QUESTION: Must a Taxpayer be a party to a contract in order to challenge it's validity?
ANSWER: NO. Ratio: TAXPAYER SUIT
Petitioners Plaridel M. Abaya who claims that he filed the instant petition as a taxpayer, former lawmaker, and a Filipino citizen, and Plaridel C. Garcia (birds of the same feather ;p) likewise claiming that he filed the suit as a taxpayer, former military officer, and a Filipino citizen, mainly seeking to nullify a DPWH resolution which recommended the award to private respondent China Road & Bridge Corporation of the contract for the implementation of the civil works known as Contract Package No. 1. They also seek to annul the contract of agreement subsequently entered into by and between the DPWH and China Road & Bridge Corporation pursuant to said resolution.
Respondent defends Petitioners don’t have Locus Standi since they are not party to the contract.
ISSUE:
Do petitioners have the LOCUS STANDI (Legal Standing) to file the instant case against the government notwithstanding that they are not a party to the contract to challenge its validity?
RULING:
YES. As TAXPAYERS they have Locus Standi to file the present suit.
Briefly stated, locus standi is a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question. More particularly, it is a party’s personal and substantial interest in a case such that he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act being challenged.
Locus standi however is merely a matter of procedure and it has been recognized that in some cases, suits are not brought by parties who have been personally injured by operation of law or any other government act but by concerned citizens, taxpayers or voters who actually sue in the public interest. Consequently , the court in a catena of cases, has invariably adopted a liberal stance on locus standi, including those cases involving taxpayers.
Ito yung kaya minsan maynaririnig kang nagfafile ng kaso pero wala naman silang kinalaman sa kontrata or agreement or deal and sinasabi lang nila "at baket taxpayer ako ah? baket ba?". It is what you call a TAXPAYER’S SUIT. The prevailing doctrine in Taxpayer's Suit is to allow taxpayers to question government contracts especially pag merong
1. illegal disbursement of public funds
2. the public money is being deflected to some other purpose or to someone's private bank account, or they see
3. wastage of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law entered into by the national government or GOCCs allegedly in contravention of the law.
1. illegal disbursement of public funds
2. the public money is being deflected to some other purpose or to someone's private bank account, or they see
3. wastage of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law entered into by the national government or GOCCs allegedly in contravention of the law.
Significantly, a taxpayer need not be a party to the contract to challenge its validity.
So if you see the same or have personal knowledge of the same, do remember that as taxpayer, you have the legal standing (locus standi) to file a case in court against the irregularity you see in the government. So di mo na kailangan magsumbong pa kay President Digong, and di mo na din kailangan pang magcreate ng sangkatutak na memes sa social media. You yourself as taxpayer have the right to question those irregularities in court, kaya sige dong, day, ate, koya ifile mo na yung case, sige te ihugot mo te :)
