G.R. No. 155001. May 5, 2003 Agan, et.

al vs PIATCO Facts: In August 1989, DOTC engaged the services of Aeroport de Paris (ADP) to conduct a comprehensive study of NAIA. In 1993, six business leaders (Gokongwei, Sy Sr., Tan, etc.) met with Pres. Ramos to explore the possibility of investing in the construction and operation of a new international airport terminal and they form ed the AEDC which was registered with SEC. AEDC submitted an unsolicited proposa l to the Government through the DOTC/MIAA for the development of NAIA IPT III an d the DOTC invited alternative bidders through publication in the newspapers. Pa ircargo, PAGS and Security Bank , forming the Paicargo Consortium, submitted the ir competitive proposal to the PBAC. AEDC failed to match the proposal of Pairc argo. Paircargo Consortium incorporated into Philippine International Airport Te rminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO) and was issued with the notice of award of project by DOTC. AEDC filed with the RTC Pasig a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of th e Proceedings, Mandamus and Injunction against the Secretary of the DOTC, the Ch airman of the PBAC, the voting members of the PBAC and the Chairman of the PBAC Technical Committee. Meanwhile MIAA, which is charged with the maintenance and o peration of the NAIA Terminals I and II, had existing concession contracts with various service providers to offer international airline airport services, such as in-flight catering, passenger handling, ramp and ground support, aircraft mai ntenance and provisions, cargo handling and warehousing, and other services, to several international airlines at the NAIA. Petitioners, in a three consolidated petitions, are the employees of various service providers having separate conce ssion contracts with MIAA, labor unions, employees of MIAA and Samahang Manggaga wa sa Paliparan ng Pilipinas, and a taxpayer's suit of some members of HOR, citi zens and taxpayers. Issue: WON petitioners have legal standing to sue. Held: Yes. Accordingly, it has been held that the interest of a person assailing the c onstitutionality of a statute must be direct and personal. He must be able to sh ow, not only that the law or any government act is invalid, but also that he sus tained or is in 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 appear that the person complaining has been or is about to be denied som e 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 or act complaine d of. Petitioners have a direct and substantial interest to protect by reason of the implementation of the PIATCO Contracts. They stand to lose their source of livelihood, a property right which is zealously protected by the Constitution. M oreover, subsisting concession agreements between MIAA and petitioners-interveno rs and service contracts between international airlines and petitioners-interven ors stand to be nullified or terminated by the operation of the NAIA IPT III und er the PIATCO Contracts. The financial prejudice brought about by the PIATCO Con tracts on petitioners and petitioners-intervenors in these cases are legitimate interests sufficient to confer on them the requisite standing to file the instan t petitions. In G.R. No. 155547, the taxpayer's suit is also granted with a leg al standing it being proven that the Government obligations in the PIATCO Contra cts which compel government expenditure without appropriation is a curtailment o f their prerogatives as legislators, contrary to the mandate of the Constitution that [n]o money shall be paid out of the treasury except in pursuance of an appr opriation made by law. WHEREFORE, PIATCO contract, the 1997 Concession Agreement, the Amended and Restated Concession Agreement and the Supplements thereto are s et aside for being null and void.