G.R. No. 197930 , April 17, 2018.
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al. v. Hon. Leila M. De Lima, et al.

FACTS

The consolidated petitions assailed the constitutionality of Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 041-10, which authorized the issuance of watchlist and hold-departure orders. The circular was issued by then Acting Secretary of Justice Alberto C. Agra and remained in effect. Petitioner Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was subjected to such orders by respondent former Secretary of Justice Leila M. De Lima, which were later lifted or expired. The petitioners sought to nullify the circular via certiorari and prohibition, arguing it infringed on the constitutional right to travel.

ISSUE

Whether the petitions present a justiciable controversy or have been rendered moot and academic.

RULING

The petitions remain justiciable and are not moot. A case becomes moot only when a supervening event eliminates the controversy, rendering a ruling of no practical value. Here, the expiration of the specific watchlist orders against the petitioners does not moot the challenge to the constitutionality of the underlying DOJ Circular itself. The circular remains an effective administrative issuance. Following precedent, a petition for certiorari assailing the validity of an administrative order is not rendered moot by the grant of other incidental reliefs or the passage of time concerning specific implementations. The core issue—the circular’s constitutionality—is a live controversy because the circular continues to govern and may be applied. The Court is thus duty-bound to resolve this substantive constitutional question. The legal logic is that an allegation of a jurisdictional or constitutional error in the issuance of a rule of general and continuing application prevents mootness, as the validity of the rule itself is a separate and persistent issue from any particular act done under it.