EN BANC

[G.R. NO. 159357. April 28, 2004]

Brother MARIANO MIKE Z. VELARDE, Petitioner, v. SOCIAL

JUSTICE SOCIETY, Respondent.

DECISION

PANGANIBAN, J.:

A decision that does not conform to the form and substance

required by the Constitution and the law is void and deemed legally
inexistent. To be valid, decisions should comply with the form, the
procedure and the substantive requirements laid out in the
Constitution, the Rules of Court and relevant circulars/orders of the
Supreme Court. For the guidance of the bench and the bar, the
Court hereby discusses these forms, procedures and requirements.

The Case

Before us is a Petition for Review1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of

Court, assailing the June 12, 2003 Decision2 and July 29, 2003
Order3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila (Branch 49). 4 ςrνll

The challenged Decision was the offshoot of a Petition for

Declaratory Relief5 filed before the RTC-Manila by herein
Respondent Social Justice Society (SJS) against herein Petitioner
Mariano Mike Z. Velarde, together with His Eminence, Jaime
Cardinal Sin, Executive Minister Erao Manalo, Brother Eddie
Villanueva and Brother Eliseo F. Soriano as co-respondents. The
Petition prayed for the resolution of the question whether or not the
act of a religious leader like any of herein respondents, in endorsing
the candidacy of a candidate for elective office or in urging or
requiring the members of his flock to vote for a specified candidate,
is violative of the letter or spirit of the constitutional provisions x x
x.6ςrνll

Alleging that the questioned Decision did not contain a statement of

facts and a dispositive portion, herein petitioner filed a Clarificatory
Motion and Motion for Reconsideration before the trial court.
Soriano, his co-respondent, similarly filed a separate Motion for
Reconsideration. In response, the trial court issued the assailed
Order, which held as follows: ςηαñrοblε š νιr†υαl lαω lιb rα rÿ

x x x [T]his Court cannot reconsider, because what it was asked to

do, was only to clarify a Constitutional provision and to declare
whether acts are violative thereof. The Decision did not make a
dispositive portion because a dispositive portion is required only in
coercive reliefs, where a redress from wrong suffered and the
benefit that the prevailing party wronged should get. The step that
these movants have to take, is direct appeal under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court, for a conclusive interpretation of the Constitutional
provision to the Supreme Court.7

The Antecedent Proceedings

On January 28, 2003, SJS filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief (SJS
Petition) before the RTC-Manila against Velarde and his aforesaid
co-respondents. SJS, a registered political party, sought the
interpretation of several constitutional provisions,8 specifically on
the separation of church and state; and a declaratory judgment on
the constitutionality of the acts of religious leaders endorsing a
candidate for an elective office, or urging or requiring the members
of their flock to vote for a specified candidate.

The subsequent proceedings were recounted in the challenged

Decision in these words: ςηαñrοbl εš νι r†υα l lαω lιb rα rÿ

x x x. Bro. Eddie Villanueva submitted, within the original period [to

file an Answer], a Motion to Dismiss. Subsequently, Executive
Minister Erao Manalo and Bro. Mike Velarde, filed their Motions to
Dismiss. While His Eminence Jaime Cardinal L. Sin, filed a Comment
and Bro. Eli Soriano, filed an Answer within the extended period and
similarly prayed for the dismissal of the Petition. All sought the
dismissal of the Petition on the common grounds that it does not
state a cause of action and that there is no justiciable controversy.
They were ordered to submit a pleading by way of advisement,
which was closely followed by another Order denying all the Motions
to Dismiss. Bro. Mike Velarde, Bro. Eddie Villanueva and Executive
Minister Erao Manalo moved to reconsider the denial. His Eminence
Jaime Cardinal L. Sin, asked for extension to file memorandum.
Only Bro. Eli Soriano complied with the first Order by submitting his
Memorandum. x x x. chanroblesv irtuallaw lib rary

x x x the Court denied the Motions to Dismiss, and the Motions for
Reconsideration filed by Bro. Mike Velarde, Bro. Eddie Villanueva
and Executive Minister Erao Manalo, which raised no new arguments
other than those already considered in the motions to dismiss x x
x.9ςrνll

After narrating the above incidents, the trial court said that it had
jurisdiction over the Petition, because in praying for a determination
as to whether the actions imputed to the respondents are violative
of Article II, Section 6 of the Fundamental Law, [the Petition] has
raised only a question of law.10 It then proceeded to a lengthy
discussion of the issue raised in the Petition the separation of
church and state even tracing, to some extent, the historical
background of the principle. Through its discourse, the court a
quo opined at some point that the [e]ndorsement of specific
candidates in an election to any public office is a clear violation of
the separation clause.11 ςrνll

After its essay on the legal issue, however, the trial court failed to
include a dispositive portion in its assailed Decision. Thus, Velarde
and Soriano filed separate Motions for Reconsideration which, as
mentioned earlier, were denied by the lower court.

Hence, this Petition for Review.12 ςrνll

This Court, in a Resolution13 dated September 2, 2003, required SJS

and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to submit their
respective comments. In the same Resolution, the Court gave the
other parties -- impleaded as respondents in the original case below
--the opportunity to comment, if they so desired.

