Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila ... - Columba.us
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila ... - Columba.us
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila ... - Columba.us
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
alleging that "<strong>the</strong>y will suffer if this insidio<strong>us</strong> scheme <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> minority members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ho<strong>us</strong>e <strong>of</strong><br />
Representatives is successful," this Court found <strong>the</strong> requisites for intervention had been complied<br />
with.<br />
Alleging that <strong>the</strong> issues raised in <strong>the</strong> petitions in G.R. Nos. 160261, 160262, 160263, 160277,<br />
160292, 160295, and 160310 were <strong>of</strong> transcendental importance, World War II Veterans<br />
Legionnaires <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Philippines</strong>, Inc. filed a "Petition-in-Intervention with Leave to Intervene" to<br />
raise <strong>the</strong> additional issue <strong>of</strong> whe<strong>the</strong>r or not <strong>the</strong> second impeachment complaint against <strong>the</strong> Chief<br />
J<strong>us</strong>tice is valid and based on any <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> grounds prescribed by <strong>the</strong> Constitution.<br />
Finding that Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc., et al.<br />
and World War II Veterans Legionnaires <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Philippines</strong>, Inc. possess a legal interest in <strong>the</strong><br />
matter in litigation <strong>the</strong> respective motions to intervene were hereby granted.<br />
Senator Aquilino Pimentel, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, sought to intervene for <strong>the</strong> limited purpose <strong>of</strong><br />
making <strong>of</strong> record and arguing a point <strong>of</strong> view that differs with Senate President Drilon's. He<br />
alleges that submitting to this Court's jurisdiction as <strong>the</strong> Senate President does will undermine<br />
<strong>the</strong> independence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Senate which will sit as an impeachment court once <strong>the</strong> Articles <strong>of</strong><br />
Impeachment are transmitted to it from <strong>the</strong> Ho<strong>us</strong>e <strong>of</strong> Representatives. Clearly, Senator Pimentel<br />
possesses a legal interest in <strong>the</strong> matter in litigation, he being a member <strong>of</strong> Congress against<br />
which <strong>the</strong> herein petitions are directed. For this reason, and to fully ventilate all substantial issues<br />
relating to <strong>the</strong> matter at hand, his Motion to Intervene was granted and he was, as earlier stated,<br />
allowed to argue.<br />
Lastly, as to Jaime N. Soriano's motion to intervene, <strong>the</strong> same m<strong>us</strong>t be denied for, while he<br />
asserts an interest as a taxpayer, he failed to meet <strong>the</strong> standing requirement for bringing<br />
taxpayer's suits as set forth in Dumlao v. Comelec, 93 to wit:<br />
x x x While, concededly, <strong>the</strong> elections to be held involve <strong>the</strong> expenditure <strong>of</strong> public<br />
moneys, nowhere in <strong>the</strong>ir Petition do said petitioners allege that <strong>the</strong>ir tax money is "being<br />
extracted and spent in violation <strong>of</strong> specific constitutional protection against ab<strong>us</strong>es <strong>of</strong><br />
legislative power," or that <strong>the</strong>re is a misapplication <strong>of</strong> such funds by respondent<br />
COMELEC, or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose. Nei<strong>the</strong>r do<br />
petitioners seek to restrain respondent from wasting public funds through <strong>the</strong><br />
enforcement <strong>of</strong> an invalid or unconstitutional law. 94 (Citations omitted)<br />
In praying for <strong>the</strong> dismissal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> petitions, Soriano failed even to allege that <strong>the</strong> act <strong>of</strong><br />
petitioners will result in illegal disbursement <strong>of</strong> public funds or in public money being deflected<br />
to any improper purpose. Additionally, his mere interest as a member <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bar does not suffice<br />
to clo<strong>the</strong> him with standing.<br />
Ripeness and Prematurity<br />
In Tan v. Macapagal, 95 this Court, through Chief J<strong>us</strong>tice Fernando, held that for a case to be<br />
considered ripe for adjudication, "it is a prerequisite that something had by <strong>the</strong>n been<br />
accomplished or performed by ei<strong>the</strong>r branch before a court may come into <strong>the</strong> picture." 96 Only