Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Gonzales Vs Narvasa
Gonzales Vs Narvasa
FACTS
The
Preparatory
Commission
on
Constitutional
Reform
31,
1999
pursuant
to
EO
70.
Thus,
they
submitted
its
recommendations to the President before the deadline and was dissolved by the
President on the same day. It had likewise spent the funds allotted to it. Further, it
is claimed that the petitioners also lacks legal standing.
ISSUES
1.
2.
1.
have overtaken the petition and the Court has nothing left to
resolve. Thus, it is deemed moot.
It is basic that An action is considered moot when it no
longer presents a justiciable controversy because the issues
involved have become academic or dead.
In the case at bar, Under E.O. No. 43, the PCCR was
instructed to complete its task on or before June 30, 1999.
However, on February 19, 1999, the President issued Executive
Order No. 70 (E.O. No. 70), which extended the time frame for the
completion of the commissions work. Section 8 is hereby amended
to read as follows: Time Frame. The Commission shall commence its
work on 01 January 1999 and complete the same on or before 31
December 1999. The Commission shall submit its report and
recommendations to the President within fifteen (15) working days
from 31 December 1999. The PCCR submitted its recommendations
to the President on December 20, 1999 and was dissolved by the
President on the same day. It had likewise spent the funds allotted
to it.
The staleness of the issue before us is made more manifest
by the impossibility of granting the relief prayed for by petitioner.
Basically, petitioner asks this Court to enjoin the PCCR from acting
as such. Clearly, prohibition is an inappropriate remedy since the
body sought to be enjoined no longer exists. It is well established
that prohibition is a preventive remedy and does not lie to restrain
an act that is already fait accompli. At this point, any ruling
regarding the PCCR would simply be in the nature of an advisory
opinion, which is definitely beyond the permissible scope of judicial
power.
2.
If at all, it is only
Congress, not petitioner, which can claim any injury in this case
since, according to petitioner, the President has encroached upon
the legislatures powers to create a public office and to propose
amendments to the Charter by forming the PCCR.
Petitioner has
The PCCR