CASE 28 - NORTH COTABATO VS.

GRP

THE PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO, et al . v . THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE

PHILIPPINES, et al .

FACTS:

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, in line with the government‘s policy of pursuing peace negotiations
with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), asked Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad to convince the
MILF to continue negotiating with the government. MILF, thereafter, convened its Central Committee and
decided to meet with the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP). Formal peace talks were
held in Libya which resulted to the crafting of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace (Tripoli
Agreement 2001) which consists of three (3) aspects: a.) security aspect; b.) rehabilitation aspect; and
c.) ancestral domain aspect. Various negotiations were held which led to the finalization of the
Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD). The said memorandum was set to be
signed last August 5, 2008. In its body, it grants ―the authority and jurisdiction over the Ancestral Domain
and Ancestral Lands of the Bangsamoro to the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE). The latter, in addition,
has the freedom to enter into any economic cooperation and trade relation with foreign countries. ―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. The MOA-AD further provides for the extent of the territory of the
Bangsamoro. It describes it as ―the land mass as well as the maritime, terrestrial, fluvial
and alluvial domains, including the aerial domain and the atmospheric space above it, embracing the
Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan geographic region. With regard to governance, on the other hand, a shared
responsibility and authority between the Central Government and BJE was provided. The relationship was
described as ―associative. With the formulation of the MOA-AD, petitioners aver that the negotiation and
finalization of the MOA-AD violates constitutional and statutory provisions on public consultation, as
mandated by Executive Order No. 3, and right to information. They further contend that it violates the
Constitution and laws. Hence, the filing of the petition.

ISSUES:

1) Whether or not the MOA-AD violates constitutional and statutory provisions on public consultation and
right to information 2) Whether or not the MOA-AD violates the Constitution and the laws.

RULING:

The SC declared the MOA-AD contrary to law and the Constitution.