Practice question
An expired emergency restriction raises a demonstrated grave constitutional issue. The record also establishes an exceptional matter of paramount public interest and a reasonable recurrence of a restriction too brief for full review. The court considers the issue under Foundation for Economic Freedom’s cumulative formulation but ultimately finds no constitutional violation on the merits. Which distinction is correct?
- Applying a mootness exception required judgment for the challengers
- The court had to ignore all merits defenses once recurrence was shown
- The established threshold allowed consideration; it did not dictate the final merits result
- Expiry automatically makes the government lose
- Every ground for review is identical to proof of substantive liability
Legal references
- Foundation for Economic Freedom v. ERC, G.R. No. 214042 et al., August 13, 2024, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/aug2024/gr_214042_2024.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.