On April 13, 2004, the Court en banc conducted an Oral

Argument.14

The Issues
In his Petition, Brother Mike Velarde submits the following issues for
this Courts resolution: ςηαñrοblεš ν ιr† υαl l αω lιb rαrÿ

1.Whether or not the Decision dated 12 June 2003 rendered by the

court a quo was proper and valid; chan roble svi rtual lawlib rary

2.Whether or not there exists justiceable controversy in herein

respondents Petition for declaratory relief; c hanroblesv irt uallawl ibra ry

3.Whether or not herein respondent has legal interest in filing the

Petition for declaratory relief; cha nrob lesvi rtua llawli bra ry

4.Whether or not the constitutional question sought to be resolved

by herein respondent is ripe for judicial determination; chanrob lesvi rtual lawlib rary

5.Whether or not there is adequate remedy other than the

declaratory relief; and,

6.Whether or not the court a quo has jurisdiction over the Petition
for declaratory relief of herein respondent.15 ςrνll

During the Oral Argument, the issues were narrowed down and
classified as follows:ςηαñrο blεš ν ιr† υαl l αω lιb rαrÿ

A.Procedural Issues

Did the Petition for Declaratory Relief raise a justiciable

controversy?Did it state a cause of action? Did respondent have any
legal standing to file the Petition for Declaratory Relief? chanroblesvi rt ualawlib ra ry

B.Substantive Issues

1.Did the RTC Decision conform to the form and substance required
by the Constitution, the law and the Rules of Court? chanroble svirtua lawlib rary

2.May religious leaders like herein petitioner, Bro. Mike Velarde, be

prohibited from endorsing candidates for public office? Corollarily,
may they be banned from campaigning against said candidates?

The Courts Ruling

The Petition of Brother Mike Velarde is meritorious.

Procedural Issues:

Requisites of Petitions
for Declaratory Relief

Section 1 of Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, which deals with petitions

for declaratory relief, provides in part:
ςηαñrοb lεš νι r†υ αl lαω l ιbrα rÿ

Section 1. Who may file petition.- Any person interested under a

deed, will, contract or other written instrument, whose rights are
affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or
any other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation
thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to
determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a
declaration of his rights or duties thereunder.

Based on the foregoing, 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.16 The essential requisites of the action are as
follows: (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.17

Justiciable Controversy

Brother Mike Velarde contends that the SJS Petition failed to allege,
much less establish before the trial court, that there existed a
justiciable controversy or an adverse legal interest between them;
and that SJS had a legal right that was being violated or threatened
to be violated by petitioner. On the contrary, Velarde alleges that
SJS premised its action on mere speculations, contingent events,
and hypothetical issues that had not yet ripened into an actual
controversy. Thus, its Petition for Declaratory Relief must fail.
A justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or controversy
that is appropriate or ripe for judicial determination, not one that is
conjectural or merely anticipatory.18 The SJS Petition for Declaratory
Relief fell short of this test. It miserably failed to allege an existing
controversy or dispute between the petitioner and the named
respondents therein. Further, the Petition did not sufficiently state
what specific legal right of the petitioner was violated by the
respondents therein; and what particular act or acts of the latter
were in breach of its rights, the law or the Constitution.

As pointed out by Brother Eliseo F. Soriano in his Comment,19 what

exactly has he done that merited the attention of SJS? He confesses
that he does not know the answer, because the SJS Petition (as well
as the assailed Decision of the RTC) yields nothing in this respect.
His Eminence, Jaime Cardinal Sin, adds that, at the time SJS filed
its Petition on January 28, 2003, the election season had not even
started yet; and that, in any event, he has not been actively
involved in partisan politics.

An initiatory complaint or petition filed with the trial court should

contain a plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts
on which the party pleading relies for his claim x x x.20 Yet, the SJS
Petition stated no ultimate facts.

Indeed, SJS merely speculated or anticipated without factual

moorings that, as religious leaders, the petitioner and his co-
respondents below had endorsed or threatened to endorse a
candidate or candidates for elective offices; and that such actual or
threatened endorsement will enable [them] to elect men to public
office who [would] in turn be forever beholden to their leaders,
enabling them to control the government[;]21 and pos[ing] a clear
and present danger of serious erosion of the peoples faith in the
electoral process[;] and reinforc[ing] their belief that religious
leaders determine the ultimate result of elections,22 which would
then be violative of the separation clause.

Such premise is highly speculative and merely theoretical, to say

the least. Clearly, it does not suffice to constitute a justiciable
controversy. The Petition does not even allege any indication or
manifest intent on the part of any of the respondents below to
champion an electoral candidate, or to urge their so-called flock to
vote for, or not to vote for, a particular candidate. It is a time-
honored rule that sheer speculation does not give rise to an
actionable right.

Obviously, there is no factual allegation that SJS rights are being

subjected to any threatened, imminent and inevitable violation that
should be prevented by the declaratory relief sought.The judicial
power and duty of the courts to settle actual controversies involving
rights that are legally demandable and enforceable23 cannot be
exercised when there is no actual or threatened violation of a legal
right.

All that the 5-page SJS Petition prayed for was that the question
raised in paragraph 9 hereof be resolved.24 In other words, it
merely sought an opinion of the trial court on whether the
speculated acts of religious leaders endorsing elective candidates for
political offices violated the constitutional principle on the separation
of church and state. SJS did not ask for a declaration of its rights
and duties; neither did it pray for the stoppage of any threatened
violation of its declared rights.Courts, however, are proscribed from
rendering an advisory opinion.25

Cause of Action

Respondent SJS asserts that in order to maintain a petition for

declaratory relief, a cause of action need not be alleged or proven.
Supposedly, for such petition to prosper, there need not be any
violation of a right, breach of duty or actual wrong committed by
one party against the other.

Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that the subject matter of an

action for declaratory relief should be a deed, a will, a contract (or
other written instrument), a statute, an executive order, a
regulation or an ordinance. But the subject matter of the SJS
Petition is the constitutionality of an act of a religious leader to
endorse the candidacy of a candidate for elective office or to urge or
require the members of the flock to vote for a specified
candidate.26 According to petitioner, this subject matter is beyond
the realm of an action for declaratory relief.27 Petitioner avers that
in the absence of a valid subject matter, the Petition fails to state a
cause of action and, hence, should have been dismissed outright by
the court a quo.

A cause of action is an act or an omission of one party in violation of

the legal right or rights of another, causing injury to the latter.28 Its
essential elements are the following: (1) a right in favor of the
plaintiff; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to
respect or not to violate such right; and (3) such defendants act or
omission that is violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a
breach of the obligation of the former to the latter.29 ςrνll

The failure of a complaint to state a cause of action is a ground for

its outright dismissal.30 However, in special civil actions for
declaratory relief, the concept of a cause of action under ordinary
civil actions does not strictly apply. The reason for this exception is
that an action for declaratory relief presupposes that there has been
no actual breach of the instruments involved or of rights arising
thereunder.31 Nevertheless, a breach or violation should be
impending, imminent or at least threatened.

A perusal of the Petition filed by SJS before the RTC discloses no

explicit allegation that the former had any legal right in its favor
that it sought to protect. We can only infer the interest, supposedly
in its favor, from its bare allegation that it has thousands of
members who are citizens-taxpayers-registered voters and who are
keenly interested in a judicial clarification of the constitutionality of
the partisan participation of religious leaders in Philippine politics
and in the process to insure adherence to the Constitution by
everyone x x x.32 ςrνll

Such general averment does not, however, suffice to constitute a

legal right or interest. Not only is the presumed interest not
personal in character; it is likewise too vague, highly speculative
and uncertain.33 The Rules require that the interest must be
material to the issue and affected by the questioned act or
instrument, as distinguished from simple curiosity or incidental
interest in the question raised.34 ςrνll
To bolster its stance, SJS cites the Corpus Juris Secundum and
submits that the [p]laintiff in a declaratory judgment action does
not seek to enforce a claim against [the] defendant, but seeks a
judicial declaration of [the] rights of the parties for the purpose of
guiding [their] future conduct, and the essential distinction between
a declaratory judgment action and the usual action is that no actual
wrong need have been committed or loss have occurred in order to
sustain the declaratory judgment action, although there must be no
uncertainty that the loss will occur or that the asserted rights will be
invaded.35 ςrνll

SJS has, however, ignored the crucial point of its own reference that
there must be no uncertainty that the loss will occur or that the
asserted rights will be invaded. Precisely, as discussed earlier, it
merely conjectures that herein petitioner (and his co-respondents
below) might actively participate in partisan politics, use the
awesome voting strength of its faithful flock [to] enable it to elect
men to public office x x x, enabling [it] to control the
government.36 ςrνll

During the Oral Argument, though, Petitioner Velarde and his co-
respondents below all strongly asserted that they had not in any
way engaged or intended to participate in partisan politics.They all
firmly assured this Court that they had not done anything to trigger
the issue raised and to entitle SJS to the relief sought.

Indeed, the Court finds in the Petition for Declaratory Relief no

single allegation of fact upon which SJS could base a right of relief
from the named respondents. In any event, even granting that it
sufficiently asserted a legal right it sought to protect, there was
nevertheless no certainty that such right would be invaded by the
said respondents. Not even the alleged proximity of the elections to
the time the Petition was filed below (January 28, 2003) would have
provided the certainty that it had a legal right that would be
jeopardized or violated by any of those Respondents.

Legal Standing

Legal standing or locus standi has been defined as a personal and

substantial interest in the case, such that the party has sustained or
will sustain direct injury as a result of the challenged
act.37 Interest means a material interest in issue that is affected by
the questioned act or instrument, as distinguished from a mere
incidental interest in the question involved.38 ςrνll

Petitioner alleges that [i]n seeking declaratory relief as to the

constitutionality of an act of a religious leader to endorse, or require
the members of the religious flock to vote for a specific candidate,
herein Respondent SJS has no legal interest in the controversy;39 it
has failed to establish how the resolution of the proffered question
would benefit or injure it.

Parties bringing suits challenging the constitutionality of a law, an

act or a statute must show not only that the law [or act] is invalid,
but also that [they have] sustained or [are] in immediate or
imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its
enforcement, and not merely that [they] suffer thereby in some
indefinite way.40 They must demonstrate that they have been, or
are about to be, denied some right or privilege to which they are
lawfully entitled, or that they are about to be subjected to some
burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act complained
of.41ςrνll

First, parties suing as taxpayers must specifically prove that they

have sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of
money raised by taxation.42 A taxpayers action may be properly
brought only when there is an exercise by Congress of its taxing or
spending power.43 In the present case, there is no allegation,
whether express or implied, that taxpayers money is being illegally
disbursed.

Second, there was no showing in the Petition for Declaratory Relief

that SJS as a political party or its members as registered voters
would be adversely affected by the alleged acts of the respondents
below, if the question at issue was not resolved. There was no
allegation that SJS had suffered or would be deprived of votes due
to the acts imputed to the said respondents. Neither did it allege
that any of its members would be denied the right of suffrage or the
privilege to be voted for a public office they are seeking.
Finally, the allegedly keen interest of its thousands of members who
are citizens-taxpayers-registered voters is too general44 and beyond
the contemplation of the standards set by our jurisprudence. Not
only is the presumed interest impersonal in character; it is likewise
too vague, highly speculative and uncertain to satisfy the
requirement of standing.45

Transcendental Importance

In any event, SJS urges the Court to take cognizance of the

Petition, even sans legal standing, considering that the issues raised
are of paramount public interest.

