Province of North Cotabato v.

Government of the Republic of the Philippines

October 14, 2008, GR 18!"1
Constitutionality of MOA-AD
#$C%&'
Peace negotiations between the GRP
1
and ()*#
2
began in 1996. Formal peace talks between
the parties were held in Tripoli, Libya in 2001, the otcome o! which was the "#P$%&LF Tripoli
'greement on Peace (%ripoli $+reement 2001) containing the basic principles and agenda on
the !ollowing aspects o! the negotiation* Security 'spect, Rehabilitation 'spect, and Ancestral
Domain 'spect. &n 200+, se,eral e-ploratory talks were held between the parties in .ala
Lmpr, e,entally leading to the cra!ting o! the dra!t (O$,$-

in its !inal !orm, which was set to

be signed on 'gst +, 200/. 0e,eral petitions were !iled seeking, among others, to restrain the
signing o! the %1'$'2. Petitions allege, among others, that the pro,isions o! the %1'$'2 ,iolate the
3onstittion.
The %1'$'2 mentions the 4.an+samoro /uri0ical 1ntit25 (678) to which it grants the athority
and 9risdiction o,er the 'ncestral 2omain and 'ncestral Lands o! the 6angsamoro. The territory
o! the 6angsamoro homeland is described as the land mass as well as the maritime, terrestrial,
!l,ial and all,ial domains, inclding the aerial domain and the atmospheric space abo,e it,
embracing the %indanao$0l$Palawan geographic region.
The Parties to the %1'$'2 stiplate that*
The 678 shall ha,e 9risdiction o,er all natral resorces within its 4 internal waters, 5
de!ined as e-tending !i!teen (1+) kilometers !rom the coastline o! the 678 area:
The 678 shall also ha,e 4territorial waters,5 which shall stretch beyond the 678 internal
waters p to the baselines o! the #epblic o! the Philippines (#P) soth east and soth
west o! mainland %indanao:
;ithin these territorial waters, the 678 and the 43entral "o,ernment5 (sed
interchangeably with #P) shall e-ercise 3oint 9risdiction, athority and management o,er
all natral resorces.
The 678 is !ree to enter into any economic cooperation and trade relations with !oreign
contries and shall ha,e the option to establish trade missions in those contries. 0ch
relationships and nderstandings, howe,er, are not to inclde aggression against the
"#P. The 678 may also enter into en,ironmental cooperation agreements.
The external de!ense o! the 678 is to remain the dty and obligation o! the 3entral
"o,ernment. The 3entral "o,ernment is also bond to 4take necessary steps to ensre
the 678<s participation in international meetings and e,ents5 like those o! the '08'= and
the speciali>ed agencies o! the ?=.
The 678 is to be entitled to participate in Philippine o!!icial missions and delegations !or
the negotiation o! border agreements or protocols !or en,ironmental protection and
e@itable sharing o! incomes and re,enes in,ol,ing the bodies o! water ad9acent to or
between the islands !orming part o! the ancestral domain.
The %1'$'2 !rther pro,ides !or the sharin+ o! minerals on the territorial waters between the
3entral "o,ernment and the 678, in !a,or o! the latter, throgh prodction sharing and economic
cooperation agreement. The acti,ities which the Parties are allowed to condct on the territorial
waters are enmerated, among which are the e-ploration and tili>ation o! natral resorces,
reglation o! shipping and !ishing acti,ities, and the en!orcement o! police and sa!ety measres.
1
"o,ernment o! the #epblic o! the Philippines
2
%oro &slamic Liberation Front* The %&LF is a rebel grop which was established in %arch 19/A when, nder the
leadership o! the late 0alamat Bashim, it splintered !rom the %oro =ational Liberation Front (%=LF) then headed by =r
%isari, on the grond, among others, o! what 0alamat percei,ed to be the maniplation o! the %=LF away !rom an
&slamic basis towards %ar-ist$%aoist orientations.
3
%emorandm o! 'greement on 'ncestral 2omain
$
t
t
2
.

$
R
)
&

&
.

(
$
N
G
4
1
R
$
The %1'$'2 describes the relationship o! the 3entral "o,ernment and the 678 as
4associative,5 characteri>ed by shared athority and responsibility. 'nd it states that the
strctre o! go,ernance is to be based on e-ecti,e, legislati,e, 9dicial, and administrati,e
instittions with de!ined powers and !nctions in the 3omprehensi,e 3ompact. The 678 is
granted the power to bild, de,elop and maintain its own instittions inclsi,e o! ci,il ser,ice,
electoral, !inancial and banking, edcation, legislation, legal, economic, police and internal
secrity !orce, 9dicial system and correctional instittions, the details o! which shall be discssed
in the negotiation o! the comprehensi,e compact.

Paragraph 1 on 31=38PT0 '=2 P#&=3&PL80 o! %1'$'2 states*
1. It is the birthright of all Moros and all Indigenous peoples of Mindanao to
identify themselves and be accepted as Bangsamoros. The angsamoro
!eo!le refers to those "ho are natives or original inhabitants of Mindanao and its
adjacent islands inclu#ing $ala"an an# the Sulu archi!elago at the time of
con%uest or coloni&ation of its #escen#ants "hether mixe# or of full bloo#. S!ouses
an# their #escen#ants are classifie# as angsamoro. The free#om of choice of the
In#igenous !eo!le shall be res!ecte#.
The %1'$'2 states, in paragraph 2(a) on Territory, that 4the Parties to this 'greement commit
themselves to the full an0 mutual implementation o! this !ramework agreement.5 The %1'$
'2 !rther states, in paragraph C on "o,ernance, that*

Any !ro'isions of the MOA on Ancestral Domain re%uiring amen#ments to the existing
legal frame"or( shall come into force u!on signing of a com!rehensi'e com!act an#
u!on effecting the necessary changes to the legal frame"or( "ith due regard to non
derogation of prior agreements an# "ithin the sti!ulate# timeframe to be containe# in
the Com!rehensi'e Com!act.
)&&41 '
;hether %1'$'2 is constittional.
51*-'
Main Opinion, J. arpio!Morales"
=o. The %1'$'2 is inconsistent with the 3onstittion and laws as presently worded*
1. The concept o! association is not recogni>ed nder the present 3onstittion.
2. The %1'$'2 wold not comply with 'rticle D 0ection 20 o! the 3onstittion
3. 'rticle &&, 0ection 22 o! the 3onstittion mst also be amended i! the scheme en,isioned
in the %1'$'2 is to be e!!ected.
4. The %1'$'2 is also inconsistent with #.'. =o. 90+A (The 1rganic 'ct o! the '#%%)
5. The %1'$'2 is also inconsistent with &P#'
6. 8,en i! the ?= 2#&P were considered as part o! the law o! the land prsant to 'rticle &&,
0ection 2 o! the 3onstittion, it wold not s!!ice to phold the ,alidity o! the %1'$'2 so
as to render its compliance with other laws nnecessary.
%he concept of association is not reco+ni6e0 un0er the present Constitution.
=o pro,ince, city, or mnicipality, not e,en the '#%%, is recogni>ed nder or laws as ha,ing an
4associati,e5 relationship with the national go,ernment. &ndeed, the concept implies powers that
go beyond anything e,er granted by the 3onstittion to any local or regional go,ernment. &t also
implies the recognition o! the associated entity as a state. The 3onstittion, howe,er, does not
contemplate any state in this 9risdiction other than the Philippine 0tate, mch less does it pro,ide
!or a transitory stats that aims to prepare any part o! Philippine territory !or independence.
&t is not merely an e-panded ,ersion o! the '#%%, the stats o! its relationship with the national
go,ernment being !ndamentally di!!erent !rom that o! the '#%%. &ndeed, 678 is a state in all
bt name as it meets the criteria o! a state laid down in the %onte,ideo 3on,ention, namely, a
permanent poplation, a de!ined territory, a go,ernment, and a capacity to enter into relations
with other states.

8,en assming argendo that the %1'$'2 wold not necessarily se,er any portion o! Philippine
territory, the spirit animating it E which has betrayed itsel! by its se o! the concept o! association
E rns conter to the national so,ereignty and territorial integrity o! the #epblic.

The de!ining concept nderlying the relationship between the national go,ernment and the 678
being itsel! contrary to the present 3onstittion, it is not srprising that many o! the speci!ic
pro,isions o! the %1'$'2 on the !ormation and powers o! the 678 are in con!lict with the
3onstittion and the laws.

'rticle D, 0ection 1/ o! the 3onstittion pro,ides that 4FtGhe creation o! the atonomos
region shall be e!!ecti,e when appro,ed by a ma9ority o! the ,otes cast by the constitent nits in
a plebiscite called !or the prpose, pro,ided that only pro,inces, cities, and geographic areas
,oting !a,orably in sch plebiscite shall be inclded in the atonomos region.5
The 678 is more o! a state than an atonomos region. 6t e,en assming that it is co,ered by
the term 4atonomos region5 in the constittional pro,ision 9st @oted, the %1'$'2 wold still
be in con!lict with it. ?nder paragraph 2(c) on T8##&T1#H in relation to 2(d) and 2(e), the
present geographic area o! the '#%% and, in addition, the mnicipalities o! Lanao del =orte
which ,oted !or inclsion in the '#%% dring the 2001 plebiscite E aloi) Munai) *unungan)
$antar) Tagoloan an# Tang(al E are atomatically part o! the 678 withot need o! another
plebiscite, in contrast to the areas nder 3ategories ' and 6 mentioned earlier in the o,er,iew.
That the present components o! the '#%% and the abo,e$mentioned mnicipalities ,oted !or
inclsion therein in 2001, howe,er, does not render another plebiscite nnecessary nder the
3onstittion, precisely becase what these areas ,oted !or then was their inclsion in the '#%%,
not the 678.
%he (O$,$- 7oul0 not compl2 7ith $rticle 8 &ection 20 of the Constitution
8,en i! 678 is considered as an atonomos region, the %1'$'2 wold re@ire a constittional
amendment in order to ,est 678 with treaty making power. ;hile 'rticle D 0ection 20 pro,ides
that the organic acts o! the atonomos regions shall pro,ide legislati,e powers o,er such other
matters authori&e# by la" for the !romotion of the general "elfare of the !eo!le, the same mst
be sb9ect to the pro,isions o! the 3onstittion. 'nd since nder or constittional system, only
the President has the sole athority to negotiate with other states as regards treaty$making, then
a constittional amendment is needed to grant a similar power to 678.
$rticle )), &ection 22 of the Constitution must also be amen0e0 if the scheme envisione0 in
the (O$,$- is to be effecte0.
That constittional pro,ision states* 4The 0tate recogni>es and promotes the rights o! indigenos
cltral commnities within the !ramework o! national nity and de,elopment.5 (?nderscoring
spplied) 'n associati'e arrangement does not phold national nity . ;hile there may be a
semblance o! nity becase o! the associati,e ties between the 678 and the national
go,ernment, the act o! placing a portion o! Philippine territory in a stats which, in international
practice, has generally been a !re!aration for in#e!en#ence , is certainly not condci,e to
national nity .
%he (O$,$- is also inconsistent 7ith R.$. No. "0!4 9%he Or+anic $ct of the $R((:
'rticle D, 0ection I o! the 1rganic 'ct o! the '#%% is a bar to the adoption o! the de!inition o!
46angsamoro people5 sed in the %1'$'2.
The se o! the term 6angsamoro in the %1'$'2 sharply contrasts with that !ond in the 'rticle
D, 0ection I o! the 1rganic 'ct, which, rather than lmping together the identities o! the
6angsamoro and other indigenos peoples li,ing in %indanao, clearly distingishes between
6angsamoro people and Tribal peoples, as !ollows*

