FRANCISCO I.
CHAVEZ, petitioner, vs. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY and AMARI COASTAL BAY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents. [G.R. No. 133250. July 9, 2002].
“x x x.
Fourth issue: whether petitioner has locus
standi to bring this suit
PEA argues that petitioner has no standing to
institute mandamus proceedings to enforce his constitutional right to information without a showing that PEA refused to
perform an affirmative duty imposed on PEA by the Constitution. PEA also
claims that petitioner has not shown that he will suffer any concrete injury because of the signing
or implementation of the Amended JVA. Thus, there is no actual controversy requiring the exercise of the power of judicial
review.
The petitioner has standing to bring this taxpayers suit because the petition
seeks to compel PEA to comply with its
constitutional duties. There are two constitutional issues involved here.
First is the right of citizens to
information on matters of public concern. Second is the application of a constitutional provision
intended to insure the equitable distribution of alienable lands of the public
domain among Filipino citizens. The thrust of the first issue is to compel
PEA to disclose publicly information on the sale of government lands worth
billions of pesos, information which the Constitution and statutory law mandate
PEA to disclose. The thrust of the second issue is to prevent PEA from
alienating hundreds of hectares of alienable lands of the public domain in
violation of the Constitution, compelling PEA to comply with a constitutional
duty to the nation.
Moreover, the petition raises matters of transcendental importance to the public. In Chavez
v. PCGG,[i] the Court upheld the right of a
citizen to bring a taxpayers suit on matters of transcendental importance to
the public, thus -
Besides, petitioner emphasizes, the matter of
recovering the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses is an issue of transcendental
importance to the public. He asserts that ordinary taxpayers have a right to
initiate and prosecute actions questioning the validity of acts or orders of
government agencies or instrumentalities, if the issues raised are of paramount
public interest, and if they immediately affect the social, economic and moral
well being of the people.
Moreover, the mere fact that he is a citizen
satisfies the requirement of personal interest, when the proceeding involves
the assertion of a public right, such as in this case. He invokes several
decisions of this Court which have set aside the procedural matter of locus
standi, when the subject of the case involved public interest.
x x x
In Taada v. Tuvera, the Court asserted that
when the issue concerns a public right and the object of mandamus is to obtain
the enforcement of a public duty, the people are regarded as the real parties
in interest; and because it is sufficient that petitioner is a citizen and as
such is interested in the execution of the laws, he need not show that he has
any legal or special interest in the result of the action. In the aforesaid
case, the petitioners sought to enforce their right to be informed on matters
of public concern, a right then recognized in Section 6, Article IV of the 1973
Constitution, in connection with the rule that laws in order to be valid and
enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette or otherwise effectively
promulgated. In ruling for the petitioners' legal standing, the Court declared
that the right they sought to be enforced is a public right recognized by no
less than the fundamental law of the land.
Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, while reiterating Taada, further declared that when a mandamus
proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the requirement of
personal interest is satisfied by the mere fact that petitioner is a citizen
and, therefore, part of the general 'public' which possesses the right.
Further, in Albano v. Reyes, we said that
while expenditure of public funds may not have been involved under the
questioned contract for the development, management and operation of the Manila
International Container Terminal, public interest [was] definitely involved
considering the important role [of the subject contract] . . . in the economic
development of the country and the magnitude of the financial consideration
involved. We concluded that, as a consequence, the disclosure provision in the
Constitution would constitute sufficient authority for upholding the
petitioner's standing.
Similarly, the instant petition is anchored on the
right of the people to information and access to official records, documents
and papers a right guaranteed under Section 7, Article III of the 1987
Constitution. Petitioner, a former solicitor general, is a Filipino citizen.
Because of the satisfaction of the two basic requisites laid down by decisional
law to sustain petitioner's legal standing, i.e. (1) the enforcement of a
public right (2) espoused by a Filipino citizen, we rule that the petition at
bar should be allowed.
We rule that since the instant petition, brought by
a citizen, involves the enforcement of constitutional rights - to information
and to the equitable diffusion of natural resources - matters of transcendental
public importance, the petitioner has the requisite locus standi.
X x x.”
