G.R. No. L-53622 April 25, 1980
JOVITO R. SALONGA, petitioner, vs. CAPTAIN ROLANDO HERMOSO, TRAVEL PROCESSING CENTER, and GENERAL FABIAN VER, respondents.

FACTS

This is a second mandamus petition filed by Senator Jovito R. Salonga to compel the issuance of a certificate of eligibility to travel. In a prior case, Salonga v. Madella, the petition was rendered moot when the Travel Processing Center granted the certificate. In the present case, Salonga, holding a valid passport and having urgent medical and official engagements abroad, applied for a travel permit on April 1, 1980. Despite the scheduled release date of April 11, his application remained unacted upon while others were processed, jeopardizing his scheduled trip for April 23 and compelling him to file this petition on April 18.
The Solicitor General moved to dismiss the present petition as moot and academic, attaching a xerox copy of the travel certificate allegedly granted to Salonga. The Court noted a pattern of similar petitions becoming moot due to the belated issuance of the required certificates, citing cases like Santos v. The Special Committee on Travel Abroad, Pimentel v. Travel Processing Center, and Gonzales v. Special Committee on Travel.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for mandamus to compel the issuance of a travel eligibility certificate has been rendered moot and academic by its alleged grant.

RULING

Yes, the petition is dismissed for being moot and academic. The Court’s ruling is based on the legal principle that courts will not determine a moot case—one where a ruling can no longer provide any actual relief because the act sought has been performed. The Solicitor General’s submission of the travel certificate substantiates that the primary relief sought by Salonga has been ostensibly granted, removing the live controversy.
However, the Court seized the opportunity to issue a strong admonition to prevent future recurrences. It emphasized the constitutional right to travel as a cherished freedom, citing President Marcos’s own public pronouncements respecting such rights even under martial law. The Court directed the Travel Processing Center to exercise utmost care to avoid subjecting citizens to inconvenience or annoyance, which could create the impression of arbitrary impediments to this right. To facilitate future applications and preclude unnecessary litigation, the Court advised that doubts should be immediately referred to higher authority (General Fabian Ver) and that applications should be filed early. In a separate opinion, Justice Teehankee further highlighted that placing individuals on a watchlist without notice and hearing is objectionable, and reminded officials of potential liability for damages under Article 27 of the Civil Code for unjust refusal to perform official duties.