Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ANAK MINDANAO PARTY-LIST GROUP v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 204819 2014-04-08	JAMES M. IMBONG v. PAQUITO N. OCHOA MENDOZA, J.
Locus standi or legal standing is defined as a personal and substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the challenged governmental act.[113] It requires a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure the concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.[114]
	GR No. 192986 2013-01-15	ADVOCATES FOR TRUTH IN LENDING v. BANGKO SENTRAL MONETARY BOARD REYES, J.
While the Court may have shown in recent decisions a certain toughening in its attitude concerning the question of legal standing, it has nonetheless always made an exception where the transcendental importance of the issues has been established, notwithstanding the petitioners' failure to show a direct injury.[27] In CREBA v. ERC,[28] the Court set out the following instructive guides as determinants on whether a matter is of transcendental importance, namely: (1) the character of the funds or other assets involved in the case; (2) the presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public respondent agency or instrumentality of the government; and (3) the lack of any other party with a more direct and specific interest in the questions being raised. Further, the Court stated in Anak Mindanao Party-List Group v. The Executive Secretary[29] that the rule on standing will not be waived where these determinants are not established.
	GR Nos. 171947-48 2011-02-15	MMDA v. CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY VELASCO JR., J.
The Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) shall submit to the Court on or before June 30, 2011 the list of cities and towns in Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan that do not have sewerage and sanitation facilities. LWUA is further ordered to submit on or before September 30, 2011 its plan to provide, install, operate and maintain sewerage and sanitation facilities in said cities and towns and the completion period for said works which shall be fully implemented by December 31, 2020;[5]
	GR No. 192935 2010-12-07	LOUIS 'BAROK' C. BIRAOGO v. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010 MENDOZA, J.
1] E.O. No. 1 does not arrogate the powers of Congress to create a public office because the President's executive power and power of control necessarily include the inherent power to conduct investigations to ensure that laws are faithfully executed and that, in any event, the Constitution, Revised Administrative Code of 1987 (E.O. No. 292), [15] Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1416[16] (as amended by P.D. No. 1772), R.A. No. 9970,[17] and settled jurisprudence that authorize the President to create or form such bodies.
	GR No. 192935 2010-12-07	LOUIS 'BAROK' C. BIRAOGO v. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010 MENDOZA, J.
The PTC is different from the truth commissions in other countries which have been created as official, transitory and non-judicial fact-finding bodies "to establish the facts and context of serious violations of human rights or of international humanitarian law in a country's past."[9] They are usually established by states emerging from periods of internal unrest, civil strife or authoritarianism to serve as mechanisms for transitional justice.
	GR No. 174697 2010-07-08	CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION BRION, J.
In this case, the three determinants are glaringly absent. Public funds are not involved. The allegations of constitutional and statutory violations of the public respondent agency are unsubstantiated by facts and are mere challenges on the wisdom of the rules, a matter that will be further discussed in this Decision. In addition, parties with a more direct and specific interest in the questions being raised - the residential end-users - undoubtedly exist and are not included as parties to the petition. As the Court did in Anak Mindanao Party-List Group v. Executive Secretary,[26] we cannot waive the rule on standing where the three determinants were not established.
	GR No. 166620 2010-04-20	ATTY. SYLVIA BANDA v. EDUARDO R. ERMITA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Subsequently, we ruled in Anak Mindanao Party-List Group v. Executive Secretary[25] that: The Constitution's express grant of the power of control in the President justifies an executive action to carry out reorganization measures under a broad authority of law.
	GR No. 166620 2010-04-20	ATTY. SYLVIA BANDA v. EDUARDO R. ERMITA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Similarly, Anak Mindanao Party-List Group v. The Executive Secretary[32] (finding valid executive issuances transferring to a department[33] two offices under the Office of the President) is not in point because that case involved a reorganization falling within the ambit of Section 31(3) transferring offices from the Office of the President to another department.
	GR No. 176951 2008-11-18	LEAGUE OF CITIES OF PHILIPPINES v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
The rule has been adopted in our jurisdiction. In House International Building Tenants Association, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[32] Joya v. Presidential Commission on Good Government,[33] Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora,[34] Francisco, Jr. v. The House of Representatives,[35] and Anak Mindanao Party-List Group v. The Executive Secretary,[36] among others, this Court made similar pronouncements on locus standi. In the last mentioned case, the Court summarized the rule, thus:Locus standi or legal standing has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged. The gist of the question on standing is whether a party alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.