June 11, 2015 - FINAL DRAFT Philconsa Petition

FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 1 of 30

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT

MANILA

En Banc

PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA),

represented by its President

CONG. FERDINAND MARTIN G.

ROMUALDEZ, FRANCISCO S.

TATAD, ARCHBISHOP RAMON C.

ARGUELLES, ARCHBISHOP

FERNANDO R. CAPALLA,

ARCHBISHOP ROMULO T. de la

CRUZ, BISHOP JUAN DE DIOS M.

PUEBLOS, and NORBERTO B.

GONZALES,

Petitioners,

- versus -

G.R. SP NO. __________________

For: Certiorari, Prohibition and

Mandamus under Rule 65, R.C.

with Prayer for Issuance of

Temporary Restraining Order

and/or Writ of Preliminary

Injunction

PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT (GPH)

represented by Marvic M.V.E.

Leonen, in his official capacity,

and personal capacity, who

negotiated and executed the

Framework Agreement on the

Bangsamoro (FAB), and Miriam

Coronel Ferrer, in her official

capacity, and personal

capacity, who negotiated and

executed the Comprehensive

Agreement on the Bangsamoro

(CAB), Moro Islamic Liberation

Front (MILF), a self-styled entity

represented by MOHAGHER

IQBAL, using alias name, HON.

FLORENCIO B. ABAD, in his

FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 2 of 30

capacity as Secretary of the

Department of Budget and

Management (DBM), and

Commission on Audit (COA),

Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PETITION

Petitioners PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION

(PHILCONSA), represented by its President, CONG. FERDINAND

MARTIN G. ROMUALDEZ, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ARCHBISHOPS RAMON

C. ARGUELLES, FERNANDO R. CAPALLA, ROMULO T. de la CRUZ,

BISHOP JUAN DE DIOS M. PUEBLOS, and NORBERTO B. GONZALES, by

counsel, and to this Honorable Court, respectfully aver:

PROLOGUE

The Court once warned Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its

own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own

existence.1

No matter how noble and worthy of admiration the purpose of an act, but if the means to be employed in

accomplishing it is simply irreconcilable with

constitutional parameters, then it cannot still be allowed.

The Court cannot just turn a blind eye and simply let it

pass. It will continue to uphold the Constitution and its

enshrined principles.

The Constitution must ever remain supreme. All must bow to the mandate of this law. Expediency must not be

allowed to sap its strength nor greed for power debase

its rectitude. " 2

1 Mappv.Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 [1961] 2 Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, Lagman v. Ochoa, G.R. Nos. 192935 &

193036, December 7, 2010

FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 3 of 30

The Petition seeks to avert the destruction of the Republic of the

Philippines, the dismemberment of its territory, the fragmentation of

its people, the despoliation of its natural and human resources, and

the wreckage of its tripartite system of government.

This tragic case involves the unconstitutional and treacherous

Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro (FAB) negotiated and

signed by now Justice Marvic Leonen (LEONEN), Professor of Law

and former Dean of the UP College of Law; and the equally void,

flawed and polluted Comprehensive Agreement on the

Bangsamoro (CAB) negotiated and signed by Miriam Coronel Ferrer

(FERRER), Professor at the University of the Philippines, with the witting

or unwitting complicity and machination of the Moro Islamic

Liberation Front (MILF) represented by Mohagher Iqbal, using his alias

or assumed name as chairman of the MILF Negotiating Panel.

The FAB and CAB are the crafty and ingenious revival of the

MOA-AD declared unconstitutional3, littered with greater and more

vicious incursions into the Constitution, the laws and jurisprudence

deceptively wrapped in sophistic and stylish language to obfuscate

the odious radiations.

I. NATURE OF PETITION

3 Province of North Cotabato vs. GRP, 568 SCRA 402 (2008).

FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 4 of 30

This is an urgent special civil action for Certiorari, Prohibition and

Mandamus under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, with prayer

for issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and writ of preliminary

injunction, to declare as unconstitutional and void, and to restrain,

enjoin or prohibit the implementation of the Framework Agreement

on the Bangsamoro (FAB) dated October 2012 and Comprehensive

Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB) dated March 27, 2014,

executed to the satisfaction and pleasure of the MILF given

unwarranted benefits and advantages, but vitiated by respondents

grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of

jurisdiction. The agreements grant humongous and unconscionable

financial, social, economic and political benefits/advantage to the

MILF, causing manifest undue injury to the Government, fatal wound

to the Constitution, and grave prejudice to the majority of the Filipino

people. Copies of the FAB and CAB are hereto attached and

marked as ANNEXES A and B, respectively and made integral

parts hereof.

