Você está na página 1de 5

Province of North Cotabato vs Government of the Republic of the

Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (GRP)


Doctrine: Territory. Creation of BJE as an independent State cannot be effected my mere
agreement. Establishment of BJE as having an associative relationship with the government is not
granted by the present Constitution.
Petition: Petition for writ of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition
Petitioners: Province of North Cotabato, Zamboanga del Norte, Iligan, Zamboanga City, Province of
Sultan Kudarat, City of Isabela and Municipality of Linamon, Ernesto Maceda, Jejomar Binay,
Aquilino Pimentel III, Franklin Drilon, Adel Tamano, Senator Manuel Roxas, Ruy Elias Lopez,
Muslim Multi-Sectoral Movement for Peace and Development, Muslim Legal Assistance Foundation
Inc.
Respondent: Government of the republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain
(GRP)
Date: October 14, 2008
Ponente:Carpio-Morales
Summary:
Petitioners pray for a writ of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition to enjoin the signing of the
Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) between the Central Government and
MILF.
Facts:
August 5, 2008- the government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) & MILF were
scheduled to sign a Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA- AD)
This negotiation was preceded by many attempts for peace negotiations beginning in 1996
July 18, 1997- GRP & MILF Peace Panels sign the agreement on general cessation of
hostilities
Aug 27, 1998- signed General Framework of Agreement Intent
1999-2000 MILF attacked municipalities in Mindanao and took control of the town hall of
Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte. This led President Estrada to declare an all-out-war
When President Arroyo assumed office, peace talks resumed with the help of the Prime
Minister of Malaysia
June 20-22 2001 GRP and MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace: security aspect,
rehabilitation aspect, and ancestral domain aspect
August 5-7 2001 Implementing Guidelines on the Security Aspect of the Tripoli Agreement
and the Implementing Guidelines on the Humanitarian Rehabilitation and Development
Aspects (They signed it on May 7, 2002)
July 13 2003 MILF Chairman Salamat Hashim passed away and was replaced by Al Haj
Murad, the Chief Peace Negotiator
Murad was replaced by Mohagler Iqbal
Petitioners pray for the issuance of writ of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition to declare
the MOA-AD unconstitutional; Zamboanga City, Iligan, and Zamboanga del Norte to be
excluded from Bangsamoro Juridical Entity
Overview of MOA-AD:

Digest by: Katrina Janine B. Cabanos || Group 1 || I-B 2017

1/5

A. Concepts and Principles


It is the birthright of all Moros and all indigenous peoples of Mindanao to identify
themselves as Bangsamoro
Bangsamoro people= natives or original inhabitants of Mindanao at the time of
colonization, including Palawan and Sulu
Bangsamoro homeland= ownership vested upon prior rights of occupation; the
ancestral domain does not form part of the public domain; and the Bangsamoro will
have the right to self-governance
Bangsamoro as the First Nation with defined territory and with a system of
government having entered into treaties of amity and commerce with foreign
nations
Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) = authority and jurisdiction over ancestral
domain and ancestral lands of Bangsamoro
B. Territory
Embraces Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan geographic region; present ARMM
Outside this core, BJE is to cover other places which are grouped into Category A
and Category B Provinces
Category A provinces are subject to a plebiscite 12 months after the signing of MOAAD, while Category B (special intervention areas) provinces are subject to a
plebiscite 25 years after the signing of MOA- AD
BJE shall have jurisdiction over all natural resources within its jurisdiction
The relationship of BJE and the Central Government will be that of joint jurisdiction
C. Resources
BJE is free to enter into any economic cooperation and trade relations with foreign
countries
BJE has control over its territorial jurisdiction
Sharing between BJE and Government would be that of 75:25, in favor of BJE
D. Governance
Associative relationship between central government and BJE = shared authority
and responsibility
Its provisions requiring amendments to the existing legal framework shall take
effect upon signing the comprehensive compact and upon effecting said
amendments with due regard to non-derogation of prior agreements (opens up the
amendment of the Constitution in order to uphold MOA-AD
Issues:
1. Preliminary Issues:
a) Whether the case at hand is ripe for adjudication
b) Whether Petitioners have locus standi
c) Whether the case is moot
2. Whether respondents violated constitutional and statutory provisions on public
consultation and right to information when they negotiated and initialed the MOA-AD
3. Whether contents of MOA-AD violate the Constitution and laws