In not a few cases, the Court has liberalized the locus

standi requirement when a petition raises an issue of transcendental
significance or paramount importance to the people.46 Recently,
after holding that the IBP had no locus standi to bring the suit, the
Court in IBP v. Zamora47 nevertheless entertained the Petition
therein. It noted that the IBP has advanced constitutional issues
which deserve the attention of this Court in view of their
seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents.48 ςrνll

Similarly in the instant case, the Court deemed the constitutional

issue raised in the SJS Petition to be of paramount interest to the
Filipino people. The issue did not simply concern a delineation of the
separation between church and state, but ran smack into the
governance of our country. The issue was both transcendental in
importance and novel in nature, since it had never been decided
before.

The Court, thus, called for Oral Argument to determine with

certainty whether it could resolve the constitutional issue despite
the barren allegations in the SJS Petition as well as the abbreviated
proceedings in the court below. Much to its chagrin, however,
counsels for the parties -- particularly for Respondent SJS -- made
no satisfactory allegations or clarifications that would supply the
deficiencies hereinabove discussed. Hence, even if the Court would
exempt this case from the stringent locus standi requirement, such
heroic effort would be futile because the transcendental issue
cannot be resolved anyway.
 Proper Proceedings Before
the Trial Court

To prevent a repetition of this waste of precious judicial time and

effort, and for the guidance of the bench and the bar, the Court
reiterates the elementary procedure49 that must be followed by trial
courts in the conduct of civil cases.50 ςrνll

Prefatorily, the trial court may -- motu proprio or upon motion of

the defendant -- dismiss a complaint51 (or petition, in a special civil
action) that does not allege the plaintiffs (or petitioners) cause or
causes of action.52 A complaint or petition should contain a plain,
concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the
party pleading relies for his claim or defense.53 It should likewise
clearly specify the relief sought.54ςrνll

Upon the filing of the complaint/petition and the payment of the

requisite legal fees, the clerk of court shall forthwith issue the
corresponding summons to the defendants or the respondents, with
a directive that the defendant answer55 within 15 days, unless a
different period is fixed by the court.56 The summons shall also
contain a notice that if such answer is not filed, the
plaintiffs/petitioners shall take a judgment by default and may be
granted the relief applied for.57 The court, however, may -- upon
such terms as may be just -- allow an answer to be filed after the
time fixed by the Rules.58 ςrνll

If the answer sets forth a counterclaim or cross-claim, it must be

answered within ten (10) days from service.59 A reply may be filed
within ten (10) days from service of the pleading responded to.60 ςrνll

When an answer fails to tender an issue or admits the material

allegations of the adverse partys pleading, the court may, on
motion of that party, direct judgment on such pleading (except in
actions for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage or for
legal separation). 61 Meanwhile, a party seeking to recover upon a
claim, a counterclaim or crossclaim -- or to obtain a declaratory
relief -- may, at any time after the answer thereto has been served,
move for a summary judgment in its favor.62 Similarly, a party
against whom a claim, a counterclaim or crossclaim is asserted -- or
a declaratory relief sought -- may, at any time, move for a
summary judgment in its favor.63 After the motion is heard, the
judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if there is a showing
that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue
as to any material fact; and that the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law.64 ςrνll

Within the time for -- but before -- filing the answer to the
complaint or petition, the defendant may file a motion to dismiss
based on any of the grounds stated in Section 1 of Rule 16 of the
Rules of Court. During the hearing of the motion, the parties shall
submit their arguments on the questions of law, and their evidence
on the questions of fact.65 After the hearing, the court may dismiss
the action or claim, deny the motion, or order the amendment of
the pleadings. It shall not defer the resolution of the motion for the
reason that the ground relied upon is not indubitable. In every case,
the resolution shall state clearly and distinctly the reasons
therefor.66 ςrνll

If the motion is denied, the movant may file an answer within the
balance of the period originally prescribed to file an answer, but not
less than five (5) days in any event, computed from the receipt of
the notice of the denial. If the pleading is ordered to be amended,
the defendant shall file an answer within fifteen (15) days, counted
from the service of the amended pleading, unless the court provides
a longer period.67 ςrνll

After the last pleading has been served and filed, the case shall be
set for pretrial,68 which is a mandatory proceeding.69 A plaintiffs/
petitioners (or its duly authorized representatives) non-appearance
at the pretrial, if without valid cause, shall result in the dismissal of
the action with prejudice, unless the court orders otherwise. A
similar failure on the part of the defendant shall be a cause for
allowing the plaintiff/petitioner to present evidence ex parte, and
the court to render judgment on the basis thereof.70 ςrνll

The parties are required to file their pretrial briefs; failure to do so

shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the
pretrial.71 Upon the termination thereof, the court shall issue an
order reciting in detail the matters taken up at the conference; the
action taken on them, the amendments allowed to the pleadings;
and the agreements or admissions, if any, made by the parties
regarding any of the matters considered.72 The parties may further
avail themselves of any of the modes of discovery,73 if they so wish.