There is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate

remedy in the ordinary course of law except thru this Petition,

considering the blitzkrieg machinations and tactics employed by

the respondents.

II. PARTIES

FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 5 of 30

2.1 Petitioner PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION

(PHILCONSA), represented by its President Rep. Ferdinand Martin G.

Romualdez, is a non-stock, non-profit association established under

existing laws, organized purposely to defend, protect and preserve

the Constitution, with offices at the 2nd Floor, Philtrust Building,

Remedios corner M. H. del Pilar Streets, Malate, Manila. It may be

served with notices and processes of this Honorable Court through

the office of the undersigned counsel. This Honorable Court has

recognized Philconsas legal standing (locus standi) to file cases on

constitutional issues with this Honorable Court.4

Petitioner Francisco Tatad, is of legal age, former Senator and

Cabinet Member, a respected public intellectual, writer and

journalist, a resident of Metro Manila, and may be served with the

processes of this Honorable Court through the office of the

undersigned counsel.

Petitioner Archbishop Ramon C. Arguelles, is of legal age,

Archbishop of the Metropolitan Archdiocese of Lipa, Batangas, a

resident of Batangas, and may be served with the processes of this

Honorable Court through the office of the undersigned counsel.

4 Philconsa vs. Gimenez, 15 SCRA 479; Philconsa vs. Mathay, 18 SCRA 300; Philconsa vs. Enriquez,

235 SCRA 506; Lambino vs. Comelec, 505 SCRA 160 wherein Philconsa is one of the petitioners

and Philconsa vs. JBC, G.R. No. 191059.

FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 6 of 30

Petitioner Archbishop Fernando R. Capalla, is of legal age, a

Roman Catholic archbishop-emeritus of the Archdiocese of Davao,

a resident of Davao City, and may be served with the processes of

this Honorable Court through the office of the undersigned counsel.

Petitioner Archbishop Romulo de la Cruz, is of legal age, is the

current Archbishop of Zamboanga, a resident of Zamboanga City,

and may be served with the processes of this Honorable Court

through the office of the undersigned counsel.

Petitioner Bishop Juan de Dios M. Pueblos, is of legal age,

Bishop of Diocese of Butuan, a resident of Butuan City, and may be

served with the processes of this Honorable Court through the office

of the undersigned counsel.

Petitioner Norberto B. Gonzales, is of legal age, former Defense

Secretary/National Security Adviser, a resident of Metro Manila, and

may be served with the processes of this Honorable Court through

the office of the undersigned counsel.

Indubitably, this case is of transcendental importance, of

overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public

interest.5

5 The Supreme Court leans on the doctrine that the rule on standing is a matter of procedure, hence, can be relaxed for nontraditional plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers, and legislators

when the public interest so requires, such as when the matter is of transcendental importance,

FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 7 of 30

2.2 Respondent Government of the Philippines (GPH),

represented by the Chair of the Negotiating Panel in his official and

personal capacity, Marvic Leonen in the FAB, and Chair of the

Negotiating Panel Miriam Coronel Ferrer in her official and personal

capacity, in the CAB, constituted under the Office of the Presidential

Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP), may be served with notices

and processes of this Honorable Court through the Office of the

President, Malacaang Palace and/or at the Office of the Solicitor

General (OSG) at its offices located at No. 134 Amorsolo Street,

Legaspi Village, Makati City.

2.3 The Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) represented by

the chair of its negotiating panel Mohagher Iqbal may be served

with notices and processes of this Honorable Court at Darapanan,

Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao;

2.4 Hon. Florencio B. Abad, is sued in his official capacity as

Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM)

and may be served with notices and processes at the office of DBM

in General Solano Street, San Miguel, Manila;

2.5 The Commission on Audit (COA), is a constitutional body

with the power, authority and duty to examine and audit

of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest. (Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission, 637 SCRA 79 (2010).

FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 8 of 30

expenditures/uses of funds and property pertaining to the

government or any subdivisions or agencies and to allow or disallow

expenditures, and may be served with notices and processes at the

COA office in Quezon City;

III. AVERMENTS OF MATERIAL FACTS

3.1 In the quest for a just, comprehensive and lasting peace

to resolve the incessant conflicts in Muslim Mindanao, Pres. Fidel V.

Ramos issued on September 15, 1993 Executive Order No. 125 (E.O

125) DEFINING THE APPROACH AND ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE

FOR GOVERNMENTS COMPREHENSIVE PEACE EFFORTS. E.O 125

recognizes peaceful face-to-face negotiations to reach peace

settlements with the different rebel groups.6 It created a

Government Peace Negotiating Panel (GPNP) for each of the three

(3) rebel groups composed of a chairman and four (4) members for

each of the three (3) rebel groups, designated by the President as

his official emissary to conduct negotiations, dialogs and face-to-

face discussions with rebel groups.

