The petitioners sought to enjoin the signing of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) between the Government of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). The petitioners argued that the contents of the MOA-AD violate the constitution in establishing the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity with an associative relationship to the central government that is not recognized. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents violated the rights to public consultation and information in their negotiations. It also ruled that the MOA-AD's provisions establishing the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity's territory and powers are unconstitutional and require amendments not possible under the current constitution.
In The Matter of Save The Supreme Court Judicial Independence and Fiscal Autonomy Movement v. Abolition of Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and Reduction of Fiscal Autonomy-Digest
The petitioners sought to enjoin the signing of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) between the Government of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). The petitioners argued that the contents of the MOA-AD violate the constitution in establishing the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity with an associative relationship to the central government that is not recognized. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents violated the rights to public consultation and information in their negotiations. It also ruled that the MOA-AD's provisions establishing the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity's territory and powers are unconstitutional and require amendments not possible under the current constitution.
The petitioners sought to enjoin the signing of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) between the Government of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). The petitioners argued that the contents of the MOA-AD violate the constitution in establishing the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity with an associative relationship to the central government that is not recognized. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents violated the rights to public consultation and information in their negotiations. It also ruled that the MOA-AD's provisions establishing the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity's territory and powers are unconstitutional and require amendments not possible under the current constitution.
The petitioners sought to enjoin the signing of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) between the Government of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). The petitioners argued that the contents of the MOA-AD violate the constitution in establishing the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity with an associative relationship to the central government that is not recognized. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents violated the rights to public consultation and information in their negotiations. It also ruled that the MOA-AD's provisions establishing the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity's territory and powers are unconstitutional and require amendments not possible under the current constitution.
Province of North Cotabato vs Government of the Republic of the
Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (GRP)
Doctrine: Territory. Creation of BJE as an independent State cannot be effected my mere agreement. Establishment of BJE as having an associative relationship with the government is not granted by the present Constitution. Petition: Petition for writ of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition Petitioners: Province of North Cotabato, Zamboanga del Norte, Iligan, Zamboanga City, Province of Sultan Kudarat, City of Isabela and Municipality of Linamon, Ernesto Maceda, Jejomar Binay, Aquilino Pimentel III, Franklin Drilon, Adel Tamano, Senator Manuel Roxas, Ruy Elias Lopez, Muslim Multi-Sectoral Movement for Peace and Development, Muslim Legal Assistance Foundation Inc. Respondent: Government of the republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (GRP) Date: October 14, 2008 Ponente:Carpio-Morales Summary: Petitioners pray for a writ of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition to enjoin the signing of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) between the Central Government and MILF. Facts: August 5, 2008- the government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) & MILF were scheduled to sign a Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA- AD) This negotiation was preceded by many attempts for peace negotiations beginning in 1996 July 18, 1997- GRP & MILF Peace Panels sign the agreement on general cessation of hostilities Aug 27, 1998- signed General Framework of Agreement Intent 1999-2000 MILF attacked municipalities in Mindanao and took control of the town hall of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte. This led President Estrada to declare an all-out-war When President Arroyo assumed office, peace talks resumed with the help of the Prime Minister of Malaysia June 20-22 2001 GRP and MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace: security aspect, rehabilitation aspect, and ancestral domain aspect August 5-7 2001 Implementing Guidelines on the Security Aspect of the Tripoli Agreement and the Implementing Guidelines on the Humanitarian Rehabilitation and Development Aspects (They signed it on May 7, 2002) July 13 2003 MILF Chairman Salamat Hashim passed away and was replaced by Al Haj Murad, the Chief Peace Negotiator Murad was replaced by Mohagler Iqbal Petitioners pray for the issuance of writ of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition to declare the MOA-AD unconstitutional; Zamboanga City, Iligan, and Zamboanga del Norte to be excluded from Bangsamoro Juridical Entity Overview of MOA-AD:
Digest by: Katrina Janine B. Cabanos || Group 1 || I-B 2017
1/5
A. Concepts and Principles
It is the birthright of all Moros and all indigenous peoples of Mindanao to identify themselves as Bangsamoro Bangsamoro people= natives or original inhabitants of Mindanao at the time of colonization, including Palawan and Sulu Bangsamoro homeland= ownership vested upon prior rights of occupation; the ancestral domain does not form part of the public domain; and the Bangsamoro will have the right to self-governance Bangsamoro as the First Nation with defined territory and with a system of government having entered into treaties of amity and commerce with foreign nations Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) = authority and jurisdiction over ancestral domain and ancestral lands of Bangsamoro B. Territory Embraces Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan geographic region; present ARMM Outside this core, BJE is to cover other places which are grouped into Category A and Category B Provinces Category A provinces are subject to a plebiscite 12 months after the signing of MOAAD, while Category B (special intervention areas) provinces are subject to a plebiscite 25 years after the signing of MOA- AD BJE shall have jurisdiction over all natural resources within its jurisdiction The relationship of BJE and the Central Government will be that of joint jurisdiction C. Resources BJE is free to enter into any economic cooperation and trade relations with foreign countries BJE has control over its territorial jurisdiction Sharing between BJE and Government would be that of 75:25, in favor of BJE D. Governance Associative relationship between central government and BJE = shared authority and responsibility Its provisions requiring amendments to the existing legal framework shall take effect upon signing the comprehensive compact and upon effecting said amendments with due regard to non-derogation of prior agreements (opens up the amendment of the Constitution in order to uphold MOA-AD Issues: 1. Preliminary Issues: a) Whether the case at hand is ripe for adjudication b) Whether Petitioners have locus standi c) Whether the case is moot 2. Whether respondents violated constitutional and statutory provisions on public consultation and right to information when they negotiated and initialed the MOA-AD 3. Whether contents of MOA-AD violate the Constitution and laws
