Section 14
Velarde vs. Social Justice Society , GR 159357, April 28, 2004
The Petition prayed for the resolution of the question "whether or not the act of a religious leader like any of herein respondents, in endorsing the candidacy of a candidate for elective office or in urging or requiring the members of his flock to vote for a specified candidate, is violative of the letter or spirit of the constitutional provisions .They alleged that the questioned Decision did not contain a statement of facts and a dispositive portion.
ISSUE: What is the standard form of a Decision? Did the challenge Decision comply with the aforesaid form?
RULING:
The decision shall be in writing, personally and directly prepared by the judge, stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based, signed by the issuing magistrate, and filed with the clerk of court. In general, the essential parts of a good decision consist of the following: (1) statement of the case; (2) statement of facts; (3) issues or assignment of errors; (4) court ruling, in which each issue is, as a rule, separately considered and resolved; and, finally, (5) dispositive portion. The ponente may also opt to include an introduction or a prologue as well as an epilogue, especially in cases in which controversial or novel issues are involved.
No. Counsel for SJS has utterly failed to convince the Court that there are enough factual and legal bases to resolve the paramount issue. On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General has sided with petitioner insofar as there are no facts supporting the SJS Petition and the assailed Decision. The Petition failed to state directly the ultimate facts that it relied upon for its claim. During the Oral Argument, counsel for SJS candidly admitted that there were no factual allegations in its Petition for Declaratory Relief. Neither were there factual findings in the assailed Decision. At best, SJS merely asked the trial court to answer a hypothetical question. In effect, it merely sought an advisory opinion, the rendition of which was beyond the court’s constitutional mandate and jurisdiction.
Indeed, the assailed Decision was rendered in clear violation of the Constitution, because it made no findings of facts and final disposition.
ABS- CBN vs. COMELEC, GR 133486, Jan 28, 2000€
This is a petition for certiorari assailing COMELEC Resolution No. 98-1419 . Petitioner asserts that respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction when it approved the issuance of a restraining order enjoining the petitioner or any other group from conducting exit polls during the May 11 elections.
The solicitor general contends that the petition is moot and academic, because the May 11, 1998 election has already been held and done with.
ISSUE: Is the “moot and academic” principle a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case?
RULING:
The issue is not totally moot. While the assailed Resolution referred specifically to the May 11, 1998 election, its implications on the people's fundamental freedom of expression transcend the past election. The holding of periodic elections is a basic feature of our democratic government. By its very nature, exit polling is tied up with elections. To set aside the resolution of the issue now will only postpone a task that could well crop up again in future elections.
In any event, in Salonga v. Cruz Paño, the Court had occasion to reiterate that it "also has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules. It has the symbolic function of educating bench and bar on the extent of protection given by constitutional guarantees."7 Since the fundamental freedoms of speech and of the press are being invoked here, we have resolved to settle, for the guidance of posterity, whether they likewise protect the holding of exit polls and the dissemination of data derived therefrom.
This Court, however, has ruled in the past that this procedural requirement may be glossed over to prevent a miscarriage of justice,8 when the issue involves the principle of social justice or the protection of labor,9 when the decision or resolution sought to be set aside is a nullity,10 or when the need for relief is extremely urgent and certiorari is the only adequate and speedy remedy available.
The instant Petition assails a Resolution issued by the Comelec en banc on April 21, 1998, only twenty (20) days before the election itself. Besides, the petitioner got hold of a copy thereof only on May 4, 1998. Under the circumstances, there was hardly enough opportunity to move for a reconsideration and to obtain a swift resolution in time or the May 11, 1998 elections. Moreover, not only is time of the essence; the Petition involves transcendental constitutional issues. Direct resort to this Court through a special civil action for certiorari is therefore justified.
Bayan vs. Ermita, GR 169838 , Apr. 25, 2006
The petitioners allege that they are citizens and taxpayers of the Philippines and that their rights as organizations and individuals were violated when the rally they participated in on October 6, 2005 was violently dispersed by policemen implementing Batas Pambansa (B.P.) No. 880.
ISSUE: Is the “moot and academic” principle a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case?
RULING:???
