Former presidential spokesperson Herminio “Harry” Roque on Monday said he respects the Supreme Court's (SC) dismissal of his petition but expressed concern that key constitutional issues were left unresolved because the case was declared moot.

In a statement, Roque said he acknowledged the high court’s ruling, which dismissed his petition for certiorari after finding it had become moot following the expiration of the warrant of arrest issued by the 19th Congress of the Philippines.

“As someone who has taught law for nearly two decades, including constitutional law, I fully understand and appreciate the doctrine of mootness,” Roque said, noting that courts typically refrain from deciding cases where no actual controversy remains.

“The principle that courts will not decide cases in which no actual controversy remains is fundamental to our legal system. In this instance, the expiration of the warrant rendered the issues raised in my petition technically moot,” he went on.

However, he argued that his case falls under recognized exceptions to the doctrine, particularly those involving issues of “transcendental importance” and situations “capable of repetition yet evading judicial review.”

"I firmly believe that my situation falls within these exceptions,” he stressed. 

Roque maintained that the circumstances surrounding the subpoenas issued against him by the House of Representatives’ Quad Committee raise questions that could recur but may consistently escape judicial scrutiny due to time constraints.

“The circumstances surrounding the subpoena and subpoena ad testificandum issued against me—particularly on matters I consider protected by my right to privacy and immaterial to the investigation on POGO—present issues that could recur but may consistently escape timely judicial resolution due to inherent time constraints,” he said.

Roque also expressed disappointment that the petition was not resolved sooner, noting that delays in adjudication made the case moot before a substantive ruling could be issued.

“Timely adjudication is essential, especially in cases involving fundamental rights and urgent legal questions,” he said, adding that swift court action is necessary to maintain public trust in the justice system.

Despite his reservations, Roque reiterated his respect for the judiciary and its limitations, expressing hope that courts will continue to protect citizens from potential abuses by government institutions.

"As a former law professor, I recognize the legal basis for the dismissal and the constraints under which the judiciary operates,” he said.

The SC earlier dismissed Roque’s petition seeking to halt the Quad Committee’s investigation into alleged illegal activities linked to Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs). 

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC En Banc ruled it could no longer grant relief after the panel lifted its contempt order against Roque and concluded its inquiry.

The Quad Committee had cited Roque in contempt and ordered his arrest after he repeatedly failed to attend hearings and submit documents related to its probe. 

Roque, in turn, elevated the issue to the high court, arguing that the congressional orders violated his constitutional rights.

The SC, however, emphasized that once a legislative inquiry ends—either through the submission of a final report or the adjournment of Congress—its power to enforce contempt orders also ceases, rendering related legal challenges moot.

With the committee having lifted its order and the 19th Congress adjourned in June 2025, the SC ruled it could no longer provide any effective relief, affirming the dismissal of Roque’s petition.