Atty. Evillo PORMENTO v. Joseph ESTRADA and COMELEC (GR the second time.
the second time. Thus, any discussion of his reelection will simply be
191988)
31 AUG 2010 | CORONA, C.J.
Judicial Restraint
FACTS:
Estrada was elected President of the RP in the May 1998 elections
He sought the presidency again in the May 2010 elections
Pormento opposed Estradas candidacy and filed a petition for
disqualification.
o His petition was denied by the COMELEC (Division), as well as
his subsequent Motion for Reconsideration (En Banc)
He filed the present petition for certiorari before the Court; however,
since such filing does not stay the execution of judgment or order of the
COMELEC under the Rules of Court, Estrada was able to participate as
a candidate for President in the May 10, 2010 elections where he
garnered the second highest number of votes
ISSUE:
Whether Joseph Ejercito Estrada is covered by the ban on the President
from any re-election. (Constitution, Article 7, Section 4), NO
HELD: The petition was rendered moot by the failure of Estrada to be
elected as President in the 2010 elections
RULING:
One of the essential requisites for the exercise of the power of judicial
review, the existence of an actual case or controversy, is sorely lacking
in this case.
Since the issue on the proper interpretation of the phrase any reelection
will be premised on a persons second election as President, there is no
case or controversy to be resolved in this case.
There is no definite, concrete, real or substantial controversy that touches
on the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests. No specific
relief may conclusively be decreed upon by this Court in this case that will
benefit any of the parties herein
As a rule, this Court may only adjudicate actual, ongoing controversies.
When a case is moot, it becomes non-justiciable.
Assuming an actual case or controversy existed prior to the proclamation
of a President who has been duly elected in the May 10, 2010 election,
the same is no longer true today. Estada was not elected President for
hypothetical and speculative. It will serve no useful or practical purpose.
DISPOSITION: Petition DISMISSED.
Demetrio Demetria vs Manuel Alba
G.R. No. 71977
February 27, 1987
FERNAN, J.:
Judicial Restraint
FACTS:
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the first paragraph of Sec 44 of PD 1177
(Budget Reform Decree of 1977)as concerned citizens, members of the National
Assembly, parties with general interest common to all people of the Philippines, and
as taxpayerson the primary grounds that Section 44 infringes upon the
fundamental law by authorizing illegal transfer of public moneys, amounting to
undue delegation of legislative powers and allowing the President to override the
safeguards prescribed for approving appropriations.
The Solicitor General, for the public respondents, questioned the legal standing of
the petitioners and held that one branch of the government cannot be enjoined by
another, coordinate branch in its performance of duties within its sphere of
responsibility. It also alleged that the petition has become moot and academic after
the abrogation of Sec 16(5), Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution by the Freedom
Constitution (which was where the provision under consideration was enacted in
pursuant thereof), which states that No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer
of appropriations, however, the Presidentmay by law be authorized to augment
any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings
in other items of their respective appropriations.
ISSUE:
1. W/N PD 1177 is constitutional (NOT THE ISSUE PERO JUST IN CASE)
2. W/N the Supreme Court can act upon the assailed executive act (THIS IS
THE ISSUE)
HELD:
1. No. Sec 44 of PD 1177 unduly overextends the privilege granted under Sec16(5)
by empowering the President to indiscriminately transfer funds from one department
of the Executive Department to any program of any department included in the
General Appropriations Act, without any regard as to whether or not the funds to be
transferred are actually savings in the item. It not only disregards the standards set in
the fundamental law, thereby amounting to an undue delegation of legislative
powers, but likewise goes beyond the tenor thereof.
Par. 1 of Sec. 44 puts all safeguards to forestall abuses in the expenditure of public
funds to naught. Such constitutional infirmities render the provision in question null
and void.

2. Yes. Where the legislature or executive acts beyond the scope of its constitutional
powers, it becomes the duty of the judiciary to declare what the other branches of
the government has assumed to do as void, as part of its constitutionally conferred
judicial power. This is not to say that the judicial power is superior in degree or
dignity. In exercising this high authority, the judges claim no judicial supremacy;
they are only the administrators of the public will.
Petition granted. Par. 1, Sec. 44 OF PD 1177 null and void.