PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO, PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE,

CITY OF ILIGAN, CITY OF ZAMBOANGA, PETITIONERS IN INTERVENTION

PROVINCE OF SULTAN KUDARAT, CITY OF ISABELA AND MUNICIPALITY OF
LINNAMON, INTERVENORS FRANKLIN DRILON AND ADEL TAMANO AND SEC.
MAR ROXAS

vs.
ERMITA EXEC.SEC., ROMULO SEC DFA, ANDAYA SEC DBM, VENTURA
ADMINISTRATOR NATIONAL MAPPING & RESOURCE INFORMATION
AUTHORITY AND DAVIDE JR. AND RESPONDENTS IN INTERVENTION MUSLIM
MULTI-SECTORAL MOVEMENT FOR PEACE AND DEVELOPMENT AND MUSLIM
LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION INC.,

G.R. No. 183591 October 14, 2008

FACTS:

Subject of this case is the Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD)
which is scheduled to be signed by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the
MILF in August 05, 2008. Five cases bearing the same subject matter were consolidated by this
court namely:

• GR 183591 by the Province of Cotabato and Vice Governor Pinol on its prayer to declare
unconstitutional and to have the MOA-AD disclosed to the public and be open for public
consultation.
• GR 183752 by the City of Zamboanga et al on its prayer to declare null and void said
MOA-AD and to exclude the city to the BJE.
• GR 183893 by the City of Iligan enjoining the respondents from signing the MOA-AD
and additionally impleading Exec. Sec. Ermita.
• GR 183951 by the Province of Zamboanga del Norte et al, praying to declare null and
void the MOA-AD and without operative effect and those respondents enjoined from executing
the MOA-AD.
• GR 183692 by Maceda, Binay and Pimentel III, praying for a judgment prohibiting and
permanently enjoining respondents from formally signing and executing the MOA-AD and or
any other agreement derived therefrom or similar thereto, and nullifying the MOA-AD for being
unconstitutional and illegal and impleading Iqbal.

The MOA-AD is a result of various agreements entered into by and between the
government and the MILF starting in 1996; then in 1997, they signed the Agreement on General
Cessation of Hostilities; and the following year, they signed the General Framework of
Agreement of Intent on August 27, 1998. However, in 1999 and in the early of 2000, the MILF
attacked a number of municipalities in Central Mindanao. In March 2000, they took the hall of
Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte; hence, then Pres. Estrada declared an all-out war-which tolled the
peace negotiation. It was when then Pres. Arroyo assumed office, when the negotiation regarding
peace in Mindanao continued. MILF was hesitant; however, this negotiation proceeded when the
government of Malaysia interceded. Formal peace talks resumed and MILF suspended all its
military actions. The Tripoli Agreement in 2001 lead to the ceasefire between the parties. After
the death of MILF Chairman Hashim and Iqbal took over his position, the crafting of MOA-AD
in its final form was born.

• MOA-AD Overview

This is an agreement to be signed by the GRP and the MILF. Used as reference in the birth of
this MOA-AD are the Tripoli Agreement, organic act of ARMM, IPRA Law, international laws
such as ILO Convention 169, the UN Charter etc., and the principle of Islam i.e compact right
entrenchment (law of compact, treaty and order). The body is divided into concepts and
principles, territory, resources, and governance.

Embodied in concepts and principles, is the definition of Bangsamoro as all indigenous peoples
of Mindanao and its adjacent islands. These people have the right to self- governance of their
Bangsamoro homeland to which they have exclusive ownership by virtue of their prior rights
of occupation in the land. The MOA-AD goes on to describe the Bangsamoro people as "the
‘First Nation' with defined territory and with a system of government having entered into
treaties of amity and commerce with foreign nations." It then mentions for the first time the
"Bangsamoro Juridical Entity" (BJE) to which it grants the authority and jurisdiction over the
Ancestral Domain and Ancestral Lands of the Bangsamoro.

As defined in the territory of the MOA-AD, the BJE shall embrace the Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan
geographic region, involving the present ARMM, parts of which are those which voted in the
inclusion to ARMM in a plebiscite. The territory is divided into two categories, “A” which will
be subject to plebiscite not later than 12 mos. after the signing and “B” which will be subject to
plebiscite 25 years from the signing of another separate agreement. Embodied in the MOA-AD
that the BJE shall have jurisdiction over the internal waters-15kms from the coastline of the BJE
territory; they shall also have "territorial waters," which shall stretch beyond the BJE internal
waters up to the baselines of the Republic of the Philippines (RP) south east and south west of
mainland Mindanao; and that within these territorial waters, the BJE and the government shall
exercise joint jurisdiction, authority and management over all natural resources. There will also
be sharing of minerals in the territorial waters; but no provision on the internal waters.

Included in the resources is the stipulation that the BJE is free to enter into any economic
cooperation and trade relations with foreign countries and shall have the option to establish trade
missions in those countries, as well as environmental cooperation agreements, but not to include
aggression in the GRP. The external defense of the BJE is to remain the duty and obligation of
the government. The BJE shall have participation in international meetings and events" like
those of the ASEAN and the specialized agencies of the UN. They are to be entitled to
participate in Philippine official missions and delegations for the negotiation of border
agreements or protocols for environmental protection and equitable sharing of incomes and
revenues involving the bodies of water adjacent to or between the islands forming part of the
ancestral domain. The BJE shall also have the right to explore its resources and that the sharing
between the Central Government and the BJE of total production pertaining to natural resources
is to be 75:25 in favor of the BJE. And they shall have the right to cancel or modify concessions
and TLAs.

