n.cotabato vs grp

7/29/2019 n.cotabato vs Grp

1/5


2/5

regime of dar-ul-muahada (or territory under compact) and dar-ul-sulh (or territory

under peace agreement) that partakes the nature of a treaty device.

The MOA-AD defines the Bangsamoro people as the natives or original inhabitants

of Mindanao and its adjacent islands including Palawan and the Sulu archipelago at

the time of conquest or colonization, and their descendants whether mixed or of full

blood, including their spouses. It further proceeds to refer to the Bangsamoro

homeland, the ownership of which is vested exclusively in the Bangsamoro people

by virtue of their prior rights of occupation. The 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.

The MOA-AD provides the BJE is free to enter into any economic cooperation and

trade relations with foreign countries and shall have the option to establish trade

missions in those countries. The external defense of the BJE is to remain the duty

and obligation of the Central Government, which has the further duty to take

necessary steps to ensure the BJEs participation in international meetings and

events.

Moreover, the MOA-AD binds the parties to invite a multinational third-party to

observe and monitor the implementation of the Comprehensive Compact, which

embodies the details for the effective enforcement and the mechanisms and

modalities for the actual implementation of the MOA-AD. The relationship between

the Central Government and BJE is described as associative, characterized by

shared authority and responsibility, under the MOA-AD. The BJE under the MOA-AD

is also granted the power to build, develop and maintain its own institutions

inclusive of civil service, electoral, financial and banking, education, legislation,

legal, economic, police and internal security force, judicial system and correctional

institutions.

However, several petitions have been filed by different interested parties praying

that the MOA-AD be declared unconstitutional. Thus, the Supreme Court issued aTemporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining the GRP from signing the same.

Issue:


3/5

1. Did respondents violate constitutional and statutory provisions on public

consultation and the right to information when they negotiated and later initialled

the MOA-AD?

2. Do the contents of the MOA-AD violate the Constitution and the laws?

Held:

1. YES. Respondents violate the constitutional and statutory provisions on public

consultation and the right to information when they negotiated and later initalled

the MOA-AD.

Access to public records is predicated on the right of the people to acquire

information on matters of public concern since, undoubtedly, in a democracy; the

public has a legitimate interest in matters of social and political significance. The

incorporation of this right in the Constitution is recognition of the fundamental role

of free exchange of information in a democracy. There can be no realistic

perception by the public of the nations problems or a meaningful democratic

decision-making if they are denied access to information of general interest.

Information is needed to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies

of the times.

It also 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. It is by ensuring an unfettered and uninhibited

exchange of ideas among a well-informed public that a government remains

responsive to the changes desired by the people.

The MOA-AD is a matter of public concern for it involves the sovereignty and

territorial integrity of the State, which directly affects the lives of the public at large.

Matters of public concern covered by the right to information include steps and

negotiations leading to the consummation of the contract because requiring a

consummated contract will keep the public in the dark until the contract, which may

be grossly disadvantageous to the government or even illegal, becomes fait

accompli. This negates the State policy of full transparency on matters of public

concern, a situation which the framers of the Constitution could not have intended.


4/5


5/5

concept implies powers that go beyond anything ever granted by the Constitution to

any local or regional government. It also implies the recognition of the associated

entity as a state. The Constitution, however, 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.

The BJE is a far more powerful entity than the autonomous region recognized in the

Constitution. It is not merely an expanded version of the ARMM, the status of its

relationship with the national government being fundamentally different from that

of the ARMM. Indeed, BJE is a state in all but name as it meets the criteria of a state

laid down in the Montevideo Convention, namely, a permanent population, a

defined territory, a government, and a capacity to enter into relations with other

states.

Moreover, it virtually guarantees that the necessary amendments to the

Constitution and the laws will eventually be put in place. Neither the GRP Peace

Panel nor the President herself is authorized to make such a guarantee. Upholding

such an act would amount to authorizing a usurpation of the constituent powers

vested only in Congress, a Constitutional Convention, or the people themselves

through the process of initiative, for the only way that the Executive can ensure the

outcome of the amendment process is through an undue influence or interference

with that process.

While the MOA-AD would not amount to an international agreement or unilateral

declaration binding on the Philippines under international law, respondents act of

guaranteeing amendments is, by itself, already a constitutional violation that

renders the MOA-AD fatally defective.

Decision: The MOA-AD is declared contrary to law and the Constitution.

n.cotabato vs grp

Documents