6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly justiciable. Preliminarily, the consolidated petitions continue to present a justiciable controversy. Neither the expiration of the watchlist orders issued by Leila M. De Lima (respondent) as former Secretary of Justice nor the filing of Information for electoral sabotage against petitioner Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) rendered the cases moot. A case becomes moot when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy such that its adjudication would not yield any practical value or use.[1] Where the petition is one for certiorari seeking the nullification of an administrative issuance for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion, obtaining the other reliefs prayed for in the course of the proceedings will not render the entire petition moot altogether. In COCOFEDPhilippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. v. Commission on Elections (COMELEC), [2] the Court thus explained: A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy because of supervening events so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. In the present case, while the COMELEC counted and tallied the votes in favor of COCOFED showing that it failed to obtain the required number of votes, participation in the 2013 elections was merely one of the reliefs COCOFED prayed for. The validity of the COMELEC's resolution, cancelling COCOFED's registration, remains a very live issue that is not dependent on the outcome of the elections.[3] (Citations omitted) Similarly, where an accused assails via certiorari the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court, his subsequent release on parole will not render the petition academic.[4] Precisely, if the sentence imposed upon him is void for lack of jurisdiction, the accused should not have been paroled, but unconditionally released since his detention was illegal.[5] In the same vein, even when the certification election sought to be enjoined went on as scheduled, a petition for certiorari does not become moot considering that the petition raises jurisdictional errors that strike at the very heart of the validity of the certification election itself.[6] Indeed, an allegation of a jurisdictional error is a justiciable controversy that would prevent the mootness of a special civil action for certiorari.[7] Here, the consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohibition assail the constitutionality of Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 041-10,[8] on which respondent based her issuance of watchlist and hold-departure orders against petitioners. Notably, DOJ Circular No. 041-10 was not issued by respondent herself, but by Alberto C. Agra as then Acting Secretary of Justice during the Arroyo Administration. It became effective on 2 July 2010.[9] In fact, the assailed issuance remains in effect. To be sure, whether the watchlist and hold-departure orders issued by respondent against petitioners subsequently expired or were lifted is not determinative of the constitutionality of the circular. Hence, the Court is duty-bound to pass upon the constitutionality of DOJ Circular No. 041-10, being a justiciable issue rather than an elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64165 47/70