ChanRobles Virtual law Library

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

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 169813. September 5, 2006]

SAMSON S. ALCANTARA, ED VINCENT S. ALBANO AND RENE B. GOROSPE, PETITIONERS, versus EDUARDO ERMITA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ROMULO NERI, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, CONSULTATIVE COMMISSION, AND JOSE ABUEVA, AS CHAIRMAN OF THE CONSULTATIVE COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS

En Banc

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT. 5, 2006 .

G.R. No. 169813 (Samson S. Alcantara, Ed Vincent S. Albano and Rene B. Gorospe, Petitioners, versus Eduardo Ermita, In his Capacity as Executive Secretary, Romulo Neri, In his Capacity as Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management, Consultative Commission, and Jose Abueva, as Chairman of the Consultative Commission, Respondents.)

At bar is a Petition for Prohibition [1] cralaw seeking to prevent respondents form implementing Executive Order No. 453, dated August 19, 2005 creating a consultative commission to propose the revision of the 1987 Constitution in consultation with various sectors of society.

The facts are:

On August 19, 2005, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order (E.O.) No. 453 entitled "CREATING A CONSULTATIVE COMMISSION TO PROPOSE THE REVISION OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION ON CONSULTATION WITH VARIOUS SECTORS OF SOCIETY." The pertinent provisions of E.O. 453 read:

WHEREAS, our present political and economic systems need structural reforms to respond to inward and global changes to make them relevant and competitive;

WHEREAS, applying the appropriate solutions to our chronic political, economic and cultural problems depends, to a large extent, on effective and accountable political institutions, a decentralized government that is more responsive and accountable to the people and allows them to participate effectively in its decisions and the making of social and economic policies;

WHEREAS, Constitutional reform is a public commitment the President made in 2003-2004, subsequently incorporated in the Medium Term Public Investment Program, 2005-2010, which she deems to be of the highest priority, as stated in her State of the Nation Address on July 25, 2005;

WHEREAS, there is a need to bring the great charter debate to the people and involve them in the study and formulation of amendments or revisions to the 1987 Constitution,

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me, do hereby order:

SECTION 1. Creation and Mandate. - There is hereby created a Consultative Commission which conduct consultations and studies and propose amendments and revisions in the 1987 Constitution, principally the proposals to shift from the presidential-unitary system to a parliamentary-federal system of government, to refocus economic policies in the Constitution to match the country's vision for global competitiveness, and to review economic policies which tend to hinder the country's global competitiveness and adversely affect the people's welfare.

For this purpose, the Consultative Commission shall review existing and new Constitutional reform proposals and hold nationwide consultations with various sectors of society, such as farmers, fishermen, workers, students, lawyers, professionals, business, military, academic, ethnic, and other similar groups, including the different leagues of Local Government Units and members of Congress and the Judiciary.

SECTION 2. Composition. - The Consultative Commission shall be composed of not more than fifty (50) members representing the national, regional, and sectoral constituencies, who shall be appointed by the President.

The national representatives shall, in addition to the qualifications hereinafter provided, be men or women of national standing, experienced in government or with recognized competence in their respective fields.

The regional representatives are to be apportioned among the different regions.

Sectoral representatives shall be chosen from, among other sectors, farmers, fishermen, workers, students, lawyers, professionals, business, military, academic, ethnic, and other similar groups.

SECTION 3. Nominations. - Nominations of members of the Consultative Commission may be made by concerned groups of individuals.

All nominations shall be submitted to the Office of the President not later than August 31, 2005.

x x x

SECTION 4. Qualifications. - No person shall be appointed member of the Consultative Commission unless he is a citizen of the Philippines, a qualified voter, of recognized probity, competence, honesty and patriotism.

SECTION 5. Organization and Proceedings. - The Executive Secretary shall preside at the initial meeting until the Consultative Commission elects a Chairman to head and preside over its meetings, conferences and other proceedings. The election of a Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary, and other officers from among its members shall be the first order of business at the opening session.

