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 Ord
er. (
Samahan ng
NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW
Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme Court
by
Atty. C
ARLO
L
.
C
RUZ
38
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
certiorari
even 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 Protocol
are 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 standi
whenever 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
Imbong
already
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 standi
to 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.
