harayo

TITLE: GR. NO 96541 (August 24, 1993)

DEAN JOSE JOYA, CARMEN GUERRERO NAKPIL, ARMIDA SIGUION REYNA, PROF. RICARTE M. PURUGANAN, IRMA POTENCIANO, ADRIAN CRISTOBAL, INGRID SANTAMARIA, CORAZON FIEL, AMBASSADOR E. AGUILAR CRUZ, FLORENCIO R. JACELA, JR., MAURO MALANG, FEDERICO AGUILAR ALCUAZ, LUCRECIA R. URTULA, SUSANO GONZALES, STEVE SANTOS, EPHRAIM SAMSON, SOLER SANTOS, ANG KIU KOK, KERIMA POLOTAN, LUCRECIA KASILAG, LIGAYA DAVID PEREZ, VIRGILIO ALMARIO, LIWAYWAY A. ARCEO, CHARITO PLANAS, HELENA BENITEZ, ANNA MARIA L. HARPER, ROSALINDA OROSA, SUSAN CALO MEDINA, PATRICIA RUIZ, BONNIE RUIZ, NELSON NAVARRO, MANDY NAVASERO, ROMEO SALVADOR, JOSEPHINE DARANG, and PAZ VETO PLANAS, petitioners,
vs.
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), CATALINO MACARAIG, JR., in his official capacity, and/or the Executive Secretary, and CHAIRMAN MATEO A.T.

FACTS

à On August 15,1990, Chairman Caparas of the PCGG, signed the Consignment Agreement with the authority given by the President Aquino on August 14,1990, through former Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraig, Jr., allowing Christie's of New York to auction off (82) Old Masters Paintings seized from Malacañang and the Metropolitan Museum of Manila and  the (71) cartons of antique silverware in the custody of the Central Bank of the Philippines, and such other property as may subsequently be identified by PCGG and accepted by CHRISTIE'S to be subject to the provisions of the agreement which were alleged to be part of the ill-gotten wealth of the late President Marcos, his relatives and cronies for and in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines scheduled January 11,1991.

à On October 26,1990, Chairman Eufemio C. Domingo of  COA submitted to President Aquino the audit result on the Consignment Agreement that: (a) the authority of former PCGG Chairman Caparas to enter into the Consignment Agreement was of doubtful legality; (b) the contract was highly disadvantageous to the government; (c) PCGG had a poor track record in asset disposal by auction in the U.S.; and, (d) the assets subject of auction were historical relics and had cultural significance, hence, their disposal was prohibited by law. Then the new PCGG Chairman David M. Castro, defended the contract made and refuting the allegations of Chairman Domingo on November 15,1990. On that same date , Director of National Museum Gabriel S. Casal issued a certification that the items subject of the Consignment Agreement did not fall within the classification of protected cultural properties and did not specifically qualify as part of the Filipino cultural heritage. Hence the petition was filed on January 7,1991

à Petitioners raise the following issues:

A.      whether petitioners have legal standing to file the instant petition;

B.      whether the Old Masters Paintings and antique silverware are embraced in the phrase "cultural treasure of the nation" which is under the protection of the state pursuant to the 1987 Constitution and/or "cultural properties" contemplated under R.A. 4846, otherwise known as "The Cultural Properties Preservation and Protection Act;"

C. whether the paintings and silverware are properties of public dominion on which can be disposed of through the joint concurrence of the President and Congress;
D. whether respondent, PCGG has the jurisdiction and authority to enter into an agreement with Christie's of New York for the sale of the artworks;

E. whether, PCGG has complied with the due process clause and other statutory requirements for the exportation and sale of the subject items; and,

F. whether the petition has become moot and academic, and if so, whether the above issues warrant resolution from this Court.

ISSUE

àWhether the petition complies with the legal requisites of judicial inquiry, whether petitioners has the legal standing & the actual controversy of the petition.

