8/9/2019 const-1

1/9

Funa, Erwin AntonioLLB, Constitution I

CASE TITLE ASSAILED MEASURES OR

ACTS

ASSAILED BY WHOM DOES HE HAVE

STANDING? WHY?

COURT'S ACTION

Agan Jr. vs. PIATCO[402SCRA 612]

Constitutionality of theconcession agreeent!etween the Phili""inegovernent an# PIATCO

$%.&. 'o. ())**(+In#ivi#ual "etitioners aree"loyees of various service"rovi#ers having se"arateconcession contracts withIAA an# continuing serviceagreeents

-es. Petitioners have a #irectan# su!stantial interest to"rotect !y reason of thei"leentation of thePIATCO Contracts. Theystan# to lose their source oflivelihoo#, a "ro"erty rightwhich is ealously "rotecte#!y the Constitution

$%.&. 'o. ())//(+E"loyees of IAA an#0aahang anggagawa saPali"aran ng Pili"inas

$%.&. 'o. ()))12+As e!ers of the 3ouse of&e"resentatives, citiens an#ta4"ayers

-es. 5iscretion of the Courtto waive the re6uireent inview of the serious legal6uestions involve# an# theiri"act on "u!lic interest.

The (772 ConcessionAgreeent contains aterialan# su!stantial aen#ents,which aen#ents ha# theeffect of converting the (772Concession Agreeent intoan entirely #ifferentagreeent fro the contract!i##e# u"on, the (772

Concession Agreeent issiilarly null an# voi# for!eing contrary to "u!lic "olicy

Planters vs. Ferti"hil[548SCRA 485]

Petition for review oncertiorari of the 5ecision of

the Court of A""eals 8CA9affiring with o#ificationthat ofthe &TC in a:ati City,fin#ing "etitioner PlantersPro#ucts, Inc. 8PPI9 lia!le to"rivate res"on#ent Ferti"hilCor"oration 8Ferti"hil9 for thelevies it "ai# un#er Letter ofInstruction 8LOI9 'o. (1/).

PLA'TE&0 P&O5;CT0,I'C.

-es. Ferti"hil has locusstandi!ecause it suffere#

#irect in

8/9/2019 const-1

2/9

Osena vs. COELEC[288 SCRA 447]

Petition for "rohi!ition,see:ing a ree4aination ofthe vali#ity of >((8!9 of &.A.'o. //1/, the Electoral&efors Law of (7?2, which

"rohi!its ass e#ia froselling or giving free ofcharge "rint s"ace or air tiefor ca"aign or other "olitical"ur"oses, e4ce"t to theCoission on Elections.

EILIO . &. O0E@A an#PABLO P. %A&CIA

'o 0tan#ing. In#ee#,"etitioners #o not co"lain ofany har suffere# as a resultof the o"eration of the law

Too: no cogniance on the"etition as there is no case orcontroversy to #eci#e.

%alicto vs A6uino[GR No.193978, !" 12, 2012]

Constitutionality of E4ecutiveOr#er 2, which i"oses aoratoriu on increases insalaries, allowances,

incentives an# other !enefitsof %OCCs an# %FIs, e4ce"tsalary a#

8/9/2019 const-1

3/9

Huinto vs. COELEC[606SCRA 258]

0ection 18a9 of COELEC&esolution 'o. ?/2?

ELEAGA& P. H;I'TO an#%E&I'O A. TOLE'TI'O,J&., who hol# a""ointive"ositions in the governentan# who inten# to run in the

coing elections

-es, there is a showing thatthe easure has an i"acton voting rights !ecause itwoul# now liit the choice ofvoters.

0ection 18a9 of COELEC&esolution 'o. ?/2?, thesecon# "roviso in the thir#"aragra"h of 0ection (D of&e"u!lic Act 'o. 7D/7, an#

8D9 0ection // of theOni!us Election Co#e notunconstitutional

Province of Batangas vs.&oulo[429 SCRA 736]

Certain "rovisos containe# inthe %eneral A""ro"riationsActs 8%AAs9 of (777, ***,an# **(

3on. 3erinal#o an#anas,%overnor of Batangas

The assaile# "rovisos in the%AAs of (777, ***, an#**(, an# the OC5resolutions constitute awithhol#ing of a "ortion ofthe I&A they effectivelyencroach on the fiscal

autonoy en

8/9/2019 const-1

4/9

%.&. 'o. (/7/)7BA-A' ;'A

eets the stan#ingre6uireent as it o!taine#three seats in the 3ouse of&e"resentatives in the**1 elections an# is,

therefore, entitle# to"artici"ate in the legislative"rocess consonant with the#eclare# "olicy un#erlyingthe "arty list syste ofaffor#ing citiens !elongingto arginalie# an#un#erre"resente# sectors,organiations an# "artieswho lac: well#efine#

"olitical constituencies tocontri!ute to the forulationan# enactent oflegislation that will !enefitthe nation

%.&. 'o. (/7//*F&A'CI0CO I. C3AEG

-es. Court hel# that whenthe "rocee#ing involves theassertion of a "u!lic right,the ere fact that he is acitien satisfies the

re6uireent of "ersonalinterest

%.&. 'o. (/7//2ALTE&'ATIE LA

%&O;P0, I'C. 8AL%9,%.&. 'o. (2(1/JO0E A'0ELO I. CA5IG,et al., an# theI'TE%&ATE5 BA& FO&T3E P3ILIPPI'E0

8/9/2019 const-1

5/9

%.&. 'o. (/7?D1P5P LABA'

'o, P5PLa!anMs allege#interest as a "olitical "arty#oes not suffice to clothe itwith legal stan#ing.

