8/15/2015 G.R.No.

183591

TodayisSaturday,August15,2015
LawphilMainMenu
Constitution
Statutes
Jurisprudence
JudicialIssuances
ExecutiveIssuances
RepublicofthePhilippines
Treatise SUPREMECOURT
LegalLink Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.183591THEPROVINCEOFNORTHCOTABATO,ETAL.v.THEGOVERNMENTOFTHE
REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINESPEACEPANELONANCESTRALDOMAIN(GRP),ETAL.

G.R.No.183752CITYGOVERNMENTOFZAMBOANGA,ETAL.v.THEGOVERNMENTOFTHEREPUBLIC
OFTHEPHILIPPINESPEACEPANELONANCESTRALDOMAIN(GRP),ETAL.

G.R.No.183893THECITYOFILIGAN,dulyrepresentedbyCITYMAYORLAURENCELLUCHCRUZv.
THEGOVERNMENTOFTHEREPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINESPEACEPANELONANCESTRALDOMAIN
(GRP),ETAL.

G.R.No.183951THEPROVINCIALGOVERNMENTOFZAMBOANGADELNORTE,asrepresentedbyHON.
ROLANDOE.YEBES,ETAL.v.THEGOVERNMENTOFTHEREPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINESPEACE
PANELONANCESTRALDOMAIN(GRP),ETAL.

xx

FRANKLINM.DRILONandADELABBASTAMANO,petitionersinintervention.

xx

MUNICIPALITYOFLINAMONdulyrepresentedbyitsMunicipalMayorNOELN.DEANO,petitionerin
intervention.

xx

THECITYOFISABELA,BASILANPROVINCE,representedbyMAYORCHERRYLYNP.SANTOSAKBAR,
petitionerinintervention.

xx

THEPROVINCEOFSULTANKUDARAT,representedbyHON.SUHARTOT.MANGUDDATU,inhiscapacity
asProvincialGovernorandaresidentoftheProvinceofSultanKudarat,petitionerinintervention.

xx

RUYELIASLOPEZ,petitionerinintervention.

xx

CARLOB.GOMEZ,ETAL.,petitionerinintervention.

xx

SEPARATEOPINION

CHICONAZARIO,J.:

ThepieceofwritingbeingassailedintheseconsolidatedPetitionsisapeacenegotiationdocument,namelythe
MemorandumofAgreementontheAncestralDomainAspectoftheGRPMILFTripoliAgreementofPeace
of 2001 (MOA). The Solicitor General explained that this document, prepared by the joint efforts of the
GovernmentoftheRepublicofthePhilippines(GRP)PeacePanelandtheMoroIslamicLiberationFront(MILF)
PeacePanel,wasmerelyacodificationofconsensuspointsreachedbetweenbothpartiesandtheaspirationsof
theMILFtohaveaBangsamorohomeland.1Subsequently,theSolicitorGeneralmovedforthedismissalofthe
consolidatedcasesatbarbasedonchangedcircumstancesaswellasdevelopmentswhichhaverenderedthem

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591mcn_2008.html 1/4
8/15/2015 G.R.No.183591
moot, particularly the Executive Department's statement that it would no longer sign the questioned peace
negotiationdocument.2 Nonetheless, several parties to the case, as well as other sectors, continue to push for
whattheycalla"completedetermination"oftheconstitutionalissuesraisedinthepresentPetitions.

IbelievethatinlightofthepronouncementoftheExecutiveDepartmenttoalreadyabandontheMOA,theissue
ofitsconstitutionalityhasobviouslybecomemoot.

