MANILA, Philippines?Chief Justice Reynato Puno Sunday raised the possibility that the Supreme Court would set aside attempts by the Arroyo administration to make the deal on an expanded Bangsamoro homeland moot and academic and rule on political issues brought up by its opponents.

Puno told reporters on the sidelines of the Ramon Magsaysay awards ceremonies that the tribunal would rule in two weeks on the motion by Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera to dismiss cases against the memorandum of agreement (MOA) on ancestral domain with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). Should the court deny the motion, it would then rule on the case on its merits, he said.

The court had issued a temporary restraining order on the Aug. 5 signing of the MOA in Malaysia following protests by local officials in Mindanao. They said they were not consulted, that the deal contravened the Constitution and that they feared it would lead to a dismemberment of the Philippine republic and lead to the creation of a new state.

Devanadera told the court on Friday that the Arroyo administration had no intention of signing the MOA ?in its present form? or ?in any other form? after the deal ran into widespread opposition in Congress and business and civil society groups.

She also contended that the petitions against the deal raised political questions that the court could not look into under the principle of separation of powers.

Most critical issue

Puno said the court considered the case one of ?high priority.?

?It?s a very important case, the most critical one to confront the court. And so, while we?ll be giving it the highest priority, we shall at the same be extra careful in making the resolution,? he said.

In resolving the solicitor general?s motion to dismiss, Puno said among the issues that the court would tackle was whether there were also political questions?aside from constitutional issues?raised in the cases seeking to strike down the MOA, and whether it could rule on them.

He said there were political questions that the court did not have the authority to tackle, but there were also issues that it could resolve.

?That?s part of the consideration that will go in resolving a motion to dismiss. What is the component of questions raised to the court? Are these merely constitutional issues or do they involve political questions? If they involve political questions, which political questions cannot be resolved by the court? We should remember that some political questions still fall within the jurisdiction of court,? Puno said.

?You can?t close your eyes?

Under the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court has the power to check the executive branch?s grave abuse of discretion, Puno maintained.

Puno noted that the political question doctrine had been used by the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos as a defense against petitions involving violations of human rights and those questioning the authority of the President in his exercise of his powers as Commander in Chief to declare martial law.

But under the Constitution crafted after Marcos? ouster, the Supreme Court is no longer required to just accept the invocation by the executive department of the doctrine that the judiciary could not inquire on political decisions, Puno said.

He said this also did not necessarily mean that all political questions could now be resolved by the court.

The Chief Justice said the court would not ignore the fact that blood had been shed in Mindanao in the aftermath of the MOA, hammered out in secrecy by the Arroyo administration.

?You cannot close your eyes to the realities on the ground,? he said, referring to clashes mounted by MILF factions disgruntled at the delay in implementation of the agreement. The MILF described the MOA as a ?done deal? after it was initialed in July by government peace negotiators.