Galicto v.

Aquino III
G.R. No. 193978 February 28, 2012

Requisites for Judicial Inquiry in Constitutional Litigation:

LEGAL STANDING PRINCIPLE OF LOCUS STANDI:

Facts:

1. President Aquino exposed alleged excessive allowances, bonuses

and other benefits of the Manila Waterworks and Sewerage System,
a government owned and controlled corporation (GOCC) and inability
to meet their standing obligations in his first SONA.

2. This caused the Senate to conduct legislative inquiries regarding the

matter of activities of the GOCC and government financial institutions
(GFIs) finding the officials and governing boards granting themselves
unwarranted allowances, bonuses, incentives, stock options and
other benefits as well as other irregular and abusive practices.

3. This led the senate to issue Resolution No. 17 s. 2010, urging the
President to order the immediate suspension of the unusually large
and excessive allowances, bonuses, incentives and other perks of
members of the governing boards of GOCC’s and GFIs.

4. President Aquino issued E.O 7 entitled “Directing the Rationalization

of the Compensation and Position Classification System in the
GOCCs and GFIs, and for Other Purposes” strengthening the
supervision of compensation levels of said offices by controlling the
grant of excessive salaries, allowances and other benefits.

5. However, petitioner Jelbert Galicto allegedly questions the

constitutionality of E.O 7 in his capacity as a lawyer and as an
employee of PhilHealth Regional Office.

6. He allegedly stands to be prejudiced by E.O 7 because it suspends or

imposes a moratorium on the grant of salary increase and other
benefits granted to the GOCC and GFI officials. Moreover, he claims
interest in making sure that laws and orders by government officials
are legally issued and implemented.

Issue:
 
Whether or not Jelbert Galicto has a locus standi to file this petition
before the court.

Ruling:
NO. The petitioner cannot claim legal stance because he is simply
concerned about his entitlement to future salaries. His membership of
Philippine Bar and a PhilHealth official does not suffice to clothe his legal
standing. Thus, Petitioner failed to satisfy irreducible minimum condition to
trigger the exercise of judicial power.

A public officer has a vested right only to salaries already earned or

accrued. Salary increases are a mere expectancy volatile and dependent
on various variables in nature.

His assertion of legal impediment under Section 9 of E.O 7 of any future

increase in petitioner’s compensation will only depend on usual factors
considered by proper authorities was misleading and incorrect due to the
concept of injury as an element of Locus standi. He only points out the
denial of a reasonable expectation which is not a subject of harm to go
against the law.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED. No costs.