4's sed in this 1rganic 'ct, the phrase 4indigenos cltral commnity5 re!ers to
#ilipino citi6ens resi0in+ in the autonomous re+ion who are*

(a) %ribal peoples. These are citi>ens whose social, cltral and economic
conditions distingish them !rom other sectors o! the national commnity: and

(b) .an+sa (oro people. These are citi>ens who are believers in )slam and
7ho have retaine0 some or all of their o7n social, economic, cultural, an0
political institutions.5
%he (O$,$- is also inconsistent 7ith )PR$.
&P#',lays down the pre,ailing procedre !or the delineation and recognition o! ancestral
domains. The %1'$'2<s manner o! delineating the ancestral domain o! the 6angsamoro people
is a clear departre !rom that procedre. 6y paragraph 1 o! T8##&T1#H o! the %1'$'2, Parties
simply agree that, sb9ect to the delimitations in the agreed 0chedles, 4FtGhe 6angsamoro
homeland and historic territory re!er to the land mass as well as the maritime, terrestrial, !l,ial
and all,ial domains, and the aerial domain, the atmospheric space abo,e it, embracing the
%indanao$0l$Palawan geographic region.5
&nternational law has long recogni>ed the right to sel!$determination o! 4peoples,5 nderstood not
merely as the entire poplation o! a 0tate bt also a portion thereo!. The people<s right to sel!$
determination shold not, howe,er, be nderstood as e-tending to a nilateral right o! secession.
&n a historic de,elopment last 0eptember 1I, 200C, the ?= "eneral 'ssembly adopted the ?nited
=ations 2eclaration on the #ights o! &ndigenos Peoples (?= 2#&P) throgh "eneral 'ssembly
#esoltion 61J29+ the Philippines being inclded among those in !a,or, The 2eclaration clearly
recogni>ed the right o! indigenos peoples to sel!$determination, encompassing the right to
atonomy or sel!$go,ernment. 0el!$go,ernment, as sed in international legal discorse
pertaining to indigenos peoples, has been nderstood as e@i,alent to 4internal sel!$
determination.5
'ssming that the ?= 2#&P, like the ?ni,ersal 2eclaration on Bman #ights, mst now be
regarded as embodying cstomary international lawE still, the obligations enmerated therein do
not strictly re@ire the #epblic to grant the 6angsamoro people, throgh the instrmentality o!
the 678, the particlar rights and powers pro,ided !or in the %1'$'2. 8,en the more speci!ic
pro,isions o! the ?= 2#&P are general in scope, allowing !or !le-ibility in its application by the
di!!erent 0tates.

There is, !or instance, no re@irement in the ?= 2#&P that 0tates now garantee indigenos
peoples their own police and internal secrity !orce. &ndeed, 'rticle / prespposes that it is the
0tate which will pro,ide protection !or indigenos peoples against acts like the !orced
dispossession o! their lands E a !nction that is normally per!ormed by police o!!icers. &! the
protection o! a right so essential to indigenos people<s identity is acknowledged to be the
responsibility o! the 0tate, then srely the protection o! rights less signi!icant to them as sch
peoples wold also be the dty o! 0tates. =or is there in the ?= 2#&P an acknowledgement o!
the right o! indigenos peoples to the aerial domain and atmospheric space. ;hat it pholds, in
'rticle 26 thereo!, is the right o! indigenos peoples to the lands, territories and resorces which
they ha,e traditionally owned, occpied or otherwise sed or ac@ired. %oreo,er, the ?= 2#&P,
while pholding the right o! indigenos peoples to atonomy, does not obligate 0tates to grant
indigenos peoples the near$independent stats o! an associated state.
8,en i! the ?= 2#&P were considered as part o! the law o! the land prsant to 'rticle &&, 0ection
2 o! the 3onstittion, it wold not s!!ice to phold the ,alidity o! the %1'$'2 so as to render its
compliance with other laws nnecessary.
#eparate Opinion, J. $nares!#antiago"
The sbstanti,e pro,isions o! the %1'$'2 directly contra,ene the !ndamental law and e-isting
stattes. 1therwise, it wold not be necessary to e!!ect either stattory or constittional
amendments to make it e!!ecti,e. %oreo,er, as correctly pointed ot by petitioners, the "#P
panel e-ceeded its athority when it categorically ndertook to make these stattory and
constittional changes in order to !lly implement the %1'$'2.
The "#P panel committed itsel! to the !ll implementation o! the %1'$'2 by e!!ecting changes to
the legal !ramework. #espondents cannot deny this by saying that the parties !rther ndertook to
negotiate a 3omprehensi,e 3ompact or a !inal peace agreement. 'lthogh it may be conceded
that the parties ha,e yet to enter into a 3omprehensi,e 3ompact sbse@ent to the signing o! the
%1'$'2, the natre o! this compact shows that the %1'$'2 was intended as the controlling
docment !or the essential terms o! the 3omprehensi,e 3ompact. Paragraphs I and C o! the
%1'$'2 pro,isions on "o,ernance in,ariably describe the 3omprehensi,e 3ompact as merely
embodying 0etails !or the effective enforcement and actual implementation o! the %1'$'2.
#eparate Opinion, J. arpio"
The incorporation o! the Lmads, and their ancestral domains, into the 6angsamoro ,iolates the
3onstittional and legislati,e garantees recogni>ing and protecting the Lmads< distinct cltral
identities as well as their ancestral domains. The ,iolation o! these garantees makes the %1'$
'2 patentl2 unconstitutional.
The incorporation o! the Lmads, and their ancestral domains, into the 6angsamoro withot the
Lmads< knowledge and consent also ,iolates 'rticle / o! the +nite# *ations Declaration on the
Rights of In#igenous $eo!les. The pro,isions o! 'rticle / were designed to pre,ent cultural
+enoci0e o! indigenos peoples. This will happen i! the Lmads are identi!ied !rom birth as
6angsamoros and their ancestral domains are absorbed into the ancestral domain o! the
6angsamoros. ,See the full se!arate o!inion of -. Car!io for the list of nee#e# constitutional
changes for the im!lementation of MOA-AD.
#eparate Opinion, J. %inga"
'ny legally binding commitment to amend the 3onstittion can only come !rom the political
instittions and the so,ereign people who are empowered by the charter to amend the
3onstittion. The President nor any other member or o!!ice o! the e-ecti,e branch does not ha,e
the power to e!!ect changes to the 3onstittion e,en i! he wanted to in the paramont interest o!
the contry and o! the people. 'ny commitment to any entity on the part o! the President or his
political appointees to amend the 3onstittion is inherently ultra 'ires, becase the 8-ecti,e
6ranch does not ha,e the innate power to e!!ectate sch changes on its own. =either does the
President ha,e the power to bind to positi,e action those whom the 3onstittion entrsts the
power to amend the charter, namely: the 3ongress, the delegates to a constittional con,ention,
and the electorate.

