Locus standi is "a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question.

"  Specifically, it is "a party's personal and

10

substantial interest in a case where he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result" of the act being challenged, and
"calls for more than just a generalized grievance."  However, the rule on standing is a procedural matter which this Court has
11

relaxed for non-traditional plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers and legislators when the public interest so requires, such
as when the subject matter of the controversy is of transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of
paramount public interest

Judicial Review Requisites

a. actual case/controversy -must be concrete and definite such that the parties to the controversy raised
are being pitted against each other due to adverse legal interest
-must be ripe for judicial determination such that it creates rights and
imposes duties enforceable by the court
-no hypothetical issue must be raised
b. constitutional question must be raised by the proper party -a party who has sustained or will sustain
injury or one who is in imminent danger
of sustaining injury
-one must have a locus standi or right of
appearance in a court of justice
Petitioners may be accorded standing to sue:
(1) The case involves constitutional issues;
(2) For taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure is
unconstitutional
(3) For voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question:
(4) For concerned citizens, there must be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental importance which
must be settled early: and
(5) For legislators, there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes their prerogatives as
legislators

Exceptions as to who may have question constitutionality:

Transcendental importance -the controversy concerns of public interest
Facial challenge -when it operates in the area of freedom of expression

c. the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportunity -controversy raised must be the very
lis mota or the issue that the court must resolve
d. the constitutional question raised must be passed upon

State -community of people, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a fixed territory, independent of external acts and
possessing a government to which a great number of inhabitants render habitual obedience

Elements:
1. People -inhabitants of the state; generally, must be numerous enough to be self-sufficing and to defend themselves and small
enough to be easily administered and sustained
2. Territory -fixed portion of the surface of the earth inhabited by the people of the state
3. Government
4. Sovereignty

Partial unconstitutionality, requisites:

1. legislature must be willing to retain the valid portions
2. the valid portion can stand independently as a law

Requisites of a Judicial Inquiry

PACU vs. Secretary of Education, 97 Phil. 806
PHILCONSA vs. Villareal, 52 SCRA 477
Perez vs. Provincial Board, 113 SCRA 187
Morelos vs. Dela Rosa, 102 SCRA 671
Cuyegkeng vs. Cruz, 108 Phil 1147
People vs. Vera, 65 Phil 56
Custodio vs. Senate President, 42 O.G 1243
Tolentino vs. Commission on Elections, 15 SCRA 479
Oposa vs. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792

Sanidad vs. Commission on Elections, 73 SCRA 333

-Then President Marcos issued a PD 991 calling for a national referendum for the Citizens’ Assembly to resolve some
issues regarding Marshall Law and other amendments to the Constitution
-said PD was amended by another PD (amending the voting age to 15 yrs. old to participate in said referendum-
plebiscite); followed by another PD stating the questions to be submitted to the people (abolishment and replacement
of National Assembly thru constitutional amendment - due to continued opposition of the people to convene for an
interim NA)
-Petitioners contend the power of the incumbent president to propose for amendment without convening for an interim
NA.
-8 over 2 Justices voted to dismiss the case. The power to legislate is lodged, constitutionally, to the interim NA during
transition period. However, it is upon the president’s judgment to initially convene for NA. In foregoing the same, the
President only exercised his power to propose in recognizing the people’s preference. If that is so, the president can
validly discharge the function of the NA to propose for amendment. Knowing that the interim National Assembly would
not convene soon and only the Presidency and the Supreme Court in operation, it is imperative for the President to act for
and in behalf of the people propose for amendments to the constitution, otherwise it would leave a vaccum in the exercise
of legislative powers which would cause paralyzation of the entire governmental machinery.

