Topic: Statehood and Sovereignty
Case title: The Province of North Cotabato v. Government, G.R. No. 183591, 568 SCRA 402, Oct. 14, 2008
1. On August 5, 2008, the Government of the
Philippines and the MILF were scheduled to sign Whether
a Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Constitution and by laws
Domain aspect of their peace agreement. The
signing was halted by a court-issued Temporary
Restraining Order due to petitioner objections.
2. The MILF had engaged in hostilities in Central
Mindanao in 1999-2000, leading to President
Estrada's "all-out-war" response. The GRP-MILF
Tripoli Agreement of 2001 outlined principles and
agenda for negotiation, including Security,
Rehabilitation, and Ancestral Domain. The
Ancestral Domain aspect was left for further
discussion.
3. After exploratory talks in 2005, a draft MOA-AD
was crafted, set to be signed on August 5, 2008.
On August 19, 2008, petitioners Maceda, Binay,
and Pimentel filed a prohibition petition, seeking
to prevent the signing of the MOA-AD, claiming it
was unconstitutional. The MILF Peace
Negotiating Panel, led by Chairman Iqbal, was
also named as a respondent.
MOA-AD violated the YES. MOA-AD violated the Constitution and by laws.
In international practice, the "associated state" arrangement has usually
been used as a transitional device of former colonies on their way to full
independence. Examples of states that have passed through the status
of associated states as a transitional phase are Antigua, St. Kitts-Nevis-
Anguilla, Dominica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenada. All have since
become independent states.
Back to the MOA-AD, it contains many provisions which are consistent
with the international legal concept of association, specifically the
following: the BJE's capacity to enter into economic and trade relations
with foreign countries, the commitment of the Central Government to
ensure the BJE's participation in meetings and events in the ASEAN
and the specialized UN agencies, and the continuing responsibility of
the Central Government over external defense. Moreover, the BJE's
right to participate in Philippine official missions bearing on negotiation
of border agreements, environmental protection, and sharing of
revenues pertaining to the bodies of water adjacent to or between the
islands forming part of the ancestral domain, resembles the right of the
governments of FSM and the Marshall Islands to be consulted by the
U.S. government on any foreign affairs matter affecting them.
These 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.
Furthermore, the MOA-AD would have been signed by representatives
of States and international organizations not parties to the Agreement
would not have sufficed to vest in it a binding character under
international law.

The Philippine panel did not draft the same with the clear intention of
being bound thereby to the international community as a whole or to
any State, but only to the MILF. While there were States and
international organizations involved, one way or another, in the
negotiation and projected signing of the MOA-AD, they participated
merely as witnesses or, in the case of Malaysia, as facilitator. As held in
the Lomé Accord case, the mere fact that in addition to the parties to
the conflict, the peace settlement is signed by representatives of states
and international organizations does not mean that the agreement is
internationalized so as to create obligations in international law.

Since the commitments in the MOA-AD were not addressed to States,

not to give legal effect to such commitments would not be detrimental to
the security of international intercourse - to the trust and confidence
essential in the relations among States.

Note: The Supreme Court of the Philippines struck down a preliminary

document that identified guideposts for future peace negotiations with
the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). After the Supreme Court
decision and fresh negotiations with the MILF, Congress considered a
bill—the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL)—that would have granted the
Muslim majority of the southern Philippines a greater measure of
autonomy. However, recent clashes with the MILF have fed anti-Muslim
sentiments, poisoned the discourse on the validity of the bill, and
dimmed hopes for an end to this decade sold conflict. The Bangsamoro
Basic Law, the “embodiment of the [proposed] peace agreement
between the Philippine government and the [MILF],” failed after an
armed clash between the MILF and Philippine police officers. However,
even without recent conflicts and even if there was little opposition to
the bill in the House of Representatives, there were still Senators who
thought that many of the BBL’s provisions were unconstitutional.