Fortuno VS Comelec

[G.R. No. 159493.
January 18, 2005]
FORTUNO vs. COMELEC
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 18 2005.
G.R. No. 159493 (Rodolfo Z. Fortuno vs. Commission on Elections and Jesse M. Robredo.)
Before us is a motion for clarification filed by the petitioner for the purpose of determining the legal effects
of the dismissal of his petition after this Court denied his motion for reconsideration with finality in our
resolution dated October 5, 2004. For his part, the private respondent seeks a reconsideration of our
resolution dated August 10, 2004 where we dismissed the instant petition for being moot and academic.
Invoking the exercise by this Court of its symbolic function, the petitioner requests clarification on the
following points:[1] cralaw
1. Whether he and another party that might be similarly situated can still ask the COMELEC to hear their
respective quo warranto cases, or to file a separate action that will directly attack the citizenship issue
against the private respondent;
2. Since the citizenship issue could not be directly resolved by this Court in the instant petition, as the
resolution of the citizenship issue required both factual and legal proof and support during an actual and
appropriate trial on the merits, petitioner seeks the advice of this Court on the proper and appropriate
remedy so that the quo warranto or another case could be heard initially by an appropriate body before the
appellate jurisdiction of this Court may be invoked;
3. Since the expiration of the term of office under contention, 2001 to 2004, rendered the instant petition
involving the petitioner and the private respondent moot and academic, whether the quo warranto case for
the term 2004 to 2007 has not become moot and academic insofar as the pending EPC Case No. 2004-20
entitled Jojo Villafuerte v. Jesse Robredo is concerned; and
4. Whether the issue of citizenship of the private respondent has become moot and academic and/or
whether the same issue should be addressed in the appropriate forum considering the legal ramifications of
the ruling of this Court in the consolidated cases of Tecson v. COMELEC, Velez v. Poe and Former v.
COMELEC.[2] cralaw
The motion for clarification by the petitioner is actually a solicitation of an advisory opinion from this Court.
However, judicial power does not extend to the issuance of advisory opinions. [3] This Court does not give
cralaw
advisory opinions even to public agencies and officials, let alone private parties. This Court is not supposed
to advise the parties on the state and meaning of the laws, this being the task of their respective counsels.
[4] cralaw
In support of his motion, the petitioner refers to the implication of the dismissal of the petition to "another
party" that might be similarly situated, or to "another separate action" or "another case" that "could be
heard initially by an appropriate body." [5] Petitioner also alludes to the interest of Jojo Villafuerte in EPC
cralaw
Case No. 2004-20, a petition for quo warranto, entitled Jojo Villafuerte v. Jesse Robredo now pending before
the COMELEC that may be affected by the dismissal of the instant petition.
Whatever consequence the dismissal of the instant petition may have on another action or case that may be
filed by any interested party against private respondent in the future is merely speculative and conjectural.
In effect, the petitioner is posing a hypothetical problem for the resolution of this Court. We cannot oblige
petitioner because courts have no authority to pass upon issues through advisory opinions or to resolve
hypothetical or feigned problems.[6] cralaw
With regard to the interest of Jojo Villafuerte in EPC Case No. 2004-20, suffice it to say that the dismissal of
the instant petition is without prejudice to the said case. Unlike the petitioner's quo warranto case which was
dismissed by the COMELEC in the resolution being assailed in the instant petition, EPC Case No. 2004-20
cannot be mooted by the election of a new mayor for the 2004 to 2007 term. In fact, the election of the
private respondent as the new mayor for the 2004 to 2007 term, which mooted the instant petition,
constituted as the fulfillment of the condition precedent for the filing of EPC Case No. 2004-20.
We will touch on the fourth point raised by the petitioner, but only to address the private respondent's
prayer in his motion for reconsideration for this Court to affirm and/or declare that he is a Filipino citizen.
As the private respondent himself admits in his motion, the question of private respondent's Filipino
citizenship can never be considered moot and academic, unless this Court renders a decision thereon in the
proper proceeding. The rule is that res judicata does not apply in cases dealing with the issue of citizenship.
Every time the citizenship of a person is material or indispensable in a judicial or administrative case,
whatever the corresponding court or administrative authority decides therein as to such citizenship is
generally not considered as res adjudicata, hence it has to be threshed out again and again as the occasion
may demand.[7] cralaw
As an exception to this rule, however, the doctrine of res judicata may be applied in cases of citizenship
where the following requisites concur:
1. A person's citizenship is raised as a material issue in a controversy where he is a party;
2. The Solicitor General or his authorized representative took active part in the resolution of the issue of
citizenship; and
3. The finding on citizenship is affirmed by this Court. [8] cralaw
Although the question on the private respondent's citizenship was the crux of EPC Case No. 2001-2 filed by
the petitioner against the private respondent before the COMELEC and subject of the resolution being
assailed in the instant petition, the citizenship of the private respondent is not a material issue in this case.
Thus, the participation of the Solicitor General in the instant petition is of no moment. There has been no
case or controversy involving the resolution of the issue of citizenship of the private respondent where the
Solicitor General or his authorized representative has taken an active part.
Since the first two requisites are wanting, this Court cannot affirm any alleged finding on the Filipino
citizenship of the private respondent.
This Court cannot make a declaration on the citizenship of the private respondent. Courts of justice exist for
the settlement of justiciable controversies, which imply a given right, legally demandable and enforceable,
an act or omission violative of said right, and a remedy, granted or sanctioned by law, for said breach of
right. As an incident only of an adjudication of the rights of the parties to a controversy, the court may pass
upon and make a pronouncement relative to their status. Otherwise, such a pronouncement is beyond
judicial power.[9] cralaw
WHEREFORE, the motion for clarification of the petitioner is hereby DENIED and the motion for
reconsideration of the private respondent is likewise DENIED with FINALITY, without prejudice, however, to
EPC Case No. 2004-20 now pending with the COMELEC.
No further pleadings will be entertained.
Let entry of judgment be entered in due course.

Fortuno VS Comelec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fortuno VS Comelec

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fortuno VS Comelec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[G.R. No. 159493.

January 18, 2005]

1. A person's citizenship is raised as a material issue in a controversy where he is a party;

3. The finding on citizenship is affirmed by this Court. [8] cralaw

No further pleadings will be entertained.

Let entry of judgment be entered in due course.

You might also like