12/03/2025
๐ช๐ผ๐๐น๐ฑ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฆ๐๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐ ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ผ๐บ๐ฒ ๐บ๐ผ๐ผ๐ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐บ๐ถ๐ฐ ๐ถ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ป๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ฎ๐น๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ ๐๐๐ฟ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ผ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐๐?
By Dean Ralph Sarmiento
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ฒ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐น ๐ฅ๐๐น๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ป ๐ ๐ผ๐ผ๐๐ป๐ฒ๐๐
A case is considered moot and academic when the issue presented is no longer live, meaning the relief sought can no longer be granted, or any judicial action on the issue would have no practical effect (David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396 (2006)). If Duterte has already been surrendered and is in ICC custody, the Supreme Courtโs intervention to halt his transfer would serve no legal purpose.
Under this principle, the Supreme Court typically dismisses petitions that seek to restrain an act that has already been accomplished, as courts only resolve actual controversies involving legally demandable and enforceable rights (Republic v. Moldex Realty, Inc., G.R. No. 171041 (2020); Angara v. Electoral Commission, G.R. No. L-45081 (1936)). If Duterteโs extradition has been completed, the primary relief soughtโto prevent his surrenderโcan no longer be granted, potentially rendering the petition moot.
๐๐
๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ ๐๐ผ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ ๐ผ๐ผ๐๐ป๐ฒ๐๐ ๐๐ผ๐ฐ๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ
Despite the general rule, the Supreme Court has discretionary power to resolve cases that are technically moot if they meet certain exceptions. In Funa v. Villar, G.R. No. 192791 (2012), the Court held that it may decide cases even when moot when:
1. ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐จ๐ ๐๐จ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ก๐ ๐ค๐ ๐ง๐๐ฅ๐๐ฉ๐๐ฉ๐๐ค๐ฃ ๐ฎ๐๐ฉ ๐๐ซ๐๐๐๐ฃ๐ ๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ฌ โ If similar situations may arise in the future, the Court may establish a precedent to prevent uncertainty.
2. ๐๐๐๐ง๐ ๐๐จ ๐ ๐ฅ๐๐ง๐๐ข๐ค๐ช๐ฃ๐ฉ ๐ฅ๐ช๐๐ก๐๐ ๐๐ฃ๐ฉ๐๐ง๐๐จ๐ฉ ๐๐ฃ๐ซ๐ค๐ก๐ซ๐๐ โ Cases concerning constitutional rights, sovereignty, and international obligations may warrant resolution even if the specific issue is moot.
3. ๐๐ฉ ๐ง๐๐๐จ๐๐จ ๐ ๐๐ค๐ฃ๐จ๐ฉ๐๐ฉ๐ช๐ฉ๐๐ค๐ฃ๐๐ก ๐๐จ๐จ๐ช๐ ๐ง๐๐ฆ๐ช๐๐ง๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐ช๐ฉ๐๐ค๐ง๐๐ฉ๐๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐ ๐๐ฃ๐ฉ๐๐ง๐ฅ๐ง๐๐ฉ๐๐ฉ๐๐ค๐ฃ โ The Court may rule if fundamental constitutional questions, such as the legality of ICC cooperation post-withdrawal, need clarification.
Given the unprecedented nature of Duterteโs case and its implications on Philippine sovereignty, treaty obligations, and executive powers, the Supreme Court may still rule on the petition despite mootness, particularly to clarify the governmentโs authority to cooperate with the ICC post-withdrawal (Bayan Muna v. Romulo, G.R. No. 159618 (2011)).
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฆ๐๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐โ๐ ๐๐ถ๐๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ถ๐ป ๐๐ฒ๐ฐ๐น๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ ๐ผ๐ผ๐๐ป๐ฒ๐๐
While mootness generally leads to case dismissal, the Supreme Court has, in several cases, proceeded with a ruling if the issue remains legally significant. For example, in Lozano v. Nograles, G.R. No. 187883 (2009), the Court ruled on a petition involving an already enacted law because the issues presented were of transcendental importance.
Similarly, even if Duterteโs transfer to the ICC is completed, the Supreme Court may decide to issue a ruling on:
1. The extent of executive power in surrendering an accused to an international tribunal post-withdrawal from the Rome Statute.
2. The continuing legal obligations of the Philippines under the ICC regarding pending cases.
3. The rights of an accused under Philippine law when subject to an international arrest warrant.
Thus, the Supreme Court may still decide the case if it finds the issues legally and constitutionally relevant, even after Duterteโs transfer (Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338 (2008)).