If the President has been legitimately discharging the legislative functions of the interim Assembly, he may
validly discharge the function of that Assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution,
a

Macalintal vs. Commission on Elections, 405 SCRA 614

Lozada vs. Commission on Elections, 120 SCRA 337
Guanzon vs. De Villa, 181 SCRA 623
Kilosbayam vs Morato 250 SCRA 130
Osmeña vs. COMELEC, 288 SCRA 447 (1998)
Telecommunications and Broadcasts Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc
COMELEC, 289 SCRA 337 (1998)
Laurel vs. Garcia, 187 SCRA 797
Zandueta vs. De la Costa, 66 Phil 615
De la Llana vs. Alba, 112 SCRA 294
Gobenciong vs. Court of Appeals 550 SCRA 520 (2008)
Manila Motors Co. vs. Flores, 99 Phil 738
Tan vs. Barrios, 190 SCRA 686
Republic vs. Herida, 119 SCRA 411
Republic vs. CFI, 120 SCRA 154
In re Cunanan, 94 Phil 534
Dumlao vs. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392
Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy 33 SCRA 29
De Agbayani vs. PNB 38 SCRA 429

Collector of Internal Revenue v. Campos Rueda GR No. L-13250, October 29, 1971
-Rueda is the administrator of the estate of the deceased Doña de Cerdeira, a Spanish national and a resident of Tangier
Morocco from 1931 until her death
-during her demise, she left intangible properties in the Philippines
-pending investigation on Rueda’s provisional estate and inheritance tax return filed,
CIR issued an assessment for estate and inheritance taxes which the former settled
-later on, Rueda filed an amended return claiming exemption from taxes on the properties subject of the tax return
-CIR issued another assessment pending investigation and denied Rueda’s request for exemption stating that the law of
Tangier is not reciprocal to Sec. 122 of the revenue code
-Hence, CIR demanded for payment of deficiency taxes and further denied Rueda’s reconsideration which premised its
denial mainly because there is no reciprocity with Tangier NOT being a country within the meaning of Sec. 122 of the
revenue code
-Rueda elevated the petition to the CTA which in turn rendered a favorable decision upon Rueda
-thus, the instant case
-Whether or not Tangier is considered a foreign country in order for Ruedo to be exempted from taxes?
-Court held that a foreign country does not require to possess international personality to fall within the provision

Magallona v. Ermita GR No. 187167, August 16, 2011

-Congress enacted RA 9522 as an amendment to RA 3046
-this was done after several decades following the enactment of RA 3046 demarcating the baselines of the
Philippines as an archipelagic state; this was in line with the framing of the convention on territorial sea and
UNCLOS1 which discussed the right of States over territorial sea, but the breadth dimension was left undetermined
-The amendment was done to be compliant with UNCLOS3
-With the amendment, it shortened one baseline of the Philippines, optimized some outermost points of the
Philippines and classified adjacent territories (KGI, SS) as regime of islands whose islands generate their own
applicable maritime zones
-thus, the instant petition
-petitioners contend, among others, that the amendment reduces the maritime territory of the Philippines in violation
of Art. 1 of the 1987 Constitution

Pedro Arigo v. Scott Swift GR No. 206510, September 16, 2014

-

Fontanilla vs. Maliaman GR No. L-55963, December 1, 1989

-An employee of NIA, who was a driver therefor, overrun the son of the petitioner and another person
-the son of the petitioner died as a result of the vehicular accident
-the trial court rendered its judgment in favor of the petitioner ordering NIA to pay the heirs of the deceased for
damages
-NIA filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied
-NIA elevated the matter to the CA but then filed its required brief to the SC instead; its purpose is to review the
lower court’s bases as to its imposition of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees based on quasi-delict;
accordingly, NIA is an agency of the State performing government functions while the driver, not a special agent.
Thus, the tortious act should not be born by the government agency but by the driver.
-Paragraphs 5 and 6 of Art. 21 80 read as follows:
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting
within the scope of their assigned tasks, even the though the former are not engaged in any business or
industry.
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the damage
has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided
in Art. 2176 shall be applicable.
-The state has 2 aspects of liability
1. public or governmental aspect where it will be liable for tortious acts of its special agent
2. private or business aspect where it will be liable for tortious acts of its agent as an ordinary employer
-By express provisions of the law, NIA exercises its functions as proprietary one; accordingly, NIA is a corporate
body performing non-governmental functions, thus, it becomes liable for damages caused by its employee being an
ordinary employer

