13. Bankers Association vs.

COMELEC measures for future elections, thus rendering unnecessary further action on
the merits of the assailed Money Ban Resolution at this point.
G.R. No. 206794. November 27, 2013.* SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.
BANKERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES and PERRY L. PE,     The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.   Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & De Los Angeles for
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Moot and Academic; Courts; Judicial petitioners.
Review; The power of judicial review is limited to actual cases or   The Solicitor General for respondent.
controversies. The Court, as a rule, will decline to exercise jurisdiction over a RESOLUTION
case and proceed to dismiss it when the issues posed have been mooted by BRION, J.:
supervening events.—The power of judicial review is limited to actual cases The petitioners, Bankers Association of the Philippines and Perry L. Pe,
or controversies. The Court, as a rule, will decline to exercise jurisdiction over assail the constitutionality and legality of the respondent Commission on
a case and proceed to dismiss it when the issues posed have been mooted Elections’ (Comelec’s) Resolution No. 96881 dated May 7, 2013, entitled “In
by supervening events. Mootness intervenes when a ruling from the Court no the Matter of Implementing a Money Ban to Deter and Prevent Vote-Buying
longer has any practical value and, from this perspective, effectively ceases in Connection with the May 13, 2013 National and Local Elec-
to be a justiciable controversy. “[W]ithout a justiciable controversy, the _______________
[petition would] become a [plea] for declaratory relief, over which the 1 Rollo, pp. 82-85.
Supreme Court has no original jurisdiction.” 610tions” (Money Ban Resolution).2 The petitioners included a prayer for the
Same; Same; Same; While the Supreme Court has recognized issuance of a status quo ante/temporary restraining order and/or writ of
exceptions in applying the “moot and academic” principle, these exceptions preliminary injunction to enjoin its implementation.
relate only to situations where: (1) there is a grave violation of the _______________
Constitution; (2) the situation is of exceptional character and paramount 2 In the Whereas clauses of the Money Ban Resolution, the Comelec
public interest is involved; (3) the constitutional issue raised requires justified the restrictions on the following provisions of law:
formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the WHEREAS, under Article IX-C, Section 2.1 of the Constitution, one of the
public; and (4) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.—While Commission on Election’s (COMELEC) powers and functions is to “enforce
the Court has recognized exceptions in applying the “moot and academic” and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election,
principle, these exceptions relate only to situations where: (1) there is a grave plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall”;
violation of the Constitution; (2) the situation is of exceptional character and WHEREAS, the COMELEC has the power under Article IX-C, Section 2.4
paramount public interest is involved; (3) the constitutional issue raised of the same Constitution to “[d]eputize, with the concurrence of the
requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and President, law enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the
the public; and (4) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. Government, including the Armed Forces of the Philippines, for the exclusive
_______________ purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections”;
* EN BANC. xxxx
609 WHEREAS, under Article IX-C, Section 4, the COMELEC, during the
Election Law; Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP); The Bangko Sentral election period, has the power to “supervise or regulate … all grants, special
ng Pilipinas and the Monetary Board continue to possess full and sufficient privileges, or concessions granted by the Government or any subdivision,
authority to address the Comelec’s concerns and to limit banking agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or
transactions to legitimate purposes without need for any formal Comelec controlled corporation or its subsidiary”, which supervisory and regulatory
resolution if and when the need arises.—We consider it significant that the authority cover all banks and quasi-banking institutions operating under the
BSP and the Monetary Board continue to possess full and sufficient authority authority granted by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas;
to address the Comelec’s concerns and to limit banking transactions to WHEREAS, “vote buying” is a criminal offense defined by and penalized
legitimate purposes without need for any formal Comelec resolution if and under the Omnibus Election Code, xxx.
when the need arises. Congress, too, at this point, should have taken note of xxxx
this case and has the plenary authority, through its lawmaking powers, to WHEREAS, COMELEC takes cognizance of the prevalence of vote-
address the circumstances and evils the Money Ban Resolution sought to buying throughout the country. The Commission, in pursuit of its
address. In other words, Congress can very well act to consider the required constitutional mandate to ensure honest and credible elections, finds it

Page 1 of 5
necessary to adopt a multi-tiered approach to prevent and apprehend vote- 2.  presuming that the possession or transportation of cash in excess of
buyers, particularly the regulation and control of the flow of cash, which is the P500,000.00 from May 8 to 13, 2013 was for the purpose of vote-
primary medium used in vote-buying[.] [Id., at pp. 82-83; italics supplied.] buying and electoral fraud when the same was without tenable
611The Assailed Resolution justification or whenever attended by genuine reason engendering
Under the Money Ban Resolution, the Comelec resolved: belief that the money would be used for vote-buying.
