Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. RENATO CONSTANTINO v. JOSE B. CUISIA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 187298 2012-07-03	JAMAR M. KULAYAN v. GOV. ABDUSAKUR M. TAN SERENO, J.
In the more recent case of Constantino, Jr. v. Cuisia,[46] the Court characterized these powers as exclusive to the President, precisely because they are of exceptional import: These distinctions hold true to this day as they remain embodied in our fundamental law. There are certain presidential powers which arise out of exceptional circumstances, and if exercised, would involve the suspension of fundamental freedoms, or at least call for the supersedence of executive prerogatives over those exercised by co-equal branches of government. The declaration of martial law, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, and the exercise of the pardoning power, notwithstanding the judicial determination of guilt of the accused, all fall within this special class that demands the exclusive exercise by the President of the constitutionally vested power. The list is by no means exclusive, but there must be a showing that the executive power in question is of similar gravitas and exceptional import.[47]
	GR No. 159618 2011-02-01	BAYAN MUNA v. ALBERTO ROMULO VELASCO JR., J.
Locus standi, however, is merely a matter of procedure and it has been recognized that, in some cases, suits are not brought by parties who have been personally injured by the operation of a law or any other government act, but by concerned citizens, taxpayers, or voters who actually sue in the public interest.[18] Consequently, in a catena of cases,[19] this Court has invariably adopted a liberal stance on locus standi.
	GR No. 165109 2009-12-14	MANUEL N. MAMBA v. EDGAR R. LARA DE LEON, JR., J.
A taxpayer is allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed, or that the public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that there is wastage of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law.[39] A person suing as a taxpayer, however, must show that the act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived from taxation.[40] He must also prove that he has sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation and that he will sustain a direct injury because of the enforcement of the questioned statute or contract.[41] In other words, for a taxpayer's suit to prosper, two requisites must be met: (1) public funds derived from taxation are disbursed by a political subdivision or instrumentality and in doing so, a law is violated or some irregularity is committed and (2) the petitioner is directly affected by the alleged act.[42]
	GR No. 165276 2009-11-25	JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES v. MANUEL B. GAITE PERALTA, J.
These restrictions hold true to this day as they remain embodied in our fundamental law. There are certain presidential powers which arise out of exceptional circumstances, and if exercised, would involve the suspension of fundamental freedoms, or at least call for the supersedence of executive prerogatives over those exercised by co-equal branches of government.[22] The declaration of martial law, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, and the exercise of the pardoning power, notwithstanding the judicial determination of guilt of the accused, all fall within this special class that demands the exclusive exercise by the President of the constitutionally vested power.[23] The list is by no means exclusive, but there must be a showing that the executive power in question is of similar gravitas and exceptional import.[24]