04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly This assumption is, in my view, purely hypothetical and has no basis in fact in the way David v. Macapagal-Arroyo had, or in the way the exception to mootness was justified in Roe v. Wade. As I have earlier discussed,[29] the ponencia's conclusion made on the basis of the GRP-MILF Peace Agreement of June 2001 is mistaken for having been based on the wrong premises. Additionally, the pronouncements of the Executive on the conduct of the GRP negotiating panel and the parameters of its actions are completely contrary to what the ponencia assumed. Executive Order No. 3 (entitled Defining Policy and Administrative Structure for Government's Comprehensive Peace Efforts) sets out the government's visions and the structure by which peace shall be pursued. Thus, its Section 2 states The Systematic Approach to peace; Section 3, The Three Principles of the Comprehensive Peace Process; Section 4, The Six Paths to Peace; and Section 5(c)the Government Peace Negotiating Panels.[30] The Memorandum of Instructions from the President dated March 2001 to the Government Negotiating Panel, states among others that: 1. The negotiations shall be conducted in accordance with the mandates of the Philippine Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the principles of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines. 2. The negotiation process shall be pursued in line with the national Comprehensive Peace Process, and shall seek a principled and peaceful resolution of the armed conflict, with neither blame nor surrender, but with dignity for all concerned. xxx 4. The general approach to the negotiations shall include the following: a. Seeking a middle ground between the aspirations of the MILF and the political, social and economic objectives of the Philippine Government; b. Coordinated Third Party Facilitation, where needed; c. Consultations with affected communities and sectors.[31] Under these clear terms showing the Executive's vision on how the peace process and the negotiations shall proceed, I believe that it is fallacious to assume that any renewed negotiation with the MILF will entail a repetition of the discarded MOA-AD. Understandably, it may be asked why the MOA-AD turned out the way it did despite the negotiating panel's clear marching orders. The exact answer was never clarified during the oral arguments and I can only speculate that at some point, the negotiating panel lost its bearings and deviated from the clear orders that are still in force up to the present time. As I mentioned earlier,[32] this may be the reason why the negotiating panel was immediately dissolved. What is important though, for purposes of this case and of the peace and order situation in Mindanao, is that the same marching orders from the Executive are in place so that there is no misunderstanding as to what that branch of government seeks to accomplish and how it intends this to be done. The fact that an issue may arise in the future - a distinct possibility for the ponencia elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/47263 129/203