Today is Tuesday, November 05, 2019

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN (GRP), ET AL.

EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN (GRP), ET AL.

UZ v. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN (GRP), ET AL.

d by HON. ROLANDO E. YEBES, ET AL. v. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON

in-intervention.

AKBAR, petitioner-in-intervention.

s capacity as Provincial Governor and a resident of the Province of Sultan Kudarat, petitioner-in-intervention.
 SEPARATE OPINION

ely the Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain Aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement of Peace of 2001 (M
(MILF) Peace Panel, was merely a codification of consensus points reached between both parties and the aspirations of the MILF to
ed them moot, particularly the Executive Department's statement that it would no longer sign the questioned peace negotiation docum

e issue of its constitutionality has obviously become moot.

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

ch involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution; the case must not be mo
ered "moot" when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because the issues involved have become academic or dead or w
ng for the court to resolve as the determination thereof has been overtaken by subsequent events.5

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 bind
n actual case or a justiciable controversy for resolution by this Court.

gal claims, which can be resolved on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence. A justiciable controversy is distinguished from a hyp
of specific relief through a decree that is conclusive in character, whereas an opinion only advises what the law would be upon a hypo

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

nic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao) were challenged for purported violations of the provisions of the Constitution
ich was already passed into law (R.A. No. 6734) just because of potential conflicts with the Constitution. Then, with more reason sho

est 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
g abuse itself by ignoring the fundamental principles of constitutional law.

l not sign the MOA in its present form or in any other form. It has declared the same intent to the public. For this Court to insist th
f the MOA in the future. The Court cannot doubt the sincerity of the Executive Department on this matter. The Court must accord a co

o agreements similar to the MOA in the future, as what petitioners and other opponents of the MOA pray for. Such prayer once again
e premature, but also too general to make at this point. It will perilously tie the hands of the Executive Department and limit its options

situation in Mindanao resulting from the continued clashes between the Philippine military and Muslim rebel groups. In negotiating fo
are agreed upon subject to the amendment of the Constitution by completely legal means.

would arrive at is a constant impasse. Thus, a counsel for one of the intervenors who assert the unconstitutionality of the MOA8 had n

overeignty, integrity and the like, but isn't there a time that surely will come and the life of our people when they have to transcend ev
t cannot look beyond the horizon and look for more satisfying result?

on of the provisions of the Constitution, then it should not be, Your Honor.

e gone to the OIC, and we have even gone to Libya.

g the territorial integrity of the country.

There cannot be an exception.

tion ought to be changed in order for a country to fulfill its internal obligation as a matter of necessity.

divinity? They just changed their Constitution, isn't it?

e.

the box? That one day even those who are underground may have to think. But frankly now Dean, before I end, may I ask, is it possi
ts?

consultation beforehand?

on, yes, Your Honor.

till remained to be elusive under its present terms. There is the possibility that the solution to the peace problem in the Southern Phili
its own amendment by describing, under Article XVII, the means and requirements therefor. In Tan v. Macapagal,10 where petitioners
utlined in the then governing Constitution, the Court ruled that:

room for the interposition of judicial oversight. Only after it has made concrete what it intends to submit for ratification may the appro

ake cognizance of, much less render a pronouncement upon.

ecure peace in Mindanao under terms which are most beneficial for the country as a whole, and not just one group of Muslim insurge
an. The nature and extent of any future written agreements should be clearly established from the very beginning, and the terms ther
then it should just simply state so.
 s affecting each step of the peace process in Mindanao. It is not within the province or even the competence of the Judiciary to tell th
re at stake, and the Executive Department, under its residual powers, is tasked to make political decisions in order to find solutions to

accordingly, for the DISMISSAL of the Petitions at bar for being MOOT and ACADEMIC.

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice

93, 225 SCRA 568, 575.

Constitution
Statutes
Executive Issuances
Judicial Issuances
Other Issuances
Jurisprudence
International Legal Resources
AUSL Exclusive