IV. STANDING TO SUE

There is one other issue that has to be addressed. The Supreme Court deliberated on the question of whether Mr. Pimentel had the standing to bring the case, despite the fact that his personality to do so was not challenged by the government. The Court did not resolve the issue because, said the Court, "the intervention of Roberto Pagdanganan has rendered academic any further discussion on this matter." In short, the Supreme Court did not determine whether Mr. Pimentel had the standing to file the case because Mr. Pagdanganan was allowed to intervene in the case.

The Court explained that on November 17, 1998, Roberto Pagdanganan filed a Motion for Intervention, and that, "At the time, intervenor was the provincial governor of Bulacan, national president of the League of Provinces of the Philippines and chairman of the League of Leagues of Local Governments." In a footnote, the Court explained that:

Issues of mootness and locus standi were not raised by the respondents. However, the intervention of Roberto Pagdanganan, as explained in the main text, has stopped any further discussion of petitioner's standing. On the other hand, by the failure of respondents to raise mootness as an issue, the Court thus understands that the main issue is still justiciable. In any case, respondents are deemed to have waived this defense or, at the very least, to have submitted the Petition for resolution on the merits, for the future guidance of the government, the bench and the bar.

Still, it should be noted that at the time the Motion for Intervention was filed, Mr. Pagdanganan was no longer a local official and he longer held any of the positions that the Supreme Court listed. How the intervention mooted the question of standing, therefore, remains a mystery.

The above-quoted portions of the decision are susceptible of two interpretations. The first is that the Supreme Court was mistaken when it said that Mr. Pagdanganan was still a local official on November 17, 1998.

The second is that the Court is saying that a former local official has standing to question official actions that were promulgated while he was still in office.
In any case, it should be emphasized the Court did not make any ruling on standing because the issue was never raised by the government. Supreme Court decisions do not amount to doctrine unless they are intended to resolve an issue that was raised by the parties.

 

V. THE OTHER CASE

As illustrated, there is nothing in Pimentel, which remotely dealt with the congressional slash of the IRA. That issue arose out of the preparation of the national budget for the year 2000, long after Pimentel filed his case with the Supreme Court.

During the preparation of the 2000 budget, a Senate Finance Committee plan to slash the internal revenue share of local governments by some 30 billion pesos provoked a confrontation between ULAP and the Senate.

In response to the proposed cut, ULAP launched a campaign to compel the Senate Finance Committee to abort its plan. In their official statement, ULAP appealed to Congress to observe and "respect the Constitutional provision and its implementing law on the share of local governments from the national internal revenue taxes and its possible adjustments in case of an unmanageable public sector deficit." ULAP claimed that the cut would disrupt the delivery of basic services throughout the country, especially in the 5th and 6th class LGUs.

Congress ignored the local officials' position and decided to preserve the reduction of the IRA.

On February 16, 2000, President Estrada signed the national budget into law. The President vetoed some items, but did not touch the P10 Billion cut imposed by Congress. The General Appropriations Act (Republic Act No. 8760) in part provides:

XXXVII. ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS

A. INTERNAL REVENUE ALLOTMENT

For apportionment of the shares of local government units in the internal revenue taxes in accordance with the purpose indicated hereunder P111,778,000,000