This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-01-12 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| In assailing the constitutionality of a governmental act, petitioners suing as citizens may dodge the requirement of having to establish a direct and personal interest if they show that the act affects a public right.[120] In arguing that they have legal standing, they claim[121] that the case they have filed is a concerned citizen's suit. But aside from general statements that the petitions involve the protection of a public right, and that their constitutional rights as citizens would be violated, they fail to make any specific assertion of a particular public right that would be violated by the enforcement of EDCA. For their failure to do so, the present petitions cannot be considered by the Court as citizens' suits that would justify a disregard of the aforementioned requirements. | |||||
|
2009-09-29 |
SANCHEZ, J. |
||||
| The fact is that the Office of the President had closed the door thereto - no action could be taken on petitioners' plight because of the alleged retrenchment policy. At any rate, exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a hard and fast rule. It admits of exceptions. Amongst these are that (1) the question in dispute is "purely a legal one" and (2) the controverted act is "patently illegal". [12] The question | |||||