3onstittional order cannot be sacri!iced !or e-pediency, e,en i! in the name o! peace in
%indanao. 'ssming that the e-ecti,e branch has in good !aith become intractably con,inced
that it is necessary to amend the 3onstittion in order to obtain lasting peace in %indanao, the
conse@ent step shold not be to make promises it has no power alone to keep, hoping against
hope that the 3ongress and the ,oters wold ltimately redeem the promises. 0ince
constittional amendments are in,ol,ed, the ability o! the e-ecti,e branch to ndertake any
legally binding commitment to amend the 3onstittion can only be recogni>ed, i! at all, with the
prior appropriate athori>ation o! 3ongress, acting with the speci!ied ma9orities pro,ided in
0ection 1(1), 'rticle DK&& o! the 3onstittion. ?nder sch a mechanism, any constittionally$
oriented concessions o!!ered by the Philippine go,ernment wold contemporaneosly bear the
preliminary seal o! appro,al by the people or instittions athori>ed to propose amendments to
the 3onstittion, sb9ect to !inal rati!ication by the people throgh a plebiscite.
#eparate Opinion, J. &eyes"
There can be no dobt as to the marching orders by the President. &n negotiating with the %&LF,
the "#P Panel shold se the 3onstittion as the parameter. Too, the preser,ation o! the
territorial integrity o! the #epblic o! the Philippines shold be maintained at all times. The "#P
Panel, howe,er, appears to ha,e !ailed to !ollow those instrctions. %he commitment of the
GRP Panel to the ()*# to chan+e the Constitution to conform to the (O$,$- violates the
0octrine of separation of po7ers. %oreo,er, (O$,$- contains numerous provisions that
appear unconstitutional.
The !ollowing are the de!ects o! the %1'$'2*
1. TBe %1'$'2 creates a new political sbdi,ision, the so$called 6angsamoro 7ridical
8ntity (678). This is not permitted by the 3onstittion, which limits the political
sbdi,isions o! the #epblic o! the Philippines into pro,inces, cities, mnicipalities,
barangays and atonomos regions.
2. The creation o! the 678 is prohibited e,en assming that the %1'$'2 only attempts to
create the 678 as an atonomos region. 1nly 3ongress is empowered to create an
atonomos region.
I. The %1'$'2 creates the 6angsamoro Bomeland as an ancestral domain. Bowe,er,
there is non$compliance with the procedre laid down nder #' =o. /IC1, otherwise
known as the &ndigenos Peoples #ights 'ct (&P#').
A. ?nder the %1'$'2, the 678 is ,ested with 9risdiction, powers and athority o,er land
se, de,elopment, tili>ation, disposition and e-ploitation o! natral resorces within the
6angsamoro Bomeland. &n doing so, respondents in e!!ect srrendered to the 678
ownership and ga,e it !ll control and sper,ision o,er the e-ploration, de,elopment,
tili>ation o,er the natral resorces which belong to the 0tate. This is in clear
contra,ention o! the Re+alian -octrine now e-pressed nder 'rticle D&&, 0ection 2 o! the
19/C 3onstittion.
+. The %1'$'2 also grants to the 678 powers to enter into any economic cooperation and
trade relations with !oreign contries. &t compels the #epblic o! the Philippines to
ensre the 678<s participation in international meetings and e,ents, participation in
Philippine o!!icial missions and delegations engaged in the negotiation o!, among others,
border agreements, sharing o! incomes and re,enes. Ths, by assenting to install an
intra so,ereign political sbdi,ision independent o! the single so,ereign state that is the
#epblic o! the Philippines, respondents ,iolated not only the 3onstittion, 'rticle K,
0ection 2 o! #' =o. 6CIA, bt also the nitary system o! go,ernment o! the #epblic o!
the Philippines.
6. ;ithot the bene!it o! any !actal determination, the %1'$'2 dismembers parts o!
%indanao, trning it into a geographical dalmatian. &t creates a 6angsamoro Bomeland
with a speci!ied land mass, maritime, terrestrial, !l,ial and all,ial dominions, (with
de!inite internal and territorial waters), aerial domain, atmospheric space, and e,en
distinct 4territorial waters5 within the #P baselines.
C. The %1'$'2 grants to the 678 plenary power to ndo e-ecti,e acts and delegate to
the 678 the athority to re,oke e-isting proclamations, issances, policies, rles and
gidelines, !orest concessions, timber licenses, contracts or agreements in the tili>ation
o! natral resorces, mining concessions, land tenre instrments. %his constitutes an
un0ue 0ele+ation of e;ecutive po7er. The President may delegate its e-ecti,e
power only to local go,ernment nits or an administrati,e body attached to the e-ecti,e
department. %he 0ele+ation of po7er to the ./1, on the other han0, is 0ele+ation of
e;ecutive po7er to an entirel2 0ifferent 3uri0ical entit2 that is not un0er its
supervision or control. That is impermissible.
/. The %1'$'2 empowers the 678 to bild, de,elop, and maintain its own instittions.
This incldes ci,il ser,ice, electoral, !inancial and banking instittions, edcation,
legislation, legal, economic, police, internal secrity !orce, and 9dicial system. This is
anathema to se,eral pro,isions o! the 3onstittion, namely* (1) the athority o! the
3ommission on 8lections to administer all election laws in the Philippines: (2) that there
shall only be one police !orce, national in scope to be administered and controlled by the
=ational Police 3ommission: (I) that the de!ense o! the #epblic shall belong e-clsi,ely
to the 'rmed Forces o! the Philippines: (A) that 9dicial power shall be ,ested in one
0preme 3ort and in sch other in!erior corts as may be established by law: (+) that
there shall only be one independent central monetary athority, the 6angko 0entral ng
Pilipinas: and (6) that there shall be one independent economic planning agency.
)&&41'
#espondents pro!!er, howe,er, that the signing o! the %1'$'2 alone wold not ha,e entailed any
,iolation o! law or gra,e abse o! discretion on their part, precisely becase it stiplates that the
pro,isions thereo! inconsistent with the laws shall not take e!!ect ntil these laws are amended.
They cite paragraph C o! the %1'$'2 strand on "1K8#='=38*
The $arties agree that the mechanisms an# mo#alities for the actual
im!lementation of this MOA-AD shall be s!elt out in the Com!rehensi'e
Com!act to mutually ta(e such ste!s to enable it to occur effecti'ely.
Any !ro'isions of the MOA-AD re%uiring amen#ments to the e'isting legal
frame(or) shall come into force u!on signing of a Com!rehensi'e Com!act an#
u!on effecting the necessary changes to the legal frame"or( (ith due regard to
non derogation of !rior agreements an# "ithin the sti!ulate# timeframe to be
containe# in the Com!rehensi'e Com!act.
51*-'
(ain Opinon, /. Carpio,(orales' There is a stiplation that keeps many contro,ersial pro,isions
o! the %1'$'2 !rom coming into !orce ntil the necessary changes to the legal !ramework are
e!!ected. =otwithstanding the sspensi,e clase, howe,er, respondents, by their mere act o!
incorporating in the %1'$'2 the pro,isions thereo! regarding the associati,e relationship
between the 678 and the 3entral "o,ernment, ha,e already ,iolated the %emorandm o!
&nstrctions From The President dated %arch 1, 2001, which states that the 4negotiations shall be
condcted in accordance with - - - the principles o! the so,ereignty and territorial inte+rit2 o!
the #epblic o! the Philippines.5 8stablishing an associati,e relationship between the 678 and
the 3entral "o,ernment is, !or the reasons already discssed, a preparation !or independence, or
worse, an implicit acknowledgment o! an independent stats already pre,ailing.
Paragraph C on "o,ernance o! the %1'$'2 states, howe,er, that all pro,isions thereo! which
cannot be reconciled with the present 3onstittion and laws 4shall come into !orce pon signing o!
a 3omprehensi,e 3ompact and pon e!!ecting the necessary changes to the legal !ramework.5
This stiplation does not bear the marks o! a sspensi,e condition E de!ined in ci,il law as a
!tre and ncertain e,ent E bt o! a term. &t is not a @estion o! 7hether the necessary changes
to the legal !ramework will be e!!ected, bt 7hen. That there is no ncertainty being
contemplated is plain !rom what !ollows, !or the paragraph goes on to state that the contemplated
changes shall be 4with de regard to non derogation o! prior agreements and within the stiplated
time!rame to be contained in the 3omprehensi,e 3ompact.5

Prsant to this stiplation, there!ore, it is man0ator2 !or the "#P to e!!ect the changes to the
legal !ramework contemplated in the %1'$'2 E which changes wold inclde constittional
amendments, as discssed earlier. &t bears noting that, by the time these changes are pt in
place, the %1'$'2 itsel! wold be conted among the 4prior agreements5 !rom which there cold
be no derogation. ;hat remains !or discssion in the 3omprehensi,e 3ompact wold merely be
the implementing details !or these 4consenss points5 and, notably, the deadline !or e!!ecting the
contemplated changes to the legal !ramework.
Plainly, stiplation$paragraph C on "1K8#='=38 is inconsistent 7ith the limits of the
Presi0ent<s authorit2 to propose constitutional amen0ments, it being a ,irtal garantee that
the 3onstittion and the laws o! the #epblic o! the Philippines will certainly be ad9sted to
con!orm to all the 4consenss points5 !ond in the %1'$'2. Bence, it mst be strck down as
unconstitutional.
#eparate Opinion, J. arpio"
?nder the %1'$'2, the 8-ecti,e branch assmes the man0ator2 obli+ation to amend the
3onstittion to con!orm to the %1'$'2.
The 8-ecti,e branch garantees to the %&LF that the 3onstittion shall be drastically
o,erhaled to con!orm to the %1'$'2. The 8-ecti,e branch completely disregards that nder
the 3onstittion the sole discretionary power to propose amendments to the 3onstittion lies with
3ongress, and the power to appro,e or disappro,e sch proposed amendments belongs
e-clsi,ely to the people.

