Section 4.

The President and the Vice-President shall be

elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years
which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next
following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the
same date, six years thereafter. The President shall not be
eligible for any re-election. No person who has succeeded
as President and has served as such for more than four
years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any
time.

The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge

of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may
promulgate its rules for the purpose.

No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive

terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of
time shall not be considered as an interruption in the
continuity of the service for the full term for which he was
elected.

RESOLUTION

Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for

President and Vice-President shall be held on the second
Monday of May.
The returns of every election for President and VicePresident, duly certified by the board of canvassers of each
province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress,
directed to the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the
certificates of canvass, the President of the Senate shall,
not later than thirty days after the day of the election, open
all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and the
House of Representatives in joint public session, and the
Congress, upon determination of the authenticity and due
execution thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass
the votes.
The person having the highest number of votes shall be
proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have an
equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall
forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the
Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting
separately.
The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing
of the certificates.

ATTY.
EVILLO
C.
PORMENTO, Petitioner,
vs.
JOSEPH
"ERAP"
EJERCITO
ESTRADA
and
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondents.

CORONA, C.J.:
What is the proper interpretation of the following provision of
Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution: "[t]he President
shall not be eligible for any reelection?"
The novelty and complexity of the constitutional issue
involved in this case present a temptation that magistrates,
lawyers, legal scholars and law students alike would find
hard to resist. However, prudence dictates that this Court
exercise judicial restraint where the issue before it has
already been mooted by subsequent events. More
importantly, the constitutional requirement of the existence
of a "case" or an "actual controversy" for the proper
exercise of the power of judicial review constrains us to
refuse the allure of making a grand pronouncement that, in
the end, will amount to nothing but a non-binding opinion.
The petition asks whether private respondent Joseph
Ejercito Estrada is covered by the ban on the President
from "any reelection." Private respondent was elected
President of the Republic of the Philippines in the general
elections held on May 11, 1998. He sought the presidency
again in the general elections held on May 10, 2010.
Petitioner Atty. Evillo C. Pormento opposed private
respondents candidacy and filed a petition for
disqualification. However, his petition was denied by the
Second Division of public respondent Commission on

Elections (COMELEC).1 His motion for reconsideration was

subsequently denied by the COMELEC en banc.2
Petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari 3 on May 7,
2010. However, under the Rules of Court, the filing of such
petition would not stay the execution of the judgment, final
order or resolution of the COMELEC that is sought to be
reviewed.4 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 for the position of President in
the May 10, 2010 elections where he garnered the second
highest number of votes.51avvphi1
Private respondent was not elected President the second
time he ran. Since the issue on the proper interpretation of
the phrase "any reelection" will be premised on a persons
second (whether immediate or not) election as President,
there is no case or controversy to be resolved in this case.
No live conflict of legal rights exists.6 There is in this case
no definite, concrete, real or substantial controversy that
touches on the legal relations of parties having adverse
legal interests.7 No specific relief may conclusively be
decreed upon by this Court in this case that will benefit any
of the parties herein.8 As such, one of the essential
requisites for the exercise of the power of judicial review,
the existence of an actual case or controversy, is sorely
lacking in this case.
As a rule, this Court may only adjudicate actual, ongoing
controversies.9 The Court is not empowered to decide moot
questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles
or rules of law which cannot affect the result as to the thing
in issue in the case before it.10 In other words, when a case
is moot, it becomes non-justiciable.11
An action is considered "moot" when it no longer presents a
justiciable controversy 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 unless the issue is likely to be raised

again between the parties. There is nothing for the court to

resolve as the determination thereof has been overtaken by
subsequent events.12

reconsideration was subsequently denied by the COMELEC

legal rights exists. There is in this case no definite, concrete,

en banc.

real or substantial controversy that touches on the legal

relations of parties having adverse legal interests. No
Petitioner

Assuming an actual case or controversy existed prior to the

proclamation of a President who has been duly elected in
the May 10, 2010 elections, the same is no longer 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
hypothetical and speculative. It will serve no useful or
practical purpose.

