Galicto vs.

Aquino III
G.R. No. 193978
February 28, 2012
PONENTE : Brion
FACTS:
PNOY made public in his first SONA the alleged excessive allowances, bonuses and other benefits of
officers and members of the MWSS. The Senate conducted an inquiry on the reported excessive salaries
and allowances of GOCC and government financial institutions. The senate issued Senate Resolution no.
17 urging the president to order the immediate suspension of the unusually large and apparently
excessive allowances and salaries of the GOCCs and GFIs. PNOY issued EO7 which precluded the BOD
and officers of the GOCCs from granting and releasing bonuses and allowances to members of the BOD
and from increasing bonuses and salary rates of and granting new or additional benefits and allowances
to their employees. Petitioner claims that as a PHILHEALTH employee he is affected by the
implementation of the EO7. The respondents moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground
that the petitioner lacks locus standi.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petioner lacks locus standi
HELD:
Locus standi or legal standing has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in a case such that
the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being
challenged. This requirement of standing relates to the constitutional mandate that this court (SC) settle
only actual cases of controversies.
As a general rule a party is allowed to raise a constitutional question when he can show that 1. He will
personally suffer some actual or threatened injury because of the allegedly illegal conduct of the
government, 2. The injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action, and 3. The injury is likely to be
redressed by a favorable action.
By material and real interest is meant a present and substantial interest as distinguished from a mere
expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest.
In the present case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he has a personal stake or material
interest in the outcome of the case because his interest, if any, is speculative and based on mere
expectancy. In this case, the curtailment of future increase in his salaries and other benefits cannot but
be characterized as contingent events or expectancies. To be sure, he has no vested rights to salary
increases and, therefore, the absence of such right deprives the petitioner of legal standing to assail
EO7.
In the case of Lozano vs. Nograles, while the court has taken liberal approach to the rule of locus standi,
evolving from the stringent requirements of personal injury to the broader transcendental importance

doctrine, such liberality is not to be abused. Giving due course to the present petition which is saddled
with procedural and formal infirmities does not merit the courts liberality.