DIGEST/ CHARLES ADRIANNE GILAGA/ SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY VS HON. JOSE D. LINA

 

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS), petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE D. LINA, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), Lipa City Mayor HON. VILMA SANTOS-RECTO, Pampanga Provincial Governor HON. LITO LAPID, and Parañaque City Mayor HON. JOEY MARQUEZ, respondents.

 

 

G.R. No. 160031             December 18, 2008

 

Facts:

Petitioner Social Justice Society, a registered political party, with the trial court was a petition for declaratory relief against the then Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), respondent Jose D. Lina, praying for Presented for resolution in its petition is the proper construction of Section 90 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7160

Based on the said provision, specifically paragraph (a) thereof, petitioner posited that actors who were elected as governors, city and municipal mayors were disallowed by law to appear in movies and television programs as one of the characters therein, for this would give them undue advantage over their political opponents, and would considerably reduce the time that they must devote to their constituents.

The DILG, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), moved for the dismissal of the petition on the grounds that: (1) petitioner has no legal standing to file the petition, because it is not a "person whose rights are affected" by the statute; (2) it is not the real party-in-interest; (3) there is no judicial controversy; (4) there is no need for construction of the subject provision; (5) there is already a breach of the statute as alleged in the petition itself; and (6) declaratory relief is not the proper remedy.

 

The trial court, sustaining the arguments of the DILG, dismissed the petition for declaratory relief. It further denied, in the September 12, 2003 Order, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

 

Issue: 

THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT RESOLVING THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF.

 

 

Ruling:

 

 

The petition is DENIED

The Court agrees with petitioner’s contentions on locus standi considering the liberal attitude it has taken in recent decisions.

However, following rules of procedure, the SC finds as proper the trial court’s dismissal of the petition for declaratory relief. Readily discernable is that the same is an inappropriate remedy to enforce compliance with Section 90 of R.A. 7160, and to prevent local chief executives Santos-Recto, Lapid and Marquez from taking roles in movies and television shows. The Court, thus, finds grants as apt the OSG’s move to dismiss the case.

In an action for declaratory relief should be filed by a person interested under a deed, a will, a contract or other written instrument, and whose rights are affected by a statute, an executive order, a regulation or an ordinance. The purpose of the remedy is to interpret or to determine the validity of the written instrument and to seek a judicial declaration of the parties’ rights or duties thereunder. For the action to prosper, it must be shown that (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. Suffice it to state that, in the petition filed with the trial court, petitioner failed to allege the ultimate facts which satisfy these requisites. Not only that, as admitted by the petitioner, the provision the interpretation of which is being sought has already been breached by the respondents. Declaratory relief cannot thus be availed of.