04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly forced to resolve issues which remain unfocused because they lack such concreteness provided when a question emerges precisely framed from a clash of adversary arguments exploring every aspect of a multi-faceted situation embracing conflicting and demanding interests.[33] The controversy must also be justiciable; that is, it must be susceptible of judicial determination.[34] In the case at bar, there exists a live controversy involving a clash of legal rights. A law has been enacted, and the Implementing Rules and Regulations approved. Money has been appropriated and the government agencies concerned have been directed to implement the statute. It cannot be successfully maintained that we should await the adverse consequences of the law in order to consider the controversy actual and ripe for judicial resolution. It is precisely the contention of the petitioners that the law, on its face, constitutes an unconstitutional abdication of State ownership over lands of the public domain and other natural resources. Moreover, when the State machinery is set into motion to implement an alleged unconstitutional statute, this Court possesses sufficient authority to resolve and prevent imminent injury and violation of the constitutional process. B. Petitioners, as citizens and taxpayers, have the requisite standing to raise the constitutional questions herein. In addition to the existence of an actual case or controversy, a person who assails the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case, such that, he has sustained, or will sustain, a direct injury as a result of its enforcement.[35] Evidently, the rights asserted by petitioners as citizens and taxpayers are held in common by all the citizens, the violation of which may result only in a "generalized grievance".[36] Yet, in a sense, all citizen's and taxpayer's suits are efforts to air generalized grievances about the conduct of government and the allocation of power.[37] In several cases, the Court has adopted a liberal attitude with regard to standing.[38] The proper party requirement is considered as merely procedural,[39] and the Court has ample discretion with regard thereto.[40] As early as 1910, the Court in the case of Severino vs. Governor General [41] held: x x x [W]hen the relief is sought merely for the protection of private rights, the relator must show some personal or special interest in the subject matter, since he is regarded as the real party in interest and his right must clearly appear. Upon the other hand, when the question is one of public right and the object of the mandamus is to procure the enforcement of a public duty, the people are regarded as the real party in interest, and the relator at whose instigation the proceedings are instituted need not show that he has any legal or special interest in the result, it being sufficient to show that he is a citizen and as such interested in the execution of the laws.[42] This Court has recognized that a "public right," or that which belongs to the people elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/36882 81/148