Thereafter, the case shall be set for trial,74 in which the parties shall
adduce their respective evidence in support of their claims and/or
defenses. By their written consent or upon the application of either
party, or on its own motion, the court may also order any or all of
the issues to be referred to a commissioner, who is to be appointed
by it or to be agreed upon by the parties.75 The trial or hearing
before the commissioner shall proceed in all respects as it would if
held before the court.76 ςrνll

Upon the completion of such proceedings, the commissioner shall

file with the court a written report on the matters referred by the
parties.77 The report shall be set for hearing, after which the court
shall issue an order adopting, modifying or rejecting it in whole or in
part; or recommitting it with instructions; or requiring the parties to
present further evidence before the commissioner or the court.78 ςrνll

Finally, a judgment or final order determining the merits of the case

shall be rendered. The decision shall be in writing, personally and
directly prepared by the judge, stating clearly and distinctly the
facts and the law on which it is based, signed by the issuing
magistrate, and filed with the clerk of court.79 ςrνll

Based on these elementary guidelines, let us examine the

proceedings before the trial court in the instant case.

First, with respect to the initiatory pleading of the SJS. Even a

cursory perusal of the Petition immediately reveals its gross
inadequacy. It contained no statement of ultimate facts upon which
the petitioner relied for its claim. Furthermore, it did not specify the
relief it sought from the court, but merely asked it to answer a
hypothetical question.

Relief, as contemplated in a legal action, refers to a specific coercive

measure prayed for as a result of a violation of the rights of a
plaintiff or a petitioner.80 As already discussed earlier, the Petition
before the trial court had no allegations of fact81 or of any specific
violation of the petitioners rights, which the respondents had a duty
to respect. Such deficiency amounted to a failure to state a cause of
action; hence, no coercive relief could be sought and adjudicated.
The Petition evidently lacked substantive requirements and, we
repeat, should have been dismissed at the outset.

Second, with respect to the trial court proceedings. Within the

period set to file their respective answers to the SJS Petition,
Velarde, Villanueva and Manalo filed Motions to Dismiss; Cardinal
Sin, a Comment; and Soriano, within a priorly granted extended
period, an Answer in which he likewise prayed for the dismissal of
the Petition.82 SJS filed a Rejoinder to the Motion of Velarde, who
subsequently filed a Sur-Rejoinder. Supposedly, there were several
scheduled settings, in which the [c]ourt was apprised of the
respective positions of the parties.83 The nature of such settings --
whether pretrial or trial hearings -- was not disclosed in the records.
Before ruling on the Motions to Dismiss, the trial court issued an
Order84 dated May 8, 2003, directing the parties to submit their
memoranda. Issued shortly thereafter was another Order85 dated
May 14, 2003, denying all the Motions to Dismiss.

In the latter Order, the trial court perfunctorily ruled: ςηαñ rοblε š νιr†υαl lαω lιb rα rÿ

The Court now resolves to deny the Motions to Dismiss, and after all
the memoranda are submitted, then, the case shall be deemed as
submitted for resolution.86 ςrνll

Apparently, contrary to the requirement of Section 2 of Rule 16 of

the Rules of Court, the Motions were not heard.Worse, the Order
purportedly resolving the Motions to Dismiss did not state any
reason at all for their denial, in contravention of Section 3 of the
said Rule 16. There was not even any statement of the grounds
relied upon by the Motions; much less, of the legal findings and
conclusions of the trial court.

Thus, Velarde, Villanueva and Manalo moved for reconsideration.

Pending the resolution of these Motions for Reconsideration,
Villanueva filed a Motion to suspend the filing of the parties
memoranda. But instead of separately resolving the pending
Motions fairly and squarely, the trial court again transgressed the
Rules of Court when it immediately proceeded to issue its Decision,
even before tackling the issues raised in those Motions.

Furthermore, the RTC issued its Decision without allowing the

parties to file their answers. For this reason, there was no joinder of
the issues. If only it had allowed the filing of those answers, the trial
court would have known, as the Oral Argument revealed, that the
petitioner and his co-respondents below had not committed or
threatened to commit the act attributed to them (endorsing
candidates) -- the act that was supposedly the factual basis of the
suit.

Parenthetically, the court a quo further failed to give a notice of the

Petition to the OSG, which was entitled to be heard upon questions
involving the constitutionality or validity of statutes and other
measures.87 ςrνll

Moreover, as will be discussed in more detail, the questioned

Decision of the trial court was utterly wanting in the requirements
prescribed by the Constitution and the Rules of Court.

All in all, during the loosely abbreviated proceedings of the case, the
trial court indeed acted with inexplicable haste, with total ignorance
of the law -- or, worse, in cavalier disregard of the rules of
procedure -- and with grave abuse of discretion.

Contrary to the contentions of the trial judge and of SJS,

proceedings for declaratory relief must still follow the process
described above -- the petition must state a cause of action; the
proceedings must undergo the procedure outlined in the Rules of
Court; and the decision must adhere to constitutional and legal
requirements.

First Substantive Issue:

Fundamental Requirements
of a Decision
The Constitution commands that [n]o decision shall be rendered by
any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts
and the law on which it is based. No Petition for Review or motion
for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due
course or denied without stating the basis therefor.88 ςrνll

Consistent with this constitutional mandate, Section 1 of Rule 36 of

the Rules on Civil Procedure similarly provides: ςηαñrοb lεš ν ιr† υαl l αω lιb rαrÿ

Sec. 1. Rendition of judgments and final orders. A judgment or final

order determining the merits of the case shall be in writing
personally and directly prepared by the judge, stating clearly and
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based, signed by him
and filed with the clerk of court.

