THE PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO

vs.
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON
ANCESTRAL DOMAIN (GRP).
G.R. NO. 183591 OCTOBER 14, 2008

FACTS:

The Subject of these consolidated cases is the extent of the powers of the President in
pursuing the peace process. 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. There are five cases bearing the same subject matter were
consolidated by this court. On July 23, 2008, the Province of North Cotabato and Vice-Governor
Emmanuel Piñol filed a petition, docketed as G.R. No. 183591, for Mandamus and Prohibition
with Prayer for the Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order.
Invoking the right to information on matters of public concern, petitioners seek to compel
respondents to disclose and furnish them the complete and official copies of the MOA-AD
including its attachments, and to prohibit the slated signing of the MOA-AD, pending the
disclosure of the contents of the MOA-AD and the holding of a public consultation thereon.
Supplementarily, petitioners pray that the MOA-AD be declared unconstitutional.
This initial petition was followed by another one, docketed as G.R. No. 183752, also for
Mandamus and Prohibition filed by the City of Zamboanga, Mayor Celso Lobregat, Rep. Ma.
Isabelle Climaco and Rep. Erico Basilio Fabian who likewise pray for similar injunctive reliefs.
Petitioners herein moreover pray that the City of Zamboanga be excluded from the Bangsamoro
Homeland and/or Bangsamoro Juridical Entity and, in the alternative, that the MOA-AD be
declared null and void.
Meanwhile, the City of Iligan filed a petition for Injunction and/or Declaratory Relief,
docketed as G.R. No. 183893, praying that respondents be enjoined from signing the MOA-AD
or, if the same had already been signed, from implementing the same, and that the MOA-AD be
declared unconstitutional. Petitioners herein additionally implead Executive Secretary Eduardo
Ermita as respondent.
The Province of Zamboanga del Norte,Governor Rolando Yebes, Vice-Governor Francis
Olvis, Rep. Cecilia Jalosjos-Carreon, Rep. Cesar Jalosjos, and the members of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Zamboanga del Norte filed on August 15, 2008 a petition for
Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition,docketed as G.R. No. 183951. They pray, inter alia, that
the MOA-AD be declared null and void and without operative effect, and that respondents be
enjoined from executing the MOA-AD.
 On August 19, 2008, Ernesto Maceda, Jejomar Binay, and Aquilino Pimentel III filed a petition
for Prohibition,docketed as G.R. No. 183962, praying for a judgment prohibiting and
permanently enjoining respondents from formally signing and executing the MOA-AD and or any
other agreement derived therefrom or similar thereto, and nullifying the MOA-AD for being
unconstitutional and illegal. Petitioners herein additionally implead as respondent the MILF
Peace Negotiating Panel represented by its Chairman Mohagher Iqbal.

The signing of the MOA-AD between the GRP and the MILF was not to materialize, however,
for upon motion of petitioners, specifically those who filed their cases before the scheduled
signing of the MOA-AD, this Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the GRP
from signing the same. The MOA-AD was preceded by a long process of negotiation and the
concluding of several prior agreements between the two parties beginning in 1996, when the
GRP-MILF peace negotiations began. On July 18, 1997, the GRP and MILF Peace Panels
signed the Agreement on General Cessation of Hostilities. The following year, they signed the
General Framework of Agreement of Intent on August 27, 1998. The Solicitor General, who
represents respondents, summarizes the MOA-AD by stating that the same contained, among
others, the commitment of the parties to pursue peace negotiations, protect and respect human
rights, negotiate with sincerity in the resolution and pacific settlement of the conflict, and refrain
from the use of threat or force to attain undue advantage while the peace negotiations on the
substantive agenda are on-going.
Embodied in concepts and principles, is the definition of Bangsamoro as all indigenous
peoples of Mindanao and its adjacent islands. These people have the right to self- governance
of their Bangsamoro homeland to which they have exclusive ownership by virtue of their prior
rights of occupation in the land. The MOA-AD goes on to describe the Bangsamoro people as
"the ‘First Nation' with defined territory and with a system of government having entered into
treaties of amity and commerce with foreign nations." It then mentions for the first time the
"Bangsamoro Juridical Entity" (BJE) to which it grants the authority and jurisdiction over the
Ancestral Domain and Ancestral Lands of the Bangsamoro.
ISSUES

 Whether the respondents violate constitutional and statutory provisions on public

consultation and the right to information when they negotiated and later initialed the
MOA-AD.
 Whether the contents of the MOA-AD violated the Constitution and the laws.
RULLING
The SC declared the MOA-AD contrary to law and the Constitution.

