5/24/2018 case 1- 25

1/286

CASE 1

PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA,ET AL G.R No. 187167Petitioners,

- versus -HON.EDUARDO ERMITA, IN HISCAPACITY AS EXECUTIVESECRETARY, ET

Respondents. July 16, 2011x -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO,J.:

The Case

This original action for the writs of certiorari and prohibition assails the constitutionality of RepubAct No. 95221(RA 9522) adjusting the countrys archipelagic baselines and classifying the baselinregime of nearby territories.

The Antecedents

In 1961, Congress passed Republic Act No. 3046 (RA 3046)2demarcating the maritime baselines the Philippines as an archipelagic State.3This law followed the framing of the Convention on thTerritorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone in 1958 (UNCLOS I),4codifying, among others, the sovereigright of States parties over their territorial sea, the breadth of which, however, was leundetermined. Attempts to fill this void during the second round of negotiations in Geneva in 196(UNCLOS II) proved futile. Thus, domestically, RA 3046 remained unchanged for nearly five decadesave for legislation passed in 1968 (Republic Act No. 5446 [RA 5446]) correcting typographical erroand reserving the drawing of baselines around Sabah in North Borneo.

In March 2009, Congress amended RA 3046 by enacting RA 9522, the statute now under scrutinThe change was prompted by the need to make RA 3046 compliant with the terms of the UniteNations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III),5which the Philippines ratified on 27 Februa1984.6Among others, UNCLOS III prescribes the water-land ratio, length, and contour of baselines archipelagic States like the Philippines7and sets the deadline for the filing of application for thextended continental shelf.8Complying with these requirements, RA 9522 shortened one baselinoptimized the location of some basepoints around the Philippine archipelago and classifieadjacent territories, namely, the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal, regimes of islands whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones.

Petitioners, professors of law, law students and a legislator, in their respective capacities as citizentaxpayers or x x x legislators,9as the case may be, assail the constitutionality of RA 9522 on twprincipal grounds, namely: (1) RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory, and logically, the reacof the Philippine states sovereign power, in violation of Article 1 of the 198Constitution,10embodying the terms of the Treaty of Paris11and ancillary treaties,12and (2) RA 95opens the countrys waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all vessels an

aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security, contravening the countrynuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources, in violation of relevant constitutionprovisions.13

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote1symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote1symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote1symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote2symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote2symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote2symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote3symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote3symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote3symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote4symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote4symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote4symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote5symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote5symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote5symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote6symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote6symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote6symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote7symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote7symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote7symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote8symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote8symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote8symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote9symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote9symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote9symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote10symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote10symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote10symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote11symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote11symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote11symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote12symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote12symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote13symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote13symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote13symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote13symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote12symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote11symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote10symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote9symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote8symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote7symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote6symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote5symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote4symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote3symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote2symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote1sym

5/24/2018 case 1- 25

2/286

In addition, petitioners contend that RA 9522s treatment of the KIG as regime of islands n

only results in the loss of a large maritime area but also prejudices the livelihood of subsistencfishermen.14To buttress their argument of territorial diminution, petitioners facially attack RA 9522 fwhat it excluded and includedits failure to reference either the Treaty of Paris or Sabah and its uof UNCLOS IIIs framework of regime of islands to determine the maritime zones of the KIG and thScarborough Shoal.

Commenting on the petition, respondent officials raised threshold issues questioning (1) the petition

compliance with the case or controversy requirement for judicial review grounded on petitionealleged lack of locus standiand (2) the propriety of the writs of certiorari and prohibition to assail thconstitutionality of RA 9522. On the merits, respondents defended RA 9522 as the country

compliance with the terms of UNCLOS III, preserving Philippine territory over the KIG or ScarborougShoal. Respondents add that RA 9522 does not undermine the countrys security, environment aneconomic interests or relinquish the Philippines claim over Sabah.

Respondents also question the normative force, under international law, of petitioneassertion that what Spain ceded to the United States under the Treaty of Paris were the islanand all the watersfound within the boundaries of the rectangular area drawn under the Treaty Paris.

We left unacted petitioners prayer for an injunctive writ.

The Issues

The petition raises the following issues:

1. Preliminarily

1. Whether petitioners possess locus standito bring this suit; and2. Whether the writs of certiorari and prohibition are the proper remedies to assail th

constitutionality of RA 9522.

