Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 25 views

    024 Tañada V Tuvera GR L 63915

    Uploaded by

    Mark Samson
    1) The petitioners filed a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to publish various presidential issuances in the Official Gazette to invoke people's right to information on matters of public concern. 2) The respondents argued that the petitioners did not have locus standi (legal standing) as they were not directly affected or prejudiced and were not aggrieved parties. 3) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, recognizing their legal standing and personality to file the petition, as the case involved enforcing a public duty and public right to information.

    Copyright:

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

    024 Tañada V Tuvera GR L 63915

    Uploaded by

    Mark Samson
    25 views1 page
    1) The petitioners filed a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to publish various presidential issuances in the Official Gazette to invoke people's right to information on matters of public concern. 2) The respondents argued that the petitioners did not have locus standi (legal standing) as they were not directly affected or prejudiced and were not aggrieved parties. 3) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, recognizing their legal standing and personality to file the petition, as the case involved enforcing a public duty and public right to information.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    024 Tañada v Tuvera GR L 63915

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The petitioners filed a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to publish various presidential issuances in the Official Gazette to invoke people's right to information on matters of public concern. 2) The respondents argued that the petitioners did not have locus standi (legal standing) as they were not directly affected or prejudiced and were not aggrieved parties. 3) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, recognizing their legal standing and personality to file the petition, as the case involved enforcing a public duty and public right to information.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    25 views1 page

    024 Tañada V Tuvera GR L 63915

    Uploaded by

    Mark Samson
    1) The petitioners filed a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to publish various presidential issuances in the Official Gazette to invoke people's right to information on matters of public concern. 2) The respondents argued that the petitioners did not have locus standi (legal standing) as they were not directly affected or prejudiced and were not aggrieved parties. 3) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, recognizing their legal standing and personality to file the petition, as the case involved enforcing a public duty and public right to information.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    024-CONS001 | Deanne Collen M.

    Amurao

    TOPIC : Requisites of Judicial Review – Locus Standi

    CAPTION : G.R. No. L-63915, dated 24 April 1985


    Lorenzo M. Tañada vs. Hon. Juan C. Tuvera

    PONENTE : ESCOLIN, J.

    FACTS : The petitioners filed for a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to
    publish, and/or cause the publication in the Official Gazette of various
    presidential issuances to invoke people’s right to be informed on matters of
    public concern, as indicated under Sec. 6, Art. IV of the 1973 Philippine
    Constitution.
    The respondents would have the case be dismissed on the grounds that
    the petitioners have no legal standing to bring the instant petition due to the
    absence of proof that the petitioners are personally and/or directly affected
    or prejudiced by the alleged non-publication of the presidential issuances
    in question. The said petitioners do not have the requisites of a locus standi
    to institute petition since they are not being "aggrieved parties" under Sec
    3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
    The petitioners maintained that since the subject of the petition concerns a
    public right and its object is to compel the performance of a public duty, they
    need not show any specific interest for their petition to be given due course.
    ISSUE : Whether or not the petitioners have a legal standing to bring an instant
    petition for mandamus to compel the respondents to publish and/or cause
    the publication in the Official Gazette of presidential issuances

    RULING : The Supreme Court ordered respondents to publish in the Official Gazette
    all unpublished presidential issuances which are of general application, and
    unless so published, they shall have no binding force and effect. Thus,
    recognizing the legal standing and personality of the petitioners.

    RACIO DECIDENDI : The reasons given by the Court in recognizing a private citizen's legal
    personality in the 1910 case of Severino vs. Governor General also applies
    the subject case wherein while the court held that the general rule is "a writ
    of mandamus would be granted to a private individual only in those cases
    where he has some private or particular interest to be subserved, or some
    particular right to be protected, independent of that which he holds with the
    public at large," and "it is for the public officers exclusively to apply for the
    writ when public rights are to be subserved, the Court also recognized that
    "when the question is one of public right and the object of the mandamus is
    to procure the enforcement of a public duty, the people are regarded as the
    real party in interest and the relator at whose instigation the proceedings
    are instituted need not show that he has any legal or special interest in the
    result, it being sufficient to show that he is a citizen and as such interested
    in the execution of the laws.
    Hence, the right sought to be enforced by petitioners is a public right
    recognized by the fundamental law of the land. If petitioners were not
    allowed to institute this proceeding, the Solicitor General would not have
    entered his appearance for respondents in the case at bar.

    You might also like