Moot and Academic

Does the lifting of Proclamation No. 1959 render the petitions of Jovito Salonga et. al. challenging the legality of Proclamation No. 1959 which imposed martial law in Maguindanao moot and academic?

A case is considered moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by reason of supervening events. In the case of the present petitions, the supervening event is the lifting of Proclamation No. 1959 on 12 December 2009.

As a general rule, such petitions may be dismissed on ground of mootness. However, this general rule admits of exceptions, namely :

1) there is a grave violation of the Constitution.

2) the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved.

3) when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public.

4) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.

I submit that the above exceptions are present and therefore the Supreme Court is bound to resolve the petitions filed by Salonga and other personalities.

Cory On My Mind

In 1985 the reluctant Cory was convinced to run for president to unify the fragmented opposition. If she did not run for president, Marcos could have handily crushed the divided opposition in the 1986 snap presidential election namely Salvador Laurel (UNIDO), Aquilino Pimentel (PDP-Laban), Jovito Salonga (LP-Salonga Wing) and Eva Estrada Kalaw ( LP-Kalaw Wing) who were all hell-bent to run for president.


04 Feb 1986. Huge crowd of Cory Aquino supporters at the election campaign rally in Luneta Park.


The key to the EDSA revolution was the voice of Cory. If she did not run for president there would perhaps have been no EDSA. We would probably not have the freedom we are enjoying today.



We owe our democracy to Cory. At 76, Cory remains a moral and political force. A recent Pulse Asia survey revealed that Cory rated highest with a trust rating of 41% beating Erap, FVR and GMA. The Time magazine put her again in its cover in its 2006 anniversary issue as the leading hero of Asia’s 60-year history beating Gandhi, Aung San Suu Kyi, MacArthur, Dalai Lama, Mother Teresa and many more heroes of our time. She was also honored by prestigious foreign award-giving institutions for her continuing efforts to empower poor communities in the socio-economic sphere in collaboration with various sectors of society.




Let us pray and light a candle of faith for Cory’s recovery from colon cancer.

Can GMA Run For Congresswoman?

There is an ongoing debate as to whether President Gloria Arroyo would be considered as having forfeited her position should she run for congresswoman in Pampanga. Let me submit what I understood about this issue.

Before the passage of Fair Election Act (Republic Act No. 9006), any elective official including a President is deemed resigned from his office upon filing of his certificate of candidacy. The Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881, Sec. 67) provides :

Sec. 67. Candidates holding elective office. - Any elective official, whether national or local, running for any office other than the one which he is holding in a permanent capacity, except for President and Vice-President, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.

In the landmark case of Dimaporo vs. Mitra (G.R. No. 96859, 15 October 1991), the Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of Speaker Mitras’ administrative act of erasing Ali Dimaporo name from the Roll of the House, pursuant to Sec. 67 of B.P. 881. The High Tribunal underscored the basic concept that a public office is a public trust - it is created for the interest and benefit of the people. As such, the holder thereof is subject to such regulations and conditions as the law may impose and he cannot complain of any restrictions which public policy may dictate on his office.

However, Sec. 67 of B.P. 881, was repealed by Sec. 14 of R.A. 9006 in 2001. The repealing clause provides :

Section 14. Repealing Clause. – Section 67 and 85 of the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Bldg. 881) and Sections 10 and 11 of Republic Act No. 6646 are hereby repealed. As a consequence, the first proviso in the third paragraph of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 8436 is rendered ineffective. All laws, presidential decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations, or any part thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified or amended accordingly.

R.A. 9006 was declared constitutional by no less than the Supreme Court in Farinas vs. Comelec (G.R. No. 152161, 10 December 2003). The SC said that Congress is not precluded from repealing Section 67 by the ruling of the Court in Dimaporo v. Mitra, upholding the validity of the provision and by its pronouncement in the same case that the provision has a laudable purpose. Over time, Congress may find it imperative to repeal the law on its belief that the election process is thereby enhanced and the paramount objective of election laws — the fair, honest and orderly election of truly deserving members of Congress — is achieved.

Incidentally, Justice Cruz, argued that the repeal of Sec. 67 of B.P. 881 by Sec. 14 of R.A. 9006 is not valid for being a mere rider in violation of Art. VI, Sec. 26 (1) of the Constitution providing that “every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.” The Fair Election Act deals only with political advertising, like TV commercials and election posters. It has nothing to do with forfeiture of original offices upon the filing of certificates of candidacy for different offices as provided for in Sec. 67.
In conclusion, based on the R.A. 9006 and Farinas ruling, GMA would not be deemed as having forfeited her position should she files her certificate of candidacy for congresswoman or any other positions lower than the Presidency for that matter.

It is however my fervent hope that someone has to challenge anew the constitutionality of Sec. 14 of Fair Election Act in the event GMA files her certificate of candidacy.

Bill of Attainder?

Last week, the Provincial Board (PB) of Pampanga passed a resolution declaring running priest Fr. Robert Reyes as a “persona non grata” or an undesirable person. The PB’s action stemmed from the lambasting it received from Fr. Reyes for the former’s continuing opposition to Gov. Ed Panlilio’s governance.

A prominent lawyer-journalist in Pampanga described the resolution as a bill of attainder saying that such resolution has all the earmarks of a bill of attainder which are, (1) the unwanted characterization is a form of punishment; (2) The PB resolution was a legislative act; and (3) Fr. Reyes was neither invited nor given the opportunity to explain himself before the PB prior to making its “persona non grata” resolution.

I disagree.

One of the constitutive elements of a bill of attainder is that there must be a law enacted by a legislative body. Settled is the rule that a municipal resolution does not partake of the nature of a law. Said the Supreme Court in Municipality of Paranaque vs. VM Realty Corp., G.R. No. 127820, 20 July 1998)

We are not convinced by petitioner's insistence that the terms "resolution" and "ordinance" are synonymous. A municipal ordinance is different from a resolution. An ordinance is a law, but a resolution is merely a declaration of the sentiment or opinion of a lawmaking body on a specific matter. An ordinance possesses a general and permanent character, but a resolution is temporary in nature. Additionally, the two are enacted differently - a third reading is necessary for an ordinance, but not for a resolution, unless decided otherwise by a majority of all the Sanggunian members.

Absent the most essential element of a bill of attainder (i.e., there must be a law enacted by a legislative body), I submit the view the PB’s resolution on Fr. Reyes does not amount to a bill of attainder.