[G.R. No. 153135. July 1, 2002]

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY vs. HON. JOSE DE VENECIA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 01 JUL 2002.

G.R. No. 153135 (Social Justice Society vs. Hon. Jose De Venecia, in his capacity as Speaker of the House of Representatives, Congress of the Philippines, and Hon. Neptali M. Gonzales II, in his capacity as Majority Floor Leader of the House of Representatives, Congress of the Philippines.)

Acting on the petition for mandamus filed by petitioner seeking to compel respondents, supposedly as the two most powerful officials of the House of Representatives, to take immediate steps to give highest priority to the enactment of the three indirect initiative bills[1] proposed by it as mandated by Section 1, Article XIII of the Constitution,[2] and to give precedence to the passage of said bills over other measures pending in the appropriate committees of the House of Representatives as required by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 6735,[3] or the Initiative and Referendum Act, the Court resolves to DISMISS the same.

Mandamus is a remedy for official inaction.[4] Petitioner, however, has not established that respondents have unlawfully neglected to comply with Section 1, Article XIII of the Constitution or Section 11 of Republic Act No. 6735 by failing to prioritize its proposed indirect initiative bills. Petitioner merely anchors its cause of action on the allegation that “[d]espite the lapse of several months from the filing of the Petitions for Indirect Initiative, respondents have not taken any wholehearted or credible step to initiate the enactment by the House of Representatives of the laws proposed by petitioner, or any modified versions thereof,”[5] as well as the reply of the Legislative Staff Chief of the Office of the Speaker of the House of Representatives to petitioner’s letter dated February 18, 2002, asking for immediate action on its petitions, that said petitions have been forwarded to the Office of the Secretary General for appropriate action.[6] It is essential to the issuance of a writ of mandamus that petitioner should have a clear legal right to the thing demanded and it must be the imperative duty of the respondent to perform the act required. It never issues in doubtful cases,[7] as in the case at bar.

Furthermore, how the House of Representatives will proceed with the bills proposed by petitioner is a legislative matter, which under the Constitution rests within the exclusive domain of Congress, a co-equal branch of Government. Each of the three departments of Government has its separate sphere which the others may not invade without upsetting the delicate balance on which constitutional order rests,[8] more so through an extraordinary and coercive writ of mandamus.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition for mandamus is DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

---

[1] These bills are an Anti-Dynasty Law, a Religious-Free Elections Act, and an Anti-Vote Buying Act.

[2] SEC. 1. Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.

To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use and disposition of property and its increments.

[3] SEC. 11. Indirect Initiative. - Any duly accredited people’s organization, as defined by law, may file a petition for indirect initiative with the House of Representatives, and other legislative bodies. The petition shall contain a summary of the chief purposes and contents of the bill that the organization proposes to be enacted into law by the legislature.

The procedure to be followed on the initiative bill shall be the same as the enactment of any legislative measure before the House of Representatives except that said initiative bill, shall have precedence over other pending legislative measure on the committee.

[4] Guanio vs. Fernandez, 55 Phil. 814, 821 (1931).

[5] Rollo, p. 5.

[6] Rollo, p. 35.

[7] Pefianco vs. Moral, 322 SCRA 439, 448 (2000).

[8] Arroyo vs. De Venecia, 277 SCRA 268, 289 (1997).