Facts:
SC affirmed COMELEC Resolution
cancelling the certificate of registration of the Alliance of Barangay Concerns
(ABC) Party-List which won in the party-list elections in the 2010 national
elections. The disqualification of the ABC Party-List resulted in the
re-computation of the party-list allocations in the House of Representatives,
in which the COMELEC followed the formula outlined in the case of Barangay
Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v. Commission on
Elections. The COMELEC then issued Minute Resolution No. 12-0859.
Petitioners Association of Flood
Victims and Hernandez filed with the SC a special civil action for certiorari
and/or mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners assert that
the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it issued Minute
Resolution No. 12-0859.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioners have
the legal capacity to sue.
Held:
No. Under Sections 1 and 2 of Rule
3, only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be
parties in a civil action, which must be prosecuted or defended in the name of
the real party in interest.
In their petition, it is stated that
petitioner Association of Flood Victims “is a non-profit and non-partisan
organization in the process of formal incorporation, the primary
purpose of which is for the benefit of the common or general interest of many
flood victims who are so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as
parties,” and that petitioner Hernandez “is a Tax Payer and the Lead Convenor
of the Association of Flood Victims.” Clearly, petitioner Association of
Flood Victims, which is still in the process of incorporation, cannot be
considered a juridical person or an entity authorized by law, which can be a
party to a civil action.
More so in this case where there is
no showing that petitioner Hernandez is validly authorized to represent
petitioner Association of Flood Victims.
Since petitioner Association of
Flood Victims has no legal capacity to sue, petitioner Hernandez, who is filing
this petition as a representative of the Association of Flood Victims, is
likewise devoid of legal personality to bring an action in court. Neither can
petitioner Hernandez sue as a taxpayer because he failed to show that there was
illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation or that public funds
are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law.
Besides, petitioners have no locus
standi or legal standing. Locus standi or legal standing
is defined as:
x x x a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the
party has sustained or will sustain a direct injury as a result of the
governmental act that is being challenged. The term “interest” means a material
interest, an interest in issue affected by the decree, as distinguished from
mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. The gist
of the question of 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment