GR 183591mcn; (October, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 183591, 183752, 183893, 183951 (Consolidated) October 14, 2008
Case Parties:
THE PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO, ET AL., CITY GOVERNMENT OF ZAMBOANGA, ET AL., THE CITY OF ILIGAN, THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE, ET AL. (Petitioners) v. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN (GRP), ET AL. (Respondents), with various petitioners-in-intervention.
FACTS
The assailed document is the Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain Aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement of Peace of 2001 (MOA), a peace negotiation document prepared by the GRP and MILF Peace Panels. The Solicitor General moved for the dismissal of the consolidated petitions, citing changed circumstances and developments that rendered them moot, particularly the Executive Department’s statement that it would no longer sign the MOA. Despite this, several parties continued to push for a resolution of the constitutional issues raised.
ISSUE
Whether the petitions, which assail the constitutionality of the unsigned and subsequently abandoned MOA, present an actual, justiciable controversy or have become moot and academic.
RULING
The Separate Opinion of Justice Chico-Nazario votes to GRANT the Motion to Dismiss and DISMISS the petitions for being MOOT and ACADEMIC. The opinion holds that the requisites for judicial inquiry, particularly the existence of an actual case or controversy, are no longer present. The MOA was never signed and has been abandoned by the Executive Department; it is a draft with no legal force or binding effect. Therefore, the petitions no longer present a definite and concrete dispute touching on the legal relations of parties with adverse legal interests. Ruling on its constitutionality would be an academic exercise on hypothetical facts. The Executive Department’s assurance that it will not sign the MOA is accorded trust and the presumption of good faith. The Court should exercise judicial restraint, respect the political nature of the peace process, and not enjoin the Executive from future similar agreements based on hypotheticals. Any future solution requiring constitutional change must be achieved through completely legal means (e.g., amendment or revision) with the consent of the people.