04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly mandamus, to compel the production of the official copy of the MOA-AD, the petitioners invoking their right to information. These petitions are now mooted, because the requested documents have already been produced. b) Two respondents-intervenors who pray that the Executive Department be directed to sign the MOA-AD and to continue with the peace negotiations. With the definite pronouncement of the President that the MOA-AD will not be signed in its present form or in any other form, this prayer cannot be granted, because the Court cannot compel a party to enter into an agreement. 2. Declaratory Relief. - One petition for declaratory relief which may not be granted because the Court has no original jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief.[38] 3. Certiorari and Prohibition. One petition for certiorari and twelve petitions for prohibition, including the petitions-in-intervention, seek a declaration of nullity of the MOA-AD (for being unconstitutional), a writ of certiorari against the members of the GRP Peace Panel for having acted with grave abuse of discretion, and a writ of prohibition to prevent the signing of the MOA-AD. There's the rub. Because the MOA-AD will not be signed "in its present form, or in any other form," certiorari will not lie. The Court cannot review an inexistent agreement, an unborn contract that does not purport to create rights or impose duties that are legally demandable. Neither will the remedy of prohibition lie against a GRP Peace Panel that no longer exists. To do so would be to flog a dead horse. The ponencia would wish to get around this inescapable truth by saying: "The MOAAD not being a document that can bind the Philippines under international law notwithstanding, respondents' almost consummated act of guaranteeing amendments to the legal framework is, by itself, sufficient to constitute grave abuse of discretion." With due respect, I beg to disagree. Grave abuse of discretion can characterize only consummated acts (or omissions), not an "almost (but not quite) consummated act." Chief Justice Panganiban, in his separate opinion in Sanlakas, writes: "The first requirement, the existence of a live case or controversy, means that the existing litigation is ripe for resolution and susceptible of judicial determination, as opposed to one that is conjectural or anticipatory, hypothetical or feigned." It is not the province of this Court to assume facts that do not exist. It is for the foregoing reasons that I respectfully register my dissent. I vote to DENY the petitions. [1] Represented by Secretary Rodolfo Garcia, Atty. Leah Armamento, Atty. Sedfrey Candelaria, Ryan Mark Sullivan. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/47263 200/203