O"le vs Torres[293 SCRA141]

A#inistrative Or#er 'o. D*?

entitle# KA#o"tion of a'ational Co"uterie#I#entification &eference0ysteK

0enator Blas F. O"le As a 0enator, "etitioner is

"ossesse# of the re6uisitestan#ing to !ring suit raisingthe issue that the issuance ofA.O. 'o. D*? is a usur"ationof legislative "ower.

Petition was #enie# an# hel#

A#inistrative Or#er 'o. D*?vali# an# constitutional.

0anla:as vs E4ecutive[421SCRA 656]

$%ocla&ation no 47 #eclaringa Kstate of re!ellionK NG!n!%al '%d!% No. 4 #irectingAFP N P'P to su"ress the

re!ellion

0anla:as "etitioners coitte# toassert, #efen#, "rotect,u"hol#, an# "roote therights, interests, an#

welfare of the "eo"le,es"ecially the "oor an#arginalie# classes an#sectors of Phili""inesociety.

0J0 Fili"ino citiens, ta4"ayers,law "rofs N !ar reviewers

Pientel vs. Erita[472SCRA 587]

The a""ointents issue# !yPresi#ent %loria aca"agalArroyo 8KPresi#ent ArroyoK9 in

a""ointing acting secretaries.

AH;ILI'O H. PIE'TEL,J&., E5%A&5O J. A'%A&A,J;A' PO'CE E'&ILE,

L;I0A P. EJE&CITOE0T&A5A, JI'%%O- E.E0T&A5A, PA'FILO .LAC0O', ALF&E5O 0. LI,JAB- A.0. A5&I%AL, an#0E&%IO &. O0E@A III

'o 0tan#ing. Consi#ering thein#e"en#ence of theCoission on A""ointents

fro Congress, it is error for"etitioners to clai stan#ingin the "resent case ase!ers of Congress

0u"ree Court fin# no a!usein the "resent case. Thea!sence of a!use is rea#ily

a""arent fro Presi#entArroyoMs issuance of adint!%i& a""ointents tores"on#ents i&&!diat!l(u"on the recess of Congress,way !efore the la"se of oneyear.

8/9/2019 const-1

6/9

8/9/2019 const-1

7/9

Tata# vs. 0ecretary[281SCRA 330]

&e"u!lic Act 'o. ?(?*entitle# KAn Act 5eregulatingthe 5ownstrea Oil In#ustryan# For Other Pur"osesK an#E.O. 'o. D2

F&A'CI0CO 0. TATA5$%.&. 'o. (1D/*+

E5CEL C. LA%A', JOE&P. A&&O-O, E'&IH;E

%A&CIA, I%BE&TOTA'A5A, FLA% 3;A'&I%3T0 FO;'5ATIO',I'C., F&EE5O F&O5EBT COALITIO' 8F5C9,0A'LAA0$%.&. 'o. (2?/2+

-es. In view of thetranscen#ental i"ortance,0u"ree Court has !rushe#asi#e technicalities of"roce#ure an#

too:cogniance of the"etitions consi#ering thei"ortance to the "u!lic.

5eclare# &.A. 'o. ?(?*unconstitutionsl an# E.O. 'o.D2 voi#

5avi# vs. aca"agal[489SCRA 160]

Presi#ential Proclaation 'o.(*(2 8PP (*(29 an# %eneralOr#er 'o. ) 8%.O. 'o. )9

%.&. 'o. (2(D7/

P&OF. &A'5OLF 0.

5AI5, et al.

-es. K#irect in

8/9/2019 const-1

8/9

%.&. 'o. (2(1?7

JO0E A'0ELO I. CA5IG,et al.

in view of thetranscen#ental i"ortanceof the issue, this Court#eclares that "etitionerhave locus standi.

%.&. 'o. (2(11LO&E' B. LE%A&5A

'o stan#ing. Butconsi#ering once ore thetranscen#ental i"ortanceof the issue involve#, thisCourt ay rela4 thestan#ing rules.

Pa6uia vs. Office of thePresi#ent[621 SCRA 600]

'oination of forer ChiefJustice 3ilario %. 5avi#e, Jras Peranent&e"resentative to the ;nite#

'ations 8;'9

Alan F. Paguia 'o stan#ing. PetitionerMscitienshi" an# ta4"ayerstatus #o not clothe hi withstan#ing to !ring this suit

&es"on#ent 5avi#e resigne#his "ost at the ;' on ( A"ril*(* has ren#ere# this caseaca#eic an# the relief

"raye# for ootTELEBAP vs. COELEC

[289 SCRA 337]0ection 7, B.P. 'o. ??(. Telecounications An#

Broa#cast Attorneys Of ThePhils.

'o stan#ing. it was not a!leto show that it was to sufferfro actual or threatene#in

8/9/2019 const-1

9/9

elar#e vs. 0J0[428 SCRA283]

#eclaratory