And lastly in the governance, the MOA-AD claims that the relationship between the GRP
and MILF is associative i.e. characterized by shared authority and responsibility. This
structure of governance shall be further discussed in the Comprehensive Compact, a stipulation
which was highly contested before the court. The BJE shall also be given the right to build,
develop and maintain its own institutions, the details of which shall be discussed in the
comprehensive compact as well.

ISSUES:

Whether the contents of the MOA-AD violated the Constitution and the laws

RULING: The court ruled in the AFFIRMATIVE.

• Association as the type of relationship governing between the parties.

The court vehemently objects because the principle of association is not recognized under
the present Constitution. The parties manifested that in crafting the MOA-AD, the term
association was adapted from the international law. In international law, association
happens when two states of equal power voluntarily establish durable links i.e. the one
state, the associate, delegates certain responsibilities to the other, principal, while
maintaining its international status as state; free association is a middle ground between
integration and independence. The MOA-AD contains many provisions that are
consistent with the international definition of association which fairly would deduced that
the agreement vest into the BJE a status of an associated state, or at any rate, a status
closely approximating it.

• On the recognition of the BJE entity as a state

The court disagrees with the respondent that the MOA-AD merely expands the ARMM.
BJE is a state in all but name as it meets the criteria of a state laid down in the
Montevideo Convention, namely, a permanent population, a defined territory, a
government, and a capacity to enter into relations with other states. As such the MOA-
AD clearly runs counter to the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the
Republic. The concept implies power beyond what the Constitution can grant to a local
 government; even the ARMM do not have such recognition; and the fact is such concept
implies recognition of the associated entity as a state. There is nothing in the law that
contemplate any state within the jurisdiction other than the Philippine State, much less
does it provide for a transitory status that aims to prepare any part of Philippine territory
for independence.

• On the powers vested in the BJE as an entity

The Court was not persuaded. SC ruled that such conferment calls for amendment of the
Constitution; otherwise new legislation will not concur with the Constitution. The
respondents contend that the powers vested to the BJE in the MOA-AD shall be within
sub-paragraph 9 of sec 20, art. 10 of the constitution and that a mere passage of a law is
necessary in order to vest in the BJE powers included in the agreement. Take for instance
the treaty making power vested to the BJE in the MOA-AD. The Constitution is clear that
only the President has the sole organ and is the country’s sole representative with foreign
nation. Should the BJE be granted with the authority to negotiate with other states, the
former provision must be amended consequently. Section 22 must also be amended—the
provision of the law that promotes national unity and development. Because clearly,
associative arrangement of the MOA-AD does not epitomize national unity but rather, of
semblance of unity. The associative ties between the BJE and the national government,
the act of placing a portion of Philippine territory in a status which, in international
practice, has generally been a preparation for independence, is certainly not conducive to
national unity.

• On matters of international law

The Philippines adopts the generally accepted principle of international law as part of the
law of the land. In international law, the right to self-determination has long been
recognized which states that people can freely determine their political status and freely
pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. There are the internal and
external self-determination—internal, meaning the self-pursuit of man and the external
which takes the form of the assertion of the right to unilateral secession. This principle of
self-determination is viewed with respect accorded to the territorial integrity of existing
states. External self-determination is only afforded in exceptional cases when there is an
actual block in the meaningful exercise of the right to internal self-
determination. International law, as a general rule, subject only to limited and
exceptional cases, recognizes that the right of disposing national territory is essentially an
attribute of the sovereignty of every state.

On matters relative to indigenous people, international law states that indigenous peoples
situated within states do not have a general right to independence or secession from those
 states under international law, but they do have rights amounting to what was discussed
above as the right to internal self-determination; have the right to autonomy or self-
government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and
means for financing their autonomous functions; have the right to the lands, territories
and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or
acquired.

Clearly, there is nothing in the law that required the State to guarantee the indigenous
people their own police and security force; but rather, it shall be the State, through police
officers, that will provide for the protection of the people. With regards to the autonomy
of the indigenous people, the law does not obligate States to grant indigenous peoples the
near-independent status of a state; since it would impair the territorial integrity or
political unity of sovereign and independent states.

• On the concept underlying the MOA-AD

While the MOA-AD would not amount to an international agreement or unilateral

declaration binding on the Philippines under international law, respondents' act of
guaranteeing amendments is, by itself, already a constitutional violation that
renders the MOA-AD fatally defective. The MOA-AD not being a document that can
bind the Philippines under international law notwithstanding, respondents' almost
consummated act of guaranteeing amendments to the legal framework is, by itself,
sufficient to constitute grave abuse of discretion. The grave abuse lies not in the fact that
they considered, as a solution to the Moro Problem, the creation of a state within a state,
but in their brazen willingness to guarantee that Congress and the sovereign Filipino
people would give their imprimatur to their solution. Upholding such an act would
amount to authorizing a usurpation of the constituent powers vested only in Congress, a
Constitutional Convention, or the people themselves through the process of initiative, for
the only way that the Executive can ensure the outcome of the amendment process is
through an undue influence or interference with that process.