Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the
Because although the
Republic of the Philippines
(G.R. Nos. 183591, 183752, 183893, 183951, &183962)
(14 October 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 Moro Islamic 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.
Issues and Ruling:
1.W/N the President has the power to pursue reforms
that would require new legislation and constitutional
amendments.
YES. However, the stipulation in the MOA-AD that
virtually guarantees that necessary changes shall be
effected upon the legal framework of the GRP must be
struck down as unconstitutional as itis inconsistent with
the limits of the President’s authority to propose
1
The right of the people to information on matters of public
concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to
documents and papers pertaining to official acts,
transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research
data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded
constitutional amendments.
President’s power to conduct peace negotiations is
implicitly included in her powers as Chief Executive and
Commander-in-Chief, and, in the course of conducting
peace negotiations, may validly consider implementing
even those policies that require changes to the
Constitution, she may not unilaterally implement them
without the intervention of Congress, or act in any way
as if the assent of that body were assumed as a
certainty.
2. W/N there is a violation of the people’s right to
information on matters of public concern (1987
Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 71) under a state policy of
full disclosure of all its transactions involving public
interest (1987 Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 282),
including public consultation under RA No.7160
(Local Government Code of 1991).
YES. At least three pertinent laws animate these
constitutional imperatives and justify the exercise of the
people’s right to be consulted on relevant matters
relating to the peace agenda:
a. EO No. 3, which enumerates the functions and
responsibilities 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;
b. 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 unilaterally vests ownership of a vast
territory to the Bangsamoro people, which could
pervasively and drastically result to the diaspora or
displacement of a great number of inhabitants from their
total environment;
c. RA No. 8371 (IPRA) provides for clear-cut procedure
for the recognition and delineation of 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).
the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by
law.
2
Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the
State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure
of all its transactions involving public interest.
3. W/N the GRP Peace Panel and the PAPP
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction.
YES. The PAPP committed grave abuse of discretion
when he failed to carry out the pertinent consultation
process, as mandated by EO No. 3, RA No. 7160, and
RA No. 8371. The furtive process by which the MOA-AD
was designed and crafted runs contrary to and in excess
of the legal authority, and amounts to a whimsical,
capricious ,oppressive, arbitrary, and despotic exercise
thereof. It illustrates a gross evasion of positive duty and
a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined.
4. W/N the MOA-AD is constitutional.
NO. It cannot be reconciled with the present
Constitution and laws. Not only its specific provisions,
but the very concept underlying them, namely, the
associative relationship envisioned between the GRP
and the BJE, are unconstitutional, for the concept
presupposes that the associated entity is a state and
implies that the same is on its way to independence.
While there is a clause in the MOA-AD stating that the
provisions thereof inconsistent with the present legal
framework will not be effective until that framework is
amended, the same does not cure its defect. The
inclusion of provisions in the MOA-AD establishing an
associative relationship between the BJE and the
Central Government is, itself, a violation of the
Memorandum of Instructions From The President
addressed to the government peace panel. Moreover, as
the clause is worded, it virtually guarantees that the
necessary amendments to the Constitution and the laws
will eventually be put in place. Neither the GRP Peace
Panel nor the President herself is authorized to make
such a guarantee. 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
5.W/N the GRP can invoke executive privilege.
NO. Respondents effectively waived such defense after
it unconditionally disclosed the official copies of the final
draft of the MOA-AD, for judicial compliance and public
scrutiny.
Carpio-Morales, J.
The people’s right to information on matters of public
concern under Sec. 7, Art. III of the Constitution is in
splendid symmetry with the state policy of full public
disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest
under Sec. 28, Art. II of the Constitution. The right to
information guarantees the right of the people to demand
information, while the policy of public disclosure
recognizes the duty of officialdom to give information
even if nobody demands. The IPRA does not grant the
Executive Department or any government agency the
power to delineate and recognize an ancestral domain
claim by mere agreement or compromise. An
association is formed when two states of unequal power
voluntarily establish durable links. In the basic model,
one state, the associate, delegates certain
responsibilities to the other, the principal, while
maintaining its international status as a state. Free
associations represent a middle ground between
integration and independence. The recognized sources
of international law establish that the right to self-
determination of a people is normally fulfilled through
internal self-determination—a people’s pursuit of its
political, economic, social, and cultural development
within the framework of an existing state. A right to
external self-determination (which in this case potentially
takes the form of the assertion of a right to unilateral
secession) arises only in the most extreme of cases and,
even then, under carefully defined circumstances. That
the authority of the President to conduct peace
negotiations with rebel groups is not explicitly mentioned
in the Constitution does not mean that she has no such
authority. The President has authority, as stated in her
oath of office, only to preserve and defend the
Constitution. Such presidential power does not,
however, extend to allowing her to change the
Constitution, but simply to recommend proposed
amendments or revision. As long as she limits herself to
recommending these changes and submits to the proper
procedure for constitutional amendments and revision,
her mere recommendation need not be construed as an
unconstitutional act. Public statements of a state
representative may be construed as a unilateral
declaration only when the following conditions are
present: the statements were clearly addressed to the
international community, the state intended to be bound
to that community by its statements, and that not to give
legal effect to those statements would be detrimental to
the security of international intercourse. Plainly unilateral
declarations arise only in peculiar circumstances