When is there Legal Standing to Sue?
By: Atty. Euney Marie J. Mata-Perez on July 23, 2026
The Supreme Court can exercise its power of judicial review only when the following requisites are met: (1) the existence of an actual and appropriate case; (2) a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional question; (3) the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the constitutional question is the lis mota or cause of the suit or action. The second element requiring “a personal and substantial interest” embodies the concept of legal standing or locus standi, which requires that the party bringing the suit must have sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged.
This concept is consistent with our Rules of Court which provides that every action must be prosecuted and defended by the real party in interest –a party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
In numerous instances, the Supreme Court has relaxed the rule on locus standi and allowed non-traditional plaintiffs, i.e., citizens, taxpayers, voters or legislators, when the controversy is of transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest.
The Supreme Court has also granted “non-traditional suitors” standing to sue as follows: (1) for taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure is unconstitutional; (2) for voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question; and (3) for legislators, there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes their prerogatives as legislators.
In Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission, petitioners assailed the issuance by the Aquino Administration Executive Order No. 1, s. 2010, establishing the Philippine Truth Commission (“PTC”), an ad hoc body created to investigate allegations of graft and corruption that occurred during the administration of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Although one of the petitioners is just a taxpayer who was not able to show any direct or personal injury that may be caused to him as a result of the implementation of EO No. 1, Supreme Court relaxed the rule on legal standing because “the issues are of transcendental and paramount importance not only to the public but also to the Bench and the Bar”.
In Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works and Communications, the Supreme Court upheld the standing of a taxpayer in a suit which seeks to nullify a law providing for the disbursement of public funds. This rests on the theory that “the expenditure of public funds by an officer of the State for the purpose of administering an unconstitutional act constitutes a misapplication of such funds” and may be enjoined at the request of a taxpayer. The law subject of controversy in this case was RA 920 or An Act Appropriating Funds for Public Works which provided for the appropriation of funds for the “improvement” of Pasig feeder road terminals even if they were not connected to any government property or any important main highway.
Similarly, in the case of Public Interest Center v. Roxas, the Supreme Court upheld the standing of petitioners who assailed the settlement agreement entered into between the government and Westinghouse Electric S.A. involving the construction of a nuclear power plant in Morong, Bataan.
In the recent case of Tayam v. Recto, the Supreme Court upheld the standing of Tayam, a taxpayer who contested the constitutionality of Republic Act (RA) No. 12079, the law providing VAT refund for foreign tourists, for allegedly violating the constitutional right to equal protection of laws since Filipino citizens and residents are excluded from the VAT refund. The government argued that Tayam has no legal standing since there is no showing that the grant of VAT refund under RA No. 12079 to non-resident tourists would result in the illegal disbursement of funds. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Tayam, being excluded from the statutory benefit of VAT refund, has sustained direct injury from the perceived unfair classification under the law. The Supreme Court also considered the far-reaching implications of the assailed statute on the country’s tax system and its potential impact on the consuming public and the national treasury.
It is interesting to note that in another recent case, Tayam v. Cayetano, the Supreme Court dismissed Tayam’s suit for failure to show that he possesses standing to question the presence of quorum of the Senators during the June 3, 2026 session. Tayam claimed that as a citizen, he possesses direct interest in ensuring that the Senate Chamber complies with the constitutional mandate, good customs, and public order, and as a taxpayer, public funds are utilized to sustain the operations of the Senate including the salaries and emoluments granted to its members. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition ruling that Tayam failed to show that he suffered, or was at imminent risk of suffering, any direct injury from the actions he challenged. In conclusion, while the Supreme Court has, in some instances, adopted a liberal approach to the doctrine of locus standi, such liberality does not dispense with the fundamental requirement that the petitioner demonstrate a sufficient legal interest in the controversy, as a general rule.
Euney Marie J. Mata-Perez is a CPA-Lawyer and the Managing Partner of Mata-Perez, Tamayo & Francisco (MTF Counsel). She is a corporate, M&A and tax lawyer and has been ranked as one of the top 100 lawyers of the Philippines by Asia Business Law Journal and is the Vice Chair of the Tax Committee of the Management Association of the Philippines. She acknowledges the contribution of Ms. Nerissa Angelica B. Jumawid, in this article. This article is for general information only and is not a substitute for professional advice where the facts and circumstances warrant. If you have any question or comment regarding this article, you may email the author at info@mtfcounsel.com or visit MTF website at www.mtfcounsel.com.
The article was published at the More to Follow Column at The Manila Times on July 23, 2026. Please see this link.