Suplico vs. NEDA, GR 178830, July 14, 2008
Respondent avers that there is no more justiciable controversy with the ZTE National Broadband Network Project controversy for the Court to resolve. Petitioners contend that because of the transcendental importance of the issues raised in the petition, which among others, included the President’s use of the power to borrow, i.e., to enter into foreign loan agreements, this Court should take cognizance of this case despite its apparent mootness.
ISSUE: Is the “moot and academic” principle a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case?
Judicial power presupposes actual controversies, the very antithesis of mootness. In the absence of actual justiciable controversies or disputes, the Court generally opts to refrain from deciding moot issues. Where there is no more live subject of controversy, the Court ceases to have a reason to render any ruling or make any pronouncement.
For a court to exercise its power of adjudication, there must be an actual case or controversy – one which involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution; the case must not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other similar considerations not cognizable by a court of justice. Where the issue has become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, and an adjudication thereon would be of no practical use or value as courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest, however intellectually challenging.
While there were occasions when the Court passed upon issues although supervening events had rendered those petitions moot and academic, the instant case does not fall under the exceptional cases. In those cases, the Court was persuaded to resolve moot and academic issues to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines or rules for future guidance of both bench and bar.
RULING:
Partido ng Manggagawa vs. COMELEC , GR 164702, March 15, 2006
The petition involves the formula for computing the additional seats due, if any, for winners in party-list elections. Several party-list participants sent queries to the respondent COMELEC regarding the formula to be adopted in computing the additional seats for the party-list winners in the May 10, 2004 elections. In response, the respondent Commission issued Resolution No. 6835, adopting the simplified formula of "one additional seat per additional two percent of the total party-list votes.
ISSUE: What is a decision Pro Hac Vice?
Pro hac vice is a Latin term meaning "for this one particular occasion.” A ruling expressly qualified as pro hac vice cannot be relied upon as a precedent to govern other cases. In this case, it was ruled that it was erroneous for respondent Commission to apply Resolution No. 6835 and rule that the formula in Veterans has been abandoned.
In a subsequent case, Banat vs. COMELEC, the court ruled that the formula in Veterans is not applicable anymore.
Velarde vs. Social Justice Society , GR 159357, April 28, 2004
The Petition prayed for the resolution of the question "whether or not the act of a religious leader like any of herein respondents, in endorsing the candidacy of a candidate for elective office or in urging or requiring the members of his flock to vote for a specified candidate, is violative of the letter or spirit of the constitutional provisions .They alleged that the questioned Decision did not contain a statement of facts and a dispositive portion.
ISSUE: What is the standard form of a Decision? Did the challenge Decision comply with the aforesaid form?
RULING:
The decision shall be in writing, personally and directly prepared by the judge, stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based, signed by the issuing magistrate, and filed with the clerk of court. In general, the essential parts of a good decision consist of the following: (1) statement of the case; (2) statement of facts; (3) issues or assignment of errors; (4) court ruling, in which each issue is, as a rule, separately considered and resolved; and, finally, (5) dispositive portion. The ponente may also opt to include an introduction or a prologue as well as an epilogue, especially in cases in which controversial or novel issues are involved.
No. Counsel for SJS has utterly failed to convince the Court that there are enough factual and legal bases to resolve the paramount issue. On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General has sided with petitioner insofar as there are no facts supporting the SJS Petition and the assailed Decision. The Petition failed to state directly the ultimate facts that it relied upon for its claim. During the Oral Argument, counsel for SJS candidly admitted that there were no factual allegations in its Petition for Declaratory Relief. Neither were there factual findings in the assailed Decision. At best, SJS merely asked the trial court to answer a hypothetical question. In effect, it merely sought an advisory opinion, the rendition of which was beyond the court’s constitutional mandate and jurisdiction.
Indeed, the assailed Decision was rendered in clear violation of the Constitution, because it made no findings of facts and final disposition.
ABS- CBN vs. COMELEC, GR 133486, Jan 28, 2000€
This is a petition for certiorari assailing COMELEC Resolution No. 98-1419 . Petitioner asserts that respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction when it approved the issuance of a restraining order enjoining the petitioner or any other group from conducting exit polls during the May 11 elections.
The solicitor general contends that the petition is moot and academic, because the May 11, 1998 election has already been held and done with.