The claim o! respondents that the phrase 4prior agreements5 does not re!er to the %1'$'2 bt
to "#P$%&LF agreements prior to the %1'$'2 is immaterial. ;hether the prior agreement is the
%1'$'2 or any other "#P$%&LF agreement prior to the constittional amendments, any
commitment by the 8-ecti,e branch to amend the 3onstittion withot derogating !rom sch
prior "#P$%&LF agreement wold still be nconstittional !or the same reason L srpation by
the 8-ecti,e branch o! the e-clsi,e discretionary powers o! 3ongress and the Filipino people to
amend the 3onstittion.
=41&%)ON'
;hat is the e-tent o! the President<s power to condct peace negotiationsM
$N&>1R'
(ain Opinion, /. Carpio,(orales' The President<s power to condct peace negotiations is
implicitly inclded in her powers as 3hie! 8-ecti,e and 3ommander$in$3hie!. he President E in
the corse o! condcting peace negotiations E may ,alidly consider implementing e,en those
policies that re@ire changes to the 3onstittion, bt she may not nilaterally implement them
7ithout the intervention of Con+ress, or act in an2 7a2 as if the assent of that bo02 7ere
assume0 as a certaint2.
"i,en the limited natre o! the President<s athority to propose constittional amendments, she
cannot +uarantee to any third party that the re@ired amendments will e,entally be pt in place,
nor e,en be sbmitted to a plebiscite.
=41&%)ON'
;old %1'$'2 ha,e gi,en rise to a binding international law obligation on the part o! the
Philippines to change its 3onstittion in con!ormity thereto on the grond that it may be
considered either as a binding agreement nder international law, or a nilateral declaration o!
the Philippine go,ernment to the international commnity that it wold grant to the 6angsamoro
people all the concessions therein statedM
$N&>1R'
(ain Opinion, /. Carpio,(orales' =1. The %1'$'2, wold ha,e inclded !oreign dignitaries as
signatories. &n addition, representati,es o! other nations were in,ited to witness its signing in
.ala Lmpr. These circmstances readily lead one to srmise that the %1'$'2 wold ha,e
had the stats o! a binding international agreement had it been signed. Bowe,er, the !act that the
%1'$'2 wold ha,e been signed by representati,es o! 0tates and international organi>ations
not parties to the 'greement wold not ha,e s!!iced to ,est in it a binding character nder
international law. pblic statements o! a state representati,e may be constred as a nilateral
declaration only when the !ollowing conditions are present* the statements were clearly
addressed to the international commnity, the state intended to be bond to that commnity by its
statements, and that not to gi,e legal e!!ect to those statements wold be detrimental to the
secrity o! international intercorse. Plainly, nilateral declarations arise only in pecliar
circmstance.
The Philippine panel did not dra!t the %1'$'2 with the clear intention o! being bond thereby to
the international commnity as a whole or to any 0tate, bt only to the %&LF. ;hile there were
0tates and international organi>ations in,ol,ed, one way or another, in the negotiation and
pro9ected signing o! the %1'$'2, they participated merely as witnesses or, in the case o!
%alaysia, as !acilitator. 's held in the LomN 'ccord case, the mere !act that in addition to the
parties to the con!lict, the peace settlement is signed by representati,es o! states and
international organi>ations does not mean that the agreement is internationali>ed so as to create
obligations in international law.
The %1'$'2 not being a docment that can bind the Philippines nder international law
notwithstanding, respondents< almost consmmated act o! +uaranteein+ amen0ments to the
le+al frame7or? is, b2 itself, sufficient to constitute +rave abuse of 0iscretion. The gra,e
abse lies not in the !act that they considered, as a soltion to the %oro Problem, the creation o!
a state within a state, bt in their bra>en 7illin+ness to +uarantee that Con+ress an0 the
soverei+n #ilipino people 7oul0 +ive their imprimatur to their solution. ?pholding sch an
act wold amont to athori>ing a srpation o! the constitent powers ,ested only in 3ongress,
a 3onstittional 3on,ention, or the people themsel,es throgh the process o! initiati,e, !or the
only way that the 8-ecti,e can ensre the otcome o! the amendment process is throgh an
nde in!lence or inter!erence with that process.
#eparate Opinon, J. *+cuna"
Bad the %1'$'2 been signed as planned, it wold ha,e pro,ided a basis !or a claim in an
international cort that the Philippines was bond by its terms at the ,ery least as a nilateral
declaration made be!ore representati,es o! the international commnity with ,ital interests in the
region.
;hether the case o! Australia '. /rance or that o! ur(ina /aso '. Mali) is the one applicable, is
not solely !or this 3ort to decide bt also !or the international cort where the Philippines cold
be sed. ;hile we may agree that the Philippines shold not be considered bond, the
international cort may rle otherwise. There is need to conslt the people be!ore risking that
kind o! otcome. Finally, precedents are not strictly !ollowed in international law, so that an
international cort may end p !ormlating a new rle ot o! the !actal sitation o! or %1'$'2,
making a nilateral declaration binding nder a new type o! sitation, where, !or instance, the
other party is not able to sign a treaty as it is not yet a 0tate, bt the declaration is made to a
4particlar recipient5 and 4witnessed5 by a host o! so,ereign 0tates.
#eparate Opinion, J. $nares!#antiago"
Bad it been signed by the parties, it wold ha,e bond the go,ernment to the creation o! a
separate 6angsamoro state ha,ing its own territory, go,ernment, ci,il instittions and armed
!orces. The concessions that respondents made to the %&LF wold ha,e gi,en the latter le,erage
to demand that the 6angsamoro homeland be recogni>ed as a state be!ore international bodies.
&t cold insist that the %1'$'2 is in !act a treaty and 9sti!y compliance with its pro,isions, nder
the international law principle o! !acta sunt ser'an#a. The so,ereignty and territorial integrity o!
the Philippines wold ha,e been compromised.
&4(($R@ of the (ain Opinion, /. Carpio,(orales
The %1'$'2 cannot be reconciled with the present 3onstittion and laws. =ot only its speci!ic
pro,isions bt the ,ery concept nderlying them, namely, the associati,e relationship en,isioned
between the "#P and the 678, are unconstitutional , !or the concept prespposes that the
associated entity is a state and implies that the same is on its way to independence.

;hile there is a clase in the %1'$'2 stating that the pro,isions thereo! inconsistent with the
present legal !ramework will not be e!!ecti,e ntil that !ramework is amended, the same does not
cre its de!ect. The inclsion o! pro,isions in the %1'$'2 establishing an associati,e
relationship between the 678 and the 3entral "o,ernment is, itsel!, a ,iolation o! the
%emorandm o! &nstrctions FromThe President dated %arch 1, 2001, addressed to the
go,ernment peace panel. %oreo,er, as the clase is worded, it ,irtally garantees that the
necessary amendments to the 3onstittion and the laws will e,entally be pt in place. =either
the "#P Peace Panel nor the President hersel! is athori>ed to make sch a garantee.
?pholding sch an act wold amont to athori>ing a srpation o! the constitent powers ,ested
only in 3ongress, a 3onstittional 3on,ention, or the people themsel,es throgh the process o!
initiati,e, !or the only way that the 8-ecti,e can ensre the otcome o! the amendment process
is throgh an nde in!lence or inter!erence with that process.

;hile the %1'$'2 wold not amont to an international agreement or nilateral declaration
binding on the Philippines nder international law, respondents< act o! garanteeing amendments
is, by itsel!, already a constittional ,iolation that renders the %1'$'2 !atally de!ecti,e.
Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the Republic of the Philippines
October 14, 2008, GR 18!"1
On Right to Information an# $ro'isions on $ublic Consultations
#acts'
Peace negotiations between the GRP
4
and ()*#
!
began in 1996. Formal peace talks between
the parties were held in Tripoli, Libya in 2001, the otcome o! which was the "#P$%&LF Tripoli
'greement on Peace (%ripoli $+reement 2001) containing the basic principles and agenda on
the !ollowing aspects o! the negotiation* Security 'spect, Rehabilitation 'spect, and Ancestral
Domain 'spect. &n 200+, se,eral e-ploratory talks were held between the parties in .ala
Lmpr, e,entally leading to the cra!ting o! the dra!t (O$,$-
A
in its !inal !orm, which was set to
be signed on 'gst +, 200/. 0e,eral petitions were !iled seeking, among others, to restrain the
signing o! the %1'$'2.
The Pro,ince o! =orth 3otabato and Kice$"o,ernor 8mmanel PiOol !iled a petition in,oking the
right to in!ormation on matters o! pblic concern, petitioners seek to compel respondents to
disclose and !rnish them the complete and o!!icial copies o! the %1'$'2 inclding its
attachments, and to prohibit the slated signing o! the %1'$'2, pending the disclosre o! the
contents o! the %1'$'2 and the holding o! a pblic consltation thereon.
)ssue 1'
2id respondents ,iolate constittional and stattory pro,isions on pblic consltation and the right
to in!ormation when they negotiated and later initialed the %1'$'2M
5el0'
H80. 's regards this isse, the respondents ,iolated the !ollowing legal pro,isions*
$'rticle &&, 0ection 2/
$'rticle &&& 0ection C
$8-ecti,e 1rder =o. I
$Local "o,ernment 3ode
$&P#'
*rticle III, #ection ,
'rticle &&&, 0ection C pro,ides, 4The right of the !eo!le to information on matters of public
concern shall be recogni&e#. Access to official recor#s) an# to #ocuments) an# !a!ers
!ertaining to official acts) transactions) or #ecisions) as "ell as to go'ernment research #ata use#
as basis for !olicy #e'elo!ment) shall be affor#e# the citi&en) sub0ect to such limitations as may
be !ro'i#e# by la".5
'ccess to in!ormation o! general interest aids the people in democratic decision$making by gi,ing
them a better perspecti,e o! the ,ital isses con!ronting the nation. so that they may be able to
critici>e and participate in the a!!airs o! the go,ernment in a responsible, reasonable and e!!ecti,e
manner. %he (O$,$- sub3ect of the present cases is of public concern, in,ol,ing as it does
the soverei+nt2 an0 territorial inte+rit2 of the &tate, which directly a!!ects the li,es o! the
pblic at large. %atters o! pblic concern co,ered by the right to in!ormation inclde steps and
negotiations leading to the consmmation o! the contract.
*rticle II, #ection -.
4
"o,ernment o! the #epblic o! the Philippines
5
%oro &slamic Liberation Front* The %&LF is a rebel grop which was established in %arch 19/A when, nder the
leadership o! the late 0alamat Bashim, it splintered !rom the %oro =ational Liberation Front (%=LF) then headed by =r
%isari, on the grond, among others, o! what 0alamat percei,ed to be the maniplation o! the %=LF away !rom an
&slamic basis towards %ar-ist$%aoist orientations.
6
%emorandm o! 'greement on 'ncestral 2omain
'rticle &&, 0ection 2/ pro,ides, 40b9ect to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the 0tate
adopts and implements a policy o! !ll pblic disclosre o! all its transactions in,ol,ing pblic
interest.5
The polic2 of full public 0isclosure ennciated in abo,e$@oted 0ection 2/ com!lements the
right o! access to in!ormation on matters o! pblic concern !ond in the 6ill o! #ights. The right to
in!ormation garantees the right o! the people to demand in!ormation, while 0ection 2/
recogni>es the dty o! o!!icialdom to gi,e in!ormation e,en i! nobody demands. the e!!ecti,ity o!
the policy o! pblic disclosre need not await the passing o! a statte.
1;ecutive Or0er no.
The imperati,e o! a pblic consltation, as a species o! the right to in!ormation, is e,ident in the
4marching orders5 to respondents. The mechanics !or the dty to disclose in!ormation and to
condct pblic consltation regarding the peace agenda and process is mani!estly pro,ided by
8.1. =o. I. The preamblatory clase o! 8.1. =o. I declares that there is a need to !rther
enhance the contribtion o! ci,il society to the comprehensi,e peace process by instittionali>ing
the people<s participation. 8.1. =o. I contemplates the condct o! 4contining5 consltations.
Frther, 8.1. =o. I enmerates the !nctions and responsibilities o! the P'PP, one o! which is to
4FcGondct reglar dialoges with the =ational Peace Form (=PF) and other peace partners as
well as to render appropriate and timely reports on the progress o! the comprehensi,e peace
process.5 8.1. =o. I mandates the establishment o! the =PF to be 4the principal !orm !or the
P'PP to conslt with and seek ad,iFcGe !rom the peace ad,ocates, peace partners and
concerned sectors o! society on both national and local le,els, on the implementation o! the
comprehensi,e peace process, as well as !or go,ernmentF$Gci,il society dialoge and consenss$
bilding on peace agenda and initiati,es.5 &n !ine, 8.1. =o. I establishes petitioners< right to be
conslted on the peace agenda, as a corollary to the constittional right to in!ormation and
disclosre.