Digest by: Katrina Janine B. Cabanos || Group 1 || I-B 2017
2/5
Ruling and Ratio
1. Preliminary Issues a) The case is ripe for adjudication. - Sol. Gen. argues that there is no justiciable controversy that is ripe for the present petition since MOA-AD remain to be a proposal that doesnt create demandable rights and obligations - But, concrete acts are not necessary to render a present controversy ripe - That the law is not yet effective doesnt negate its ripeness b) The petitioners have locus standi. - North Cotabato, ZDN, Iligan, and Zamboanga city will be substantially affected by the signing of MOA-AD since they belong to the territory; they did not vote for their inclusion in BJE - Maceda, Binay, Pimentel they have no standing as taxpayers and citizens for their failure to specify that they would be denied some right or privilege; but since their invocation is a matter of transcendental importance, the Court grants them standing - Senator Manuel Roxas his standing is premised on his being a member of the Senate (requisite standing as intervenor) - Ruy Elias Lopez, Carlo B. Gomez, Marino Riado failed to allege any proper legal interest as taxpayers and citizens, but the Court will relax this technicality and grant them standing - Muslim Multi-Sectoral Movement for Peace and Development & Muslim Legal Assistance Foundation Inc have legal interest, and thus have standing c) The case, although moot and academic, does not stop the court from deciding - No matter what the Supreme Court decides, the government will not sign MOA (executive secretary) - The signing of MOA did not push through because the court issued a TRO - Court will still decide because: There is public interest (possible constitutional amendments) MOA-AD is part of Tripoli Agreement (mootness will not set in light of the terms of Tripoli) Provinces will again be subject to the same issues 2. Yes. - Petitioners invoke Sec 7, Art III of the Constitution- right to information on matters of public concern - Access to public record is predicated on the right of the people to acquire information on matters of public concern since in a democracy, the public has a legitimate interest in such - MOA-AD is indeed a matter of public concern since it involves the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State - Sec. 28, Art II policy of public disclosure complements right to access information; recognizes the DUTY of the officials to give info. even if nobody demands it - Right to information and disclosure goes hand in hand with a feedback mechanism
Digest by: Katrina Janine B. Cabanos || Group 1 || I-B 2017
3/5
E. O. 3 declares that there is a need for the participation of the people;
established petitioners right to be consulted on the peace agenda Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process committed a grave abuse of discretion when he failed to carry out the pertinent consulations Local Government Code prior consultation required before project may be implemented Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) does not grant to the executive the power to delineate and recognize an ancestral domain claim by mere agreement respondents transcended their boundaries of authority
3. Yes. -
Respondents admit the need to amend present constitution to render MOA-AD
effective The associative relationship between the government and BJE is not recognized in our present constitutions Association, in international law, is when two states of unequal power voluntarily establish durable links. One state (associate) delegates certain responsibilities to the principal while maintaining its international status as a state. It is the middle ground between integration and independence. BJE is far more powerful than the autonomous region recognized in the Constitution. It has permanent population, defined territory, a government, capacity to enter into relations with other states, the only thing missing is actually calling BJE a state. Art. X, Sec. 18 only provinces, cities, and geographic areas voting favorably in such plebiscite shall be included in the autonomous region inclusion in ARMM, not BJE Art. X, Sec. 20 would need further amendments to accommodate MOA-AD Art. II, Sec. 22 promotes rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity associative arrangement doesnt uphold national unity R.A. 9054 (IPRA), Art.X, sec. 3 is a bar to the adoption of the definition of Bangsamoro. There is a distinction between Tribal people and Bangsamoro people. Bangsamoro people are those who believe in Islam, and is not allencompassing as declared in MOA-AD Art. II, Sec. 2 adopts generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. International laws do not recognize the right of national groups to separate themselves from the State of which they form part of by simple expression of a wish. Self-governance is limited to the governance of internal affairs, as opposed to external self-determination, which only the State has the power to do so. Provisions inconsistent with the legal framework will not be effective until that framework is amended (suspensive clause) Legal framework= constitution The executive does not have the power to make such guarantee. President could only propose amendments, Congress has the power to approve
Digest by: Katrina Janine B. Cabanos || Group 1 || I-B 2017
4/5
MOA-AD
IS
The matter of constitutional amendment is not a question of IF, but of
WHEN (granting MOA-AD is signed) Involvement of international 3rd parties (Malaysia) does not mean that the Philippines is making a unilateral declaration that is binding the Philippines internationally. They are only witnesses between Gov. and MILF. Having said that, MOA-AD is still fatally defective. DECLARED CONTRARY TO LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION.
Velasco Jr, Dissent:
MILF was not served a copy of the petition though they are a proper party to the case. Thus, the court cannot decide and make its decision binding when one of the parties is not informed. MOA-AD is only a proposal, not an independent source of obligation. It will amount to striking down a non-existent agreement Moot and academic since its perfection was aborted In granting the writs, court is disregarding the separation of powers doctrine. The Executive should still have power to negotiate peace agreements, but the court will infringe upon this power. Nachura, Dissent: After the grant of TRO, there is no longer an actual controversy since document wasnt signed Peace Panel has already been disbanded No violation of constitution that will justify judicial review since MOA-AD has not been signed President, as Chief Executive. Has the power to negotiate peace with MILF via E.O. 3 Grave abuse of discretion can only characterize consummated acts
Digest by: Katrina Janine B. Cabanos || Group 1 || I-B 2017
In The Matter of Save The Supreme Court Judicial Independence and Fiscal Autonomy Movement v. Abolition of Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and Reduction of Fiscal Autonomy-Digest