1. THE PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO VS.

GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE

PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN (GRP), October 14, 2008
Facts:
On 8 August 2008, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP),
represented by the GRP Peace Panel and the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (PAPP),
and the MoroIslamic Liberation Front (MILF) were scheduled to sign the Memorandum of
Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) Aspect of the previous GRP-MILF Tripoli
Agreement on Peace of 2001 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The MOA-AD
included, among others, a stipulation that creates the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE), to
which the GRP grants the authority and jurisdiction over the ancestral domain and
ancestral lands of the Bangsamoro defined as the present geographic area of the
ARMM constituted by Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu, Tawi-Tawi, Basilan, and Marawi City,
as well as the municipalities of Lanao del Norte which voted for inclusion in the ARMM in the
2001 plebiscite. The BJE is then granted the power to build, develop, and maintain its own
institutions. The MOA-AD also described the relationship of the GRP and the BJE as
associative, characterized by shared authority and responsibility. It further provides that its
provisions requiring amendments to the
existing legal framework shall take effect upon signing of a Comprehensive Compact. Before
the signing, however, the Province of North Cotabato sought to compel the respondents to
disclose and furnish it with complete and official copies of the MOA-AD, as well as to hold
a public consultation thereon, invoking its right to information on matters of public concern. A
subsequent petition sought to have the City of Zamboanga excluded from the BJE. The Court
then issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on 4 August 2008, directing the public
respondents and their agents to cease and desist from formally signing the MOA-AD.
Issue:
Whether or Not there is a violation of the peoples right to information on matters of
public concern (1987 Constitution,Art. III, Sec. 7) under a state policy of full disclosure of all its
transactions involving public interest (1987 Constitution,Art. II, Sec. 28), including public
consultation under RA No.7160 (Local Government Code of 1991)?
Held:
Yes.
The Supreme Court provides at least three pertinent laws that
animate these constitutional imperatives and justify the exercise of the peoples right to be
consulted on relevant matters relating to the peace agenda, these laws are as follows:
EO No. 3, which enumerates the functions andresponsibilities of the PAPP, is replete with
mechanics for continuing consultations on both national and local levels and for a
principal forum for consensus-building. In fact, it is the duty of the PAPP to conduct
regular dialogues to seek relevant information, comments, advice, and
recommendations from peace partners and concerned sectors of society;
RA No. 7160 (LGC) requires all national offices to conduct consultations before any
project or program 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
is implemented therein. The MOA-AD is one peculiar program that unequivocally
and unilaterallyvests ownership of a vast territory to theBangsamoro people, which coul
d pervasively and drastically result to the diaspora or displacement of a
great number of inhabitants from their total environment;
RA No. 8371 (IPRA) provides for clearcut procedure for the recognition and delineation o
f ancestral domain, which entails, among other things,
the observance of the free and prior informed consent of the Indigenous Cultural
Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICC/IP).