3.2 E.O. 125 recognizes three (3) rebel groups to negotiate

with for peace. However, it failed to mention the three (3) specific

rebel groups. Why and how the GPNP only negotiated with the

favored MILF is a riddle to be unfolded or unraveled.

6Section 3, par. c, E.O. 125.

FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 9 of 30

3.3 Said E.O. specifically enjoins the participation of a Panel of

Advisers for each of the three (3) GPNPs, composed of one member

each from the SENATE, the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, and the

CABINET, to be designated by the President in the negotiations,

dialogs and face-to-face discussions with the rebel group.

3.4 Contrary to and in violation of E.O. 125, the GPNPs were

not assisted by the Panel of Advisers.7 The different GPNPs

conducted numerous negotiations, dialogs and face-to-face

discussions with the MILF, here and abroad bereft of the presence of

the requisite Panel of Advisers. This inflicted a mortal flaw upon the

peace process.

3.5 The conduct of the peace process itself is flawed. The

FAB and CAB as the products of the vicious process are necessarily

flawed. No poisonous tree can bear edible fruit.

3.6 On October 12, 2012, the Philippine Government thru

respondent GPH Chairman Marvic M.V.E Leonen (LEONEN), Professor

of Law and former Dean of U.P College of Law, negotiated, signed

and executed the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro (FAB)

with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). Surprisingly and

unbelievably Chairperson LEONEN agreed to the following visible

and palpable unconstitutional provisions:

7Section 4, par. e, E.O. 125.

FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 10 of 30

(a) the Bangsamoro shall be established to replace the

Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)8;

(b) the Bangsamoro is the New Autonomous Political Entity

(NPE) referred to in the Decision Points of Principles as of

April 2012;

(c) the Bangsamoro government shall have a ministerial form

of government;

(d) all law enforcement functions shall be transferred from the

Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to the police force

for the Bangsamoro;

(e) the relationship of the Central Government with

Bangsamoro Government shall be asymmetric;

(f) the Parties recognize Bangsamoro identity and shall be

governed by Basic Law;

(g) Bangsamoro Government shall have its exclusive powers;

(h) Bangsamoro shall exercise judicial competence through

the Shariah Justice System. The supremacy of the Shariah

and its application shall only be to Muslims;

(i) revenue generation and wealth and power sharing

between the Central Government and Bangsamoro

Government.

(j) Bangsamoro shall create its own auditing body, Civil Service Commission, Commission on Election (COMELEC),

Sandiganbayan, Commission on Audit (COA);

(k) Bangsamoro shall have its own core territory that is

expandable as well as its own legislative body; and many

others, which are contrary to and in violation of the 1987

Constitution and existing laws.

Respondent Leonen thru the FAB agreed and granted

unimaginable social, economic, political, and financial benefits to

the MILF which the Executive Department may not legally grant

without the concurrence of the legislative or the judicial

department, or without first amending the 1987 Constitution. They

are all contrary to and in violation of the Constitution.

8 Note: To establish the Bangsamoro to replace the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao

(ARMM) inevitably requires an amendment to the Constitution and the laws affecting and

creating the ARMM and its amendatory laws.

FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 11 of 30

3.7 On March 27, 2014, Chairperson FERRER executed the

Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB) with the MILF,

consisting of five (5) pages consolidating and reenacting of the

Twelve (12) Agreements executed by the GPH and MILF panels.

From the FAB and CAB, which are demonstrably unconstitutional

and void, the Bangsamoro Transition Authority (BTA) drew its void

mandate to draft House Bill 4994, which the President has reviewed

and transmitted as an urgent bill to Congress.

IV. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION

The conduct of Peace Process

itself is flawed.

4. E.O. 125 recognizes that there are three (3) rebel groups

with whom the GRP Panel must negotiate for peace. However, it

failed to mention the three (3) specific rebel groups. GPNPs

negotiated only with the MILF. There are no records to show that

GPNPs ever attempted to negotiate for peace with the two (2) other

rebel groups such as the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and

the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) which actively

participated in the Mamasapano Massacre. The exclusive

negotiation with MILF, to the exclusion of the two (2) other rebel

groups referred under E.O. 125, the other Muslim groups, Christians

and Lumads in Muslim Mindanao, is a fundamental fatal infirmity.

FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 12 of 30

The peace process should be defined by all Filipinos as one

community and not by the GPNPs and MILF Panels only. There can

be no peace, until and unless the great majority, if not indeed all, of

the stakeholders participate in building the peace.

