Province of North Cotabato vs.

Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel

GR No. 183591
October 14, 2008

FACTS: Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, in line with the government‘s 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.

ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not respondents violated constitutional and statutory provisions on public
consultation and the right to information when they negotiated and later initialed the
MOA-AD.
(2) Whether or not the MOA-AD violates the Constitution and the laws.

HELD:
(1) YES. At least three pertinent laws animate these constitutional imperatives and justify the
exercise of the people’s right to be consulted on relevant matters relating to the peace
agenda.
.
a. EO No. 3, which enumerates the functions and responsibilities of the PAPP, is replete
with mechanics for continuing consultations on both national and local levels and for a
principal forum for consensus-building.

In fact, it is the duty of the PAPP to conduct regular dialogues to seek relevant
information, comments, advice, and recommendations from peace partners and concerned
sectors of society;

b. RA No. 7160 (LGC) requires all national offices to conduct consultations before any
project or program critical to the environment and human ecology including those that
may call for the eviction of a particular group of people residing in such locality, is
implemented therein.

The MOA-AD is one peculiar program that unequivocally and unilaterally vests
ownership of a vast territory to the Bangsamoro people, which could pervasively and
drastically result to the diaspora or displacement of a great number of inhabitants from
their total environment RA No. 8371 (IPRA) provides for clear-cut procedure for the
recognition and delineation of ancestral domain, which entails, among other things, the
observance of the free and prior informed consent of the Indigenous Cultural
Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICC/IP).

(2) NO. It cannot be reconciled with the present Constitution and laws. Not only its specific
provisions, but the very concept underlying them, namely, the associative relationship
envisioned between the GRP and the BJE, are unconstitutional, for the concept
presupposes that the associated entity is a state and implies that the same is on its way to
independence.

While there is a clause in the MOA-AD stating that the provisions thereof inconsistent with
the present legal framework will not be effective until that framework is amended, the same
does not cure its defect. The inclusion of provisions in the MOA-AD establishing an
associative relationship between the BJE and the Central Government is, itself, a violation of
the Memorandum of Instructions From The President addressed to the government peace
panel. Moreover, as the clause is worded, it virtually guarantees that the necessary
amendments to the Constitution and the laws will eventually be put in place. Neither the GRP
Peace Panel nor the President herself is authorized to make such a guarantee. Upholding such
an act would amount to authorizing a usurpation of the constituent powers vested only in
Congress, a Constitutional Convention, or the people themselves through the process of
initiative, for the only way that the Executive can ensure the outcome of the amendment
process is through an undue influence or interference with that process.