GR 183591dt; (October, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 183591 , 183752, 183893, 183951. October 14, 2008.
PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO, et al., v. GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN, et al.; THE GOVERNMENT OF ZAMBOANGA, ET AL. v. GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE NEGOTIATING PANEL (GRP), ET AL.; CITY OF ILIGAN v. GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN, ET AL.; THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE, ET AL. v. GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE NEGOTIATING PANEL, ET AL.; FRANKLIN M. DRILON and ADEL ABBAS TAMANO, Intervenors; MUNICIPALITY OF LINAMON duly represented by its Municipal Mayor Noel N. Deano, Intervenors; SENATOR MANUEL ROXAS, Intervenor, THE CITY OF ISABELA, BASILAN PROVINCE, Intervenor.
FACTS
Petitions were filed seeking a writ of prohibition to prevent the Government of the Republic of the Philippines from signing the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). The Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order on August 4, 2008, to halt a scheduled signing ceremony. Subsequently, the Government, through the Office of the Solicitor General and public declarations by the Executive Secretary and the President, unequivocally manifested its decision not to sign the MOA-AD. The President stated the government would not sign the agreement “in the light of the recent violent incidents committed by MILF lawless groups.” Despite the government’s position, the MILF publicly adopted the posture that the MOA-AD, having been initialed by the negotiating panels, was already effective and binding as a “done deal.”
ISSUE
Whether the petitions have been rendered moot and academic by the Government’s voluntary and unequivocal decision not to sign the MOA-AD, thereby depriving the Court of a live case or controversy.
RULING
The petitions are moot and academic. The essential relief sought—a writ of prohibition to prevent the signing of the MOA-AD—has been voluntarily rendered unnecessary by the Government’s declared desistance from signing the agreement. Consequently, there is no longer a definite, concrete, and live controversy touching the legal relations of parties with adverse legal interests. The Court generally refrains from deciding moot issues as judicial power presupposes actual controversies. While exceptions exist, such as when a case is capable of repetition yet evading review, such exception does not squarely apply here because the act of negotiating and arriving at a new agreement like the MOA-AD is a complex, multilateral process unlikely to be easily repeated in the same form. The correct course is to dismiss the petitions.