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 peoples 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 petitioners 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 Presidents
authority to propose constitutional amendments.
Ruling
The respondents 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 issues 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.