04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly [30] Respondents insist that the petitions at bar are moot for three reasons: (1) the petitioners North Cotabato and Zamboanga have already been furnished copies of the MOA-AD; (2) the Executive Secretary has issued a Memorandum that the government will not sign the MOA-AD and, (3) the GRP Peace Panel has been dissolved by the President. These grounds are barren grounds. For one, the press statements of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process, Gen. Hermogenes Esperon, Jr., are clear that the MOA-AD will still be used as a major reference in future negotiations.[31] For another, the MILF considers the MOA-AD a "done deal," [32] hence, ready for implementation. On the other hand, the peace panel may have been temporarily dismantled but the structures set up by the Executive and their guidelines which gave rise to the present controversy remain intact. With all these realities, the petitions at bar fall within that exceptional class of cases which ought to be decided despite their mootness because the complained unconstitutional acts are "capable of repetition yet evading review."[33] This well-accepted exception to the non-reviewability of moot cases was first enunciated in the case of Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC.[34]The United States Supreme Court held that a case is not moot where interests of a public character are asserted under conditions that may be immediately repeated, merely because the particular order involved has expired. In the petitions at bar, one need not butt heads with the Solicitor General to demonstrate the numerous constitutional infirmities of the MOA-AD. There is no need to iterate and reiterate them. Suffice to stress that it is because of these evident breaches, that the MOA-AD requires the present Constitution to undergo radical revisions. Yet, the unblushing threat is made that the MOA-AD which shattered to smithereens all respect to the Constitution will continue to be a reference point in future peace negotiations with the MILF. In fine, the MOA-AD is a constitutional nightmare that will come and torment us again in the near future. It must be slain now. It is not moot. Let us adhere to the orthodox thought that once a controversy as to the application of a constitutional provision is raised before this Court, it becomes a legal issue which the Court is hide-bound to decide.[35] Supervening events, whether contrived or accidental, cannot prevent the Court from rendering a decision if there is a grave violation of the Constitution has already been committed or the threat of being committed again is not a hypothetical fear.[36] It is the function of judicial review to uphold the Constitution at all cost or we forfeit the faith of the people. III. The Deviation from the MNLF Model of Pursuing Peace with Rebels is Inexplicable The MNLF model in dealing with rebels which culminated in the Peace Agreement of 1996, was free from any infirmity because it respected the metes and bounds of the Constitution. While the MNLF model is ostensibly based on the Tripoli Agreement of 1976, its implementation was in perfect accord with Philippine laws. The elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/47263 71/203