G.R. No.

171396 May 3, 2006

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:

These seven (7) consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohibition allege that in issuing Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 (PP
1017) and 5 (G.O. No. 5), President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo committed grave abuse of discretion. Hence, such issuances are void
for being unconstitutional.

FACTS:

On February 24, 2006, as the nation celebrated the 20th Anniversary of the Edsa People Power I, President Arroyo issued PP 1017
declaring a state of national emergency, as there was a clear and present danger to the safety and the integrity of the
Philippine State and of the Filipino people;

On the same day, the President issued G. O. No. 5 implementing PP 1017, ordering the (AFP) and the (PNP), to prevent and
suppress acts of terrorism and lawless violence in the country;

For their part, petitioners cited the events that followed after the issuance of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5.

Immediately, the Office of the President announced the cancellation of all programs and activities related to the 20th anniversary
celebration of Edsa People Power I; and revoked the permits to hold rallies issued earlier by the local governments.

Presidential Chief of Staff Michael Defensor announced that " warrantless arrests and take-over of facilities, including media, can
already be implemented."

groups of protesters, marched from various parts of Metro Manila with the intention of converging at the EDSA shrine. hundreds of
riot policemen broke up an EDSA celebration rally.

During the dispersal of the rallyists along EDSA, police arrested (without warrant) petitioner Randolf S. David, a professor at the
University of the Philippines and newspaper columnist. Also arrested was his companion, Ronald Llamas, president of party-
list Akbayan.

operatives of the (CIDG), on the basis of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5, raided the Daily Tribune offices in Manila, confiscated news
stories by reporters, documents, pictures, and mock-ups of the Saturday issue.

A few minutes after the search and seizure at the Daily Tribune offices, the police surrounded the premises of another pro-
opposition paper, Malaya, and its sister publication, the tabloid Abante.

Also, the police arrested Congressman Crispin Beltran, representing the Anakpawis Party and Chairman of (KMU).

In 2006, President Arroyo issued PP 1021 declaring that the state of national emergency has ceased to exist.

In the interim, these seven (7) petitions challenging the constitutionality of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 were filed with this Court
against the above-named respondents. Three (3) of these petitions impleaded President Arroyo as respondent.

on the grounds that:

it is a subterfuge to avoid the constitutional requirements for the imposition of martial law;

PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 constitute "usurpation of legislative powers"; "violation of freedom of expression" and "a
declaration of martial law." They alleged that President Arroyo "gravely abused her discretion in calling out the armed
forces without clear and verifiable factual basis of the possibility of lawless violence and a showing that there is necessity
to do so."

PP 1017 is an "arbitrary and unlawful exercise by the President of her Martial Law powers." And assuming that PP 1017 is
not really a declaration of Martial Law, petitioners argued that "it amounts to an exercise by the President of emergency
powers without congressional approval."

In respondents’ Consolidated Comment, the Solicitor General countered that: the petitions should be dismissed because:

petitioners have no legal standing;

ISSUE: Whether petitioners have legal standing. – YES

HELD:

II- Legal Standing

Locus standi is defined as "a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question.

In private suits, standing is governed by the "real-parties-in interest" who is "the party who stands to be benefited or injured
by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit."

The difficulty of determining locus standi arises in public suits. Here, the plaintiff who asserts a "public right" in assailing an
allegedly illegal official action, does so as a representative of the general public.

He could be suing as a "stranger," or in the category of a "citizen," or ‘taxpayer." In either case, he has to adequately show that he
is entitled to seek judicial protection.

In other words, he has to make out a sufficient interest in the vindication of the public order and the securing of relief as a "citizen"
or "taxpayer.

Case law held that the plaintiff in a taxpayer’s suit is in a different category from the plaintiff in a citizen’s suit. In the former, the
plaintiff is affected by the expenditure of public funds, while in the latter, he is but the mere instrument of the
public concern.

However, to prevent just about any person from seeking judicial interference, the United State Supreme Court laid down the more
stringent "direct injury" test, which states that for a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of an
executive or legislative action, he must show that he has sustained a direct injury as a result of that action, and it is not
sufficient that he has a general interest common to all members of the public.

This Court adopted the "direct injury" test in our jurisdiction. Vera doctrine provides that, the person who impugns the validity
of a statute must have "a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain
direct injury as a result."

However, being a mere procedural technicality, the requirement of locus standi may be waived by the Court where there is
"transcendental importance" of the cases that may prompt the Court to act liberally. In Aquino v. Comelec, this Court resolved
to pass upon the issues raised due to the "far-reaching implications" of the petition notwithstanding its categorical statement
that petitioner therein had no personality to file the suit. Indeed, there is a chain of cases where this liberal policy has been
observed, allowing ordinary citizens, members of Congress, and civic organizations to prosecute actions involving the
constitutionality or validity of laws, regulations and rulings.

By way of summary, taxpayers, voters, concerned citizens, and legislators may be accorded standing to sue, provided that the
following requirements are met: (C-TVCL)

(1) the cases involve constitutional issues;

(2) for taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure is
unconstitutional;

(3) for voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question;

(4) for concerned citizens, there must be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental importance which
must be settled early; and

(5) for legislators, there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes upon their prerogatives as
legislators.

Now, the application of the above principles to the present petitions.

It must always be borne in mind that the question of locus standi is but corollary to the bigger question of proper exercise of
judicial power. This is the underlying legal tenet of the "liberality doctrine" on legal standing. It cannot be doubted that the
validity of PP No. 1017 and G.O. No. 5 is a judicial question which is of paramount importance to the Filipino people. To paraphrase
Justice Laurel, the whole of Philippine society now waits with bated breath the ruling of this Court on this very critical matter. The
petitions thus call for the application of the "transcendental importance" doctrine, a relaxation of the standing requirements for
the petitioners in the "PP 1017 cases."1avvphil.net

This Court holds that all the petitioners herein have locus standi.