Macalinao, Romielyn P.

Subject: Constitutional Law 1

Topic: Judicial Review
Title: NORTH COTABATO vs REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
Reference: G.R. No. 183591
FACTS
Subject of this case is the Memorandum of Agreement on the
Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) which is scheduled to be signed by the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the MILF in
August 05, 2008. Five cases bearing the same subject matter were
consolidated by this court.
The MOA-AD is a result of various agreements entered into
by and between the government and the MILF starting in 1996;
then in 1997, they signed the Agreement on General Cessation of
Hostilities; and the following year, they signed the General
Framework of Agreement of Intent on August 27, 1998. However, in
1999 and in the early of 2000, the MILF attacked a number of
municipalities in Central Mindanao. In March 2000, they took the
hall of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte; hence, then Pres. Estrada
declared an all-out war-which tolled the peace negotiation.
It was when then Pres. Arroyo assumed office, when the
negotiation regarding peace in Mindanao continued. MILF was
hesitant; however, this negotiation proceeded when the government
of Malaysia interceded. Formal peace talks resumed and MILF
suspended all its military actions. The Tripoli Agreement in 2001
lead to the ceasefire between the parties. After the death of MILF
Chairman Hashim and Iqbal took over his position, the crafting of
MOA-AD in its final form was born.

On August 5, 2008, the Government of the Republic of the

Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) were
scheduled to sign a Memorandum of Agreement of the Ancestral
Domain Aspect of the GRP - MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of
2001 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Invoking the right to information on matters of public
concern, the petitioners seek to compel respondents to disclose and
furnish them the complete and official copies of the MA-AD and to
prohibit the slated signing of the MOA-AD and the holding of public
consultation thereon. They also pray that the MOA-AD be declared
unconstitutional. The Court issued a TRO enjoining the GRP from
signing the same.
Respondents, by Manifestation and Motion, stated that the
Executive Department shall thoroughly review the MOA-AD and
pursue further negotiations to address the issues hurled against it,
and thus moved to dismiss the cases. In the succeeding exchange
of pleadings, respondents motion was met with vigorous opposition
from petitioners. However, respondents motion to dismiss is DENIED.
ISSUES
Whether or not there is a need for the exercise of judicial
review?
RULINGS
Yes. The power of judicial review is limited to actual cases or
controversy, that is the court will decline on issues that are
hypothetical, feigned problems or mere academic questions. Related
to the requirement of an actual case or controversy is the
requirement of ripeness.

The contention of the Solicitor General is that there is no

issue ripe for adjudication since the MOA-AD is only a proposal and
does not automatically create legally demandable rights and
obligations. Such was denied. The Supreme Court emphasized that
the petitions are alleging acts made in violation of their duty or in
grave abuse of discretion. Well-settled jurisprudence states that
acts made by authority which exceed their authority, by violating
their duties under E.O. No. 3 and the provisions of the Constitution
and statutes, the petitions make a prima facie case for Certiorari,
Prohibition, and Mandamus, and an actual case or controversy ripe
for adjudication exists. When an act of a branch of government is
seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not
only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the
dispute. This is aside from the fact that concrete acts made under
the MOA-AD are not necessary to render the present controversy
ripe and that the law or act in question as not yet effective does not
negate ripeness.
With regards to the locus standi, the court upheld the
personalities of the Province of Cotabato, Province of Zamboanga
del norte, City of Iligan, City of Zamboanga, petitioners in
intervention Province of Sultan Kudarat, City of Isabela and
Municipality of Linnamon to have locus standi since it is their LGUs
which will be affected in whole or in part if include within the BJE.
Intervenors Franklin Drilon and Adel Tamano, in alleging their
standing as taxpayers, assert that government funds would be
expended for the conduct of an illegal and unconstitutional
plebiscite to delineate the BJE territory. On that score alone, they
can be given legal standing. Senator Mar Roxas is also given a
standing as an intervenor. And lastly, the Intervening respondents
Muslim Multi-Sectoral Movement for Peace and Development, an
advocacy group for justice and the attainment of peace and

prosperity in Muslim Mindanao; and Muslim Legal Assistance

Foundation Inc., a non-government organization of Muslim lawyers
since they stand to be benefited or prejudiced in the resolution of
the petitions regarding the MOA-AD.
On the contention of mootness of the issue considering the
signing of the MOA-AD has already been suspended and that the
President has already disbanded the GRP, the Supreme Court
disagrees. The court reiterates that the Moot and Academic
principle, not being a magical formula that automatically dissuades
courts in resolving a case, 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.
The non-signing of the MOA-AD and the eventual dissolution
of the GRP Peace Panel did not moot the present petitions. It bears
emphasis that the signing of the MOA-AD did not push through due
to the Courts issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order. Contrary
too to respondents position, the MOA-AD cannot be considered a
mere list of consensus points, especially given its nomenclature,
the need to have it signed or initialed by all the parties concerned
on August 5, 2008, and the far-reaching Constitutional implications
of these consensus points, foremost of which is the creation of the
BJE. In fact, as what will, in the main, be discussed, there is a
commitment on the part of respondents to amend and effect
necessary changes to the existing legal framework for certain
provisions of the MOA-AD to take effect. Consequently, the present
petitions are not confined to the terms and provisions of the MOA-

AD, but to other on-going and future negotiations and agreements

necessary for its realization.
It is beyond obvious that the petitions are imbued with
paramount public interest, involving a significant part of the
countrys territory and the wide-ranging political modifications of
affected LGUs. The assertion that the MOA-AD is subject to further
legal enactments including possible Constitutional amendments
more than ever provides impetus for the Court to formulate
controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, the public and, in
this case, the government and its negotiating entity.
Clearly, the suspension of the signing of the MOA-AD and the
disbandment of the GRP did not render the petitions moot and
academic. The MOA-AD is subject to further legal enactments
including possible Constitutional amendments more than ever
provides impetus for the Court to formulate controlling principles to
guide the bench, the bar, the public and, in this case, the
government and its negotiating entity.