Scribd
Upload
98 views1 page

Automotive Industry Workers Alliance V. Romulo (2005)

The petitioners, two labor unions, challenged an executive order that transferred administrative supervision of the National Labor Relations Commission from its chairperson to the Secretary of Labor and Employment. The Supreme Court ruled the petitioners did not have standing to challenge the order because they did not demonstrate they had sustained or were in danger of sustaining injury from the order. The Court may only exercise judicial review if there is a genuine case or controversy brought by a party with standing, and the petitioners did not qualify.

Uploaded by

JeromeBernabe
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
98 views1 page

Automotive Industry Workers Alliance V. Romulo (2005)

The petitioners, two labor unions, challenged an executive order that transferred administrative supervision of the National Labor Relations Commission from its chairperson to the Secretary of Labor and Employment. The Supreme Court ruled the petitioners did not have standing to challenge the order because they did not demonstrate they had sustained or were in danger of sustaining injury from the order. The Court may only exercise judicial review if there is a genuine case or controversy brought by a party with standing, and the petitioners did not qualify.

Uploaded by

JeromeBernabe
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY WORKERS ALLIANCE v.

ROMULO (2005)
Petitioners: Samahang Manggagawa ng Cinderella, Samahang Manggagawa ng Laura's Food
Products
Respondents: Hon. Alberto Romulo, Hon. Patricia Sto. Tomas
DOCTRINE: The power of judicial review can only be exercised in connection with a bonafide
case or controversy which involves the statute to be reviewed. Even with the presence of such
controversy, the Court may refuse to exercise such unless the issue is brought by a party that
has requisite standing.
FACTS:

Petitioners invoke their status as labor unions and taxpayers whose rights and interests
are allegedly violated and prejudiced by EO 185.
EO 185 transfers the administrative supervision of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) from the NLRC Chairperson to the Secretary of Labor and
Employment.
Petitioners contest that such act amended the an earlier law, RA 6715 which attaches
the administrative supervision of the NLRC to the NLRC Chairperson.
Petitioners also affirm standing that they are suing in behalf of their estimated 50,000
members, and the employees of the NLRC who have pending cases of dismissal with
the NLRC.

ISSUE: Do the petitioners have proper standing?


PROVISIONS:

EO 185 and RA 6715

RATIO:

Petitioners do not have standing. They have not shown they have sustained, or are in
danger of sustaining injury upon the enactment of EO 185. The scope of the power of
the Secretary of Labor does not include reviewing, reversing, revising and modifying
decisions of the NLRC. Their standing as taxpayers is also not valid as public funds are
not involved.
The proper party should have been employees of the NLRC to be affected, or the
Congress itself for the alleged executive encroachment of a legislative function.
The power of judicial review can only be exercised in connection with a bonafide case or
controversy which involves the statute to be reviewed. Even with the presence of such
controversy, the Court may refuse to exercise such unless the issue is brought by a
party that has requisite standing.
For a citizen to have standing, he must establish he has suffered some actual or
threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government.

You might also like