View full case

ROLEX SUPLICO v. NATIONAL ECONOMIC

FACTS:

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) informed the Court about the Philippine Government's decision not to continue with the ZTE National Broadband Network Project through an Indorsement. The OSG then filed a motion to dismiss the petitions as there is no longer a justiciable controversy for the Court to resolve. However, petitioner Rolex Suplico argued that the Indorsement is not sufficient basis to conclude that the deal has been permanently scrapped. He also cited previous cases where the Court took cognizance of moot cases to formulate guiding principles. Another petitioner, Amsterdam Holdings, Inc. (AHI), expressed doubts about the government's sincerity and urged the Court to consider the transcendental importance of the issues raised in the petition. The OSG filed a reply reiterating that there is no perfected contract and opposing the claim of the right to information. The OSG later filed a Supplemental Manifestation and Motion, attaching the Highlights from the Notes of Meeting between President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Chinese President Hu Jintao, which confirmed the Philippine Government's decision not to continue with the project. The Court granted the motion of the OSG and noted that the petitions were for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, with application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Preliminary Injunction.

The case involves multiple petitions filed by different parties, seeking, among others, to enjoin and annul the implementation of the ZTE-DOTC Broadband Deal, as well as to compel the respondents to produce a certified true copy of the contract or agreement covering the National Broadband Network (NBN) project with ZTE Corporation. Petitioners Amsterdam Holdings, Inc. and Nathaniel Sauz pray for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent the government agencies from entering into other agreements or commencing any activity related to the NBN project. They also request that the court allow them access to all agreements entered into with China's government, ZTE Corporation, and other entities in relation to the NBN project. Another petitioner, Rolex Suplico, seeks the setting aside of the contract award and requests the court to compel the government to comply with procurement laws and public bidding requirements. On September 11, 2007, the court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the parties from pursuing, entering into indebtedness, disbursing funds, and implementing the ZTE-DOTC Broadband Deal.

IN THE MATTER OF REQUEST OF THE SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE TO SUBPOENA AND/OR INVITE AS RESOURCE PERSONS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS (DOTC) SECRETARY LEANDRO R. MENDOZA, DOTC UNDERSECRETARY GUALBERTO J. LUMAUIG, JR., LT. COL. ELBERT D. GONSALVES (RET.), MAXIQUE SANTOS, JOEL MARIE RAMOS, AURORA U. AGEOS, CESAR M. SANTOS, JOSEPH SANTIAGO, GHAY VICTORIA SANTOS, ANTONIO JUNIOR LIGOT, REBECCA BAGASBAS, RAMONCARDENAS IBAY, JR., VICTOR FRANCO REY L. CASTILLO, SALVADOR AMPER, JR., JOSE LUIS T. PAREJA (II), GERARDO SEE, MA. LOURDES V. REYES, ROMEO B. ESTELITA, ROSEMARIE MANALSA, KERWYN ANTHONY PAGADUAN, FARMER PALOMA, DOMINADOR CABANILLA, ZTE Corporation, Amsterdam Holdings, Inc., and ARESCOM.

Facts:

The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee issued invitations and subpoenas to various individuals and entities including the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) Secretary, DOTC Undersecretary, and other officials and private individuals involved in the National Broadband Network (NBN) project with ZTE Corporation.

The NBN project was a government project aimed to establish a broadband network across the Philippines. The project attracted controversy and allegations of corruption and irregularities.

The DOTC officials and private individuals were requested to attend the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing to explain their role and involvement in the NBN project. Subpoenas were issued to individuals who failed to appear voluntarily.

Some of the individuals and entities, including ZTE Corporation, Amsterdam Holdings, Inc., and ARESCOM, filed motions to quash the subpoenas issued against them.

The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee sought the court's assistance in enforcing the subpoenas and allowing them to proceed with the investigation of the NBN project. The court was tasked with determining the validity and enforceability of the subpoenas.

The court heard arguments from both parties and considered the relevant laws and jurisprudence on the power of the Senate to investigate and compel the attendance of witnesses.

After due consideration, the court rendered its decision, addressing the issues raised and whether the subpoenas should be quashed or enforced.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the declarations made by officials of the executive branch on the Philippine Government's decision not to continue with the ZTE-NBN Project are admissible and can be taken judicial notice of.

  2. Whether the case has become moot and, therefore, the Court should refrain from deciding on the issues raised.

  3. Whether the implementation of the agreements should be enjoined

  4. Whether the Court of Appeals' decision had the effect of overruling the Court's Resolution dated 29 January 1999

  5. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support the annulment of the ZTE-DOTC Broadband Deal and the award of the contract for the national broadband network to ZTE Corporation.

  6. Whether the Court can compel public respondents to comply with procurement laws without proper evidence of violations committed by specific government officials.

  7. Whether the Senate investigation can be the basis for the Court's decision.

RULING:

  1. The Court ruled that the declarations made by officials of the executive branch, particularly the President of the Philippines, on the government's decision not to continue with the ZTE-NBN Project are admissible and can be taken judicial notice of. Under Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, it is mandatory for the court to take judicial notice of the official acts of the executive branch. The cancellation of the project announced by the President is considered an official act, and thus, the Court must take judicial notice without the need for further evidence.

  2. The Court held that the case has become moot due to the announcement made by the President regarding the cancellation of the project. In situations where there is no longer an actual case or controversy, the Court generally refrains from deciding on moot issues. In this case, since the cancellation of the project had already been announced, there was no longer any live subject of controversy for the Court to rule on.

  3. The issue of whether the implementation of the agreements should be enjoined became moot and academic because Qualcomm, Inc. withdrew from the negotiating table, thereby thwarting the execution and enforcement of the contracts. Given that Qualcomm, Inc. is no longer interested in pursuing the contracts, there is no actual substantial relief to which the petitioners would be entitled and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.

  4. The Court finds it unnecessary to rule on whether the Court of Appeals' decision had the effect of overruling the Court's Resolution dated 29 January 1999 because a ruling on the matter would be a mere advisory opinion and falls beyond the realm of judicial review.

  5. The petitions are dismissed and denied due course because they are moot, and their resolution requires the reception of evidence which cannot be done in an original petition brought before the Supreme Court. The Court finds that there is insufficient evidence to annul the ZTE-DOTC Broadband Deal and the award of the contract to ZTE Corporation. The Court cannot compel public respondents to comply with procurement laws without proper evidence of specific violations by government officials. The Senate investigation cannot be the sole basis for the Court's decision.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Courts are mandated to take judicial notice of official acts of the executive department under Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court.

  • Judicial notice may be taken of official acts of the President of the Philippines without the need for further evidence.

  • The Court generally refrains from deciding moot issues where there is no longer an actual case or controversy.

  • For a court to exercise its power of adjudication, there must be an actual case or controversy.

  • Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions.

  • The exercise of the power of judicial review is limited to actual cases and controversies.

  • Courts have no authority to pass upon issues through advisory opinions or to resolve hypothetical or feigned problems.

  • Exceptional cases may warrant the Court to resolve moot and academic issues in order to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines or rules for future guidance of both bench and bar.

  • The Court cannot rule on the merits of the case if it involves settling factual issues because the Court is not a trier of facts.

  • The Court cannot make factual determinations without sufficient evidence.

  • The Court cannot annul government contracts without evidence of violations of law.

  • The Court cannot summarily compel compliance with procurement laws without evidence of specific violations.

  • The Senate investigation cannot be the sole basis for the Court's decision.