Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
The power of judicial review is limited to actual cases or controversy, that is the
court will decline on issues that are hypothetical, feigned problems or mere
academic questions. Related to the requirement of an actual case or controversy is
the requirement of ripeness. The contention of the SolGen is that there is no issue
ripe for adjudication since the MOA-AD is only a proposal and does not automatically
create legally demandable rights and obligations. Such was denied.
Well-settled jurisprudence states that acts made by authority which exceed their
authority, by violating their duties under E.O. No. 3 and the provisions of the
Constitution and statutes, the petitions make a prima facie case for Certiorari,
Prohibition, and Mandamus, and an actual case or controversy ripe for adjudication
exists. When an act of a branch of government is seriously alleged to have infringed
the Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to
settle the dispute. This is aside from the fact that concrete acts made under the
MOA-AD are not necessary to render the present controversy ripe and that the law
or act in question as not yet effective does not negate ripeness.
With regards to the locus standi, the court upheld the personalities of the
Province of Cotabato, Province of Zamboanga del norte, City of Iligan, City of
Zamboanga, petitioners in intervention Province of Sultan Kudarat, City of Isabela
and Municipality of Linnamon to have locus standi since it is their LGUs which will be
affected in whole or in part if include within the BJE. Intervenors Franklin Drilon and
Adel Tamano, in alleging their standing as taxpayers, assert that government funds
would be expended for the conduct of an illegal and unconstitutional plebiscite to
delineate the BJE territory. On that score alone, they can be given legal standing.
Senator Mar Roxas is also given a standing as an intervenor. And lastly, the
Intervening respondents Muslim Multi-Sectoral Movement for Peace and
Development, an advocacy group for justice and the attainment of peace and
prosperity in Muslim Mindanao; and Muslim Legal Assistance Foundation Inc., a nongovernment organization of Muslim lawyers since they stand to be benefited or
prejudiced in the resolution of the petitions regarding the MOA-AD.
On the contention of mootness of the issue considering the signing of the
MOA-AD has already been suspended and that the President has already disbanded
the GRP, the SC disagrees. The court reiterates that the moot and academic
principle is a general rule only, the exceptions, provided in David v. MacapagalArroyo, that it will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if it finds that (a)
there is a grave violation of the Constitution; (b) the situation is of exceptional
character and paramount public interest is involved; (c) the constitutional issue
raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and
the public; and (d) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review; and that
where there is a voluntary cessation of the activity complained of by the defendant
or doer, it does not divest the court the power to hear and try the case especially
when the plaintiff is seeking for damages or injunctive relief.
Clearly, the suspension of the signing of the MOA-AD and the disbandment of the
GRP did not render the petitions moot and academic. The MOA-AD is subject to
further legal enactments including possible Constitutional amendments more than
ever provides impetus for the Court to formulate controlling principles to guide the
bench, the bar, the public and, in this case, the government and its negotiating
entity.
At all events, the Court has jurisdiction over most if not the rest of the petitions.
There is a reasonable expectation that petitioners will again be subjected to the
same problem in the future as respondents' actions are capable of repetition, in
another or any form. But with respect to the prayer of Mandamus to the signing of
the MOA-AD, such has become moot and academic considering that parties have
already complied thereat.
2. The SC ruled that the MOA-AD is a matter of public concern,
involving as it does the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the
State, which directly affects the lives of the public at large.