Moreover, E.O. 125 enjoins the participation of a Panel of

Advisers for each of the three (3) GPNPs composed of one member

from the SENATE, the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES and the CABINET to

be designated by the President. Contrary to and in violation of the

E.O. 125, the GPNPs negotiated only with the MILF, here and abroad,

without the participation of the required Panel of Advisers. This

renders the process legally infirm. The end-products of the flawed

process, the FAB and CAB are grossly vitiated.

Respondents Leonen and Ferrer

acted without or in excess of

jurisdiction and/or with grave

abuse of discretion when they

agreed to cause the amendment

of the Constitution and existing

laws.

5. The GPH Panels committed to cause the amendment of

the Constitution and existing laws to conform to the FAB and CAB,

for their legitimization. This qualifies GPH Panel Chairpersons Leonen

and Ferrer for the charge of usurping a power they did not have,

exactly as Justice Carpio points out in North Cotabato case when he

wrote, The Executive Branch usurps the sole discretionary power of

FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 13 of 30

Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution as well as the

exclusive power of the sovereign people to approve or disapprove

such proposed amendments.9 The FAB and CAB also agreed and

obligated to: (a) undertake matters in violation of the Constitution

and existing laws; (b) perform critical obligations and grant

concessions to the MILF beyond the powers of the President to grant,

in violation of the universally revered dictum and self-evident truth----

Nemodat quod non habet---, you cannot give what you do not

have; (c) or perform acts which only the Legislative and Judicial

Departments or the sovereign people can do. Respondents GPH,

Chairpersons Leonen and Ferrer acted without or in excess of

jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion.

The provisions of the FAB and CAB

agreements flagrantly violated

the Constitution and existing

laws.

6. Contract[s]that violate the Constitution and the law, are

null and void and vest no rights and create no obligations. They

produce no legal effect at all.10

xxx In Serrano de Agbayani v. Philippine National Bank, the Court held that xxxThe decision now on appeal

reflects the orthodox view that an unconstitutional act, for

that matter an executive order or a municipal ordinance

likewise suffering from that infirmity, cannot be the source

of any legal rights or duties. Nor can it justify any official

9 Concurring Opinion of Justice Carpio in Province of North Cotabato vs. GRP Peace Panel, 568

SCRA 414 (2008) 10 Frenzel vs. Catito, 406 SCRA 56 (2003).

FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 14 of 30

act taken under it. Its repugnancy to the fundamental law

once judicially declared results in its being to all intents

and purposes a mere scrap of paper. As the new Civil

Code puts it: "When the courts declare a law to be

inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void

and the latter shall govern. Administrative or executive

acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they

are not contrary to the laws of the Constitution. It is

understandable why it should be so, the Constitution

being supreme and paramount. Any legislative or

executive act contrary to its terms cannot survive.11

Accordingly, the FAB and CAB are nothing but toxic intellectual

contortions meant to delude and deceive the people into believing

that they could take them as a panacea for their organic ills when

they were actually designed to subvert them. H.B. 4994 is the

emission/fruit of the unconstitutional agreements. It was drafted by

the Bangsamoro Transition Authority (BTA), reviewed and revised by

the Office of the President and transmitted to Congress as an urgent

measure. H.B. 4994 is the specific potion being dispensed by the

quack doctor. It is a potent extract from the poisonous roots FAB and

CAB nourished by the GRP and MILF Panels.

An unconstitutional act, whether

legislative or executive, is not a

law, confers no right, imposes no

duties, and affords no protection.

6.1 The provisions of the FAB and the CAB are all repugnant to

the 1987 Constitution and existing laws. The Constitution is supreme.

11Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. San Roque Power Corporation, 707 SCRA 78 (2013).

FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 15 of 30

Any exercise of power beyond what is circumscribed by the

Constitution is ultra vires and a nullity.

Hornbook doctrine is that neither the legislative, the executive, nor the judiciary has the power to act beyond

the Constitutions mandate. The Constitution is supreme; any exercise of power beyond what is circumscribed by

the Constitution is ULTRA VIRES AND A NULLITY. In

Fernandez v. Cuerva, 21 SCRA 1095 (1967), Chief Justice

Enrique Fernando expounds: Where the assailed legislative or executive act is found by the judiciary to be

contrary to the Constitution, it is null and void. As the new

Civil Code puts it: When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void

and the latter shall govern. Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they

are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution. The

above provision of the Civil Code reflects the orthodox

view that an unconstitutional act, whether legislative or

executive, is not a law, confers no rights, imposes no

duties, and affords no protection.12

Mandate for Congress to create

Autonomous Region in Muslim

Mindanao (ARMM) is vested only

in the First Congress.

