Facts: The petitioner invokes the constitutionally protected right to life and l iberty guaranteed by the due process

clause, alleging that no prima facie case h as been established to warrant the filing of an information for subversion again st him. Petitioner asks the Court to prohibit and prevent the respondents from u sing the iron arm of the law to harass, oppress, and persecute him, a member of the democratic opposition in the Philippines. The case roots backs to the rash of bombings which occurred in the Metro Manila area in the months of August, September and October of 1980. Victor Burns Lovely , Jr, one of the victims of the bombing, implicated petitioner Salonga as one of those responsible. On December 10, 1980, the Judge Advocate General sent the petitioner a Notice of Preliminary Investigation in People v. Benigno Aquino, Jr., et al. (which include d petitioner as a co-accused), stating that the preliminary investigation of the above-entitled case has been set at 2:30 o clock p.m. on December 12, 1980? and th at petitioner was given ten (10) days from receipt of the charge sheet and the s upporting evidence within which to file his counter-evidence. The petitioner sta tes that up to the time martial law was lifted on January 17, 1981, and despite assurance to the contrary, he has not received any copies of the charges against him nor any copies of the so-called supporting evidence. The counsel for Salonga was furnished a copy of an amended complaint signed by G en. Prospero Olivas, dated 12 March 1981, charging Salonga, along with 39 other accused with the violation of RA 1700, as amended by PD 885, BP 31 and PD 1736. On 15 October 1981, the counsel for Salonga filed a motion to dismiss the charge s against Salonga for failure of the prosecution to establish a prima facie case against him. On 2 December 1981, Judge Ernani Cruz Pano (Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XVIII, Quezon City) denied the motion. On 4 January 1982, he (Pano) issued a resolution ordering the filing of an info rmation for violation of the Revised Anti-Subversion Act, as amended, against 40 people, including Salonga. The resolutions of the said judge dated 2 December 1 981 and 4 January 1982 are the subject of the present petition for certiorari. I t is the contention of Salonga that no prima facie case has been established by the prosecution to justify the filing of an information against him. He states t hat to sanction his further prosecution despite the lack of evidence against him would be to admit that no rule of law exists in the Philippines today. Issues: 1. Whether the above case still falls under an actual case 2. Whether the above case dropped by the lower court still deserves a decision f rom the Supreme Court Held: 1. No. The Court had already deliberated on this case, a consensus on the Court s judgment had been arrived at, and a draft ponencia was circulating for co ncurrences and separate opinions, if any, when on January 18, 1985, respondent J udge Rodolfo Ortiz granted the motion of respondent City Fiscal Sergio Apostol t o drop the subversion case against the petitioner. Pursuant to instructions of t he Minister of Justice, the prosecution restudied its evidence and decided to se ek the exclusion of petitioner Jovito Salonga as one of the accused in the infor mation filed under the questioned resolution. The court is constrained by this action of the prosecution and the respondent Ju dge to withdraw the draft ponencia from circulating for concurrences and signatu res and to place it once again in the Court s crowded agenda for further deliberat ions. Insofar as the absence of a prima facie case to warrant the filing of subversion charges is concerned, this decision has been rendered moot and academic by the action of the prosecution. 2. Yes. Despite the SC s dismissal of the petition due to the case s moot and academ ic nature, it has on several occasions rendered elaborate decisions in similar c ases where mootness was clearly apparent. The Court also has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules. It has the symbolic function of educa ting bench and bar on the extent of protection given by constitutional guarantee s. In dela Camara vs Enage (41 SCRA 1), the court ruled that:

The fact that the case is moot and academic should not preclude this Tribunal fro m setting forth in language clear and unmistakable, the obligation of fidelity o n the part of lower court judges to the unequivocal command of the Constitution that excessive bail shall not be required. In Gonzales v. Marcos (65 SCRA 624) whether or not the Cultural Center of the Ph ilippines could validly be created through an executive order was mooted by Pres idential Decree No. 15, the Center s new charter pursuant to the President s legisla tive powers under martial law. Nevertheless, the Court discussed the constitutio nal mandate on the preservation and development of Filipino culture for national Identity. (Article XV, Section 9, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution). In the habeas corpus case of Aquino, Jr., v. Enrile, 59 SCRA 183), the fact that the petition was moot and academic did not prevent this Court in the exercise o f its symbolic function from promulgating one of the most voluminous decisions e ver printed in the Reports.