The plenary sessions of the Consultative Commission shall be public and duly recorded.

x x x

SECTION 6. Technical and Staff Support. - The Presidential Management Staff ("PMS") shall assist in establishing a Secretariat for the technical and staff support of the Consultative Commission. x x x.

x x x

SECTION 7. Appropriation. - The initial amount of Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) is hereby appropriated for the operational expenses of the Consultative Commission to be sourced from available funds, subject to usual accounting and auditing rules and regulations.

SECTION 8. Time Frame. - The Consultative Commission shall commence its work before September 10, 2005 and shall endeavor to complete the same before December 15, 2005. The Consultative Commission shall present to the President its report and proposed revision of the 1987 Constitution for proper transmittal to Congress.

SECTION 9. Effectivity. - This Executive Order shall take effect immediately.

DONE in the City of Manila, this 19th day of August, in the year of our Lord, two thousand and five.

x x x

Shortly thereafter, President Macapagal-Arroyo designated forty nine (49) persons from various sectors of society to sit as members of the Consultative Commission.

On September 28, 2005, the Consultative Commission held its first formal meeting and elected its officers. Jose V. Abueva, former President of the University of the Philippines, was elected Chairman. Immediately thereafter, the Consultative Commission conducted its first plenary session.

Beginning October 10, 2005, the different committees of the Commission conducted several public hearings and consultative meetings in the cities of Cagayan de Oro, Cebu, Davao, Iloilo, Puerto Princesa, Tacloban, and Zamboanga.

On October 13, 2005, lawyers Samson S. Alcantara, Ed Vincent S. Albano, and Rene B. Gorospe, herein petitioners, filed with this Court the instant petition for prohibition in their capacity as Filipino citizens and taxpayers. They alleged that under Article XVII of the Constitution, President Macapagal-Arroyo has no authority to participate in the process to amend or revise the Constitution. Likewise, she has no power to create a Consultative Commission to study and propose amendments and allocate public funds for its operations.

On October 24, 2005, President Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order No. 453-A which amended Section 2 of E.O. 453 by increasing the membership of the Consultative Commission from 50 to 55.

On December 16, 2005, the Consultative Commission submitted to the President its report recommending changes in the charter. Then the Consultative Commission ceased to exist.

The instant petition has been overtaken by subsequent events. The Consultative Commission is now defunct. Hence, there is no longer any issue to be resolved by this Court. This case has become moot and academic.

A case is moot and academic when there is no more actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits. [2] cralaw As a general rule, courts of justice are constituted to pass upon substantial rights. Hence, they will not consider questions which are moot, as the resolution of the same will have no practical use or value. [3] cralaw

The mootness of the case is evident in the relief prayed for by the petitioners, namely, a writ of prohibition. Section 2, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides:

SEC. 2. Petition for prohibition. - When the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions, are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein, or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

From the foregoing, it is evident that the writ of prohibition is one which commands the person to whom it is directed not to do something which he is about to do. If the thing is already done, it is obvious that the writ of prohibition cannot undo it, for that would require an affirmative act, and the only effect of a writ of prohibition is to suspend all action, and to prevent any further proceeding in the prohibited direction. [4] cralaw In other words, prohibition is a preventive remedy to restrain future action. Prohibition, as a rule, does not lie to restrain an act that is already a fait accompli. [5] cralaw The Consultative Commission has been dissolved. Consequently, we find no more reason to resolve the constitutional issues raised by petitioners.

WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the instant petition. No pronouncement as to costs.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Filed under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.

[2] cralaw Enrile v. Senate Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 132986, May 19, 2004, 428 SCRA 472, 477.

[3] cralaw Id., citing Garcia v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 121139, July 12, 1996, 258 SCRA 754, 757.

[4] cralaw Caba�ero and Mangornong v. Torres, 61 Phil. 522, 525 (1935).

[5] cralaw Aguinaldo v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 132774, June 21, 1999, 308 SCRA 770, 780.


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