RULING

             In relation to the issue of the legal standing and the actual controversy, with the allegation of the petitioners, “that the paintings were donated by private persons from different parts of the world to the Metropolitan Museum of Manila Foundation, which is a non-profit and non-stock corporations established to promote non-Philippine arts.“The foundation's chairman was former First Lady Imelda R. Marcos, while its president was Bienvenido R. Tantoco. On this basis, the ownership of the paintings legally belongs to the foundation or corporation or the members thereof. Similarly, the pieces of antique silverware were given to the Marcos couple as gifts from friends and dignitaries from foreign countries on their silver wedding and anniversary, an occasion personal to them. The confiscation of the properties by the Aquino administration however should not be understood to mean that the ownership of the paintings has automatically passed on the government without complying with constitutional and statutory requirements of due process and just compensation. The court held that one having no right or interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as party-plaintiff in an action on the premised of Sec. 2, Rule 3, of the Rules of Court which provides that every  action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-in-interest, and that all persons having interest in the subject of the action and in obtaining the relief demanded shall be joined as plaintiffs. And since the purpose of the petition for prohibition is to enjoin respondent public officials from holding the auction sale of the artworks on a particular date — 11 January 1991 — which is long past, the issues raised in the petition have become moot and academic.

            WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the petition for prohibition and mandamus was DISMISSED.

TITLE: G.R. No. 154705. June 26, 2003

THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA, HIS EXCELLENCY AMBASSADOR SOERATMIN, and MINISTER COUNSELLOR AZHARI KASIM, petitioners, vs. JAMES VINZON, doing business under the name and style of VINZON TRADE AND SERVICES, respondent.

FACTS

 On December 15, 2000, respondent filed a complaint against petitioners. On February 20, 2001, petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging that the Republic of Indonesia, as a foreign sovereign State, has sovereign immunity from suit and cannot be sued as a party-defendant in the Philippines. The said motion further alleged that Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor Kasim are diplomatic agents as defined under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and therefore enjoy diplomatic immunity. In turn, respondent filed on March 20, 2001, an Opposition to the said motion alleging that the Republic of Indonesia has expressly waived its immunity from suit. He based this claim upon the following provision in the Maintenance Agreement.

Any legal action arising out of this Maintenance Agreement shall be settled according to the laws of the Philippines and by the proper court of Makati City, Philippines.

Respondent’s Opposition likewise alleged that Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor Kasim can be sued and held liable in their private capacities for tortious acts done with malice and bad faith.

On May 17, 2001, the trial court denied herein petitioners’ Motion to Dismiss. It likewise denied the Motion for Reconsideration subsequently filed.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial court’s decision that petitioners have waived their immunity from suit by using as its basis the abovementioned provision in the Maintenance Agreement.

RULING

Petition is GRANTED. The decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the complaint in Civil Case No. 18203 against petitioners are DISMISSED. On the ground that the acts of petitioner Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor Kasim, is not covered by the exceptions provided in the Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which provides:

1. A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisidiction of the receiving State. He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction, except in the case of:

(a)    a real action relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving State, unless he holds it on behalf of the sending State for the purposes of the mission;

(b)   an action relating to succession in which the diplomatic agent is involved as executor, administrator, heir or legatee as a private person and not on behalf of the sending State;

(c)    an action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving State outside his official functions.

TITLE : G.R. No. 169004  September 15, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, 
vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION) and ROLANDO PLAZA, Respondents.

FACTS

A Criminal case (dated July 20, 2005) filed against respondent ROLANDO PLAZA (a high-ranking public officer, being a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Toledo City) for failure to liquidate the cash advances he received with the amount of P33,000 (Philippine Currency) was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction  without prejudice to its filing in the proper court.

On September 2, 2005, a petition that seek to reverse and set aside the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan was filed.

ISSUE

            Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod whose salary grade is below 27 and charged with violation of The Auditing Code of the Philippines.

RULING

The Petition dated September 2, 2005 was GRANTED and the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan (Third Division) dated July 20, 2005 was NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. Let the case be REMANDED to the Sandiganbayan for further proceedings.

 

TITLE: G.R. NO. 135805, APRIL 29, 1999

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, PETITIONER, VS.

