Province of North Cotabato, et. al. v.

GRP,
G.R. No. 183591
October 14, 2008

The Supreme Court through Justice Carpio

Facts:

On August 5, 2008, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) were scheduled to sign a
Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) Aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli
Agreement on Peace of 2001 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The MOA-AD is a result of various agreements
entered into by and between the government and the MILF.

The Solicitor General, who represents respondents, summarizes the MOA-AD by stating that it contains
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.

In 2005, several exploratory talks were held between the parties in Kuala Lumpur, eventually leading to
the crafting of the draft MOA-AD in its final form, which, as mentioned, was set to be signed last August
5, 2008.

Province of North Cotabato, Province of Zamboanga del Norte, City of Iligan and City of Zamboanga and
petitioners-in-intervention Province of Sultan Kudarat, City of Isabela and Municipality of Linamon, the
petitioners, have locus standi that the LGUs would suffer as their territories are to be included in the
intended domain of the BJE. These petitioners allege that they did not vote for their inclusion in the
ARMM which would be expanded to form the BJE territory.

Ernesto Maceda, Jejomar Binay and Aquilino Pimentel III, the petitioners, would have no standing as
citizens and taxpayers for their failure to specify that they would be denied some right or privilege or
there would be wastage of public funds.

Franklin Drilon and Adel Tamano, the intervenors, 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.

Senator Manuel Roxas, an intervenor, his standing is premised on his being a member of the Senate and
a citizen to enforce compliance by respondents of the public's constitutional right to be informed of the
MOA-AD, as well as on a genuine legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success or failure of
either of the parties.

Ruy Elias Lopez, an intervenor, as a former congressman of the 3rd district of Davao City, a taxpayer and
a member of the Bagobo tribe; Carlo B. Gomez, et al., as members of the IBP Palawan chapter, citizens
and taxpayers; Marino Ridao, as taxpayer, resident and member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of
Cotabato City; and Kisin Buxani, as taxpayer, they failed to allege any proper legal interest in the present
petitions.
Muslim Multi-Sectoral Movement for Peace and Development, an intervening respondent, 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, allege that they stand to
be benefited or prejudiced, as the case may be, in the resolution of the petitions concerning the MOA-
AD, and prays for the denial of the petitions on the grounds therein stated.

Issue:

1. Whether or not the MOA-AD inconsistent with the Philippine Constitution and laws.

Ruling:

Yes, the MOA-AD is inconsistent with the Philippine Constitution and laws.

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.

While there is a clause in the MOA-AD stating that the provisions thereof is inconsistent with the
present legal framework will not be effective until that framework is amended, the same does not cure
its defect. The inclusion of provisions in the MOA-AD establishing an associative relationship between
the BJE and the Central Government is, itself, a violation of the Memorandum of Instructions from the
president dated March 1, 2001, addressed to the government peace panel. Moreover, as the clause is
worded, it virtually guarantees that the necessary amendments to the Constitution and the laws will
eventually be put in place. Neither the GRP Peace Panel nor the President herself is authorized to make
such a guarantee. 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.

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.

The MOA-AD is inconsistent with the Philippine Constitution and laws.

Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that the respondents’ motion to dismiss is denied. The main and
intervening petitions are given due course and hereby granted. The Memorandum of Agreement on the
Ancestral Domain Aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 is declared contrary to
law and the Constitution.