Salonga v. Hermoso
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns petitioner Jovito R. Salonga's attempt to obtain a certificate of eligibility to travel abroad. This is not the first instance of such a petition being filed with the Supreme Court, indicating a recurring issue regarding the exercise of the right to travel. 2. Procedural History: Petitioner Jovito R. Salonga previously filed a similar mandamus proceeding, Salonga v. Madella (L-49130), which became moot and academic when the travel eligibility certificate was granted. The current petition also became moot and academic when the respondent Travel Processing Center granted the petitioner's certificate of eligibility to travel, as stated in the Solicitor General's motion to dismiss dated April 21, 1980. 3. The Petition: The petition, filed with the Supreme Court, sought to compel the issuance of a certificate of eligibility to travel. While the specific procedural vehicle is not explicitly stated as Rule 45, the nature of the petition and its resolution suggest it was an original action before the Supreme Court. The arguments raised were implicitly centered on the petitioner's right to travel, which the Court ultimately did not rule upon due to the case becoming moot and academic.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for mandamus to compel the issuance of a certificate of eligibility to travel is moot and academic. Whether the Travel Processing Center should exercise utmost care in processing applications for travel eligibility to avoid inconvenience or annoyance to citizens exercising their constitutional right to travel.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for being moot and academic.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the petition for mandamus to compel the issuance of a certificate of eligibility to travel is moot and academic: The Court held that the petition was impressed with a moot and academic aspect. This was because, as stated in the motion to dismiss filed by the Solicitor General, the certificate of eligibility to travel had already been granted to the petitioner. A xeroxed copy of the certificate was enclosed with the motion, thereby obviating the necessity for any ruling on the merits of the controversy. The Court noted that similar petitions in the past, such as Santos v. The Special Committee on Travel Abroad, Pimentel v. Travel Processing Center, and Gonzales v. Special Committee on Travel, also became moot and academic upon the granting of the certificates of eligibility to travel. Therefore, the dismissal of the present petition was in order due to its moot and academic character. On Whether the Travel Processing Center should exercise utmost care in processing applications for travel eligibility to avoid inconvenience or annoyance to citizens exercising their constitutional right to travel: While the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds, the Court took the opportunity to emphasize the importance of the right to travel. The Court reiterated the pronouncements of President Marcos regarding the lifting of the ban on international travel and the respect accorded to constitutional rights, including the freedom to travel. The Court advised the Travel Processing Center to exercise the utmost care to avoid the impression that citizens desirous of exercising their constitutional right to travel could be subjected to inconvenience or annoyance. It was suggested that in case of doubt, the view of General Fabian Ver should be sought immediately. Furthermore, it was recommended that petitions for such certificates be filed at the earliest opportunity to facilitate their granting and preclude any disclaimer as to the person desiring to travel being responsible for any delay.
Main Doctrine
A petition for mandamus to compel the issuance of a certificate of eligibility to travel is rendered moot and academic once the certificate has been granted.