Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
RIGHT TO SLEF-DETERMINATION
The province of North Cotabato
vs. The GRP
FACTS:
On August 5, 2008, the Government of the
Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the MILF,
through the Chairpersons of their respective
peace negotiating panels, were scheduled to
sign a Memorandum of Agreement on the
Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) Aspect of the GRPMILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 in
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
The signing of the MOA-AD between the GRP
and the MILF was not to materialize, however,
for upon motion of petitioners, specifically
those who filed their cases before the
scheduled signing of the MOA-AD, this Court
issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining
the GRP from signing the same.
The MOA-AD was preceded by a long process of
negotiation and the concluding of several prior
agreements between the two parties beginning
in 1996, when the GRP-MILF peace negotiations
began. On July 18, 1997, the GRP and MILF
Peace Panels signed the Agreement on General
Cessation of Hostilities. The following year,
they signed the General Framework of
Agreement of Intent on August 27, 1998.
The
Solicitor
General,
who
represents
respondents, summarizes the MOA-AD by
stating that the same contained, among
others, the commitment of the parties to
pursue peace negotiations, protect and respect
human rights, negotiate with sincerity in the
resolution and pacific settlement of the
conflict, and refrain from the use of threat or
force to attain undue advantage while the
peace negotiations on the substantive agenda
are on-going.
When President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
assumed office, the military offensive against
the MILF was suspended and the government
sought a resumption of the peace talks. The
MILF, according to a leading MILF member,
initially responded with deep reservation, but
to
concept
of
ASSOCIATED
with the
presently
(Manifestations of an associated
state in the MOA-AD)
(AS
TO
RIGHT
DETERMINATION)
TO
SELF-
the
Right
to
Self-
Article 3
Indigenous peoples have the right to selfdetermination. By virtue of that right they
freely determine their political status and freely
pursue their economic, social and cultural
development. Xxx and other articles.
The UN DRIP, while upholding the right of
indigenous peoples to autonomy, does not
obligate States to grant indigenous peoples the
near-independent status of an associated state.
All the rights recognized in that document are
qualified in Article 46 as follows:
1. Nothing in this Declaration may be
interpreted as implying for any State, people,
group or person any right to engage in any
activity or to perform any act contrary to the
Charter of the United Nations orconstrued as
authorizing or encouraging any action
which would dismember or impair, totally
or in part, the territorial integrity or
political
unity
of
sovereign
and
independent States.
Even if the UN DRIP were considered as part of
the law of the land pursuant to Article II,
Section 2 of the Constitution, it would not
suffice to uphold the validity of the MOA-AD so
as to render its compliance with other laws
unnecessary.
Issue:
1. w/n the case is ripe for judicial
review
2. Is the president empowered to
enter agreement involving military
and defense internationally
3. w/n
the
the
EDCA
unconstitutional for lacking
required
concurrence
of
Senate.
is
the
the
Ruling
1st issue: These are the specific safeguards
laid down by the Court when it exercises its
power of judicial review. Guided by these
pillars, it may invoke the power only when the
following four stringent requirements are
satisfied: (a) there is an actual case or
controversy; (b) petitioners possess locus
standi; ( c) the question of constitutionality is
raised at the earliest opportunity; and ( d) the
issue of constitutionality is the !is mota of the
case. Of these four, the first two conditions will
be the focus of our discussion.
The power of judicial review has since
been strengthened in the 1987 Constitution.
The scope of that power has been extended to
the determination of whether in matters
traditionally considered to be within the sphere
of
appreciation of another branch of
government, an exercise of discretion has been
attended with grave abuse. The expansion of
this power has made the political question
doctrine "no longer the insurmountable
obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the
impenetrable shield that protects executive
and legislative actions from judicial inquiry or
review."
The petitioner has shown actual
case and controversy. Section 25, Article
XVIII of the
Constitution, is clear that the presence of
foreign military forces in the country shall only
be allowed by virtue of a treaty concurred in by
the Senate. Hence, the performance of an
official act by the Executive Department that
led to the entry into force of an executive
agreement was sufficient to satisfy the actual
case or controversy requirement.
While petitioners Saguisag et al,
do not have legal standing, they
nonetheless
raised
issues
involving
matters of transcendental importance.
According to the SC even if the general
assertion of the petitioner that they have a
standing as citizen for failure to allege the
specific possible or present violation of public
and citizen rights, the case has transcendental
importance to disregard the direct injury