Biraogo v. Del Rosario

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 206323. April 11, 2013.]

LOUIS "BAROK" C. BIRAOGO, ON HIS BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER CITIZENS OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SIMILARLY SITUATED, petitioner, vs. HON. ALBERTO F. DEL ROSARIO, SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated APRIL 11, 2013, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 206323 (Louis "Barok" C. Biraogo, on his behalf and on behalf of other citizens of the Republic of the Philippines similarly situated, petitioner, v. Hon. Alberto F. Del Rosario, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, respondent.)

RESOLUTION

This is a petition for Mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to compel herein respondent Alberto F. Del Rosario, as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, to press the Philippine claim to North Borneo (Sabah) before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or such other fora authorized under international law.

We dismiss the petition for lack of merit.

1. Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 3. When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station . . . and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent.

Mandamus is a command issuing from a court of law of competent jurisdiction in the name of the state or the sovereign, directed to some inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to some corporation or person requiring the performance of a particular duty therein specified, which duty results from the official station of the party to whom the writ is directed or from operation of law. The writ of mandamus, however, will not issue to compel an official to do anything which is not his duty to do or which it is his duty not to do. Nor will mandamus issue to enforce a right which is in substantial dispute. 1 aDECHI

Before mandamus is issued, the following requisites should be satisfied: (1) petitioner must show a clear legal right to the act demanded; (2) respondent must have the duty to perform the act because the same is mandated by law; (3) respondent unlawfully neglects the performance of the duty enjoined by law; (4) the act to be performed is ministerial, not discretionary; and (5) there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. These requisites applied, mandamus will not lie in the case at bar.

First, petitioner has not shown a clear legal right to the act demanded. Second, the act which petitioner seeks to be performed by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs is clearly not merely ministerial. What is here involved is a discretionary act on the part of the Executive Department, which act involves the delicate balance of national and international concerns. Third, there is no showing that there is no other remedy in the course of law.

2. The submission to the ICJ of the Philippine claim over Sabah involves the conduct of our foreign relations. This is primarily an executive prerogative, and the courts may not inquire into the wisdom or lack of it in the exercise thereof. This is a principle laid down by the courts since time immemorial. 2

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court Resolves to DISMISS the present petition for lack of merit." (adv115)

Very truly yours,

ENRIQUETA E. VIDALClerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) FELIPA B. ANAMADeputy Clerk of Court En Banc

 

Footnotes

1.Uy Kiao Eng vs. Nixon Lee, G.R. No. 176831, 15 January 2010, 610 SCRA 211, 216-217.

2.Santos vs. Macaraig, G.R. No. 94070, 10 April 1992, 208 SCRA 74, 83, citing the comment of the Solicitor General, in turn citing pertinent jurisprudence.