THE

PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO vs. THE GOV’T OF THE REP. OF THE PHIL PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN
G.R. No. 183591 | 14 October 2008 | Carpio Morales, J.
Subject: Constitutional Law I
Topic: Territory

Petitioner: The Province of North Cotabato, et al.
Respondent: The Gov’t of the Rep. of the Phils. Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, et al. (GRP)

I. NATURE OF PETITION:
- For Mandamus, invoking the right to information on matters of public concern, to disclose complete copies of
the MOA-AD first; and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary
Restraining Order, to prohibit signing pending disclosure of the contents and holding of public consultation
- To declare MOA-AD unconstitutional

II. PRINCIPLES:

RA 9054 Art. III Sec. 1: The Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao shall remain an integral and inseparable part of
the national territory of the Republic as defined by the Constitution and existing laws. The autonomous region shall
be governed and administered in accordance with the laws enacted by the Regional Assembly and by this Organic Act.

1987 Constitution Art. X Sec. 1: The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines are the
provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. There shall be autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the
Cordilleras as hereinafter provided.

1987 Constitution Art. X Sec. 15: There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras
consisting of provinces, cities, municipalities, and geographical areas sharing common and distinctive historical and
cultural heritage, economic and social structures, and other relevant characteristics within the framework of this
Constitution and the national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines.

III. FACTS:
• Long process of negotiation between GRP and MILF, since 1996; Estrada – all out war; GMA – resumed peace talks
• August 5, 2008: GRP and MILF to sign Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) aspect of
the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 in KL; did not continue as SC issued a TRO on August 4, 2008
• Various parties (North Cotabato, Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del Norte, etc.) had filed cases to be excluded from
the BJE, MOA-AD be declared null and void, prohibit signing and implementation, etc.
• Respondent’s argument: the Executive Department shall review the MOA-AD, and pursue further negotiations to
address the issue; moved to dismiss cases
• Aug 15, 22, and 29, 2008: date of hearings
• Context: Official copies of the MOA-AD were given to the Court and petitioners during the hearings; 24 Sept 2008
Memorandum from OSG confirms the Executive’s decision to not sign the MOA-AD in its present form, or any
other forms.

IV. ISSUE/S:
1. Whether by signing the MOA, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines would be BINDING itself
a. to create and recognize the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) as a separate state, or a juridical,
territorial or political subdivision not recognized by law;
b. to revise or amend the Constitution and existing laws to conform to the MOA;

V. HELD:
1. YES.
- BJE creates and recognizes the BJE as a separate state through an associative relationship
o “association” in international law: formed when two states of unequal power establish durable links –
Associate state delegates certain responsibilities to the Principal state, while maintaining its international
 status as a state; usually used as a transitional device of former colonies on their way to full
independence
o 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
o Although the MOA-AD would not necessarily sever any portion of Philippine territory, the spirit
animating it - which has betrayed itself by its use of the concept of association - runs counter to the
national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic
- MOA-AD is inconsistent with the Constitution and laws as presently worded.
o Concept of association is NOT recognized under the present Constitution
§ No province, city, or municipality, not even the ARMM, is recognized under our laws as having
an "associative" relationship with the national government. Indeed, the concept implies powers
that go beyond anything ever granted by the Constitution to any local or regional government
§ Implies the recognition of the associated entity as a state; would require amendments to
Article 10, Sec 1 & 15
o Would not comply with Article 10, Sec 20 which defines the powers of autonomous regions
- Issue on sovereignty:
o Report of the Int’l Committee of Jurists on the Legal Aspects of the Aaland Islands: the right of disposing
of national territory is essentially an attribute of the sovereignty of every State. Positive International
Law does not recognize the right of national groups, as such, to separate themselves from the State of
which they form part by the simple expression of a wish. In general, the grant or refusal of the right to a
portion of its population of determining its own political fate by plebiscite or by some other method, is,
exclusively, an attribute of the sovereignty of every State which is definitively constituted.

RULING:
1. Respondents' motion to dismiss is DENIED. The main and intervening petitions are GIVEN DUE COURSE and hereby
GRANTED. Mandamus = moot. Prohibition = exception to moot and academic principle.
2. The Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain Aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace
of 2001 is declared contrary to law and the Constitution.

