REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SUPREME COURT MANILA En Banc Atty. Allan F. Paguia, Petitioner, - versus G.R. No.

176278

Office of the President, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, & (Ret.) Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., in his capacity as Philippine Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Respondents. X---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Petitioner-in-Intervention. X---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

VERIFIED URGENT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE With Prayers to Admit Attached Petition-in-Intervention, For ORAL ARGUMENT & Early Resolution

COMES NOW, the Intervenor, Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., respectfully begs leave to intervene as petitioner-in-intervention in this case. In support of this petition, Intervenor FLORO, JR., respectfully states:
1. He is a Filipino Citizen, a taxpayer, and a registered voter of 123 Dahlia,

Alido, Malolos, Bulacan, his home and postal address, where he may be served with court processes, orders and judgments. 2. As a citizen, taxpayer and registered voter, Intervenor FLORO, JR. has LOCUS STANDI or legal standing to intervene, is an interested / real party-in-interest and has direct, special and extra-ordinary interest in the subject matters of this petition, and in the outcome of this case (Sec. 2, Rule 3, and Sec. 2, Rule 2 Revised Rules of Court): Locus standi or legal standing has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain

direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged. The gist of the question of standing is whether a party alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.[IBP v. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81 (2000)]. Petitioner PAGUIA and Intervenor FLORO, JR. have standing since this Court had, in the past, accorded standing to taxpayers, voters, and concerned citizens, in cases involving paramount public interest and transcendental importance, and that procedural matters are subordinate to the need to determine whether or not the other branches of the government have kept themselves within the limits of the Constitution and the laws, and that they have not abused the discretion given to them (and the well-entrenched rule exception that, when the real party in interest is unable to vindicate his rights by seeking the same remedies, as in the case of the Lauro Baja who, for ethical reasons, cannot himself invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, the courts will grant petitioners / intervenor standing. Standing is a special concern in constitutional law because in some cases suits are brought not by parties who have been personally injured by the operation of a law or by official action taken, but by concerned citizens, taxpayers or voters who actually sue in the public interest. Hence the question in standing is whether such parties have
alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.

As citizens, the interests of the petitioner & intervenor, in assailing the legality and constitutionality of the appointment of respondent Davide, Jr. are direct and personal. They showed, not only that the government act is invalid, but also they sustained or are in imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement. In fine, when the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the mere fact that he is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest [SCRA 744 (1998), Chavez v. PCGG]. As taxpayers, petitioner and intervenor FLORO, JR. are allowed to sue where and since they allege - that there is a claim and accusation that public
2

funds are illegally disbursed, that public money is being deflected to an improper purpose, and that there is a wastage of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid act and appointment. Invoking the power of judicial review, intervenor and petitioner specifically proved that they have sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation and that they would sustain a direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the questioned act or appointment [Del Mar v. PAGCOR 346 SCRA 485, 501 (2000)]. At all events, courts are vested with discretion as to whether or not a taxpayer's suit should be entertained. Intervenor therefore begs this Court to grant standing to the petitioner and intervenor, given their allegation that any impending assumption to office of the retired Chief Justice will necessarily involve the expenditure of public funds. [G.R. No. 160261. 1110, 2003, E. B. FRANCISCO, JR., petitioner, NAGMAMALASAKIT, INC.].

TRANSCENDENTAL VALUE OF THE PETITION / INTERVENTION The matter is a delicate one, quite obviously, and must thus be dealt with utmost circumspection, to avoid any question regarding the constitutionality, legality and validity of an appointment to the prestigious non-vacant post during this election period (election ban) or time, or rash, hasty action on the part of the respondents DFA / Office of the President. The petition and intervention at bar seeks the DISQUALIFICATION of respondent DAVIDE, JR., the declaration of nullity of both respondent DAVIDE. JR.S appointment and the recall / transfer of LAURO BAJA during election period, involving a constitutional issue. The issues posed by the petition and this intervention transcend the persons of both BAJA and DAVIDE, JR. These issues affect some of our most deeply held values in democracy --- the protection of political, civil and judicial rights, the disapprobation of political interference and political loyalty of political payment of debt in our temples of justice and elimination of all invidious discrimination in the Foreign Service nomination / appointment

