Galicto vs.

Aquino III
667 SCRA 150 G.R. No. 193978
Promulgated on February 28, 2012

Facts:
Petitioner Jelbert B. Galicto filed a petition for Certiorari seeking to nullify
Executive Order No. (EO) 7 issued by the Office of the President on September 8,
2010. Petitioner asserts that EO 7 is unconstitutional for having been issued beyond the
powers of the President and for being in breach of existing laws.

The Senate conducted an inquiry on the reported excessive salaries, allowances,

and other benefits of government owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) and
government financial institutions (GFIs). After confirming such allegations through its
findings, Senate passed Resolution No. 17 urging the President to suspend excessive and
unusually large perks of members of the governing board. Thus President Aquino issued
EO7 to control grants and order a moratorium on salary increases, bonuses, incentives
and other benefits until December 31, 2010.

In his capacity as a lawyer and an employee of PhilHealth, petitioner asserts the

unconstitutionality of EO 7 which was issued with grave abuse of discretion for having
been issued beyond the powers of the President and claims that he is affected by its
implementation.

Issues:
1. WON Petitioner has legal standing
2. Mootness of the petition

Ruling:
We resolve to DISMISS the petition for its patent formal and procedural infirmities, and
for having been mooted by subsequent events.

Petitioner has no locus standi (legal standing).

- Locus standi or legal standing has been defined as a personal and substantial
interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury
resulting from the governmental act being challenged.
 - As a general rule, a party is allowed to raise a constitutional question only when:
1. He can show that he will personally suffer some actual or threatened injury; 2.
Injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and 3. Injury is likely to be
redressed by a favorable action.
- Real interest is meant a present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere
expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate or consequential interest.
- In the case at bar, petitioner contends that as an employee of PhilHealth, the
implementation of EO7 curtails the prerogative of those officers who are to fix
and determine his compensation.
- Respondents have pointed out that the petitioner is not a real party-in-interest
since future increases in salaries and other benefits are mere expectancies.

Petition has been mooted by supervening events.

- Present case has been rendered moot by the following supervening events:
1. The issuance of suspension under Sec. 10 of EO7 dated until December 31,
2010 has lapsed.
2. Congress enacted Republic Act No. 10149 otherwise known as the GOCC
Governance Act of 2011. Section 11 of RA 10149 expressly authorizes the
President to fix the compensation framework of GOCCs and GFIs.
- With the present situation, Congress, thru R.A 10149 has expressly empowered
the President to establish the compensation systems of GOCCs and GFIs and for
the Court to still rule upon the supposed unconstitutionality of EO7 will merely
be an academic exercise.

(No, the SC said that petitioner cannot claim legal stance because petitioner is simply concerned about
his entitlement to future salary increases.
A public officer has a vested right only to salaries already earned or accrued. Salary increases are a
mere expectancy volatile and dependent on various variables in nature.
His assertion of legal impediment under Section 9 of E.O 7 of any future increase in petitioners
compensation will only depend on usual factors considered by proper authorities was misleading and
incorrect due to the concept of injury as an element of Locus standi. He only points out the denial of a
reasonable expectation which is not a subject of harm to go against the law.
His membership of Philippine Bar and a PhilHealth official does not suffice to clothe his legal standing.
Thus, Petitioner failed to satisfy irreducible minimum condition to trigger the exercise of judicial power.)
- http://eulacase1.blogspot.com/2013/12/statutory-construction-case-digest.html
- https://www.scribd.com/document/187569343/Galicto-vs-Aquino