The Province of North Cotabato et al. v.

The Government of the Republic of the

Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (GRP), et.al.
G.R. Nos. 183591, 183752, 183893, 183951, and 183962,
14 October 2008

FACTS:

On August 5, 2008, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Moro
Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) were scheduled to sign a Memorandum of Agreement of
the Ancestral Domain Aspect of the GRP – MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 in
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Invoking the right to information on matters of public concern, petitioners seek to compel
respondents to disclose and furnish them the complete and official copies of the MOA-AD
including its attachments, and to prohibit the slated signing of the MOA-AD, pending the
disclosure of the contents of the MOA-AD and the holding of a public consultation thereon.
They also pray that the MOA-AD be declared unconstitutional

The signing of the MOA-AD between the GRP and the MILF did not happen because of the
pending petition. The Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the GRP
from signing the same.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the petitions have become moot and academic

(a) in relation to the mandamus petitioned, for the disclosure of official copies of
the final draft of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA); and

(b) in relation to the prohibition aspect involving the LGUs is concerned, if it is

considered that consultation has become fait accompli with the finalization of the
draft

2. Whether or not the MOA-AD is a matter of public concern

3. Whether or not, the provisions of MOA-AD establish an associative relationship
with the Philippine Government and the BJE resulting to the latter as a separate
independent state or a juridical, territorial, political subdivision not recognized
by law (unconstitutional)?

RULING:

1. No, the petitions have not become moot and academic.

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

Page 1 of 3
 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.

The current petitions extend beyond the provisions of the MOA-AD and encompass
ongoing and future negotiations and agreements essential for its implementation.
Therefore, the petitions have not become irrelevant solely due to the public disclosure of
the MOA-AD and the announcement that it will not be signed. Furthermore, these
petitions hold significant public interest, as they pertain to a substantial portion of the
nation's territory and extensive political changes affecting local government units.
Additionally, the assertion that the MOA-AD is subject to potential legal modifications,
including potential Constitutional amendments, offers a basis for the Court to establish
guiding principles that will benefit the judiciary, legal practitioners, the general public,
and, in this particular instance, the government and its negotiating body.

The Court decided to address the constitutional questions raised by the petitioners, even
if the specific MOA-AD in question was no longer being pursued.

2. Yes. In fact, respondents admit that the MOA-AD is indeed of public concern
as it is involving the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State, which
directly affects the lives of the public at large.

The people's right to information on matters of public concern under Sec. 7, Article III of
the Constitution is aligned with the state policy of full public disclosure of all its
transactions involving public interest under Sec. 28, Article II of the Constitution. The
right to information guarantees the right of the people to demand information.

The imperative of a public consultation, as a species of the right to information, is evident

in the "marching orders" to respondents. One of the underlying principles of the
comprehensive peace process is that it "should be community-based, reflecting the
sentiments, values and principles important to all Filipinos" and "shall be defined not by
the government alone, nor by the different contending groups only, but by all Filipinos as
one community."

3. Yes. The provisions of the MOA indicate, that the Parties aimed to vest in the
BJE the status of an associated state or, a status almost equal to it. The
concept of association is not recognized under the present Constitution.

No province, city, or municipality, including the ARMM, is legally acknowledged in our

statutes as having an "associative" affiliation with the national government. This notion
suggests powers that exceed anything ever granted by the Constitution to any local or
regional governing body. It also implies acknowledging the associated entity as a distinct
state. Nevertheless, our Constitution does not recognize any state within this jurisdiction
apart from the Philippine State, and it does not provide for any transitional status meant
to prepare any part of Philippine territory for independence.

The BJE possesses more substantial authority, as outlined in its provisions, than the
autonomous region acknowledged in the Constitution. It is not simply an expanded
version of the ARMM, as its relationship with the national government fundamentally

Page 2 of 3
differs from that of the ARMM. To put it in the court's terminology, "the BJE is essentially
a state in everything but name, as it fulfills the criteria of a state established in the
Montevideo Convention, including a permanent population, a defined territory, a
government, and the capacity to engage in relations with other states."

Page 3 of 3