$A$$ 1s!eron committe# gra'e abuse of #iscretion . The P'PP committed gra,e abse o!
discretion when he !ailed to carry ot the pertinent consltation. The !rti,e process by which the
%1'$'2 was designed and cra!ted rns contrary to and in e-cess o! the legal athority.

*ocal Government Co0e
Local "o,ernment 3ode (L"3) o! 1991 declares it a 0tate policy to 4re%uire all national agencies
an# offices to con#uct !erio#ic consultations "ith a!!ro!riate local go'ernment units) non-
go'ernmental an# !eo!le2s organi&ations) an# other concerne# sectors of the community before
any !ro0ect or !rogram is im!lemente# in their res!ecti'e 0uris#ictions5
The L"3 chapter on intergo,ernmental relations pro,ides*
$rior Consultations Re%uire#. E =o pro9ect or program shall be implemented by go,ernment
athorities unless the consltations mentioned in 0ections 2 (c) and 26 hereo! are complied with,
and prior appro,al o! the sanggnian concerned is obtained.
The abo,e$stated policy and abo,e$@oted pro,ision o! the L"? apply only to national programs
or pro9ects which are to be implemented in a particlar local commnity. 'mong the programs
and pro9ects co,ered are those that are critical to the en,ironment and hman ecology inclding
those that may call !or the e,iction o! a particlar grop o! people residing in the locality where
these will be implemented. %he (O$,$- is one peculiar pro+ram that uneBuivocall2 an0
unilaterall2 vests o7nership of a vast territor2 to the .an+samoro people, 7hich coul0
pervasivel2 an0 0rasticall2 result to the 0iaspora or 0isplacement of a +reat number of
inhabitants from their total environment.
)PR$
The &33sJ&Ps ha,e, nder the &P#', the right to participate !lly at all le,els o! decision$making in
matters which may a!!ect their rights, li,es and destinies. The %1'$'2, an instrment
recogni>ing ancestral domain, !ailed to 9sti!y its non$compliance with the clear$ct mechanisms
ordained in &P#', which entails, among other things, the obser,ance o! the !ree and prior
in!ormed consent o! the &33sJ&Ps. The &P#' does not grant the 8-ecti,e 2epartment or any
go,ernment agency the power to delineate and recogni>e an ancestral domain claim by mere
agreement or com!romise. &n proceeding to make a sweeping declaration on ancestral domain,
withot complying with the &P#', which is cited as one o! the T1# o! the %1'$'2, respon0ents
clearl2 transcen0e0 the boun0aries of their authorit2. (7. 3arpio$%orales)
/issenting Opinion, J. Brion"
8,en with a signed %1'$'2, & do not belie,e that the immediate depri,ation they !ear and their
de process concerns are ,alid based alone on the terms o! this aborted agreement. ?nder
these terms, the %1'$'2<s e-ection and signing are bt parts o! a series o! acts and
agreements: its signing was not be the !inal act that wold render its pro,isions operati,e. The
%1'$'2 itsel! e-pressly pro,ides that the mechanisms and modalities !or its implementation will
still ha,e to be spelled ot in a 3omprehensi,e 3ompact and will re@ire amendments to the
e-isting legal !ramework. This amendatory process, nder the 3onstittion, re@ires that both
3ongress and the people in their so,ereign capacity be heard. Ths, the petitioners cold still
!lly ,entilate their ,iews and be heard e,en i! the %1'$'2 had been signed.
'ssming that the constittional pro,isions on the right to in!ormation and the dty o! disclosre
may immediately be e!!ecti,e, these pro,isions ha,e to recogni>e, other than those e-pressly
pro,ided by 3ongress, 4reasonable sa!egards on the national interest.5 &n constittional law, this
can only re!er to sa!egards inherent !rom the natre o! the state transaction, the state interests
in,ol,ed, and the power that the state may bring to bear, speci!ically, its police power.
The disclosre o! in!ormation with respect to the !eace !rocess in general and the MOA-AD
negotiation in !articular shold not be interchanged and discssed !rom the prisms o!
in!ormation and disclosre as i! they were one and the same. The peace process as embodied in
8.1. =o. I relates to the wider go,ernment e!!ort to secre peace in %indanao throgh ,arios
o!!ices and initiati,es nder the 1!!ice o! the President interacting with ,arios pblic and pri,ate
entities at di!!erent le,els in %indanao. The peace negotiation itsel! is only a part o! the o,erall
peace process with speci!ically named o!!icials ndertaking this acti,ity. Ths, the consltations
!or this general peace process are necessarily wider than the consltations attendant to the
negotiations proper that has been delegated to the "#P =egotiating Panel. The dynamics and
depth o! consltations and disclosre with respect to these processes shold, o! corse, also be
di!!erent considering their inherently ,aried natres.
)ssue 2'
%ay 8-ecti,e pri,ilege be in,okedM
(ain Opinion'

The in,ocation o! the doctrine o! e-ecti,e pri,ilege is not proper nder the premises. The
argment de!ies sond reason when contrasted with 8.1. =o. I<s e-plicit pro,isions on contining
consltation and dialoge on both national and local le,els. The e-ecti,e order e,en recogni>es
the e-ercise o! the pblic<s right e,en be!ore the "#P makes its o!!icial recommendations or
be!ore the go,ernment pro!!ers its de!inite propositions. &t bears emphasis that 8.1. =o. I seeks
to elicit rele,ant ad,ice, in!ormation, comments and recommendations !rom the people throgh
dialoge. 'T 'LL 8K8=T0, respondents e!!ecti,ely wai,ed the de!ense o! e-ecti,e pri,ilege in
,iew o! their n@ali!ied disclosre o! the o!!icial copies o! the !inal dra!t o! the %1'$'2. 6y
nconditionally complying with the 3ort<s 'gst A, 200/ #esoltion, withot a prayer !or the
docment<s disclosre in camera, or withot a mani!estation that it was complying therewith e-
abndante ad catelam.
Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the Republic of the Philippines
October 14, 2008, GR 18!"1
On the Issue of Ri!eness
#acts'
Peace negotiations between the GRP
C
and ()*#
8
began in 1996. Formal peace talks between
the parties were held in Tripoli, Libya in 2001, the otcome o! which was the "#P$%&LF Tripoli
'greement on Peace (%ripoli $+reement 2001) containing the basic principles and agenda on
the !ollowing aspects o! the negotiation* Security 'spect, Rehabilitation 'spect, and Ancestral
Domain 'spect. &n 200+, se,eral e-ploratory talks were held between the parties in .ala
Lmpr, e,entally leading to the cra!ting o! the dra!t (O$,$-
"
in its !inal !orm, which was set to
be signed on 'gst +, 200/. 0e,eral petitions were !iled seeking, among others, to restrain the
signing o! the %1'$'2.
Petitions allege that respondents "#P Panel and (Presidential 'd,iser !or the Peace Process) P'PP
8speron dra!ted the terms o! the %1'$'2 withot conslting the local go,ernment nits or commnities
a!!ected, nor in!orming them o! the proceedings. &t is arged that sch omission, by itsel!, constittes a
departre by respondents !rom their mandate nder 8.1. =o. I.

Frthermore, the petitions allege that the pro,isions o! the %1'$'2 ,iolate the 3onstittion. The %1'$'2
pro,ides that 4any pro,isions o! the %1'$'2 re@iring amendments to the e-isting legal !ramework shall
come into !orce pon the signing o! a 3omprehensi,e 3ompact and pon e!!ecting the necessary changes
to the legal !ramework,5 implying an amendment o! the 3onstittion to accommodate the %1'$'2. &t is
arged that, this stiplation, in e!!ect, garanteed to the %&LF the amendment o! the 3onstittion.
)ssue'
The 0olicitor "eneral arges that there is no 9sticiable contro,ersy ripe !or ad9dication. 'ccording to him
the nsigned %1'$'2 is simply a list o! consenss points subject to further negotiations and legislative
enactments as well as constittional processes aimed at attaining a !inal peace!l agreement. 0imply pt,
the %1'$'2 remains to be a proposal that does not atomatically create legally demandable rights and
obligations ntil the list o! operati,e acts re@ired ha,e been dly complied with. 'ccording to the 0olicitor
"eneral, considering the preliminary character o! the %1'$'2, there are no concrete acts that cold
possibly ,iolate petitioners< and inter,enors< rights since the acts complained o! are mere contemplated
steps toward the !ormlation o! a !inal peace agreement.
)s the case ripe for a03u0icationD
5el0'
Main Opinion
The petitions are ripe !or ad9dication. The !ailre o! respondents to conslt the local go,ernment
nits or commnities a!!ected constittes a departre by respondents !rom their mandate nder
8.1. =o. I. %oreo,er, respondents e-ceeded their athority by the mere act o! garanteeing
amendments to the 3onstittion. 'ny alleged ,iolation o! the 3onstittion by any branch o!
go,ernment is a proper matter !or 9dicial re,iew.
3oncrete acts nder the %1'$'2 are not necessary to render the present contro,ersy ripe. 6y
the mere appro,al o! the challenged action, the dispte is said to ha,e ripened into a 9dicial
contro,ersy e,en withot any o,ert act. That the act in @estion is not yet e!!ecti,e does not
negate ripeness. 's the petitions allege acts or omissions on the part o! respondents that
e;cee0 their authorit2 , by ,iolating their dties nder 8.1. =o. I
10
and the pro,isions o! the
7
"o,ernment o! the #epblic o! the Philippines
8
%oro &slamic Liberation Front* The %&LF is a rebel grop which was established in %arch 19/A when, nder the
leadership o! the late 0alamat Bashim, it splintered !rom the %oro =ational Liberation Front (%=LF) then headed by =r
%isari, on the grond, among others, o! what 0alamat percei,ed to be the maniplation o! the %=LF away !rom an
&slamic basis towards %ar-ist$%aoist orientations.
9
%emorandm o! 'greement on 'ncestral 2omain
10
8-ecti,e 1rder =o. I* 42e!ining Policy and 'dministrati,e 0trctre* For "o,ernmentPs 3omprehensi,e Peace
8!!orts.5 81 =o. I pro,ides !or a contining consltation and dialoge on both national and local le,els.
3onstittion and stattes, the petitions make a !rima facie case !or 3ertiorari, Prohibition, and
%andams, and an actal case or contro,ersy ripe !or ad9dication e-ists. >hen an act of a
branch of +overnment is seriousl2 alle+e0 to have infrin+e0 the Constitution, it becomes
not onl2 the ri+ht but in fact the 0ut2 of the 3u0iciar2 to settle the 0ispute. (7. 3arpio$
%orales)
#eparate oncurring Opinion, J. 0uno"
Hes. ;here a contro,ersy concerns !ndamental constittional @estions, the threshold mst be
ad9sted to allow 9dicial scrtiny, in order that the isses may be resol,ed at the earliest stage
be!ore anything irre,ersible is ndertaken nder co,er o! an nconstittional act.
&t is e,ident that the 3ort is con!ronted with a %1'$'2 that is hea,ily laden with sel!$e-ecting
components. Far !rom the representation o! the 0olicitor "eneral, the %1'$'2 is not a mere
collection o! consenss points
Bere are the sel!$e-ectory pro,isions o! the %1'$'2*
The %1'$'2 pro,ides that 4the Parties a!!irm that the core o! the 678 shall constitte the present
geographic area o! the '#%%, inclding the mnicipalities o! 6aloi, %nai, =nngan, Pantar,
Tagoloan and Tangkal in the pro,ince o! Lanao del =orte that ,oted !or inclsion in the '#%% dring
the 2001 plebiscite.5

