Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

THE LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES (LMP) AND

GOVERNORS FROM THE ILOCOS REGION
AND CAGAYAN VALLEY REGION, as
represented by HON. MATTHEW MARCOS
MANOTOC, League President,
Petitioners,

G.R. No. 348712

-versus-
FOR: PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION

HON. FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III, in his

capacity as Secretary of the Department of
Health, HON. CARLOS G. DOMINGUEZ III, in
his capacity as Secretary of the Department
of Finance, HON. WENDEL E. AVISADO, in
his capacity as Secretary of the Department
of Budget and Management, HON. ALLAN
PETER CAYETANO in his capacity as SPEAKER
OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, and
HON. TITO SOTTO in his capacity as SENATE
PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINE SENATE,
Respondents,

-and-

NIKKI JOY BARROGA, JUAN PAOLO FLOJO,

and NICCOLO VITTORIO SANTOS,
Taxpayer-Intervenors.

x-------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

Taxpayer-intervenors NIKKI JOY BARROGA, JUAN PAOLO
FLOJO, and NICCOLO VITTORIO SANTOS, (hereafter, “Taxpayer-
intervenors”) by counsel, respectfully state:
 PREFARATORY STATEMENT
“None of us can accept a world in which some people are
protected while others are not. Everybody should be
protected. None of us are safe until all of us are safe. The
potential for continued waves of infection of ShUnGe –
AQ – 20 across the globe demands that every single
person on the planet be protected from this disease.” 1
- Tedros Adhanom,
Director general of the World Health Organization

Scientists in Shanghai, China have accidentally discovered the

Shanghai Unique Generation of Altering Queen Virus (hereafter, the
“ShUnGe-AQ-20 Virus”), sometime in January 2020. During the process, it
leaked and has infected human beings targeting the lungs, causing different
lung infections, then death. The disease spread from China to the rest of the
world, including the Philippines.

The President, through the recommendation of the Secretary of

Health, immediately closed all borders of the Philippines. He instructed the
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to watch all possible entry and exit
points. He also issued an executive order requiring mandatory 30-day
quarantine all over the Philippines. He, likewise, placed the country under a
state of emergency. Consequently, the national and local governments used
funds to provide food to the populace and to support health-related expenses.

Following the sharp increase of confirmed cases in the Philippines,

the President extended additional 30-day quarantine. Consequently, the
resources of the Philippine government were depleted due to the devastating
impact of the virus. Thus, the Secretaries of Department of Finance
(hereafter, the “DOF”) and the Department of Budget and Management
(hereafter, the “DBM”) proposed to use funds from Republic Act No. 7171 2
(hereafter, “R.A. 7171”) for the procurement of testing kits and Personal
Protective Equipment (hereafter, “PPEs”) to be used by the Department of
Health (hereafter, the “DOH”). The President asked Congress to pass the bill
as recommended, and the latter passed Tabako-Pangtepok sa ShUnGe-
AQ-20 Act.

The spread of the ShUnGe-AQ-20 Virus is a global problem with

serious consequences on public health, which the Philippines should focus
on for every single day. We know that the disease is spreading quickly. This
is no longer a regional issue—it is a global problem calling for a global
response.

1
WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on ShUnGe-AQ-20 - 4 May 2020
2
Republic Act No. 7171 or An Act to Promote the Development of the Farmer in the Virginia Tobacco-
Producing Provinces
 In line with the ongoing response to the increasing number ShUnGe-
AQ-20 cases in the Philippines, on March 30, 2020, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) - Philippines approved Rapid Antibody Test Kits. 3 On
April 14, 2020, the President ordered on the "immediate" purchase of rapid
test kits to help contain ShUnGe-AQ-20. Despite the lack of approval from
the country’s FDA, the President said he will take the risk and approve the
purchase of the test kits.

On April 1, 2020, the DOH announced its first batch of 1M procured

PPE sets arrives in the country. The Procurement Service of the DBM
facilitated the procurement of one million sets of PPEs worth PHP1.8
billion. Each PPE set is complete with coveralls, N95 masks, gloves, head
cover, shoe cover, goggles, surgical mask, and surgical gown. The complete
PPE set ensures that our health workers are duly protected while providing
care for our ShUnGe-AQ-20 patients.4 However, with the rapid spread of the
ShUnGe-AQ-20, the world is experiencing a shortage of PPEs amid the
pandemic and its effects can be felt in the Philippines, where at several
doctors have died of the new disease due to lack of protection.

