90. Sanidad vs. Comelec G.R. No.

L-44640 October 12, 1976

FACTS: On September 2, 1976, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 991 to call for a
national referendum on October 16, 1976 through the so-called Citizens Assemblies (“barangays”). Its primary
purpose is to resolve the issues of martial law (as to its existence and length of effectivity). The president
issued another proclamation (P.D. 1033) to specify the questions that are to be asked during the referendum
on October 16. The first question is whether or not the citizen wants martial law to continue, and the second
one asks for the approval on several proposed amendments to the existing Constitution.

Father and son, Pablo and Pablito Sanidad filed for prohibition with preliminary injunction to enjoin the
COMELEC from holding and conducting the Referendum Plebiscite on October 16, and to declare without
force and effect Presidential Decree Nos. 991 and 1033, insofar as they propose amendments to the
Constitution.

The Solicitor General contends that petitioners have no standing to sue, and that the issue raised is political in
nature – and thus it cannot be reviewed by the court. The Solicitor General also asserts that at this state of the
transition period, only the incumbent President has the authority to exercise constituent power; the
referendum-plebiscite is a step towards normalization.

Issue: Whether or not petitioners have legal standing to question proposed amendments to be declared by
the President Marcos.

Ruling: Yes. As a preliminary resolution, We rule that the petitioners in L-44640 (Pablo C. Sanidad and Pablito
V. Sanidad) possess locus standi to challenge the constitutional premise of Presidential Decree Nos. 991, 1031,
and 1033. It is now an ancient rule that the valid source of a stature Presidential Decrees are of such nature-
may be contested by one who will sustain a direct injuries as a in result of its enforcement. At the instance of
taxpayers, laws providing for the disbursement of public funds may be enjoined, upon the theory that the
expenditure of public funds by an officer of the State for the purpose of executing an unconstitutional act
constitutes a misapplication of such funds. 4 The breadth of Presidential Decree No. 991 carries all
appropriation of Five Million Pesos for the effective implementation of its purposes. 5 Presidential Decree No.
1031 appropriates the sum of Eight Million Pesos to carry out its provisions. 6 The interest of the aforenamed
petitioners as taxpayers in the lawful expenditure of these amounts of public money sufficiently clothes them
with that personality to litigate the validity of the Decrees appropriating said funds. Moreover, as regards
taxpayer's suits, this Court enjoys that open discretion to entertain the same or not. 7 For the present case,
We deem it sound to exercise that discretion affirmatively so that the authority upon which the disputed
Decrees are predicated may be inquired into.