2. On the merits, whether RA 9522 is unconstitutional.

The Ruling of the CourtOn the threshold issues, we hold that (1) petitioners possess locus standito bring this suit as citizeand (2) the writs of certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies to test the constitutionality of R9522. On the merits, we find no basis to declare RA 9522 unconstitutional.

On the Threshold Issues

Petitioners Possess LocusStandi as Citizens

Petitioners themselves undermine their assertion of locus standias legislators and taxpayers becauthe petition alleges neither infringement of legislative prerogative15nor misuse of pubfunds,16occasioned by the passage and implementation of RA 9522. Nonetheless, we recognipetitionerslocus standias citizens with constitutionally sufficient interest in the resolution of the merof the case which undoubtedly raises issues of national significance necessitating urgent resolutioIndeed, owing to the peculiar nature of RA 9522, it is understandably difficult to find other litiganpossessing a more direct and specific interest to bring the suit, thus satisfying one of threquirements for granting citizenship standing.17

The Writs of Certiorari and ProhibitionAre Proper Remedies to Testthe Constitutionality of Statutes

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote14symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote14symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote14symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote15symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote15symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote16symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote16symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote16symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote17symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote17symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote17symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote17symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote16symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote15symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote14sym

5/24/2018 case 1- 25

3/286

In praying for the dismissal of the petition on preliminary grounds, respondents seek a striobservance of the offices of the writs of certiorari and prohibition, noting that the writs cannot issuabsent any showing of grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial ministerial powers on the part of respondents and resulting prejudice on the part of petitioners.18

Respondents submission holds true in ordinary civil proceedings. When this Court exercises

constitutional power of judicial review, however, we have, by tradition, viewed the writs of certior

and prohibition as proper remedial vehicles to test the constitutionality of statutes,19

and indeed, acts of other branches of government.20Issues of constitutional import are sometimes crafted out statutes which, while having no bearing on the personal interests of the petitioners, carry sucrelevance in the life of this nation that the Court inevitably finds itself constrained to takcognizance of the case and pass upon the issues raised, non-compliance with the letter procedural rules notwithstanding. The statute sought to be reviewed here is one such law.

RA 9522 is Not Unconstitutional

RA 9522 is a Statutory Toolto Demarcate the CountrysMaritime Zones and ContinentalShelf Under UNCLOS III, not toDelineate Philippine Territory

Petitioners submit that RA 9522 dismembers a large portion of the national territory21becausediscards the pre-UNCLOS III demarcation of Philippine territory under the Treaty of Paris and relatetreaties, successively encoded in the definition of national territory under the 1935, 1973 and 19Constitutions. Petitioners theorize that this constitutional definition trumps any treaty or statutoprovision denying the Philippines sovereign control over waters, beyond the territorial sea recognizeat the time of the Treaty of Paris, that Spain supposedly ceded to the United States. Petitioners arguthat from the Treaty of Paris technical description, Philippine sovereignty over territorial wateextends hundreds of nautical miles around the Philippine archipelago, embracing the rectangularea delineated in the Treaty of Paris.22

Petitioners theory fails to persuade us.

UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory. It is a multilateral trearegulating, among others, sea-use rights over maritime zones ( i.e., the territorial waters [12 nauticmiles from the baselines], contiguous zone [24 nautical miles from the baselines], exclusive economzone [200 nautical miles from the baselines]), and continental shelves that UNCLOS delimits.23UNCLOS III was the culmination of decades-long negotiations among United Natiomembers to codify norms regulating the conduct of States in the worlds oceans and submarinareas, recognizing coastal and archipelagic States graduated authority over a limited span waters and submarine lands along their coasts.

On the other hand, baselines laws such as RA 9522 are enacted by UNCLOS III States parti

to mark-out specific basepoints along their coasts from which baselines are drawn, either straight contoured, to serve as geographic starting points to measure the breadth of the maritime zones ancontinental shelf. Article 48 of UNCLOS III on archipelagic States like ours could not be any clearer:

Article 48.Measurement of the breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, thexclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. The breadth of the territorial sea, thcontiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf shall be measurefrom archipelagic baselinesdrawn in accordance with article 47. (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, baselines laws are nothing but statutory mechanisms for UNCLOS III States parties delimit with precision the extent of their maritime zones and continental shelves. In turn, this giv

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote18symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote18symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote18symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote19symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote19symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote19symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote20symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote20symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote20symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote21symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote21symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote22symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote22symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote22symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote23symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote23symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote23symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote23symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote22symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote21symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote20symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote19symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote18sym

5/24/2018 case 1- 25

4/286

notice to the rest of the international community of the scope of the maritime space and submarinareas within which States parties exercise treaty-based rights, namely, the exercise of sovereignover territorial waters (Article 2), the jurisdiction to enforce customs, fiscal, immigration, ansanitation laws in the contiguous zone (Article 33), and the right to exploit the living and non-livinresources in the exclusive economic zone (Article 56) and continental shelf (Article 77).

