CASE NO.

18
AGAN V. PIATCO
2003-05-05 | G.R. No. 155001
(PROPER PARTY)
FACTS:
Petitioners and petitioners-in-intervention filed the instant petitions
for prohibition under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court
seeking to prohibit the Manila International Airport Authority
(MIAA) and the Department of Transportation and
Communications (DOTC) and its Secretary from implementing
the( collective PIATCO Contracts).
On September 17, 2002, the workers of the international airline
service providers, claiming that they stand to lose their
employment upon the implementation of the questioned
agreements, filed before this Court a petition for prohibition to
enjoin the enforcement of said agreements.[2]
On October 15, 2002, the service providers, joining the cause of
the petitioning workers, filed a motion for intervention and a
petition-in-intervention.
On October 24, 2002, Congressmen Salacnib Baterina, Clavel
Martinez and Constantino Jaraula filed a similar petition with this
Court.
On November 6, 2002, several employees of the MIAA likewise
filed a petition assailing the legality of the various agreements.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners have the right to stand before the court?
Ruling:
YES.
THE PETIONERS HAS LOCUS STANDI:
(c) the alleged lack of sufficient personality, standing or interest, being in
the main procedural matters, must now be set aside, as they have been
in past cases. This Court must be permitted to perform its constitutional
duty of determining whether the other agencies of government have
acted within the limits of the Constitution and the laws, or if they have
gravely abused the discretion entrusted to them.
Petitioners thus correctly assert that the injury to them has a twofold
aspect:
(1) they are adversely affected as taxpayers on account of the illegal
disbursement of public funds; and
(2) they are prejudiced qua legislators, since the contractual provisions
requiring the government to incur expenditures without appropriations
also operate as limitations upon the exclusive power and prerogative of
Congress over the public purse.
And even if petitioners and petitioners-in-intervention were not
sufficiently clothed with legal standing, I have at the outset already
established that, given its impact on the public and on national interest,
this controversy is laden with transcendental importance and
constitutional significance. Hence, I do not hesitate to adopt the same
position as was enunciated in Kilosbayan v. Guingona Jr.[8] that "in
cases of transcendental importance, the Court may relax the standing
requirements and allow a suit to prosper even when there is no direct
injury to the party claiming the right of judicial review."[9]