Province of North Cotabato vs. The Government of the Republic of the Philippines
Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain
Facts:
The province of Cotabato along with the City Government of Zamboanga, The City of
Iligan, The Provicinal Government of Zamboanga Del Norte along with many others filed a
petition to cease signing of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD).
The MOA-AD is an important part of the series of agreements by the Government of the
Republic of the Philippines and the MILF to carry out the Tripoli Agreement in 2001. The
memorandum proposes the expansion of the ARMM into a state. They would have their own
government, they would have jurisdiction over the all natural resources within the internal
waters 15 kilometers from the coastline of the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity area and they
are also entitled to have territorial waters.
The parties claimed that the MOA-AD be deemed unconstitutional for there are
provisions in the memorandum that would require amendments and changes to the existing
legal framework once it is signed. The parties also asserted that there was no proper
information dissemination regarding the MOA-AD and its content. In addition to this, the
petitioners also asserted that the memorandum was drafted without consulting the local
government units or communities that would be affected by the agreement.
On August 4, 2008, the court issued a temporary restraining order commanding the
public respondents to cease and desist from signing the MOA-AD. The court also demanded
that the Solicitor General submit the official copy and final draft of the said memorandum to
which, the Solicitor General Complied.
Issues:
A) Whether the respondents of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain violate
constitutional and statutory provisions on public consultation and information? (Sec.7,
Article III of the Constitution and Sec 28, Article 2 of the constitution)
B) Whether the contents of the MOA-AD violate the constitution and the laws?
Ruling:
The court ruled that the motion of the respondents to dismiss the case is dismissed
and the main and intervening petitions are given due course and hereby granted. The
Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain aspect of the GPR-MILF Tripoli
Agreement on Peace of 2001 is declared contrary to law and the constitution.
A)
The respondents of the MOA-AD violated the Article III Sec. 7 of the constitution,
which invokes the right to information on public concerns as well as the Article II, Sec 28 of
the constitution, which recognizes the duty of the officialdom to give information about
public concerns without anyone demanding it. The respondents violated these provisions
for the failed to consult the respective local governments to be affected if the memorandum
is signed.
B)
The court ruled that the MOA-AD is contrary to law and the constitution because it
cannot be reconciled with the present constitution and laws. No only to its specific
provisions but the very concept underlying them most especially the associative
relationship envisioned by the GRP and the BJE (Bangsamoro Juridical Entity).
The court deemed the “associative relationship” envisioned by between the GRP
and BJE unconstitutional for it implies that the BJE is a state and is on its way to
independence. The memorandum fundamentally gives the BJE the main elements to
function as a state (people, territory, government and sovereignty). An associative
relationship is formed when two states of unequal power voluntarily enters into durable
links (Kietner & Reisman, 2003). The state of higher power will delegate tasks to the other
state until it is fit to be independent. In the international practice “associated state” is
usually used as a transitional device of former colonies on their way to independence.
This practice is not recognized in our present constitution and no city or
municipality is entitled to have an associative relationship with the national government.
The concepts implied in the MOA-AD go beyond anything ever granted by the constitution to
any local government unit.