The %1'$'2 enmerate the powers that the 678 possesses within its area. The 678 is granted
powers o! go,ernance which it can e-ercise withot need o! amendments to be made to the
3onstittion or e-isting law or withot imposing any condition whatsoe,er.

The %1'$'2 also gi,es the 678 the nconditional right to participate in international meetings and
e,ents, e.g., '08'= meetings and other speciali>ed agencies o! the ?nited =ations. &t grants 678 the
right to participate in Philippine o!!icial missions and delegations that are engaged in the negotiation o!
border agreements or protocols !or en,ironmental protection, e@itable sharing o! incomes and
re,enes, in addition to those o! !ishing rights. 'gain, these rights are gi,en to the 678 withot imposing
prior conditions sch as amendments to the 3onstittion, e-isting law or the enactment o! new
legislation.

The %1'$'2 pro,ides that 4withot derogating !rom the re@irements o! prior agreements, the
"o,ernment stiplates to condct and deli,er, within twel,e (12) months !ollowing the signing o!
the %emorandm o! 'greement on 'ncestral 2omain, a plebiscite co,ering the areas as
enmerated in the list and depicted in the map as 3ategory ' - - - the Parties shall endea,or to
complete negotiations and resol,e all otstanding isses on the 3omprehensi,e 3ompact within
!i!teen (1+) months !rom signing o! the %1'$'2.5 1nce more, it is e,ident that no conditions
were imposed with respect to the condct o! a plebiscite within twel,e months !ollowing the
signing o! the %1'$'2. The pro,ision starkly states that within twel,e months, the go,ernment
will condct and deli,er a plebiscite co,ering areas nder 3ategory ' o! the %1'$'2.
/issenting Opinion, J. 1elasco"
The parties to the %1' do not ha,e per!ected and en!orceable contract. 's things stand, the line
di,iding the negotiation stage and the e-ection stage which wold ha,e otherwise con!erred the
character o! obligatoriness on the agreement is yet to be crossed. &n a ,ery real sense, the
%1'$'2 is not a docment, as the term is 9ridically nderstood, bt literally a piece o! paper
which the parties cannot look p to as an independent sorce o! obligation, the binding prestation
to do or gi,e and the corollary right to e-act compliance. Het, the petitioners wold ha,e the
3ort nlli!y and strike down as nconstittional what, !or all intents and prposes, is a non$
e-istent agreement. Like a bill a!ter it passes third reading or e,en awaiting the appro,al
signatre o! the President, the nsigned dra!t %1'$'2 cannot plasibly be the sb9ect o! 9dicial
re,iew, the e-ercise o! which prespposes that there is be!ore the cort an actal case or, in !ine,
a 9sticiable contro,ersy ripe !or ad9dication.
Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the Republic of the Philippines
October 14, 2008, GR 18!"1
On the Issue of Mootness
#acts'
Peace negotiations between the GRP
11
and ()*#
12
began in 1996. Formal peace talks between
the parties were held in Tripoli, Libya in 2001, the otcome o! which was the "#P$%&LF Tripoli
'greement on Peace (%ripoli $+reement 2001) containing the basic principles and agenda on
the !ollowing aspects o! the negotiation* Security 'spect, Rehabilitation 'spect, and Ancestral
Domain 'spect. &n 200+, se,eral e-ploratory talks were held between the parties in .ala
Lmpr, e,entally leading to the cra!ting o! the dra!t (O$,$-
1
in its !inal !orm, which was set to
be signed on 'gst +, 200/. 0e,eral petitions were !iled seeking, among others, to restrain the
signing o! the %1'$'2. 1n 'gst A, 200/, the 0preme 3ort issed a Temporary #estraining
1rder commanding the respondents to cease and desist !rom !ormally signing the %1'$'2
1n 'gst 2/, 200/, the 8-ecti,e 2epartment prononced that it wold no longer sign the
%1'$'2. 1n the last day o! the oral argments, the 0olicitor "eneral, declared that the
8-ecti,e 2epartment, speci!ically, respondent 8-ecti,e 0ec. 8rmita has declared that the
%1'$'2 4will not be signed in this !orm, or in any other !orm.5 %oreo,er, on 0eptember I, 200/,
President 'rroyo dissol,ed the "#P Peace Panel.
)ssue'
$re the petitions moote0D
5el0'
Main Opinion"
The 3ort !inds that the present petitions pro,ide an e-ception to the 4moot and academic5
principle in ,iew o! (a) the gra,e ,iolation o! the 3onstittion in,ol,ed: (b) the e-ceptional
character o! the sitation and paramont pblic interest: (c) the need to !ormlate controlling
principles to gide the bench, the bar, and the pblic: and (d) the !act that the case is capable o!
repetition yet e,ading re,iew.
(a) There is no gainsaying that the petitions are imbed with paramont pblic interest, in,ol,ing
a signi!icant part o! the contry<s territory and the wide$ranging political modi!ications o! a!!ected
L"?s.
(b) 0rely, the present %1'$'2 can be renegotiated or another one will be drawn p to carry out
the Ancestral Domain As!ect of the Tri!oli Agreement 3441, in another or in any !orm, which
cold contain similar or signi!icantly drastic pro,isions. ;hile the 3ort notes the word o! the
8-ecti,e 0ecretary that the go,ernment 4is committed to secring an agreement that is both
constittional and e@itable becase that is the only way that long$lasting peace can be assred,5
it is minded to render a decision on the merits in the present petitions to formulate controlling
!rinci!les to gui#e the bench) the bar) the !ublic an#) most es!ecially) the go'ernment in
negotiating "ith the MI5/ regar#ing Ancestral Domain .
(c) There is a reasonable e-pectation that petitioners, particlarly the Pro,inces o! =orth
3otabato, Qamboanga del =orte and 0ltan .darat, the 3ities o! Qamboanga, &ligan and
11
"o,ernment o! the #epblic o! the Philippines
12
%oro &slamic Liberation Front* The %&LF is a rebel grop which was established in %arch 19/A when, nder the
leadership o! the late 0alamat Bashim, it splintered !rom the %oro =ational Liberation Front (%=LF) then headed by =r
%isari, on the grond, among others, o! what 0alamat percei,ed to be the maniplation o! the %=LF away !rom an
&slamic basis towards %ar-ist$%aoist orientations.
13
%emorandm o! 'greement on 'ncestral 2omain
&sabela, and the %nicipality o! Linamon, will again be sb9ected to the same problem in the
!tre as respondents< actions are capable of repetition , in another or any !orm .
The %1'$'2 cannot be considered a mere 4list o! consenss points,5 especially gi,en its
nomenclature, the nee# to ha'e it signe# or initiale# by all the parties concerned on 'gst +,
200/, and the far-reaching Constitutional im!lications o! these 4consenss points,5 !oremost o!
which is the creation o! the 678. There is a commitment on the part o! respondents to amend and
e!!ect necessary changes to the e-isting legal !ramework !or certain pro,isions o! the %1'$'2 to
take e!!ect. 3onse@ently, the present petitions are not con!ined to the terms and pro,isions o!
the %1'$'2, bt to other on, going and future negotiations and agreements necessary !or its
reali>ation. The petitions ha,e not, there!ore, been rendered moot and academic simply by the
pblic disclosre o! the %1'$'2.
The %1'$'2 is a signi!icant part o! a series o! agreements necessary to carry ot the Tripoli
'greement 2001. The %1'$'2 which dwells on the 'ncestral 2omain 'spect o! said Tripoli
'greement is the third sch component to be ndertaken !ollowing the implementation o! the
0ecrity 'spect in 'gst 2001 and the Bmanitarian, #ehabilitation and 2e,elopment 'spect in
%ay 2002. 'ccordingly, e,en i! the 8-ecti,e 0ecretary, in his %emorandm o! 'gst 2/, 200/
to the 0olicitor "eneral, has stated that 4no matter what the 0preme 3ort ltimately decidesF,G
the go,ernment will not sign the %1'F$'2G,5 mootness will not set in in light o! the terms o! the
Tripoli 'greement 2001.
(7. 3arpio$%orales)
#eparate oncurring Opinion" J. 0uno
The press statements o! the Presidential 'd,iser on the Peace Process, "en. Bermogenes
8speron, 7r., are clear that the %1'$'2 will still be sed as a ma3or reference in !tre
negotiations. For another, the %&LF considers the %1'$'2 a 4done deal,5 hence, ready !or
implementation. 1n the other hand, the peace panel may ha,e been temporarily dismantled bt
the strctres set p by the 8-ecti,e and their gidelines which ga,e rise to the present
contro,ersy remain intact. >ith all these realities, the petitions at bar fall 7ithin that
e;ceptional class of cases 7hich ou+ht to be 0eci0e0 0espite their mootness because the
complaine0 unconstitutional acts are Ecapable of repetition 2et eva0in+ revie7.F
#eparate Opinion, J. arpio"
The claim o! respondents that the present petitions are moot becase dring the pendency o! this
case the President decided not to sign the %1'$'2, 4in its present !orm or in any other !orm,5 is