processes. The petition and intervention at bar concerns all these democratic values. It is the people on the line. It is we. The provision of the Constitution material to the inquiry at bar reads as follows: xxx. Art VIII, Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: (1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers xxx and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, xxx. With respect to the instant motion for intervention, Rule 19, Section 2 of the Rules of Court requires an intervenor to possess a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof. While intervention is not a matter of right, it may be permitted by the courts when the applicant shows facts which satisfy the requirements of the law authorizing intervention. [Gibson vs. Revilla, 92 SCRA 219]. Their tax money is being extracted and spent in violation of specific constitutional provisions, statutes, laws and Comelec Resolution, or for protection against abuses of legislative power, or that there is and will continuously be a misapplication of such funds, or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose. Intervenor seeks to restrain respondents from wasting public funds through the enforcement of an invalid, illegal or unconstitutional appointment. [Dumlao v. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392 (1980)].
3. Intervenor FLORO, JR. tenders payment of all docket/legal fees (if

required), upon admission of this motion/Petition.

4.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION: As a citizen, taxpayer and registered voter, intervenor has a constitutional right to information on all matters of public concern, not the least of which are the qualifications and disqualifications of any person seeking public office, like private respondent DAVIDE, JR. (Art. III, Sec. 7, 1987 Constitution), and the legality of the recall / transfer of incumbent LAURO BAJA despite the
4

ban on recall and appointment during the election period. The petition/intervention directly raise in issue the disqualification of private respondent DAVIDE, JR. and the constitutionality and legality of his appointment by the President. EARLY RESOLUTION DEMANDED BY PUBLIC GOOD 5. Until this petition is finally resolved, the citizens remain in the dark about his true qualifications, his palpable, absolute and legal disqualification and the legality of the appointment. It is a state policy to promote equal access to opportunities for public service (Art. II, Sec. 26, 1987 Constitution). The expedient resolution of the doubts about the qualifications of respondent for public office and the legality of his appointment promotes this policy. RELIEF WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Intervenor, Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., respectfully begs leave to intervene as petitioner-in-intervention in this case, and the attached Petition-inintervention be duly noted, admitted, given due course, and GRANTED. Intervenor FLORO, JR. tenders payment of all docket/legal fees (if required), upon admission of this motion/Petition. Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for. Malolos City, Bulacan, for Manila, March 1, 2007. Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Movant/Petitioner-in-intervention,
123 Dahlia, Alido, Malolos, 3000 BULACAN,
Tel/#(044) 662-82-03; (Presiding Judge, Branch 73, RTC, MALABON, NCJR, M.M.) [I.D. Number: RTCJ-317 / EDP Number: 38676300; ROLL OF ATTORNEYS NO. 32800, Pg. No. 60, Book No. XIV (Note: Motion For Leave to Admit 4th Appeal to be reinstated is pending.] PTR No. 503411, dated 1-11-07, Malolos, Bulacan.

NOTICE TO: Atty. Ma. Luisa D. Villarama, Clerk of Court, En Banc, SUPREME COURT, MANILA

Please DOCKET and AGENDUM the foregoing pleading for the deliberation and Resolution of the Honorable Court, immediately upon receipt hereof, in view of the urgency of the matter. THANKS.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Petitioner-in-Intervention VERIFICATION and CERTIFICATION of Non-Forum-Shopping & Affidavit of Service
Republic of the Philippines) Malolos City, BULACAN ) S.S. I, JUDGE FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., under oath, depose and say, that: I am the Intervenor/movant in the above-entitled case and I read, caused the preparation of, and signed the foregoing pleading. And all the allegations/contents thereof/therein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge or based on authentic records. I certify that: I have not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and to the best of our knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein, and if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof will be made, but there is none; if I should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, I shall report that fact within 5 days there from to the court wherein the aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. I CERTIFY that on March 1, 2007, I served copies of this motion with the attached petition-in-intervention and annexes in this case G.R. No. 176278, Paguia v. Office of the President, et al., upon all respondents via registered mail with return card at their offices / addresses as hereunder indicated, in accordance with Secs. 3, 5, 7, 13 and 12 of Rule 13, Rules of Court, by depositing said copies at the Malolos Post Office, as evidenced by reg. receipts hereto attached, hereunder and next page, and indicated after the names of the addressees, and with instructions to the postmaster to return the mails to the sender after 10 days if undelivered. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this affidavit, this 1st day of March, 2007, at Malolos City, BULACAN.

