The Province of North Cotabato, et al. vs
The Government of the Republic of the Philippines, et al.
October 14, 2008
FACTS:



During the time of Pres. Arroyo, the government had peace talks with the MILF which resulted
to the crafting of GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace (aka Tripoli Agreement 2001)
Tripoli Agreement consists of:
o Security Aspect, Rehabilitation Aspect, and Ancestral Domain Aspect
Various negotiations were held which led to the finalization of the Agreement on the Ancestral
Domain (MOA-AD)
MOA-AD grants :
o that the relationship between the GRP and MILF is associative i.e. characterized by
shared authority and responsibility.
o The Bangsamoro People through their appropriate juridical entity shall, among others,
exercise power or authority over the natural resources within its territorial jurisdiction
 the sharing between the Central Government and the BJE of total production
pertaining to natural resources is to be 75:25 in favor of the BJE
o Bangsamoro has the freedom to enter into any economic cooperation with other
countries
o Extent of the territory of the Bangsamoro.
 The Bangsamoro homeland and historic territory refer to the land mass as well
as the maritime, terrestrial, fluvial and alluvial domains, and the aerial domain,
the atmospheric space above it, embracing the Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan
geographic region. However, delimitations are contained in the agreed
Schedules.
 Embodied in the MOA-AD that the BJE shall have jurisdiction over the internal
waters-15kms from the coastline of the BJE territory
 they shall also have "territorial waters," which shall stretch beyond the BJE
internal waters up to the baselines of the Republic of the Philippines (RP) south
east and south west of mainland Mindanao;
 that within these territorial waters, the BJE and the government shall exercise
joint jurisdiction, authority and management over all natural resources. There
will also be sharing of minerals in the territorial waters; but no provision on the
internal waters.
(Full MOA-AD document: https://pcij.org/blog/wp-docs/GRP_MILF_MOA_on_Ancestral_Domain.pdf)
ISSUES:
1. WON the petitions have complied with the procedural requirements for the exercise of
judicial review
2. WON respondents violate constitutional and statutory provisions on public consultation and
the right to information when they negotiated and later initialled the MOA-AD; and
3. WON the contents of the MOA-AD violated the Constitution and the laws
Ruling:
The SC declared the MOA-AD unconstitutional.
With regard to the provisions of the MOA-AD, there can be no question that they cannot be all
accommodated under the present Constitution and laws, not only its specific provisions but the
very concept underlying them.

On the recognition of the BJE entity as a state: The concept implies power beyond what the
Constitution can grant to a local government; even the ARMM do not have such recognition;
and the fact is such concept implies recognition of the associated entity as a state. There is
nothing in the law that contemplate any state within the jurisdiction other than the Philippine
State, much less does it provide for a transitory status that aims to prepare any part of
Philippine territory for independence. The court disagrees with the respondent that the MOAAD merely expands the ARMM. BJE is a state in all but name as it meets the criteria of a state
laid down in the Montevideo Convention, namely, a permanent population, a defined territory,
a government, and a capacity to enter into relations with other states. As such the MOA-AD
clearly runs counter to the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic.

On the expansion of the territory of the BJE:. The territory included in the BJE includes those
areas who voted in the plebiscite for them to become part of the ARMM. The stipulation of the
respondents in the MOA-AD that these areas need not participate in the plebiscite is in contrary
to the express provision of the Constitution. The law states that that "[t]he creation of the
autonomous region shall be effective when approved by a majority of the votes cast by the
constituent units in a plebiscite called for the purpose, provided that only provinces, cities, and
geographic areas voting favorably in such plebiscite shall be included in the autonomous
region." Clearly, assuming that the BJE is just an expansion of the ARMM, it would still run afoul
the wordings of the law since those included in its territory are areas which voted in its inclusion
to the ARMM and not to the BJE.

On the powers vested in the BJE as an entity: The respondents contend that the powers vested
to the BJE in the MOA-AD shall be within sub-paragraph 9 of sec 20, art. 10 of the constitution
and that a mere passage of a law is necessary in order to vest in the BJE powers included in the
agreement. The Court was not persuaded. SC ruled that such conferment calls for amendment
of the Constitution; otherwise new legislation will not concur with the Constitution. Take for
instance the treaty making power vested to the BJE in the MOA-AD. The Constitution is clear
that only the President has the sole organ and is the country’s sole representative with foreign
nation. Should the BJE be granted with the authority to negotiate with other states, the former
provision must be amended consequently. Section 22 must also be amended—the provision of
the law that promotes national unity and development. Because clearly, associative
arrangement of the MOA-AD does not epitomize national unity but rather, of semblance of
unity. The associative ties between the BJE and the national government, the act of placing a
portion of Philippine territory in a status which, in international practice, has generally been a
preparation for independence, is certainly not conducive to national unity.