In the same vein, Section 2 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court on

Criminal Procedure reads as follows: ςηαñ rοblε š νιr†υα l lαω lιb rα rÿ

Sec. 2. Form and contents of judgments. -- The judgment must be

written in the official language, personally and directly prepared by
the judge and signed by him and shall contain clearly and distinctly
a statement of the facts proved or admitted by the accused and the
law upon which the judgment is based.

x x x.

Pursuant to the Constitution, this Court also issued on January 28,

1988, Administrative Circular No. 1, prompting all judges to make
complete findings of facts in their decisions, and scrutinize closely
the legal aspects of the case in the light of the evidence
presented.They should avoid the tendency to generalize and form
conclusions without detailing the facts from which such conclusions
are deduced.

In many cases,89 this Court has time and time again reminded
magistrates to heed the demand of Section 14, Article VIII of the
Constitution. The Court, through Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr.
in Yao v. Court of Appeals,90 discussed at length the implications of
this provision and strongly exhorted thus: ςηαñrοblε š νιr†υα l lαω lιb rα rÿ
Faithful adherence to the requirements of Section 14, Article VIII of
the Constitution is indisputably a paramount component of due
process and fair play. It is likewise demanded by the due process
clause of the Constitution. The parties to a litigation should be
informed of how it was decided, with an explanation of the factual
and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court. The court
cannot simply say that judgment is rendered in favor of X and
against Y and just leave it at that without any justification
whatsoever for its action. The losing party is entitled to know why
he lost, so he may appeal to the higher court, if permitted, should
he believe that the decision should be reversed. A decision that
does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which
it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was reached
and is precisely prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to
pinpoint the possible errors of the court for review by a higher
tribunal. More than that, the requirement is an assurance to the
parties that, in reaching judgment, the judge did so through the
processes of legal reasoning. It is, thus, a safeguard against the
impetuosity of the judge, preventing him from deciding ipse dixit.
Vouchsafed neither the sword nor the purse by the Constitution but
nonetheless vested with the sovereign prerogative of passing
judgment on the life, liberty or property of his fellowmen, the judge
must ultimately depend on the power of reason for sustained public
confidence in the justness of his decision.

In People v. Bugarin,91 the Court also explained: ςηαñrο blε š νιr†υαl lαω lιb rα rÿ

The requirement that the decisions of courts must be in writing and

that they must set forth clearly and distinctly the facts and the law
on which they are based serves many functions. It is intended,
among other things, to inform the parties of the reason or reasons
for the decision so that if any of them appeals, he can point out to
the appellate court the finding of facts or the rulings on points of
law with which he disagrees. More than that, the requirement is an
assurance to the parties that, in reaching judgment, the judge did
so through the processes of legal reasoning. x x x. chanroblesvi rtua ll awlibra ry

Indeed, elementary due process demands that the parties to a

litigation be given information on how the case was decided, as well
as an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the
conclusions of the court.92 ςrνll

In Madrid v. Court of Appeals,93 this Court had instructed

magistrates to exert effort to ensure that their decisions would
present a comprehensive analysis or account of the factual and legal
findings that would substantially address the issues raised by the
parties.

In the present case, it is starkly obvious that the assailed Decision

contains no statement of facts -- much less an assessment or
analysis thereof -- or of the courts findings as to the probable facts.
The assailed Decision begins with a statement of the nature of the
action and the question or issue presented. Then follows a brief
explanation of the constitutional provisions involved, and what the
Petition sought to achieve. Thereafter, the ensuing procedural
incidents before the trial court are tracked. The Decision proceeds to
a full-length opinion on the nature and the extent of the separation
of church and state. Without expressly stating the final conclusion
she has reached or specifying the relief granted or denied, the trial
judge ends her Decision with the clause SO ORDERED.

What were the antecedents that necessitated the filing of the

Petition? What exactly were the distinct facts that gave rise to the
question sought to be resolved by SJS? More important, what were
the factual findings and analysis on which the trial court based its
legal findings and conclusions? None were stated or implied. Indeed,
the RTCs Decision cannot be upheld for its failure to express clearly
and distinctly the facts on which it was based. Thus, the trial court
clearly transgressed the constitutional directive.

The significance of factual findings lies in the value of the decision

as a precedent. How can it be so if one cannot apply the ruling to
similar circumstances, simply because such circumstances are
unknown? Otherwise stated, how will the ruling be applied in the
future, if there is no point of factual comparison?chanroblesvi rtua lawlib rary

Moreover, the court a quo did not include a resolutory or dispositive

portion in its so-called Decision. The importance of such portion was
explained in the early case Manalang v. Tuason de Rickards,94 from
which we quote: ςηαñrοbl εš νι r†υα l lα ω lιbrα rÿ

The resolution of the Court on a given issue as embodied in the

dispositive part of the decision or order is the investitive or
controlling factor that determines and settles the rights of the
parties and the questions presented therein, notwithstanding the
existence of statements or declaration in the body of said order that
may be confusing.

The assailed Decision in the present case leaves us in the dark as to

its final resolution of the Petition. To recall, the original Petition was
for declaratory relief. So, what relief did the trial court grant or
deny? What rights of the parties did it conclusively declare? Its final
statement says, SO ORDERED. But what exactly did the court
order? It had the temerity to label its issuance a Decision, when
nothing was in fact decided.

Respondent SJS insists that the dispositive portion can be found in

the body of the assailed Decision. It claims that the issue is
disposed of and the Petition finally resolved by the statement of the
trial court found on page 10 of its 14-page Decision, which reads:
Endorsement of specific candidates in an election to any public
office is a clear violation of the separation clause.95 ςrνll

We cannot agree.