JUDGE FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., affiant.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, on this 1st day of March, 2007, hereat Malolos City, Bulacan, affiant exhibited to me his CTC NO. CC12006 # 10333105, issued at Malolos, Bulacan, on 1-11, 2007.
DOC. NO. 249, PAGE NO. 51, BOOK NO. 74, SERIES OF 2007. BERNAR D. FAJARDO Notary Public, Until Jan.15, 2008, PTR NO. 2417109, 1- 3,07, Atty.s Roll No. 33633, IBP OR # 687744,n 1-5,07 Malolos, Bulacan.

COPY FURNISHED:

Atty. Allan F. Paguia,

# 17 Lazcano St. Quezon City, M.M., Petitioner,

Office of the President, Malacanang Palace, Manila, M.M. Public Respondent,

Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Hon. ALBERTO G. ROMULO, Department OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Department of Foreign Affairs, 2330 Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City, Philippines 1300, Public Respondent,

(Ret.) Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., No. 2, H.C. Mondado St., BF Homes, 1120 Quezon City, Philippines, Respondent, and

The Office of the Solicitor General, 124 Amorsolo st., Legaspi Village, Makati, Metro Manila, Counsel for Public Respondents.

Explanation on Service by Registered Mail: Intervenor, in compliance with Secs. 7, 11, Rule 13, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, states that due to lack of time and messenger and impracticality, he served copies of these motion and attached petition and annexes to all respondents by registered mail with return card with attached receipts, pasted after the names of respondents.

JUDGE FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.

Republic of the Philippines) Malolos City, BULACAN ) S.S.

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, JUDGE FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., of 123 Dahlia, Alido, Malolos, 3000 Bulacan, under oath, depose and say, that: I CERTIFY that on March 1, 2007, I served copies of this motion with the attached petition-in-intervention and annexes both dated 1 March, 2007, in this case G.R. No. 176278, Paguia v. Office of the President, et al., upon all respondents via registered mail with return card at their offices / addresses as hereunder indicated, in accordance with Secs. 3, 5, 7, 13 and 12 of Rule 13, Rules of Court, by depositing said copies at the Malolos Post Office, Bulacan, as evidenced by registry receipts hereto attached, hereunder and next page, and indicated after the names of the addressees, and with instructions to the postmaster to return the mails to the sender after 10 days if undelivered: COPY FURNISHED: NAMES & ADDRESSES OF ADDRESSEES REGISTRY RECEIPTS

Atty. Allan F. Paguia,

# 17 Lazcano St. Quezon City, M.M., Petitioner,

Office of the President, Malacanang Palace, Manila, M.M. Public Respondent,

Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Hon. ALBERTO G. ROMULO, Department OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Department of Foreign Affairs, 2330 Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City, Philippines 1300, Public Respondent,

(Ret.) Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., No. 2, H.C. Mondado St., BF Homes, 1120 Quezon City, Philippines, Respondent, and The Office of the Solicitor General, 124 Amorsolo st., Legaspi Village, Makati, Metro Manila, Counsel for Public Respondents.

