ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 159493. January 18, 2005]

FORTUNO vs. COMELEC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 18 2005 .

G.R. No. 159493 (Rodolfo Z. Fortuno vs. Commission on Elections and Jesse M. Robredo.)

Before us is a motion for clarification filed by the petitioner for the purpose of determining the legal effects of the dismissal of his petition after this Court denied his motion for reconsideration with finality in our resolution dated October 5, 2004. For his part, the private respondent seeks a reconsideration of our resolution dated August 10, 2004 where we dismissed the instant petition for being moot and academic.

Invoking the exercise by this Court of its symbolic function, the petitioner requests clarification on the following points: [1] cralaw

1.� Whether he and another party that might be similarly situated can still ask the COMELEC to hear their respective quo warranto cases, or to file a separate action that will directly attack the citizenship issue against the private respondent;

2.� Since the citizenship issue could not be directly resolved by this Court in the instant petition, as the resolution of the citizenship issue required both factual and legal proof and support during an actual and appropriate trial on the merits, petitioner seeks the advice of this Court on the proper and appropriate remedy so that the quo warranto or another case could be heard initially by an appropriate body before the appellate jurisdiction of this Court may be invoked;

3.� Since the expiration of the term of office under contention, 2001 to 2004, rendered the instant petition involving the petitioner and the private respondent moot and academic, whether the quo warranto case for the term 2004 to 2007 has not become moot and academic insofar as the pending EPC Case No. 2004-20 entitled Jojo Villafuerte v. Jesse Robredo is concerned; and

4.� Whether the issue of citizenship of the private respondent has become moot and academic and/or whether the same issue should be addressed in the appropriate forum considering the legal ramifications of the ruling of this Court in the consolidated cases of Tecson v. COMELEC, Velez v. Poe and Former v. COMELEC . ^[2] cralaw

The motion for clarification by the petitioner is actually a solicitation of an advisory opinion from this Court. However, judicial power does not extend to the issuance of advisory opinions. [3] cralaw This Court does not give advisory opinions even to public agencies and officials, let alone private parties. This Court is not supposed to advise the parties on the state and meaning of the laws, this being the task of their respective counsels. [4] cralaw

In support of his motion, the petitioner refers to the implication of the dismissal of the petition to "another party" that might be similarly situated, or to "another separate action" or "another case" that "could be heard initially by an appropriate body." [5] cralaw Petitioner also alludes to the interest of Jojo Villafuerte in EPC Case No. 2004-20, a petition for quo warranto , entitled Jojo Villafuerte v. Jesse Robredo now pending before the COMELEC that may be affected by the dismissal of the instant petition.

Whatever consequence the dismissal of the instant petition may have on another action or case that may be filed by any interested party against private respondent in the future is merely speculative and conjectural. In effect, the petitioner is posing a hypothetical problem for the resolution of this Court. We cannot oblige petitioner because courts have no authority to pass upon issues through advisory opinions or to resolve hypothetical or feigned problems. [6] cralaw

With regard to the interest of Jojo Villafuerte in EPC Case No. 2004-20, suffice it to say that the dismissal of the instant petition is without prejudice to the said case. Unlike the petitioner's quo warranto case which was dismissed by the COMELEC in the resolution being assailed in the instant petition, EPC Case No. 2004-20 cannot be mooted by the election of a new mayor for the 2004 to 2007 term. In fact, the election of the private respondent as the new mayor for the 2004 to 2007 term, which mooted the instant petition, constituted as the fulfillment of the condition precedent for the filing of EPC Case No. 2004-20.

We will touch on the fourth point raised by the petitioner, but only to address the private respondent's prayer in his motion for reconsideration for this Court to affirm and/or declare that he is a Filipino citizen.

As the private respondent himself admits in his motion, the question of private respondent's Filipino citizenship can never be considered moot and academic, unless this Court renders a decision thereon in the proper proceeding. The rule is that res judicata does not apply in cases dealing with the issue of citizenship.

Every time the citizenship of a person is material or indispensable in a judicial or administrative case, whatever the corresponding court or administrative authority decides therein as to such citizenship is generally not considered as res adjudicata, hence it has to be threshed out again and again as the occasion may demand. [7] cralaw

As an exception to this rule, however, the doctrine of res judicata may be applied in cases of citizenship where the following requisites concur:

1.� A person's citizenship is raised as a material issue in a controversy where he is a party;

2.� The Solicitor General or his authorized representative took active part in the resolution of the issue of citizenship; and

3.� The finding on citizenship is affirmed by this Court. [8] cralaw

Although the question on the private respondent's citizenship was the crux of EPC Case No. 2001-2 filed by the petitioner against the private respondent before the COMELEC and subject of the resolution being assailed in the instant petition, the citizenship of the private respondent is not a material issue in this case.

Thus, the participation of the Solicitor General in the instant petition is of no moment. There has been no case or controversy involving the resolution of the issue of citizenship of the private respondent where the Solicitor General or his authorized representative has taken an active part.

Since the first two requisites are wanting, this Court cannot affirm any alleged finding on the Filipino citizenship of the private respondent.

This Court cannot make a declaration on the citizenship of the private respondent. Courts of justice exist for the settlement of justiciable controversies, which imply a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or omission violative of said right, and a remedy, granted or sanctioned by law, for said breach of right. As an incident only of an adjudication of the rights of the parties to a controversy, the court may pass upon and make a pronouncement relative to their status. Otherwise, such a pronouncement is beyond judicial power. [9] cralaw

WHEREFORE, the motion for clarification of the petitioner is hereby DENIED and the motion for reconsideration of the private respondent is likewise DENIED with FINALITY, without prejudice, however, to EPC Case No. 2004-20 now pending with the COMELEC.

No further pleadings will be entertained.

Let entry of judgment be entered in due course.

Davide. Jr., C.J., on leave.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 6-8.

^[2] cralaw G.R. Nos. 161434, 161634 and 161824, 03 March 2004.

^[3] cralaw Serrano v. Amores, G.R. No. 34370, 17 January 1975, 62 SCRA 49.

^[4] cralaw Yu v. Violago-Isnani, G.R. No. 101062, 29 January 1992, First Division, Minute Resolution.

^[5] cralaw Rollo, p. 7.

^[6] cralaw Guingona v. Court of Appeals, 354 Phil. 415 (1998).

^[7] cralaw Moy Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner of Immigration, 148-B Phil. 773 (1971).

^[8] cralaw Valles v. COMELEC, 392 Phil. 327 (2000) citing Burca v. Republic, 151-A Phil. 720 (1973).

^[9] cralaw Tan v. Republic, 107 Phil. 632 (1960).

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011