6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The power of judicial review is articulated in Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution which reads: Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.[62] Like almost all powers conferred by the Constitution, the power of judicial review is subject to limitations, to wit: (1) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (2) the person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject act or issuance; otherwise stated, he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.[63] Except for the first requisite, there is no question with respect to the existence of the three (3) other requisites. Petitioners have the locus standi to initiate the petition as they claimed to have been unlawfully subjected to restraint on their right to travel owing to the issuance of WLOs against them by authority of DOJ Circular No. 41. Also, they have contested the constitutionality of the questioned issuances at the most opportune time. The respondents, however, claim that the instant petitions have become moot and academic since there is no longer any actual case or controversy to resolve following the subsequent filing of an information for election sabotage against GMA on November 18, 2011 and the lifting of WLO No. 2011-573 against Miguel Arroyo and the deletion of his name from the BI watchlist after the dismissal of the complaint for electoral sabotage against him. To be clear, "an actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal right, an opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution. It is definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interest; a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief."[64] When the issues have been resolved or when the circumstances from which the legal controversy arose no longer exist, the case is rendered moot and academic. "A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value."[65] The Court believes that the supervening events following the filing of the instant petitions, while may have seemed to moot the instant petitions, will not preclude it from ruling on the constitutional issues raised by the petitioners. The Court, after assessing the necessity and the invaluable gain that the members of the bar, as well as the public may realize from the academic discussion of the constitutional issues raised elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64165 9/70