Shipside Inc. vs. Court of Appeals GR No. 143377, February 20, 2001
-An OCT was issued upon one Galvez, containing 4 parcels of land, who later on conveyed lots 1 & 4, to 4 persons;
accordingly, said parcels of land were later on sold to a mining company who later on sold it to the petitioner; TCTs
were respectively issued upon each conveyance
-unbeknownst to the mining company, CFI has ordered OCT, issued to Mr. Galvez, null and void and further
ordered to cancel all other certificate emanating from said OCT
-Mr. Galvez elevated the land case to the CA but said court still rendered an unfavorable judgment against Mr.
Galvez
-CA then certified the decision rendered as final and executory; thereafter, the trial court issued a writ of execution
duly served to the RD of La Union
-More than twenty years after, SolGen filed a motion to revive judgment and cancellation (upon receiving a letter
from a corporation that the RD did not act on the Writ issued)
-Shipside filed a motion to dismiss on the ground, among others, that the plaintiff RP is not the real party in interest
(but BCDA) and that the prescription has elapsed
-In its (SolGen) answer, prescription does not run against the State
-CFI and CA rendered judgment in favor of RP
-Court held that RP is not a party-in-interest; to qualify as a party-in-interest, he must appear to be the present owner
of the right being enforced/ the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party
entitled to the avails of the suit
-that is by express provision under a Proclamation transferring ownership of Camp Wallace to the BCDA
-BCDA is an entity invested with a personality separate and distinct from the State, its function is of proprietary in
nature

1. Edu vs. Ericta GR No. L-32096 Octiber 24, 1970

PVTA v. CIR, G.R. No. L032052, July 25, 1975 09972012881
-
2. Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Monte de Piedad, GR No. 11524, Oct. 12, 1916
 3. Lawyers Leaugue for a Better Philippines v. Aquino
4. Villas v. City of Manila, 229 US 345
5. Laurel vs. Misa 77 Phil 856
6. Ruffy vs. Chief of Staff, 75 Phil 875

Doctrine of State Immunity

1. Republic vs. Villasor GR no. L-30671, November 28, 1973

2. Minucher vs. Court of Appeals GR No. 142396, February 11, 2003
3. Pedro Arigo v. Scott Swift GR No. 206510, September 16, 2014
4. World Health Organization vs. Aquino, GR No. L-35131, November 29, 1972
5. Lasco v. UNRFNRE, G.R. No. 109095-109107, February 23, 1995
6. Callado v IRRI, G.R. No. 106483, May 22, 1995
7. Sanders vs. Veridiano, GR. No. L-46930, June 10, 1988
8. Republic vs. Feliciano GR No. 70853, March 12, 1987
9. Tan vs. Director of Forestry GR No. L-24548, October 27, 1983
10. Veterans Manpower and Protective Services Inc vs. CA GR No. 91359, September 25, 1992
11. Liwayway Vinzons-Chato vs. Fortune Tobacco Corporation GR NO. 141309, December 23, 2008
12. PNB vs. CIR GR No. 32667, January 31, 1978
13. Rayo vs. CFI Bulacan GR NO. L-55273-83
14. Municipality of San Fernando La Union vs. Judge Firme GR NO. L-52179 April 8, 1991
15. ATO v Spouses David & ELisea Ramos, G.R. No. 159402, February 23, 2011
16. Lockheed Detective & Watchman Agency v UP, G.R. No. 185918, April 18, 2012 
17. Bureau of Printing vs. Bureau of Printing Employees Ass., GR No. L-15751, January 28, 1961
18. Farolan v CTA, G.R. No. 42204, Janaury 21, 1993
19. Civil Aeronautics Administration v CA, G.R. No. L-51806, November 8, 1998
20. DOH v Philippine Pharmawealth, G.R. No. 182358, February 20, 2013
21. Shauf v CA, G.R. No. 90314, November 27, 1990
22. US v Reyes, G.R. No. 79253, March 1, 1993
23. Republic v Hon. Edilberto Sandoval, G.R. No. 84607, March 19, 1993
24. Lansang v CA, G.R. No. 102667, February 23, 2000
25. Republic v Feliciano, G. R. No. 70853, March 12, 1987
26. Sayson v Singson, GR No. L-30044, December 19, 1973 
27. Amigable vs. Cuenca, GR No. L-26400, February 29, 1972
28. Merritt vs. Government of Philippine Islands, GR No. 11154, March21, 1916
29. Froilan vs. Pan Oriental Shipping GR No. l-6060 September 30, 1950
30. United States vs. Ruiz, GR No. 35645, May 22, 1985
31. Republic of Indonesia vs Vinzon, GR No. 154705, June 26, 2003
32. United States vs. Guinto, GR No. 76607, February 26, 1990
33. Republic (PCGG) vs. Sandiganbayan GR NO. 129406, March 6, 2006
34. Republic vs. Villasor, GR No. L-30671, November 28, 1973
35. PNB vs. Pabalan, GR. No. L-33112, June 15, 1978
36. University of the Philippines vs. Hon. Dizon GR No. 171182, August 23, 2012
37. Municipal of San Miguel vs. Fernandez, GR No. L-61744, June 15, 1984
38. Municipal of Makati vs. CA, GR Nos. 89898-99, October 1, 1990

