BIRAOGO vs.

THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010

G.R. No. 192935, December 7, 2010

FACTS:
 Pres. Aquino signed E. O. No. 1 establishing Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 (PTC) dated
July 30, 2010.
 This case essentially assails the validity and constitutionality of Executive Order No. 1, dated July
30, 2010, entitled “Creating the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010.”
 This is a case of special civil action for prohibition instituted by petitioner Louis Biraogo (Biraogo)
in his capacity as a citizen and taxpayer. Biraogo assails Executive Order No. 1 for being violative
of the legislative power of Congress under Section 1, Article VI of the Constitution as it usurps
the constitutional authority of the legislature to create a public office and to appropriate funds
therefor.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners have the legal standing to file their respective petitions and
question Executive Order No. 1

HELD:
 With regard to Biraogo, the OSG argues that, as a taxpayer, he has no standing to question the
creation of the PTC and the budget for its operations. It emphasizes that the funds to be used
for the creation and operation of the commission are to be taken from those funds already
appropriated by Congress. Thus, the allocation and disbursement of funds for the commission
will not entail congressional action but will simply be an exercise of the President’s power over
contingent funds.
 As correctly pointed out by the OSG, Biraogo has not shown that he sustained, or is in danger of
sustaining, any personal and direct injury attributable to the implementation of Executive Order
No. 1. Nowhere in his petition is an assertion of a clear right that may justify his clamor for the
Court to exercise judicial power and to wield the axe over presidential issuances in defense of
the Constitution.
 The plaintiff’s standing is based on his own right to the relief sought. 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 may be a person who is affected no differently from any other person.
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.
 To prevent just about any person from seeking judicial interference in any official policy or act
with which he disagreed with, and thus hinders the activities of governmental agencies engaged
in public service, the United State Supreme Court laid down the more stringent “direct injury”
test in Ex Parte Levitt, later reaffirmed in Tileston v. Ullman. The same Court ruled 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. In People v. Vera, it held 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.”
 In spite of this, the Court leans on the doctrine that “the rule on standing is a matter of
procedure, hence, can be relaxed for nontraditional plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers,
and legislators when the public interest so requires, such as when the matter is of
transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public
interest.”
 Thus, in Coconut Oil Refiners Association, Inc. v. Torres,26 the Court held that in cases of
paramount importance where serious constitutional questions are involved, the standing
requirements may be relaxed and a suit may be allowed to prosper even where there is no
direct injury to the party claiming the right of judicial review. In the first Emergency Powers
Cases,27 ordinary citizens and taxpayers were allowed to question the constitutionality of
several executive orders although they had only an indirect and general interest shared in
common with the public.
 The Court, however, finds reason in Biraogo’s assertion that the petition covers matters of
transcendental importance to justify the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court. There are
constitutional issues in the petition which deserve the attention of this Court in view of their
seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents. Where the issues are of transcendental and
paramount importance not only to the public but also to the Bench and the Bar, they should be
resolved for the guidance of all.30 Undoubtedly, the Filipino people are more than interested to
know the status of the President’s first effort to bring about a promised change to the country.
The Court takes cognizance of the petition not due to overwhelming political undertones that
clothe the issue in the eyes of the public, but because the Court stands firm in its oath to
perform its constitutional duty to settle legal controversies with overreaching significance to
society.
OCAMPO vs ENRIQUEZ
G.R. No. 225973

FACTS:
 Public respondent Secretary of National Defense Delfin N. Lorenzana issued a Memorandum to
the public respondent Chief of Staff of the AFP, General Ricardo R. Visaya, regarding the
interment of Marcos at the Libingan Ng Mga Bayani (LNMB) in reference to the Verbal Order of
President Duterte.
 Respondent AFP Rear Admiral Ernesto C. Enriquez issued directives to the Philippine Army (PA)
Commanding General for the Funeral Honors and Service to former President Marcos.
 Dissatisfied with the said issuance, a variety of petitions were filed from different people.
 Two of these petitions were filed as a taxpayer’s suit. One is a Petition for Mandamus and
Prohibition filed by Heherson T. Alvarez, former Senator of the Republic of the Philippines, who
fought to oust the dictatorship of Marcos, and several others, as concerned Filipino citizens and
taxpayers. And another is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition filed by Zaira Patricia B.
Baniaga and several others, as concerned Filipino citizens and taxpayers.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not the taxpayer petitioners have locus standi to file the instant petitions.

HELD:
 NO. Petitioners, who filed their respective petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, in
their capacities as citizens, human rights violations victims, legislators, members of the Bar and
taxpayers, have no legal standing to file such petitions because they failed to show that they
have suffered or will suffer direct and personal injury as a result of the interment of Marcos at
the LNMB.
 Taxpayers have been allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally
disbursed or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that public funds
are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. In this case, what is
essentially being assailed is the wisdom behind the decision of the President to proceed with the
interment of Marcos at the LNMB. As taxpayers, petitioners merely claim illegal disbursement of
public funds, without showing that Marcos is disqualified to be interred at the LNMB by either
express or implied provision of the Constitution, the laws or jurisprudence.