1. To prohibit the withdrawal of cash, encashment of checks The Comelec issued Resolution No. 9688-A on the same day that the
and conversion of any monetary instrument into cash from May 8 petitioners filed the present petition.
to 13, 2013 exceeding One Hundred Thousand Pesos On May 10, 2013, the Court issued a Status Quo Ante Order,6 enjoining
(P100,000.00) or its equivalent in any foreign currency, per day in the parties to maintain the status quo prevailing before the issuance of the
banks, finance companies, quasi-banks, pawnshops, remittance Money Ban Resolution.
companies and institutions performing similar functions. However, all _______________
other non-cash transactions are not covered. 3 Id., at pp. 83-84; citations omitted, emphases and italics ours.
For this purpose, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and other 4 Id., at pp. 86-88.
financial agencies of the government are hereby deputized to 5 Citing the Circular Letter of BSP Deputy Governor Alberto Reyes dated
implement with utmost dispatch and ensure strict compliance with this April 11, 2003; BSP Circular No. 706, series of 2011.
resolution without violating the provisions of Republic Act No. 1405, as 6 Rollo, pp. 53-54.
amended, and Republic Act No. 6426[.] 613
2. To prohibit the possession, transportation and/or carrying The Parties’ Arguments
of cash exceeding Five Hundred Thousand Pesos The petitioners invoke the Court’s power of judicial review to strike down
(P500,000.00) or its equivalent in any foreign currency from May 8 to the Money Ban Resolution.
May 13, 2013. For this purpose, all cash being transported and carried They contend that the Comelec’s Money Ban Resolution was issued
exceeding such amount shall be presumed for the purpose of vote- without jurisdiction since the Comelec’s power to supervise and regulate the
buying and electoral fraud in violation of the money ban. xxx. enjoyment or utilization of franchises or permits under Section 4, Article IX-C
3. All withdrawals of cash or encashment of checks or series of the Constitution does not extend to the BSP which is not a holder of any
of withdrawals or encashment of checks in cash involving a total special privilege from the government. The BSP’s power to regulate and
amount exceeding Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) supervise banking operations stems from its mandate under the
within one (1) banking day from date of the publication of this Constitution7 and Republic Act (RA) No. 8791 (The General Banking Law of
resolution until May 13, 2013 shall be presumed to be for the 2000).8 Section 4, Article IX-C of the Constitution states —
purpose of accumulating funds for vote-buying and election Section 4. The Commission may, during the election period,
fraud and shall therefore be treated as a “suspicious transaction” supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of all franchises or
under Republic Act No. 9160 or the “Anti-Money Laundering Act of permits for the operation of transportation and other public
2001” as amended by Republic Act No. 9194. For this purpose, the utilities, media of communication or information, all grants,
Anti-Money Laundering Council special privileges, or concessions granted by the Government or
612(AMLC) is hereby deputized to monitor and initiate investigations, any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any
and if necessary, inquire into and examine the deposit and related government-owned or controlled corporation or its subsidiary.
accounts involved in the suspected transaction pursuant to procedure Such supervision or regulation shall aim to ensure equal opportunity,
and requirements of Republic Act No. 10167.3 time, and space, and the right to reply, including reasonable, equal
The Comelec’s Resolution No. 9688-A,4 issued on May 9, 2013, amended rates therefor, for public information campaigns and forums among
the Money Ban Resolution by: candidates in connection with the objective of holding free, orderly,
1.  exempting withdrawals that are routine, regular and made in the honest, peaceful, and credible elections. [emphasis ours]
ordinary course of business of the withdrawing client on the basis of _______________
the prevailing “Know-Your-Client/Customer” policy of the Bangko 7 Section 20, Article XII of the Constitutions grants the BSP “supervision
Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), which requires banks “not only to establish over the operations of banks and exercise such regulatory powers xxx over
the identity of their clients but also to have background knowledge of the operations of finance companies and other institutions performing similar
their normal business transactions,”5 and functions.”

