This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-10-09 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Moreover, we have held that if the petition is anchored on the people's right to information on matters of public concern, any citizen can be the real party in interest. The requirement of personal interest is satisfied by the mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen, and therefore, part of the general public which possesses the right. There is no need to show any special interest in the result. It is sufficient that petitioners are citizens and, as such, are interested in the faithful execution of the laws.[27] | |||||
|
2012-10-09 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In March 2008, PSALM sought legal advice from the OGCC on available alternatives to a sale structure for the AHEPP. On May 27, 2008, then Government Corporate Counsel Alberto C. Agra issued Opinion No. 107, s. 2008[39] stating that PSALM is not limited to "selling" as a means of fulfilling its mandate under the EPIRA, and that in dealing with the AHEPP, PSALM has the following options: Transfer the ownership, possession, control, and operation of the Angat Facility to another entity, which may or may not be a private enterprise, as specifically provided under Section 47 (e) of RA 9136; | |||||
|
2012-06-13 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| At the outset, we brush aside the procedural barriers (i.e., locus standi of petitioners and the non-observance of the hierarchy of courts) that supposedly prevent the Court from entertaining the consolidated petitions. As we held in Guingona, Jr. v. Commission on Elections:[28] | |||||