NORTH COTABATO vs.

GOVT OF THE RP PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL

DOMAINS

GR No. 183591, October 14, 2008

FACTS:

Petitioners from various provinces filed for the Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction
and Temporary Restraining Order to prohibit the GRP from signing the Memorandum of
Agreement on the Ancestral Domain, which was formerly agreed upon with the MILF.

When President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo assumed office, the military offensive against
the MILF was suspended and the government sought a resumption of the peace talks.
The GRP and MILF met in Kuala Lumpur on March 24, 2001 and signed the Agreement
on the General Framework for the Resumption of Peace Talks between the GRP and
the MILF. The MILF thereafter suspended all its military actions.

On June 20-22, 2001, the parties held formal peace talks in Tripoli, Libya. The outcome
of which was the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace (Tripoli Agreement 2001)
which contains the basic principles and agenda on the following aspects of the
negotiation: Security Aspect, Rehabilitation Aspect, and Ancestral Domain Aspect. With
regard to the Ancestral Domain Aspect, the parties in simply agreed that the same be
discussed further in their next meeting. In the next peace talks, the parties signed the
Implementing Guidelines on the Security Aspect and subsequently, the Humanitarian
Rehabilitation and Development Aspects of the Tripoli Agreement 2001. In 2005, the
parties crafted the draft of MOA-AD in its final form, which was set to be signed last
August 5, 2008.

Before the Court is what is perhaps the most contentious "consensus" ever embodied in
an instrument – the MOA-AD which is assailed by petitioners of different provinces.
Commonly impleaded as respondents are the GRP Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain
and the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (PAPP) Hermogenes Esperon, Jr.
On July 23, 2008, the Province of North Cotabato 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 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.

ISSUE:

Is there a violation of the people’s right to information on matters of public concern

(1987 Constitution, Article III, Sec. 7) under a state policy of full disclosure of all its
transactions involving public interest (1987 Constitution, Article II, Sec. 28) including
public consultation under Republic Act No. 7160 (LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF
1991)?

HELD:

YES. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be
recognized. The right of access to public documents has been recognized as a self-
executory constitutional right. There can be no realistic perception by the public of the
nation‘s problems, nor a meaningful democratic decision-making if they are denied
access to information of general interest. In the same way that free discussion enables
members of society to cope with the exigencies of their time, access to information of
general interest aids the people in democratic decision-making by giving them a better
perspective of the vital issues confronting the nation, so that they may be able to
criticize and participate in the affairs of the government in a responsible, reasonable and
effective manner.
Undoubtedly, the MOA-AD subject of the present cases is 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.

Intended as a "splendid symmetry" to the right to information under the Bill of Rights is
the policy of public disclosure under Section 28, Article II of the Constitution.

Section 7, Article 3

The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be

recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to
official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data
used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law.

Section 28, Article II

Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and

implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public
interest.

The policy of full public disclosure enunciated in above-quoted Section 28 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
Section 28 recognizes the duty of the officials to give information even if nobody
demands.