Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 146528. February 6, 2001.]

JAIME N. SORIANO, PHILIP EMMANUEL C. PENAFLOR, CESAR B. CHAEZ, SAL G. DUMABOK, SAMUEL JULIUS B. GARCIA, SANDRA P. TORRESYAP, CHERRIE B. BEL MONTE, MARIO S. ARAOS, RODYLYN TINGZON-MANZANO, FIDELINO A. AUSTRIA, ANGELITO M. VILLANUEVA, ISABELO M. BANEZ III, PAUL Y. CHUA and CESAR C. VILLARIBA all officers and members of the Movement for National Security Advancement (MNSA), v. JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA.

[G.R. No. 146549. February 6, 2001.]

IN THE MATTER OF THE DECLARATION OF HER EXCELLENCY, GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO AS THE CONSTITUTIONALLY INSTITUTED 14TH PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES; EDUARDO B. INLAYO, Petitioner.

[G.R. No. 146579. February 6, 2001.]

In re: Concerned Citizens for Effective and Responsible Government, Inc., SULONGBAYAN MOVEMENT FOUNDATION, INC. INSTITUTE OF CONTINUING LEGAL STUDIES AND EDUCATION, INC., ELISEO P. OCAMPO, EDITHA A. SANTOS, and ARMANDO A. RICARTE, JR, Petitioners.

[G.R. No. 146631. February 6, 2001.]

OLIVER O. LOZANO v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

R E S O L U T I O N


Before us are four Petitions pertaining to the oath-taking of Her Excellency, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the Philippines. Because they involve the same subject matter, they are hereby consolidated.

In GR No. 146528, the Petition asks the Court to enjoin Joseph Ejercito Estrada "from exercising the powers and authority of the President under the Constitution" and "to yield the Presidency to his constitutional successor, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo." chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

In GR No. 146549, petitioner prays that the Court declare that "the occupation of the Office of [the President] of the Philippines by Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is constitutional and legal with the full support of the Filipino people and other foreign countries.’

In GR No. 146579, the Petition asks the Court to issue a "definitive ruling on whether or not Joseph Estrada is still the President" and, hence. "exempt from all criminal suits." chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

In GR No. 146631, the Petition prays "that the proclamation and oath-taking of Madame Arroyo . . . be declared null and void . . ." or that she be "declared acting President and President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President-on-leave . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

All four Petitions are plainly without merit.

First, the four Petitions are essentially for declaratory relief, over which the Supreme Court has no original jurisdiction. 1 Under Section 19 of Batas Pambansa 129, this special civil action falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts and is not within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme court. 2

Although the Petition in GR No.146528 labels itself as a "Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus," it fails to allege, much less show, lack or excess of jurisdiction, or grave abuse of jurisdiction on the part of "any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions," which Rule 65 of the Rules of Court requires to be alleged and proven before the extra-ordinary writ of prohibition may be issued. Neither have petitioners sufficiently alleged, much less shown, that respondent or anyone else "unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty," to entitle them to the writ of mandamus. In any case, petitioners themselves admit that their plea is really one for declaratory relief, (par. 6.1. of Petition) and that they "fully understand the well-settled doctrine that this Honorable Court is bereft of jurisdiction to entertain cases for declaratory relief."cralaw virtua1aw library

Second, petitioners have no legal standing to file the suits. They have now shown any direct and personal injury as a result of President Arroyo’s oath-taking. 3 Specifically, Petitioner Lozano’s alleged interest as a taxpayer is far too detached from the ultimate objective of his Petition: nullify the oath-taking of Arroyo and declare Estrada as "President-on-leave." The other petitioners have not even alleged, not to say shown, any prima facie legal interest to qualify them as proper parties. Kibitzers, however well-meaning, have no locus standi.

Third, none of the Petitions can be treated as actions for quo warranto. Under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, a plea for quo warranto must be commenced (1) by the solicitor general, (2) by a public prosecutor, and (3) by "a person claiming to be entitled to a public office or position usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another." None of the petitioners qualify in law to commence the action. Their Petitions do not even remotely allege that they are.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

At bottom, the Court stands by its Resolution in AM No. 01-1-05 SC, promulgated on 22 January 2001, which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"A.M. No. 01-1-05-SC.-In re: Request of Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to take her Oath of Office as President of the Republic of the Philippines before the Chief Justice.-Acting on the urgent request of Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to be sworn in as President of the Republic of the Philippines, addressed to the Chief Justice and confirmed by a letter to the Court, dated January 20, 2001, which request was treated as an administrative matter, the Court resolved unanimously to CONFIRM the authority given by the twelve (12) members of the Court then present to the Chief Justice on January 20, 2001 to administer the Oath of Office to Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the Philippines, at noon of January 20, 2001.

"This Resolution is without prejudice to the disposition of any justiciable case which be filed by a proper party."cralaw virtua1aw library

Clearly, the herein Petitions have miserably failed to present justiciable controversies brought by the proper parties to deserve further considerations by this Court.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

WHEREFORE, the Petitions are DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.

Endnotes:



1. Sundiang v. Estrada and the Philippine Senate, GR No. 146131, January 16, 2001; Remotigue v. Osmeña, 21 SCRA 837, November 10, 1967; Rural Bank of Olongapo v. Commissioner of Land Registration, 102 SCRA 794, February 20, 1981.

2. Alliance of Government Workers v. Minister of Labor and Employment, 124 SCRA 1, August 3, 1983.

3. See Kilosbayan v. Morato, 246 SCRA 540, 562-563, July 17, 1995; Miranda v. Aguirre, GR No. 133064, September 16, 1999.

Top of Page