04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly [1] OSG Memorandum (September 24, 2008), pp. 7-8. [2] Article X, Section 2, 1987 Constitution. [3] Article X, Section 18, 1987 Constitution. CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BRION, J.: The Petitions for Mandamus I concur with the ponencia's conclusion that the mandamus aspect of the present petitions has been rendered moot when the respondents provided this Court and the petitioners with the official copy of the final draft of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD).[1] The Petitions for Prohibition I likewise concur with the implied conclusion that the "non-signing of the MOA-AD and the eventual dissolution of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) panel mooted the prohibition aspect of the petitions," but disagree that the exception to the "moot and academic" principle should apply. The ponencia alternatively claims that the petitions have not been mooted. I likewise dissent from this conclusion. a. The Ponencia and the Moot and Academic Principle. As basis for its conclusion, the ponencia cites David v. Macapagal-Arroyo[2] for its holding that "`the moot and academic' principle not being a magical formula that automatically dissuades courts in resolving a case, it [the Court] will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if it feels that (a) there is a grave violation of the Constitution;[3] (b) the situation is of exceptional character and paramount public interest is involved;[4] (c) the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar and the public;[5] and (d) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review."[6] In further support of its position on the mootness issue, the ponencia additionally cites the American ruling that "once a suit is filed and the doer voluntarily ceases the challenged conduct, it does not automatically deprive the tribunal of power to hear and determine the case and does not render the case moot especially when the plaintiff seeks damages or prays for injunctive relief against the possible recurrence of the violation."[7] b. The Context of the "Moot and Academic" Principle. The cited David v. Macapagal-Arroyo defines a "moot and academic" case to be elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/47263 121/203