04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly at large, may also be the subject of an actual case or controversy. In Severino, we ruled that a private citizen may enforce a "public right" in behalf of other citizens. We opined therein that: ... [T]he right which [petitioner] seeks to enforce is not greater or different from that of any other qualified elector in the municipality of Silay. It is also true that the injury which he would suffer in case he fails to obtain the relief sought would not be greater or different from that of the other electors; but he is seeking to enforce a public right as distinguished from a private right. The real party in interest is the public, or the qualified electors of the town of Silay. Each elector has the same right and would suffer the same injury. Each elector stands on the same basis with reference to maintaining a petition whether or not the relief sought by the relator should be granted.[43] In Tañada v. Tuvera,[44] the Court enforced the "public right" to due process and to be informed of matters of public concern. In Garcia vs. Board of Investments,[45] the Court upheld the "public right" to be heard or consulted on matters of national concern. In Oposa v. Factoran,[46] the Court recognized the "public right" of citizens to "a balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time in our nation's constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law."[47] Mr. Justice (now Chief Justice) Hilario G. Davide, Jr., delivering the opinion of the Court, stated that: Such a right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation—aptly and fittingly stressed by petitioners—the advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind.[48] Petitioners, as citizens, possess the "public right" to ensure that the national patrimony is not alienated and diminished in violation of the Constitution. Since the government, as the guardian of the national patrimony, holds it for the benefit of all Filipinos without distinction as to ethnicity, it follows that a citizen has sufficient interest to maintain a suit to ensure that any grant of concessions covering the national economy and patrimony strictly complies with constitutional requirements. Thus, the preservation of the integrity and inviolability of the national patrimony is a proper subject of a citizen's suit. In addition, petitioners, as taxpayers, possess the right to restrain officials from wasting public funds through the enforcement of an unconstitutional statute. It is well-settled that a taxpayer has the right to enjoin public officials from wasting public funds through the implementation of an unconstitutional statute,[49] and by elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/36882 82/148