Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Province of North Cotabato Vs GRP
Province of North Cotabato Vs GRP
Province of North Cotabato Vs GRP
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.