04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly A usual exception to the moot and academic principle is where the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. A recent example where the Court applied that exception was in Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary,[8] which involved the power of the President to declare a state of rebellion. Therein, the Court decided to exercise jurisdiction "[t]o prevent similar questions from re-emerging."[9] It was clear in Sanlakas that the challenged act, the declaration by the President of a state of rebellion was a unilateral act that was clearly capable of repetition, it having actually been accomplished twice before. Contrast that situation to this case, where the challenged act is not a unilateral act that can be reproduced with ease by one person or interest group alone. To repeat the challenged act herein, there would have to be a prolonged and delicate negotiation process between the Government and the MILF, both sides being influenced by a myriad of unknown and inconstant factors such as the current headlines of the day. Considering the diplomatic niceties involved in the adoption of the MOA-AD, it is well-worth considering the following discussion on the complexity in arriving at such an agreement: The making of an international agreement is not a simple single act. It is rather a complex process, requiring performance of a variety of different functions or tasks by the officials of a participating state. Among the functions which must be distinguished for even minimal clarity are the following: (1) the formulation of rational policies to guide the conduct of negotiations with other states; (2) the conduct of negotiations with the representatives of other states; (3) the approval of an agreement for internal application within the state, when such internal application is contemplated; (4) the approval of an agreement for the external commitment of the state; (5) the final utterance of the agreement as the external commitment of the state to other states. [10] Assuming that the act can be repeated at all, it cannot be repeated with any ease, there being too many cooks stirring the broth. And further assuming that the two sides aree able to negotiate a new MOA-AD, it is highly improbable that it would contain exactly the same provisions or legal framework as the discarded MOA-AD. II. Even though the dismissal of these moot and academic petitions is in order in my view, there are nonetheless special considerations that warrant further comment on the MOA-AD on my part. As intimated earlier, the MILF has adopted the public position that as far as it is concerned, the MOA-AD has already been signed and is binding on the Government. To quote from one news report: "The MILF leadership, which is the Central Committee of the MILF, has an official position. that the memorandum of agreement on the Bangsamoro Ancestral Domain has been signed," said Ghadzali Jaafar, MILF vice chairman for political affairs. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/47263 141/203