Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ARTHUR D. LIM v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY AS ALTER EGO OF GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 212426 2016-01-12	SAGUISAG v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OCHOA SERENO, C.J.
Under these auspices, the VFA gives legitimacy to the current Balikatan exercises. It is only logical to assume that "Balikatan 02-1," a "mutual anti- terrorism advising, assisting and training exercise," falls under the umbrella of sanctioned or allowable activities in the context of the agreement. Both the history and intent of the Mutual Defense Treaty and the VFA support the conclusion that combat-related activities -as opposed to combat itself-such as the one subject of the instant petition, are indeed authorized.[184] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 212426 2016-01-12	SAGUISAG v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OCHOA SERENO, C.J.
We note that these planned activities are very similar to those under the Terms of Reference[285] mentioned in Lim. Both EDCA and the Terms of Reference authorize the U.S. to perform the following: (a) participate in training exercises; (b) retain command over their forces; (c) establish temporary structures in the country; (d) share in the use of their respective resources, equipment and other assets; and (e) exercise their right to self-defense. We quote the relevant portion of the Terms and Conditions as follows:[286]
	GR No. 212426 2016-01-12	SAGUISAG v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OCHOA SERENO, C.J.
Pursuant to the legislative authorization granted under Republic Act No. 9,[54] the President also entered into the 1947 Military Assistance Agreement[55] with the U.S. This executive agreement established the conditions under which U.S. military assistance would be granted to the Philippines,[56] particularly the provision of military arms, ammunitions, supplies, equipment, vessels, services, and training for the latter's defense forces.[57] An exchange of notes in 1953 made it clear that the agreement would remain in force until terminated by any of the parties.[58]
	GR No. 190293 2012-03-20	PHILIP SIGFRID A. FORTUN v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO ABAD, J.
[19] Lim v. Executive Secretary, 430 Phil. 555, 570-571 (2002) citing Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v. Zamora, supra.
	GR NO. 171396 2006-05-03	PROF. RANDOLF S. DAVID v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
(3) Lim v. Executive Secretary,[54] while the Court noted that the petitioners may not file suit in their capacity as taxpayers absent a showing that "Balikatan 02-01" involves the exercise of Congress' taxing or spending powers, it reiterated its ruling in Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v. Zamora,[55] that in cases of transcendental importance, the cases must be settled promptly and definitely and standing requirements may be relaxed.
	GR No. 111544 2004-07-06	VICENTE T. UY v. SANDIGANBAYAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We regret that motivations, however commendable, do not automatically bestow one with the personality to initiate a legal action. We have indeed validated the right of concerned citizens to file actions on certain issues in the case of Kilosbayan v. Morato.[17] However, it must be noted that such suits are allowable if the constitutional question they raise is of transcendental importance which must be settled early.[18] Thus: Standing is a special concern in constitutional law because in some cases suits are brought not by parties who have been personally injured by the operation of law or by official action taken, but by concerned citizens, taxpayers or voters who actually sue in the public interest. Hence the question in standing is whether such parties have "alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions." (Citing Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 7 L. Ed. 2d 633 [1962]).[19] We fail to see how a private corporation's exercise of its pre-emptive rights to subscribe to additional shares could be of paramount national interest and how the transactions entered into by PIEDRAS could violate petitioner's rights as a citizen. Standing is a concept in constitutional law and here no constitutional question is actually involved.[20] In the same light, while we admire petitioner's zeal for upholding the law and legal processes, there is no transgression upon which petitioner can build a solid case.