Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > September 2011 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 197854 : September 13, 2011] JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO, PETITIONER, v. SECRETARY LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE; AND RICARDO A. DAVID, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, RESPONDENTS. :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated SEPTEMBER 13, 2011, which reads as follows:cralaw

"G.R. No. 197854 (JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO, petitioner, v. SECRETARY LEILA M. DE LIMA, in her capacity as SECRETARY OF JUSTICE; and RICARDO A. DAVID, JR., in his capacity as COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, respondents). - In light of the information disclosed during the hearing on August 2, 2011 of the Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations (Senate Blue Ribbon Committee) on the purchase by the Philippine National Police of certain helicopters, the Committee Chairperson, Senator Teofisto Guingona III, requested the Department of Justice (DOJ) to place Jose Miguel T. Arroyo in the Bureau of Immigration's (BI's) Watchlist.

Upon receipt of the request, DOJ Secretary Leila de Lima immediately issued Watchlist Order No. 2011-410, placing Arroyo in the BI's Watchlist pursuant to Section 2(c)^[1] of DOJ Circular No. 41-2010.^[2] Inclusion in the Watchlist requires the listed individual to seek clearance from the Secretary of Justice before he or she could leave the country.^[3]

On August 12, 2011, Arroyo filed the present petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking the nullification of (1) Watchlist Order No. 2011-410 and (2) DOJ Circular No. 41-2010 on the allegation that they violate Section 6, Article III of the Constitution. The cited provision states:

Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.

On August 23, 2011, we resolved to issue a temporary restraining order enjoining respondents DOJ Secretary De Lima and BI Commissioner Ricardo David, Jr. (respondents) from implementing the assailed Watchlist Order and Circular against Arroyo. We also required the respondents to Comment on the petition within ten (10) days from receipt of the Resolution.

On September 5, 2011, the respondents thru the Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation and Motion (In Lieu of Comment) praying for the dismissal of the petition on the ground of mootness. The respondents attached Senator Guingona's letter dated August 31, 2011 informing the DOJ Secretary that the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee would no longer summon Arroyo to appear in the on-going investigation on account of his medical condition (persisting dissecting aneurysm of the descending thoracic aorta). The respondents also attached DOJ Secretary De Lima's Order dated September 1, 2011 lifting Watchlist Order No. 2011-430 insofar as it affects Arroyo, and ordering the BI Commissioner to delete his name from the BI's watchlist. In light of these supervening events, the respondents submit that the present petition for certiorari and prohibition has been rendered moot and academic, and should now be dismissed.

OUR RULING

We resolve to dismiss the petition for being moot and academic.

A mandatory requirement for the Court's exercise of the power of judicial review is the existence of an actual case or controversy. An actual case or controversy is a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims which can be resolved on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence. The controversy must be definite and concrete, bearing upon the legal relations of parties who are pitted against one another due to their adverse at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed;^[4] the challenged act must have had a direct adverse effect that continues to be left unredressed and unremedied.

In the present case, with the lifting of Watchlist Order No. 2011-410 and the removal of Arroyo in the BI Watchlist, the petition no longer presents an actual controversy for resolution by the Court; the subsequent supervening official actions by the Senate Committee Chairperson and by the DOJ Secretary left this Court with no official action to prohibit or enjoin. Effectively, no factual basis likewise exists for a ruling on the constitutionality of DOJ Circular No. 41-2010.

The rule is settled that no question involving the constitutionality or validity of a law or governmental act may be heard and decided unless there is compliance with the legal requisites for judicial inquiry, foremost of which is that there must be an actual case or controversy. Judicial review cannot be exercised where the previously existing actual controversy ceases to exist; this Court cannot provide reliefs for controversies that are no longer there.^[5]

In sum, the resolution of the issues posed would have no practical legal effect on the petitioner.^[6] Consistent with our rulings on similar situations, the petition should now be dismissed for being moot and academic.^[7] We note in this regard that other cases � brought by other parties, on the same legal issues, and on the basis of concrete and existing facts � are now before the Court. These cases are the more appropriate forum for these issues.^[8]cralaw

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we resolve to DISMISS the petition for being moot and academic."

Del Castillo and Reyes, JJ., on leave.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Section 2. Watchlist Order. - The Secretary of Justice may issue a WLO, under any of the following instances:

x x x x

(c) The Secretary of Justice may likewise issue a WLO against any person, either motu proprio, or upon the request of any government agency, including commissions, task forces or similar entities created by the Office of the President, pursuant to the "Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003" (R.A. No. 9208) and/or in connection with any investigation being conducted by it, or in the interest of national security, public safety or public health.

^[2] Consolidated Rules and Regulations Governing the Issuance and Implementation of Hold Departure Orders, Watchlist Orders, and Allow Departure Orders, dated May 25, 2010.

^[3] Section 7. Allow Departure Order (ADO). - Any person subject of HOO/WLO issued pursuant to this Circular who intends, for some exceptional reasons, to leave the country may, upon application under oath with the Secretary of Justice, be issued an ADO.

The ADO may be issued upon submission of the following requirements:

a. Affidavit stating clearly the purpose, inclusive period of the intended travel, and containing an undertaking to immediately report to the DOJ upon return; and

b. Authority to travel or travel clearance from the court or appropriate government office where the case upon which the issued HOO/WLO was based is pending, or from the investigating prosecutor in charge of the subject case.

^[4] See J. Nachura, Dissenting Opinion, Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (GRP). G.R. No. 183591, October 14, 2008, 568 SCRA 402, 685-687.

^[5] Id. at 688.

^[6] Vda. De Dabao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116526, March 23, 2004, 426 SCRA 91, 97.

^[7] Villarosa v. Trajano, G.R. No. 73679, July 23, 1992, 211 SCRA 685, 691.

^[8] Efraim C. Genuino, et al. v. Hon. Leila M. De Lima, G.R. No. 197930.