Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • De Guia Vs Comelec

    Uploaded by

    mamp05
    42 views1 page
    - The petitioner, an incumbent member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Paranaque, filed a petition challenging the Comelec's resolutions on the apportionment of elective positions for legislative districts. - The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner did not have locus standi (legal standing) as he did not allege any legal right violated or show that he was prejudiced by the apportionment. - However, the Court decided to still address the issues presented because it involved matters of public interest, specifically the political exercise of qualified voters affected by the apportionment. - The Court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding no abuse of discretion by the Comelec.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    de guia vs comelec

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    - The petitioner, an incumbent member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Paranaque, filed a petition challenging the Comelec's resolutions on the apportionment of elective positions for legislative districts. - The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner did not have locus standi (legal standing) as he did not allege any legal right violated or show that he was prejudiced by the apportionment. - However, the Court decided to still address the issues presented because it involved matters of public interest, specifically the political exercise of qualified voters affected by the apportionment. - The Court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding no abuse of discretion by the Comelec.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    42 views1 page

    De Guia Vs Comelec

    Uploaded by

    mamp05
    - The petitioner, an incumbent member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Paranaque, filed a petition challenging the Comelec's resolutions on the apportionment of elective positions for legislative districts. - The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner did not have locus standi (legal standing) as he did not allege any legal right violated or show that he was prejudiced by the apportionment. - However, the Court decided to still address the issues presented because it involved matters of public interest, specifically the political exercise of qualified voters affected by the apportionment. - The Court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding no abuse of discretion by the Comelec.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    De Guia v Comelec GR no.

    104712, May 6, 1992 Facts: A petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the validity and enforcement of Comelecs Resolution No. 23 3! adopting the rules and guidelines in the apportionment! by district! of the number of elective members of the "angguniang #anlala$igan in the provinces $ith only legislative district and the "angguniang %ayan of municipalities in the &etro &anila Area for the preparation of the pro'ect of (istrict Apportionment by the #rovincial )lection "upervisors and )lection Registrars. Resolution No. 23*+! approving the #ro'ect of (istrict Apportionment submitted pursuant to Resolution No. 23 3! and Resolution ,nd. +2-. .! holding that paragraphs in "ec. 3! R.A. * //! apply to the &ay ! ++2 elections. A petitioner is an incumbent member of the "angguniang %ayan of the &unicipality of #arana0ue! &etro &anila! having been elected in the 1anuary +22 local elections. 3e prays! for reversal of the position of respondent insofar as it affects the municipality of #arana0ue and all other municipalities in the &etro &anila Area. 4ssue: 5hether or not the petitioner has locus standi to raise the 0uestion. Ratio (ecidendi: 6he petitioner has no locus standi since the petitioner lac7ed personal or substantial interest and did not allege any legal right that has been violated by the respondent. 4n his petition! he did not state that he is running for re-election! much less! that he is pre'udiced by the election! by district! in #arana0ue. As such! the Court ruled that petitioner does not appear to have a locus standi! a personal or substantial interest. 3o$ever! the Court resolved that they $ould brush aside the 0uestion of procedural technicalities due to the importance of the issue. 6he issue being brought upon the Court is important since it concerns the general public! specifically the political e8ercise of 0ualified voters affected by the apportionment. (espite the lac7 of legal standing of the petitioner! the Court decided to tac7le the issues presented because issues presented concerns matters of public interest. Finding no abuse of discretion much less grave! on the part of respondent! and for lac7 of merit! the instant petition is dismissed $as dismissed by the "upreme Court. No cost.

    You might also like