7. Sec. 1, Art. X of the Local Governments of the Constitution

has authorized and recognized only Five (5) Territorial and Political

Subdivisions namely: (a) provinces; (b) cities; (c) municipalities; (d)

barangays; and (e) autonomous regions.

7.1 Moreover, the mandate for Congress to create the

Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and the

Cordilleras is vested only in the First Congress elected under the

12Umali vs. Commission on Elections, 723 SCRA 173 (2014).

FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 16 of 30

Constitution, within eighteen (18) months from the time of the

organization of both houses, to enact the Organic Acts for the

ARMM and Cordilleras.13

7.2 The First Congress elected under the 1987 Constitution is

the Eighth Congress that served from 1987 to 1992. Section 19,

Article X, is very specific, only the First Congress is empowered to

pass the organic acts as part and parcel of the Constitution and not

mere laws. In a nutshell, to establish legally the so-called

Bangsamoro Political Entity, we must first amend the 1987

Constitution to recognize Bangsamoro as a political entity and enact

the enabling laws pursuant to the consequent Constitutional

amendments.

7.3 Father Joaquin Bernas, S. J., a member of the

Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution, makes

this point clear beyond the shadow of a doubt when he writes:

only the Cordilleras in the extreme North and Muslim Mindanao in the South are given the distinctive privilege

of forming autonomous regions. To the question whether

Congress could created autonomous regions other than

for Mindanao and the Cordilleras, the clear and

categorical answer was that any other area which wishes

to become an autonomous region should seek a

constitutional amendment.(Bernas, Constitution of the

Republic of the Philippines, Vol II, p.. 388-389; emphasis

supplied).

13 Sec. 19, Art. X of the Constitution

FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 17 of 30

This opinion is grounded on the proceedings of the

Constitutional Commission, from whose records we quote the

following:

FR. BERNAS. Before we vote, may I ask one clarificatory question.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bernas may proceed.

FR. BERNAS. Is it then the sense of the Committee that

besides recognizing the Cordilleras and Muslim Mindanao

as autonomous regions, Congress is prohibited from

creating other autonomous regions?

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, Madam President. I said that we are

adopting the Rodrigo observation during that caucus that

if there should be other regions aside from Muslim

Mindanao and the Cordilleras which would like to create

themselves into autonomous regions, they should seek a

constitutional amendment.

FR. BERNAS. They should seek a constitutional

amendment?

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, Madam President.14

The newly coined/invented term Bangsamoro Political Entity

(BPE) is an intruder and interloper in the 1987 Constitution. It is a non-

entity. Its existence/creation requires prior amendments to the 1987

Constitution before it can be recognized as a political entity. Unless

and until the 1987 Constitution is first amended Bangsamoro is a

shadow-entityof no legal consequence. Constitutionally, it is

nothing, but a band of amorphous rebels.

14 A Struggle Under the Regime of the Constitution by Pablo P. Garcia, pp. 84-85, The IBP Journal April 2015 issue

FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 18 of 30

We submit that without prior constitutional amendments, the

FAB proposal to establish the Bangsamoro to replace the

Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) as the New

Political Entity (NPE) is unconstitutional and void. AXIOMATICALLY,

ALL SUBSEQUENT ACTS/ISSUEANCES ARISING FROM, CONNECTED WITH

OR RELATED TO THE FAB AND CAB SUCH AS THE DRAFT H.B. 4994 ARE

ODIOUS AND TREACHEROUS VIOLATIONS OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.

Constitutionality of FAB and CAB

must first be resolved.

These critical and decisive issues must be resolved at the

earliest stage before anything irreversible is undertaken under cover

of an unconstitutional act. It cannot be denied that the FAB and

CAB have ushered in a most unpleasant and unstable climate of

dissension, confusion and conflict, with a clear tendency to

deteriorate unless seasonably and sufficiently addressed; the validity

or invalidity of the FAB and CAB must therefore be immediately

addressed before the nation sustains untold injuries.

The FAB and the CAB are cluttered with unconstitutional

experimental features contrary to the framework of the 1987

Constitution and clearly inimical to and destructive of the national

sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of the

FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 19 of 30

Philippines.15 They are copious catalogs of classic unconstitutional

attempts to establish a new and distinct territorial political entity with

powers that cannot be vested in it, without first amending the

Constitution. What puzzles beyond understanding is the deliberate

and willful attempt of the respondents to violate the Constitution in

order to force the Congress and the people themselves, under the

threat of a more intense armed conflict if they did not agree, to

amend or revise the Constitution, via legislation.

Chief Executive can negotiate for

peace with MILF without crossing

the parameters of powers marked

in the Constitution.

