches of Government. July 12, 1990, opposition to the Motion, the petitionersmaintain that (1) the complaint shows a clear and unmistakable cause of action, (2) the motion isdilatory and (3) the action presents a justiciable question as it involves the defendant's abuse of discretion.On 18 July 1991, respondent Judge issued an order granting the aforementioned motion todismiss due to the following: 1. That the complaint states no cause of action against him and thatit raises a political question. 2. Respondent Judge further ruled that the granting of the relief  prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by the fundamentallaw of the land.Plaintiffs thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the RevisedRules of Court and ask this Court to rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the ground thatthe respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the action. Again, the parents of the plaintiffs-minors not only represent their children, but have also joined the latter in this case.Issue:Whether or not the petition filed by the petitioner has a locus standi.Held:The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right which is the right to a balancedand healthful ecology could be found under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies andnot under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. The Court affirmed the standing minors, represented bytheir parents, to challenge the validity of logging concessions on the basis of the concept of inter generational responsibility for and the right to a balanced and healthful ecology as guaranteed byArticle II, Section 16.

Activity (30)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Layne Isnain liked this
Cesarine Sy liked this
Cesarine Sy liked this
Mimi Sabayton liked this
Clambeaux liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->