Lozada v. Comelec, G.R. No.
L-59068, January 27, 1983
DOCTRINE: Requisites of tax payer suit: (1)It is only when an act complained of, which may include a
legislative enactment or statute, involves the illegal expenditure of public money that the so-called
taxpayer suit may be allowed; (2) The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a
statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will
sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement.
FACTS:
Jose Lozada and Romeo Igot file a petition for mandamus as a representative suit for and in
behalf of those who wish to participate in the election, to compel COMELEC to call a special
election to fill up existing vacancies numbering twelve (12) in the Interim Batasan Pambansa.
Lozada claims that he is a taxpayer and a bonafide elector of Cebu City and a transient voter of
Quezon City, Metro Manila, who desires to run for the position in the Batasan Pambansa; while
Igot alleges that, as a taxpayer, he has standing to petition by mandamus the calling of a special
election as mandated by the 1973 Constitution.
They alleged that they are concerned about their duties as citizens and desirous to uphold the
constitutional mandate and rule of law ...; that they have filed the instant petition on their own and
in behalf of all other Filipinos since the subject matters are of profound and general interest.
COMELEC opposes the petition alleging, that 1) petitioners lack standing to file the instant
petition for they are not the proper parties to institute the action; 2) this Court has no jurisdiction to
entertain this petition; and 3) Section 5(2), Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution does not apply to
the Interim Batasan Pambansa.
ISSUE: WON Lozada and Igot may file the petition as a taxpayers. (NO)
RULING: No. As taxpayers, petitioners may not file the instant petition, for nowhere therein is it alleged
that tax money is being illegally spent. The act complained of is the inaction of the COMELEC to call a
special election, as is allegedly its ministerial duty under the constitutional provision above cited, and
therefore, involves no expenditure of public funds. It is only when an act complained of, which may
include a legislative enactment or statute, involves the illegal expenditure of public money that the so-
called taxpayer suit may be allowed. What the case at bar seeks is one that entails expenditure of public
funds which may be illegal because it would be spent for a purpose that of calling a special election
which, as will be shown, has no authority either in the Constitution or a statute.
As voters, neither have petitioners the requisite interest or personality to qualify them to maintain and
prosecute the present petition. The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a
statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will
sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement. In the case before Us, the alleged inaction of the
COMELEC to call a special election to fill-up the existing vacancies in the Batasan Pambansa, standing
alone, would adversely affect only the generalized interest of all citizens. Petitioners' standing to sue may
not be predicated upon an interest of the kind alleged here, which is held in common by all members of
the public because of the necessarily abstract nature of the injury supposedly shared by all citizens.
Concrete injury, whether actual or threatened, is that indispensable element of a dispute which serves in
part to cast it in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution. When the asserted harm is a
"generalized grievance" shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, that harm
alone normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction. As adverted to earlier, petitioners have not
demonstrated any permissible personal stake, for petitioner Lozada's interest as an alleged candidate
and as a voter is not sufficient to confer standing. Petitioner Lozada does not only fail to inform the Court
of the region he wants to be a candidate but makes indiscriminate demand that special election be called
throughout the country. Even his plea as a voter is predicated on an interest held in common by all
members of the public and does not demonstrate any injury specially directed to him in particular.
