Province of North Cotobato v.

GRP Peace Panel (2008)

Summary Cases:

Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Peace Panel

Subject:
Constitutionality challenge-Ripeness for adjudication, Right to information on matters of public concern,
Associative relationship under the Constitution, Creation of an autonomous region, Bangsamoro People,
Right to self-determination under International Law
Facts:
Petitioners, comprised of several groups, challenge the constitutionality of the MOA-AD (Memorandum
of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain) entered into between the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines(GRP) and the MILF.
On August 5, 2008, the GRP and MILF were scheduled to sign the MOA-AD in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
However, upon the initiative of several groups, the Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining
Order enjoining the GRP from signing the same.
The MOA-AD is challenged on several grounds, among which is the creation of a Bangsamoro Juridical
Entity (BJE) to which it grants the authority and jurisdiction over the Ancestral Domain and Ancestral
Lands of the Bangsamoro people.
The MOA-AD seeks to introduce the concept of an associative relationship between the BJE and the
Central Government.
Held:
Ripeness for Adjudication
1. For a case to be considered ripe for adjudication, it is a prerequisite that something had then been
accomplished or performed by either branch before a court may come into the picture, and the petitioner
must allege the existence of an immediate or threatened injury to itself as a result of the challenged
action.
2. That the law or act in question is not yet effective does not negate ripeness.
3. Concrete acts under the MOA-AD are not necessary to render the present controversy ripe.As held in
Pimentel v Aguirre,"by the mere enactment of the questioned law or the approval of the challenged
action, the dispute is said to have ripened into a judicial controversy even without any other overt act."
4. Any alleged violation of the Constitution by any branch of government is a proper matter for judicial
review.
Right to Information on Matters of Public Concern vis-a-vis Policy of Public Disclosure
5. The right of access to public documents is a self-executory constitutional right.
6. Likewise, Section 28 is intended to be self-executing. The effectivity of the policy of public disclosure
Copyright Thinc Office Corp. All rights reserved

need not await the passing of a statute.

7. The MOA-AD is a matter of public concern, involving as it does the sovereignty and territorial integrity
of the State, which directly affects the lives of the public at large.
8. Matters of public concern covered by the right to information include steps and negotiations leading to
the consummation of the contract.
9. The policy of full public disclosure enunciated in Section 28, Article II of the1987 Constitution
complements the right of access to information on matters of public concern found in the Bill of Rights.
The right to information guarantees the right of the people to demand information, while policy of full
public disclosure recognizes the duty of officialdom to give information even if nobody demands.
Concept of Association under International Law
10. The MOA-AD describes the relationship of the Central Government and the BJE as associative,
characterized by shared authority and responsibility.
11. In the international legal context, an association is formed "when two states of unequal power
voluntarily establish durable links. In the basic model, one state, the associate, delegates certain
responsibilities to the other, the principal,while maintaining its international status as a state. Free
associations represent a middle ground between integration and independence"
12. In international practice, the associated state arrangement has usually been used as a transitional
device of former colonies on their way to full independence.
The concept of Association is not recognized under the1987 Constitution
13. The MOA-AD contains many provisions which are consistent with the international legal concept of
association, specifically the following: (a) the BJEs capacity to enter into economic and trade relations
with foreign countries, (b) the commitment of the Central Government to ensure the BJEs participation in
meetings and events in the ASEAN and the specialized UN agencies, and (c) the continuing
responsibility of the Central Government over external defense, etc. These provisions of the MOA
indicate that theParties aimed to vest in the BJE the status of an associated state or, at any rate, a status
closely approximating it.
14. The concept of Association is not recognized under the 1987 Constitution
No province, city, or municipality, not even the ARMM, is recognized under ourlaws as having an
associative relationship with the national government. The concept implies powers that go beyond
anything granted by the Constitution to any local or regional government.
It also implies the recognition of the associated entity as a state. The Constitution does not contemplate
any state in this 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.
15. The BJE, as contemplated, is a state in all but name as it meets the criteria of a state laid down in
the Montevideo Convention, namely, (a) a permanent population, (b) a defined territory, (c) a
government, and (d) a capacity to enter into relations with other states.
Creation of an autonomous region
Copyright Thinc Office Corp. All rights reserved

16. The BJE is more of a state than an autonomous region. But even assuming that it is covered by the
term autonomous region, the MOA-AD would still be in conflict with the Constitution.
a. ArticleX, 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.
b. TheMOA-AD, in delineating the territorial boundaries of the BJE, provided that the municipalities
of Lanao del Norte which voted for inclusion in the ARMM during the 2001 plebiscite shall be
automatically part of the BJE without need of another plebiscite.
c. Under the Constitution, a separate plebiscite is still required because what these areas voted for
then was their inclusion in the ARMM, not the BJE.
Bangsamoro People
17. The definition of Bangsamoro people used in the MOA-AD is inconsistent with the Organic Act of
the ARMM and the IPRA.
a. under the MOA-AD, Bangsamoro people refers to those who are natives or original inhabitants of
Mindanao and its adjacent islands including Palawan and the Sulu archipelago at the time of conquest or
colonization of its descendants whether mixed or of full blood.
b. the Organic Act, in contrast, does not lump together the identities of the Bangsamoro and other
indigenous peoples living in Mindanao, but instead makes a distinction between Bangsamoro people and
Tribal peoples.
Right to Self-determination under International Law
18. The right of a people to self-determination has acquired a status beyond convention and is
considered a general principle of international law
19. The peoples right to self-determination should not be understood as extending to a unilateral right of
secession. A distinction should be made between the right of internal and external self-determination.
a. internal self-determination a peoples pursuit of its political, economic, social and cultural
development within the framework of an existing state.
b. external self-determination (which potentially takes the form of the assertion of aright to unilateral
secession) arises in only the most extreme of cases and, even then, under carefully defined
circumstances.
20. Positive International Law does not recognize the right of national groups, as such, to separate
themselves from the State of which they form part by the simple expression of a wish. The grant or
refusal of the right to a portion of its population of determining its own political fate by plebiscite or by
some other method, is, exclusively, an attribute of the sovereignty of every State.

Copyright Thinc Office Corp. All rights reserved