Practice question
A resident challenges a one-day closure of a local footbridge. After repairs, the bridge permanently reopens. The resident seeks no damages or other remaining relief, concedes the action is unlikely to recur, and identifies no constitutional violation, exceptional public interest, or need for controlling constitutional guidance. He nevertheless demands a declaration that he was right. How should the court address mootness on these facts?
- Dismiss the moot controversy because no supported exception or effective relief remains.
- Decide the merits because every completed government act must be reviewed.
- Declare the closure unconstitutional as a penalty for mootness.
- Treat the resident's persistence as a constitutional exception.
- Order new closure so that a live controversy exists.
Legal references
- Marquez v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 244274, September 3, 2019, Part I, https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2019/sep2019/gr_244274_2019.html
- Foundation for Economic Freedom v. ERC, G.R. No. 214042 et al., August 13, 2024, judicial review discussion, https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/aug2024/gr_214042_2024.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.