GR L 33517; (March, 1974) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-33517. March 29, 1974.
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION, ET AL. vs. HON. CORNELIO T. VILLAREAL, ET AL.
FACTS
The petitioners, including the Philippine Constitution Association and several delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention, filed a petition for mandamus on May 15, 1971. They sought to compel the Speaker, Chief Accountant, and Auditor of the House of Representatives to allow the inspection and examination of the House’s books, records, and vouchers. The examination was aimed at two specific financial matters: the alleged transfer of P26.2 million from various executive offices to the House, and the original expenditure of the P39 million appropriation for the fiscal year 1969-1970. The petitioners sued in their capacities as Constitutional Convention delegates, citizens, and taxpayers.
The respondents filed an answer and motion to dismiss, raising multiple grounds including lack of jurisdiction based on the separation of powers, absence of a cause of action, lack of legal personality to sue, and nonjoinder of indispensable parties. The parties subsequently filed various pleadings, including a reply, rejoinder, and surrejoinder. The case was heard on August 4, 1971, but the Court did not immediately resolve the substantive legal issues presented.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for mandamus has been rendered moot and academic.
RULING
Yes, the petition is moot and academic. The Court, citing its recent ruling in Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. v. Gimenez (G.R. No. L-21786, February 28, 1974), held that the suit had become moot with the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution and the consequent abolition of the House of Representatives. The object of the mandamus—to compel officials of the defunct House to produce its records—could no longer be enforced against that now-nonexistent entity. The Court therefore found no need to pass upon the various legal issues raised by the parties, such as jurisdiction, standing, or the separation of powers.
The Court noted parenthetically that a similar petition filed under the new constitutional regime would not face the same procedural obstacle. It referenced Article VIII, Section 8(2) of the 1973 Constitution, which explicitly provided that “[t]he records and books of accounts of the National Assembly shall be open to the public in accordance with law, and such books shall be audited by the Commission on Audit which shall publish annually the itemized expenditures for each Member.” This specific constitutional mandate created a clearer right and duty, distinguishing it from the pre-1973 context. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed for being moot and academic.