G.R. No. 204603 - Republic vs. Roque

Case Summary (G.R. No. 204603)

Key Dates

Relevant procedural milestones as provided: private respondents filed the petition for declaratory relief on July 17, 2007; the RTC temporarily suspended proceedings by Order dated October 19, 2007; the Supreme Court promulgated its Southern Hemisphere decision on October 5, 2010 dismissing certiorari petitions; petitioners filed the subject motion to dismiss on February 27, 2012; the RTC denied the motion on April 23, 2012 and denied reconsideration on July 31, 2012; the Supreme Court rendered the present resolution on September 24, 2013. The 1987 Constitution governs the legal analysis.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Primary statutory instrument challenged: Republic Act No. 9372, the Human Security Act of 2007, specifically Sections 3, 7, 18, 26 and 27. The constitutional framework applied is the 1987 Constitution, pursuant to the case’s decision date falling after 1990. The petition alleges violations of constitutional rights and principles including void-for-vagueness, privacy of communication, due process, prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, protection against ex post facto laws, and right to travel.

Nature of Private Respondents’ Challenge

Private respondents’ petition for declaratory relief attacks the constitutionality of: Section 3 (definition and scope of “terrorism”), Section 7 (surveillance and interception of communications), Section 18 (period of detention without judicial warrant of arrest and departure from Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code), Section 26 (restriction on travel and conditions of bail), and Section 27 (judicial authorization to examine bank deposits and financial records). The petition alleges specific constitutional infirmities for each section and seeks judicial determination of validity.

Procedural History before the RTC

Upon filing, petitioners moved to suspend proceedings in deference to pending Supreme Court petitions that raised RA 9372’s constitutionality; the RTC granted a suspension order on October 19, 2007. After the Supreme Court’s dismissal of those petitions in Southern Hemisphere (October 5, 2010), petitioners moved to dismiss the declaratory relief action on February 27, 2012 arguing lack of requisites for declaratory relief and that the Court had already upheld RA 9372. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss on April 23, 2012, and denied reconsideration on July 31, 2012, prompting the present certiorari petition.

Southern Hemisphere Decision and Its Effect

The Supreme Court’s decision in the consolidated Southern Hemisphere cases dismissed certiorari petitions on procedural grounds — namely that certiorari was an improper remedy, the petitioners there lacked locus standi, and there was no justiciable case or controversy — and did not render a definitive ruling on the constitutionality of RA 9372. The RTC correctly observed that Southern Hemisphere did not decide RA 9372’s constitutionality on the merits; however, the Supreme Court in the present resolution distinguishes between that finding and the separate legal question whether the RTC correctly found that the petition for declaratory relief satisfied the requisites for such action.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to dismiss the petition for declaratory relief, specifically whether private respondents satisfied the requisites for declaratory relief and possessed the requisite locus standi and ripeness to mount the constitutional challenge to the enumerated sections of RA 9372.

Standard for “Grave Abuse of Discretion”

The Court reiterates settled law that grave abuse of discretion connotes a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse must be patent or gross, amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty. Not every error in ruling or conclusion constitutes grave abuse; the requisite degree of gravity must be present.

Requisites for Declaratory Relief

The Court restates the six traditional requisites for a declaratory relief action: (1) the subject matter must be a written instrument, statute, executive order, regulation or ordinance (i.e., a proper subject matter); (2) the terms and validity thereof must be doubtful and require judicial construction; (3) there must have been no breach of the document in question; (4) there must be an actual justiciable controversy or the “ripening seeds” of one between adverse parties; (5) the issue must be ripe for judicial determination; and (6) adequate relief must not be available through other means.

Application — First Three Requisites Satisfied

On review, the Court finds that the first three requisites are present: (1) the subject matter is a statute (selected sections of RA 9372), (2) private respondents challenge the validity and claim doubts concerning those provisions (void-for-vagueness, due process, privacy, etc.), and (3) there has been no breach of the statute as required by the doctrine governing declaratory relief.

Application — Fourth Requisite: Justiciable Controversy / Ripening Seeds Lacking

The Court holds that private respondents failed to demonstrate an actual justiciable controversy or the ripening seeds of one. The petition lacked allegations showing that respondents were sustaining, or were in immediate danger of sustaining, direct injury from enforcement of RA 9372. The petition relied on generalized fears, asserted interests as citizens and taxpayers, and on public remarks by government officials addressed to the general public. The Court emphasizes that anticipatory or speculative harms, or a “double contingency” where both the petitioner’s intended activity and an official’s anticipated reaction are hypothetical, do not satisfy justiciability or ripeness. Consequently, the fourth requisite is not met.

