Velarde vs Social Justice Society

G.R. NO. 159357. April 28, 2004

FACTS:
In 2003, Social Justice Society (SJS), a political party, filed a petition for
Declaratory Relief to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), seeking the
interpretation of a few constitutional provisions, specifically on the
separation of Church and State (Sec. 6, Art. II, 1987 Constitution), and
wanted relief on the constitutionality of the acts of the religious leaders
endorsing a candidate for an elective office during the election period.
Among the religious leaders were Mike Velarde, Cardinal Sin, Eddie
Villanueva, Eli Soriano and Eraño Manalo, who claimed that there was
neither justiciable controversy nor a cause of action in the case filed
against them; thus, seeking the dismissal of the petition.

The RTC denied the motion for the dismissal and decided on the case on
the basis of deeming the endorsement of specific candidates in an election
to any public office as a clear violation of the separation clause in the Sec.
6, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution. It then proceeded with a lengthy opinion
of the issue raise. Furthermore, the RTC failed to include a dispositive
portion in its Decision—which just ended with “SO ORDERED.”

ISSUE: Whether or not the filing of the Petition for declaratory relief is
proper

RULING:
NO. The essential requisites of the action for declaratory relief are as
follows: (1) there is a justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy is
between persons whose interests are adverse; (3) the party seeking the
relief has a legal interest in the controversy; and (4) the issue is ripe for
judicial determination.

In this case, there is no justiciable controversy as the petition merely

sought an opinion of the trial court on whether the speculated acts of
religious leaders endorsing elective candidates for political offices violated
the constitutional principle on the separation of church and state. SJS did
not ask for a declaration of its rights and duties; neither did it pray for the
stoppage of any threatened violation of its declared rights. Courts,
however, are proscribed from rendering an advisory opinion.

The Social Justice Society has no legal interest in the controversy. The
Rules require that the interest must be material to the issue and affected
by the questioned act or instrument, as distinguished from simple curiosity
or incidental interest in the question raised.

Indeed, the Court finds in the Petition for Declaratory Relief no single
allegation of fact upon which SJS could base a right of relief from the
named respondents. In any event, even granting that it sufficiently
asserted a legal right it sought to protect, there was nevertheless no
certainty that such right would be invaded by the said respondents. Not
even the alleged proximity of the elections to the time the Petition was
filed below (January 28, 2003) would have provided the certainty that it
had a legal right that would be jeopardized or violated by any of those
respondents.