March 20, 2012
This was a case filed by a group of petitioners challenging the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 1959, which declared martial law in the Maguindanao province. The petitioners argued that the proclamation was issued without sufficient factual basis and that it violated the Constitution by suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case, ruling that it had become moot and academic. The Court found that Proclamation No. 1959 had already been lifted before the case was filed, and that there was no longer any live controversy to be resolved.
The Court also found that the petitioners had failed to show that they had been harmed by the proclamation. The Court held that the petitioners did not have standing to challenge the proclamation, as they had not been arrested or detained under martial law.
Fortun v. Arroyo is an important case that clarifies the doctrine of mootness in the context of constitutional law. The case establishes that a case will be dismissed if it becomes moot and academic, even if the constitutional issues raised are still valid.
The case also sets out some important requirements for standing in constitutional law. The Court held that a petitioner must show that they have been harmed by the challenged law or act in order to have standing to challenge it.