ISSUE: Is the “moot and academic” principle a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case?
RULING:
The issue is not totally moot. While the assailed Resolution referred specifically to the May 11, 1998 election, its implications on the people's fundamental freedom of expression transcend the past election. The holding of periodic elections is a basic feature of our democratic government. By its very nature, exit polling is tied up with elections. To set aside the resolution of the issue now will only postpone a task that could well crop up again in future elections.
In any event, in Salonga v. Cruz Paño, the Court had occasion to reiterate that it "also has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules. It has the symbolic function of educating bench and bar on the extent of protection given by constitutional guarantees."7 Since the fundamental freedoms of speech and of the press are being invoked here, we have resolved to settle, for the guidance of posterity, whether they likewise protect the holding of exit polls and the dissemination of data derived therefrom.
This Court, however, has ruled in the past that this procedural requirement may be glossed over to prevent a miscarriage of justice,8 when the issue involves the principle of social justice or the protection of labor,9 when the decision or resolution sought to be set aside is a nullity,10 or when the need for relief is extremely urgent and certiorari is the only adequate and speedy remedy available.
The instant Petition assails a Resolution issued by the Comelec en banc on April 21, 1998, only twenty (20) days before the election itself. Besides, the petitioner got hold of a copy thereof only on May 4, 1998. Under the circumstances, there was hardly enough opportunity to move for a reconsideration and to obtain a swift resolution in time or the May 11, 1998 elections. Moreover, not only is time of the essence; the Petition involves transcendental constitutional issues. Direct resort to this Court through a special civil action for certiorari is therefore justified.
Bayan vs. Ermita, GR 169838 , Apr. 25, 2006
The petitioners allege that they are citizens and taxpayers of the Philippines and that their rights as organizations and individuals were violated when the rally they participated in on October 6, 2005 was violently dispersed by policemen implementing Batas Pambansa (B.P.) No. 880.
ISSUE: Is the “moot and academic” principle a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case?
RULING:???
Suplico vs. NEDA, GR 178830, July 14, 2008
Respondent avers that there is no more justiciable controversy with the ZTE National Broadband Network Project controversy for the Court to resolve. Petitioners contend that because of the transcendental importance of the issues raised in the petition, which among others, included the President’s use of the power to borrow, i.e., to enter into foreign loan agreements, this Court should take cognizance of this case despite its apparent mootness.
ISSUE: Is the “moot and academic” principle a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case?
Judicial power presupposes actual controversies, the very antithesis of mootness. In the absence of actual justiciable controversies or disputes, the Court generally opts to refrain from deciding moot issues. Where there is no more live subject of controversy, the Court ceases to have a reason to render any ruling or make any pronouncement.
For a court to exercise its power of adjudication, there must be an actual case or controversy – one which involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution; the case must not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other similar considerations not cognizable by a court of justice. Where the issue has become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, and an adjudication thereon would be of no practical use or value as courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest, however intellectually challenging.
While there were occasions when the Court passed upon issues although supervening events had rendered those petitions moot and academic, the instant case does not fall under the exceptional cases. In those cases, the Court was persuaded to resolve moot and academic issues to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines or rules for future guidance of both bench and bar.
RULING:
Partido ng Manggagawa vs. COMELEC , GR 164702, March 15, 2006
The petition involves the formula for computing the additional seats due, if any, for winners in party-list elections. Several party-list participants sent queries to the respondent COMELEC regarding the formula to be adopted in computing the additional seats for the party-list winners in the May 10, 2004 elections. In response, the respondent Commission issued Resolution No. 6835, adopting the simplified formula of "one additional seat per additional two percent of the total party-list votes.
ISSUE: What is a decision Pro Hac Vice?
Pro hac vice is a Latin term meaning "for this one particular occasion.” A ruling expressly qualified as pro hac vice cannot be relied upon as a precedent to govern other cases. In this case, it was ruled that it was erroneous for respondent Commission to apply Resolution No. 6835 and rule that the formula in Veterans has been abandoned.
In a subsequent case, Banat vs. COMELEC, the court ruled that the formula in Veterans is not applicable anymore.
thanks for this!
ReplyDelete