This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-12-02 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "Where the issue has become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, and an adjudication thereof would be of no practical use or value as courts do not sit to satisfy scholarly interest, however intellectually challenging."[1] | |||||
|
2013-11-19 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Even on the assumption of mootness, jurisprudence, nevertheless, dictates that "the 'moot and academic' principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the Court in resolving a case." The Court will decide cases, otherwise moot, if: first, there is a grave violation of the Constitution; second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; third, when the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.[129] | |||||
|
2012-09-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It cannot be gainsaid that for a court to exercise its power of adjudication, there must be an actual case or controversy, that is, one which involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution.[50] The case must not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other similar considerations not cognizable by a court of justice.[51] | |||||