Scribd
Upload
380 views2 pages

Joya v. PCGG

This case summary involves a petition filed by Dean Jose Joya and others to enjoin the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) from proceeding with an auction sale of paintings and silverware seized from Malacanang Palace and the Metropolitan Museum of Manila that were alleged to be part of former President Ferdinand Marcos' ill-gotten wealth. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners did not have legal standing to file the case as they failed to show they were the legal owners of the properties or that the properties had become publicly owned. As the petitioners were not the real parties in interest, their petition was dismissed.

Uploaded by

Dan Abania
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
380 views2 pages

Joya v. PCGG

This case summary involves a petition filed by Dean Jose Joya and others to enjoin the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) from proceeding with an auction sale of paintings and silverware seized from Malacanang Palace and the Metropolitan Museum of Manila that were alleged to be part of former President Ferdinand Marcos' ill-gotten wealth. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners did not have legal standing to file the case as they failed to show they were the legal owners of the properties or that the properties had become publicly owned. As the petitioners were not the real parties in interest, their petition was dismissed.

Uploaded by

Dan Abania
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CASE DIGEST

Joya v. PCGG
Constitutional Law

Date August 24, 1993


Petitioners Dean Jose Joya, et al.
Respondents Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), Catalino Macaraig, Jr., in his
capacity as Executive Secretary, et al.
Ponente Bellosillo, J.
Overview A case regarding auction sale of properties confiscated by the Aquino administration
from Malacanang alleged to have been part of the ill-gotten wealth of Marcos
Relevant topic Proper Party

RELEVANT CHARACTERS:

FACTS:
 Petitioners seek to enjoin the PCGG from proceeding with the auction sale of paintings and silverware seized
from Malacanang and the Metropolitan Museum of Manila
- Alleged part of the ill-gotten wealth of Marcos, his relatives and cronies
- Auction sale was scheduled on Jan. 11, 1991
- Christie’s of New York will undertake the auction sale under a consignment agreement with the PH
 COA submitted a report to President Aquino that:
1. Authority of former PCGG chairman to enter into the Consignment Agreement was of doubtful legality
2. Contract was highly disadvantageous to the government
3. PCGG had a poor track record in asset disposal by auction in the US
4. Assets subject of the auction were historical relics and had cultural significance; their disposal was
prohibited by law

ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

ISSUES HELD
1) WON petitioners have legal standing to file the instant petition NO

RATIO:
 Requisites for judicial review
1. Question must be raised by the proper party
2. There must be an actual case or controversy
3. Question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity
4. decision on the constitutional or legal question must be necessary to the determination of the case
itself
- first 2 requisites are the most important
 One having no right or interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as party-plaintiff in action
- Sec. 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court
- Every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-in-interest
- All persons having interest in the subject of the action and in obtaining relief demanded shall be joined as
plaintiffs
 Court will exercise its power of judicial review only if the case is brought before it by a party who has legal
standing to raise the constitutional or legal question
- Legal standing = personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will
sustain direct injury as a result of the act being challenged
- Interest should be material interest, interest in issue and to be affected by the act
- Should be distinguished from mere incidental interest
- Interest should also be personal and not one based on a desire to vindicate the constitutional right of
some 3rd and unrelated party
 Court sometimes allows exception to the rule on legal standing
- E.g. When citizen brings a case for mandamus to procure enforcement of a public duty for the fulfilment of
a public right recognized by the Constitution
- E.g. When a taxpayer questions the validity of a governmental act authorizing the disbursement of public
funds
 Petitioners claim that they have legal personality to restrain respondents from their act
- As Filipino citizens, taxpayers, and artists deeply concerned with the preservation and protection of the
country’s artistic wealth

Page 1 of 2
CASE DIGEST
Joya v. PCGG
Constitutional Law

- Cite Art. XIV, Sec. 14 to 18 of the Constitution and RA 4846 (The Cultural Properties Preservation and
Protection Act)
- Petitioners also claim that the paintings and silverware are public property collectively owned by them and
the people and their disposition would deprive the people of their right to public property without due
process of law
 Petitioners claims are devoid of merit
 Petition may be raised only by the proper party – the true owners of the properties in question
- The paintings were donated by private individuals to the Metropolitan Museum of Manila Foundation (a
non-profit, non-stock corporation)
 The ownership of the paintings belongs to the foundation or members thereof
 Public is only given the opportunity to view and appreciate these paintings
- The silverware were gifts to the Marcos couple on their silver wedding anniversary
- The properties were only confiscated by the government
 Does not necessarily mean the ownership over the properties have already passed to the
government
- Petitioners fail to show they are the legal owners of the properties or that they have become publicly
owned
- Petitioners have no legal right to question their disposition
 Petitioners have no standing no file action for mandamus
- Writ of mandamus may be issued to a citizen only when the public right to be enforced and the
concomitant duty of the state are unequivocably set forth in the Constitution
- In case at bar, petitioners do not seek fulfilment of positive duty but are after the enjoining of an official act
because it is constitutionally infirmed
- Petitioners claim for enjoyment and appreciation of public artworks is at most a privilege and is
unenforceable as a constitutional right
 Petitioners have no standing to file taxpayer’s suit
- May only prosper if the government act being questioned involves disbursement of public funds
- Theory is that the expenditure of public funds by an officer of the state for the purpose of an
unconstitutional act constitute a misapplication of such funds
- Petitioners at bar are not challenging any expenditure involving public funds but the disposition of the
properties
- Petitioners also admit the properties were acquired from private sources and not with public money

RULING:
WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the petition for prohibition and mandamus is DISMISSED.

Page 2 of 2

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy