G.

R
No.
112399

Case Title
Bagatsing vs.
Committee on
Privatization

Issue/Doctrine/Principle

SCRuling

Whether or not petitioners LOCUS STANDI

have a locus standi.
In the absence of a claim that the
contract in question violated the
rights of petitioners intruded into
the domain of the Legislature,
petitioners have no legal
standing to institute the instant
action in their capacity as
members of the Congress.
However, petitioners can bring
the action in their capacity as
taxpayers under the doctrine laid
down in Kilosbayan, Inc. v.
Guingona. As long as the ruling
in Kilosbayan on locus standi is
not reversed, the court has no
choice, but to follow it and
uphold the legal standing of
petitioners as taxpayers to
institute the present action.
PRIVATIZATION
In order to privatize a strategic
industry like PETRON is the
approval of the President. In the
case of PETRONs privatization,
the President gave his approval
twice. PETRONs privatization
is also in line with and is part of
the Philippine Energy Program
under R.A No. 7638 Sec. 59b0
of the law provides that the
Philippine Energy Program shall
include a policy direction
towards the privatization of
government agencies related to
energy.

BIDDING
If there was a failed bidding,
petitioners contend that there
were only three bidders. One of
them, PETRONAS, submitted a
bid lower than the floor price
while a second, failed to prequalify.

Under said COA Circular, there is a

failure of bidding when:
There is only one offeror; or
When all the offers are noncomplying or unacceptable.
In the case at bar, there were
three offerors: SAUDI,
ARAMCO, PETRONAS and
Westmont. While two offerors
were disqualified, PETRONAS
for submitting a bid below the
floor price and WESTMONT for
technical reasons, not all the
offerors were disqualified. To
constitute a failed bidding under
the COA Circular, all the
offerors must be disqualified.
G.R.
Abundo vs.
No.
COMELEC
201716

Whether or not Abundo

has consecutively served
for three terms.

Continuous Mayorship of
Abundo was effectively broken
during the 2004- 2007 term
when he was initially deprived
of title to, and was veritably
disallowed to serve and occupy,
an office to which he, after due
proceedings, was eventually
declared to have been the

rightful choice of the electorate.

The declaration of being the
winner in an election protest
grants the local elected official
the right to serve the unexpired
portion of the term. While he
was declared winner in the
protest for the mayoralty seat for
the 2004-2007 term, Abundo s
full term has been substantially
reduced by the actual service
rendered by Torres, his opponent
Hence, there was actual
involuntary interruption in the
term of Abundo and he cannot
be considered to have served the
full 2004-2007 term.
Prior to the finality of the
election protest, Abundo did not
serve in the Mayor Office and, in
fact, had no legal right to said
position. During the pendency of
the election protest, Abundo
ceased from exercising power or
authority. During the period
Abundo was not serving as
mayor, should be considered as a
rest period or break in his
service because prior to the
judgment in the election protest,
it was Abundos opponent,
Torres, who was exercising such
powers by virtue of the still then
valid proclamation.
Petition is partly granted.