erroneos. 1nce the 3ort ac@ires 9risdiction o,er a case, its 9risdiction contines ntil !inal
termination o! the case. The claim o! respondents that the President ne,er athori>ed the "#P
Panel to sign the %1'$'2 is immaterial. &! the "#P Panel had no sch athority, then their acts
in initialing and in intending to sign the %1'$'2 were in gra,e abse o! discretion amonting to
lack or e-cess o! 9risdiction, ,esting this 3ort 9risdiction o,er the present petitions to declare
nconstittional sch acts o! the "#P Panel.
?nder international law, e,ery so,ereign and independent 0tate has the inherent right to protect
!rom dismemberment its territorial integrity, political nity and national so,ereignty. The dty to
protect the territorial integrity, political nity and national so,ereignty o! the nation in accordance
with the 3onstittion is not the dty alone o! the 8-ecti,e branch. ;here the 8-ecti,e branch
is remiss in e-ercising this solemn dty in ,iolation o! the 3onstittion, this 3ort, in the
appropriate case as in the present petitions, mst step in becase e,ery member o! this 3ort
has taken a sworn dty to de!end and phold the 3onstittion.
#eparate oncurring Opinion, J. $nares!#antiago
The 3ort will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, i!* (1) there is a gra,e ,iolation o! the
3onstittion: (2) the sitation is e-ceptional in character and paramont pblic interest is
in,ol,ed: (I) the constittional isses raised re@ires !ormlation o! controlling principles to gide
the bench, the bar and the pblic: and (A) the case is capable o! repetition yet e,ading re,iew. 'll
o! these circmstances are present in the cases at bar. &t is beyond ca,il that these petitions
in,ol,e matters that are o! paramont pblic interest and concern. 's shown by recent e,ents,
the %1'$'2 has spawned ,iolent con!licts in %indanao and has polari>ed or nation o,er its real
import and e!!ects. The contro,ersy o,er the agreement has reslted in nnecessary loss o! li,es,
destrction o! property and general discord in that part o! or contry. 0trong reasons o! pblic
policy and the importance o! these cases to the pblic demands that we settle the isses
promptly and de!initely, brshing aside, i! we mst, technicalities o! procedre.
The petitions also allege that the "#P panel committed gra,e ,iolations o! the 3onstittion when
it negotiated and agreed to terms that directly contra,ene the !ndamental law. The basic isse
which emerged !rom all the assertions o! the parties is not only whether the %1'$'2 shold be
disclosed or signed at all bt, more signi!icantly, whether the "#P panel e-ceeded its powers in
negotiating an agreement that contains nconstittional stiplations. 3onsidering that it has been
widely annonced that the peace process will contine, and that a new panel may be constitted
to enter into similar negotiations with the %&LF, it is necessary to resol,e the isse on the "#P
panel<s athority in order to establish giding and controlling principles on its e-tent and limits. 6y
doing so, a repetition o! the n!ortnate e,ents which transpired in the wake o! the %1'$'2 can
hope!lly be a,oided.
There is also the possibility that an agreement with terms similar to the %1'$'2 may again be
dra!ted in the !tre. &ndeed, respondents cannot pre,ent this 3ort !rom determining the e-tent
o! the "#P panel<s athority by the simple e-pedient o! claiming that sch an agreement will not
be signed or that the peace panel will be dissol,ed. There will be no opportnity to !inally the
settle the @estion o! whether a negotiating panel can !reely stiplate on terms that transgress or
laws and or 3onstittion. &t can ths be said that respondents< act o! negotiating a peace
agreement similar to the %1'$'2 is capable o! repetition yet e,ading re,iew.
#eparate Opinion, J. %inga"
's a matter o! law, the petitions were mooted by the ne@i,ocal decision o! the "o,ernment o!
the Philippines, throgh the President, not to sign the challenged %emorandm o! 'greement on
'ncestral 2omain (%1'$'2).
' sal e-ception to the moot and academic principle is where the case is capable o! repetition
yet e,ading re,iew. &n this case, the challenged act is not a nilateral act that can be reprodced
with ease by one person or interest grop alone. To repeat the challenged act herein, there wold
ha,e to be a prolonged and delicate negotiation process between the "o,ernment and the %&LF,
both sides being in!lenced by a myriad o! nknown and inconstant !actors sch as the crrent
headlines o! the day. 'ssming that the act can be repeated at all, it cannot be repeated with any
ease, there being too many cooks stirring the broth. 'nd !rther assming that the two sides are
able to negotiate a new %1'$'2, it is highly improbable that it wold contain e-actly the same
pro,isions or legal !ramework as the discarded %1'$'2.
/issenting Opinion, J. 2eonardo!/e astro"
The statement o! the 0olicitor "eneral that the %1'$'2 will not be signed renders the case moot
and academic.
#eparate Opinion, J. hico!3a+ario"
&n light o! the prononcement o! the 8-ecti,e 2epartment to already abandon the %1', the
isse o! its constittionality has ob,iosly become moot.
The %1' has not e,en been signed, and will ne,er be. &ts pro,isions will not at all come into
e!!ect. The %1' will !ore,er remain a dra!t that has ne,er been !inali>ed. &t is now nothing more
than a piece o! paper, with no legal !orce or binding e!!ect. &t cannot be the sorce o!, nor be
capable o! ,iolating, any right. The instant Petitions, there!ore, and all other oppositions to the
%1', ha,e no more leg to stand on. They no longer present an actal case or a 9sticiable
contro,ersy !or resoltion by this 3ort.
&t is beyond the power o! the 3ort to en9oin the 8-ecti,e 2epartment !rom entering into
agreements similar to the %1' in the !tre, as what petitioners and other opponents o! the %1'
pray !or. 0ch prayer once again re@ires this 3ort to make a de!initi,e rling on what are mere
hypothetical !acts. ' decree granting the same, withot the 3ort ha,ing seen or considered the
actal agreement and its terms, wold not only be prematre, bt also too general to make at this
point. &t will perilosly tie the hands o! the 8-ecti,e 2epartment and limit its options in
negotiating peace !or %indanao.
&t is not within the pro,ince or e,en the competence o! the 7diciary to tell the 8-ecti,e
2epartment e-actly what and what not, how and how not, to negotiate !or peace with insrgents.
The 8-ecti,e 2epartment, nder its residal powers, is tasked to make political decisions in
order to !ind soltions to the insrgency problem, the 3ort shold respect the political natre o!
the isses at bar and e-ercise 9dicial restraint ntil an actal contro,ersy is broght be!ore it.
#eparate Opinion, J. &eyes"
The petitions and petitions$in$inter,ention ha,e become moot de to sper,ening e,ents.
Bowe,er, they shold be decided gi,en the e-ceptional circmstances.
&t is hornbook doctrine that corts will decide cases, otherwise moot, when (1) there is a gra,e
,iolation o! the 3onstittion: (2) the e-ceptional character o! the sitation and the paramont
pblic interest in,ol,ed demand: (I) the constittional isse raised re@ires !ormlation o!
controlling principles to gide the bench, the bar, and the pblic: and (A) the case is capable o!
repetition yet e,ading re,iew.
/issenting Opinion, J. 1elasco"
There is really no %1'$'2 to speak o! since its per!ection or e!!ecti,ity was aborted by
sper,ening e,ents, to wit* the T#1 the 3ort issed en9oining the .ala Lmpr signing o! the
%1' and the sbse@ent change o! mind o! the President not to sign and prse the co,enant.
To repeat, there is, !rom the start, or !rom the moment the !irst petition was interposed, no actal
9sticiable contro,ersy to be resol,ed or dismissed, the %1'$'2 ha,ing been nsigned. 6e that
as it may, there can hardly be any constittional isse based on actal !acts to be resol,ed with
!inality, let alone a gra,e ,iolation o! the 3onstittion to be addressed. 0rely the 3ort cannot
reasonably !ormlate giding and controlling constittional principles, precepts, doctrines or rles
!or !tre gidance o! both bench and bar based on a non$e-isting ancestral domain agreement
or by anticipating what the e-ecti,e department will likely do or agree on in the !tre in the
peace negotiating table.
The allegations o! nconstittionality are, !or now, prely con9ectral. The %1'$'2 is only a part
o! a lengthy peace process that wold e,entally ha,e clminated in the signing o! a
3omprehensi,e 3ompact. Per my cont, the %1'$'2 makes re!erence to a 3omprehensi,e
3ompact a total o! eight times. The last paragraph o! the %1'$'2 e,en acknowledges that,
be!ore its key pro,isions come into !orce, there wold still be more consltations and
deliberations needed by the parties

