EN BANC
[G.R. No. 199509. September 11, 2012.]
DANILO A. LIHAYLIHAY, petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPEAKER FELICIANO BELMONTE, et al., respondents.
[G.R. No. 199517. September 11, 2012.]
VLADIMIR ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO, petitioner, v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES and SENATE, respondents.
[G.R. No. 199535. September 11, 2012.]
ATTY. VICENTE D. MILLORA, petitioner,v. THE HON. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPEAKER FELICIANO BELMONTE, et al., respondents.
[G.R. No. 199569. September 11, 2012.]
ATTY. OLIVER O. LOZANO of the Lawyers' League for a Better Philippines [LLBP] and REV. BERNARDO MAGNO of the John 3:16 MINISTRY INTERNATIONAL, petitioners, v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, TUPAS, NIEL, JR., UMALI, REYNALDO, et al., respondents.
[G.R. No. 199694. September 11, 2012.]
CITIZENS HOMOBONO A. ADAZA and ALAN PAGUIA, petitioners, v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES, rep. by HOUSE SPEAKER FELICIANO BELMONTE, et al., respondents.
[G.R. No. 199924. September 11, 2012.]
HERMAN T. LAUREL, RODOLFO S. SALANDANAN, et al., petitioners, v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, OFFICE OF THE SENATE SECRETARY and HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated SEPTEMBER 11, 2012, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 199509 (DANILO A. LIHAYLIHAY v. THE HONORABLE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPEAKER FELICIANO BELMONTE, et al.); G.R. No. 199517 (VLADIMIR ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES and SENATE); G.R. No. 199535 (ATTY. VICENTE D. MILLORA v. THE HON. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPEAKER FELICIANO BELMONTE, et al.); G.R. No. 199569 (ATTY. OLIVER O. LOZANO of the Lawyers' League for a Better Philippines [LLBP] and REV. BERNARDO MAGNO of the John 3:16 MINISTRY INTERNATIONAL v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, TUPAS, NIEL, JR., UMALI, REYNALDO, et al.); G.R. No. 199694 (CITIZENS HOMOBONO A. ADAZA and ALAN PAGUIA v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES, rep. by HOUSE SPEAKER FELICIANO BELMONTE, et al.); and G.R. No. 199924 (HERMAN T. LAUREL, RODOLFO S. SALANDANAN, et al. v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, OFFICE OF THE SENATE SECRETARY and HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES)
RESOLUTION
G.R. No. 199509 is a petition for certiorari and prohibition, with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) or writ of preliminary injunction, filed by Danilo A. Lihaylihay against the House of Representatives, Speaker Feliciano Belmonte (Speaker Belmonte), Committee of Justice Chairman Niel Tupas, Jr. (Rep. Tupas), and the Senate of the Philippines. Lihaylihay seeks the declaration of the Articles of Impeachment against then Chief Justice Renato C. Corona (Chief Justice Corona) as null and void and asks this Court to enjoin the Senate from proceeding with the impeachment trial.
G.R. No. 199517 is a petition for certiorari, with prayer for the issuance of a TRO and/or preliminary prohibitory injunction filed by Vladimir Alarique T. Cabigao against the House of Representatives and the Senate of the Philippines. The petition seeks to declare as unconstitutional the process by which the signatures to the verified complaint for impeachment was obtained.
G.R. No. 199535 is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction filed by Atty. Vicente D. Millora against the House of Representatives, Speaker Belmonte, Rep. Tupas, the 188 members of the House of Representatives who signed the Articles of Impeachment, and the Senate of the Philippines. Millora asks this Court to declare the Articles of Impeachment null and void on the ground that the House of Representatives acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in filing the impeachment complaint against then Chief Justice Corona. CDHAcI
G.R. No. 199569 is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with injunction, TRO or status quo ante order filed by Atty. Oliver O. Lozano of Lawyers' League for a Better Philippines (LLBP) and Rev. Bernardo Magno of the John 3:16 Ministry International against the Senate of the Philippines and the 188 members of the House of Representatives who signed the Articles of Impeachment. The petition seeks to declare void the impeachment complaint against then Chief Justice Corona and to prohibit the Senate from proceeding with the impeachment trial.
G.R. No. 199694 is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for TRO and writ of preliminary injunction filed by Homobono Adaza and Alan Paguia against the House of Representatives represented by Speaker Belmonte and the Senate of the Philippines represented by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile. The petition seeks the declaration of the impeachment complaint and the Articles of Impeachment as unconstitutional.
In G.R. No. 199924, filed against the Senate of the Philippines, Office of the Senate Secretary and the House of Representatives, petitioners Herman T. Laurel, Rodolfo S. Salandanan and Rufino U. Martinez seek the declaration of nullity of the verified complaint for impeachment/articles of impeachment against then Chief Justice Corona.
The petitions were consolidated in the Court Resolutions of 17 and 31 January 2012.
In G.R. No. 200242 (Chief Justice Renato C. Corona v. Senate of the Philippines sitting as an Impeachment Court, et al.) promulgated on 17 July 2012, this Court ruled:
In the meantime, the impeachment trial had been concluded with the conviction of petitioner by more than the required majority vote of the Senator-Judges. Petitioner immediately accepted the verdict and without any protest vacated his office. In fact, the Judicial and Bar Council is already in the process of screening applicants and nominees, and the President of the Philippines is expected to appoint a new Chief Justice within the prescribed 90-day period from among those candidates shortlisted by the JBC. Unarguably, the constitutional issue raised by petitioner had been mooted by supervening events and his own acts.
An issue or a case becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy so that a determination thereof would be without practical use and value. In such cases, there is no actual substantial relief to which the petitioner would be entitled to and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. 1
Indeed, the recent turn of events, including the appointment of a new Chief Justice, has rendered the petitions before us moot.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the consolidated petitions on the ground of mootness." Velasco, Jr. and Del Castillo, JJ., no part. (adv78) cHAIES
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDALClerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Citing Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Pascua, 456 Phil. 425, 436 (2003) and Vda. de Dabao v. Court of Appeals, 469 Phil. 928, 937 (2004).