R E S O L U T I O N
CORONA, C.J.:
I.
THE FACTS
Private respondent Joseph “Erap” Ejercito Estrada was elected President
of the Republic of the Philippines in the general elections held on May 11,
1998. He was however ousted [“resigned” according to the decision of the
Supreme Court in Estrada vs. Arroyo, G.R. No. 146738, March 2, 2001] from office and was not able to finish his term. He sought the presidency again in the
general elections held on May 10, 2010. Petitioner Atty. Evillo C. Pormento
opposed Erap’s candidacy and filed a petition for the latter’s disqualification,
which was however denied by the COMELEC 2nd Division. His motion for
reconsideration was subsequently denied by the COMELEC en banc.
Petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari on May 7, 2010.
However, under the Rules of Court, the filing of such petition would not stay
the execution of the judgment, final order or resolution of the COMELEC that is
sought to be reviewed. Besides, petitioner did not even pray for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction. Hence, private
respondent was able to participate as a candidate for the position of President
in the May 10, 2010 elections where
he garnered the second highest number of votes.
II.
THE ISSUE
What is the proper interpretation of the following provision of Section
4, Article VII of the Constitution: “[t]he President shall not be eligible for
any re-election?”
III.
THE RULING
[The
petition was DENIED DUE COURSE and
thereby DISMISSED by the Supreme Court.]
Private respondent
was not elected President the second time he ran [in the May 2010 elections]. Since the issue on
the proper interpretation of the phrase “any reelection” will be premised on
a person’s second (whether immediate or not) election as President, there is no
case or controversy to be resolved in this case. No live conflict of legal
rights exists. There is in this case no definite, concrete, real or substantial
controversy that touches on the legal relations of parties having adverse legal
interests. No specific relief may conclusively be decreed upon by this Court in
this case that will benefit any of the parties herein. As such, one of the essential requisites
for the exercise of the power of judicial review, the existence of an actual
case or controversy, is sorely lacking in this case.
As a rule, this Court
may only adjudicate actual, ongoing controversies. The Court is not empowered to
decide moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or
rules of law which cannot affect the result as to the thing in issue in the
case before it. In other words, when a case is moot, it becomes
non-justiciable.
An action is
considered “moot” when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because
the issues involved have become academic or dead or when the matter in dispute
has already been resolved and hence, one is not entitled to judicial
intervention unless the issue is likely to be raised again between the parties.
There is nothing for the court to resolve as the determination thereof has been
overtaken by subsequent events.
Assuming an actual case or controversy existed
prior to the proclamation of a President who has been duly elected in the May
10, 2010 elections, the same is no longer true today. Following the results of
that elections, private respondent was not elected President for the second
time. Thus, any discussion of his “reelection” will simply be
hypothetical and speculative. It will serve no useful or practical purpose.
[To
read comments on this case, please click here.]
No comments:
Post a Comment