were conducting farming activities in the area. No evidence was presented to show that the petitioner’s members were approved as awardees, or were granted CLOAs over their respective portions of the disputed property. The petitioner even admits that the case folders of its members were not processed because of the DAR Secretary’s July 26, 2000 Order. Thus, notwithstanding its representative capacity, the petitioner and its members are not real parties-in-interest to question the DAR’s July 26, 2000 Order. (Samahan ng
NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme Court by Atty. CARLO L. CRUZ38 Magsasaka at Mangingisda ng Sitio Naswe, Inc. v. Tan, G.R. No. 196028, April 18, 2016) In People v. Piccio(Piccio), this Court held that "if there is a dismissal of a criminal case by the trial court or if there is an acquittal of the accused, it is only the OSG that may bring an appeal on the criminal aspect representing the People. xxx. The private complainant or the offended party may, however, file an appeal without the intervention of the OSG but only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned. He may also file a special civil action for certiorarieven without the intervention of the OSG, but only to the end of preserving his interest in the civil aspect of the case." (Burgos v. Sps. Naval, G.R. No. 219468, June 8, 2016) There is little question that the issues raised herein against the implementation of the Madrid Protocolare of transcendental importance. Accordingly, we recognize IPAP's locus standi to bring the present challenge. Indeed, the Court has adopted a liberal attitude towards locus standiwhenever the issue presented for consideration has transcendental significance to the people, or whenever the issues raised are of paramount importance to the public. (Intellectual Property Association of the Philippines v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204605, July 19, 2016) Considering that the Court in Imbongalready declared that the issues of contraception and reproductive health in relation to the right to life of the unborn child were indeed of transcendental importance, and considering also that the petitioners averred that the respondents unjustly caused the allocation of public funds for the purchase of alleged abortifacients which would deprive the unborn of its the right to life, the Court finds that the petitioners have locus standito file these petitions. (Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines, Inc. v. Garin, G.R. No. 217872, August 24, 2016) Petitioners, who filed their respective petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, in their capacities as citizens, human rights violations victims, legislators, members of the Bar and taxpayers, have no legal standing to file such petitions because they failed to show that they have suffered or will suffer direct and personal injury as a result of the interment of Marcos at the LNMB.