filed

the

instant

petition

specific relief may conclusively be decreed upon by this

for certiorari on May 7, 2010. However, under the Rules of

Court in this case that will benefit any of the parties

Court, the filing of such petition would not stay the execution

herein. As such, one of the essential requisites for the

of the judgment, final order or resolution of the COMELEC

exercise of the power of judicial review, the existence of an

that is sought to be reviewed. Besides, petitioner did not

actual case or controversy, is sorely lacking in this case.

even pray for the issuance of a temporary restraining order

or writ of preliminary injunction. Hence, private respondent

Accordingly, the petition is denied due course and is hereby

DISMISSED.

As a rule, this Court may only adjudicate actual,

was able to participate as a candidate for the position of

ongoing controversies. The Court is not empowered to

President in the May 10, 2010 elections where he garnered

decide moot questions or abstract propositions, or to

SO ORDERED.

the second highest number of votes.

declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the

result as to the thing in issue in the case before it. In other

II.
PORMENTO VS ESTRADA CASE DIGEST
THE FACTS
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, March 2, 2001] from office and was not able to

finish his 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 2nd Division. His motion for

THE ISSUE

words, when a case is moot, it becomes non-justiciable.

What is the proper interpretation of the following

An action is considered moot when it no longer

provision of Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution: [t]he

presents a justiciable controversy because the issues

President shall not be eligible for any re-election?

involved have become academic or dead or when the

matter in dispute has already been resolved and hence, one

III. THE RULING

is not entitled to judicial intervention unless the issue is

likely to be raised again between the parties. There is

[The petition was DENIED DUE COURSE and

thereby DISMISSED by the Supreme Court.]

nothing for the court to resolve as the determination thereof

has been overtaken by subsequent events.

Private respondent was not elected President the

Assuming an actual case or controversy existed

second time he ran [in the May 2010 elections]. Since the

prior to the proclamation of a President who has been duly

issue on the proper interpretation of the phrase any

elected in the May 10, 2010 elections, the same is no longer

reelection will be premised on a persons second (whether

true today. Following the results of that elections, private

immediate or not) election as President, there is no case or

respondent was not elected President for the second time.

controversy to be resolved in this case. No live conflict of

Thus, any discussion of his reelection will simply be

hypothetical and speculative. It will serve no useful or

practical purpose.

Cong. Ruy Elias C. Lopez v. Senate of

t h e P h i l i p p i n e s , H o u s e o f Representatives, et
al, (G.R. No. 163556, June 8, 2004)
Where the Supreme Court, voting 14-0,
ruled: Section 4, Article VII of the
Constitution
Expressly
empowersC o n g r e s s t o p r o m u l g a t e i t s

r u l e s f o r t h e c a n v a s s i n g o f t h e certi
f ic a t e s . I n Ar r o yo v. d e Ven e c i a ( 2 7 7 S C R A
2 6 8 , A u g u s t 1 4 , 1997), the Court ruled that it had
no power to review the internal p r o c e e d i n g s o f
Congress, unless there is a clear violation
of
theC o n s t i t u t i o n . L i k e w i s e , S a n t i a g o v.
G u i n g o n a , ( 2 9 8 S C R A 7 5 6 , November 18,
1998) held that the Court under the doctrine
of separation of powers h a s n o a u t h o r
i t y t o i n t e r f e r e i n t h e exclusive realm of
a co-equal branch, absent a showing of grave
abuse of discretion. The Court has no authority to
restrict
or
limitt h e e x e r c i s e o f c o n g r e s s i o n a
l p r e r o g a t i v e s g r a n t e d b y t h e Con

stitution. The creation of the Joint Committee does

not constitute grave abuse and cannot be
said to have deprived petitioner and the other
members of Congress of their congressional prerogatives
because under the very Rules under attack, the
decisions and final report of the said Committee
shall be subject t o t h e approval of the joint
session of both Houses of Congress, voting separately.

Kindly search for the full case. Me and mayor tried

to find.. Wala sa LawPhil as well sa ibang
sources..tnx