6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly in the petition, resolves to put to rest the lingering constitutional questions that abound the assailed issuance. This is not a novel occurrence as the Court, in a number of occasions, took up cases up to its conclusion notwithstanding claim of mootness. In Evelio Javier vs. The Commission on Elections,[66] the Court so emphatically stated, thus: The Supreme Court is not only the highest arbiter of legal questions but also the conscience of the government. The citizen comes to us in quest of law but we must also give him justice. The two are not always the same. There are times when we cannot grant the latter because the issue has been settled and decision is no longer possible according to the law. But there are also times when although the dispute has disappeared, as in this case, it nevertheless cries out to be resolved. Justice demands that we act then, not only for the vindication of the outraged right, though gone, but also for the guidance of and as a restraint upon the future.[67] In Prof. David vs. Pres. Macapagal-Arroyo,[68] the Court proceeded in ruling on the constitutionality of Presidential Proclamation (PP) No. 1017 in which GMA declared a state of national emergency, and General Order No. 5 (G.O. No. 5), which ordered the members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police to carry all necessary actions to suppress acts of terrorism and lawless violence, notwithstanding the issuance of PP 1021 lifting both issuances. The Court articulated, thus: The Court holds that President Arroyo's issuance of PP 1021 did not render the present petitions moot and academic. During the eight (8) days that PP 1017 was operative, the police officers, according to petitioners, committed illegal acts in implementing it. Are PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 constitutional or valid? Do they justify these alleged illegal acts? These are the vital issues that must be resolved in the present petitions. It must be stressed that unconstitutional act is not a law, it confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protection; it is in legal contemplation, inoperative. The "moot and academic" principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case. Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if: first, there is a grave violation of the Constitution; second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; third, when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. [69] (Citations omitted and emphasis supplied) In the instant case, there are exceptional circumstances that warrant the Court's exercise of its power of judicial review. The petitioners impute the respondents of violating their constitutional right to travel through the enforcement of DOJ Circular No. 41. They claim that the issuance unnecessarily places a restraint on the right to travel even in the absence of the grounds provided in the Constitution. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64165 10/70