Page 2 of 5
 8 Section 5 of The General Banking Law of 2000 vests the Monetary Finally, the petitioners claim that the Money Ban Resolution violates the
Board power to “prescribe ratios, ceilings, limitations, or other forms of constitutional presumption of innocence because it declares that “all cash
regulation on the different types of accounts and practices of banks[.]” being transported and carried exceeding [P500,000.00] shall be presumed
614They thus conclude that the Comelec’s power of supervision and for the purpose of vote-buying and electoral fraud in violation of the money
regulation cannot be exercised over the BSP and the Anti-Money Laundering ban.”10 There is no logical connection between the proven fact of possession
Council (AMLC) as they can exercise authority only over public transportation and transportation of an amount in excess of P500,000.00 and the presumed
and communication entities given special privileges by the government. act of vote-buying because there are many other legitimate reasons for the
The petitioners also posit that the Comelec’s power to deputize extends proven fact.
only to law enforcement agencies and only if the President concurs. Section The Comelec, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed its
2(4), Article IX-C of the Constitution states: Comment on the petition, insisting on the validity of the Money Ban
Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the Resolution and its amendment.
following powers and functions: The Comelec argues that it has the constitutional authority to supervise
xxxx and regulate banks and other financial entities, citing Section 4, Article IX-C
4. Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law of the Constitution. It alleges that its power to regulate covers banks and
enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the Government, other finance companies, since these entities operate under an “authority”
including the Armed Forces of the Philippines, for the exclusive _______________
purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible 9  CONSTITUTION, Article III, Section 1.
elections. [emphasis ours] 10 Rollo, p. 83.
They argue that the BSP and the AMLC are not law enforcement agencies 616granted by the BSP under Section 6 of RA No. 8791. This authority is of
unlike the National Bureau of Investigation and the Philippine National Police. the same nature as “grants, special privileges, or concessions” under Section
Assuming they may be considered as such, the Comelec failed to secure the 4, Article IX-C of the Constitution; thus, it may be validly regulated by the
concurrence of the President to the deputation. Comelec.
The petitioners note that paragraph 3 of the Money Ban Resolution The Comelec also claims that it may validly deputize the BSP, since the
effectively amended RA No. 9160 (Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001 or latter is a government instrumentality covered by Section 2(4), Article IX-C of
AMLA) by treating the withdrawal of cash or encashment of checks the Constitution. Contrary to the petitioners’ claim, the Comelec’s power to
exceeding P500,000.00 within one banking day from May 8 to 13, 2013 as a deputize is not limited to law enforcement agencies, but extends to
“suspicious transaction,” thus authorizing the AMLC to monitor, initiate instrumentalities of the government. The constitutional intent is to give the
investigations, inquire into and examine the deposit. This type of transaction, Comelec unrestricted access to the full machinery of the State to ensure free,
however, is not among those enumerated as suspicious under Section 3(b) orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.
of the AMLA. As an administrative issuance, the Money Ban Resolution The Comelec further contends that Presidential concurrence with the
cannot amend a law enacted by Congress.615 exercise of the Comelec’s deputation power is required only if it involves
The petitioners also claim that the Money Ban Resolution violates a agencies and instrumentalities within the Executive Department, of which the
number of constitutional rights. BSP is not a part. Even assuming that Presidential concurrence is required,
The Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, this has been secured through Memorandum Order No. 52, 11 s. 2013, where
liberty and property without due process of law. 9 The Money Ban Resolution the President gave his blanket concurrence to the deputation of all “law
violates an individual’s due process rights because it unduly and enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the Government[.]” 12
unreasonably restricts and prohibits the withdrawal, possession, and _______________
transportation of cash. The prohibition effectively curtails a range of 11 Id., at p. 89.
legitimate activities, and hampers and prejudices property rights. Though the 12 Id., at p. 72. The pertinent portion of which states:
intent (i.e., to curb vote-buying and selling) is laudable, the means employed NOW, THEREFORE, I, BENIGNO S. AQUINO III, President of the
is not reasonably necessary and is oppressive on an individual’s rights. The Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby concur
limitation on withdrawal also goes against the non-impairment clause with COMELEC Resolution No. 9589 deputizing law enforcement agencies
because the prohibitions and restrictions impair the banks’ contractual and instrumentalities of the Government, including the AFP, to assist the
obligations with their depositors. COMELEC in ensuring the free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible
conduct of the 13 May 2013 Automated National and Local Elections.

Page 3 of 5
 The foregoing law enforcement agencies and other concerned agencies While the Court has recognized exceptions in applying the “moot and
are hereby directed to coordinate and cooperate with the COMELEC in the academic” principle, these exceptions relate only to situations where: (1)
performance of their duties and functions. there is a grave violation of the Constitution; (2) the situation is of exceptional
617That the BSP is constitutionally and statutorily tasked to provide character and paramount public interest is involved; (3) the constitutional
“policy direction in the areas of money, banking, and credit,” and vested with issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench,
“supervision over the operations of bank,” does not preclude the Comelec the bar, and the public; and (4) the case is capable of repetition yet evading
from exercising its power to supervise and regulate banks during the election review.15
period. Notably, the Comelec’s power is limited in terms of purpose and _______________
duration, and should prevail in this specific instance. 13 Mendoza v. Villas, G.R. No. 187256, February 23, 2011, 644 SCRA
If the Comelec deems the supervision and regulation of banks necessary 347, 356-357, citing Gunsi, Sr. v. Commissioners, The Commission on
to curb vote-buying, this is a political question that the Court may not inquire Elections, G.R. No. 168792, February 23, 2009, 580 SCRA 70, 76.
into. The choice of the measures that the Comelec may undertake to ensure 14 Separate Opinion of Chief Justice A. V. Panganiban in SANLAKAS v.
the conduct of a free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible election is a Executive Secretary Reyes, 466 Phil. 482, 525; 421 SCRA 656, 683 (2004).
policy question beyond the scope of judicial review. 15 Prof. David v. Pres. Macapagal-Arroyo, 522 Phil. 705, 754; 489 SCRA
The Comelec lastly defends the Money Ban Resolution as a reasonable 160, 214-215 (2006).
measure that is not unduly oppressive on individuals. It merely limits 619In the present case, we find it unnecessary to consider the presence
transactions involving cash (withdrawal, encashment, possession, etc.), but of the first, second and third  requirements when nothing in the facts and
does not affect other non-cash transactions such as those involving checks surrounding circumstances indicate the presence of
and credit cards. Hence, only the medium or instrument of the transaction is the fourth requirement, i.e., the case is capable of repetition yet evading
affected; the transaction may proceed using non-cash medium or instrument. review.
There is, therefore, no impairment of rights and contracts that would We note that the Comelec did not make any parallel move on or about
invalidate the Money Ban Resolution. the May 13, 2013 elections to address the evil that its Money Ban Resolution
The Court’s Ruling sought to avoid and, in fact, it did not issue a similar resolution for the
We resolve to dismiss the petition for being moot and academic. October 28, 2013 barangay  elections. If the May 13, 2013 elections had
By its express terms, the Money Ban Resolution was effective only for a come and gone without any need for the measures the assailed Resolution
specific and limited time during the May 13, put in place and if no such measure was necessary in the elections that
_______________ immediately followed (i.e., the October 28, 2013 barangay elections), we
This Memorandum Order shall take effect immediately. believe that it is now premature for the Court to assume that a similar Money
DONE, in the City of Manila, this 9th of January, in the year of our Lord, Ban Resolution would be issued in the succeeding elections such that we
Two Thousand and Thirteen. now have to consider the legality of the Comelec measure that is presently
6182013 elections, i.e., from May 8 to 13, 2013. The Court issued a assailed.
Status Quo Ante Order on May 10, 2013; thus, the Money Ban Resolution We consider it significant that the BSP and the Monetary Board continue
was not in force during the most critical period of the elections — from May to possess full and sufficient authority to address the Comelec’s concerns
10, 2013 to actual election day. With the May 13, 2013 elections over, the and to limit banking transactions to legitimate purposes without need for any
Money Ban Resolution no longer finds any application so that the issues formal Comelec resolution if and when the need arises. Congress, too, at this
raised have become moot and academic. point, should have taken note of this case and has the plenary authority,
The power of judicial review is limited to actual cases or controversies. through its lawmaking powers, to address the circumstances and evils the
The Court, as a rule, will decline to exercise jurisdiction over a case and Money Ban Resolution sought to address. In other words, Congress can very
proceed to dismiss it when the issues posed have been mooted by well act to consider the required measures for future elections, thus rendering
supervening events. Mootness intervenes when a ruling from the Court no unnecessary further action on the merits of the assailed Money Ban
longer has any practical value and, from this perspective, effectively ceases Resolution at this point.
to be a justiciable controversy.13 “[W]ithout a justiciable controversy, the WHEREFORE, we hereby DISMISS the petition for having become moot
[petition would] become a [plea] for declaratory relief, over which the and academic. The Status Quo Ante Order issued by the Court on May 10,
Supreme Court has no original jurisdiction.”14 2013, having been rendered functus oficio by the May 13, 2013 elections, is
hereby formally LIFTED.620

Page 4 of 5
 SO ORDERED.
Sereno (CJ.), Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta,
Bersamin, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Del Castillo, J., No part.
Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe and Leonen, JJ., On leave.
Petition dismissed for having become moot and academic.
Notes.—Decisions of administrative agencies which are declared “final”
by law are not exempt from judicial review when so warranted. (Century
Canning Corporation vs. Ramil, 627 SCRA 192 [2010])
A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable
controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon
would be of no practical value. (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas vs. Orient
Commercial Banking Corporation, 653 SCRA 1 [2011])
——o0o——

Page 5 of 5