This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2005-04-15 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), counter that petitioners have no legal standing to file the present petition since following our ruling in Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center v. Garcia, Jr.,[7] they have not shown "a personal stake in the outcome of the case" or an actual or potential injury that can be redressed by our favorable decision. Petitioners themselves admitted that "they do not seek any affirmative relief nor impute any improper or improvident act against the said respondents" and "are not motivated by any desire to seek affirmative relief from COA or from respondents that would redound to their personal benefit or gain." It is clear then that petitioners failed to show any "present substantial interest" in the outcome of this case, citing Kilosbayan v. Morato.[8] Nor may petitioners claim that as taxpayers, they have legal standing since nowhere in their petition do they claim that public funds are being spent in violation of law or that there is a misapplication of the taxpayers' money, as we ruled in Dumlao v. Comelec.[9] | |||||