Suplico v. NEDA, GR 178830, July 14, 2008In the wake of the ZTE-NBN deal of the GMA administration, the OSG filed a reply reiterating that for a court to exercise its power of adjudication,there must be an actual case or controversy one which involves aconflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution; the case must not be moot oracademic or based on extra-legal or other similar considerationsnot cognizable by a court of justice. Thus, when President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, acting in her official capacity informed Chinas President Hu Jintao that the Philippine Government had decided not to continue with the ZTE-NBN Project due to several reasons and constraints, there is no doubt thatall the other principal prayers in the three petitions(to annul, set aside, and enjoin the implementation of the ZTE-NBN Project)had also become moot. Is this correct?

Yes. Judicial power presupposes actual controversies, thevery antithesis of mootness. In the absence of actual justiciable controversies or disputes, the Court generally opts to refrain from deciding moot issues. Where there isno more live subject of controversy, the Court ceases tohave a reason to render any ruling or make any pronouncement. The rule is well-settled that for a court to exerciseits power of adjudication, there must be an actual caseor controversy one which involves a conflict of legalrights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptibleof judicial resolution; the case must not be moot oracademic or based on extra-legal or other similarconsiderations not cognizable by a court of justice.Where the issue has become moot and academic, thereis no justiciable controversy, and an adjudicationthereon would be of no practical use or value ascourts do not sit to adjudicate mere academicquestions to satisfy scholarly interest, howeverintellectually challenging.