Theruleissettledthatnoquestioninvolvingtheconstitutionalityorvalidityofalaworgovernmentalactmaybe
heard and decided by the court unless there is compliance with the legal requisites for judicial inquiry, namely:
thatthequestionmustberaisedbytheproperpartythattheremustbeanactualcaseorcontroversythatthe
questionmustberaisedattheearliestpossibleopportunityand,thatthedecisionontheconstitutionalorlegal
question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself. But the most important are the first two
requisites.3

For a court to exercise its power of adjudication, there must be an actual case or controversy one which
involvesaconflictoflegalrights,anassertionofoppositelegalclaimssusceptibleofjudicialresolutionthecase
mustnotbemootoracademicorbasedonextralegalorothersimilarconsiderationsnotcognizablebya
court of justice. A case becomes moot and academic when its purpose has become stale.4 An action is
considered "moot" when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because the issues involved have
become academic or dead or when the matter in dispute has already been resolved and hence, one is not
entitled to judicial intervention unless the issue is likely to be raised again between the parties. Simply stated,
thereisnothingforthecourttoresolveasthedeterminationthereofhasbeenovertakenbysubsequentevents.5

Suchisthecasehere.

TheMOAhasnotevenbeensigned,andwillneverbe.Itsprovisionswillnotatallcomeintoeffect.TheMOAwill
foreverremainadraftthathasneverbeenfinalized.Itisnownothingmorethanapieceofpaper,withnolegal
force or binding effect. It cannot be the source of, nor be capable of violating, any right. The instant Petitions,
therefore,andallotheroppositionstotheMOA,havenomorelegtostandon.Theynolongerpresentanactual
caseorajusticiablecontroversyforresolutionbythisCourt.

An actual case or controversy exists when there is a conflict of legal rights or an assertion of opposite legal
claims, which can be resolved on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence. A justiciable controversy is
distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute, in that the former involves a definite and
concretedisputetouchingonthelegalrelationsofpartieshavingadverselegalinterests.Ajusticiablecontroversy
admitsofspecificreliefthroughadecreethatisconclusiveincharacter,whereasanopiniononlyadviseswhatthe
lawwouldbeuponahypotheticalstateoffacts.6

FortheCourttostillruleuponthesupposedunconstitutionalityoftheMOAwillmerelybeanacademicexercise.It
would, in effect, only be delivering an opinion or advice on what are now hypothetical or abstract violations of
constitutionalrights.

InAbbasv.CommissiononElections,7the1976TripoliAgreementandRepublicActNo.6734(theOrganicAct
fortheAutonomousRegioninMuslimMindanao)werechallengedforpurportedviolationsoftheprovisionsofthe
Constitutiononfreedomofreligion.TheCourtheldthereinthatitshouldnotinquireintotheconstitutionalityofa
peaceagreementwhichwasalreadyconsummated(the1976TripoliAgreement)andanOrganicActwhichwas
alreadypassedintolaw(R.A.No.6734)justbecauseofpotentialconflictswiththeConstitution.Then,withmore
reasonshouldthisCourtdesistfromrulingontheconstitutionalityoftheMOAwhichisunsigned,andnowentirely
abandoned,andassuch,cannotevenhaveanypotentialconflictwiththeConstitution.

TheCourtshouldnotfeelconstrainedtoruleonthePetitionsatbarjustbecauseofthegreatpublicinterestthese
caseshavegenerated.Weare,afterall,acourtoflaw,andnotofpublicopinion.Thepowerofjudicialreviewof
thisCourtisforsettlingrealandexistentdispute,itisnotforallayingfearsoraddressingpublicclamor.Inacting
onsupposedabusesbyotherbranchesofgovernment,theCourtmustbecarefulthatitisnotcommittingabuse
itselfbyignoringthefundamentalprinciplesofconstitutionallaw.

The Executive Department has already manifested to this Court, through the Solicitor General, that it will not
signtheMOAinitspresentformorinanyotherform.Ithasdeclaredthesameintenttothepublic.Forthis
CourttoinsistthattheissuesraisedintheinstantPetitionscannotbemootfortheyarestillcapableofrepetitionis
tototallyignoretheassurancegivenbytheExecutiveDepartmentthatitwillnotenterintoanyotherformofthe
MOAinthefuture.TheCourtcannotdoubtthesincerityoftheExecutiveDepartmentonthismatter.TheCourt
mustaccordacoequalbranchofthegovernmentnothinglessthantrustandthepresumptionofgoodfaith.