Hence, there is a need to raise funds in order to purchase testing kits,

PPEs, other medical supplies, and care/food packs needed by our health
workers and frontliners.

PARTIES
1. Intervenor Barroga is a taxpayer, a Filipino citizen, of legal age, and
may be served with notices and pertinent processes of this Honorable Court
through the undersigned counsel at 2nd Floor, RCBC Plaza, Ayala Avenue,
Makati City.

2. Intervenor Flojo is a taxpayer, a Filipino citizen, of legal age, and may

be served with notices and pertinent processes of this Honorable Court
through the undersigned counsel at 2nd Floor, RCBC Plaza, Ayala Avenue,
Makati City.

3. Intervenor Santos is a taxpayer, a Filipino citizen, of legal age, and

may be served with notices and pertinent processes of this Honorable Court
through the undersigned counsel at 2nd Floor, RCBC Plaza, Ayala Avenue,
Makati City.
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

3
FDA Advisory – March 30, 2020
4
DOH Press Release – April 1, 2020 https://www.doh.gov.ph/doh-press-release/FIRST-BATCH-OF-1M-
PROCURED-PERSONAL%20-PROTECTIVE-EQUIPMENT-SETS-ARRIVES-IN-THE-COUNTRY
 4. The Congress passed the Tabako-Pangtepok sa ShUnGe-AQ-20 Act
in order to utilize funds from R.A. 7171 for the procurement of testing kits
and PPEs to be used by the DOH.

5. Racing to block the government’s move for utilization of funds from

R.A. 7171, petitioners League of Municipalities of the Philippines (LMP)
and Governors from the Ilocos and Cagayan Valley Regions filed directly to
the Supreme Court a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rules 65
of the Rules of Court, with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order and/or writ of preliminary injunction to assail the constitutionality and
enjoin the implementation of the Tabako-Pangtepok sa ShUnGe – AQ - 20
Act.

6. The Petioners prayed to enjoin the respondents from implementing

Tabako-Pangtepok sa ShUnGe-AQ-20 Act particularly from unlawfully
releasing, disbursing and/or using the amount representing the 15% of the
excise tax imposed on locally manufactured Virginia type cigarettes as that
sum was levied for the special purpose of supporting and promoting the
development of Virginia tobacco-producing provinces.

7. To date, the above-mentioned Petition is still pending

resolution/decision from the Supreme Court.

DISCUSSION

Taxpayer-intervenors have a
clear legal interest in the
matter in litigation, i.e. the
validity of the Tabako-
Pangtepok sa ShUnGe-AQ-20
Act

8. The legal interest required for intervention is present in this case.

Section 1, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. Who may intervene. — A person who has a legal interest

in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties,
or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely
affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the
custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with leave of
court, be allowed to intervene in the action. The court shall
consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or
prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and
whether or not the intervenor's rights may be fully protected in a
separate proceeding.
 9. The intervenors, as taxpayers, represent and invoke the public’s
paramount interest and overriding right to life and health5, which the
Congress sought to protect when it passes the Tabako-Pangtepok sa
ShUnGe-AQ-20 Act.

10. Thus, where matters of public right and interest are concerned, it is the
people who are the real parties, and it is at least the right, if not the duty of
every citizen to vindicate such public right and interest, repeatedly respected
by the Supreme Court. One of the matters of public right and interest highly
regarded is the right to health.

11. The right to health is enshrined in Article II, Section 15 of the

Constitution, which enunciates the State Policy “to protect and promote the
right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them.”
This fundamental right is further recognized under the International Bill of
Human Rights, specifically Article 12.1 of the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereafter, the “ICESCR”), as “the
right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of
physical and mental health.” This right to health is not limited to access to
health care and health care facilities but also includes a host of other factors
that contribute to a healthy life, including healthy working and
environmental conditions.6

12. Indeed, the enforcement of the Tabako-Pangtepok sa ShUnGe-AQ-20

Act with respect to the utilization of funds from R.A. 1717 is of paramount
public interest, as it upholds the right to health of the people.

