Case Digest (G.R. No. 204603) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Republic of the Philippines v. Roque et al. (G.R. No. 204603, September 24, 2013), the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of Justice, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of National Defense, 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 Chief of the Philippine National Police (collectively “petitioner”), sought certiorari relief against the orders of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 92 (presided by Judge Eleuterio L. Bathan). On July 17, 2007, Herminio Harry Roque, the Moro Christian People’s Alliance, Fr. Joe Dizon, and other private individuals (collectively “private respondents”) filed before Branch 92 a Petition for Declaratory Relief challenging the constitutionality of Sections 3, 7, 18, 26, and Case Digest (G.R. No. 204603) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Private respondents’ petition
- On July 17, 2007, private respondents filed a petition for declaratory relief before RTC Quezon City, Branch 92, assailing the constitutionality of Sections 3, 7, 18, 26, and 27 of RA 9372 (Human Security Act of 2007).
- Grounds included: void for vagueness; violations of privacy, due process, ex post facto, privilege, travel rights, and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
- Procedural history
- RTC granted a very urgent motion to suspend proceedings (Oct. 19, 2007) pending Supreme Court resolution of consolidated certiorari petitions in Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council.
- On October 5, 2010, Supreme Court dismissed those certiorari petitions on procedural grounds.
- Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the declaratory relief petition on February 27, 2012, arguing (a) failure to meet declaratory relief requisites and (b) finality of RA 9372’s constitutionality.
- RTC denied the motion on April 23, 2012, and denied reconsideration on July 31, 2012.
Issues:
- Whether RTC gravely abused its discretion by denying the motion to dismiss.
- Whether private respondents satisfied the requisites for an action for declaratory relief.
- Whether the constitutionality of RA 9372 had already been conclusively upheld by the Supreme Court.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)