46.

SALONGA VS PAÑO
134 SCRA 438

FACTS: The petitioner invokes the constitutionally protected right to life and liberty
guaranteed by the due process clause, alleging that no prima facie case has been established to
warrant the filing of an information for subversion against him. Petitioner asks the Court to
prohibit and prevent the respondents from using the iron arm of the law to harass, oppress, and
persecute him, a member of the democratic opposition in the Philippines.

The case roots backs to the rash of bombings which occurred in the Metro Manila area in the
months of August, September and October of 1980. Victor Burns Lovely, Jr, one of the victims of
the bombing, implicated petitioner Salonga as one of those responsible.

On December 10, 1980, the Judge Advocate General sent the petitioner a “Notice of Preliminary
Investigation” in  People v. Benigno Aquino, Jr., et al. (which included petitioner as a co-
accused), stating that “the preliminary investigation of the above-entitled case has been set at
2:30 o’clock p.m. on December 12, 1980” and that petitioner was given ten (10) days from
receipt of the charge sheet and the supporting evidence within which to file his counter-
evidence. The petitioner states that up to the time martial law was lifted on January 17, 1981,
and despite assurance to the contrary, he has not received any copies of the charges against him
nor any copies of the so-called supporting evidence.

The counsel for Salonga was furnished a copy of an amended complaint signed by Gen. Prospero
Olivas, dated 12 March 1981, charging Salonga, along with 39 other accused with the violation of
RA 1700, as amended by PD 885, BP 31 and PD 1736. On 15 October 1981, the counsel for
Salonga filed a motion to dismiss the charges against Salonga for failure of the prosecution to
establish a prima facie case against him. On 2 December 1981, Judge Ernani Cruz Pano
(Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XVIII, Quezon City) denied the
motion. On 4 January 1982, he (Pano) issued a resolution ordering the filing of an information
for violation of the Revised Anti-Subversion Act, as amended, against 40 people, including
Salonga. The resolutions of the said judge dated 2 December 1981 and 4 January 1982 are the
subject of the present petition for certiorari. It is the contention of Salonga that no prima facie
case has been established by the prosecution to justify the filing of an information against him.
He states that to sanction his further prosecution despite the lack of evidence against him would
be to admit that no rule of law exists in the Philippines today.

Issues: 1. Whether the above case still falls under an actual case
2. Whether the above case dropped by the lower court still deserves a decision from the Supreme
Court

Held: 1. No. The Court had already deliberated on this case, a consensus on the Court’s
judgment had been arrived at, and a draft  ponencia was circulating for concurrences and
separate opinions, if any, when on January 18, 1985, respondent Judge Rodolfo Ortiz granted
the motion of respondent City Fiscal Sergio Apostol to drop the subversion case against the
petitioner. Pursuant to instructions of the Minister of Justice, the prosecution restudied its
evidence and decided to seek the exclusion of petitioner Jovito Salonga as one of the accused in
the information filed under the questioned resolution.

The court is constrained by this action of the prosecution and the respondent Judge to withdraw
the draft ponencia from circulating for concurrences and signatures and to place it once again in
the Court’s crowded agenda for further deliberations.

Insofar as the absence of a prima facie case to warrant the filing of subversion charges is
concerned, this decision has been rendered moot and academic by the action of the prosecution.
Respondent Fiscal Sergio Apostol correctly points out, however, that he is not precluded from
filing new charges for the same acts because the petitioner has not been arraigned and double
jeopardy does not apply. In that sense, the case is not completely academic.

2. Yes. Despite the SC’s dismissal of the petition due to the case’s moot and academic nature, it
has on several occasions rendered elaborate decisions in similar cases where mootness was
clearly apparent.

The setting aside or declaring void, in proper cases, of intrusions of State authority into areas
reserved by the Bill of Rights for the individual as constitutionally protected spheres where even
the awesome powers of Government may not enter at will is not the totality of the Court's
functions. The Court also has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional
principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules. It has the symbolic function of educating bench and bar
on the extent of protection given by constitutional guarantees.

In dela Camara vs Enage (41 SCRA 1), the court ruled that:
“The fact that the case is moot and academic should not preclude this Tribunal from setting
forth in language clear and unmistakable, the obligation of fidelity on the part of lower court
judges to the unequivocal command of the Constitution that excessive bail shall not be
required.”

In  Gonzales v. Marcos (65 SCRA 624) whether or not the Cultural Center of the Philippines
could validly be created through an executive order was mooted by Presidential Decree No. 15,
the Center’s new charter pursuant to the President’s legislative powers under martial law.
Nevertheless, the Court discussed the constitutional mandate on the preservation and
development of Filipino culture for national Identity. (Article XV, Section 9, Paragraph 2 of the
Constitution).


In the habeas corpus case of Aquino, Jr., v. Enrile, 59 SCRA 183), the fact that the petition was
moot and academic did not prevent this Court in the exercise of its symbolic function from
promulgating one of the most voluminous decisions ever printed in the Reports.

In this case, the respondents agree with our earlier finding that the prosecution evidence
miserably fails to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner, either as a co-conspirator of
a destabilization plan to overthrow the government or as an officer or leader of any subversive
organization.