Yes, The SC ruled that the MOA-AD is a matter of public concern, involving as it does the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State, which directly affects the lives of the public at
large. The policy of public disclosure establishes a concrete ethical principle for the conduct of
public affairs in a genuinely open democracy, with the people's right to know as the centerpiece.
It is a mandate of the State to be accountable by following such policy. These provisions are
vital to the exercise of the freedom of expression and essential to hold public officials at all times
accountable to the people. it is essential to keep open a continuing dialogue or process of
communication between the government and the people. It is in the interest of the State that the
channels for free political discussion be maintained to the end that the government may
perceive and be responsive to the people's will. As such, respondent Esperon committed grave
abuse of discretion for failing to carry out 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 thereto. Moreover, he cannot
invoke of executive privilege because he already waived it when he complied with the Court’s
order to the unqualified disclosure of the official copies of the final draft of the MOA-AD.
The contents of the MOA-AD is a matter of paramount public concern involving public interest in
the highest order. In declaring that the right to information contemplates steps and negotiations
leading to the consummation of the contract, jurisprudence finds no distinction as to the
executory nature or commercial character of the agreement.

The MOA-AD would not amount to an international agreement or unilateral declaration binding
on the Philippines under international law, respondents' act of guaranteeing amendments is, by
itself, already a constitutional violation that renders the MOA-AD fatally defective. The MOA-AD
not being a document that can bind the Philippines under international law notwithstanding,
respondents' almost consummated act of guaranteeing amendments to the legal framework is,
by itself, sufficient to constitute grave abuse of discretion. The grave abuse lies not in the fact
that they considered, as a solution to the Moro Problem, the creation of a state within a state,
but in their brazen willingness to guarantee that Congress and the sovereign Filipino people
would give their imprimatur to their solution. Upholding such an act would amount to authorizing
a usurpation of the constituent powers vested only in Congress, a Constitutional Convention, or
the people themselves through the process of initiative, for the only way that the Executive can
ensure the outcome of the amendment process is through an undue influence or interference
with that process.
An essential element of these twin freedoms is to keep a continuing dialogue or process of
communication between the government and the people. Corollary to these twin rights is the
design for feedback mechanisms. The right to public consultation was envisioned to be a
species of these public rights.
At least three pertinent laws animate these constitutional imperatives and justify the exercise of
the people's right to be consulted on relevant matters relating to the peace agenda.
One, E.O. No. 3 itself is replete with mechanics for continuing consultations on both national
and local levels and for a principal forum for consensus-building. In fact, it is the duty of the
Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process to conduct regular dialogues to seek relevant
information, comments, advice, and recommendations from peace partners and concerned
sectors of society.
Two, Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991 requires all national offices
to conduct consultations before any project or program 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, is implemented therein. The MOA-AD is one peculiar program that unequivocally
and unilaterally vests ownership of a vast territory to the Bangsamoro people, which could
pervasively and drastically result to the diaspora or displacement of a great number of
inhabitants from their total environment.
Three, Republic Act No. 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 provides for clear-
cut procedure for the recognition and delineation of ancestral domain, which entails, among
other things, the observance of the free and prior informed consent of the Indigenous Cultural
Communities/Indigenous Peoples. Notably, the statute does not grant the Executive
Department or any government agency the power to delineate and recognize an ancestral
domain claim by mere agreement or compromise.
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. While the MOA-AD
would not amount to an international agreement or unilateral declaration binding on the
Philippines under international law, respondents' act of guaranteeing amendments is, by itself,
already a constitutional violation that renders the MOA-AD fatally defective. WHEREFORE,
respondents' motion to dismiss is DENIED. The main and intervening petitions are GIVEN DUE
COURSE and hereby GRANTED.