POLITICAL/REMIDIAL LAW REVIEWER FOR THE 2013 BAR EXAMS:OLDIES BUT GOODIES:“Legal standing” or locus standi has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged.16 In case of a suit questioning the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or suspension of the writ, such as here, Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution expressly provides: The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing. (Emphasis supplied) It is clear that the Constitution explicitly clothes “any citizen” with the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the declaration of martial law or suspension of the writ. The Constitution does not make any distinction as to who can bring such an action. As discussed in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, the “citizen” who can challenge the declaration of martial law or suspension of the writ need not even be a taxpayer.This was deliberately designed to arrest, without further delay, the grave effects of an illegal declaration of martial law or suspension of the writ, and to provide immediate relief to those aggrieved by the same. Accordingly, petitioners, being Filipino citizens, possess legal standing to file the present petitions assailing the sufficiency of the factual basis of Proclamation No. 1959. Moreover, given the transcendental importance of the issues raised in the present petitions, the Court may relax the standing requirement and allow a suit to prosper even where there is no direct injury to the party claiming the right of judicial review. The Court has held: Notwithstanding, in view of the paramount importance and the constitutional significance of the issues raised in the petitions, this Court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, brushes aside the procedural barrier and takes cognizance of the petitions, as we have done in the early Emergency Powers Cases, where we had occasion to rule: ‘x x x ordinary citizens and taxpayers were allowed to question the constitutionality of several executive orders issued by President Quirino although they [involved] only an indirect and general interest shared in common with the public. The Court dismissed the objection that they were not proper parties and ruled that ‘transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of procedure.’ We have since then applied the exception in many other cases. (Emphasis supplied) (2013 TACORDA JNL NOTES). (At AUSL LIBRARY)
Posted on: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:08:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015