Suplico v.

NEDA, GR 178830, July 14, 2008

In the wake of the ZTE-NBN deal of the GMA administration, the OSG filed a reply reiterating
that for a court to exercise its power of adjudication, there must be an actual case or controversy one
which involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial
resolution; the case must not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other similar
considerations not cognizable by a court of justice. Thus, when President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo,
acting in her official capacity informed Chinas President Hu Jintao that the Philippine Government had
decided not to continue with the ZTE-NBN Project due to several reasons and constraints, there is no
doubt that all the other principal prayers in the three petitions (to annul, set aside, and enjoin the
implementation of the ZTE-NBN Project) had also become moot. Is this correct?
Yes. Judicial power presupposes actual controversies, the very antithesis of mootness. In the absence of
actual justiciable controversies or disputes, the Court generally opts to refrain from deciding moot issues.
Where there is no more live subject of controversy, the Court ceases to have a reason to render any ruling
or make any pronouncement. The rule is well-settled that for a court to exercise its power of adjudication,
there must be an actual case or controversy one which involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of
opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution; the case must not be moot or academic or based
on extra-legal or other similar considerations not cognizable by a court of justice. Where the issue has
become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, and an adjudication thereon would be of
no practical use or value as courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly
interest, however intellectually challenging.