Requisites for Judicial Review: ASSOCIATIONAL STANDING

Executive Secretary vs. The Court of Appeals

[GR 131719, 25 May 2004]

Callejo Sr. (J):

Facts: Arco-Phil affirms that the provisions of RA 8042 violate Section 1, Article III of the
Constitution (i.e. discrimination against unskilled workers, discrimination against licensed and
registered recruiters, among others). In their answer to the petition, the Executive Secretary, et al.
alleged, inter alia, that (a) Acro-Phil has no cause of action for a declaratory relief; (b) the
petition was premature as the rules implementing RA 8042 not having been released as yet; (c)
the assailed provisions do not violate any provisions of the Constitution; and, (d) the law was
approved by Congress in the exercise of the police power of the State. The Executive Secretary,
et al. asserted that Acro-Phil is not the real party-in-interest as petitioner in the trial court, as it
was inconceivable how a non-stock and non-profit corporation, could sustain direct injury as a
result of the enforcement of the law. They argued that if, at all, any damage would result in the
implementation of the law, it is the licensed and registered recruitment agencies and/or the
unskilled Filipino migrant workers discriminated against who would sustain the said injury or
damage, not Acro-Phil.

Issue: WON ACRO-Phil has locus standi or legal standing.

Held: PARTLY YES. ACRO-Phil has locus standi to file the petition in the RTC in
representation of the 11 licensed and registered recruitment agencies impleaded in the amended
petition. The modern view is that an association has standing to complain of injuries to its
members. This view fuses the legal identity of an association with that of its members. An
association has standing to file suit for its workers despite its lack of direct interest if its
members are affected by the action. An organization has standing to assert the concerns of its
constituents. However, ACROPHIL has no locus standi to file the petition for and in behalf of
unskilled workers. The Court notes that it even failed to implead any unskilled workers in its
petition. Furthermore, in failing to implead, as parties-petitioners, the 11 licensed and registered
recruitment agencies it claimed to represent, ACRO-Phil failed to comply with Section 2 of Rule
63 of the Rules of Court. Nevertheless, since the eleven licensed and registered recruitment
agencies for which ACRO-Phil filed the suit are specifically named in the petition, the amended
petition is deemed amended to avoid multiplicity of suits.