In Magdalena Estate, Inc. v. Caluag,96 the obligation of the party

imposed by the Court was allegedly contained in the text of the
original Decision. The Court, however, held: ςηαñrο blεš ν ιr† υαl l αω lιb rαrÿ

x x x The quoted finding of the lower court cannot supply

deficiencies in the dispositive portion. It is a mere opinion of the
court and the rule is settled that where there is a conflict between
the dispositive part and the opinion, the former must prevail over
the latter on the theory that the dispositive portion is the final order
while the opinion is merely a statement ordering nothing. (Italics in
the original)
Thus, the dispositive portion cannot be deemed to be the statement
quoted by SJS and embedded in the last paragraph of page 10 of
the assailed 14-page Decision. If at all, that statement is merely an
answer to a hypothetical legal question and just a part of the
opinion of the trial court. It does not conclusively declare the rights
(or obligations) of the parties to the Petition. Neither does it grant
any -- much less, the proper -- relief under the circumstances, as
required of a dispositive portion.

Failure to comply with the constitutional injunction is a grave abuse

of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Decisions
or orders issued in careless disregard of the constitutional mandate
are a patent nullity and must be struck down as void.97

Parts of a Decision

In general, the essential parts of a good decision consist of the

following: (1) statement of the case; (2) statement of facts; (3)
issues or assignment of errors; (4) court ruling, in which each issue
is, as a rule, separately considered and resolved; and, finally, (5)
dispositive portion. The ponente may also opt to include an
introduction or a prologue as well as an epilogue, especially in cases
in which controversial or novel issues are involved.98 ςrνll

An introduction may consist of a concise but comprehensive

statement of the principal factual or legal issue/s of the case. In
some cases -- particularly those concerning public interest; or
involving complicated commercial, scientific, technical or otherwise
rare subject matters -- a longer introduction or prologue may serve
to acquaint readers with the specific nature of the controversy and
the issues involved. An epilogue may be a summation of the
important principles applied to the resolution of the issues of
paramount public interest or significance. It may also lay down an
enduring philosophy of law or guiding principle.

Let us now, again for the guidance of the bench and the bar, discuss
the essential parts of a good decision.

1.Statement of the Case

The Statement of the Case consists of a legal definition of the
nature of the action.At the first instance, this part states whether
the action is a civil case for collection, ejectment, quieting of title,
foreclosure of mortgage, and so on; or, if it is a criminal case, this
part describes the specific charge -- quoted usually from the
accusatory portion of the information -- and the plea of the accused.
Also mentioned here are whether the case is being decided on
appeal or on a petition for certiorari , the court of origin, the case
number in the trial court, and the dispositive portion of the assailed
decision.

In a criminal case, the verbatim reproduction of the criminal

information serves as a guide in determining the nature and the
gravity of the offense for which the accused may be found
culpable.As a rule, the accused cannot be convicted of a crime
different from or graver than that charged.

Also, quoting verbatim the text of the information is especially

important when there is a question on the sufficiency of the charge,
or on whether qualifying and modifying circumstances have been
adequately alleged therein.

To ensure that due process is accorded, it is important to give a

short description of the proceedings regarding the plea of the
accused. Absence of an arraignment, or a serious irregularity
therein, may render the judgment void, and further consideration
by the appellate court would be futile. In some instances, especially
in appealed cases, it would also be useful to mention the fact of the
appellants detention, in order to dispose of the preliminary query --
whether or not they have abandoned their appeal by absconding or
jumping bail.

Mentioning the court of origin and the case number originally

assigned helps in facilitating the consolidation of the records of the
case in both the trial and the appellate courts, after entry of final
judgment.

Finally, the reproduction of the decretal portion of the assailed

decision informs the reader of how the appealed case was decided
by the court a quo.
2.Statement of Facts

There are different ways of relating the facts of the case. First,
under the objective or reportorial method, the judge summarizes --
without comment -- the testimony of each witness and the contents
of each exhibit. Second, under the synthesis method, the factual
theory of the plaintiff or prosecution and then that of the defendant
or defense is summarized according to the judges best light. Third,
in the subjective method, the version of the facts accepted by the
judge is simply narrated without explaining what the parties
versions are. Finally, through a combination of objective and
subjective means, the testimony of each witness is reported and the
judge then formulates his or her own version of the facts.

In criminal cases, it is better to present both the version of the

prosecution and that of the defense, in the interest of fairness and
due process. A detailed evaluation of the contentions of the parties
must follow. The resolution of most criminal cases, unlike civil and
other cases, depends to a large extent on the factual issues and the
appreciation of the evidence. The plausibility or the implausibility of
each version can sometimes be initially drawn from a reading of the
facts. Thereafter, the bases of the court in arriving at its findings
and conclusions should be explained.

On appeal, the fact that the assailed decision of the lower court
fully, intelligently and correctly resolved all factual and legal issues
involved may partly explain why the reviewing court finds no reason
to reverse the findings and conclusions of the former. Conversely,
the lower courts patent misappreciation of the facts or
misapplication of the law would aid in a better understanding of why
its ruling is reversed or modified.

In appealed civil cases, the opposing sets of facts no longer need to

be presented. Issues for resolution usually involve questions of law,
grave abuse of discretion, or want of jurisdiction; hence, the facts of
the case are often undisputed by the parties. With few exceptions,
factual issues are not entertained in non-criminal
cases.Consequently, the narration of facts by the lower court, if
exhaustive and clear, may be reproduced; otherwise, the material
factual antecedents should be restated in the words of the reviewing
magistrate.

