PERCIVAL PICARDO, PETITIONER, VS. SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, RESPONDENT.

Appeal from the decision dated November 24, 1964 of the Court of
First Instance of Manila, Branch III, then Judge later Justice of the Court of
Appeals Jesus y Perez, presiding, in Civil
Case No. 58625, entitled “Percival Picardo, petitioner, vs. Secretary of
Foreign Affairs”, respondent, denying petitioner-appellant Picardo’s
petition for mandamus to compel the respondent Secretary of Foreign
Affairs to issue to him a passport to go to Hongkong, and eventually to Red
China.

It appears that on
October 2, 1964, here­in petitioner-appellant who was a reporter of the defunct
Manila Chronicle and a member of the Manila Press Club, applied for a passport
to Hongkong.^[1]
The Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Hon. Mauro Mendez, refused to issue the pass­port
on the ground that Percival Picardo was among the newspapermen who were invited
by the Chinese Communist representative in Jakarta, Yang Yi, for a visit to Red
China.  At that time, the government had
a standing policy to prohibit Filipino citizens from visiting
communist-oriented countries including Red China.^[2]
Con­sequently, petitioner-appellant, through counsel, filed a petition for mandamus
with the aforesaid Court of First Instance, praying that the Sec­retary of
Foreign Affairs be directed to issue the requested passport.

Petitioner-appellant contended that the refusal of the Department
of Foreign Affairs to issue his passport was a patent violation of his
constitutional right to travel, “which right is part of the liberty of
which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law …”^[3]

Upon the other hand, the Department, through the Office of the
Solicitor General, claimed that it has the power and authority to control exit
from the country because Section 28 of the Executive Order No. 1, series of
1946 authorizes the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to prescribe regulations on the
issuance of pass­ports.^[4]

CFI Judge Jesus Y. Perez decided in favor of the Department of
Foreign Affairs and denied Picardo’s petition for mandamus stating,
among other things, that “the prohibition to go to communist-controlled
countries is within the competence of the Chief Executive to promulgate in the
exercise of the vast Constitutional power to conduct our foreign relations x x
x” and is political in character; thus, the policy “should not be
interfered with by the Court.”^[5]

Petitioner-appellant appealed to this Court.

The issues raised in this appeal with mandamus have become
moot and academic, not only because the incident involved had taken place way
back in the year 1964, when there was a total ban on travel by Filipino
nationals to communist states like Red China,^[6]
but also because diplomatic relations had already been established between the
Philippines and the said country thru a joint communique issued on June 9,
1975, and the prohibition against Filipino citizens from visiting Red China has
been lifted.

IN VIEW THEREOF, this case is hereby ordered
DISMISSED.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Antonio, (Acting Chairman), Aquino, Abad Santos, and De Castro, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 113 (Decision).

^[2]
Ibid.

^[3]
Id., p. 74.

^[4]
Id., p. 91.

^[5]
Id., pp. 140-141(Decision).

^[6]
See testimony of Mr. Librado D. Cayco,
t.s.n. of Nov. 4, 1964, p. 11.