David et al. v. Arroyo et al.
G.R. No. 171396, 03 May 2008
FACTS:
Petitioners filed petitions for certiorari and prohibition, alleging that in issuing
Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 and General Order No. 5, President Gloria MacapagalArroyo 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.
The Solicitor General countered that: first, the petitions should be dismissed for being
moot; and second, petitioners in G.R. Nos. 171400 (ALGI), 171424 (Legarda), 171483
(KMU et al.), 171485 (Escudero et al.) and 171489 (Cadiz et al.) have no legal standing.
ISSUES:
A. Whether the issuance of Presidential Proclamation No. 1021 renders the petitions
moot and academic.
B. Exceptions to the Mootness Principle
C. Whether or not the petitioners have locus standi
RULING:
A. NO. 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 or dismiss it on
ground of mootness.
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. Are PP
1017 and G.O. No. 5 constitutional or valid? Do they justify these alleged illegal acts? These
are the vital issues that must be resolved in the present petitions. 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.”
All the exceptions to the “moot and academic” principle 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. And lastly, respondents’ contested actions are capable of repetition. Certainly, the
petitions are subject to judicial review.
1
B. 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; second, the exceptional
character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; third, when
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.
C. The Court holds that all the petitioners herein have locus standi.
The Court has adopted a rule that even where the petitioners have failed to show
direct injury, they have been allowed to sue under the principle of “transcendental
importance.” Pertinent are the following cases:
(1) Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, where the Court ruled that the enforcement of
the constitutional right to information and the equitable diffusion of natural resources
are matters of transcendental importance which clothe the petitioner with locus standi;
(2) Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v. Zamora, wherein the Court held that ”given the
transcendental importance of the issues involved, the Court may relax the standing
requirements and allow the suit to prosper despite the lack of direct injury to the
parties seeking judicial review” of the Visiting Forces Agreement;
(3) Lim v. Executive Secretary, while the Court noted that the petitioners may not file
suit in their capacity as taxpayers absent a showing that “Balikatan 02-01” involves
the exercise of Congress’ taxing or spending powers, it reiterated its ruling in Bagong
Alyansang Makabayan v. Zamora, that in cases of transcendental importance, the
cases must be settled promptly and definitely and standing requirements may be
relaxed.
By way of summary, the following rules may be culled from the cases decided by this
Court. Taxpayers, voters, concerned citizens, and legislators may be accorded standing to
sue, provided that the following requirements are met:
(1) the cases involve constitutional issues;
(2) for taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that
the tax measure is unconstitutional;
(3) for voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the
election law in question;
(4) for concerned citizens, there must be a showing that the issues raised are of
transcendental importance which must be settled early; and
(5) for legislators, there must be a claim that the official action complained of
infringes upon their prerogatives as legislators.
2