13. In the recent case of De Castro v. Judicial Bar Council 7, the Supreme
Court explained:

Quite often, as here, the petitioner in a public action sues as a citizen or

taxpayer to gain locus standi. That is not surprising, for even if the issue
may appear to concern only the public in general, such capacities
nonetheless equip the petitioner with adequate interest to sue. In David v.
Macapagal-Arroyo, the Court aptly explains why:

Case law in most jurisdictions now allows both “citizen” and “taxpayer”
standing in public actions. The distinction was first laid down in
Beauchamp v. Silk, where it was held that the plaintiff in a taxpayer’s suit
is in a different category from the plaintiff in a citizen’s suit. In the former,
the plaintiff is affected by the expenditure of public funds, while in the
latter, he is but the mere instrument of the public concern. As held by the
New York Supreme Court in People ex rel Case v. Collins: “In matter of
mere public right, however...the people are the real parties...It is at least
5
Section 5, Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
6
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the World Health
Organization Factsheet No. 31 on The Right to Health
7
G.R. No. 191002 April 20, 2010
 the right, if not the duty, of every citizen to interfere and see that a public
offence be properly pursued and punished, and that a public grievance be
remedied.” With respect to taxpayer’s suits, Terr v. Jordan held that “the
right of a citizen and a taxpayer to maintain an action in courts to restrain
the unlawful use of public funds to his injury cannot be denied.”

14. Thus, the Supreme Court has, in a number of cases, adopted a liberal
policy allowing ordinary citizens, members of Congress, and civic
organizations to prosecute actions involving the constitutionality or validity
of laws, regulations and rulings. Supreme Court has held that cases of
transcendental importance to the public must be settled promptly and
definitely, brushing aside technicalities of procedure, such as when ordinary
citizens and taxpayers are invoking only an indirect and general interest
share in common with the public.

15. The Courts have recognized the legal standing of citizens in similar
public interest cases:

In the case of Province of North Cotabato vs. Government of

the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral
Domain (GRP), a multitude of intervenors consisting taxpayers,
legislators, local government units and organizations, sought to
declare a Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain
negotiated between the government and the Moro Islamic
Liberation Front void. The Supreme Court acknowledged that
the constitutional issues raised, being of paramount public
interest or of transcendental importance, deserve the attention in
view of the seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents.”8

In the case of Espina vs. Zamora, Jr., members of the House of

Representative, assailed the constitutionality of Republic Act
No. 8762, otherwise known as the Retail Trade Liberalization
Act. Although the petitioners were not prejudiced as taxpayers
or legislators, the Court resolved to uphold the legal standing of
the petitioners “since the rule on standing can be relaxed for
nontraditional plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers, and
legislators when as in this case the public interest so requires or
the matter is of transcendental importance, of overarching
significance to society, or of paramount public interest.”9

The intervention will not

unduly delay or prejudice the
adjudication of the rights of
the original parties, and the
intervenor's rights may be
8
G.R. No. 183591 October 14, 2008
9
G.R. No. 143855 September 21, 2010
fully protected in a separate
proceeding.

16. This Motion is not intended to delay the proceedings or to prejudice

the rights of the original parties in the case but is filed solely for the reasons
above-stated.

17. The intervenor’s right can be fully protected in this proceeding rather
than by filing a separate proceeding.

PRAYER

WHEREOF, it is respectfully prayed that taxpayer-intervenors be

allowed to intervene as party defendant and the attached answer be admitted
and served to the plaintiff.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed
for.

Respectfully submitted.

Manila City, Philippines, 7 May 2020.

Atty. Ramon A. Riano

Attorney for Intervenors
2nd Floor, RCBC Plaza, Ayala Avenue, Makati City
Roll No. 42831/3 May 2010
IBP No. 541343 /16 December 2010
PTR No. 8131211 /4 January 2020
MCLE Compliance No. 85236/2 August 2019
TIN: 987-654-321
Copy furnished:

Matthew Marcos Manotoc

Representative of the Petitioner
Ligason St., Brgy. 1, Laoag City

Atty. Ofe Marie Balalio

Counsel for the Plaintiff
OLC Law Office Bldg.
Brgy. #7 Caunayan, City of Batac, Ilocos Norte

Atty. Leidee January Lacambra

Counsel for the Plaintiff
OLC Law Office Bldg.
Brgy. #7 Caunayan, City of Batac, Ilocos Norte

Atty. Clentroy Vicka Guzman

Counsel for the Plaintiff
OLC Law Office Bldg.
Brgy. #7 Caunayan, City of Batac, Ilocos Norte

Solicitor General Zadrick Lucas

Office of the Solicitor General
111 th Floor, OSG Building,
134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Village, Makati City

Assistant Solicitor General Ruby Galut

Office of the Solicitor General
110 th Floor, OSG Building
134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Village, Makati City

Assistant Solicitor General Stephanie Mei A. Cabello

Office of the Solicitor General
109 th Floor, OSG Building
134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Village, Makati City
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
CITY OF MAKATI ) S.S.

