04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly [3] 42 SCRA 448, 481 (1971) (emphasis on the original). [4] Panganiban, J., Separate Opinion, p. 2. [5] Vitug, J., Separate Opinion, p. 1. [6] 1 Cranch 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). [7] Occeña v. Commission on Elections; Gonzales v. The National Treasurer, 104 SCRA 1 (1981); Mitra v. Commission on Elections, 104 SCRA 59 (1981). [8] Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139, 158 (1936). [9] Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities v. Secretary of Education, 97 Phil. 806 (1955). [10] 16 Phil. 366 (1913). [11] 136 SCRA 27 (1985). [12] Kapunan, J., Separate Opinion, pp. 21-23. [13] Supra note 10. SEPARATE OPINION (Concurring and Dissenting) PANGANIBAN, J.: I concur with the draft ponencia of Mr. Justice Santiago M. Kapunan in its wellcrafted handling of the procedural or preliminary issues. In particular, I agree that petitioners have shown an actual case or controversy involving at least two constitutional questions of transcendental importance,[1] which deserve judicious disposition on the merits directly by the highest court of the land.[2] Further, I am satisfied that the various aspects of this controversy have been fully presented and impressively argued by the parties. Moreover, prohibition and mandamus are proper legal remedies[3] to address the problems raised by petitioners. In any event, this Court has given due course to the Petition, heard oral arguments and required the submission of memoranda. Indeed, it would then be a galling copout for us to dismiss it on mere technical or procedural grounds. Protection of Indigenous Peoples' elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/36882 133/148