North Cotabato vs GRP Peace Panel on Ipra Law

7/27/2019 North Cotabato vs GRP Peace Panel on Ipra Law

1/5

G.R. No. 183591

October 14, 2008

Province of North Cotabato vs. GRP

THE PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABA TO, duly represented by GOVERNOR JESUS SACDALAN and/orVICE-GOVERNOR EMMANUEL PIOL, for and in his own behalf, petitioners,

vs.

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBL IC OF THE PHILIPPINESPEACE PANELON ANCESTRALDOMAIN (GRP), represented by SEC. RODOLFO GARCIA, ATTY. LEAH ARMAMENTO, ATTY.SEDFREY CANDELARIA, MARK RYAN SULLIVAN and/or GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., thelatter in his capacity as the present and duly-appointed Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process(OPAPP) or the so-called Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process, respondents

FACTS:

The Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) brought

about by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic

Liberation Front (MILF) as an aspect of Tripoli Agreement of Peace in 2001 is

scheduled to be signed in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

This Memorandum prepared by the joint efforts of the Government of the

Republic of the Philippines (GRP) Peace Panel and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front

(MILF) Peace Panel, was merely a codification of consensus points reached between

both parties and the aspirations of the MILF to have a Bangsamoro homeland.

This agreement was petitioned by the Province of North Cotabato for Mandamus

and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction and

Temporary Restraining Order.

The agreement mentions "Bangsamoro Juridical Entity" (BJE) to which it

grants the authority and jurisdiction over the Ancestral Domain and Ancestral Lands of

the Bangsamoro; authority and jurisdiction over all natural resources within internal

waters.

The agreement is composed of two local statutes:

The Organic Act for Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (R.A. No.

9054)

The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (R.A No. 8371)


2/5

ISSUE:

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 tothe MOA;

MAIN ISSUE:

c) to concede to or recognize the claim of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front forancestral domain in violation of Republic Act No. 8371 (THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLESRIGHTS ACT OF1997)

If in the affirmative, whether the Executive Branch has the authority to sobind the Government of the Republic of the Philippines.

HELD:

With respect to the indigenous cultural communities/indigenous people

(ICCs/IPs) have, under the IPRA (THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS ACT), the

right to participate fully at all levels of decision-making in matters which may affect their

rights, lives and destinies. The MOA-AD, (The Memorandum of Agreement on the

Ancestral Domain), an instrument recognizing ancestral domain, failed to justify its non-

compliance with the clear-cut mechanisms ordained in said Act which provides the


3/5

observance of the free and prior informed consent of the indigenous cultural

communities/indigenous people.

The IPRA does not grant the Executive Department or any government agency

the power to delineate and recognize an ancestral domain claim by mere agreement or

compromise.

The IPRA, it lays down the prevailing procedure for the delineation and

recognition of ancestral domains. The MOA-ADs manner of delineating the ancestral

domain of the Bangsamoro people is a clear departure from that procedure.

The Memorandum just provides for:

[t]he Bangsamoro homeland and historic territory refer to the land mass as well as the

maritime, terrestrial, fluvial and alluvial domains, and the aerial domain, the atmospheric space

above it, embracing the Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan geographic region.

In proceeding to make a sweeping declaration on ancestral domain, without

complying with the IPRA, which is cited as one of the term of reference (TOR) of the

MOA-AD, the government of the Republic of the Philippines clearly went out of bounds

of its authority.


4/5

The Memorandum in question contains many provisions which are consistent with

the international legal concept ofassociation, specifically the following:

The BJEs capacity to enter into economic and trade relations with foreign countries,

The commitment of the Central Government to ensure the BJEs participation in

meetings and events in the ASEAN and the specialized UN agencies, and

The continuing responsibility of the Central Government over external defense.

These provisions of the MOA indicate, among other things, that the parties

involved in the case at bar aims to vest in the BJE the status of an associated state or,

at any rate, a status closely approximating it.

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. 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.


5/5

Even the mere concept animating many of the MOA-ADs provisions, already

requires for its validity the amendment of constitutional provisions, specifically the

following provisions of Article X:

SECTION 1. The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic ofthe Philippines are the provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. There shallbe autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras as hereinafter provided.

SECTION 15. There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and inthe Cordilleras consisting of provinces, cities, municipalities, and geographical areassharing common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and social

structures, and other relevant characteristics within the framework of this Constitution andthe national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines.

The MOA-AD cannot be reconciled with the present Constitution and laws. Not

only its specific provisions but the very concept underlying them, namely, the

associative relationship envisioned between the The Government of the Republic of the

Philippines and the Basangmoro Juridical Entity are unconstitutional, for the concept

assumes that the associated entity is a state and implies that the same is on its way to

independence.

North Cotabato vs GRP Peace Panel on Ipra Law

Documents

Transcript of North Cotabato vs GRP Peace Panel on Ipra Law