G.R. No. 160031 December 18, 2008
SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS), petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE D. LINA, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), Lipa City Mayor HON. VILMA SANTOS-RECTO, Pampanga Provincial Governor HON. LITO LAPID, and Parañaque City Mayor HON. JOEY MARQUEZ, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Social Justice Society (SJS), a registered political party, filed a petition for declaratory relief with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. The petition sought the proper construction of Section 90(a) of Republic Act No. 7160 (the Local Government Code), which prohibits governors, city and municipal mayors from practicing their profession or engaging in any occupation other than their functions as local chief executives. Petitioner posited that this provision disallows actors who were elected as such local chief executives from appearing in movies and television programs, as this would give them undue political advantage and reduce the time devoted to their constituents. Petitioner later amended its petition to implead as additional respondents then Lipa City Mayor Vilma Santos-Recto, then Pampanga Provincial Governor Lito Lapid, and then Parañaque City Mayor Joey Marquez. The Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), through the Office of the Solicitor General, moved to dismiss the petition on several grounds, including petitioner’s lack of legal standing, absence of a judicial controversy, and the impropriety of declaratory relief as a remedy. The RTC dismissed the petition for declaratory relief in its June 30, 2003 Order and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in its September 12, 2003 Order. Petitioner then filed the instant petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court erred in dismissing the petition for declaratory relief.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition. While the Court agreed with a liberal attitude on the issue of petitioner’s locus standi (legal standing), it found the dismissal of the petition for declaratory relief to be proper. The Court held that an action for declaratory relief is inappropriate to enforce compliance with Section 90 of R.A. No. 7160 and to prevent the respondent local chief executives from taking roles in movies and television shows. For an action for declaratory relief to prosper, it must be filed by a person interested under a deed, will, contract, or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order, regulation, or ordinance, and must satisfy the requisites of a justiciable controversy between persons with adverse interests, where the party seeking relief has a legal interest and the issue is ripe for judicial determination. The Court found that petitioner failed to allege ultimate facts satisfying these requisites. Furthermore, as admitted by petitioner, the provision sought to be interpreted had already been allegedly breached by the respondents, making declaratory relief unavailable. The petition was therefore denied.