This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2013-12-10 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| However, the following exceptions to the rule of declining jurisdiction over moot and academic cases are allowed: (1) there was a grave violation of the Constitution; (2) the case involved a situation of exceptional character and was of paramount public interest; (3) the issues raised required the formulation of controlling principles to guide the Bench, the Bar and the public; and (4) the case was capable of repetition yet evading review.[31] On the importance of the assailed formula, this Court will discuss the issues raised by the petitioner as these are capable of repetition yet evading review[32] and for the guidance of the bench, bar, and public.[33] | |||||
|
2008-10-14 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Indeed, the present petitions afford a proper venue for the Court to again apply the doctrine immediately referred to as what it had done in a number of landmark cases.[106] There is a reasonable expectation that petitioners, particularly the Provinces of North Cotabato, Zamboanga del Norte and Sultan Kudarat, the Cities of Zamboanga, Iligan and Isabela, and the Municipality of Linamon, will again be subjected to the same problem in the future as respondents' actions are capable of repetition, in another or any form. | |||||
|
2008-07-14 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Petitioner Suplico cites this Court's rulings in Gonzales v. Chavez,[6] Rufino v. Endriga,[7] and Alunan III v. Mirasol[8] that despite their mootness, the Court nevertheless took cognizance of these cases and ruled on the merits due to the Court's symbolic function of educating the bench and the bar by formulating guiding and controlling principles, precepts, doctrines, and rules. | |||||
|
2005-09-01 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In the present case, in making his recommendation to the President on the existence of either of the two conditions, the Secretary of Finance is not acting as the alter ego of the President or even her subordinate. In such instance, he is not subject to the power of control and direction of the President. He is acting as the agent of the legislative department, to determine and declare the event upon which its expressed will is to take effect.[56] The Secretary of Finance becomes the means or tool by which legislative policy is determined and implemented, considering that he possesses all the facilities to gather data and information and has a much broader perspective to properly evaluate them. His function is to gather and collate statistical data and other pertinent information and verify if any of the two conditions laid out by Congress is present. His personality in such instance is in reality but a projection of that of Congress. Thus, being the agent of Congress and not of the President, the President cannot alter or modify or nullify, or set aside the findings of the Secretary of Finance and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter. | |||||
|
2004-09-27 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Furthermore, well-entrenched is the rule that courts will decide a question otherwise moot and academic if it is "capable of repetition, yet evading review."[66] For the question of whether the DILG may validly be appointed as interim caretaker, or assume a similar position and perform acts pursuant thereto, is likely to resurrect again, and yet the question may not be decided before the actual assumption, or the termination of said assumption even. | |||||
|
2004-02-03 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that the issuance of Proclamation No. 435, declaring that the state of rebellion has ceased to exist, has rendered the case moot. As a rule, courts do not adjudicate moot cases, judicial power being limited to the determination of "actual controversies."[18] Nevertheless, courts will decide a question, otherwise moot, if it is "capable of repetition yet evading review."[19] The case at bar is one such case. | |||||