"xxx.
The petitioners have the
prerequisite locus standi to file the
Petition for Mandamus.
In their Memorandum,27 petitioners Bagumbayan and Senator Gordon state that they have locus standi to file the instant petition. They assert that Bagumbayan is a duly registered political party, while Senator Gordon was a candidate for Senator at the time of the filing, during the May 16, 2013 national and local elections.28
Furthermore, they posit that when a Mandamus proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, pursuant to Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission,29 the requirement of personal interest is satisfied by the mere feet that Senator Gordon is a citizen of the country.
On the other hand, while the respondents concede that Senator Gordon has legal standing due to his status as a Filipino voter, they allege that the same does not apply to Bagumbayan.30 The respondents posit that "even if Bagumbayan had legal standing to conduct a source code review, it failed to establish in its petition its capacity to conduct said review, as it did not submit the qualifications of its reviewer."31
The Court agrees with the petitioners. Locus standi, or legal standing, is defined as a personal and substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental ac that is being challenged.32 The gist of the question on standing is whether a party alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.33 This requirement of standing relates to the constitutional mandate that the Court settle only actual cases or controversies.34
In Mandamus cases, jurisprudence is clear that the requirement of proper standing is properly addressed if the petitioning party has a clear and unmistakable right to compel the performance of the ministerial duty.35 The Court finds that the requirement is satisfied by the petitioners. The petitioners have filed for Mandamus in their capacity as interested parties, Bagumbayan as a political party, and Tan Dem, et. al., as a people's organization created for the purpose of defending democracy in the Philippines. R.A. No. 9369 grants them the right as members of "any interested political party or group" to conduct their own review of the source code. Here, a clear and unmistakable right exists as it is the ministerial duty of the COMELEC to make available the source code for purposes of examination and test by any political party or candidate, or even their representatives, as expressly stated by the law itself, to wit:
SEC. 12. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows:
SEC. 14. Examination and Testing of Equipment or Device of the AES and Opening of the Source Code for Review. - The Commission shall allow the political parties and candidates or their representatives, citizens' arm or their representatives to examine and test. (Emphasis Ours)
The Court does not subscribe to the argument of the respondents that Bagumbayan lost that right when it failed to submit the qualifications of its reviewer, and which allegedly contravened the resolutions of the COMELEC. Section 12 of R.A. No. 9369 does not contain any provision or stipulation stating that the existence of the right to inspect may only come about after an interested party complies with any subsequent guidelines promulgated by the COMELEC. To rule otherwise would mean an unauthorized expanding or even the creation of unreasonable qualifications prerequisite to the review, which goes against both the spirit and letter of the law. Notably, pursuant to the Legaspi36 case, a cause of action exists on the simple basis that they are Filipino citizens and voters asserting a public right. The Court held therein:
In the case before Us, the respondent takes issue on the personality of the petitioner to bring this suit. It is asserted that, the instant Petition is bereft of any allegation of Legaspi's actual interest in the civil service eligibilities of Julian Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas... But what is clear upon the face of the Petition is that the petitioner has firmly anchored his case upon the right of the people to information on matters of public concern, which, by its very nature, is a public right. It has been held 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 x x x.
From the foregoing, it becomes apparent that when a mandamus proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, 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.37
It is important to note that a Petition for Mandamus has often been held to be proper if there are dire considerations of public welfare and for the advancement of public policy.38 It may also be taken into consideration to avoid future litigation39 and in furtherance of the broader interest of justice and equities.40 The law states that the COMELEC must allow political parties, candidates, and interested parties to examine and test the source code, regardless if those mentioned actually followed the subsequent guidelines as promulgated. Therefore, a cause of action to compel the COMELEC exists for Bagumbayan, as well as for any political party or candidate or their representative, as seen from the express mandate of the law. Thus, all the petitioners complied with the requirement of standing.
Xxx."
G.R. No. 206719, April 10, 2019
BAGUMBAYAN-VNP MOVEMENT, INC., AND RICHARD J. GORDON, ON HIS BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER CITIZENS OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SIMILARLY SITUATED, Petitioners
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent
