Case21-1 (David v.

Macapagal Arroyo: Mootness)

1. Facts.

- In their presentation of the factual bases of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5, respondents stated that the
proximate cause behind the executive issuances was the conspiracy among some military officers, leftist
insurgents of the New People's Army (NPA), and some members of the political opposition in a plot to
unseat or assassinate President Arroyo. 4 They considered the aim to oust or assassinate the President
and take-over the reigns of government as a clear and present danger.
1. These seven (7) consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohibition allege that in issuing Presidential
Proclamation No. 1017 (PP 1017) and General Order No. 5 (G.O. No. 5), President Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo committed grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners contend that respondent officials of the
Government, in their professed efforts to defend and preserve democratic institutions, are actually
trampling upon the very freedom guaranteed and protected by the Constitution. Hence, such issuances
are void for being unconstitutional.
-On February 24, 2006, as the nation celebrated the 20th Anniversary of the Edsa
People Power I, President Arroyo issued PP 1017 declaring a state of national emergency.
-On March 3, 2006, exactly one week after the declaration of a state of national emergency and after all
these petitions had been 􀁎led, the President lifted PP 1017.
Case21-2 (David v. Macapagal Arroyo: Mootness)

1. Issue.

2. Ruling.

- All the foregoing exceptions are present here and justify this Court's assumption of jurisdiction over the
instant petitions. Petitioners alleged that the issuance of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 violates the
Constitution. There is no question that the issues being raised affect the public's interest, involving as
they do the people's basic rights to freedom of expression, of assembly and of the press. Moreover, the
Court has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional precepts, doctrines or rules. It has
the symbolic function of educating the bench and the bar, and in the present petitions, the military and
the police, on the extent of the protection given by constitutional guarantees. 35 And lastly,
respondents' contested actions are capable of repetition. Certainly, the petitions are subject to judicial
review.
1. Whether the issuance of PP 1021 renders the petitions moot and academic or otherwise stated are
the petitions subject to judicial review?

2. The Court holds that President Arroyo's issuance of PP 1021 did not render the present petitions moot
and academic. During the eight (8) days that PP 1017 was operative, the police officers, according to
petitioners, committed illegal acts in implementing it.

The "moot and academic" principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts
in resolving a case. Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if: first, there is a grave
violation of the Constitution; 31 second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount
public interest is involved; 32 third, when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling
principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; 33 and fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet
evading review.
Case21-3 (David v. Macapagal Arroyo: Mootness)

1. What has been said about the concept of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison?

2. What is the effect of an unconstitutional act?

 1. One of the greatest contributions of the American system to this country is the concept of judicial
review enunciated in Marbury v. Madison. This concept rests on the extraordinary simple foundation —

The Constitution is the supreme law. It was ordained by the people, the ultimate source of all political
authority. It confers limited powers on the national government… If the government consciously or
unconsciously oversteps these limitations there must be some authority competent to hold it in control,
to thwart its unconstitutional attempt, and thus to vindicate and preserve inviolate the will of the
people as expressed in the Constitution. This power the courts exercise. This is the beginning and the
end of the theory of judicial review.

2. It must be stressed that "an unconstitutional act is not a law, it confers no rights, it imposes no duties,
it affords no protection; it is in legal contemplation, inoperative."
Case21-4 (David v. Macapagal Arroyo: Mootness)

1. What is a moot and academic case? What is the effect on jurisdiction over the case?

2. When may the courts decide cases, otherwise moot and academic?

3. Exception to the mootness rule.

1. 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 use or value. Generally,
courts decline jurisdiction over such case 28 or dismiss it on ground of mootness.

2. Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if:

a) First, there is a grave violation of the Constitution;
b) Second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved;
c) Third, when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the
bench, the bar, and the public; and
d) Fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.

3. An otherwise "moot" case may still be decided "provided the party raising it in a proper case has been
and/or continues to be prejudiced or damaged as a direct result of its issuance." (Sanlakas v. Executive
Secretary)