Even under petitioners theory that the Philippine territory embraces the islands and all thwaterswithin the rectangular area delimited in the Treaty of Paris, the baselines of the Philippin

would still have to be drawn in accordance with RA 9522 because this is the only way to draw thbaselines in conformity with UNCLOS III. The baselines cannot be drawn from the boundaries or othportions of the rectangular area delineated in the Treaty of Paris, but from the outermost islandand drying reefs of the archipelago.24

UNCLOS III and its ancillary baselines laws play no role in the acquisition, enlargement or, petitioners claim, diminution of territory. Under traditional international law typology, States acqui(or conversely, lose) territory through occupation, accretion, cession and prescription,25not executing multilateral treaties on the regulations of sea-use rights or enacting statutes to compwith the treatys terms to delimit maritime zones and continental shelves. Territorial claims to lanfeatures are outside UNCLOS III, and are instead governed by the rules on general internationlaw.26

RA 9522s Use of the Frameworkof Regime of Islands to Determine theMaritime Zones of the KIG antheScarborough Shoal, not Inconsistentwith the Philippines Claim of SovereigntyOver these Areas

Petitioners next submit that RA 9522s use of UNCLOS IIIs regime of islands framework to draw thbaselines, and to measure the breadth of the applicable maritime zones of the KIG, weakens o

territorial claim over that area.27Petitioners add that the KIGs (and Scarborough Shoals) exclusiofrom the Philippine archipelagic baselines results in the loss of about 15,000 square nautical miles territorial waters, prejudicing the livelihood of subsistence fishermen.28A comparison of thconfiguration of the baselines drawn under RA 3046 and RA 9522 and the extent of maritime spac

encompassed by each law, coupled with a reading of the text of RA 9522 and its congressiondeliberations, vis--visthe Philippines obligations under UNCLOS III, belie this view.

The configuration of the baselines drawn under RA 3046 and RA 9522 shows that RA 9522 merefollowed the basepoints mapped by RA 3046, save for at least nine basepoints that RA 9522 skippeto optimize the location of basepoints and adjust the length of one baseline (and thus comply wiUNCLOS IIIs limitation on the maximum length of baselines). Under RA 3046, as under RA 9522, thKIG and the Scarborough Shoal lie outside of the baselines drawn around the Philippinarchipelago. This undeniable cartographic fact takes the wind out of petitioners argume

branding RA 9522 as a statutory renunciation of the Philippines claim over the KIG, assuming thbaselines are relevant for this purpose.

Petitioners assertion of loss of about 15,000 square nautical miles of territorial waters under RA 95is similarly unfounded both in fact and law. On the contrary, RA 9522, by optimizing the location basepoints, increased the Philippines total maritime space (covering its internal waters, territorsea and exclusive economic zone) by 145,216 square nautical miles, as shown in the table below:29

Extent of maritime area using RA 3046,as amended, taking into account theTreaty of Paris delimitation (in squarenautical miles)

Extent of maritime area usingRA 9522, taking into accounUNCLOS III (in square nauticamiles)

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote24symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote24symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote24symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote25symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote25symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote25symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote26symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote26symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote26symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote27symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote27symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote27symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote28symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote28symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote28symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote29symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote29symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote29symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote28symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote27symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote26symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote25symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote24sym

5/24/2018 case 1- 25

5/286

Internal or archipelagicwaters 166,858 171,435

Territorial Sea 274,136 32,106

Exclusive EconomicZone 382,669

TOTAL 440,994 586,210

Thus, as the map below shows, the reach of the exclusive economic zone drawn under RA 95even extends way beyond the waters covered by the rectangular demarcation under the Treaty Paris. Of course, where there are overlapping exclusive economic zones of opposite or adjaceStates, there will have to be a delineation of maritime boundaries in accordance with UNCLOS III.30

Further, petitionersargument that the KIG now lies outside Philippine territory because the baselinthat RA 9522 draws do not enclose the KIG is negated by RA 9522 itself. Section 2 of the law commto text the Philippines continued claim of sovereignty and jurisdiction over the KIG and th