Moreover, I deem it beyond the power of this Court to enjoin the Executive Department from entering into
agreementssimilartotheMOAinthefuture,aswhatpetitionersandotheropponentsoftheMOAprayfor.Such
prayeronceagainrequiresthisCourttomakeadefinitiverulingonwhataremerehypotheticalfacts.Adecree
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591mcn_2008.html 2/4
8/15/2015 G.R.No.183591
granting the same, without the Court having seen or considered the actual agreement and its terms, would not
only be premature, but also too general to make at this point. It will perilously tie the hands of the Executive
DepartmentandlimititsoptionsinnegotiatingpeaceforMindanao.

UpontheExecutiveDepartmentfallstheindisputablydifficultresponsibilityofdiffusingthehighlyvolatilesituation
in Mindanao resulting from the continued clashes between the Philippine military and Muslim rebel groups. In
negotiating for peace, the Executive Department should be given enough leeway and should not be prevented
fromofferingsolutionswhichmaybebeyondwhatthepresentConstitutionallows,aslongassuchsolutionsare
agreeduponsubjecttotheamendmentoftheConstitutionbycompletelylegalmeans.

Peace negotiations are never simple. If neither party in such negotiations thinks outside the box, all they would
arriveatisaconstantimpasse.Thus,acounselforoneoftheintervenorswhoasserttheunconstitutionalityofthe
MOA8hadnochoicebuttoagreeasfollows:

ASSOCIATEJUSTICEQUISUMBING:Well,werealizetheconstitutionalconstraintsofsovereignty,integrity
and the like, but isn't there a time that surely will come and the life of our people when they have to
transcendeventheselimitations?

DEANAGABIN:Yes,wehaveseenithappeninseveralinstances,YourHonor.

xxx

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE QUISUMBING: And in pursuit of that purpose, the Supreme Court cannot look
beyondthehorizonandlookformoresatisfyingresult?

DEANAGABIN:Well,ifyoumeanbylookingbeyondthehorizon,itwouldmeanaviolationoftheprovisions
oftheConstitution,thenitshouldnotbe,YourHonor.

ASSOCIATEJUSTICEQUISUMBING:Insomepart,wehavegonetoMalaysia.WehavegonetotheOIC,
andwehaveevengonetoLibya.

DEAN AGABIN: Yes, Your Honor. But in all these, we have always insisted on preserving the territorial
integrityofthecountry.

ASSOCIATEJUSTICEQUISUMBING:Andthisdictaor[dogma]isunassailableforever.Therecannotbean
exception.

DEANAGABIN:ItisunassailableunderthepresentConstitution,YourHonor.

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE QUISUMBING: But, at least, you can also agree that the Constitution ought to be
changedinorderforacountrytofulfillitsinternalobligationasamatterofnecessity.

DEANAGABIN:Yes,ifthepeoplesowillit,yourHonor.

ASSOCIATEJUSTICEQUISUMBING:YourememberhowtheemperorofJapanlosthisdivinity?Theyjust
changedtheirConstitution,isn'tit?

DEANAGABIN:Yes,itwasenforceduponhimbyMr.McArthur,andtheyhavenochoice.

ASSOCIATEJUSTICEQUISUMBING:Isn'tthataverygoodexampleofthinkingoutsidethebox?Thatone
dayeventhosewhoareundergroundmayhavetothink.ButfranklynowDean,beforeIend,mayIask,isit
possibletomeldormodifyourConstitutionalOrderinordertohavesomeroomforthenewlydeveloping
internationalnotionsonAssociativeGovernanceRegulationMovementandHumanRights?

DEANAGABIN:Yes.Itispossible,YourHonor,withtheconsentofthepeople.

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE QUISUMBING: And, therefore, we vote it to a referendum or any consultation

beforehand?

