GR 78389; (October, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 78389 October 16, 1989
JOSE LUIS MARTIN C. GASCON, FAUSTINO “BONG” L. LAPIRA, and SPOUSES ALBERTO and KARLA LIM, petitioners, vs. The Hon. JOKER T. ARROYO, in his official capacity as Executive Secretary to the President, Hon. TEODORO C. BENIGNO, as Press Secretary, Hon. REINERIO REYES, as the Secretary of Transportation and Communication, Hon. JOSE ALCUAZ, as Chairman of the National Telecommunications Commission, Hon. CONRADO A. LIMCAOCO, JR., as the Officer-in-Charge of the People’s Television 4, ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, and MESSRS. VICENTE ABAD SANTOS, PASTOR DEL ROSARIO and CATALINO MACARAIG, JR., in their respective capacities as Chairman and Members of the “Arbitration Committee”, respondents.
FACTS
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to annul an “Agreement to Arbitrate” executed on January 6, 1987, between the Republic of the Philippines, represented by Executive Secretary Joker Arroyo, and ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, represented by its President, Eugenio Lopez, Jr. The agreement aimed to settle ABS-CBN’s claims for the return of television stations, specifically TV Station Channel 4, which was taken over by the government after the declaration of martial law in 1972. Following the 1986 EDSA Revolution, the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) sequestered the stations. While TV Channel 2 was returned to the Lopez family in October 1986, the request for the return of Channel 4 led to the execution of the arbitration agreement, creating a committee to adjudicate the claim. The petitioners, alleging taxpayer status, filed this suit to annul the agreement and enjoin the Arbitration Committee from proceeding.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the petitioners possess the requisite legal standing or personality to file the instant petition challenging the “Agreement to Arbitrate.”
RULING
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition. The Court held that petitioners lack the legal standing necessary to maintain this suit. The Court recognized that a taxpayer’s suit is permissible to question the constitutionality of a statute or law, premised on the theory that implementing an invalid law constitutes a misapplication of public funds. However, the present action does not challenge a statute but seeks to annul a contractual “Agreement to Arbitrate” between the government and a private entity. Petitioners failed to demonstrate any direct legal interest in TV Station Channel 4 or how they would be adversely affected by its potential return to the Lopez family. Their status as taxpayers alone, absent a showing of a constitutional or statutory violation involving the expenditure of public funds, is insufficient to confer standing.
Having resolved the threshold issue of standing, the Court found it unnecessary to delve extensively into the substantive merits. However, it briefly noted that, under the Freedom Constitution then in effect, the President exercised broad executive powers, and the Executive Secretary, as an alter ego, presumptively acted for and on behalf of the President in entering into such an agreement. Furthermore, the government may validly resort to arbitration under Republic Act No. 876 as an alternative mode of settling disputes. Since petitioners lacked the legal personality to sue, the petition was dismissed.