PEDRO O. DACOYCOY, RESPONDENT

FACTS

è George P. Suan ( Vice-President of the Citizens Crime  Watch), filed a complaint together with the Civil Service Commission, against Pedro O. Dacoycoy for habitual drunkenness, misconduct and nepotism. On March 5, 1996 the CSC Regional Office No.8, Tacloban City, found a prima facie case against the respondent. Formal investigation was conducted and promulgated a resolution of no substantial evidence to support the charge of habitual drunkenness and misconduct, however he was found guilty for nepotism by appointing his two sons Rito and Ped,as driver and  utility worker, respectively and their assignment under his immediate supervision and control as the Vocational School Administrator Balicuatro College of Arts and Trades, and imposed on him the penalty of dismissal from the service. Respondent filed a petition for reconsideration on February 25, 1997, was denied.

è On July 29 1998, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the Resolution of CSC, in resolution to the special civil action for certiorari with preliminary injunction filed by the respondent dated July 18, 1997. Ruling that respondent did not appoint or recommend his two sons, hence was not guilty of nepotism.

   

ISSUE

àWhether respondent is liable for nepotism, not by appointing his sons, but on the ground that both sons are under his immediate supervision.

àThe Scope Ban of Nepotism.

RULING

Under the definition of nepotism, one is guilty of nepotism if an appointment is issued in favour of a relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of any of the following:

a) appointing authority;
b) recommending authority;
c) chief of the bureau or office, and
d) person exercising immediate supervision over the appointee.

Thus the court granted the petition and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 44711.

Accordingly, the court revives and affirms the resolution of the Civil Service Commission dated January 28,1998 and September 30, 1998, dismissing respondent Pedro O. Dacoycoy from service.

TITLE:  G.R. No. L-34676 April 30, 1974

BENJAMIN T. LIGOT, petitioner,
vs.
ISMAEL MATHAY, Auditor General and JOSE V. VELASCO, Auditor, Congress of the Philippines, respondents.

FACTS

à From December 30, 1957 to December 30, 1969 (3 consecutive four-year term) Ligot served as a member of the House of Representative. During the second term of office (1961-1965), RA 4134 “fixing the salaries of constitutional officials and certain other officials of the national government” was enacted into law and under section 7 thereof took effect on July 1, 1964. The salaries of members of Congress (senators and congressman) were increased under said Act from P7,200.00 to P32,000.00 per annum, but the Act expressly provided that said increases “shall take effect in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.”

à Ligot, then, filed a claim for retirement on December 30, 1969 (expired term) under Commonwealth Act 186, section 12 (c) as amended by RA 4968 which provided for retirement gratuity of any official or employee, appointive or elective, with a total of at least twenty years of service, the last 3 years of which are continuous on the basis therein provided “in case of employees based on the highest rate received and in case of elected officials on the rates of pay as provided by law.” His petition was granted by the HOR, however, the Congress Auditor (Velasco) refused to so issue certification. Subsequently, Mathay, the Auditor General, also disallowed the same. The thrust of Ligot’s appeal is that his claim for retirement gratuity computed on the basis of the increased salary of P32,000.00 per annum for members of Congress (where it  was not applied to him during his incumbency which ended December 30, 1969, while the Court held in Philconsa vs. Mathay that such increases would become operative only for members of Congress elected to serve therein commencing December 30, 1969) should not have been disallowed, because at the time of his retirement, the increased salary for members of Congress “as provided by law” (under Republic Act 4134) was already P32,000.00 per annum.

ISSUE

Whether or not Ligot is entitled to such retirement benefit.

RULING

Ligot’s claim cannot be sustained and the other members of Congress similarly whose term of office ended on December 30, 1969 are concerned for the simple reason that a retirement gratuity or benefit is a form of compensation within the purview of the Constitutional provision limiting their compensation and “other emoluments” to their salary as provided by law. To grant retirement gratuity to members of Congress whose terms expired on December 30, 1969 computed on the basis of an increased salary of P32,000.00 per annum (which they were prohibited by the Constitution from receiving during their term of office) would be to pay them prohibited emoluments which in effect increase the salary beyond that which they were permitted by the Constitution to receive during their incumbency. As stressed by the Auditor-General in his decision in the similar case of petitioner’s colleague, ex-Congressman Singson, “Such a scheme would contravene the Constitution for it would lead to the same prohibited result by enabling administrative authorities to do indirectly what cannot be done directly.

TITLE: G.R. No. 191771 May 6, 2010

En Banc

Liberal Party, Represented by its President Manuel A. Roxas II and Secretary General Joseph Emilio A. Abaya, petitioner.

