PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO V.

GOVT OF THE REP OF THE PHILIPPINES

GR 183591, Oct 14, 2008
CARPIO MORALES, J.:

FACTS:
On August 5, 2008, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and
the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), through the Chairpersons of their respective
peace negotiating representatives, were scheduled to sign a Memorandum of Agreement
on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD). The MOA-AD not only encapsulated four
previous agreements between the GRP and MILF but also encompassed two agreements
involving the GRP and the MNLF.

On July 23, 2008, North Cotabato and Vice-Governor Emmanuel Piñol petitioned
the Supreme Court to stop the MOA-AD signing until its contents were disclosed and a
public consultation held. Another petition, G.R. No. 183752, was filed by Zamboanga
City, Mayor Celso Lobregat, Rep. Ma. Isabelle Climaco, and Rep. Erico Basilio Fabian,
also seeking to halt the agreement.

On August 4, 2008, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order

against the MOA-AD signing. It required the Solicitor General to submit the official copy
of the final draft of the MOA-AD to the Court and petitioners. Subsequently, more
petitions and interventions were filed against the MOA-AD, and two comments in
intervention favored the MOA-AD.

Under the Concept and Principles, in the overview of MOA-AD, it was mentioned
that the MOA-AD described 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.". Additionally, the Territory section of the overview
states that "the Bangsamoro homeland is described as the land mass as well as the
maritime, terrestrial, fluvial, and alluvial domains, including the aerial domain and the
atmospheric space above it, embracing the Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan geographic region."
More particularly, it states that "the core of the BJE is defined as the present geographic
area of the ARMM - thus constituting the following areas: Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao,
Sulu, Tawi-Tawi, Basilan, and Marawi City. Significantly, this core also includes certain
municipalities of Lanao del Norte that voted for inclusion in the ARMM in the 2001
plebiscite."

In the petitions at bar, petitioners Province of North Cotabato (G.R. No. 183591)
Province of Zamboanga del Norte (G.R. No. 183951), City of Iligan (G.R. No. 183893)
and City of Zamboanga (G.R. No. 183752) and petitioners-in-intervention Province of
Sultan Kudarat, City of Isabela and Municipality of Linamon have locus standi in view of
the direct and substantial injury that they, as LGUs, would suffer as their territories,
whether in whole or in part, 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.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the respondents violated constitutional and statutory provisions on
public consultation and the right to information when they negotiated and later
initiated the MOA-AD.
2. Whether or not the contents of the MOA-AD violate the Constitution and the
laws.

RULING:
1. Yes, when respondents negotiated and initiated the MOA-AD, they violated
constitutional and statutory provisions on public consultation and the right to
information. The MOA-AD is a public concern, as admitted by the respondents
themselves. The people's right to information about the government's activities is
essential for a functioning democracy, where they can hold their government
accountable and make informed decisions about public policy. The Supreme
Court affirmed this, stating that the MOA-AD involved the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of the Philippines, which directly affects the lives of the
public. In addition, the right to information includes the right to be consulted on
matters of public concern, such as the peace process between the government and
the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). In addition, 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.

2. Yes, it is clear that the MOA-AD contains numerous provisions that cannot be
reconciled with the Constitution and the laws. 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. 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. The
MOA-AD also does not comply with Article X, Section 20 of the Constitution,
which requires that the creation of an autonomous region be approved by a
majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite. Moreover, the MOA-AD is also
inconsistent with prevailing statutory laws, such as Republic Act No. 9054 (the
Organic Act of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao) and the Indigenous
Peoples' Rights Act (IPRA). The use of the term "Bangsamoro" in the MOA-AD
contrasts with the definition of "Bangsamoro people" in the Organic Act,
distinguishing between the Bangsamoro people and other indigenous peoples
living in Mindanao. The IPRA 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.