G.R. No. 215746 , October 8, 2019
ANG NARS PARTY-LIST, REPRESENTED BY CONGRESSWOMAN LEAH PRIMITIVA G. SAMACO-PAQUIZ, AND PUBLIC SERVICES LABOR INDEPENDENT CONFEDERATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY ANNIE E. GERON, PETITIONERS, VS. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, AND THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners Ang Nars Party-List, represented by Congresswoman Leah Primitiva G. Samaco-Paquiz, and the Public Services Labor Independent Confederation (PSLINK), represented by its Secretary General Annie E. Geron, filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus under Rule 65. They assailed the validity of Section 6 of Executive Order No. 811, issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, which set the compensation for Nurse I positions at Salary Grade 11. They also prayed that the Court compel respondents to implement Section 32 of Republic Act No. 9173 (The Philippine Nursing Act of 2002), which mandates that the minimum base pay of nurses in public health institutions shall not be lower than Salary Grade 15. Petitioners argued that Joint Resolution No. 4, which authorized the President to modify compensation, did not empower her to amend or lower the entry level for nurses as set by Republic Act No. 9173, and that Executive Order No. 811 effectively violated the principle of non-diminution of salaries. The Office of the Solicitor General, representing respondents, contested petitioners’ legal standing, arguing they had no personal interest and were not government nurses affected by the order, and that a petition for declaratory relief was the proper remedy, not certiorari and mandamus.

ISSUE

The primary issue addressed in the Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Justice Leonen is whether petitioner Ang Nars Party-List Representative Leah Primitiva G. Samaco-Paquiz has legal standing to file the Petition.

RULING

Justice Leonen concurred in the result that the Petition should be dismissed but dissented from the majority’s finding that Representative Samaco-Paquiz had legal standing. He held that she did not possess the required legal standing. Legal standing requires a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury from the challenged governmental act. The opinion clarified that in public suits, where a plaintiff asserts a public right as a representative of the general public, the plaintiff must still show a present substantial interest, not a mere expectancy, and possess their own right to the relief sought. Justice Leonen concluded that Representative Samaco-Paquiz failed to demonstrate such a direct injury or personal stake in the controversy. He concurred with the majority that petitioner PSLINK also lacked legal standing. Furthermore, the opinion addressed the procedural issue, stating that a petition for declaratory relief was an improper remedy for questioning the constitutionality of an executive order before the Supreme Court, as such an action requires the absence of an actual case or controversy, whereas invoking the Court’s power of judicial review requires the presence of an actual case or controversy.