Vs.

COMELEC, Nacionalista Party, Represented by its President Manuel B. Villar and Nationalist People’s Coalition, Allegedly Represented by its Chairman Faustino S. Dy, Jr., respondent.

Poenente: Brion, J:.

FACTS

è On February 12, 2010, The Liberal Party filed before the COMELEC its petition for accreditation as dominant party. On the other hand, the respondent, NP-NPC coalition also filed a petition for registration and asked to ne recognized and accredited as dominant minority party. On February 23, 2010, the LP filed its opposition to the respondent citing among others that NP-NPC failed to comply with the procedural matters and also it was filed beyond the set dateline.

è The COMELEC issued a notice of hearing for accreditation for the purpose of determining party alignments as to majority and minority on February 16, 2010. Included in the agenda is the hearing LP and the NP-NPC petitions for accreditation as the dominant minority party. Both parties presented evidences and memoranda. Thereafter, the COMELEC sitting En Banc granted the NP-NPC coalition but deferred the same as dominant minority party.

ISSUES

è Whether COMELEC En Banc have jurisdiction at the first instance to entertain the petition;

è Whether the COMELEC En Banc erred in allowing the registration of NP-NPC coalition.

 RULING

The court finds the petition commendable. In the case at bar, the court gave paramount consideration on public interest and not clashed aside the rigid technicalities but also showed liberality. The resulting prejudice is considered however counterbalancing factors are given significant weight.

Under the circumstances of the present case where the registration was handled at the En Banc and so therefore, a motion for reconsideration of En Banc is a prohibited pleading under Rule 13, Section 1(d) of the COMELEC Rules. Therefore, the NP-NPC’s petition for registration is time barred.

The Resolution No. 8646 shows that the deadline for registration cannot but be a firm and mandatory deadline that the COMELEC has set. In the case of Philippine Guardians Brotherhood Inc. it was denied registration due to the late late filing. This among other organization would cry foul and rightly so because of the denial of their applications on the ground of late filing, when NP-NPC has been made the exception without rhyme or reason. The court solely rules for now that the En Banc gravely abused its discretion when it disregarded its own deadline in ruling on the registration of the NP-NPC as a coalition.

Registered political parties carry a different legal personality from that of the coalition they may wish to establish with other similarly registered parties. There is no ifs and buts about these constitutional mandate.

WHEREFORE the petition is GRANTED and the assailed Resolution of the COMELEC is NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. The COMELEC is BARRED from granting accreditation to the proposed NP-NPC Coalition.

TITLE: G. R. No. 164316 September 27, 2006

Third Division

Office of the Ombudsman, petitioner

vs.

Gertrudes Madriaga and Ana Marie Bernardo, respondent

Poenente: Carpio Morales, J:.

FACTS:

è Respondents were charged before the Ombudsman with violation of R.A. No. 6713 otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees on September 8, 2000.

è Gertrudes Madriaga and Ana Marie Bernardo, principal and teacher of San Juan Elementary School, San Juan, Metro Manila were meted with six-month suspension by the Ombudsman. The CA on May 28, 2004 however, merely recommended the case to the Department of Education.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman has the authority to impose administrative sanctions over public officials.

RULING

The argument that the Ombudsman’s action is only recommendatory is void of merit. The Constitution gives the Ombudsman full and complete disciplinary authority, with powers not merely persuasive in character. Section 3(3), Article XI is complemented by Section 15 of R.A. No. 6770.

 The powers of the Ombudsman are not merely recommendatory. His office was given teeth to render this constitutional body not merely functional but also effective. The court held that under R.A. No. 6770 and the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman has the constitutional power to directly remove from government service an erring official.

Thereby the Court of Appeal SET ASIDE the petition.

TITLE: G.R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006

En Banc

Lambino v. COMELEC

Consolidated with

G.R. No. 174299

Poenente: Carpio, J.:

FACTS

è Raul L. Lambino together with Erico Aumentado were able to gather the signatures of 6, 327, 952 individuals for an initiative petition to amend the 1987 Constitution. The proposed amendment to the constitution seeks to modify Secs 1-7 of Art VI and Sec 1-4 of Art VII and by adding Art XVIII entitled “Transitory Provisions”. These proposed changes will shift the president bicameral-presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government. The petition before the COMELEC was denied, on August 31,2006, due to the lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the Constitution – this is in pursuant to the ruling in Santiago vs COMELEC. Lambino et al contended that the decision in the aforementioned case is only binding to the parties within that case.