Explanation on Service by Registered Mail: Intervenor, in compliance with Secs. 7, 11, Rule 13, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, states that due to lack of time and messenger and impracticality, he served copies of these motion and attached petition and annexes to all respondents by registered mail with return card with attached receipts, pasted after the names of respondents.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Movant/Petitioner-in-intervention,

123 Dahlia, Alido, Malolos, 3000 BULACAN,
Tel/#(044) 662-82-03; (Presiding Judge, Branch 73, RTC, MALABON, NCJR, M.M.) [I.D. Number: RTCJ-317 / EDP Number: 38676300; ROLL OF ATTORNEYS NO. 32800, Pg. No. 60, Book No. XIV (Note: Motion For Leave to Admit 4th Appeal to be reinstated is pending.] PTR No. 503411, dated 1-11-07, Malolos, Bulacan.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this affidavit, this 1st day of March, 2007, at Malolos City, BULACAN.

JUDGE FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., affiant.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, on this 1st day of March, 2007, hereat Malolos City, Bulacan, affiant exhibited to me his CTC NO. CC12006 # 10333105, issued at Malolos, Bulacan, on 1-11, 2007.
DOC. NO. 251, PAGE NO. 51, BOOK NO. 74, SERIES OF 2007. BERNAR D. FAJARDO Notary Public, Until Jan.15, 2008, PTR NO. 2417109, 1- 3,07, Atty.s Roll No. 33633, IBP OR # 687744,n 1-5,07 Malolos, Bulacan.

PARTIES Intervenor Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. is a Filipino Citizen, a taxpayer, and a registered voter of 123 Dahlia, Alido, Malolos, Bulacan, his home and postal address, where he may be served with court processes, orders and judgments. Public respondents: the Office of the President and Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Hon. ALBERTO G. ROMULO, are indispensable and necessary parties in this case, and their office and postal addresses, where they may be served with court processes, orders and judgments are at -Malacanang Palace, Manila, M.M., and Department OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 2330 Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City, 1300, respectively. Private respondent (Ret.) Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., is sued in his capacity as Philippine Permanent Representative to the United Nations, is a Filipino Citizen, of No. 2, H.C. Mondado St., BF Homes, 1120 Quezon City, Philippines, his home and postal address, where he may be served with court processes, orders and judgments.

COPY FURNISHED:

Atty. Allan F. Paguia,

# 17 Lazcano St. Quezon City, M.M.,

10

Petitioner,

Office of the President, Malacanang Palace, Manila, M.M. Public Respondent,

Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Hon. ALBERTO G. ROMULO, Department OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Department of Foreign Affairs, 2330 Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City, Philippines 1300, Public Respondent,

(Ret.) Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., No. 2, H.C. Mondado St., BF Homes, 1120 Quezon City, Philippines, Respondent, and

The Office of the Solicitor General, 124 Amorsolo st., Legaspi Village, Makati, Metro Manila, Counsel for Public Respondents.

Explanation on Service by Registered Mail: Intervenor, in compliance with Secs. 7, 11, Rule 13, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, states that due to lack of time and messenger and impracticality, he served copies of these motion and attached petition and annexes to all respondents by registered mail with return card with attached receipts, pasted after the names of respondents.

JUDGE FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.

11

12

ATTACHED NEXT PAGES are the 2 LETTERS, plus the ANNEXES.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, Notary public of Bulacan, this 25th day of August, 2006, affiant exhibited to me his CTC NO. CC12002# 10704304, issued at Calumpit, Bulacan, on May 15, 2003. DOC. NO. 46, BOOK NO. 72, PAGE NO. 10, SERIES OF 2005. BERNAR D. FAJARDO Notary Public, Until Jan.15, 2007, PTR NO. 8680890, Atty.s Roll No. 33633.

NOTICE
TO: Atty. Luzviminda D. Puno, Clerk of Court, En Banc, SUPREME COURT, MANILA Please DOCKET and AGENDUM the foregoing pleading for the deliberation and Resolution of the Honorable Court, immediately upon receipt hereof, in view of the urgency of the matter. THANKS.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,

Complainant

COPY FURNISHED
(By Personal Service):
1. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, OCAD, SUPREME COURT, MANILA, and

2.

Mrs. LERIDA SOCORRO E. JOSON,

Respondent,
13

(OIC/Branch Clerk of Court/Legal Researcher II, Br. 16,RTC, Malolos City, Bulac

14