GR 256288; (June, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 256288, June 29, 2021
ATTY. ROMEO M. ESMERO, PETITIONER, VS. HIS EXCELLENCY, HONORABLE PRESIDENT, RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner Atty. Romeo M. Esmero filed a Petition for Mandamus to compel then-President Rodrigo R. Duterte to comply with his constitutional duty to defend the national territory, including the West Philippine Sea, against Chinese incursions. The petitioner asserted that the President has a ministerial duty to defend the territory, including by considering a defensive war, invoking the Mutual Defense Treaty with the United States, and taking specific legal actions such as going to the United Nations Security Council under the “Uniting for Peace” resolution or suing China before the International Court of Justice for damages. The petitioner argued that the President’s public pronouncements and actions are subject to judicial review, that his alleged inaction is detrimental to Filipino fishermen, and that this petition is an exception to presidential immunity from suit. The petitioner contended that filing diplomatic protests is insufficient.
ISSUE
Whether the writ of mandamus may be issued to compel the President to perform specific acts in the defense of the national territory against foreign incursions, particularly in the West Philippine Sea.
RULING
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for utter lack of merit.
First, the President is immune from suit during his incumbency, and since President Duterte was named as the sole respondent, the suit should be dismissed outright.
Second, even if the Court were to consider the case, a writ of mandamus would not lie. Mandamus is a remedy to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, not to control discretion. The petitioner failed to show a clear legal right to the performance of a specific act and a corresponding compelling duty on the part of the respondent. The President’s duty to defend the national territory and his exclusive authority to conduct foreign affairs involve the exercise of discretion and judgment. The petitioner did not point to any law that specifically requires the President to take the precise actions demanded, such as going to the UN or the ICJ. The Court emphasized that the decision on how to address disputes with China—whether through military, diplomatic, or legal means—rests with the political branches of government. The Constitution vests executive power, including the conduct of foreign affairs, in the President, and the Court cannot substitute its discretion for that of the President barring violations of the law or the Constitution. The Court noted that a previous administration had already availed of legal mechanisms under UNCLOS, resulting in a favorable arbitral award, and the current President’s different approach does not by itself constitute an unlawful abdication of duty correctible by mandamus.