271059/271347/E-02472/E-04036  Concurring and Dissenting Opinion: Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez — Official PDF

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion 9 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472 & E-04036 2.) For voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question; 3.) For concerned citizens, there must be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental importance which must be settled early; and 4.) For legislators, there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes their prerogatives as legislators.36 Here, petitioners in G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347 and E004036 are assailing the constitutionality of the 2024 and 2026 GAA in their capacity as legislators, being Representatives and Senators: As ,mentioned above, for legislators, there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes their prerogatives as legislators. Thus, in A CT Teachers Rep. Tinio v. President Duterte,37 one of the petitioners therein, who is a member of the House of Representatives, was accorded legal standing with this Court ratiocinating as follows: Tinio et al. have t,':ie requisite traditional standing as legislators considering that the purported invalidity in the passage of the law by a handful of Members of the House violated their prerogatives as legislators and contravened the Constitution itself. Undoubtedly, legislators have a legal standing to ensure that the prerogatives, powers, privileges, and the duties vested by the Constitution in the Legislature, as an institution, remain inviolate. Moreover, both petitioners contend that they, a.'ld the people; they represent, i.e., their respective representations and the consumer-public as a whole, have already been injured by the TRAIN Act. These personal and substantial interests in the subject matter, whether in llie traditional or the • non-traditional sense, indubitably give them legal standing to question the Jaw.38 (Citations omitted) Moreover, in the early case of Gonzales v. Macaraig, Jr., 39 the petitioners 1herefo, who wen; members of the Senate, were accorded legal standing on the reasoning that "a member of the Senate has the requisite personality to bring a suit where a constitutional issue is raised." 40 Accordingly, petitioners have legal standing to file the present Petition. In any case, petitioners may also be given legal standing as taxpayers. In Pascual v. Secretary of Puhl.ic 'M,orks,4 i this Cou.,_'i recognized "the right of taxpayers ·to assail tl1e constitutionality of legislation appropriating local or state public funds."42 In a number of cases, this Court has adopted the rule that a taxpayer has the personality to restrain unlawful expenditure· of public , 36 Id, at 154-155. 37 934 Phil. 212 (2023) [Per J. Dimaampao, En Banc]. 38 Id. at 225. 39 269 Phil. 472 (1990) [Per J. Mekncio-Hetrera, En Banc]. 40 Id. at 492, 41 1 JO Phil. 331 (1960) [PerJ. Concepcion]. " • Id. at 345. (Citation omitted)