9. The wisdom, propriety and sensibility of the FAB and CAB

were discoursed upon with profound intellectual insight when Chief

Justice Puno wrote as follows:

The President as Chief Executive can negotiate peace with the MILF but it is peace that will insure that our

laws are faithfully executed. The President can seek

peace with the MILF but without crossing the parameters

of powers marked in the Constitution to separate the

other branches of government to preserve our

democracy. Xxx Needless to stress, the power of the

President to negotiate peace with the MILF is not plenary.

While considerable degree of flexibility and breadth is

accorded to the peace negotiating panel, the latitude

has its limits the Constitution. The Constitution was ordained by the sovereign people and its postulates may

not be employed as bargaining chips without their prior

consent.

15 Sec. 15, Art. X of the Constitution

FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 20 of 30

There is no power nor is there any right to violate the

Constitution on the part of any official of government. NO

ONE CLAIM HE HAS A BLANK CHECK TO VIOLATE THE

CONSTITUTION IN ADVANCE AND THE PRIVILEGE TO CURE

THE VIOLATION LATERTHROUGH AMENDMENT OF ITS

PROVISIONS. RESPONDENTS THESIS OF VIOLATE NOW, VALIDATE LATER MAKES A BURLESQUE OF THE

CONSTITUTION.16

Neither LEONEN nor FERRER in their

official and personal capacities

has the power or the capacity to

commit the government to

constitutional and statutory

changes.

10. The FAB and CAB made a real and actual commitment to

fully implement their letter and spirit by effecting the necessary

amendments to the Constitution and existing laws. Lamentably,

respondents LEONEN and FERRER in their official and personal

capacities had neither power nor authority to commit the

government to statutory changes.

xxx GRP panel made a real and actual commitment to fully implement the MOA-AD by effecting

the necessary amendments to existing laws and the

Constitution. xxx Only Congress and the people have the

competence to effect statutory and constitutional

changes in the appropriate manner xxx. xxx the GRP

panel had neither power nor authority to commit the

government to statutory and constitutional changes. xxx

Only Congress and the sovereign people have the

competence to effect statutory constitutional changes in

the appropriate manner provided by law. The GRP panel,

as a mere organ of the Executive Branch, does not

possess any such prerogative.17 16 Concurring Opinion of Chief Justice Puno in Province of North Cotabato vs. GRP Peace Panel,

568 SCRA 418 (2008) 17 Concurring Opinion of Justice Tinga in Province of North Cotabato vs. GRP Peace Panel, 568

SCRA 419 (2008)

FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 21 of 30

10.1 Any commitment to any entity on the part of the

President or his political appointees to amend the Constitution is

inherently ultra vires, because the Executive Branch does not have

the innate power to effectuate such changes on its own. Neither

does the President have the power to bind to positive action those

whom the Constitution entrusts the power to amend the charter,

namely: the Congress, the delegates to a constitutional convention,

and the electorate."18

V.

In giving unwarranted

advantages, preferences or

advantages to the MILF and

entering into the Agreements in

question thru manifest partiality,

evident bad faith or gross

inexcusable negligence, which

are manifestly and grossly

disadvantageous to the

Government and the Filipino

nation, the respondents may have

wittingly or unwittingly violated

Section 3 subpars. (e) and (g) of

R.A. 3019, as amended.

5. Justice Leonen and Professor Ferrer, in giving unwarranted

benefits, advantage or preference to the MILF to the prejudice and

clear disadvantage of the rest of the Filipino people, have

manifested their partiality and betrayed their inclination toward the

MILF, against the Filipino people. In agreeing to replace the ARMM

18 Concurring Opinion of Justice Reyes in Province of North Cotabato vs. GRP Peace Panel, 568

SCRA 422 (2008)

FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 22 of 30

with the Bangsamoro, in violation of the Constitution and existing

laws, without first amending the Constitution and pertinent laws, the

FAB and the CAB have caused undue injury to the Government and

inflicted a fatal wound to the Constitution by subverting, diminishing

or weakening the sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines

(ROP) and seeking to dismantle the territorial jurisdiction of the

Republic of the Philippines (ROP). Justice Leonen and Professor

Ferrer may have wittingly or unwittingly violated Sec. 3(e) of R.A.

3019 as amended which provides:

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted

benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his

official administrative or judicial functions through

manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable

negligence. xxx xxx xxx. (emphasis supplied)

5.1 Moreover, Respondents Leonen and Ferrer have entered

into agreements manifestly and grossly advantageous to the

Republic of the Philippines, the Constitution and the Filipino people.

5.2 We submit that the FAB and the CAB are unconstitutional

and void. They cannot create and give rise to any rights and

obligations. ALL ACTS/ISSUANCES ARISING FROM, CONNECTED WITH,

RELATED TO OR PURSUANT TO OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FAB AND

CAB ARE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VOID. They are the toxic products of

unconstitutional agreements and therefore carry the same infirmities.

FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 23 of 30

5.3 Notwithstanding that the FAB and CAB are

unconstitutional and void, appropriations have been made and

released for the implementation of the FAB and CAB and their

emanations. Accordingly, respondent Hon. Florencio B. Abad of

Department of Budget and Management (DBM) should be

enjoined/restrained from further releasing or spending for the support

and implementation of the FAB and CAB and their radiations.

5.4 Respondent COA be ordered to examine, audit and

disallow the funds/expenses that were released and expended by

the GPNPs here and abroad, and require the return of the money

received or spent by the different GPNPs as they were used to

support and implement unconstitutional agreements or

undertakings.

VI.AVERMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION

FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

AND/OR WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

6.1 The petitioners replead and incorporate herein by

reference all the preceding allegations, submissions and arguments;

6.2 The foregoing allegations/averments demonstrate that

the petitioners are clearly entitled to the reliefs demanded, the

whole or part of which consists in restraining, enjoining, prohibiting,

ordering and mandating respondents, their agents and

FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 24 of 30

instrumentalities from further proceeding/implementing the FAB and

CAB and their emanations and radiations; and for Respondent COA

to disallow the audit of the public funds released/used and demand

for the return of unused funds;

6.3 Until and unless a TRO or preliminary injunction is issued,

grave due irreparable injury to the Republic and the Filipino people

will ensue since unlawful disbursements or uses of public funds to

implement/pursue the illegal/unconstitutional FAB and CAB will

escalate into continuing violations, if not a flaunting disregard or

defiance, of the Constitution, and the laws further prejudicing public

interest and welfare;

6.4 Respondents are doing and procuring to be done acts in

violation of the rights of the Filipino people whose welfare is being

gravely prejudiced and tending to render the judgment ineffectual;

6.5 Since the issues involved are clearly constitutional/legal

issues, it is prayed that the TRO and/or preliminary injunction be

issued without need of filing a bond.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court

that:

FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 25 of 30

1. Upon the filing of this petition or immediately thereafter,

issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) restraining the respondents,

particularly HON. Florencio B. Abad, and any other persons acting

under their orders or instructions, FROM FURTHER RELEASING FUNDS

FOR ANY AND ALL ACTIVITIES TO PURSUE OR IMPLEMENT THE FAB AND

THE CAB AND ANY AND ALL ACTS AND ISSUANCES, SUCH AS H.B.

4994, ARISING FROM, CONNECTED WITH OR RELATED TO THE FAB AND

CAB AND RETURN THE BALANCE OF UNSPENT FUNDS TO THE NATIONAL

TREASURER;

2. This petition be given due course;

3. After proceedings, judgment be rendered declaring the

FAB and CAB as unconstitutional, illegal and void, inclusive of all

acts/issuances arising from, connected with or related to the FAB

and CAB, such as H.B. 4994 drafted by the Bangsamoro Transition

Authority (BTA), reviewed and revised by the Office of the President

and transmitted to Congress, being the fruits of the poisonous and

unconstitutional FAB and CAB;

4. Mandate the COA to disallow the audit of all

funds/expenses incurred by the GPH Panels;

5. To admonish and warn the Chairpersons of GRP panel to

be more prudent and cautious in dealing with the amorphous, self-

FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 26 of 30

styled entity, inclusively, to the exclusion of other Muslims, Christians

and Lumads; and

6. After hearing, declare the injunction permanent and issue

Writ of Mandamus to the COA.

Such other reliefs and remedies under the premises are also

prayed for.

Makati City for Manila, June 8, 2015.

M.M LAZARO AND ASSOCIATES

19th Flr. Chatham House Bldg.

Valero cor. Rufino Streets

Salcedo Village, Makati City

Tel. No. 8441540; 8441731

Email: [email protected]

By:

REYNALDO Y. MAULIT PTR No. 1466745/06.11.15/Quezon City

IBP No. 0998630/06.11.15/Quezon City

Attorneys Roll No. 19260 MCLE No. IV-0020194/05.14.13

MANUEL M. LAZARO PTR No. 4756435/01.08.15/Makati City

IBP LRN No. 00058/02.22.93/Makati City


BALDOMERO S.P GATBONTON PTR No. 4756440/01.08.15/Makati City

IBP LRN No. 0988417/01.09.15/Manila IV


MICHELLE B. LAZARO PTR No. 4756434/01.08.15/Makati City



FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 27 of 30

JEREMY GATDULA PTR No.2374253/01.29.15/Mandaluyong

IBP No. 0996162/02.17.15/Mandaluyong


PHILIPE T. AQUINO PTR No. 4756441/01.08.15/Makati City



Republic of the Philippines)

