559 Almazar M Art 8 Sec 1
559 Almazar M Art 8 Sec 1
559 Almazar M Art 8 Sec 1
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:
The Case
On January 28, 2003, SJS filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief (SJS
Petition) before the RTC-Manila against Velarde and his aforesaid
co-respondents. SJS, a registered political party, sought the
interpretation of several constitutional provisions,8 specifically on
the separation of church and state; and a declaratory judgment on
the constitutionality of the acts of religious leaders endorsing a
candidate for an elective office, or urging or requiring the members
of their flock to vote for a specified candidate.
x x x the Court denied the Motions to Dismiss, and the Motions for
Reconsideration filed by Bro. Mike Velarde, Bro. Eddie Villanueva
and Executive Minister Erao Manalo, which raised no new arguments
other than those already considered in the motions to dismiss x x
x.9
ςrνll
After narrating the above incidents, the trial court said that it had
jurisdiction over the Petition, because in praying for a determination
as to whether the actions imputed to the respondents are violative
of Article II, Section 6 of the Fundamental Law, [the Petition] has
raised only a question of law.10 It then proceeded to a lengthy
discussion of the issue raised in the Petition the separation of
church and state even tracing, to some extent, the historical
background of the principle. Through its discourse, the court a
quo opined at some point that the [e]ndorsement of specific
candidates in an election to any public office is a clear violation of
the separation clause.11 ςrνll
After its essay on the legal issue, however, the trial court failed to
include a dispositive portion in its assailed Decision. Thus, Velarde
and Soriano filed separate Motions for Reconsideration which, as
mentioned earlier, were denied by the lower court.
The Issues
In his Petition, Brother Mike Velarde submits the following issues for
this Courts resolution: ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ
1.Whether or not the Decision dated 12 June 2003 rendered by the
court a quo was proper and valid; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
6.Whether or not the court a quo has jurisdiction over the Petition
for declaratory relief of herein respondent.15 ςrνll
During the Oral Argument, the issues were narrowed down and
classified as follows:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ
A.Procedural Issues
B.Substantive Issues
1.Did the RTC Decision conform to the form and substance required
by the Constitution, the law and the Rules of Court? chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Procedural Issues:
Requisites of Petitions
for Declaratory Relief
Justiciable Controversy
Brother Mike Velarde contends that the SJS Petition failed to allege,
much less establish before the trial court, that there existed a
justiciable controversy or an adverse legal interest between them;
and that SJS had a legal right that was being violated or threatened
to be violated by petitioner. On the contrary, Velarde alleges that
SJS premised its action on mere speculations, contingent events,
and hypothetical issues that had not yet ripened into an actual
controversy. Thus, its Petition for Declaratory Relief must fail.
All that the 5-page SJS Petition prayed for was that the question
raised in paragraph 9 hereof be resolved.24 In other words, it merely
sought an opinion of the trial court on whether the speculated acts
of religious leaders endorsing elective candidates for political offices
violated the constitutional principle on the separation of church and
state. SJS did not ask for a declaration of its rights and duties;
neither did it pray for the stoppage of any threatened violation of its
declared rights.Courts, however, are proscribed from rendering an
advisory opinion.25
Cause of Action
During the Oral Argument, though, Petitioner Velarde and his co-
respondents below all strongly asserted that they had not in any
way engaged or intended to participate in partisan politics.They all
firmly assured this Court that they had not done anything to trigger
the issue raised and to entitle SJS to the relief sought.
Legal Standing
Transcendental Importance
Within the time for -- but before -- filing the answer to the
complaint or petition, the defendant may file a motion to dismiss
based on any of the grounds stated in Section 1 of Rule 16 of the
Rules of Court. During the hearing of the motion, the parties shall
submit their arguments on the questions of law, and their evidence
on the questions of fact.65 After the hearing, the court may dismiss
the action or claim, deny the motion, or order the amendment of
the pleadings. It shall not defer the resolution of the motion for the
reason that the ground relied upon is not indubitable. In every case,
the resolution shall state clearly and distinctly the reasons
therefor.66
ςrνll
If the motion is denied, the movant may file an answer within the
balance of the period originally prescribed to file an answer, but not
less than five (5) days in any event, computed from the receipt of
the notice of the denial. If the pleading is ordered to be amended,
the defendant shall file an answer within fifteen (15) days, counted
from the service of the amended pleading, unless the court provides
a longer period.67 ςrνll
After the last pleading has been served and filed, the case shall be
set for pretrial,68 which is a mandatory proceeding.69 A plaintiffs/
petitioners (or its duly authorized representatives) non-appearance
at the pretrial, if without valid cause, shall result in the dismissal of
the action with prejudice, unless the court orders otherwise. A
similar failure on the part of the defendant shall be a cause for
allowing the plaintiff/petitioner to present evidence ex parte, and
the court to render judgment on the basis thereof.70 ςrνll
Thereafter, the case shall be set for trial,74 in which the parties shall
adduce their respective evidence in support of their claims and/or
defenses. By their written consent or upon the application of either
party, or on its own motion, the court may also order any or all of
the issues to be referred to a commissioner, who is to be appointed
by it or to be agreed upon by the parties.75 The trial or hearing
before the commissioner shall proceed in all respects as it would if
held before the court.76 ςrνll
In the latter Order, the trial court perfunctorily ruled: ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ
The Court now resolves to deny the Motions to Dismiss, and after all
the memoranda are submitted, then, the case shall be deemed as
submitted for resolution.86 ςrνll
All in all, during the loosely abbreviated proceedings of the case, the
trial court indeed acted with inexplicable haste, with total ignorance
of the law -- or, worse, in cavalier disregard of the rules of
procedure -- and with grave abuse of discretion.
Fundamental Requirements
of a Decision
The Constitution commands that [n]o decision shall be rendered by
any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts
and the law on which it is based. No Petition for Review or motion
for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due
course or denied without stating the basis therefor.88 ςrνll
x x x.
We cannot agree.
Parts of a Decision
Let us now, again for the guidance of the bench and the bar, discuss
the essential parts of a good decision.
On appeal, the fact that the assailed decision of the lower court
fully, intelligently and correctly resolved all factual and legal issues
involved may partly explain why the reviewing court finds no reason
to reverse the findings and conclusions of the former. Conversely,
the lower courts patent misappreciation of the facts or
misapplication of the law would aid in a better understanding of why
its ruling is reversed or modified.
Counsel for SJS has utterly failed, however, to convince the Court
that there are enough factual and legal bases to resolve the
paramount issue. On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor
General has sided with petitioner insofar as there are no facts
supporting the SJS Petition and the assailed Decision.
Regrettably, it is not legally possible for the Court to take up, on the
merits, the paramount question involving a constitutional principle.
It is a time-honored rule that the constitutionality of a statute [or
act] will be passed upon only if, and to the extent that, it is directly
and necessarily involved in a justiciable controversy and is essential
to the protection of the rights of the parties concerned.100
ςrνll
SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago, J., no part.
Corona, J., on leave.