Application — Fifth Requisite: Lack of Ripeness for Adjudication

Relatedly, the Court finds the controversy not ripe for adjudication. A constitutional question is ripe when the challenged act has produced a direct adverse effect on the challenger. Private respondents failed to show suc

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 204603)

Procedural Posture

Petition for certiorari filed before the Supreme Court assails the April 23, 2012 and July 31, 2012 Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 92 in Special Civil Action No. Q-07-60778.
Subject RTC orders denied petitioners' "Very Urgent Motion to Dismiss" (the subject motion to dismiss) which sought dismissal of private respondents' petition for declaratory relief.
Petitioners are the national government actors named in the caption; private respondents include Herminio Harry Roque, Moro Christian People's Alliance and multiple named individuals, and Hon. Judge Eleuterio L. Bathan as presiding judge of RTC Branch 92.
The subject motion to dismiss asserted (a) that the Supreme Court had already passed upon the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9372 (the Human Security Act of 2007) in the consolidated Southern Hemisphere cases, and (b) that private respondents' petition for declaratory relief was not properly pleaded or lacked requisite elements.
RTC denied the subject motion on April 23, 2012 and denied reconsideration on July 31, 2012; petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by certiorari.

Facts

On July 17, 2007, private respondents filed a Petition for declaratory relief before the RTC challenging the constitutionality of Sections 3, 7, 18, 26, and 27 of RA 9372.
Specific challenges alleged by private respondents:
- Section 3: void for vagueness.
- Section 7: violation of right to privacy of communication, due process, and infringement on privileged priest-penitent communications.
- Section 18: violation of due process, prohibition against ex post facto laws or bills of attainder, alleged conflicts with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and contradiction of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.
- Section 26: violation of the right to travel.
- Section 27: violation of the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Petitioners moved to suspend RTC proceedings (Very Urgent Motion to Suspend Proceedings in Deference to Supreme Court) dated September 3, 2007, because certiorari petitions raising RA 9372's constitutionality were pending before the Supreme Court (the Southern Hemisphere consolidated cases). The RTC granted the suspension by Order dated October 19, 2007.
On October 5, 2010, the Supreme Court promulgated its Decision in the Southern Hemisphere consolidated cases and dismissed the certiorari petitions.
On February 27, 2012, petitioners filed the subject motion to dismiss in the RTC, asserting private respondents failed to meet requisites for declaratory relief and contending the constitutionality of RA 9372 had been upheld by the Supreme Court in Southern Hemisphere.
Private respondents, by Comment/Opposition dated March 23, 2012, argued that (a) the Supreme Court in Southern Hemisphere did not resolve RA 9372's constitutionality because the certiorari petitions were dismissed on technical grounds, and (b) the requisites for declaratory relief were satisfied.
The RTC issued an Order on April 23, 2012 denying the subject motion to dismiss and, on July 31, 2012, denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The RTC emphasized private respondents' personal and substantial interests and the public importance of the issues.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion by denying the subject motion to dismiss.
Subsidiary issues:
- Whether private respondents satisfied the requisites for an action for declaratory relief.
- Whether the Supreme Court, in Southern Hemisphere, had already determined the constitutionality of RA 9372 with finality.

RTC Rulings (Orders under Review)

April 23, 2012 Order: denied petitioners' motion to dismiss; reasoned that the Supreme Court did not pass upon RA 9372's constitutionality in Southern Hemisphere and that private respondents' petition for declaratory relief was properly filed.
July 31, 2012 Order: denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration; reiterated that private respondents had personal and substantial interests and that awaiting enforcement prior to adjudication would be illogical given the law's paramount impact on the Filipino people.
The April 23 and July 31 Orders were penned by Presiding Judge Eleuterio L. Bathan (April 23 Order referenced at rollo pages 31–32; July 31 Order at pages 33–35).

Parties' Contentions

Petitioners:
- Private respondents failed to meet the requisites for declaratory relief.
- The constitutionality of RA 9372 had been sustained by the Supreme Court in Southern Hemisphere; thus the RTC's continuation of proceedings was improper.
Private respondents:
- The Supreme Court did not resolve the constitutional issues in Southern Hemisphere because those certiorari petitions were dismissed on procedural/technical grounds.
- The petition for declaratory relief met all requisites and thus the RTC properly denied the motion to dismiss.

Legal Standards and Authorities Cited by the Court

Standard for grave abuse of discretion: an act is a grave abuse when done in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; it must be patent or gross so as to constitute evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to act. (Yu v. Reyes-Carpio; Chua Huat v. Court of Appeals; Tavera-Luna, Inc. v. Nable)
Requisites for an action for declaratory relief (as stated in Almeda v. Bathala Marketing Industries, Inc.):
1. S