GR 67752; (April, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 67752 April 10, 1989
NATIONAL ECONOMIC PROTECTIONISM ASSOCIATION, ELIZALDE D. DIAZ, JULIO LOGARTA, JR., ENRIQUE ANGELES, ALFREDO DE LEON AND GEORGE SIBAL, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE ROBERTO V. ONGPIN, in his capacity as Minister of Trade and Industry and Chairman of the Board of Investments, and the HONORABLE GREGORIO G. MENDOZA, in his capacity as Treasurer of the Philippines, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, comprising the National Economic Protectionism Association and several individuals, filed a petition for prohibition seeking to declare unconstitutional Presidential Decree No. 1789 (the Omnibus Investment Code of 1981), the 1981 Investment Priorities Plan, Executive Order No. 676 which approved that plan, and Presidential Decree No. 1892. P.D. No. 1892, issued on December 4, 1983, suspended for one year the nationality requirement mandating at least 60% Philippine national ownership for non-pioneer industries entitled to registration under the Code. Petitioners, suing as citizens, taxpayers, and businessmen, alleged they would be adversely affected by these laws. They argued that the President’s legislative decree-making power, exercised in issuing these decrees, was limited to matters related to the suppression of the grounds for martial law and did not extend to general economic legislation of this nature.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether petitioners possess the requisite legal standing (locus standi) to challenge the constitutionality of the aforementioned presidential decrees and related issuances.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit, primarily due to petitioners’ lack of locus standi. The Court reiterated the fundamental doctrine that for a party to challenge the constitutionality of a statute, they must demonstrate a personal and substantial interest in the case, such that they have sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the law’s enforcement. Petitioners failed to meet this requirement. Not one of them alleged any specific, direct injury from the operation of the challenged provisions. Their claims of being adversely affected as citizens, taxpayers, and businessmen were general and speculative, insufficient to confer standing.
The Court emphasized that the power of judicial review is exercised only in cases of actual controversy and as a last resort. The constitutionality of a law will not be determined upon the complaint of one who fails to show injury from its operation. Since petitioners lacked a direct and personal stake, they had no legal standing to seek judicial redress. Furthermore, the Court noted that P.D. No. 1892 had already lapsed by its own terms on December 4, 1984, and P.D. No. 1789 had been expressly repealed by Executive Order No. 226 (the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987), rendering parts of the petition moot. The 1981 Investment Priorities Plan and its approving executive order were characterized as mere analytical projections and an approval thereof, not shown to be constitutionally infirm. The petition was therefore dismissed.