Public Corporations
The Province of North Cotabato v. The Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on
Ancestral Domain, G.R. No. 183591, October 14, 2008
FACTS:
On July 23, 2008, the Province of North Cotabato and Vice-Governor Emmanuel Piñol filed a
petition, docketed as G.R. No. 183591, for Mandamus and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of
Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. Invoking the right to information on
matters of public concern, petitioners seek to compel respondents to disclose and furnish them the
complete and official copies of the MOA-AD including its attachments, and to prohibit the slated signing
of the MOA-AD, pending the disclosure of the contents of the MOA-AD and the holding of a public
consultation thereon. Supplementarily, petitioners pray that the MOA-AD be declared unconstitutional.
This initial petition was followed by another one, docketed as G.R. No. 183752, also for
Mandamus and Prohibition filed by the City of Zamboanga, Mayor Celso Lobregat, Rep. Ma. Isabelle
Climaco and Rep. Erico Basilio Fabian who likewise pray for similar injunctive reliefs. Petitioners herein
moreover pray that the City of Zamboanga be excluded from the Bangsamoro Homeland and/or
Bangsamoro Juridical Entity and, in the alternative, that the MOA-AD be declared null and void.
By Resolution of August 4, 2008, the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order commanding
and directing public respondents and their agents to cease and desist from formally signing the MOAAD. The Court also required the Solicitor General to submit to the Court and petitioners the official copy
of the final draft of the MOA-AD, to which she complied.
Meanwhile, the City of Iligan filed a petition for Injunction and/or Declaratory Relief, docketed
as G.R. No. 183893, praying that respondents be enjoined from signing the MOA-AD or, if the same had
already been signed, from implementing the same, and that the MOA-AD be declared unconstitutional.
Petitioners herein additionally implead Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita as respondent.
The Province of Zamboanga del Norte, Governor Rolando Yebes, Vice-Governor Francis Olvis,
Rep. Cecilia Jalosjos-Carreon, Rep. Cesar Jalosjos, and the members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Zamboanga del Norte filed on August 15, 2008 a petition for Certiorari, Mandamus and
Prohibition, docketed as G.R. No. 183951. They pray, inter alia, that the MOA-AD be declared null and
void and without operative effect, and that respondents be enjoined from executing the MOA-AD.
On August 19, 2008, Ernesto Maceda, Jejomar Binay, and Aquilino Pimentel III filed a petition for
Prohibition, docketed as G.R. No. 183962, 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.
Petitioners herein additionally implead as respondent the MILF Peace Negotiating Panel represented by
its Chairman Mohagher Iqbal.
Various parties moved to intervene and were granted leave of court to file their petitions/comments-in-intervention. Petitioners-in-Intervention include Senator Manuel A. Roxas, former Senate
President Franklin Drilon and Atty. Adel Tamano, the City of Isabela and Mayor Cherrylyn Santos-Akbar,
the Province of Sultan Kudarat and Gov. Suharto Mangudadatu, the Municipality of Linamon in Lanao del
1
Public Corporations
Norte, Ruy Elias Lopez of Davao City and of the Bagobo tribe, Sangguniang Panlungsod member Marino
Ridao and businessman Kisin Buxani, both of Cotabato City; and lawyers Carlo Gomez, Gerardo Dilig,
Nesario Awat, Joselito Alisuag, Richalex Jagmis, all of Palawan City. The Muslim Legal Assistance
Foundation, Inc. (Muslaf) and the Muslim Multi-Sectoral Movement for Peace and Development
(MMMPD) filed their respective Comments-in-Intervention.
ISSUE:
Whether the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity may be considered as an autonomous region
RULING: NO.
The BJE is a far more powerful entity than the autonomous region recognized in the 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. Indeed, BJE is a state in all
but name as it meets the criteria of a state laid down in the Montevideo Convention,154 namely,
a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and a capacity to enter into relations with
other states.
Even assuming arguendo that the MOA-AD would not necessarily sever any portion of Philippine
territory, the spirit animating it - which has betrayed itself by its use of the concept of association - runs
counter to the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic.
The defining concept underlying the relationship between the national government and the
BJE being itself contrary to the present Constitution, it is not surprising that many of the specific
provisions of the MOA-AD on the formation and powers of the BJE are in conflict with the Constitution
and the laws.
Article X, Section 18 of the Constitution provides 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." (Emphasis supplied)
As reflected above, the BJE is more of a state than an autonomous region. But even assuming
that it is covered by the term "autonomous region" in the constitutional provision just quoted, the MOAAD would still be in conflict with it. Under paragraph 2(c) on TERRITORY in relation to 2(d) and 2(e), the
present geographic area of the ARMM and, in addition, the municipalities of Lanao del Norte which
voted for inclusion in the ARMM during the 2001 plebiscite - Baloi, Munai, Nunungan, Pantar, Tagoloan
and Tangkal - are automatically part of the BJE without need of another plebiscite, in contrast to the
areas under Categories A and B mentioned earlier in the overview. That the present components of the
ARMM and the above-mentioned municipalities voted for inclusion therein in 2001, however,
does not render another plebiscite unnecessary under the Constitution, precisely because what these
areas voted for then was their inclusion in the ARMM, not the BJE.
2
Public Corporations
The MOA-AD, moreover, would not comply with Article X, Section 20 of the Constitution
since that provision defines the powers of autonomous regions as follows:
SECTION 20. Within its territorial jurisdiction and subject to the provisions of this Constitution and
national laws, the organic act of autonomous regions shall provide for legislative powers over:
(1) Administrative organization;
(2) Creation of sources of revenues;
(3) Ancestral domain and natural resources;
(4) Personal, family, and property relations;
(5) Regional urban and rural planning development;
(6) Economic, social, and tourism development;
(7) Educational policies;
(8) Preservation and development of the cultural heritage; and
(9) Such other matters as may be authorized by law for the promotion of the general welfare of
the people of the region. (Underscoring supplied)
Again on the premise that the BJE may be regarded as an autonomous region, the MOA-AD
would require an amendment that would expand the above-quoted provision. The mere passage of new
legislation pursuant to sub-paragraph No. 9 of said constitutional provision would not suffice, since any
new law that might vest in the BJE the powers found in the MOA-AD must, itself, comply with other
provisions of the Constitution. It would not do, for instance, to merely pass legislation vesting the BJE
with treaty-making power in order to accommodate paragraph 4 of the strand on RESOURCES which
states: "The BJE is free to enter into any economic cooperation and trade relations with foreign
countries: provided, however, that such relationships and understandings do not include aggression
against the Government of the Republic of the Philippines x x x." Under our constitutional system, it is
only the President who has that power. Pimentel v. Executive Secretary instructs:
In our system of government, the President, being the head of state, is regarded as the sole
organ and authority in external relations and is the country's sole representative with foreign
nations. As the chief architect of foreign policy, the President acts as the country's mouthpiece
with respect to international affairs. Hence, the President is vested with the authority to deal
with foreign states and governments, extend or withhold recognition, maintain diplomatic
relations, enter into treaties, and otherwise transact the business of foreign relations. In the
realm of treaty-making, the President has the sole authority to negotiate with other
states. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
3