Case Digest (G.R. No. L-33517)
Facts:
Philippine Constitution Association, et al. v. Hon. Cornelio T. Villareal, G.R. No. L-33517, March 29, 1974, Supreme Court Second Division, Fernando, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Philippine Constitution Association, joined by delegates Salvador Araneta, Juan V. Borra, Jose Nuguid, Jose Nolledo, and Ramon A. Gonzales, all delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention and suing in their capacities as such and as citizens and taxpayers, filed a petition for mandamus on May 15, 1971. They sought an order compelling respondents — Hon. Cornelio T. Villareal in his capacity as Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Accountant of the House, and the Auditor of the House — to permit inspection and examination of the House’s books, records, vouchers and supporting papers relating to (a) an alleged transfer of P26.2 million from various executive offices to the House and (b) the original outlay of P39 million appropriated for the 1969–1970 fiscal year.
On May 19, 1971 the Court required respondents to answer within ten days and restrained them from moving to dismiss. Respondents filed an answer and a motion to dismiss on June 16, 1971, arguing lack of jurisdiction under separation of powers, absence of cause of action, lack of legal personality, non-joinder of indispensable parties, and possible mischievous consequences. Petitioners replied and respondents filed rejoinder and surrejoinder; the pleadings culminated in a hearing on August 4, 1971.
The Supreme Court did not decide the substantive issues. Instead, relying on its ruling in Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. v. Gimenez, G.R. No. L-21786 (promulgated February 28, 1974), the Court concluded the petition had become moot and academic because of the effectivity of the present Cons...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the petition for mandamus to compel inspection of the House of Representatives' books and records justiciable, or has it become moot and academic due to intervening constitutional change?
- If justiciable, are petitioners entitled to the writ of mandamus compelling respondents to permit inspection and examination of the H...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)