Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Locus Standi
Locus Standi
Locus Standi
Locus Standi
Dumlao vs. Comelec
Facts:
A petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injuction and/or Restraining Order filed by Patricio
Dumlao a former Governor of Nueva Viscaya, seeking to enjoin Comelec from implementing
section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52, for being unconstitutional, discriminatory and contrary to
the equal protection rights. Petitioner Dumlao join the suit filled by petitioner Igot and Salapatan
to declare the said provision as null and void for being violative of the Constitution.
Issue:
Whether or not the petition filed contains the requisite of actual case or controversy as a requisite
for a review on certiorari?
Whether or not paragraph 1 Section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 is constitutional?
Held:
It is basic that the power of judicial review is limited to the determination of actual cases and
controversies. The petitioner assails the constitutionality of the said provision and seeks to
prohibit the respondent COMELEC from implementing such, yet the petitioner has not been
adversely affected by the application of that provision. There is no ruling of that constitutional
body on the matter on which the court is being asked to review on certiorari.
Courts are practically unanimous in the pronouncement that laws shall not be declared invalid
unless the conflict with the Constitution is clear beyond reasonable doubt. It is within the
competence of the legislature to prescribe qualifications for one who desires to become a
candidate for office provided they are reasonable, as in this case.
The constitutionality of paragraph 1 section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 is clear and
unequivocal thus it does not discriminate and violate the equal protection rights of the petitioner.
The first paragraph of section 4 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 52 is declared VALID.
HELD:
In his Comment, the Solicitor General points to infirmities in the petitions regarding, inter
alia, Lim and Ersando's standing to file suit, the prematurity of the action, as well as the
impropriety of availing of certiorari to ascertain a question of fact. Anent their locus standi, the
Solicitor General argues that first, they may not file suit in their capacities as, taxpayers
inasmuch as it has not been shown that "Balikatan 02-1 " involves the exercise of Congress'
taxing or spending powers. Second, their being lawyers does not invest them with sufficient
personality to initiate the case, citing our ruling in Integrated Bar of the Philippines v.
Zamora.5 Third, Lim and Ersando have failed to demonstrate the requisite showing of direct
personal injury. We agree.
It is all too apparent that the determination thereof involves basically a question of fact. On this
point, we must concur with the Solicitor General that the present subject matter is not a fit topic
for a special civil action for certiorari. We have held in too many instances that questions of fact
are not entertained in such a remedy. The sole object of the writ is to correct errors of jurisdiction
or grave abuse of discretion: The phrase "grave abuse of discretion" has a precise meaning in
law, denoting abuse of discretion "too patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive
duty, or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or act in contemplation of law, or where the
power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and personal
hostility."
WHEREFORE, the petition and the petition-in-intervention are hereby DISMISSED without
prejudice to the filing of a new petition sufficient in form and substance in the proper Regional
Trial Court.