Kinds of Suits There are generally four types of lawsuit.

These are negligence or tort, breach of contract, family division, and private nuisances. Class suit is filed by a group of people with the same cause of action. It is a suit or action by one or more persons for their own benefit and considered to be ultimately for the benefit of all persons who are for the purposes of the suit considered to be in the same class or group. Taxpayer suit is filed by any taxpayer who suffers or is liable to suffer from a government expenditure of tax money. Legislator Suit a legislator is allowed to sue to question the validity of an official action which he claims infringes his prerogatives as a legislator. Citizen suit is a suit in which the interest of the petitioner in assailing the constitutionality of a statute is direct and personal. He must show that has sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of its enforcement. Tests that whether a law is Constitutional or Not: The vagueness doctrine (void-for-vagueness test) states that if the government prohibits certain acts through a law and it does not define those acts clearly, then that law is unconstitutional. The overbreadth doctrine provides that if a statute is so broadly written that it deters free expression, then it can be struck down on its face because of its chilling effect even if it also prohibits acts that may legitimately be forbidden. TEST OF VALID ORDINANCE 1. Must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; 2. . Must not be unfair or oppressive; 3. Must not be partial or discriminatory; 4. Must not prohibit but may regulate trade; 5. Must be general and consistent with public policy; 6. Must not be unreasonable.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners have a locus standi.

HELD: The SC decided in the affirmative. Locus standi means the right of the litigant to act or to be heard.Under Section 16, Article II of the 1987 constitution, it states that: The state shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. Petitioners, minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generation yet unborn. We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded considers the rhythm and harmony of nature. Nature means the created world in its entirety. Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the countrys forest, mineral, land, waters fisheries, wildlife, offshore areas and other natural resources to the end that their exploration, development and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as future generations. Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come. This landmark case has been ruled as a class suit because the subject matter of the complaint is of common and general interest, not just for several but for ALL CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Pascual vs. Pascual [G.R. No. 84240. March 25, 1992]

15AUG Ponente: PARAS, J.

OPOSA vs. FACTORAN

G.R. No. 101083. July 30, 1993. FACTS: The petitioners, all minors, sought the help of the Supreme Court to order the respondent, then Secretary of DENR, to cancel all existing Timber License Agreement (TLA) in the country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new TLAs. They alleged that the massive commercial logging in the country is causing vast abuses on rain-forest.They further asserted that the rights of their generation and the rights of the generations yet unborn to a balanced and healthful ecology. Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental consequences of continued and deforestation are so capable of unquestionable demonstration that the same may be submitted as a matter of judicial notice. This notwithstanding, they expressed their intention to present expert witnesses as well as documentary, photographic and film evidence in the course of the trial. FACTS: Don Andres Pascual died intestate (on October 12, 1973) without any issue, legitimate, acknowledged natural, adopted or spurious children. Petitioners Olivia and Hermes both surnamed Pascual are the acknowledged natural children of the late Eligio Pascual, the latter being the full blood brother of the decedent Don Andres Pascual. Petitioners filed their Motion to Reiterate Hereditary Rights and the Memorandum in Support of Motion to reiterate Hereditary Rights. the Regional Trial Court, presided over by Judge Manuel S. Padolina issued an order, the dispositive portion of which resolved to deny this motion reiterating their hereditary rights. Their motion for reconsideration was also denied. Petitioners appealed their case to the Court of Appeals, but like the ruling of CA, their motion for reconsideration was also dismissed. In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioners contend that they do not fall squarely within the purview of Article 992 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, can be interpreted to exclude recognized (and acknowledged) natural children as their illegitimacy is not due to the subsistence of a prior marriage when such children were under conception.

ISSUE: Whether or not Article 992 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, can be interpreted to exclude recognized natural children from the inheritance of the deceased. HELD: NO. Petition is devoid of merit. RATIO: The issue in the case at bar, had already been laid to rest in Diaz v. IAC, where this Court ruled that under Art.992 of the Civil Code, there exists a barrier or iron curtain in that it prohibits absolutely a succession ab intestado between the illegitimate child and the legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother of said legitimate child. [T]he interpretation of the law desired by the petitioner may be more humane but it is also an elementary rule in statutory construction that when the words and phrases of the statute are clear and unequivocal, their meaning must be determined from the language employed and the statute must be taken to mean exactly what is says. Eligio Pascual is a legitimate child but petitioners are his illegitimate children and the term illegitimate refers to both natural and spurious. It may be said that the law may be harsh but that is the law (DURA LEX SED LEX).

criminal cases. Instead, most overbreadth arguments come up in First Amendment cases, where a statute tries to prohibit or to make criminal a behavior protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects five basic rights: the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion (both to have a religious preference and to be free from government mandates that one practice or avoid practicing a certain religion), the freedom to assemble peaceably, and the freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances. When a law is unconstitutionally overbroad, it often is because that law prohibits some behavior that is otherwise protected by the First Amendment. Overbreadth is related to vagueness because an overbroad law is often too vague for a reasonable person to understand what behavior is covered and what behavior is not. In order to avoid breaking an overbroad law, then, many people will voluntarily choose not to engage in behavior protected by the First Amendment or another basic right, just to be sure theyre not accidentally breaking the overbroad law. Since these laws either infringe on basic rights or encourage people to avoid exercising basic rights, most courts recognize that anyone who is affected by an overbroad law has standing to challenge the laws overbreadth on behalf of all persons affected by that law an exception to the usual rules of standing and those that cover class actions.

Vagueness
The void for vagueness doctrine argues that a law cannot be enforced if it is so vague or confusing that the average person could not figure out what is being prohibited or what the penalties are for breaking that law. Vagueness is generally considered to be a due process issue, because a law that is too vague to understand does not provide adequate notice to people that a certain behavior is required or is unacceptable. Vagueness is an argument typically used in criminal cases, when a law that is supposed to prohibit a certain behavior is too vague or confusing for people to understand what behavior theyre supposed to avoid, on penalty of being charged with or convicted of a crime. However, laws that cover civil matters are occasionally challenged for vagueness as well. A law can be unconstitutionally vague in one of two main ways. First, the law may be void for vagueness if it does not adequately explain or state what behavior the law is meant to affect. If the average citizen cannot figure out from reading the law what he should or should not do, a court may find that the law violates due process. Second, a law may be void for vagueness if it does not adequately explain the procedures that law enforcement officers or courts must follow when enforcing the law or handling cases that deal with certain legal issues. Specifically, a law may be found to be unconstitutionally vague if it gives a judge no idea how to approach or handle a case based on that law.

Overbreadth
The overbreadth doctrine is related to the vagueness doctrine. Under the overbreadth doctrine, a law is unconstitutional or void for being too broad if it covers activities that are protected by the federal Bill of Rights or the rights listed in state constitutions. Unlike vagueness doctrine, arguments that a particular law is overbroad typically do not appear in