è Local COMELEC registrars verified that said number of votes comprises at least 12 per centum of all registered voters with each legislative district at least represented by at least 3 per centum of its registered voters.

ISSUE

Whether or not the petition for initiative met the requirements of Sec 2 Art. XVII of the 1987 Constitution.

RULING 

The petitioner of the initiative secures the signatures from the people in their private capacity and not as public officials.  The petitioner are not disinterested parties who can impartially explain the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed amendments to the people.  The petitioners present favorably their proposal to the people and do not present the arguments against their proposal and often pay those who gather the signatures. Thus, there is no presumption that the petitioners observed the constitutional requirements in gathering the signatures. They bear the burden of proof that they complied with the constitutional requirements in gathering the signatures. The petitioner failed to prove that all the signatories to the proposed amendments were able to read and understand what the petition contains.

Lambino also actually proposed a revision of the constitution and not a mere amendment. This is also in violation of the logrolling rule wherein a proposed amendment should only contain one issue. The proposed amendment/s by petitioners even includes a transitory provision which would enable the would-be parliament to enact more rules.

The rule is, the Court avoids questions of constitutionality so long as there are other means to resolve an issue at bar.

TITLE:  G.R. NO. 134188, MARCH 15, 1999

NUR G. JAAFAR, PETITIONER, VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RADJA JUBAIDA H. MATBA, ISMAEL B. ABUBAKAR, JR., HABID GULAM HADJIRUL, SAURAGAL DAYAN, HADJA MONERA MANAGULA, HADJI LADJAKAWASA ABARASA, ABDURAHMAN NAWALI AND LAUREL TAHILI, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

è In pursuant to Comelec Resolution No. 2985 elections were held in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), including Tawi-Tawi, under the automated election system. After the canvass and counting of votes on May 11, 1998 election in Tawi-tawi showed that Nur G. Jaafar (petitioner) won the congressional seat over private respondent Ismael Abubakar, Jr...

è On June 29,1998 Comelec issued the questioned minute resolution in answer to private respondent’s petition to declare a failure of election in Tawi-tawi province   on the alleged ground of "systems failure of the automated machines" and "massive and widespread election fraud and irregularity" with an alternative prayer for a manual recounting of ballots. It also appears that private respondent Abubakar, Jr. also filed with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal a protest contesting the election results in 288 precincts but the said protest was dismissed for failure to pay the required cash deposit per Resolution No. 98-295 of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal in HRET Case No. 98.003.

è On July 6, 1998, petitioner argues that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion and acted without jurisdiction when it suspended the effects of petitioner's proclamation and ordered a manual recount of the ballots in the province of Tawi-Tawi, without due notice and hearing in gross violation of the petitioner's right to due process. Petitioner claims that the questioned Comelec Resolution was issued even before he could file Answer to the petition filed by Abubakar, Jr, with the Comelec docketed as SPA No. 98-349. The petitioner maintains that a manual recount of votes is permissible and appropriate only in either an electoral protest proper or in a pre-proclamation controversy.

ISSUE

                The validity of the minute resolution issued by the COMELEC.

RULING

We agree with respondent COMELEC that this petition should be dismissed. The pleadings and their annexes show that shortly after this petition for certiorari to annul minute resolution No. 98-1959 dated 29 June 1998, was filed the COMELEC motu proprio issued M.R. No. 98-2145 on July 14, 1998 which held in abeyance the implementation of the questioned resolution and that of minute resolution No. 98-2106 dated July 7, 1998 for further study/review by the Commission.[1] Hence, Resolution No. 98-1959 never became final and executory and is still subject to either recall or modification by the Commission.

