ALL INSIGHT
“There is no more franchise to forfeit because it has already expired. There is no more act of the NTC to restrain since it did not issue a permit to operate to ABS-CBN. Therefore, the petitions are moot and academic.”
Resolution in spite of mootness
It was also reported in this newspaper that the “Supreme Court on Tuesday (June 2) dismissed a petition to stop the issuance of a provisional franchise for ABS-CBN even after it has been withdrawn.” The petition here refers to the one filed by Gadon on March 5. Prior to the high court’s dismissal of the petition, Gadon on May 22 filed a motion to withdraw the petition on the ground of mootness.
But, do you know that in spite of the mootness of a case, the Supreme Court can still resolve and decide on the merits of the same?
A resolution of the pending legal issues in a “mooted” case will still serve a useful purpose or have a practical legal effect because the same can be used as a benchmark for similar cases in the future. Gadon’s petition had some legal issues, which could have been resolved in spite of mootness.
In a long line of jurisprudence, the mootness of the case notwithstanding, the Supreme Court resolved to rule on its merits in order to settle the issue once and for all, given that the contested action is one capable of repetition or susceptible of recurrence. In a leading case, the Supreme Court “still resolved the merits of the petitions, considering that the issues involved a grave violation of the Constitution and affected the public interest. The court also affirmed its duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional precepts, doctrines or rules, and recognized that the contested actions were capable of repetition.”
The Supreme Court, instead of dismissing them on the ground of mootness, should have laid down precedents, where those who are similarly situated in the future can find doctrinal value in the prospective decisions of the “dismissed” petitions.
To junk or to dismiss?
Did the Supreme Court junk or dismiss the petitions? It depends on the circumstances of the case that was resolved.
“Junk” in its technical meaning is to “get rid of something because it is of no use or value.” In other words, it is simply trash. “Dismiss” is “to decide that something is no longer important and not worth considering.”
If a petition was denied due course on the ground of mootness, then it was dismissed. On the other hand, if a case was thrown out of the court because it had no merit, then it was junked.
Well, just a matter of legal terminology — to junk or to dismiss.