Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 217 views

    001 Philippine Constitutional Law Digests - Atty. Evillo C. Pormento v. Joseph Ejercito - Erap - Estrada and Comelec, G.R. No

    Uploaded by

    Roze Justin
    This document summarizes a 2010 Supreme Court case regarding a petition filed to disqualify Joseph "Erap" Estrada from running for president in the 2010 elections. The petition was denied by the Commission on Elections. The Supreme Court also denied the petition, finding there was no longer a live case or controversy since Estrada was not elected president in 2010. The Court ruled it could not issue an advisory opinion on the interpretation of the constitutional clause regarding presidential reelection, as there was no longer an actual conflict to resolve.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    001 Philippine Constitutional Law Digests - Atty. Evillo C. Pormento v. Joseph Ejercito - Erap - Estrada and Comelec, G.R. No

    Uploaded by

    Roze Justin
    217 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a 2010 Supreme Court case regarding a petition filed to disqualify Joseph "Erap" Estrada from running for president in the 2010 elections. The petition was denied by the Commission on Elections. The Supreme Court also denied the petition, finding there was no longer a live case or controversy since Estrada was not elected president in 2010. The Court ruled it could not issue an advisory opinion on the interpretation of the constitutional clause regarding presidential reelection, as there was no longer an actual conflict to resolve.

    Original Description:

    ojojojojojij

    Original Title

    001 Philippine Constitutional Law Digests_ Atty. Evillo C. Pormento v. Joseph Ejercito _Erap_ Estrada and Comelec, G.R. No

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a 2010 Supreme Court case regarding a petition filed to disqualify Joseph "Erap" Estrada from running for president in the 2010 elections. The petition was denied by the Commission on Elections. The Supreme Court also denied the petition, finding there was no longer a live case or controversy since Estrada was not elected president in 2010. The Court ruled it could not issue an advisory opinion on the interpretation of the constitutional clause regarding presidential reelection, as there was no longer an actual conflict to resolve.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    217 views2 pages

    001 Philippine Constitutional Law Digests - Atty. Evillo C. Pormento v. Joseph Ejercito - Erap - Estrada and Comelec, G.R. No

    Uploaded by

    Roze Justin
    This document summarizes a 2010 Supreme Court case regarding a petition filed to disqualify Joseph "Erap" Estrada from running for president in the 2010 elections. The petition was denied by the Commission on Elections. The Supreme Court also denied the petition, finding there was no longer a live case or controversy since Estrada was not elected president in 2010. The Court ruled it could not issue an advisory opinion on the interpretation of the constitutional clause regarding presidential reelection, as there was no longer an actual conflict to resolve.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    AsitefordigestsoflandmarkConstitutionalLawcasesinthePhilippines.

    PhilippineConstitutionalLaw
    Digests
    Home PrivacyPolicy MusingsonLaw AllThatMatters
    Sunday,November20,2011
    Atty.EvilloC.Pormentov.JosephEjercito"Erap"Estradaand
    Comelec,G.R.No.191988,August31,2010
    RESOLUTION
    CORONA,C.J.:
    I.THEFACTS
    Private respondent Joseph Erap Ejercito Estrada was elected President of the
    Republic of the Philippines in the general elections held on May 11, 1998. He was
    however ousted [resigned according to the decision of the Supreme Court in Estrada
    vs.Arroyo,G.R.No.146738,March2,2001]fromofficeandwasnotabletofinishhis
    term. He sought the presidency again in the general elections held on May 10, 2010.
    Petitioner Atty. Evillo C. Pormento opposed Eraps candidacy and filed a petition for the
    latters disqualification, which was however denied by the COMELEC 2
    nd
    Division.

    His
    motionforreconsiderationwassubsequentlydeniedbytheCOMELECenbanc.
    Petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari

    onMay 7, 2010. However, under


    theRulesofCourt,thefilingofsuchpetitionwouldnotstaytheexecutionofthejudgment,
    final order or resolution of the COMELEC that is sought to be reviewed.