The Court notes that COMELEC Resolution No. 98-2828 issued on October 15, 1998 clarified that all the winning candidates for local government positions have been proclaimed and that no declaration of failure of elections in the island province of Tawi-Tawi was made by the Commission. Sadikul Sahali (who was proclaimed governor of Tawi-Tawi) and all other local candidates who were proclaimed winners as of May 13, 1998 are the duly elected officials of Tawi-Tawi as of July 14, 1998, when thestatus quo ante order was issued by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the subsequent promulgation of COMELEC Resolution Nos. 98-2145 and 9828 show that the questioned minute resolution no.98-1959 of the respondent tribunal suspending the effects of the proclamation of the petitioner and other local candidates has been effectively withdrawn, or at least held in abeyance for further study and review. The subsequent issuance of COMELEC M.R. Nos. 98-2145 and 98-2828 has mooted the instant petition.

The court should refrain from expressing its opinion in a case in which no practical relief may be granted in view of a supervening event.[2] It is a rule almost unanimously observed that courts of justice will take cognizance only of justiciable controversies wherein actual and not merely hypothetical issues are involved.[3] Where the issue has become moot and academic there is no justiciable controversy, an adjudication thereon would be of no practical use or value.[4]
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DISMISSED.

TITLE: G.R. No. 184849 ,February 13, 2009

SPOUSES PNP DIRECTOR ELISEO D. DELA PAZ (Ret.) and MARIA FE C. DELA PAZ, Petitioners,

vs.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS and the SENATE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS JOSE BALAJADIA, JR., Respondents.

NACHURA, J.:

FACTS

On October 6, 2008, a Philippine delegation of eight (8) senior Philippine National Police (PNP) officers arrived in Moscow, Russia to attend the 77th General Assembly Session of the International Criminal Police Organization (ICPO)-INTERPOL in St. Petersburg from October 6-10, 2008. With the delegation was Gen. Dela Paz, then comptroller and special disbursing officer of the PNP. Gen. Dela Paz, however, was to retire from the PNP on October 9, 2008.

On October 11, 2008, Gen. Dela Paz was apprehended by the local authorities at the Moscow airport departure area for failure to declare in written form the 105,000 euros [approximately P6,930,000.00] found in his luggage. In addition, he was also found to have in his possession 45,000 euros (roughly equivalent to P2,970,000.00).

Petitioners were detained in Moscow for questioning. After a few days, Gen. Dela Paz and the PNP delegation were allowed to return to the Philippines, but the Russian government confiscated the euros.

On October 21, 2008, Gen. Dela Paz arrived in Manila, a few days after Mrs. Dela Paz. Awaiting them were subpoenae earlier issued by respondent Committee for the investigation it was to conduct on the Moscow incident on October 23, 2008.

On October 23, 2008, respondent Committee held its first hearing. Instead of attending the hearing, petitioners filed with respondent Committee a pleading denominated Challenge to Jurisdiction with Motion to Quash Subpoena. Senator Santiago emphatically defended respondent Committee’s jurisdiction and commanded Balajadia to arrest petitioners.

Hence, this Petition.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Committee is devoid of any jurisdiction to investigate the Moscow incident as the matter does not involve state to state relations as provided in paragraph 12, Section 13, Rule 10 of the Senate Rules of Procedure.

RULING

The petition must inevitably fail.

Paragraph 12, Section 13, Rule 10 of the Senate Rules provides:

12) Committee on Foreign Relations. – Fifteen (15) members. All matters relating to the relations of the Philippines with other nations generally; diplomatic and consular services; the Association of Southeast Asian Nations; the United Nations Organization and its agencies; multi-lateral organizations, all international agreements, obligations and contracts; and overseas Filipinos.

A reading of the above provision unmistakably shows that the investigation of the Moscow incident involving petitioners is well within the respondent Committee’s jurisdiction.

 The arrest order issued against the petitioners has been rendered ineffectual. In the legislative inquiry held on November 15, 2008, jointly by the respondent Committee and the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, Gen. Dela Paz voluntarily appeared and answered the questions propounded by the Committee members. Having submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Senate Committees, there was no longer any necessity to implement the order of arrest. Furthermore, in the same hearing, Senator Santiago granted the motion of Gen. Dela Paz to dispense with the presence of Mrs. Dela Paz for humanitarian considerations.⁹ Consequently, the order for her arrest was effectively withdrawn.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit and for being moot and academic.