republic of the philippines - Philippine Center for Investigative ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Government,” has historically and heroically performed this constitutional mandate by going beyond procedural restrictions in order to serve a higher public purpose. Such is the situation being presented by the Petitioners in the instant case. 23. In Chavez vs. PCGG, 1 the Court upheld the right of a citizen to bring a taxpayer's suit on matters of transcendental importance to the public, especially when the matter involves the recovery of the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses. In Chavez vs. PEA, 2 the Court recognized a taxpayer’s right to bring suit to enforce the public’s right to information and to stop the government from alienating public land in violation of the Constitution. 24. In the landmark Francisco vs. House of Representatives, 3 the Court cited numerous case in the past where the court “accorded standing to taxpayers, voters, concerned citizens, legislators in cases involving paramount public interest and transcendental importance,” and held that “procedural matters are subordinate to the need to determine whether or not the other branches of the government have kept themselves within the limits of the Constitution and the laws and that they have not abused the discretion given to them.” 4 25. In addition, the court has already held that in the case of a taxpayer, he is allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed, or that public money is being deflected to any 1 Chavez v. PCGG, 299 SCRA 744 (1998). 2 G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002. 3 G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003. 4 Citing Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Morato, 250 SCRA 130 (1995), Tatad v. Secretary of the Department of Energy, 281 SCRA 330 (1997), Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng Pilipinas, 163 SCRA 371, 378 (1988). 10
improper purpose, or that there is a wastage of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. 5 In the discussion that follows, the Petitioners will establish that such is the situation in the instant case. 26. Petitioners are also constrained to air their grievance and seek relief with this Honorable Court because of the provisions of Republic Act No. 8975, also known as “An Act to Ensure the Expeditious Implementation and Completion of Government Infrastructure Projects by Prohibiting Lower Courts from Issuing Temporary Restraining Orders, Preliminary Injunctions or Preliminary Mandatory Injunctions.” The said Act, particularly Section 3 thereof, makes exclusive to the Supreme Court the issuance of temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions or preliminary mandatory injunctions on government infrastructure projects, which relief are being prayed for in the instant case. 6 5 Del Mar v. PAGCOR 346 SCRA 485, 501 (2000) citing Kilosbayan, Inc., et.al. v. Morato, 250 SCRA 130 (1995); Dumlao v. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392 (1980); Sanidad v. Comelec, 73 SCRA 333 (1976); Philconsa v. Mathay, 18 SCRA 300 (1966); Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works, 110 Phil 331 (1960); Vide Gonzales v. Narvasa, 337 SCRA 733 (2000); Pelaez v. Auditor General, 15 SCRA 569 (1965); Philconsa v. Gimenez, 15 SCRA 479 (1965); Iloilo Palay & Corn Planters Association v. Feliciano, 13 SCRA 377 (1965). 6 Sec. 3. Prohibition on the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Orders, Preliminary Injunctions and Preliminary Mandatory Injunctions. -No court, except the Supreme Court, shall issue any temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction against the government, or any of its subdivisions, officials or any person or entity, whether public or private, acting under the government's direction, to restrain, prohibit or compel the following acts: (a) Acquisition, clearance and development of the right-of-way and/or site or location of any national government project; (b) Bidding or awarding of contract/project of the national government as defined under Section 2 hereof; (c) Commencement, prosecution, execution, implementation, operation of any such contract or project; (d) Termination or rescission of any such contract/project; and (e) The undertaking or authorization of any other lawful activity necessary for such contract/project. 11
Page 1 and 2: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SUPREME
Page 3 and 4: Butuyan Law Offices, of which they
Page 5 and 6: 10. Public Respondent National Econ
Page 7 and 8: 16. The Northrail Contract and the
Page 9: from the University of the Philippi
Page 13 and 14: II. THE NORTHRAIL CONTRACT IS VOID
Page 15 and 16: is a defective contention because n
Page 17 and 18: which also has its own juridical pe
Page 19 and 20: funds unless there is an appropriat
Page 21 and 22: 44. CNMEC cannot therefore engage a
Page 23 and 24: terms of lost homes, livelihoods an
Page 25 and 26: 57. A failure to stop the implement
Page 27 and 28: 2) AN ORDER DECLARING NULL AND VOID
Page 29 and 30: COPY FURNISHED: Honorable Eduardo E

republic of the philippines - Philippine Center for Investigative ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?