PIMENTEL V. ERMITA p.

423 CASE: Several Senators including some members of the Commission on Appointments file a petition questioning the constitutionality of the appointments issued by the President Arroyo to respondents Ermita et. Al. as acting Secretaries of their respective Departments and to prohibit them from performing the duties of department secretaries. HELD: The power to appoint is essentially executive in nature and the legislature may not interfere with the exercise of this executive power except in those instances when the Constitution expressly allows it to interfere. Limitations on the executive power to appoint are construed strictly against legislature.

JOYA V. PCGG p.46 CASE: The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) ordered the sale at public auction of paintings by old masters and silverware alleged to be ill-gotten wealth of Marcos, his relatives, and cronies. Petitioners, as citizens and taxpayers, filed a petition to stop the auction from proceeding. HELD: The court will exercise its power of judicial review only if the case is brought before it by a party who has legal standing to raise the constitutional or legal question. Legal standing means a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged. The term interest is material interest, an interest in question and to be affected by the decree as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or mere incidental interest. As petitioners failed to show ownership of the artworks, they are not the proper parties to enjoin the PCGG from proceeding with the Auction sale. They do not stand to be injured by the action of the PCGG. Petitioners have no standing to restrain the public auction. The paintings were donated by private persons to the MMA who owns them. The pieces of silverware were given to the Marcos couple as gifts on their silver wedding anniversary. Since the petitioners are not the owners of the paintings and the silverware, they do not possess any right to question their dispositions.

AGAN V. PIATCO p.49 (Agan, Jr. et al v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co. Inc. et. May 5, 2003 CASE: Petitioners and petitioners-in-intervention filed the instant petitions for prohibition under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of court seeking to prohibit the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) and the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) and its Secretary from implementing the following agreements executed by the Philippine Government through the DOTC and the MIAA in the Phil. Int. Air Terminals Co. Inc. (PIATCO). 1. The Concession agreement signed on July 12, 1997 2. The Amended and Restated Concession Agreement dated Nov. 26, 1999 3. The first supplement to the amended and restated Concession agreement dated Aug. 27, 1999 4. The second supplement to the Amended and Restated concession agreement dated Sep. 4, 2000 5. The third supplement to Amended and Restated Concession agreement dated June 22, 2001 Other petitioners were individuals, employees of various service providers. Also included as petitioners are Labor Unions.