Province of North Cotabato v.

Government of the Republic of Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on 4 August 2008, directing the
the Philippines (G.R. Nos. 183591, 183752, 183893, 183951, & public respondents and their agents to cease and desist from formally
183962) (14 October 2008) signing the MOA-AD.

Facts:
On 8 August 2008, the Government of the Republic of the Issues and Ruling:
Philippines (GRP), represented by the GRP Peace Panel and the 1. W/N the President has the power to pursue reforms that
Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (PAPP), and the Moro would require new legislation and constitutional
Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) were scheduled to sign the amendments.
Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) YES. However, the stipulation in the MOA-AD that virtually
Aspect of the previous GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of guarantees that necessary changes shall be effected upon the legal
2001 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. framework of the GRP must be struck down as unconstitutional as it
The MOA-AD included, among others, a stipulation that is inconsistent with the limits of the President’s authority to propose
creates the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE), to which the GRP constitutional amendments. Because although the President’s power
grants the authority and jurisdiction over the ancestral domain and to conduct peace negotiations is implicitly included in her powers as
ancestral lands of the Bangsamoro—defined as the present Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief, and, in the course of
geographic area of the ARMM constituted by Lanao del Sur, conducting peace negotiations, may validly consider implementing
Maguindanao, Sulu, Tawi-Tawi, Basilan, and Marawi City, as well even those policies that require changes to the Constitution, she may
as the municipalities of Lanao del Norte which voted for inclusion in not unilaterally implement them without the intervention of
the ARMM in the 2001 plebiscite. The BJE is then granted the power Congress, or act in any way as if the assent of that body were
to build, develop, and maintain its own institutions. The MOA-AD assumed as a certainty.
also described the relationship of the GRP and the BJE as
“associative,” characterized by shared authority and responsibility. It 2. W/N there is a violation of the people’s right to
further provides that its provisions requiring “amendments to the information on matters of public concern (1987 Constitution,
existing legal framework” shall take effect upon signing of a Art. III, Sec. 7) under a state policy of full disclosure of all its
Comprehensive Compact. transactions involving public interest (1987 Constitution,
Before the signing, however, the Province of North Cotabato Art. II, Sec. 28), including public consultation under RA No.
sought to compel the respondents to disclose and furnish it with 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991).
complete and official copies of the MOA-AD, as well as to hold a YES. At least three pertinent laws animate these constitutional
public consultation thereon, invoking its right to information on imperatives and justify the exercise of the people’s right to be
matters of public concern. A subsequent petition sought to have the consulted on relevant matters relating to the peace agenda:
City of Zamboanga excluded from the BJE. The Court then issued a
 a. EO No. 3, which enumerates the functions and YES. The PAPP committed grave abuse of discretion when he failed
responsibilities of the PAPP, is replete with to carry out the pertinent consultation process, as mandated by EO
mechanics for continuing consultations on both No. 3, RA No. 7160, and RA No. 8371. The furtive process by which
national and local levels and for a principal forum the MOA-AD was designed and crafted runs contrary to and in
for consensus-building. In fact, it is the duty of the excess of the legal authority, and amounts to a whimsical, capricious,
PAPP to conduct regular dialogues to seek relevant oppressive, arbitrary, and despotic exercise thereof. It illustrates a
information, comments, advice, and gross evasion of positive duty and a virtual refusal to perform the
recommendations from peace partners and duty enjoined.
concerned sectors of society;
b. RA No. 7160 (LGC) requires all national offices to 4. W/N the MOA-AD is constitutional.
conduct consultations before any project or program NO. It cannot be reconciled with the present Constitution and laws.
critical to the environment and human ecology Not only its specific provisions, but the very concept underlying
including those that may call for the eviction of a them, namely, the associative relationship envisioned between the
particular group of people residing in such locality, GRP and the BJE, are unconstitutional, for the concept presupposes
is implemented therein. The MOA-AD is one that the associated entity is a state and implies that the same is on its
peculiar program that unequivocally and unilaterally way to independence. While there is a clause in the MOA-AD stating
vests ownership of a vast territory to the that the provisions thereof inconsistent with the present legal
Bangsamoro people, which could pervasively and framework will not be effective until that framework is amended, the
drastically result to the diaspora or displacement of a same does not cure its defect. The inclusion of provisions in the
great number of inhabitants from their total MOA-AD establishing an associative relationship between the BJE
environment; and the Central Government is, itself, a violation of the
c. RA No. 8371 (IPRA) provides for clear-cut Memorandum of Instructions From The President addressed to the
procedure for the recognition and delineation of government peace panel. Moreover, as the clause is worded, it
ancestral domain, which entails, among other things, virtually guarantees that the necessary amendments to the
the observance of the free and prior informed Constitution and the laws will eventually be put in place. Neither the
consent of the Indigenous Cultural GRP Peace Panel nor the President herself is authorized to make
Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICC/IP). such a guarantee. Upholding such an act would amount to
authorizing a usurpation of the constituent powers vested only in
3. W/N the GRP Peace Panel and the PAPP committed Congress, a Constitutional Convention, or the people themselves
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of through the process of initiative, for the only way that the Executive
jurisdiction. can ensure the outcome of the amendment process is through an
undue influence or interference with that process.
 secession) arises only in the most extreme of cases and, even then,
5. W/N the GRP can invoke executive privilege. under carefully defined circumstances.
NO. Respondents effectively waived such defense after it
unconditionally disclosed the official copies of the final draft of the That the authority of the President to conduct peace negotiations
MOA-AD, for judicial compliance and public scrutiny. with rebel groups is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution does
Carpio-Morales, J. not mean that she has no such authority.
The people’s right to information on matters of public concern under The President has authority, as stated in her oath of office, only to
Sec. 7, Art. III of the Constitution is in splendid symmetry with the preserve and defend the Constitution. Such presidential power does
state policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving not, however, extend to allowing her to change the Constitution, but
public interest under Sec. 28, Art. II of the Constitution. simply to recommend proposed amendments or revision. As long as
she limits herself to recommending these changes and submits to the
The right to information guarantees the right of the people to demand proper procedure for constitutional amendments and revision, her
information, while the policy of public disclosure recognizes the mere recommendation need not be construed as an unconstitutional
duty of officialdom to give information even if nobody demands. act.

The IPRA does not grant the Executive Department or any Public statements of a state representative may be construed as a
government agency the power to delineate and recognize an ancestral unilateral declaration only when the following conditions are
domain claim by mere agreement or compromise. present: the statements were clearly addressed to the international
community, the state intended to be bound to that community by its
An association is formed when two states of unequal power statements, and that not to give legal effect to those statements would
voluntarily establish durable links. In the basic model, one state, the be detrimental to the security of international intercourse. Plainly,
associate, delegates certain responsibilities to the other, the principal, unilateral declarations arise only in peculiar circumstances.
while maintaining its international status as a state. Free associations
represent a middle ground between integration and independence.

The recognized sources of international law establish that the right to

self-determination of a people is normally fulfilled through internal
self-determination—a people’s pursuit of its political, economic,
social, and cultural development within the framework of an existing
state. A right to external self-determination (which in this case
potentially takes the form of the assertion of a right to unilateral