This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-07-01 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Responding to Sen. Estrada's revelation, Secretary Florencio Abad of the DBM issued a public statement entitled Abad: Releases to Senators Part of Spending Acceleration Program,[1] explaining that the funds released to the Senators had been part of the DAP, a program designed by the DBM to ramp up spending to accelerate economic expansion. He clarified that the funds had been released to the Senators based on their letters of request for funding; and that it was not the first time that releases from the DAP had been made because the DAP had already been instituted in 2011 to ramp up spending after sluggish disbursements had caused the growth of the gross domestic product (GDP) to slow down. He explained that the funds under the DAP were usually taken from (1) unreleased appropriations under Personnel Services;[2] (2) unprogrammed funds; (3) carry-over appropriations unreleased from the previous year; and (4) budgets for slow-moving items or projects that had been realigned to support faster-disbursing projects. | |||||
|
2014-03-03 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Further, since the Constitution proscribes taking of private property without just compensation,[56] any taking must entail a corresponding appropriation for that purpose. Public funds, however, may only be appropriated for public purpose.[57] Employment of public funds to benefit a private individual constitutes malversation.[58] Therefore, private subdivision streets not taken for public use may only be donated to the government. | |||||
|
2011-08-16 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners themselves undermine their assertion of locus standi as legislators and taxpayers because the petition alleges neither infringement of legislative prerogative[15] nor misuse of public funds,[16] occasioned by the passage and implementation of RA 9522. Nonetheless, we recognize petitioners' locus standi as citizens with constitutionally sufficient interest in the resolution of the merits of the case which undoubtedly raises issues of national significance necessitating urgent resolution. Indeed, owing to the peculiar nature of RA 9522, it is understandably difficult to find other litigants possessing "a more direct and specific interest" to bring the suit, thus satisfying one of the requirements for granting citizenship standing.[17] | |||||
|
2009-06-16 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| Neither can the lack of locus standi be cured by the claim of petitioners that they are instituting the cases at bar as taxpayers and concerned citizens. A taxpayer's suit requires that the act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived from taxation.[15] It is undisputed that there has been no allocation or disbursement of public funds in this case as of yet. To be sure, standing as a citizen has been upheld by this Court in cases where a petitioner is able to craft an issue of transcendental importance or when paramount public interest is involved.[16] While the Court recognizes the potential far-reaching implications of the issue at hand, the possible consequence of House Resolution No. 1109 is yet unrealized and does not infuse petitioners with locus standi under the "transcendental importance" doctrine. | |||||
|
2000-10-10 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| In the case before us, petitioners failed to show, to the satisfaction of this Court, that they have sustained, or are in danger of sustaining any direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the VFA. As taxpayers, petitioners have not established that the VFA involves the exercise by Congress of its taxing or spending powers.[15] On this point, it bears stressing that a taxpayer's suit refers to a case where the act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived from taxation.[16] Thus, in Bugnay Const. & Development Corp. vs. Laron[17], we held:"x x x it is exigent that the taxpayer-plaintiff sufficiently show that he would be benefited or injured by the judgment or entitled to the avails of the suit as a real party in interest. Before he can invoke the power of judicial review, he must specifically prove that he has sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation and that he will sustain a direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the questioned statute or contract. It is not sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public." | |||||