G.R. No. 191988 ; August 31, 2010
ATTY. EVILLO C. PORMENTO, Petitioner, vs. JOSEPH “ERAP” EJERCITO ESTRADA and COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Atty. Evillo C. Pormento filed a petition for disqualification against private respondent Joseph Ejercito Estrada, seeking to bar his candidacy for President in the May 10, 2010 elections. Pormento argued that Estrada, who was elected President in 1998 and served until his ouster in 2001, was covered by the constitutional ban that “[t]he President shall not be eligible for any reelection” under Section 4, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution . The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Second Division denied the petition, a ruling affirmed by the COMELEC en banc.
Subsequently, Pormento filed the instant petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court on May 7, 2010. He did not seek a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction. Consequently, Estrada participated in the May 10, 2010 presidential elections, where he placed second and was not elected. The proclamation of a new President rendered the core issue of the petition academic.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should resolve the petition seeking the disqualification of Joseph Ejercito Estrada from the 2010 presidential elections on the ground of alleged violation of the constitutional ban on presidential reelection.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for being moot and academic. The Court emphasized that the power of judicial review requires the existence of an actual case or controversy involving a conflict of legal rights susceptible of judicial determination. Following the May 10, 2010 elections where Estrada was not elected President, the central question—the interpretation of “any reelection” and its application to his candidacy—became hypothetical. There was no longer a live controversy or substantial relief that the Court could grant, as the electoral process had concluded and a new President had been proclaimed.
The Court exercised judicial restraint, refusing to rule on a moot question. It held that declaring principles of law that cannot affect the result in the case would amount to a non-binding advisory opinion. While acknowledging the novelty and importance of the constitutional issue, the Court found that the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception did not apply, as it was highly speculative that the petitioner would be subjected to the same action again. Thus, the petition was denied due course for lack of a justiciable controversy.