PLARIDEL M. ABAYA vs. HON. SECRETARY HERMOGENES E. EBDANE, JR.

G.R. No. 167919, February 14, 2007

FACTS:
The petitioners, Plaridel M. Abaya who claims that he filed the instant petition as a
taxpayer, former lawmaker, and a Filipino citizen, and Plaridel C. Garcia likewise
claiming that he filed the suit as a taxpayer, former military officer, and a Filipino citizen,
mainly seek to nullify a DPWH resolution which recommended the award to private
respondent China Road & Bridge Corporation of the contract for the implementation of
the civil works known as Contract Package No. I (CP I). They also seek to annul the
contract of agreement subsequently entered into by and between the DPWH and
private respondent China Road & Bridge Corporation pursuant to the said resolution.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners have the legal standing to file the instant case against the
government?

HELD:
Petitioners, as taxpayers, possess locus standi to file the present suit. Briefly stated,
locus standi is a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question. More
particularly, it is a party’s personal and substantial interest in a case such that he has
sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act being
challenged. Locus standi, however, is merely a matter of procedure and it has been
recognized that in some cases, suits are not brought by parties who have been
personally injured by the operation of a law or any other government act but by
concerned citizens, taxpayers or voters who actually sue in the public interest.
Consequently, the Court, in a catena of cases, has invariably adopted a liberal stance
on locus standi, including those cases involving taxpayers.
The prevailing doctrine in taxpayer’s suits is to allow taxpayers to question contracts
entered into by the national government or government- owned or controlled
corporations allegedly in contravention of law. A taxpayer is 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 there is a wastage of public funds through
the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. Significantly, a taxpayer need not
be a party to the contract to challenge its validity.