Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > November 2008 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 178830 : November 18, 2008] ROLEX SUPLICO V. NATIONAL ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ET AL.) G.R. NO. 179317 (AMSTERDAM HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL. V. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL.) G.R. NO. 179613 (GALELEO P. ANGELES, ET AL. V. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL. :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Bane dated November 18, 2008

G.R. No. 178830 (Rolex Suplico v. National Economic and Development Authority, et al.) G.R. No. 179317 (Amsterdam Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Department of Transportation and Communications, et al.) G.R. No. 179613 (Galeleo P. Angeles, et al. v. Department of Transportation and Communications, et al.) - THIS refers to the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Amsterdam Holdings, Inc. (AHI) pertaining to Our Resolution of July 14, 2008 dismissing the petitions questioning the ZTE-National Broadband Network project.

Petitioner AHI, in its motion, faults the Court for dismissing the consolidated petitions. It insists that the issues involved are of transcendental importance; that the issues merit the Court's exercise of judicial review; that the Court ought to inquire into the President's exercise of the power to borrow, define its parameters, and ensure that future exercise of said power be in accordance with the Constitution, laws and jurisprudence.^[1]

AHI maintains that setting the proper and correct parameters of the presidential power to borrow will contribute in no small measure to political stability, national progress and development.^[2]

Respondent ZTE Corporation opposes the motion, contending that it is pro forma; that it fails to specify the findings and conclusions reached by the Court that are contrary to law; that the bulk, if not all, of the arguments aired by petitioner is a mere rehash or reiteration of previous contentions that were passed upon by the Court; that the doctrine of "transcendental importance" is inapplicable, and it has never been a ground for the relaxation of the requirement of "actual case or controversy" in the exercise of the power of judicial review."^[3]

We deny the motion.   Judicial review presupposes the confluence of the following elements:

1. there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial review;
   
   
2. the person challenging the act must have standing to challenge the validity of the subject act or issuance;
   
   
3. the  question  of constitutionality must  be  raised  at  the  earliest opportunity; and
   
   
4.  the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.^[4]
   

There is an actual case or controversy when there are issues in actual existence bearing on the rights and legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests.^[5] It involves the resolution of a definite and actual controversy.^[6]

Here, the resolution of the issues posed for the Court's consideration has been rendered academic by the cancellation of the NBN Project by President Arroyo during her meeting with her Chinese counterpart, President Hu Jintao. As We succinctly held in the dismissal resolution:

Concomitant to its fundamental task as the ultimate citadel of justice and legitimacy is the judiciary's role of strengthening political stability indispensable to progress and national development. Pontificating on issues which no longer legitimately constitute an actual case or controversy will do more harm than good to the nation as a whole. Wise exercise of judicial discretion militates against resolving the academic issues, as petitioners want this Court to do. This is especially true where, as will be further discussed, the legal issues raised cannot be resolved without previously establishing the factual basis or antecedents.

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.^[7]

Anent the President's exercise of the power to borrow, We reiterate that imputations of irregularity in the said exercise are devoid of legal basis for lack of judicially established evidence to support a factual finding indicating any violation of law. Thus, We cannot at this time annul, set aside or intrude into the exercise of said power. Neither can We at the moment show how the executive should exercise it.

ACCORDINGLY, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

The Court further Resolved to

(a) NOTE the Opposition (to the above Motion for Reconsideration of petitioner AHI), dated October 16, 2008 filed by counsel for respondent ZTE Corporation in compliance with the resolution of August 26, 2008;

(b) NOTE and GRANT the Manifestation and Motion dated October 10, 2008 filed by counsel for respondent ZTE Corporation,  praying  that  Respondent's Urgent Motion  for Extension of Time to File Opposition be deemed served on the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and that said Urgent Motion be granted; and

(c) DENY the Motion for (Second) Extension of Time to File Comment (on the Motion for Reconsideration), dated November 4, 2008 filed by the OSG."

 Leonardo-de Castro, J., on official leave.
 Brion, J., on leave.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo pp. 1261-1262.

^[2] Id.

^[3] Id. at 1288.

^[4] Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, G.R. Nos. 169777. 169659, 169660, 169667, 169834 & 171246, April 20, 2006, 488 SCRA 1, 35.

^[5] David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. Nos. 171396, 171409, 171485, 171483, 171400, 171489 & 171424. May 3, 2006, 489 SCRA 160. 213.

^[6] Id.

^[7] Resolution dated July 14, 2008, p. 12.