In addition, the reasoning of the lower court or body whose decision

is under review should be laid out, in order that the parties may
clearly understand why the lower court ruled in a certain way, and
why the reviewing court either finds no reason to reverse it or
concludes otherwise.

3.Issues or Assignment of Errors

Both factual and legal issues should be stated. On appeal, the

assignment of errors, as mentioned in the appellants brief, may be
reproduced in toto and tackled seriatim,so as to avoid motions for
reconsideration of the final decision on the ground that the court
failed to consider all assigned errors that could affect the outcome
of the case. But when the appellant presents repetitive issues or
when the assigned errors do not strike at the main issue, these may
be restated in clearer and more coherent terms.

Though not specifically questioned by the parties, additional issues

may also be included, if deemed important for substantial justice to
be rendered. Note that appealed criminal cases are given de
novo review, in contrast to noncriminal cases in which the reviewing
court is generally limited to issues specifically raised in the appeal.
The few exceptions are errors of jurisdiction; questions not raised
but necessary in arriving at a just decision on the case; or
unassigned errors that are closely related to those properly
assigned, or upon which depends the determination of the question
properly raised.

4.The Courts Ruling

This part contains a full discussion of the specific errors or issues

raised in the complaint, petition or appeal, as the case may be; as
well as of other issues the court deems essential to a just
disposition of the case. Where there are several issues, each one of
them should be separately addressed, as much as practicable. The
respective contentions of the parties should also be mentioned here.
When procedural questions are raised in addition to substantive
ones, it is better to resolve the former preliminarily.

5.The Disposition or Dispositive Portion

In a criminal case, the disposition should include a finding of

innocence or guilt, the specific crime committed, the penalty
imposed, the participation of the accused, the modifying
circumstances if any, and the civil liability and costs. In case an
acquittal is decreed, the court must order the immediate release of
the accused, if detained, (unless they are being held for another
cause) and order the director of the Bureau of Corrections (or
wherever the accused is detained) to report, within a maximum of
ten (10) days from notice, the exact date when the accused were
set free.

In a civil case as well as in a special civil action, the disposition

should state whether the complaint or petition is granted or denied,
the specific relief granted, and the costs.The following test of
completeness may be applied. First, the parties should know their
rights and obligations. Second, they should know how to execute
the decision under alternative contingencies. Third, there should be
no need for further proceedings to dispose of the issues. Fourth, the
case should be terminated by according the proper relief. The
proper relief usually depends upon what the parties seek in their
pleadings. It may declare their rights and duties, command the
performance of positive prestations, or order them to abstain from
specific acts. The disposition must also adjudicate costs.

The foregoing parts need not always be discussed in sequence. But

they should all be present and plainly identifiable in the
decision.Depending on the writers character, genre and style, the
language should be fresh and free-flowing, not necessarily
stereotyped or in a fixed form; much less highfalutin, hackneyed
and pretentious. At all times, however, the decision must be clear,
concise, complete and correct.

Second Substantive Issue:

 Religious Leaders Endorsement
of Candidates for Public Office

The basic question posed in the SJS Petition -- WHETHER

ENDORSEMENTS OF CANDIDACIES BY RELIGIOUS LEADERS IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL -- undoubtedly deserves serious consideration.
As stated earlier, the Court deems this constitutional issue to be of
paramount interest to the Filipino citizenry, for it concerns the
governance of our country and its people. Thus, despite the obvious
procedural transgressions by both SJS and the trial court, this Court
still called for Oral Argument, so as not to leave any doubt that
there might be room to entertain and dispose of the SJS Petition on
the merits.

Counsel for SJS has utterly failed, however, to convince the Court
that there are enough factual and legal bases to resolve the
paramount issue. On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor
General has sided with petitioner insofar as there are no facts
supporting the SJS Petition and the assailed Decision.

We reiterate that the said Petition failed to state directly the

ultimate facts that it relied upon for its claim. During the Oral
Argument, counsel for SJS candidly admitted that there were no
factual allegations in its Petition for Declaratory Relief.Neither were
there factual findings in the assailed Decision. At best, SJS merely
asked the trial court to answer a hypothetical question. In effect, it
merely sought an advisory opinion, the rendition of which was
beyond the courts constitutional mandate and jurisdiction.99 ςrνll

Indeed, the assailed Decision was rendered in clear violation of the

Constitution, because it made no findings of facts and final
disposition. Hence, it is void and deemed legally inexistent.
Consequently, there is nothing for this Court to review, affirm,
reverse or even just modify.

Regrettably, it is not legally possible for the Court to take up, on the
merits, the paramount question involving a constitutional principle.
It is a time-honored rule that the constitutionality of a statute [or
act] will be passed upon only if, and to the extent that, it is directly
and necessarily involved in a justiciable controversy and is essential
to the protection of the rights of the parties concerned.100ςrνll

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review of Brother Mike Velarde

is GRANTED. Theassailed June 12, 2003 Decision and July 29, 2003
Order of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch 49) are
hereby DECLARED NULL AND VOID and thus SET ASIDE.The SJS
Petition for Declaratory Relief is DISMISSED for failure to state a
cause of action.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Court

Administrator to evaluate and recommend whether the trial judge
may, after observing due process, be held administratively liable for
rendering a decision violative of the Constitution, the Rules of Court
and relevant circulars of this Court. No costs.

SO ORDERED.