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, MARIO PALANGGAPANG, of legal age, Filipino, single, and

with postal Address at 2nd Floor, RCBC Plaza, Ayala Avenue, Makati City,
after being duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and state
that:

1. I am the clerk of the Atty. Ramon A. Riano;

2. On 7 May 2020, I served a copy of the following:

The MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE in G.R. No. 348712,

entitled THE LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES (LMP) AND
GOVERNORS FROM THE ILOCOS REGION AND CAGAYAN
VALLEY, as represented by HON. MATTHEW MARCOS
MANOTOC, League President,vs. HON. FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III,
in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Health, HON.
CARLOS G. DOMINGUEZ III, in his capacity as Secretary of the
Department of Finance,HON. WENDEL E. AVISADO, in his capacity
as Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management, HON.
ALLAN PETER CAYETANO in his capacity as SPEAKER OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, and HON. TITO SOTTO in his
capacity as SENATE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINE SENATE, by
registered mail as follows:

By depositing on 7 May 2020 in

Matthew Marcos Manotoc
Representative of the Plaintiff
Ilocos Norte Capitol
Ligason St., Brgy. 1, Laoag City
the Makati City Post Office a
sealed envelope, as evidence by
Registry Return Receipt No. 138
hereto attached and indicated
after the name of the addressee,
and with instruction to the
postmaster to return the mail to
the sender after ten (10) days if
undelivered.

By depositing on 7 May 2020 in

Atty. Ofe Marie Balalio the Makati City Post Office a
Counsel for the Plaintiff sealed envelope, as evidence by
OLC Law Office Bldg. Registry Return Receipt No. 139
Brgy. #7 Caunayan, City of Batac, hereto attached and indicated
 Ilocos Norte
Atty. Leidee January Lacambra
Counsel for the Plaintiff
OLC Law Office Bldg.
Brgy. #7 Caunayan, City of Batac,
Ilocos Norte
Atty. Clentroy Vicka Guzman
Counsel for the Plaintiff
OLC Law Office Bldg.
Brgy. #7 Caunayan, City of Batac,
Ilocos Norte
Solicitor General Zadrick Lucas
Office of the Solicitor General
111th Floor, OSG Building,
134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Village,
Makati City
Assistant Solicitor General Ruby Galut
Office of the Solicitor General
110th Floor, OSG Building
134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Village,
Makati City
after the name of the addressee,
and with instruction to the
postmaster to return the mail to
the sender after ten (10) days if
undelivered.
By depositing on 7 May 2020 in
the Makati City Post Office a
sealed envelope, as evidence by
Registry Return Receipt No. 140
hereto attached and indicated
after the name of the addressee,
and with instruction to the
postmaster to return the mail to
the sender after ten (10) days if
undelivered.
By depositing on 7 May 2020 in
the Makati City Post Office a
sealed envelope, as evidence by
Registry Return Receipt No. 141
hereto attached and indicated
after the name of the addressee,
and with instruction to the
postmaster to return the mail to
the sender after ten (10) days if
undelivered.
By depositing on 7 May 2020 in
the Manila City Post Office a
sealed envelope, as evidence by
Registry Return Receipt No. 142
hereto attached and indicated
after the name of the addressee,
and with instruction to the
postmaster to return the mail to
the sender after ten (10) days if
undelivered.
By depositing on 7 May 2020 in
the Manila City Post Office a
sealed envelope, as evidence by
Registry Return Receipt No. 143
hereto attached and indicated
after the name of the addressee,

Assistant Solicitor General Stephanie
Mei A. Cabello
Office of the Solicitor General
109th Floor, OSG Building
134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Village,
Makati City
and with instruction to the
postmaster to return the mail to
the sender after ten (10) days if
undelivered.
By depositing on 7 May 2020 in
the Manila City Post Office a
sealed envelope, as evidence by
Registry Return Receipt No. 144
hereto attached and indicated
after the name of the addressee,
and with instruction to the
postmaster to return the mail to
the sender after ten (10) days if
undelivered.