04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly [3] Joya v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. No. 96541, 24 August 1993, 225 SCRA 568, 575. [4] Id. [5] Santiago v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121908, 26 January 1998, 285 SCRA 16, 22. [6] Guingona, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 354 Phil. 415, 426 (1998). [7] G.R. Nos. 89651 & 89965, 10 November 1989, 179 SCRA 287. [8] Dean Pacifico Agabin is the counsel for Intervenor Manuel A. Roxas III. [9] TSN, pp. 603-611. [10] 150 Phil. 778, 785 (1972). SEPARATE OPINION REYES, R.T., J.: Nemo dat quod non habet. You cannot give what you do not have. Hindi mo maibibigay ang hindi sa iyo. This maxim forcefully applies in these consolidated petitions and petitions-inintervention for mandamus and prohibition which in the main seek the nullification of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) entered into between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP Panel) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). The issues may be compressed as follows: (1) whether the petitions and petitionsin-intervention have become moot due to supervening events; and (2) whether the MOA-AD is constitutional. I. The petitions and petitions-in-intervention have become moot due to supervening events. However, they should be decided given the exceptional circumstances, following well known precedents. During the August 29, 2008 oral arguments before the Court, the Solicitor General manifested that the MOA-AD will not be signed "in its present form or in any other form."[1] The August 28, 2008 memorandum of the Executive Secretary also says that "the government will not sign" the MOA-AD.[2] Due to these statements, the petitions and petitions-in-intervention have clearly become moot. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/47263 159/203