G.R. No. 204603, September 24, 2013
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, et al., Petitioners, vs. HERMINIO HARRY ROQUE, et al., and HON. JUDGE ELEUTERIO L. BATHAN, as Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 92, Respondents.

FACTS

On July 17, 2007, private respondents (Herminio Harry Roque, et al.) filed a Petition for declaratory relief before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 92, assailing the constitutionality of various sections of Republic Act No. 9372, the “Human Security Act of 2007.” The petitioners (Republic of the Philippines, et al.) moved to suspend the proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of petitions challenging the same law. The RTC granted the suspension. On October 5, 2010, the Supreme Court promulgated its Decision in the consolidated cases of Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council, dismissing those petitions on procedural grounds. Subsequently, on February 27, 2012, the petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the RTC case, contending that private respondents failed to satisfy the requisites for declaratory relief and that the constitutionality of RA 9372 had already been upheld. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss in its April 23, 2012 Order, finding that the Supreme Court did not pass upon the constitutionality of RA 9372 and that the petition for declaratory relief was proper. The RTC denied reconsideration on July 31, 2012. The petitioners then filed the instant petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Regional Trial Court gravely abused its discretion when it denied the motion to dismiss the petition for declaratory relief.

RULING

The petition is MERITORIOUS. The Supreme Court ruled that while the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding that the Court did not pass upon the constitutionality of RA 9372 in the Southern Hemisphere cases, it exceeded its jurisdiction in ruling that private respondents’ petition had met all the requisites for an action for declaratory relief. Consequently, the denial of the motion to dismiss was improper.
The Court held that an act constitutes grave abuse of discretion only when done in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The RTC correctly observed that the Southern Hemisphere Decision did not make any definitive ruling on the constitutionality of RA 9372, as those petitions were dismissed solely on procedural grounds (improper remedy, lack of locus standi, and absence of an actual case or controversy). Therefore, no grave abuse of discretion attended this finding.
However, the RTC erred in finding that private respondents’ petition satisfied the requisites for declaratory relief. While the first three requisites (involving a statute, doubtful terms, and no breach) were present, the fourth, fifth, and sixth requisites were lacking. Specifically, private respondents failed to demonstrate an actual justiciable controversy or the “ripening seeds” of one. They did not show how they sustained or were in immediate danger of sustaining direct injury from the enforcement of RA 9372. Their fears were based on general remarks by government officials to the public and failed to show a particular, real, or imminent threat of prosecutorial action against them. Their interest was general, akin to the petitioners in Southern Hemisphere, and amounted only to a “double contingency” or a plea for an advisory opinion, which is not justiciable. Without a justiciable controversy, the petition for declaratory relief could not prosper.