ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 146961. March 5, 2001]

ROMUALDO M. REYNES vs. NTC, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 5 2001.

G.R. No. 146961(Romualdo M. Reyes vs. National Telecommunications Commission, Congress of the Philippines, Senate of the Philippines, et al.)

At bar is a petition for mandamus and prohibition, with a prayer for issuance of retraining order seeking, among others, that 'Republic Act No. 9002, other known as "AN ACT GRANTING THE CLICK COMMUNICATIONS, INC. A FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, ESTABLISH, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN WIRE AND/OR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM THROUGHOUT THE PHILIPPINES," be declared void and premature; that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the Senate and Congress to transmit afresh to the President of the Philippines the enrolled bill granting said franchise in favor of private respondent Click.

Petitioner himself admits that the instant petition is not traditional and he makes the following disturbing narration as a statement of facts:

In a most pronounced way in 1998, petitioner became conscious of high-tech means that invaded his privacy and caused him nerve-wracking pain. The experience went on unabated. (Between December, 2000 and the present, however, the pulse light-induced pain petered out to tolerable levels.)

Because petitioner is a litigation lawyer, he quietly began investigating. He researched on the invisible means related to neuro-science that accounted for his travails. His efforts yielded answers. The wherewithal used: 21st century technology interconnecting nanotechnology, biocomputation, and fiberoptic cable-modem-satellite technologies, among others. The culprit:

The Philippine government, among others.

xxx������ xxx������ xxx

With heightened vigilance and a firmer resolve, petitioner continued researching to prepare for his torts suit. On December 24, 2000 he wrote respondent National Telecommunication commission invoicing his right of access to information on matters of public concern under Sec. 7, Art. III of the, 1987 Constitution and Sec. 5(e), RA 6713 and asked for information, records, documents, government research data, and other papers on official acts or transactions or decisions of the NTC or submitted it.

To his disgust, the NTC referred petitioner to two of its department heads with an invitation to visit NTC's website.

On February 13, 2001, the opportunity that petitioner had been itching for came when he chanced upon said date's issue of "Malaya" wherein a copy of Republic Act No. 9002 was 'published which on the left bottom corner of the boxed bill as published bore the words "Lapsed into law on January 21, 2001 without the signature of the President in accordance with Article VI, Section 27(1) of the Constitution."

In questioning the effectivity of Republic Act No. 9002 which petitioner contends became a law through highly irregular procedure, he ascribes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction to public respondents for allegedly casually allowing the issuance of legislative franchise in favor of private respondent. Consequently, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

(a) the 15-day waiting period after publication of the enrolled bill/RA 9002 be suspended and that said bill be declared void;

(b) President Arroyo's 30-day period to exercise her right of review of the enrolled bill and veto be reckoned from the date this case is finally resolved to ensure that the safeguards intended by the Constitution's framers be given life and meaning;

(c) respondent Click Communications, Inc. be restrained from filing a petition for certificate of public convenience and necessity with respondent National Telecommunications Commission and that the latter be prohibited from receiving or acting upon said petition;

(d) respondent National Telecommunications Commission be restrained from entering or acting in any way on any petition for certificate of public convenience and safety which respondent Click Communications, Inc. may file or may have already filed with the NTC, in anticipation of any petition of this sort with the Court and in violation of law and the Constitution;

(e) respondent PLDT be restrained from allowing, ensuring, making, starting, completing, or facilitating in any manner whatsoever any' interconnection with respondent Click Communications, Inc. regardless of whose initiative the interconnection effort is commenced;

(f) Advanced Science and Technology Institute experts be compelled to appear before the Court to testify to the subject 21st century technologies' dangers to public morals, public safety, public health, public order, and public interest under pain of contempt and to submit to the High Court their in-depth studies, reports, and recommendations so that the Court, in the exercise of its rulemaking power and in pursuance of the power of supervision over all courts and members of the Bar, may promulgate responsive rules relating to the integrity of the judicial system, the safety of justices, judges, and lawyers, and integrity of the Bar Examination;

(g) after hearing, respondents Congress, Senate, and NTC be declared to have committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in peremptorily issuing a legislative franchise in favor of respondent Click Communications, Inc. and for limiting RA 9002's vague standards to public order and decency without laying down clearly defined safeguards and standards on public health, public safety, public morals, and public order;

(h) respondent NTC be declared to have gravely abused its discretion in not fully honoring petitioner's right of access to public information under the Constitution and RA 6713;

(i) a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the Senate and Congress to transmit afresh to the President the enrolled bill granting a franchise in favor of Click Communications, Inc.

Initially, the Court notes that the instant petition is not accompanied by the required certification on non-forum shopping, a lapse sufficient by itself to cause the outright dismissal of the petition.

The requisites before courts will assume jurisdiction over a constitutional question are: (1) there must be an actual case or controvery, including a conflict of rights susceptible of judicial determination; (2) the constitutional question must be raised by a proper party; (3) the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the resolution of the constitutional question must be necessary to the resolution of the case (Board of Optometry vs. Colette, 260 SCRA 88[1996]).

Moreover, question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party. A proper party is one who has sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of (Kilosbayan vs. Guingona, 232 SCRA 110 [1994]).

Apparently, petitioner lacks the very important legal standing to assail the validity of the subject statute, he not being a real party-in-interest who possesses real interest in the outcome of the controversy (Tatad vs. Secretary of Department of Energy, 281 SCRA 330 [1997]). Also absent is the equally crucial cause of action against respondents. By real interest, it is meant a present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest. This Court has ruled that a citizen will be allowed to raise a constitutional question only when he can show that he has personally suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government; the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action, and the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action (Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc. vs. Commission on Elections, 289 SCRA 337 [1998]).

WHEREFORE, petition is dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com