You are on page 1of 1

De Guia v Comelec

GR no. 104712, May 6, 1992

A petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the validity and enforcement of Comelec’s
Resolution No. 2313, adopting the rules and guidelines in the apportionment, by district, of the
number of elective members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in the provinces with only 1
legislative district and the Sangguniang Bayan of municipalities in the Metro Manila Area for the
preparation of the project of District Apportionment by the Provincial Election Supervisors and
Election Registrars. Resolution No. 2379, approving the Project of District Apportionment
submitted pursuant to Resolution No. 2313, and Resolution Und. 92-010, holding that
paragraphs in Sec. 3, R.A. 7166, apply to the May 11, 1992 elections.
A petitioner is an incumbent member of the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of
Paranaque, Metro Manila, having been elected in the January 1988 local elections. He prays,
for reversal of the position of respondent insofar as it affects the municipality of Paranaque and
all other municipalities in the Metro Manila Area.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner has locus standi to raise the question.

Ratio Decidendi:
The petitioner has no locus standi since the petitioner lacked personal or substantial interest
and did not allege any legal right that has been violated by the respondent. In his petition, he did
not state that he is running for re-election, much less, that he is prejudiced by the election, by
district, in Paranaque. As such, the Court ruled that petitioner does not appear to have a locus
standi, a personal or substantial interest.
However, the Court resolved that they would brush aside the question of procedural
technicalities due to the importance of the issue. The issue being brought upon the Court is
important since it concerns the general public, specifically the political exercise of qualified
voters affected by the apportionment. Despite the lack of legal standing of the petitioner, the
Court decided to tackle the issues presented because issues presented concerns matters of
public interest.
Finding no abuse of discretion much less grave, on the part of respondent, and for lack of merit,
the instant petition is dismissed was dismissed by the Supreme Court. No cost.