Republic et. Al vs Herminiano Harry Roque et al. GR No.

204603

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 204603 September 24, 2013

REPUBLIC OF THE G.R. No. 204603 PHILIPPINES, represented by THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONALDEFENSE,
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE, THE
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER, THE SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT THE TREASURER OF
THE PHILIPPINES, THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, and THE CHIEFOF
THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, Petitioners,

vs.

HERMINIO HARRY ROQUE, MORO CHRISTIAN PEOPLE'S ALLIANCE, FR. JOE DIZON, RODINIE SORIANO,
STEPHANIE ABIERA, MARIA LOURDES ALCAIN, VOLTAIRE ALFEREZ, CZARINA MAYALTEZ, SHERYL BALOT,
RENIZZA BATACAN, EDAN MARRI CAÑETE, LEANA CARAMOAN, ALDWIN CAMANCE, RENE DELORINO,
PAULYN MAY DUMAN, RODRIGO FAJARDO III, ANNAMARIE GO, ANNA ARMINDA JIMENEZ, MARY ANN
LEE,LUISA MANALAYSAY, MIGUEL MUSNGI, MICHAEL OCAMPO, NORMAN ROLAND OCANA III, WILLIAM
RAGAMAT, MARICAR RAMOS, CHERRY LOU REYES, MELISSA ANN SICAT, CRISTINE MAE TABING,
VANESSA TORNO, and HON. JUDGE ELEUTERIO L. BATHAN, as Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court,
Quezon City, Branch 92, Respondents.

RESOLUTION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Assailed in this petition for certiorari are the April 23, 2012and July 31,
2012 Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 92(RTC)
in Special Civil Action (SCA) No. Q-07-60778, denying petitioners’
motion to dismiss (subject motion to dismiss) based on the following
grounds:
(a) that the Court had yet to pass upon the constitutionality of Republic
Act No. (RA) 9372,4 otherwise known as the "Human Security Act of
2007," in the consolidated cases of Southern Hemisphere Engagement
Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council5 (Southern Hemisphere); and
(b) that private respondents’ petition for declaratory relief was proper.

Declaratory relief is essentially a remedy for

a determination of a justiciable controversy.
This occurs when the plaintiff is in doubt
regarding their legal rights.

The Facts
On July 17, 2007, private respondents filed a Petition for declaratory
relief before the RTC, assailing the constitutionality of the following
sections of RA 9372 Act No. (RA) 9372,4 otherwise known as the
"Human Security Act of 2007,"
What is RA 9372 all about?
R.A 9372, was a Philippine law that took effect on July 20, 2007. ... The
law defines terrorism a crime of "caus[ing] widespread and
extraordinary fear and panic among the populace" and allows
authorities to arrest terror suspects without warrants and temporarily
detain them without charges for a maximum of three days.
: (a) Section 3, for being void for vagueness;
(b) Section 7,for violating the right to privacy of communication and
due process and the privileged nature of priest-penitent relationships;
(c)Section 18,for violating due process, the prohibition against ex post
facto laws or bills of attainder, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as
well as for contradicting Article 12512 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended;
(d) Section 26, for violating the right to travel; and
(e) Section 27,16 for violating the prohibition against unreasonable
searches and seizures.17

Petitioners moved to suspend the proceedings, averring that certain

petitions (SC petitions) raising the issue of RA 9372’s constitutionality
have been lodged before the Court. The said motion was granted in an
Order dated October 19, 2007.

On October 5, 2010, the Court promulgated its Decision in the Southern

Hemisphere cases and thereby dismissed the SC petitions.

On February 27, 2012, petitioners filed the subject motion to

dismiss,contending that private respondents failed to satisfy the
requisites for declaratory relief. Likewise, they averred that the
constitutionality of RA 9372 had already been upheld by the Court in
the Southern Hemisphere cases.

In their Comment/Opposition,23 private respondents countered that:

(a) the Court did not resolve the issue of RA 9372’s constitutionality in
Southern Hemisphere as the SC petitions were dismissed based purely
on technical grounds; and (b) the requisites for declaratory relief were
met.

The RTC Ruling

On April 23, 2012, the RTC issued an Order24 which denied the subject
motion to dismiss, finding that the Court did not pass upon the
constitutionality of RA 9372 and that private respondents’ petition for
declaratory relief was properly filed.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration which was, however, denied by
the RTC in an Order dated July 31, 2012.
The RTC observed that private respondents have personal and
substantial interests in the case and that it would be illogical to await
the adverse consequences of the aforesaid law’s implementation
considering that the case is of paramount impact to the Filipino people.

Hence, the instant petition.

The Issues Before the Court

The present controversy revolves around the issue of whether or not
the RTC gravely abused its discretion when it denied the subject motion
to dismiss.

Asserting the affirmative, petitioners argue that private respondents failed to satisfy the requirements
for declaratory relief and that the Court had already sustained with finality the constitutionality of RA
9372.

Whether or not the requirements for declaratory relief have

been satisfied.