    Besides,
    petitioner did not even pray for the issuance of a temporary restraining order or writ of
    preliminary injunction. Hence, private respondent was able to participate as a candidate
    forthepositionofPresidentintheMay10,2010electionswherehegarneredthesecond
    highestnumberofvotes.
    II.THEISSUE
    WhatistheproperinterpretationofthefollowingprovisionofSection4,ArticleVII
    oftheConstitution:[t]hePresidentshallnotbeeligibleforanyreelection?
    III.THERULING
    [The petition was DENIED DUE COURSE and thereby DISMISSED by the
    SupremeCourt.]
    PrivaterespondentwasnotelectedPresidentthesecondtimeheran[intheMay
    2010 elections]. Since the issue on the proper interpretation of the phrase any
    reelectionwillbepremisedonapersonssecond(whetherimmediateornot)electionas
    President, there is no case or controversy to be resolved in this case. No live conflict of
    legal rights exists. There is in this case no definite, concrete, real or substantial
    controversy that touches on the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests.
    No specific relief may conclusively be decreed upon by this Court in this case that will
    benefitanyofthepartiesherein.Assuch,oneoftheessentialrequisitesfortheexercise
    of the power of judicial review, the existence of an actual case or controversy, is sorely
    lackinginthiscase.
    Asarule,thisCourtmayonlyadjudicateactual,ongoingcontroversies.TheCourt
    is not empowered to decide moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare
    principlesorrulesoflawwhichcannotaffecttheresultastothethinginissueinthecase
    beforeit.Inotherwords,whenacaseismoot,itbecomesnonjusticiable.
    Anactionisconsideredmootwhenitnolongerpresentsajusticiablecontroversy
    because the issues involved have become academic or dead or when the matter in
    dispute has already been resolved and hence, one is not entitled to judicial intervention
    unlesstheissueislikelytoberaisedagainbetweentheparties.Thereisnothingforthe
    courttoresolveasthedeterminationthereofhasbeenovertakenbysubsequentevents.
    2012(26)
    2011(11)
    December(4)
    November(7)
    HaciendaLuisitaInc.(HLI)v.
    PresidentialAgrari...
    HaciendaLuisitaInc.(HLI)v.
    PresidentialAgrari...
    GloriaMacapagalArroyov.Hon.
    LeilaM.DeLima(...
    BriccioRickyA.Pollov.Karina
    ConstantinoDav...
    Atty.EvilloC.Pormentov.Joseph
    Ejercito"Erap"...
    WilsonP.Gamboav.Finance
    SecretaryMargaritoTe...
    DatuMichaelAbasKidav.Senateof
    thePhilippine...
    BlogArchive
    EdgardoLuardoJr.
    Viewmycompleteprofile
    AboutMe
    2011barexamresults(1)
    20thcenturyfoxv.CA(1)
    3readingsonseparatedays(1)
    349pepsicrownscase(1)
    abadilla5(1)
    actualcaseorcontroversy(1)
    alibi(1)
    angarav.electoralcommission(1)
    ARMMelections(1)
    arnaultv.nazareno(1)
    arroyov.delima(1)
    barexams(1)
    bayanv.zamora(1)
    cachoolivaresv.ermita(1)
    chavezv.gonzalesandntc(1)
    checkpointscase(1)
    chinabankv.CA(1)
    columbiapicturesv.flores(1)
    combinationsandrestraintoftrade(1)
    comprehensiveagrarianreformprogram
    (2)
    constitutionalityofcheckpoints(2)
    contemptpowerofsenate(1)
    controltest(1)
    Labels
    More NextBlog CreateBlog SignIn
    NewerPost OlderPost Home
    Subscribeto:PostComments(Atom)
    PostedbyAtty.Edat6:40AM
    Labels:actualcaseorcontroversy,ineligibilityofthePresidenttorunforreelection,mootandacademic
    cases,pormentov.estrada,requisitesofjudicialreview
    Location:CebuCity,Philippines
    Assuming an actual case or controversy existed prior to the proclamation of a
    PresidentwhohasbeendulyelectedintheMay10,2010elections,thesameisnolonger
    true today. Following the results of that elections, private respondent was not elected
    President for the second time. Thus, any discussion of his reelection will simply be
    hypotheticalandspeculative.Itwillservenousefulorpracticalpurpose.
    [Toreadcommentsonthiscase,pleaseclickhere.]
    Enteryourcomment...
    Commentas:
    GoogleAccount
    Publish

    Preview
    Nocomments:
    PostaComment
    custodialinvestigation(1)
    davidv.arroyo(1)
    decisionininrechargesofplagiarismv.
    justicedelcastillo(1)
    delegationofpower(1)
    dissentofjusticema.lourdessereno(1)
    economicprotectionism(1)
    electionsynchronization(1)
    equitystructureinpublicutilities(1)
    exclusionaryrule(1)
    filipinofirstpolicy(2)
    foreignmilitarytroopsinthephils.(1)
    fortunv.arroyo(1)
    freedomofexpression(1)
    freedomofreligion(1)
    freedomofspeech(1)
    freedomofthepress(3)
    gamboav.teves(1)
    generalwarrant(1)
    globalization(1)
    GMATRO(1)
    grosjeanv.americanpress(1)
    haciendaluisita(2)
    hellogarci(1)
    HLIv.PARCdecisionjuly52011(1)
    HLIv.PARCresolutionnov.222011(1)
    holdoverofelectedARMMofficials(1)
    iglesianicristov.CA(1)
    impeachmentofcjcorona(1)
    impliedpowers(1)
    inregarcia(1)
    incompatibleoffices(1)
    incorporationclause(2)
    ineligibilityofthePresidenttorunforre
    election(1)
    inherentpowers(1)
    investigationinaidoflegislation(1)
    josemidasmarquez(1)
    justicemarianodelcastillo(2)
    justicesereno'sdissentininrecharges
    ofplagiarismvs.justicedelcastillo(1)
    kidav.senate(1)
    kurodav.jalandoni(1)
    lasernav.ddb(1)
    libanv.gordon(1)
    lismota(1)
    lumanogv.people(1)
    maguindanaomassacre(1)
    mandatorydrugtesting(1)
    manilahotel(1)
    manilaprincehotelv.gsis(1)
    martiallaw(1)
    meaningofthetermcapitalinSec.11
    Art.XIIoftheConstitution(1)
    monopolies(1)
    mootandacademiccases(1)
    nationalpatrimony(1)
    newyorktimesv.U.S.(1)
    officesearch(1)
    oilderegulation(1)
    onetitleonesubject(1)
    p.s.bankv.senateimpeachmentcourt
    (1)
    peoplev.exala(1)
    PhilippineNationalRedCross(1)
    pimentelv.comelec(1)
    piracy(1)
    plagiarism(3)
    policelineup(1)
    pollov.david(1)
    pormentov.estrada(1)
    powertopromulgaterulesofprocedure

    You might also like