Scribd
Upload
18 views1 page

Public Interest

Uploaded by

VICTORIA ME�OZA
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
18 views1 page

Public Interest

Uploaded by

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

In Tañada 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.'

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. (Emphasis supplied)

Clearly, since the instant petition, brought by a citizen, involves matters of transcendental public importance, the
petitioner has the requisite locus standi.

Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution, like other provisions of the Constitution expressly reserving to
Filipinos specific areas of investment, such as the development of natural resources and ownership of land,
educational institutions and advertising business, is self-executing. There is no need for legislation to implement
these self-executing provisions of the Constitution. The rationale why these constitutional provisions are self-
executing was explained in Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS,[66] thus:

x x x Hence, unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a constitutional mandate, the
presumption now is that all provisions of the constitution are self-executing. If the constitutional provisions are treated
as requiring legislation instead of self-executing, the legislature would have the power to ignore and practically nullify
the mandate of the fundamental law. This can be cataclysmic. That is why the prevailing view is, as it has always
been, that --

. . . in case of doubt, the Constitution should be considered self-executing rather than non-self-executing. . . . Unless
the contrary is clearly intended, the provisions of the Constitution should be considered self-executing, as a
contrary rule would give the legislature discretion to determine when, or whether, they shall be effective. These
provisions would be subordinated to the will of the lawmaking body, which could make them entirely meaningless by
simply refusing to pass the needed implementing statute. (Emphasis supplied)

WHEREFORE, we PARTLY GRANT the petition and rule that the term "capital" in Section 11, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution refers only to shares of stock entitled to vote in the election of directors, and thus in the present case
only to common shares, and not to the total outstanding capital stock (common and non-voting preferred shares).
Respondent Chairperson of the Securities and Exchange Commission is DIRECTED to apply this definition of the
term "capital" in determining the extent of allowable foreign ownership in respondent Philippine Long Distance
Telephone Company, and if there is a violation of Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution, to impose the appropriate
sanctions under the law.

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