Executive Secretary vs. CA GR No.

131719
Topic: Standing
FACTS: The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 took effect on 15
July 1995 and its Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing the Act was
published on April 1996. However, even before the law took effect, the Asian
Recruitment Council Philippine Chapter, Inc. (ARCO-Phil.) filed, on 17 July 1995, a
petition for declaratory relief to declare some parts as unconstitutional and prayed
for a preliminary injunction enjoining herein petitioners from implementing it. On 1
August 1995, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order effective for a
period of only 20 days therefrom. After the Executive Secretary, et al. filed their
comment on the petition, the ARCO-Phil. filed an amended petition, the
amendments consisting in the inclusion in the caption thereof 11 other corporations
which it alleged were its members and which it represented in the suit, and a plea
for a temporary restraining order. Arco-Phil averred that the provisions of RA 8042
violate Section 1, Article III of the Constitution (i.e. discrimination against unskilled
workers, discrimination against licensed and registered recruiters, among others).
The RTC eventually granted the writ so the ES filed a petition for certiorari with the
Court of Appeals, asserting thatAcro-Phil is not the real party-in-interest as
petitioner in the trial court, as it was inconceivable how a non-stock and non-profit
corporation, could sustain direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the law.
They argued that if, at all, any damage would result in the implementation of the
law, it is the licensed and registered recruitment agencies and/or the unskilled
Filipino migrant workers discriminated against who would sustain the said injury or
damage, not AcroPhil.

The CA dismissed this, hence the present petition.

ISSUE: WON ACRO-Phil has locus standi.

HELD: Only insofar as the 11 licensed and registered recruitment agencies

impleaded in the amended petitions but not for the unskilled workers it was
claiming for. The modern view is that an association has standing to complain of
injuries to its members. This view fuses the legal identity of an association with that
of its members. An association has standing to file suit for its workers despite its
lack of direct interest if its members are affected by the action. The Court note that,
under its Articles of Incorporation, ACRO-Phil was organized for the purposes inter
alia of promoting and supporting the growth and development of the manpower
recruitment industry, both in the local and international levels; providing, creating
and exploring employment opportunities for the exclusive benefit of its general
membership; enhancing and promoting the general welfare and protection of

Filipino workers; and, to act as the representative of any individual, company, entity
or association on matters related to the manpower recruitment industry, and to
perform other acts and activities necessary to accomplish the purposes embodied
therein. ACRO-Phil is, thus, the appropriate party to assert the rights of its
members, because it and its members are in every practical sense identical.
However, with respect to the unskilled workers, the Court finds that ACRO-Phil
cannot file the petition on their behalf and that it even failed to implead such
unskilled workers in their petition.