04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly other form." Moreover, on September 3, 2008, President Arroyo dissolved the GRP Peace Panel. Finally, in compliance to the Court's directive upon termination of the oral arguments, the parties' submitted their respective Memoranda. Petitioners and petitioners-in-intervention maintain that despite the supervening events and foregoing declarations and acts of the Executive Department, there remains a justiciable controversy, a conflict of legal rights by the parties that ought to be adjudicated by this Court. They asseverate that, supervening events notwithstanding, the cases at bench have not been mooted, or, even if so, the issues they raised fall within the exceptions to the moot and academic principle. Consequently, even with the dissolution of the GRP Peace Panel and the positive and unequivocal declaration by the Executive Department that the MOA-AD will not be signed in this form or in any other form, the constitutionality of the MOA-AD may still be ruled upon. At the other end of the spectrum, however, the OSG is adamant that this contentious MOA-AD is, in fact, only a codification of "consensus points" and does not, in any way, create rights and obligations that must be declared infirm, and thus, is not ripe for adjudication by this Court. Furthermore, the OSG insists that the petitions and petitions-in-intervention must be dismissed on the ground of mootness, supervening events having rendered the assailed MOA-AD inexistent and all the reliefs prayed for satisfied and fulfilled. In addition, the OSG argues that a ruling by this Court on the constitutionality of the MOA-AD violates the doctrine of separation of powers as the negotiation of the MOA-AD is embraced in the President's powers and in the nature of a political question, outside the pale of judicial review. The Issues From the pleadings and as delineated on oral arguments, the issues raised are both procedural and substantive, namely 1. Procedural (i) Whether petitioners and petitioners-in-intervention have locus standi; (ii) Whether the petitions and petitions-in-intervention continue to present a justiciable controversy still ripe for adjudication; and (iii) Whether the petitions become moot and academic. and petitions-in-intervention have 2. Substantive (i) Whether the MOA-AD is unconstitutional; (ii) Whether the GRP Peace Panel (respondents) committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it negotiated and initialed the MOA-AD. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/47263 191/203