Case law states that the following are

the requisites for an action for declaratory relief:

first , the subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract or other
written instrument, statute, executive order or regulation, or ordinance;
second , the terms of said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful and
require judicial construction;
third , there must have been no breach of the documents in question;
fourth , there must be an actual justiciable controversy or the "ripening seeds" of
one between persons whose interests are adverse;
fifth , the issue must be ripe for judicial determination; and
sixth , adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of
action or proceeding.

Based on a judicious review of the records, the Court observes that while the first,
second, and third requirements appear to exist in this case, the fourth, fifth, and
sixth requirements, however, remain wanting.
As to the fourth requisite, there is serious doubt that an actual justiciable
controversy or the "ripening seeds" of one exists in this case.

Pertinently, a justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or controversy that

is appropriate or ripe for judicial determination, not one that is conjectural or
merely anticipatory. Corollary thereto, by "ripening seeds" it is meant, not that
sufficient accrued facts may be dispensed with, but that a dispute may be tried at
its inception before it has accumulated the asperity, distemper, animosity,
passion, and violence of a full blown battle that looms ahead. The concept
describes a state of facts indicating imminent and inevitable litigation provided
that the issue is not settled and stabilized by tranquilizing declaration.

A perusal of private respondents’ petition for declaratory relief would show that
they have failed to demonstrate how they are left to sustain or are in immediate
danger to sustain some direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the assailed
provisions of RA 9372. Not far removed from the factual milieu in the Southern
Hemisphere cases, private respondents only assert general interests as citizens,
and taxpayers and infractions which the government could prospectively commit
if the enforcement of the said law would remain untrammeled. As their petition
would disclose, private respondents’ fear of prosecution was solely based on
remarks of certain government officials which were addressed to the general
public. They, however, failed to show how these remarks tended towards any
prosecutorial or governmental action geared towards the implementation of RA
9372 against them. In other words, there was no particular, real or imminent
threat to any of them. As held in Southern Hemisphere:

Without any justiciable controversy, the petitions have become pleas for
declaratory relief, over which the Court has no original jurisdiction. Then again,
declaratory actions characterized by "double contingency," where both the
activity the petitioners intend to undertake and the anticipated reaction to it of a
public official are merely theorized, lie beyond judicial review for lack of
ripeness.1âwphi1

The possibility of abuse in the implementation of RA 9372 does not avail to take
the present petitions out of the realm of the surreal and merely imagined. Such
possibility is not peculiar to RA 9372 since the exercise of any power granted by
law may be abused. Allegations of abuse must be anchored on real events before
courts may step in to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable.

Thus, in the same light that the Court dismissed the SC petitions in the Southern
Hemisphere cases on the basis of, among others, lack of actual justiciable
controversy (or the ripening seeds of one), the RTC should have dismissed private
respondents’ petition for declaratory relief all the same.

It is well to note that private respondents also lack the required locus standi( right
to bring an action) to mount their constitutional challenge against the
implementation of the above-stated provisions of RA 9372 since they have not
shown any direct and personal interest in the case. While it has been previously
held that transcendental public importance dispenses with the requirement that
the petitioner has experienced or is in actual danger of suffering direct and
personal injury, it must be stressed that cases involving the constitutionality of
penal legislation belong to an altogether different genus of constitutional
litigation.Towards this end, compelling State and societal interests in the
proscription of harmful conduct necessitate a closer judicial scrutiny of locus
standi,as in this case. To rule otherwise, would be to corrupt the settled doctrine
of locus standi, as every worthy cause is an interest shared by the general
public.46

As to the fifth requisite for an action for declaratory relief, neither can it be
inferred that the controversy at hand is ripe for adjudication since the possibility
of abuse, based on the above-discussed allegations in private respondents’
petition, remain highly-speculative and merely theorized.1âwphi1 It is well-settled
that a question is ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged has had a
direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it.47 This private respondents
failed to demonstrate in the case at bar.

Finally, as regards the sixth requisite, the Court finds it irrelevant to proceed with
a discussion on the availability of adequate reliefs since no impending threat or
injury to the private respondents exists in the first place.

All told, in view of the absence of the fourth and fifth requisites for an action for
declaratory relief, as well as the irrelevance of the sixth requisite, private
respondents’ petition for declaratory relief should have been dismissed. Thus, by
giving due course to the same, it cannot be gainsaid that the RTC gravely abused
its discretion.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the April23, 2012 and July 31,
2012 Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 92 in SCA No. Q-
07-60778 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the petition for declaratory relief
before the said court is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Declaratory relief is essentially a remedy for a determination of a justiciable

controversy. This occurs when the plaintiff is in doubt regarding their legal rights.
What is RA 9372 all about?
9372, was a Philippine law that took effect on July 20, 2007. ... The law defines
terrorism a crime of "caus[ing] widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the
populace" and allows authorities to arrest terror suspects without warrants and
temporarily detain them without charges for a maximum of three days.