Makati City )S.S

VERIFICATION and

CERTIFICATION ON NON-FORUM SHOPPING

Rep. Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez, Francisco S. Tatad,

Archbishop Ramon C. Arguelles, Archbishop Fernando R. Capalla,

Archbishop Romulo T. de la Cruz, Bishop Juan de Dios M. Pueblos,

and Norberto B. Gonzales19, all of legal age, Filipinos, and residents in

various provinces of the Philippines as earlier indicated, after having

been duly sworn in accordance with law, do hereby depose and

state that:

1. Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez is the President of

Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA) and is the duly authorized representative of PHILCONSA one of the Petitioners in the instant case, a copy of the Board Resolution is hereto attached

as Annex C and made integral part hereof;

2. They have caused the preparation and filing of the instant

Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus;

3. They have read the foregoing Petition and affirm that the

allegations therein are true and correct of their own personal

knowledge and/or based on authentic documents and records;

4. They further attest that they have not filed or commenced

any action, claim, or proceeding involving the same or similar issues

with the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal

or quasi-judicial agency; and that to best of their knowledge no

19 The Supreme Court leans on the doctrine that the rule on standing is a matter of procedure, hence, can be relaxed for nontraditional plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers, and legislators

when the public interest so requires, such as when the matter is of transcendental importance,

of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest. (Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission, 637 SCRA 79 (2010).

FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 28 of 30

such action, claim, or proceeding was filed or is pending in the

Supreme Court or Court of Appeals or in any division thereof or any

other tribunal or agency;

5. If they should thereafter learn of such similar action or

proceeding, they undertake to inform this Honorable Court within

five (5) days from knowledge thereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, they hereunto affixed their signatures, in

case of petitioner Romualdez, he affixed his thumbmark this ____ day

of __________ at Makati City, Philippines.

PHILCONSA

By:

REP. FERDINAND MARTIN G. ROMUALDEZ

FRANCISCO S. TATAD

RAMON C. ARGUELLES

FERNANDO R. CAPALLA

ROMULO T. de la CRUZ

NORBERTO B. GONZALES

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of _______

2015 in Makati City affiants exhibiting to me as competent proofs of

their identities:

Gov. Issued ID Date/Place Issued

Ferdinand Martin G.

Romualdez

Philippine Passport

No. EB7642481

March 14, 2013/

DFA Manila

Francisco S. Tatad Philippine Passport

No. EB1089031

October 1, 2010/

DFA Manila

Ramon C. Arguelles Philippine Passport

No. EB3923911

October 21, 2011/

DFA Manila

Fernando R. Capalla Philippine Passport April 15, 2015/

FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 29 of 30

No. EC3912535 Davao City

Romulo T. Dela Cruz Philippine Passport

No. EB297686

July 9, 2011/

DFA Davao

Juan de Dios M.

Pueblos

Philippine Passport

No. EB3406821

August 17, 2011/

DFA Manila

Jeremy Gatdula Philippine Passport

No. EC3537020

February 26, 2015/

DFA Manila

Norberto B. Gonzales Philippine Passport

No. EC1490233

June 22, 2014/

DFA Manila

Doc. No. _____;

Page No. _____;

Book No. _____;

Series of 2015.

Copy furnished:

Miriam Coronel Ferrer

Government of the Philippines

Malacaang Palace

Jose P. Laurel Sr., San Miguel, Manila

or

Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process

6th Floor, Agustin 1 Building

F. Ortigas Jr. Avenue (formerly Emerald Avenue)

Ortigas Center, Pasig City

Marvic M.V.E. Leonen

Supreme Court of the Philippines

Padre Faura Street, Ermita, Manila

or

Office of the Solicitor General

134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village,

Makati City

Hon. Florencio B. Abad

Department of Budget and Management

General Solano Street

San Miguel, Manila

Commission on Audit

R-7, Quezon City

FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

Page 30 of 30

Moro Islamic Liberation Front

Darapanan, Sultan Kudarat

Maguindanao

EXPLANATION

In compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil

Procedure, as amended, please be informed that service of the

instant pleading is being effected upon the aforenamed counsel by

registered mail in accordance with Section 7 of the aforesaid Rule 13

for the reason that personal service thereof is not practicable

considering the distances between their offices and this Court as

well as undersigned counsels offices, and the prevailing traffic conditions.

PHILIPE T. AQUINO

June 11, 2015 - FINAL DRAFT Philconsa Petition

Documents

Transcript of June 11, 2015 - FINAL DRAFT Philconsa Petition