The Province of North Cotabato v. The Gov’t. of the Phils. Peace
Panel on Ancestral Domain
G.R. No. 183591, October 14, 2008.
FACTS:
On August 5, 2008, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the
MILF, through the Chairpersons of their respective peace negotiating panels, 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 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.
Petitoners file with the Supreme Court petitions 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.
ISSUE:
The rules culled from cases where a citizen, a taxpayer, a legislator or member of
Congress, a local government unit or intervenors may be accorded standing to sue
RULING:
For a party to have locus standi, one must allege “such a personal stake in the
outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the
presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult
constitutional questions.”
Because constitutional cases are often public actions in which the relief sought is
likely to affect other persons, a preliminary question frequently arises as to this interest in the
constitutional question raised.
When suing as a citizen, the person complaining must allege that he has been or is
about to be denied some right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that he is about
to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act complained
of. When the issue concerns a public right, it is sufficient that the petitioner is a citizen and
has an interest in the execution of the laws.
For a taxpayer, one is allowed to sue where there is an assertion that public funds are
illegally disbursed or deflected to an illegal purpose, or that there is a wastage of public funds
through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. The Court retains discretion
whether or not to allow a taxpayer’s suit.
In the case of a legislator or member of Congress, an act of the Executive that injures
the institution of Congress causes a derivative but nonetheless substantial injury that can be
questioned by legislators. A member of the House of Representatives has standing to
1
maintain inviolate the prerogatives, powers and privileges vested by the Constitution in his
office.
An organization may be granted standing to assert the rights of its members, but the
mere invocation by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any member of the legal
profession of the duty to preserve the rule of law does not suffice to clothe it with standing.
As regards a local government unit (LGU), it can seek relief in order to protect or
vindicate an interest of its own, and of the other LGUs.
Intervenors, meanwhile, may be given legal standing upon showing of facts that
satisfy the requirements of the law authorizing intervention, such as a legal interest in the
matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties.
In any case, the Court has discretion to relax the procedural technicality on locus
standi, given the liberal attitude it has exercised, highlighted in the case of David v.
Macapagal-Arroyo, where technicalities of procedure were brushed aside, the constitutional
issues raised being of paramount public interest or of transcendental importance deserving the
attention of the Court in view of their seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents. The
Court’s forbearing stance on locus standi on issues involving constitutional issues has for its
purpose the protection of fundamental rights.
In not a few cases, the Court, in keeping with its duty under the Constitution to
determine whether the other branches of government have kept themselves within the limits
of the Constitution and the laws and have not abused the discretion given them, has brushed
aside technical rules of procedure.
2