Constitutional Law 1

Case Digest

Case: Province of North Cotabato vs. Government of the Republic of the Philippines
Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (GRP)
GR Number: 183591
Ponente: Carpio-Morales
Date: October 14, 2008
Written by: Raissa N. Matunog

Facts

 On August 5, 2008 the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP)

and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) were scheduled to sign a
Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) aspect of
the GRF-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia.
 The MOA-AD included, among others, the creation of the Bangsamoro
Juridical Entity (BJE) to which the GRP would grant authority and jurisdiction
over the Ancestral Domain and Ancestral lands of the Bangsamoro.
 This would include the present geographic area of the Autonomous Region of
Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) which are the following areas: Lanao del Sur,
Maguindanao, Sulu, Tawi-Tawi, Basilan and Marawi City. Also included are
certain municipalities of Lanao del Norte who voted for inclusion in the
ARMM in 2001.
 The MOA-AD described the relationship between the BJE and the Central
Government as associative, characterized by shared authority and
responsibility.
 Moreover, the MOA-AD stated that the provisions within it requiring
amendments to existing legal framework would take effect upon signing of
the Comprehensive Compact and upon effecting the aforesaid amendments.
 The Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order ordering the GRP
from signing the MOA-AD upon the motion of the petitioners before the
scheduled signing.

Issues/Held

1. Whether the petitions have become moot and academic

 NO
 In David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, the Court held that it will decide cases,
otherwise moot and academic, if it finds that (a) there is a grave
violation of the Constitution; (b) the situation is of exceptional
character and paramount public interest is involved; (c) the
constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling
 principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and (d) the case
is capable of repetition yet evading review.

2. Whether the constitutionality and the legality of the MOA is ripe for
adjudication

 YES
 That the law or act in question is not yet effective does not negate
ripeness.
 The failure of the respondents to consult with the local government
units or communities affected constitutes a departure by the
respondents from their mandate under Executive Order No. 3.
 Also, because the respondents exceeded their authority by
guaranteeing amendments to the Constitution, it is deemed a matter
for judicial review.

3. Whether the respondent Government of the Republic of the Philippines

committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction

 YES
 The failure to carry out pertinent consultation with the involved
parties and the secretive process used to design and craft the MOA-AD
runs contrary to and in excess of legal authority.

4. Whether there is a violation of the people’s right to information on matters of

public concern (Article III, Sec. 7) under a state policy of full disclosure of all
its transactions involving public interest (Article II, Sec. 28) including public
consultation under RA 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991)

 YES
 The contents of the MOA-AD is a matter of paramount concern, and
therefore when the pertinent consultation processes (elaborated
below) were not observed, there was a violation of the right to
information.
 Executive Order No. 3 established the petitioner’s right to be
consulted on the peace agenda, as a corollary to the constitutional
right to information and disclosure.
 Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991
required all national offices to conduct consultations before any
project or program that is critical to the environment and human
ecology including those that may call for the eviction of a particular
group of people residing in such locality. This is pertinent to the MOA-
AD since if implemented it would have vested ownership of a large
 territory to only the Bangsamoro people, which could have resulted to
the displacement of many previous inhabitants of said territory.
 Republic Act No. 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997
provided clear-cut procedures to recognize and delineate ancestral
domain.

5. Whether the contents of the MOA-AD violate the Constitution

 YES
 The MOA-AD is irreconcilable with the Constitution and laws, not only
in its specific provisions but also in the underlying concept animating
these provisions, namely the concept of association.
 Association implies that the associative entity is a state, and also
implies that it is in the position to become independent. This violates
the Constitution, especially in Article X and Article II Sec. 22.
 It is also inconsistent with prevailing statutory law, among which are
RA No. 9054 (Organic Act of the ARMM) and the IPRA.
 Though there is a suspensive clause in the MOA-AD stating that
provisions in the MOA-AD that are inconsistent with the current legal
framework will not be effective until the said framework is amended,
it is still problematic.
o While the President does not possess constituent powers, she
may submit proposals for constitutional change to Congress.
She may also submit her recommendations to the people for
their independent consideration.
o Therefore, the suspensive clause in the MOA-AD is not really
suspensive – it almost guarantees amendments to the
Constitution once the Comprehensive Compact is signed.
o This again violates the Constitution, since it is inconsistent
with the limits of the President’s authority to propose
constitutional amendments.

Ruling

The respondent’s motion to dismiss was denied.

The main and intervening petitions are granted.
The MOA-AD is declared contrary to law and unconstitutional.

Concurring Opinions

Carpio – MOA-AD is patently unconstitutional, because the executive branch has no

power to commit to the MILF that the Constitution shall be amended to conform to
the MOA-AD. It also violates the Constitutional and legislative guarantees
recognizing and protecting the Lumads cultural identities and their ancestral
domains. If MOA-AD is signed, then the MILF can exercise the rights of the BJE as a
state and can therefore oblige the Philippines to amend its Constitution.
Puno – The peace process itself is flawed and the Court should not limit itself to only
a review of the validity of the MOA-AD. The issue at bar is ripe for resolution as it
concerns fundamental constitutional questions. Despite the issue’s mootness, it
should still be decided since the issue is capable of repetition yet evading review.

Ynares-Santiago – The MOA-AD is of paramount public concern. It is not merely a

draft of consensus points but it a real and actual commitment by the GRP that is not
dependent on statutory or constitutional amendment but rather on a timeframe
specified by the Comprehensive Compact.

Separate Opinion

Reyes, R.T. – Grave abuse of discretion definition is now expanded to include

contravention of the Constitution, the law and jurisprudence.

Chico-Nazario – The MOA was not signed, nor will it ever be signed. Therefore there
is no actual case or justiciable controversy to be resolved by the Court. The Court
should desist from ruling on the constitutionality of the MOA-AD.

Separate Concurring Opinion

Tinga – The provisions of the MOA-AD are extra-constitutional as it would give the
BJE powers and prerogatives reserved under the Consitution to the State. Under
domestic law, the MOA-AD cannot receive recognition as a legally binding
agreement since the formal signature ceremony did not push through and therefore
the Philippine government did not give consent.

Dissenting Opinion

Velasco – The real party in interest is the MILF, the Court cannot nullify a
prospective agreement that will affect and legally bind one party without making
said decision binding on the other contracting party. The MOA-AD, being an
unsigned draft, is not a justiciable controversy ripe for adjudication.

Nachura – The Court cannot review an inexistent agreement, since the MOA-AD will
not be signed in its present form or in any other form. The remedy of prohibition
cannot also lie against a GRP Peace Panel that no longer exists. Grave abuse of
discretion can characterize only consummated acts (or omissions), not almost
consummated acts.

Leonardo-De Castro – Cases are moot and academic since the MOA-AD will not be
signed in the present form or in any other form.

Brion – Judicial power must be based on an actual justiciable controversy. In

utilizing the mootness principle, strict tests should be applied to the exceptions
from the perspective of legality and practical effects. Also, when respondents
declared that the MOA-AD would not be signed, there was nothing left to prohibit
and no rights of the petitioner continued to be at risk of violation.