Digest by: Katrina Janine B. Cabanos || Group 1 || I-B 2017

2/5

Ruling and Ratio


1. Preliminary Issues
a) The case is ripe for adjudication.
- Sol. Gen. argues that there is no justiciable controversy that is ripe for the
present petition since MOA-AD remain to be a proposal that doesnt create
demandable rights and obligations
- But, concrete acts are not necessary to render a present controversy ripe
- That the law is not yet effective doesnt negate its ripeness
b) The petitioners have locus standi.
- North Cotabato, ZDN, Iligan, and Zamboanga city will be substantially affected
by the signing of MOA-AD since they belong to the territory; they did not vote for
their inclusion in BJE
- Maceda, Binay, Pimentel they have no standing as taxpayers and citizens for
their failure to specify that they would be denied some right or privilege; but
since their invocation is a matter of transcendental importance, the Court grants
them standing
- Senator Manuel Roxas his standing is premised on his being a member of the
Senate (requisite standing as intervenor)
- Ruy Elias Lopez, Carlo B. Gomez, Marino Riado failed to allege any proper legal
interest as taxpayers and citizens, but the Court will relax this technicality and
grant them standing
- Muslim Multi-Sectoral Movement for Peace and Development & Muslim Legal
Assistance Foundation Inc have legal interest, and thus have standing
c) The case, although moot and academic, does not stop the court from deciding
- No matter what the Supreme Court decides, the government will not sign MOA
(executive secretary)
- The signing of MOA did not push through because the court issued a TRO
- Court will still decide because:
There is public interest (possible constitutional amendments)
MOA-AD is part of Tripoli Agreement (mootness will not set in light of
the terms of Tripoli)
Provinces will again be subject to the same issues
2. Yes.
- Petitioners invoke Sec 7, Art III of the Constitution- right to information on
matters of public concern
- Access to public record is predicated on the right of the people to acquire
information on matters of public concern since in a democracy, the public has a
legitimate interest in such
- MOA-AD is indeed a matter of public concern since it involves the sovereignty
and territorial integrity of the State
- Sec. 28, Art II policy of public disclosure complements right to access
information; recognizes the DUTY of the officials to give info. even if nobody
demands it
- Right to information and disclosure goes hand in hand with a feedback
mechanism

Digest by: Katrina Janine B. Cabanos || Group 1 || I-B 2017

3/5

E. O. 3 declares that there is a need for the participation of the people;


established petitioners right to be consulted on the peace agenda
Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process committed a grave abuse of discretion
when he failed to carry out the pertinent consulations
Local Government Code prior consultation required before project may be
implemented
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) does not grant to the executive the
power to delineate and recognize an ancestral domain claim by mere agreement
respondents transcended their boundaries of authority

3. Yes.
-

Respondents admit the need to amend present constitution to render MOA-AD


effective
The associative relationship between the government and BJE is not recognized
in our present constitutions
Association, in international law, is when two states of unequal power
voluntarily establish durable links. One state (associate) delegates certain
responsibilities to the principal while maintaining its international status as a
state. It is the middle ground between integration and independence.
BJE is far more powerful than the autonomous region recognized in the
Constitution. It has permanent population, defined territory, a government,
capacity to enter into relations with other states, the only thing missing is
actually calling BJE a state.
Art. X, Sec. 18 only provinces, cities, and geographic areas voting favorably in
such plebiscite shall be included in the autonomous region inclusion in
ARMM, not BJE
Art. X, Sec. 20 would need further amendments to accommodate MOA-AD
Art. II, Sec. 22 promotes rights of indigenous cultural communities within the
framework of national unity associative arrangement doesnt uphold national
unity
R.A. 9054 (IPRA), Art.X, sec. 3 is a bar to the adoption of the definition of
Bangsamoro. There is a distinction between Tribal people and Bangsamoro
people. Bangsamoro people are those who believe in Islam, and is not allencompassing as declared in MOA-AD
Art. II, Sec. 2 adopts generally accepted principles of international law as part
of the law of the land. International laws do not recognize the right of national
groups to separate themselves from the State of which they form part of by
simple expression of a wish. Self-governance is limited to the governance of
internal affairs, as opposed to external self-determination, which only the State
has the power to do so.
Provisions inconsistent with the legal framework will not be effective
until that framework is amended (suspensive clause)
Legal framework= constitution
The executive does not have the power to make such guarantee.
President could only propose amendments, Congress has the power to
approve

Digest by: Katrina Janine B. Cabanos || Group 1 || I-B 2017

4/5

MOA-AD

IS

The matter of constitutional amendment is not a question of IF, but of


WHEN (granting MOA-AD is signed)
Involvement of international 3rd parties (Malaysia) does not mean that
the Philippines is making a unilateral declaration that is binding the
Philippines internationally. They are only witnesses between Gov. and
MILF. Having said that, MOA-AD is still fatally defective.
DECLARED
CONTRARY
TO
LAW
AND
THE
CONSTITUTION.

Velasco Jr, Dissent:


MILF was not served a copy of the petition though they are a proper party to the case. Thus,
the court cannot decide and make its decision binding when one of the parties is not
informed.
MOA-AD is only a proposal, not an independent source of obligation. It will amount to
striking down a non-existent agreement
Moot and academic since its perfection was aborted
In granting the writs, court is disregarding the separation of powers doctrine. The Executive
should still have power to negotiate peace agreements, but the court will infringe upon this
power.
Nachura, Dissent:
After the grant of TRO, there is no longer an actual controversy since document wasnt
signed
Peace Panel has already been disbanded
No violation of constitution that will justify judicial review since MOA-AD has not been
signed
President, as Chief Executive. Has the power to negotiate peace with MILF via E.O. 3
Grave abuse of discretion can only characterize consummated acts

Digest by: Katrina Janine B. Cabanos || Group 1 || I-B 2017

5/5

Você também pode gostar