/issenting Opinion, J. 3achura"
&t is a-iomatic that corts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, i!* first, there is a
gra,e ,iolation o! the 3onstittion: secon#, the e-ceptional character o! the sitation and the
paramont pblic interest in,ol,ed: thir#, when the constittional isse raised re@ires !ormlation
o! controlling principles to gide the bench, the bar and the pblic: or fourth, when the case is
capable o! repetition yet e,asi,e o! re,iew.
's to the !irst e-ception, there is no ,iolation o! the 3onstittion that will 9sti!y 9dicial re,iew
despite mootness, becase the %1'$'2 has not been signed E and will not be signed. The
%1'$'2 is, as o! today, non$e-istent. Ths, as it is, these dreaded constittional in!ractions are,
at best, anticipatory, hypothetical or con9ectral.
=either will the second e-ception apply. The isse o! paramont pblic interest will arise only &F
the %1'$'2 is signed. ;ith the Peace Panel dissol,ed, and with the ne@i,ocal
prononcement o! the President that the %1'$'2 will not be signed, there is no occasion to
speak o! the e-ceptional or e-traordinary character o! the contro,ersy as wold render the case
ripe !or resoltion and ssceptible o! 9dicial determination.
Then, there is the %arch 1, 2001 %emorandm o! &nstrctions !rom the President, !ollowed by the
%emorandm o! &nstrctions dated 0eptember /, 200I. 3ommon to the instrctions is the
pro,ision that the negotiation shall be condcted 4in accordance with the mandate o! the
3onstittion, the #le o! Law, and the Principles o! 0o,ereignty and Territorial &ntegrity o! the
#epblic o! the Philippines.5 These are ade@ate gidelines !or the "#P Peace panel: it wold be
sper!los !or the 3ort to isse gidelines which, presmably, will be similar to the ones
already in e-istence, aside !rom possibly trenching on the constittional principle o! separation o!
powers. &! the respondents$members o! the "#P Peace Panel, in the condct o! the negotiation,
breached these standards or !ailed to heed the instrctions, it was not !or lack o! gidelines. &n
any e,ent, the "#P Peace Panel is now disbanded, and the %1'$'2 nsigned and 4not to be
signed.5 There is no necessity !or this 3ort to isse its own gidelines as these wold be, in all
probability, repetiti,e o! the e-ecti,e issances.
The theory o! 4capable o! repetition yet e,ading re,iew5 may be in,oked only when this 3ort has
9risdiction o,er the sb9ect matter.
/issenting Opinion, J. Brion"
'!ter the respondents declared that the %1'$'2 wold not be signed, there was nothing le!t to
prohibit and no rights on the part the petitioners contined to be at risk o! ,iolation by the %1'$
'2.
The e-ceptions to the 4moot and academic5 principle shold not apply to this case. ;here an
isse is moot on its !ace, the application o! any o! the e-ceptions shold be sb9ected to a strict
test becase it is a de,iation !rom the general rle. The 3ort shold care!lly test the e-ceptions
to be applied !rom the perspecti,es both o! legality and practical e!!ects, and show by these
standards that the isse absoltely re@ires to be resol,ed.
Mootness and 0aramount 0ublic Interest. ;hile isses a!!ecting the national territory and
so,ereignty are s!!iciently weighty to command immediate attention, answers and soltions to
these types o! problems are not all lodged in the 7diciary: more than not, these answers and
soltions in,ol,e matters of !olicy that essentially rest with the two other branches o! go,ernment
nder or constittional system, with the 7diciary being called pon only where disptes and
gra,e abse o! discretion arise in the corse applying the terms o! the 3onstittion and in
implementing or laws.
Nee0 for Gui0elines from the Court. The present petitions and the inter,ening de,elopments
do not present similar @estions as Da'i# '. Arroyo that necessitate clari!ication. 0ince the %1'$
'2 does not e-ist as a legal, e!!ecti,e, and en!orceable instrment, it can neither be illegal nor
nconstittional. For this reason, & ha,e not bothered to re!te the statements and argments
abot its nconstittionality.
%he apable of &epetition and 4vading &evie( 4'ception. The history o! 4emergencies5 in
Da'i# '. Arroyo and Sanla(as '. 1xecuti'e Secretary, n!ortnately, is not present in the petitions
at bar. ?nder these clear terms showing the 8-ecti,e<s ,ision on how the peace process and the
negotiations shall proceed, & belie,e that it is !allacios to assme that any renewed negotiation
with the %&LF will entail a repetition o! the discarded %1'$'2. The likelihood that a matter will be
repeated does not mean that there will be no meaning!l opportnity !or 9dicial re,iew so that an
e-ception to mootness shold be recogni>ed. For a case to dodge dismissal !or mootness nder
the 4capable o! repetition yet e,ading re,iew5 e-ception, two re@isites mst be satis!ied* (1) the
dration o! the challenged action mst be too short to be !lly litigated prior to its cessation or
e-piration: and (2) there mst be reasonable e-pectation that the same complaining party will be
sb9ected to the same action again.
The time constraint that 9sti!ied Roe '. 6a#e does not inherently e-ist nder the circmstances
o! the present petition so that 9dicial re,iew will be e,aded in a !tre litigation. 's this 3ort has
shown in this case, we can respond as !ast as the circmstances re@ire. There is nothing that
wold bar the 3ort !rom making a concrete rling in the !tre shold the e-ercise o! or 9dicial
power, particlarly the e-ercise o! the power o! 9dicial re,iew, be 9sti!ied.
Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the Republic of the Philippines
October 14, 2008, GR 18!"1
On the Issue of 5ocus Stan#i
#acts'
Peace negotiations between the GRP
14
and ()*#
1!
began in 1996. Formal peace talks between
the parties were held in Tripoli, Libya in 2001, the otcome o! which was the "#P$%&LF Tripoli
'greement on Peace (%ripoli $+reement 2001) containing the basic principles and agenda on
the !ollowing aspects o! the negotiation* Security 'spect, Rehabilitation 'spect, and Ancestral
Domain 'spect. &n 200+, se,eral e-ploratory talks were held between the parties in .ala
Lmpr, e,entally leading to the cra!ting o! the dra!t (O$,$-
1A
in its !inal !orm, which was set to
be signed on 'gst +, 200/. 0e,eral petitions were !iled seeking, among others, to restrain the
signing o! the %1'$'2.
)ssue'
2o the petitioners ha,e locs standiM
5el0'
's the petitions in,ol,e constittional isses which are o! paramont pblic interest or o!
transcendental importance, the 3ort grants the petitioners, petitioners$in$inter,ention and
inter,ening respondents the re@isite locus stan#i in keeping with the liberal stance adopted in
Da'i# '. Maca!agal-Arroyo .
&n the petitions at bar, petitioners Pro,ince o! =orth 3otabato (".#. =o. 1/I+91) Pro,ince o!
Qamboanga del =orte (".#. =o. 1/I9+1), 3ity o! &ligan (".#. =o. 1/I/9I) and 3ity o!
Qamboanga (".#. =o. 1/IC+2) and petitioners$in$inter,ention Pro,ince o! 0ltan .darat, 3ity o!
&sabela and %nicipality o! Linamon ha,e locs standi in ,iew o! the direct and sbstantial in9ry
that they, as L"?s, wold s!!er as their territories, whether in whole or in part, are to be inclded
in the intended domain o! the 678. These petitioners allege that they did not ,ote !or their
inclsion in the '#%% which wold be e-panded to !orm the 678 territory. Petitioners< legal
standing is ths beyond dobt.

&n ".#. =o. 1/I962, petitioners 8rnesto %aceda, 7e9omar 6inay and '@ilino Pimentel &&&
wold ha,e no standing as citi>ens and ta-payers !or their !ailre to speci!y that they wold be
denied some right or pri,ilege or there wold be wastage o! pblic !nds. The !act that they are a
!ormer 0enator, an incmbent mayor o! %akati 3ity, and a resident o! 3agayan de 1ro,
respecti,ely, is o! no conse@ence. 3onsidering their in,ocation o! the transcendental
importance o! the isses at hand, howe,er, the 3ort grants them standing.

&nter,enors Franklin 2rilon and 'del Tamano, in alleging their standing as ta-payers,
assert that go,ernment !nds wold be e-pended !or the condct o! an illegal and
nconstittional plebiscite to delineate the 678 territory. 1n that score alone, they can be gi,en
legal standing. Their allegation that the isses in,ol,ed in these petitions are o! 4ndeniable
transcendental importance5 clothes them with added basis !or their personality to inter,ene in
these petitions.

;ith regard to 0enator %anel #o-as, his standing is premised on his being a member o!
the 0enate and a citi>en to en!orce compliance by respondents o! the pblic<s constittional right
14
"o,ernment o! the #epblic o! the Philippines
15
%oro &slamic Liberation Front* The %&LF is a rebel grop which was established in %arch 19/A when, nder the
leadership o! the late 0alamat Bashim, it splintered !rom the %oro =ational Liberation Front (%=LF) then headed by =r
%isari, on the grond, among others, o! what 0alamat percei,ed to be the maniplation o! the %=LF away !rom an
&slamic basis towards %ar-ist$%aoist orientations.
16
%emorandm o! 'greement on 'ncestral 2omain
to be in!ormed o! the %1'$'2, as well as on a genine legal interest in the matter in litigation, or
in the sccess or !ailre o! either o! the parties. Be ths possesses the re@isite standing as an
inter,enor.

;ith respect to &nter,enors #y 8lias Lope>, as a !ormer congressman o! the Ird district o!
2a,ao 3ity, a ta-payer and a member o! the 6agobo tribe: 3arlo 6. "ome>, et al., as members o!
the &6P Palawan chapter, citi>ens and ta-payers: %arino #idao, as ta-payer, resident and
member o! the 0anggniang Panlngsod o! 3otabato 3ity: and .isin 6-ani, as ta-payer, they
!ailed to allege any proper legal interest in the present petitions. 7st the same, the 3ort
e-ercises its discretion to rela- the procedral technicality on locs standi gi,en the paramont
pblic interest in the isses at hand.

&nter,ening respondents %slim %lti$0ectoral %o,ement !or Peace and 2e,elopment, an
ad,ocacy grop !or 9stice and the attainment o! peace and prosperity in %slim %indanao: and
%slim Legal 'ssistance Fondation &nc., a non$go,ernment organi>ation o! %slim lawyers,
allege that they stand to be bene!ited or pre9diced, as the case may be, in the resoltion o! the
petitions concerning the %1'$'2, and prays !or the denial o! the petitions on the gronds therein
stated. 0ch legal interest s!!ices to clothe them with standing.
J. 3achura"
The petitioners and petitioners$in$inter,ention claim locs standi with their in,ocation o! the
transcendental importance o! the isses in,ol,ed and their assertion o! pblic rights to in!ormation
and to consltation.

3onsidering that the 3ort has discretion to rela- this procedral technicality, and gi,en the
liberal attitde it has adopted in a nmber o! earlier case, we acknowledge the legal standing o!
the petitioners herein.