04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules. It has the symbolic function of educating bench and bar on the extent of protection given by constitutional guarantees."[7] Similarly, Dela Camara v. Enage,[8] Gonzales v. Marcos,[9] and Aquino , Jr., v. Enrile[10] were decided under the same aegis. In David v. Macapagal-Arroyo,[11] the Solicitor General moved for the dismissal of the consolidated petitions on the ground of mootness. It was argued that because the President had already lifted her declaration of state of national emergency, there was no longer an actual case or controversy. The Court was not convinced, saying that "[t]he "moot and academic" principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case."[12] It then proceeded to declare unconstitutional major parts of the declaration of state of national emergency by the President. Just recently, in Manalo v. Calderon,[13] "[n]otwithstanding the mootness of the issues on restrictive custody and monitoring of movements of petitioners," the Court opted to resolve the petition for habeas corpus, due to "(a) the paramount public interest involved, (b) their susceptibility of recurring yet evading review, and (c) the imperative need to educate the police community on the matter." The petitions and petitions-in-intervention call for a similar or analogous treatment by the court, due to their transcendental importance and in the national interest. II. The MOA-AD is unconstitutional. The GRP Panel went beyond their marching orders from the President. The March 1, 2001 Memorandum of Instructions from the President,[14] which prescribes the guidelines for the GRP Panel in negotiating with the MILF, partly states: 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 the principled and peace resolution of the armed conflict, with neither blame nor surrender, but with dignity for all concerned. 3. The objective of the GPNP is to attain a peace settlement that shall: a. Contribute to the resolution of the root cause of the armed conflict, and to societal reform, particularly in Southern Philippines; b. Help attain a lasting peace and comprehensive stability in Southern Philippines under a meaningful program of autonomy for Filipino Muslims, consistent with the Peace Agreement entered into by the GRP and the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/47263 161/203