GR 183591ab; (October, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 183591 , 183752, 183893, 183951, 183962. October 14, 2008.
Case Parties: THE PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO, etc., et al., versus THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN (GRP), et al.; CITY GOVERNMENT OF ZAMBOANGA, etc. et al., versus THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN (GRP), et al.; THE CITY OF ILIGAN, etc., et al. versus THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN (GRP), et al.; THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE, etc., et al. versus THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN (GRP), et al.; and ERNESTO M. MACEDA, et al., versus THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN (GRP), et al.
FACTS
Several petitions were filed seeking to prohibit the signing of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). The Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to halt the signing. Subsequently, the respondents provided the Court with the official copy of the final draft of the MOA-AD, committed that the MOA-AD would not be signed in its present or any other form, and the President dissolved the GRP negotiating panel.
ISSUE
Whether the petitions for prohibition have been rendered moot and academic by the non-signing of the MOA-AD and the dissolution of the GRP panel.
RULING
In his Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Justice Brion concurred that the petitions for mandamus were rendered moot when the respondents provided the official copy of the MOA-AD. Regarding the petitions for prohibition, he concurred with the implied conclusion that the non-signing of the MOA-AD and the dissolution of the GRP panel mooted the prohibition aspect. He dissented, however, from the ponencia’s alternative conclusion that the petitions were not mooted based on exceptions to the mootness principle. Justice Brion argued that the respondents’ unequivocal acts of committing not to sign the MOA-AD and dissolving the panel removed any live controversy, leaving nothing to prohibit. He emphasized that judicial power requires an actual justiciable controversy and that applying exceptions to the mootness principle requires a strict test, which he believed was not satisfied. He further argued that ruling on the constitutionality of the unsigned MOA-AD serves no useful purpose and could have adverse effects on the national interest and the peace process.