Province of North Cotabato v. Government of 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.

ISSUE: Whether or not the signing of the MOA, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines would be binding itself:
a) to create and recognize the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) as a separate state, or a juridical, territorial or political subdivision not
recognized by law;

HELD:
a) YES, the signing of the MOA, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines would be binding itself to create and recognize
the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) as a separate state, or a juridical, territorial or political subdivision not recognized by law. The
provisions of the MOA indicate, among other things, that the Parties aimed to vest in the BJE the status of an associated state or, at any
rate, a status closely approximating it.

The concept of association is not recognized under the present Constitution. No province, city, or municipality, not even the ARMM, is
recognized under our laws as having an “associative” relationship with the national government. Indeed, the concept implies powers that
go beyond anything ever granted by the Constitution to any local or regional government. It also implies the recognition of the associated
entity as a state. The Constitution, however, does not contemplate any state in this jurisdiction other than the Philippine State, much less
does it provide for a transitory status that aims to prepare any part of Philippine territory for independence . The BJE is a far more powerful
entity than the autonomous region recognized in the Constitution. It is not merely an expanded version of the ARMM, the status of its
relationship with the national government being fundamentally different from that of the ARMM. Indeed, BJE is a state in all but name as
it meets the criteria of a state laid down in the Montevideo Convention, namely, a permanent population, a defined territory, a government,
and a capacity to enter into relations with other states. Even assuming arguendo that the MOA-AD would not necessarily sever any portion
of Philippine territory, the spirit animating it – which has betrayed itself by its use of the concept of association – runs counter to the
national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic. The defining concept underlying the relationship between the national
government and the BJE being itself contrary to the present Constitution, it is not surprising that many of the specific provisions of the
MOA-AD on the formation and powers of the BJE are in conflict with the Constitution and the laws. The BJE is more of a state than an
autonomous region. But even assuming that it is covered by the term “autonomous region” in the constitutional provision just quoted, the
MOA-AD would still be in conflict with it.

CONCLUSION: In sum, the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process committed grave abuse of discretion when he failed to carry out
the pertinent consultation process, as mandated by E.O. No. 3, Republic Act No. 7160, and Republic Act 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. The MOA-AD 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.