Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 347 views

    45 - Udk 15143

    Uploaded by

    Patatas Sayote
    This document discusses the legal doctrine of locus standi, or legal standing, to bring a case before a court. It summarizes a case where petitioner Rolly Mijares sought a writ of mandamus against proposed bills that would abolish the Judiciary Development Fund. The court denied the petition, finding that Mijares failed to establish standing as he did not demonstrate that he would sustain direct injury from the bills' enforcement, as is required. While his concern for judicial independence was noted, it did not grant him standing to challenge legislation that would primarily affect the judiciary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    45 - Udk 15143

    Uploaded by

    Patatas Sayote
    347 views2 pages
    This document discusses the legal doctrine of locus standi, or legal standing, to bring a case before a court. It summarizes a case where petitioner Rolly Mijares sought a writ of mandamus against proposed bills that would abolish the Judiciary Development Fund. The court denied the petition, finding that Mijares failed to establish standing as he did not demonstrate that he would sustain direct injury from the bills' enforcement, as is required. While his concern for judicial independence was noted, it did not grant him standing to challenge legislation that would primarily affect the judiciary.

    Original Title

    45 - UDK 15143

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses the legal doctrine of locus standi, or legal standing, to bring a case before a court. It summarizes a case where petitioner Rolly Mijares sought a writ of mandamus against proposed bills that would abolish the Judiciary Development Fund. The court denied the petition, finding that Mijares failed to establish standing as he did not demonstrate that he would sustain direct injury from the bills' enforcement, as is required. While his concern for judicial independence was noted, it did not grant him standing to challenge legislation that would primarily affect the judiciary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    347 views2 pages

    45 - Udk 15143

    Uploaded by

    Patatas Sayote
    This document discusses the legal doctrine of locus standi, or legal standing, to bring a case before a court. It summarizes a case where petitioner Rolly Mijares sought a writ of mandamus against proposed bills that would abolish the Judiciary Development Fund. The court denied the petition, finding that Mijares failed to establish standing as he did not demonstrate that he would sustain direct injury from the bills' enforcement, as is required. While his concern for judicial independence was noted, it did not grant him standing to challenge legislation that would primarily affect the judiciary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PARTIES

    LEGAL STANDING
    (45) In The Matter of: Save the Supreme Court Judicial Independence and Fiscal
    Autonomy Movement v. Abolition of Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and
    Reduction of Fiscal Autonomy
    UDK-15143, January 21, 2015

    DOCTRINE: Locus standi is defined as “a right of appearance in a court of justice on a


    given question.” In private suits, standing is governed by the “real-parties-in interest”
    rule as contained in Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
    It provides that “every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real
    party in interest.” Accordingly, the “real-party-in interest” is “the party who stands to
    be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of
    the suit.”

    FACTS: This case involves the proposed bills abolishing the Judiciary Development
    Fund and replacing it with the “Judiciary Support Fund.” Funds collected from the
    proposed Judiciary Support Fund shall be remitted to the national treasury and
    Congress shall determine how the funds will be used.
    Petitioner Rolly Mijares (Mijares) prays for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in
    order to compel this court to exercise its judicial independence and fiscal autonomy
    against the perceived hostility of Congress.
    In the letter-petition, Mijares alleges that he is “a Filipino citizen, and a
    concerned taxpayer.” He filed this petition as part of his “continuing crusade to defend
    and uphold the Constitution” because he believes in the rule of law. He is concerned
    about the threats against the judiciary after this court promulgated Priority
    Development Assistance Fund case on November 19, 2013 and Disbursement
    Acceleration Program case on July 1, 2014.
    The complaint implied that certain acts of members of Congress and the
    President after the promulgation of these cases show a threat to judicial independence.

    ISSUE: Whether petitioner Rolly Mijares has sufficiently shown grounds for this court
    to grant the petition and issue a writ of mandamus.

    RULING: This court resolves to deny the petition.


    Petitioner’s failed to comply with the second requisite where a person
    challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject act or
    issuance; otherwise stated, he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case
    such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement;
    Here, the plaintiff who asserts a "public right" in assailing an allegedly illegal official
    action, does so as a representative of the general public. He may be a person who is
    affected no differently from any other person. He could be suing as a "stranger," or in
    the category of a "citizen," or ‘taxpayer." In either case, he has to adequately show that
    he is entitled to seek judicial protection. In other words, he has to make out a sufficient
    interest in the vindication of the public order and the securing of relief as a "citizen" or
    "taxpayer."

    This Court adopted the "direct injury" test in our jurisdiction. In People v. Vera, it
    held that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have "a personal and
    substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as
    a result."

    Petitioner has not shown that he has sustained or will sustain a direct injury if
    the proposed bill is passed into law. While his concern for judicial independence is
    laudable, it does not, by itself, clothe him with the requisite standing to question the
    constitutionality of a proposed bill that may only affect the judiciary.

    You might also like