04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly As opposed to justiciable controversy, academic issues or abstract or feigned problems only call for advices on what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.[8] Were the Court to continue entertain and resolve on the merits these consolidated petitions, the most that it can legally do is to render an advisory opinion,[9] veritably binding no one,[10] but virtually breaching the rule against advisory opinion set out, if not implied in Section 1, Article VIII charging "courts of justice [the duty] to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable." Prescinding from and anent the foregoing considerations, it can categorically be stated that what the petitions are pressing on the Court are moot and academic questions. An issue or a case becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy so that a determination thereof would be without practical use and value.[11] In such cases, there is no actual substantial relief to which the petitioner would be entitled to and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.[12] To be sure, the mootness of a case would not, in all instances, prevent the Court from rendering a decision thereon.[13] So it was that in a host of cases, we proceeded to render a decision on an issue otherwise moot and academic. Dela Camara v. Enage,[14] Gonzales v. Marcos,[15] Lacson v. Perez [16] Albania v. COMELEC,[17] Acop v. Guingona II [18] and David v. Macapagal-Arroyo,[19] among other cases, come to mind. David lists the exceptions to the rule on mootness, thus: 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. A perusal of the cases cited, however, readily reveals that the subject matters thereof involved jusiticiable controversies. In Dela Camara, for example, there was the challenged order approving an application for bail bond but at an excessive amount. The case was rendered moot by the issuance of a subsequent order reducing the amount. In Gonzales, the petition questioning the validity of the creation of the CCP Complex by then President Marcos via a executive order which was viewed as a usurpation of legislative power was mooted by the issuance of a presidential decree upon the declaration of martial law. In Lacson, assailed was the issuance of Proclamation No. 36 declaring a state rebellion; in Albania, the petition to nullify the decision of the COMELEC annulling the proclamation of petitioner as municipal mayor was rendered moot by the election and proclamation of a new set of municipal officers; in Acop, the petition to exclude two police officers from the Witness Protection Program was rendered moot by the fact that the coverage of the two officers under the program was terminated; and in David, the petition challenging the validity of Presidential Proclamation (PP) 1017 declaring a state of emergency was rendered moot by the issuance of PP 1021 declaring that the state of national emergency has ceased. The element of justiciable controversy is palpably absent in the petitions at bar. For, elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/47263 181/203