PROPER PARTY A proper party is one who has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the act

complained of. Unless and until such actual or potential injury is established, the complainant cannot have the legal personality to raise the constitutional question. Tileston v. Ullman 318 U.S. 466 A physician questioned the constitutionality of a law prohibiting the use of contraceptives, upon the ground that it might prove dangerous to the life or health of some of his patients whose physical condition would not enable them to bear the rigors of childbirth. The court dismissed the challenge, holding that the patients of the physician and not the physician himself were the proper parties. Cuyegkeng v. Cruz 108 Phil. 1147 The Petitioner inhere challenged in a quo warranto proceeding the title of the respondent who, he claimed had been appointed to the Board of Medical Examiners in violation of the provisions of the Medical Act of 1959. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that Cuyegkeng had not made a claim to the position held by Cruz and therefore could not be regarded as a proper party who had sustained an injury as a result of the questioned act. Ex Parte Levitt 303 U.S. 633 The petitioner, an American taxpayer and member of the bar, filed a motion for leave to question the qualifications of justice Black who, he averred, had been appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in violation of the Constitution of the United States. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that Levitt was not a proper party since he was not claiming the position held by Justice Black. People v. Vera 65 Phil. 56 The Court in this case held that the government of the Philippines was a proper party to challenge the constitutionality of the Probation Act because, more than any other, it is the Government itself that should be concerned over the validity of its own laws. Custudio v. Senate President 42 O.G. 1243 A challenge by an ordinary taxpayer to the validity of a law granting backpay to government officials, including members of Congress, during the period corresponding to the Japanese Occupation was dismissed as commenced by one who is not a proper party. Emergency Power Case (Araneta v. Dinglasan, 84 Phil. 368) It is now permissible for an ordinary taxpayer, or a group of taxpayers, to raise the question of the validity of an appropriation law. As the Supreme Court then put it, The transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing side, if we must, technicalities of procedure.