Religion] Brother Mariano Mike Velarde v. Social Justice Society G.R. No.

159357, April
28, 2004 Ponente: Justice Panganiban
Facts:
2003,R political party filed a petition against P, sought the interpretation of several constitutional
provisions, specifically on the separation of church and state, wanted relief on the
constitutionality of the acts of religious leaders endorsing a candidate for an elective office, or
urging or requiring members of their flock to vote for a specified candidate. The religious leaders
(Cardinal Sin, Eddie Villanueva, Eli Soriano, Mike Velarde, Erano Manalo) said there was no cause
of action against them and no justiciable controversy. The court a quo opined that the
endorsement of specific candidates in an election to any public office is a clear violation of the
separation clause. The decision contained no statement of facts, much less an assessment, or of
the courts findings as to probable facts, beginning with a statement of the nature of the action
and then the question, and then a brief explanation of the provisions involved, and then to a full-
length opinion on the nature and the extent of the separation of church and state. Without
stating the final conclusion or specifying the relief granted, the decision ended with So
ordered.
Issue: Whether or not the endorsement is violative of the constitution.
Held:
There is no justiciable controversy since the petition did not sufficiently state what specific legal
right of P was violated by R, did not state what acts were in breach of rights or the constitution.
R did not state ultimate facts. R merely speculated without facts that, as religious leaders, P had
endorsed or threatened to endorse candidates for elective office, and that it posed a clear and
present danger of serious erosion of peoples faith in the electorla process, reinforcing the
belief that religious leaders determine the ultimate result of the elections, violative of separation
clause. No. Furthermore, R did not ask for a declaration of rights, nor stoppage of and threatened
violation; it merely asked for an advisory opinion. R did not state any certainty that loss for them
will occur or that asserted rights will be invaded. Not even transcendental importance. The
initiatory pleading of SJS immediately revealed gross inadequacy, contained no element of
ultimate facts upon petitioner relied for its claim. It did not specify the relief sought, merely asked
for answer to a hypothetical question. Endorsement of specific candidates in an election to
any public office is a clear violation of the separation clause, found on page10 of the decision
is not sufficient. But whether or not endorsements by religious leaders is unconstitutional is of
paramount interest, for it concerns the governance of the country and its people. Rs counsel
utterly failed to convince the court that there are enough factual and legal bases to resolve the
paramount issue. OSG sided with P insofar as there were no facts to support the petition. Even R
claimed there were no factual allegations.