THE PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO vs.

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES GR# 183591, October 14, 2008
Carpio-Morales, J:
Facts:
The Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain Aspect of the GRP-
MILF Tripoli Agreement of Peace of 2001 (MOA) is assailed on its
constitutionality. This document prepared by the joint efforts of the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) Peace Panel and the Moro
Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) Peace Panel, was merely a codification of
consensus points reached between both parties and the aspirations of the
MILF to have a Bangsamoro homeland.

Issue:
When the Executive Department pronounced to abandon the MOA, is the issue
of its constitutionality merely moot and academic and therefore no longer
justiciable by the Court?

Held:
Yes. Since the MOA has not been signed, its provisions will not at all come into
effect. The MOA will forever remain a draft that has never been finalized. It is
now nothing more than a piece of paper, with no legal force or binding effect.
It cannot be the source of, nor be capable of violating, any right. The instant
Petitions, therefore, and all other oppositions to the MOA, have no more leg
to stand on. They no longer present an actual case or a justiciable controversy
for resolution by this Court.

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 concrete dispute touching on the legal relations of parties having
adverse legal interests. A justiciable controversy admits of specific relief
through a decree that is conclusive in character, whereas an opinion only
advises what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.
The Court should not feel constrained to rule on the Petitions at bar just
because of the great public interest these cases have generated. We are, after
all, a court of law, and not of public opinion. The power of judicial review of
this Court is for settling real and existent dispute, it is not for allaying fears or
addressing public clamor. In acting on supposed abuses by other branches of
government, the Court must be careful that it is not committing abuse itself
by ignoring the fundamental principles of constitutional law.