Title
Supreme Court
Republic vs. Roque
Case
G.R. No. 204603
Decision Date
Sep 24, 2013
Petitioners challenged RA 9372's constitutionality; SC dismissed due to lack of justiciable controversy, locus standi, and ripeness for adjudication.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 203478)

RTC’s Denial of Dismissal and Reconsideration

On April 23 and July 31, 2012, the RTC denied petitioners’ motion to dismiss and the subsequent motion for reconsideration. The trial court concluded that the Supreme Court had not definitively ruled on RA 9372’s constitutionality in Southern Hemisphere, and that respondents’ petition met declaratory relief requirements given their personal and substantial interests and the law’s paramount impact.

Issue on Grave Abuse of Discretion

The Supreme Court framed the central question: whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. Errors of law or fact do not per se constitute grave abuse; the discretion must be patently or grossly abused.

Constitutionality Determination in Southern Hemisphere Cases

The Court observed that Southern Hemisphere did not address RA 9372’s merits. The consolidated certiorari petitions were dismissed on procedural grounds—improper remedy (certiorari), lack of locus standi, and absence of an actual case or controversy. Thus, the Supreme Court had not yet passed upon RA 9372’s constitutionality.

Requisites for Declaratory Relief

Under Rule 57, the requisites for declaratory relief are:

  1. The subject is a written instrument, statute, or regulation;
  2. Its terms or validity are doubtful and require judicial construction;
  3. No breach of the subject document;
  4. An actual justiciable controversy or “ripening seeds” of one between adverse interests;
  5. The issue is ripe for judicial determination;
  6. No adequate relief is available by other means.

Analysis of Requisites Four and Five

The Court found that while the first three requisites were present, respondents failed to establish the fourth and fifth:
• Fourth Requisite (Justiciable Controversy): Respondents articulated only speculative, generalized fears based on public remarks, without any specific threat or impending enforcement against them. Absent a real or imminent injury, no justiciable controversy or “ripening seed” existed.
• Fifth Requisite (Ripeness): The possibility of future abuse remained conjectural. A controversy is ripe only when a challenged act has directly and adversely affected the challenger; here, responde

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.