Legal standing or locus standi
"Legal standing" or locus standi calls for more than just a generalized
grievance.[1] The concept has been defined as 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.[2] The gist
of the question of standing is whether a party alleges such personal stake in
the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which
sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court depends for
illumination of difficult constitutional questions.[3]
A party
challenging the constitutionality of a law, act, or statute must show “not only
that the law is invalid, but also that he has sustained or is in immediate, or
imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement,
and not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way.” It must be shown
that he has been, or is about to be, denied some right or privilege to which he
is lawfully entitled, or that he is about to be subjected to some burdens or
penalties by reason of the statute complained of.[4]
A party
challenging the constitutionality of a law, act, or statute must show “not only
that the law is invalid, but also that he has sustained or is in immediate, or
imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement,
and not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way.” It must be shown
that he has been, or is about to be, denied some right or privilege to which he
is lawfully entitled, or that he is about to be subjected to some burdens or
penalties by reason of the statute complained of.[4]
[1] Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Ass’ns, Inc. v. Energy Regulatory
Commission (ERC), et al., 638 Phil. 542, 554 (2010).
[2] Public Interest Center, Inc. v. Judge Roxas, 542 Phil. 443, 456 (2007).
[3] Id. at 456.
[4] Disomangcop v. Sec. Datumanong, 486 Phil. 398, 425-426 (2004).