VI. SEPARATE OPINIONS:
1. Carpio, J., concurring:
o Unconstitutional because it guarantees an amendment to the constitution in its passing. A peace
agreement (e.g, MOA-AD) must be subject to the pertinent legal processes, especially in accord with the
constitutional power of the people to approve/disapprove such amendments. Likewise, such an
amendment necessitates consultations with the stakeholders subject to the peace agreement (i.e the
IPs, communities, etc.).
2. Puno, C.J., concurring:
o Unconstitutional because of the steps/procedure taken by the government in negotiating the peace
agreement. The government is not privileged to violate the constitution with the justification that it will
be validated at a later point in time.
3. Ynares-Santiago, J., concurring:
o MOA-AD is a surrender of sovereignty. There is an express intent of the GRP to commit itself to the full
implementation of the MOA-AD by enacting the necessary changes to the legal framework.
o Had it been signed by the parties, it would have bound the government to the creation of a separate
Bangsamoro state having its own territory, government, civil institutions and armed forces. The
concessions that respondents made to the MILF would have given the latter leverage to demand that
the Bangsamoro homeland be recognized as a state before international bodies. It could insist that the
MOA-AD is in fact a treaty and justify compliance with its provisions, under the international law principle
of pacta sunt servanda. The sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Philippines would have been
compromised.
4. Azcuna, J., separate opinion:
 o Concurs with the ponencia but adds that the MOA-AD may have served as a basis for a claim that the
Philippines was bound in its terms in a unilateral decision. The Philippines could be sued in an
International Court.
5. Reyes, R.T., J., separate opinion:
o Constitution was not mentioned as one of the documents used for terms of reference: the parties
involved expressly decided to circumvent the constitution by making the Constitution conform to the
MOA-AD and not the other way around. The GRP Panel’s commitment to change the Constitution to
conform to the MOA-AD violates doctrine of separation of powers. They must negotiate within the
bounds of the Constitution.
6. Tinga, J., separate opinion:
o Constitutional order cannot be sacrificed for expediency, even if in the name of peace in Mindanao.
Assuming that the executive branch has in good faith become intractably convinced that it is necessary
to amend the Constitution in order to obtain lasting peace in Mindanao, the consequent step should not
be to make promises it has no power alone to keep, hoping against hope that the Congress and the voters
would ultimately redeem the promises. Since constitutional amendments are involved, the ability of the
executive branch to undertake any legally binding commitment to amend the Constitution can only be
recognized, if at all, with the prior appropriate authorization of Congress, acting with the specified
majorities provided in Section 1(1), Article XVII of the Constitution. Under such a mechanism, any
constitutionally-oriented concessions offered by the Philippine government would contemporaneously
bear the preliminary seal of approval by the people or institutions authorized to propose amendments
to the Constitution, subject to final ratification by the people through a plebiscite.
o Government would have been spared of the embarrassment and outcry had it acted with more prudence
by first securing the necessary political mandate to undertake charter change for the benefit of
Mindanao, instead of acting brashly and rashly by acceding at the outset to the undertaking without
consulting the Congress or the people. In the end, the issuance of the TRO by this Court proved highly
providential, as even the Government wound up seeing the proverbial light before it was too late.
7. Chico-Nazario, J., selarate opinion:
o The Court should respect the political nature of the issues at bar and exercise judicial restraint until an
actual controversy is brought before it. Moot and academic.
8. Velasco, JR., J., dissenting:
o The challenged agreement is an unsigned document without effect and force whatsoever. It conveys no
right to and imposes no correlative obligation on either negotiating party. As an unsigned writing, it
cannot be declared unconstitutional, as some of my colleagues are wont to do.
9. Nachura, J., dissenting:
o The President has power to negotiate peace with the MILF, and to determine in what form and manner
the peace process should be conducted.
o Grave abuse of discretion can characterize only consummated acts (or omissions), not an "almost (but
not quite) consummated act."
10. Leonardo-De Castro, J., concurring & dissenting:
o Issue is moot and academic, based on 24 Sept 2004 Memorandum, filed by OSG: “The Executive
Department has repeatedly and categorically stated that the MOA-AD will not be signed in its present
form or in any other form. The Chief Executive has in fact gone to the extent of dissolving the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) Panel and has decided to take on a different tack
and launch talks, no longer with rebels or rebel groups, but with more peace-loving community-based
groups.” Considers this a prudent move.
11. Brion, J, concurring & dissenting:
o Concurs with ponencia in mooting mandamus, and believes that prohibition should also be mooted. The
Court’s TRO is cause of such.