PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO V GRP a.
The petitioners allege that respondents drafted the MOA-AD
OCTOBER 14 2008 | CARPIO-MORALES, J
FACTS
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, in line with the governments policy of
pursuing peace negotiations with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF),
asked Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad to convince the MILF to continue
negotiating with the government. MILF, thereafter, convened its Central
Committee and decided to meet with the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines (GRP).
Formal peace talks were held in Libya which resulted to the crafting of the
GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace (Tripoli Agreement 2001) which
consists of three (3) aspects: a.) security aspect; b.) rehabilitation aspect;
and c.) ancestral domain aspect.
Various negotiations were held which led to the finalization of the
Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD). The said
memorandum was set to be signed last August 5, 2008. In its body, it grants
the authority and jurisdiction over the Ancestral Domain and Ancestral
Lands of the Bangsamoro to the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE). The
latter, in addition, has the freedom to enter into any economic cooperation
and trade relation with foreign countries. The sharing between the Central
Government and the BJE of total production pertaining to natural resources
is to be 75:25 in favor of the BJE.
The MOA-AD further provides for the extent of the territory of the
Bangsamoro. It describes it as the land mass as well as the maritime,
terrestrial, fluvial and alluvial domains, including the aerial domain and the
atmospheric space above it, embracing the Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan
geographic region. With regard to governance, on the other hand, a shared
responsibility and authority between the Central Government and BJE was
provided. The relationship was described as associative. With the
formulation of the MOA-AD, petitioners aver that the negotiation and
finalization of the MOA-AD violates constitutional and statutory provisions on
public consultation, as mandated by Executive Order No. 3, and right to
information. They further contend that it violates the Constitution and laws.
Hence, the filing of the petition.
ISSUE/S
PROCEDURAL
The Solicitor General argues that there is no justiciable controversy that is
ripe for judicial review in the present because the MOA-AD is, to put it simply,
just a proposal. He also said that the Government will not sign the MOA-AD
no matter what the SC decides.
A. Ripeness
without consulting the LGU or communities, nor informing them
of the proceedings. Furthermore, the MOA-AD guaranteed to the
MILF the amendment of the constitution. Petitioners say that
respondents have exceeded their authority by violating their
duties under E.O. No.3 and the provisions of the Constitution
and statutes making a prima facie case for Certiorari, Prohibition,
and Mandamus and thus the case is ripe for adjudication.
B. Locus Standi
a. The provinces have legal standing because as LGUs their
territories would suffer. The politicians have no standing as
taxpayers and citizens but the court grants them standing
because of the transcendental importance of the issues at hand.
C. Mootness
a. Though the GRP Peace Panel has been dissolved and the court
had restrained the signing of the MOA-AD, the present petitions
are not confined to the terms and provisions of the MOA-AD, but
to other on-going and future negotiations and agreements
necessary for its realization. The
b. That the MOA-AD is subject to further legal enactments including
possible Constitutional amendments necessitates that the court
formulate controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and
the public, in this case, the government and its negotiating entity
c. Despite what the Sol-Gen said regarding the government not
signing the MOA-AD, mootness will not set since the MOA-AD is
just part of a series of agreements and only tackles the Ancestral
Domain aspect of the Tripoli agreement.
SUBSTANTIVE
1. Did respondents violate constitutional and statutory provisions on
public consultation and the right to information when they negotiated
and later initiated MOA-AD? YES
The MOA-AD is an issue of public concern, so according to Section 7, Article
III the right of information on matters of public concern and Section 28,
Article II of the constitution the policy of public disclosure, the respondents
should have disclosed this info to the petitioners. Moreover E.O. 3, which
gives authority to the GRP peace negotiating panels states that it is the
panels duty to disclose information and to conduct public consultation
regarding the peace agenda and processes.
2. WoN certain provisions of the MOA-AD violate the 1987 Constitution
and the laws: YES
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS
1. The MOA-AD will grant JBE the status of an associated state.
a. one state, the associate, delegates certain responsibilities
to the other, the principal, while maintaining its international
status as a state (Keitner and Reisman)
 b. Being granted such a status, in international law, is a means 8. Any provisions of the MOA-AD requiring amendments to the existing
of transition into full independence. legal framework shall come into force upon signing of a
c. This associative relationship between GRP and JBE is not Comprehensive Compact.
supported by the Constitution. 9. Wording of clause makes it seem that the Constitutional
d. It is because of this associative relationship that many of the amendments needed for the implementation of MOA-AD is
specific provisions of the MOA-AD on the formation and guaranteed
powers of the JBE run counter to the Constitution and the a. President and GRP may only suggest, but not guarantee the
laws. necessary Constitutional amendments for MOA-AD
2. MOA-AD violates Article X, Section 18 of the Constitution. b. If guaranteed, usurpation of constituent power given to the
a. Claims that the ARMM + some municipalities of Lanao Del Congress, ConCon and citizens.
Norte are automatically part of the BJE
b. Disregarded the need for a plebiscite stipulated in Art. X,
Sec. 18 of the Constitution. The plebiscite held in 2001 was
for inclusion into the ARMM, NOT the BJE.
3. BJE as a STATE
a. Meets criteria of a state laid down by the Montevideo
Convention
i. Permanent population, defined territory, a
government, and a capacity to enter into relations
with other states
b. BJE would be more powerful than the autonomous regions
recognized by the State
c. Declaring the BJE as a state is against the national
sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic
4. STATUTORY INCONSISTENCIES
5. R.A. 9054
a. MOA-AD: birthright of all Moros and all Indigenous peoples
of Mindanao to identify themselves and be accepted as
Bangsamoros
b. Art X, Sec. 3 of R.A. 9054: distinguishes between Tribal
peoples and Bangsa Moro people
i. Bangsa Moro people: believers in Islam and who
have retained some or all of their own social
economic cultural, and political institutions
ii. Tribal Peoples: citizens whose social, cultural, and
economic conditions distinguish them from other
sectors of their national community
6. IPRA
a. MOA-ADs embracing of the Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan
geographic region as its ancestral domain is a clear
departure from the prevailing procedure laid down by the
IPRA (Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997)

7. SUSPENSIVE CLAUSE ISSUE