This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-12-14 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| A taxpayer is allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed, or that the public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that there is wastage of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law.[39] A person suing as a taxpayer, however, must show that the act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived from taxation.[40] He must also prove that he has sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation and that he will sustain a direct injury because of the enforcement of the questioned statute or contract.[41] In other words, for a taxpayer's suit to prosper, two requisites must be met: (1) public funds derived from taxation are disbursed by a political subdivision or instrumentality and in doing so, a law is violated or some irregularity is committed and (2) the petitioner is directly affected by the alleged act.[42] | |||||
|
2004-07-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We regret that motivations, however commendable, do not automatically bestow one with the personality to initiate a legal action. We have indeed validated the right of concerned citizens to file actions on certain issues in the case of Kilosbayan v. Morato.[17] However, it must be noted that such suits are allowable if the constitutional question they raise is of transcendental importance which must be settled early.[18] Thus: Standing is a special concern in constitutional law because in some cases suits are brought not by parties who have been personally injured by the operation of law or by official action taken, but by concerned citizens, taxpayers or voters who actually sue in the public interest. Hence the question in standing is whether such parties have "alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions." (Citing Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 7 L. Ed. 2d 633 [1962]).[19] We fail to see how a private corporation's exercise of its pre-emptive rights to subscribe to additional shares could be of paramount national interest and how the transactions entered into by PIEDRAS could violate petitioner's rights as a citizen. Standing is a concept in constitutional law and here no constitutional question is actually involved.[20] In the same light, while we admire petitioner's zeal for upholding the law and legal processes, there is no transgression upon which petitioner can build a solid case. | |||||