You are on page 1of 1

LOZADA v COMMISSIONER

FACTS:

Jose Mari Eulalio C. Lozada and Romeo B. Igot, by reason of the vacancy in the interim Batasan
Pambansa during the Marcos regime, filed a petition to compel the Commission on Elections to
hold a special election for the said vacancies. They argue that Sec.5, Par.2 of Art. VIII of the
1973 Constitution mandates the COMELEC to call a special election in case a vacancy arises in
the Batasang Pambansa eighteen months or more before a regular election. They filed the suit as
taxpayers of the Philippines in Cebu City.

COMELEC filed its opposition arguing that the petitioners do not have standing to maintain the
current suit.

ISSUE:

Does Lozada and Igot possess legal standing to file this action on the basis that they are
taxpayers?

HELD:

No, they do not have locus standi.

As taxpayers, petitioners may not file the instant petition, for none of the allegations mention that
tax money is being illegally spent. The act complained of is the inaction of the COMELEC to
call a special election, as is allegedly its ministerial duty under the constitutional provision
abovecited. So, it involves no expenditure of public funds. It is only when an act complained of,
which may include a legislative enactment or statute, involves the illegal expenditure of public
money that the so-called taxpayer suit may be allowed. What the case at bar seeks is one that
entails expenditure of public funds which may be illegal because it would be spent for a purpose
— that of calling a special election — which, as will be shown, has no authority either in the
Constitution or a statute.