DEAN AGABIN: If there is such a proposal for or amendment or revision of the Constitution, yes, Your
Honor.

ASSOCIATEJUSTICEQUISUMBING:So,eitherinitiativeorCHACHAorCONAS?

DEANAGABIN:Yes,YourHonor.9

It must be noted that the Constitution has been in force for three decades now, yet, peace in Mindanao still
remainedtobeelusiveunderitspresentterms.Thereisthepossibilitythatthesolutiontothepeaceproblemin

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591mcn_2008.html 3/4
8/15/2015 G.R.No.183591
the Southern Philippines lies beyond the present Constitution. Exploring this possibility and considering the
necessaryamendmentoftheConstitutionarenotperseunconstitutional.TheConstitutionitselfimplicitlyallows
for its own amendment by describing, under Article XVII, the means and requirements therefor. In Tan v.
Macapagal,10wherepetitionersclaimthattheConstitutionalConventionwaswithoutpowertoconsider,discuss,
oradoptproposalswhichseektorevisetheConstitutionthroughtheadoptionofaformofgovernmentotherthan
theformoutlinedinthethengoverningConstitution,theCourtruledthat:

[A]s long as any proposed amendment is still unacted on by [the Convention], there is no room for the
interposition of judicial oversight. Only after it has made concrete what it intends to submit for ratification
maytheappropriatecasebeinstituted.Untilthen,theCourtsaredevoidofjurisdiction.xxx.

At this point, there is far from a concrete proposed amendment to the Constitution which the Court can take
cognizanceof,muchlessrenderapronouncementupon.

Atmost,theCourtcanonlyexhorttheExecutiveDepartmenttokeepinmindthatitmustnegotiateandsecure
peaceinMindanaoundertermswhicharemostbeneficialforthecountryasawhole,andnotjustonegroupof
Musliminsurgents.Transparencyandconsultationwithallmajorplayers,whichnecessarilyincludeaffectedlocal
governmentunitsandtheirconstituents,areessentialtoarriveatamoreviableandacceptablepeaceplan.The
natureandextentofanyfuturewrittenagreementsshouldbeclearlyestablishedfromtheverybeginning,andthe
termsthereofcarefullydraftedandclearlyworded,toavoidmisunderstandingsormisconstructionsbytheparties
andthepublic.Ifadocumentismeanttobealistofconsensuspointsstillsubjecttofurthernegotiations,thenit
shouldjustsimplystateso.

As a final note, I find it necessary to stress that the Court must not allow itself to be mired in controversies
affectingeachstepofthepeaceprocessinMindanao.Itisnotwithintheprovinceoreventhecompetenceofthe
Judiciary to tell the Executive Department exactly what and what not, how and how not, to negotiate for peace
withinsurgents.Giventhiskindofsituationwherewarandpeacehanginthebalance,wherepeople'slivesareat
stake,andtheExecutiveDepartment,underitsresidualpowers,istaskedtomakepoliticaldecisionsinorderto
find solutions to the insurgency problem, the Court should respect the political nature of the issues at bar and
exercisejudicialrestraintuntilanactualcontroversyisbroughtbeforeit.

In view of the foregoing, I vote for the GRANT of the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Solicitor General and,
accordingly,fortheDISMISSALofthePetitionsatbarforbeingMOOTandACADEMIC.

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice

Footnotes

1Respondent'sManifestationandMotion,19August2008.

2Id.

3Joyav.PresidentialCommissiononGoodGovernment,G.R.No.96541,24August1993,225SCRA568,
575.

4Id.

5Santiagov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.121908,26January1998,285SCRA16,22.

6Guingona,Jr.v.CourtofAppeals,354Phil.415,426(1998).

7G.R.Nos.89651&89965,10November1989,179SCRA287.

8DeanPacificoAgabinisthecounselforIntervenorManuelA.RoxasIII.

9TSN,pp.603611.

10150Phil.778,785(1972).

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591mcn_2008.html 4/4