POLICE POWER 
1. Quezon City vs. Ericta GR No. L-34915, June 24, 1983
2. Philippine Press Institute vs. COMELEC, GR No. 119694, May 22, 1995
3. Lutz vs. Araneta 98 Phil 148
4. Tio vs. Videogram Regulatory Board GR No. L-75697, June 18, 1987
5. Ichong vs. Hernandez, GR No. L-7995, May 31, 1957
6. Chavez vs. Romulo GR No. 157036, June 9, 2004
7. Southeast Mindanao Goldmining Corporation vs. Balite Portal Mining, GR No. 135190, April 3, 2002
8. Metropolitan Manila Development Authority vs. Garin, GR No. 130230, April 15, 2005
9. Metro Manila Development Authority vs. Bel-Air Village Association, GR No. 135962, March 27, 2000
10. Francisco vs. Fernando, GR No. 166501, November 16, 2006
11. Ynot vs. IAC GR No. 74457, March 20, 1987
12. Magtajas vs. Pryce Properties GR No. 111097 July 20, 1994
 13. City of Manila vs Judge Lagui, GR No. 118127 April 12, 2005
14. Valentino Legaspi Vs. City of Cebu GR No. 159110, December 10, 2013
15. Social Justice Society vs. Alfredo Lim, GR No. 187836, November 25, 2014

POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN

1. Dedipio Earth-Saver Multi-Purpose Assoc vs. Gozun GR No. 157882, March 30, 2006
2. Manila Memorial Park vs. Secretary, DSWD GR nNO. 175356
3. Municipality of Meycauayan Bulacan v. IAC GR No. 72126, January 29, 1988
4. Lagcao vs. Judge Labra GR No. 155746, October 13, 2004
5. City of Manila vs. Chinese Community 40 PHIL 349
6. Hacienda Luisita Inc. vs. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, GR No. 171101, April 24, 2012
7. Estate of Salud Jimenez vs. PEZA, GR No. 137285, January 16, 2001
8. DPWH v. Asia Pacific Integrated Steel Corporation GR No. 192100, March 12, 2014
9. EPZA vs. Dulay GR No. L-59603
10. Panes vs. Visayas State College of Agriculture November 27, 1996
11. Republic (DPWH) vs. Spouses Tan Song Bok GR No. 191448 November 16, 2011
12. National Power Corp vs. CA GR No. 113194, march 11, 1996

POWER OF TAXATION

1. Tan vs. Del Rosario GR No. 109289 October 3, 1994

2. Pascual vs. Secretary of Public Works and Communications GR No 10405, December 29, 1960
3. Punzalan vs. Mun. Board of Manila 95 Phil 46
4. Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority vs. Marcos GR No. 120082 September 11, 1996
5. Casanova v. Hord 8 Phil 125
6. Lladoc vs. CIR GR no. L-19201 June 16, 1965
7. Gerochi vs. Dept of Energy GR No. 159796 July 17, 2007
8. Physical Therapy Organization vs. Mun. Board of Manila GR No. L-10448 August 30, 1957
9. Manila International Airport Authority vs. Court of Appeals GR No. 155650 July 20, 2006

ATTY. GLAIZA KAYE C. VICENTE

Professorial Lecturer