CASE DIGEST

Province of North Cotabato v. Government

Constitutional Law

Court Supreme Court

Date October 14, 2008
Plaintiff-Appellee Province of North Cotabato
Accused-Appellants Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain
Ponente Carpio-Morales, J.
Overview A case regarding the peace negotiations between the GRP and the MILF
Relevant topic Constitution as a SOCIAL CONTRACT

 Extent of the powers of the President in pursuing the peace process

Constitutional Provisions
Art. III, Sec. 7
 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

Art. II, Sec. 28

 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

RELEVANT CHARACTERS:

FACTS:

 On Aug. 5, 2008 the GRP and the MILF were set to sign a Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral
Domain (MOA-AD) on Aspect of the Tripoli Agreement on Peace
 Said MOA-AD is the subject of the case which petitioners pray be declared unconstitutional
 Tripoli Agreement contained 3 basic principles/aspects: 1) Security aspect, 2) Rehabilitation aspect, and 3)
Ancestral Domain aspect
 MOA-AD identifies parties as the GRP and the MILF
 MOA-AD recognized the right to self-governance of the Bangsamoro People
 MOA-AD mentions the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) to which it grants the authority and jurisdiction over
the Ancestral Domain and Ancestral Lands of the Bangsamoro
 Territory of Bangsamoro homeland said to cover the Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan geographic region
 Provisions regarding the BJE in the MOA-AD:
1) BJE shall have jurisdiction over all natural resources within its “internal waters”
Internal waters = extending 15 km from the BJE coastline
Vs.
Territorial waters = stretch beyond BJE internal waters up to baselines of GRP
2) Sharing of minerals on territorial waters between GRP and BJE, in favour of BJE
3) BJE is free to enter into economic cooperation and trade relations with foreign countries
4) External defense of BJE remains the duty and obligation of the GRP
5) GRP will ensure BJE’s participation in international meetings and events (ASEAN, UN, etc.)
6) Sharing of total production pertaining to natural resources between GRP and BJE will be 75:25 in favour
of BJE
 MOA-AD describes relationship between GRP and BJE as “ASSOCIATIVE”
 MOA-AD also provides that provisions requiring “amendments to the existing legal framework” shall take
effect upon signing of the Comprehensive Compact and upon effecting aforesaid amendments

ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

ISSUES HELD
1) WON MOA-AD violates constitutional and statutory provisions on public YES, Unconstitutional
consultation and the right to information?

Page 1 of 3
CASE DIGEST
Province of North Cotabato v. Government
Constitutional Law

2) WON contents of the MOA-AD violate the Constitution and the laws

RATIO: (Puno’s concurring opinion)

 Subject of review of the petitions is the conduct of the peace process with the MILF culminating in the MOA-
AD
 Constitutionality of the whole peace process should be reviewed; MOA-AD is the mere product of the peace
negotiation
 Peace process with MILF draws its mandate principally from EO No. 3 which provided the basis for the
execution of the Tripoli Agreement
 EO No. 3 entitled “Defining Policy and Administrative Structure for Government’s Comprehensive Peace
Efforts” immediately followed by formation of peace negotiation panels
 EO No. 3 contained a provision stating that the implementation of various reforms/policies aimed at
addressing the root causes of internal armed conflicts and social unrest may require administrative action,
new legislation, or even constitutional amendments
 GRP peace negotiators made agreements with MILF in violation of the Constitution and acted as if these may
be cured by committing that the Constitution will be amended to conform with the MOA-AD
 Peace negotiators misunderstood and misapplied the executive powers of the President
 MILF is a rebellion problem and the Constitution (Art. VII, Sec. 18) provides with exactitude the powers
available to the President to deal with such; the President’s Commander-in-Chief powers can only be used to
quell the rebellion and cannot be utilized to dismember the State or to creaete a state within our State and
hand it over to the MILF rebels
 The Constitution, by the granting of the entire panoply of executive power to the President, also grants the
power to reach peace with rebels; however, said power is still limited by the Constitution
 Preeminent principle that our government is fundamentally one of limited and enumerated powers
 In Angara v. Electoral Commission, it was emphasized that there is no power in the Constitution that is
unbounded
 President’s power to negotiate peace is not absolute; system of checks and balances cannot be infringed;
powers are limited by the Constitution
 The Constitution was ordained by the sovereign people and its postulates may not be employed as bargaining
chips without the people’s consent
Why can’t the Executive commit to do acts which are prohibited by the Constitution and seek ratification later by
amendment or revision of the Constitution?
 Social Contract Theory
 Accdg. to John Locke –“For when any number of men have, by the consent of every individual, made a
community, they have thereby made that community one body, with a power to act as one body, which is only
by the will and determination of the majority… the act of the majority passes for the act of the whole, and of
course determines, as having, by the law of nature and reason, the power of the whole”
 Jean Jacques Rosseau stressed the non-derogability of the social contract –“The body politic or sovereign,
deriving its existence only from the sanctity of the contract, can never bind itself, even to others, in anything
that derogates from the original act, such as alienation of some portion of itself, or submission to another
sovereign…”
 Accdg. to Dean Vicence Sinco:
- Constitution is a written instrument which serves as the fundamental law of the state
- It is the creation of the will of the people, who are deemed the source of all political powers
- Provides for the organization of the essential departments of government, determines and limits their
powers, and prescribes guarantees to the basic rights of the individual
- Some authorities consider the constitution as a “compact”, an “agreement of the people, in their individual
capacities, reduced to writing, establishing and fixing certain principles for the government of themselves:’
expressed old theory of “social contract” obligatory on all parties and revocable by no one individual or
group less than the majority of the people, otherwise it will not have the attribute of law
 No official of government has the power nor the right to violate the Constitution and the privilege to cure the
violation later through amendment of its provisions

Carpio-Morales (Main ruling)

 People’s right to information on matters of public concern is in splendid symmetry with the state policy of full
public disclosure of all transactions involving public interest; right to information gives right to demand such,
and the government has the duty to give information even if nobody demands
 Presidential adviser on peace process committed grave abuse of discretion
 MOA-AD cannot be reconciled with the present Constitution and laws; its provisions and very concept
underlying them, namely, the ASSOCIATIVE relationship between the GRP and the BJE, are unconstitutional
Page 2 of 3
CASE DIGEST
Province of North Cotabato v. Government
Constitutional Law

 Association basically implies that the associated entity is a state and that the same is on its way to
independence
 Neither the GRP peace panel nor the President has the authority or power to guarantee an amendment to the
Constitution ; such an act is, by itself, a constitutional violation that renders the MOA-AD fatally defective

RULING:
WHEREFORE, respondents’ motion to dismiss is DENIED. The main and intervening petitions are GIVEN DUE
COURSE and hereby GRANTED.

The MOA-AD is declared CONTRARY TO LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION.

Page 3 of 3