04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly issue of jurisdiction, the ICJ may or may not follow past precedents in the light of special circumstances of the case before it. The Philippines will be risking dismemberment of the Republic in the hands of an international tribunal that is not bound by the Philippine Constitution. More importantly, the BJE, represented by the MILF and endorsed by the OIC, may apply to be a party to the Statute of the ICJ and accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ.[85] A State that recognizes the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ has the right to sue before the ICJ any State that has accepted the same compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ.[86] The fact that the BJE has all the attributes of a state, with the acknowledged power to enter into international treaties with foreign countries, gives the BJE the status and legal personality to be a party to a case before the ICJ.[87] In fact, by agreeing in the MOA-AD that the BJE, on its own, can enter into international treaties,[88] the Philippines admits and recognizes the international legal personality of the BJE, with the capacity to sue and be sued in international tribunals. In short, for this Court to wait for the signing of the MOA-AD before assuming jurisdiction will allow an international tribunal to assume jurisdiction over the present petitions, risking the dismemberment of the Republic. It is providential for the Filipino people that this Court issued the Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the signing of the MOA-AD in the nick of time on 4 August 2008. When the Court issued the TRO, the members of the GRP Panel were already on their way to Malaysia to sign the MOA-AD the following day, 5 August 2008, before representatives of numerous states from the OIC, Europe, North America, ASEAN and other parts of Asia. Indeed, public respondents should be thankful to this Court for saving them from inflicting an ignominious and irreversible catastrophe to the nation. Petitions Not Mooted The claim of respondents that the present petitions are moot because during the pendency of this case the President decided not to sign the MOA-AD, "in its present form or in any other form,"[89] is erroneous. Once the Court acquires jurisdiction over a case, its jurisdiction continues until final termination of the case.[90] The claim of respondents that the President never authorized the GRP Panel to sign the MOA-AD[91] is immaterial. If the GRP Panel had no such authority, then their acts in initialing and in intending to sign the MOA-AD were in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, vesting this Court jurisdiction over the present petitions to declare unconstitutional such acts of the GRP Panel. Needless to say, the claim that the GRP Panel had no authority to sign the MOA-AD is a grave indictment of the members of the GRP Panel. At the very least this shows that the members of the GRP Panel were acting on their own, without following the instructions from the President as clearly laid down in the Memorandum of Instructions From The President dated 1 March 2001, which states in part: This Memorandum prescribes the guidelines for the Government Negotiating Panel (GPNP) for the peace negotiation process with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF): elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/47263 103/203