Scarborough Shoal:

SEC. 2. The baselines in the following areas over which the Philippines likewiexercises sovereignty and jurisdictionshall be determined as Regime of Islands under thRepublic of the Philippines consistent with Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on thLaw of the Sea (UNCLOS):

a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under Presidential Decree No. 1596 andb) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal. (Emphasis supplied)

Had Congress in RA 9522 enclosed the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as part of thPhilippine archipelago, adverse legal effects would have ensued. The Philippines would havcommitted a breach of two provisions of UNCLOS III. First, Article 47 (3) of UNCLOS III requires th[t]he drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the gener

configuration of the archipelago. Second, Article 47 (2) of UNCLOS III requires that the length the baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles, save for three per cent (3%) of the total numbof baselines which can reach up to 125 nautical miles.31

Although the Philippines has consistently claimed sovereignty over the KIG32and thScarborough Shoal for several decades, these outlying areas are located at an appreciabdistance from the nearest shoreline of the Philippine archipelago,33such that any straight baselinloped around them from the nearest basepoint will inevitably depart to an appreciable extefrom the general configuration of the archipelago.

The principal sponsor of RA 9522 in the Senate, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, took pato emphasize the foregoing during the Senate deliberations:

What we call the Kalayaan Island Group or what the rest of the world call[] the Spratand the Scarborough Shoal are outside our archipelagic baseline becauseif we put theinside our baselines we might be accused of violating the provision of international law whic

states: The drawing of such baseline shall not depart to any appreciable extent from thgeneral configuration of the archipelago. So sa loob ng ating baseline, dapat magkalap

ang mga islands. Dahil malayo ang Scarborough Shoal, hindi natin masasabing malapit ssa atin although we are still allowed by international law to claim them as our own.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote30symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote30symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote31symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote31symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote31symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote32symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote32symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote33symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote33symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote33symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote33symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote32symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote31symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote30sym

5/24/2018 case 1- 25

6/286

This is called contested islands outside our configuration. We see that our archipelago defined by the orange line which [we] call[] archipelagic baseline. Ngayon, tingnan ninyang maliit na circle doon sa itaas, that is Scarborough Shoal, itong malaking circle sa ibabthat is Kalayaan Group or the Spratlys.Malayo na sila sa ating archipelago kaya kung ilihis pnatin ang dating archipelagic baselines para lamang masama itong dalawang circles, hinna sila magkalapit at baka hindi na tatanggapin ng United Nations because of the rule tha

should follow the natural configuration of the archipelago.34(Emphasis supplied)

Similarly, the length of one baseline that RA 3046 drew exceeded UNCLOS IIIs limits. The nee

to shorten this baseline, and in addition, to optimize the location of basepoints using current mapbecame imperative as discussed by respondents:

[T]he amendment of the baselines law was necessary to enable the Philippines draw the outer limits of its maritime zones including the extended continental shelf in thmanner provided by Article 47 of [UNCLOS III]. As defined by R.A. 3046, as amended by R.5446, the baselines suffer from some technical deficiencies, to wit:

1. The length of the baseline across Moro Gulf (from Middle of 3 Rock Awash to Tongquil Poinis 140.06 nautical miles x x x. This exceeds the maximum length allowed under Article 47(2) the [UNCLOS III], which states that The length of such baselines shall not exceed 100 nautic

miles, except that up to 3 per cent of the total number of baselines enclosing anarchipelago may exceed that length, up to a maximum length of 125 nautical miles.

2. The selection of basepoints is not optimal. At least 9 basepoints can be skipped or deletefrom the baselines system. This will enclose an additional 2,195 nautical miles of water.

3. Finally, the basepoints were drawn from maps existing in 1968, and not established geodetic survey methods. Accordingly, some of the points, particularly along the west coaof Luzon down to Palawan were later found to be located either inland or on water, not olow-water line and drying reefs as prescribed by Article 47.35

Hence, far from surrendering the Philippines claim over the KIG and the Scarborough ShoCongress decision to classify the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as Regime[s] of Islands undthe Republic of the Philippines consistent with Article 12136of UNCLOS III manifests the PhilippinStates responsible observance of itspacta sunt servandaobligation under UNCLOS III. Under Artic121 of UNCLOS III, any naturally formed area of land,surrounded by water, which is above water high tide, such as portions of the KIG, qualifies under the category of regime of islands, who

islands generate their own applicable maritime zones.37

Statutory Claim Over Sabah underRA 5446 Retained

Petitioners argument for the invalidity of RA 9522 for its failure to textualize the Philippines claover Sabah in North Borneo is also untenable. Section 2 of RA 5446, which RA 9522 did not repeakeeps open the door for drawing the baselines of Sabah:

Section 2. The definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the PhilippinArchipelago as provided in this Act is without prejudice to the delineation of the baselines the territorial sea around the territory of Sabah, situated in North Borneo, over which thRepublic of the Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty. (Emphasis supplied)

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote34symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote34symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote34symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote35symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote35symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote35symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote36symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote36symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote37symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote37symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote37symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote37symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote36symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote35symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote34sym

5/24/2018 case 1- 25

7/286

UNCLOS III and RA 9522 notIncompatible with the ConstitutionsDelineation of Internal Waters

As their final argument against the validity of RA 9522, petitioners contend that the launconstitutionally converts internal waters into archipelagic waters, hence subjecting these wate

to the right of innocent and sea lanes passage under UNCLOS III, including overflight. Petitioneextrapolate that these passage rights indubitably expose Philippine internal waters to nuclear anmaritime pollution hazards, in violation of the Constitution.38

Whether referred to as Philippine internal waters under Article I of the Constitution39

or archipelagic waters under UNCLOS III (Article 49 [1]), the Philippines exercises sovereignty over thbody of water lying landward of the baselines, including the air space over it and the submarinareas underneath. UNCLOS III affirms this:

Article 49. Legal status of archipelagic waters, of the air space over archipelagwaters and of their bed and subsoil.

1. The sovereignty of an archipelagic State extends to the waters enclosed by tharchipelagic baselinesdrawn in accordance with article 47, described archipelagic waters, regardless of their depth or distance from the coast.

2. This sovereignty extends to the air space over the archipelagic waters, as weas to their bed and subsoil, and the resources contained therein.

x x x x

4. The regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage established in this Part shall not other respects affect the status of the archipelagic waters, including the sea lanes,or thexercise by the archipelagic State of its sovereignty over such waters and their air space, beand subsoil, and the resources contained therein. (Emphasis supplied)

The fact of sovereignty, however, does not preclude the operation of municipal and internationlaw norms subjecting the territorial sea or archipelagic waters to necessary, if not marginal, burdein the interest of maintaining unimpeded, expeditious international navigation, consistent with th

international law principle of freedom of navigation. Thus, domestically, the political branches of tPhilippine government, in the competent discharge of their constitutional powers, may palegislation designating routes within the archipelagic waters to regulate innocent and sea lanpassage.40Indeed, bills drawing nautical highways for sea lanes passage are now pending Congress.41

In the absence of municipal legislation, international law norms, now codified in UNCLOS operate to grant innocent passage rights over the territorial sea or archipelagic waters, subject the treatys limitations andconditions for their exercise.42Significantly, the right of innocent passagis a customary international law,43thus automatically incorporated in the corpus of Philippinlaw.44No modern State can validly invoke its sovereignty to absolutely forbid innocent passage th

is exercised in accordance with customary international law without risking retaliatory measures frothe international community.

The fact that for archipelagic States, their archipelagic waters are subject to both the right innocent passage and sea lanes passage45does not place them in lesser footing vis-viscontinental coastal States which are subject, in their territorial sea, to the right of innocepassage and the right of transit passage through international straits. The imposition of thepassage rights through archipelagic waters under UNCLOS III was a concession by archipelagStates, in exchange for their right to claim all the waters landward of their baselines,regardless their depth or distance from the coast, as archipelagic waters subject to their territorial sovereignMore importantly, the recognition of archipelagic States archipelago and the waters enclosed btheir baselines as one cohesive entity prevents the treatment of their islands as separate island

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote38symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote38symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote38symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote39symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote39symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote40symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote40symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote40symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote41symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote41symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote41symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote42symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote42symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote42symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote43symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote43symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote43symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote44symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote44symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote44symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote45symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote45symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote45symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote44symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote43symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote42symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote41symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote40symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote39symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote38sym

5/24/2018 case 1- 25

8/286

under UNCLOS III.46Separate islands generate their own maritime zones, placing the watebetween islands separated by more than 24 nautical miles beyond the States territorial sovereign

subjecting these waters to the rights of other States under UNCLOS III.47

Petitioners invocation of non-executory constitutional provisions in Article II (Declaration Principles and State Policies)48must also fail. Our present state of jurisprudence considers thprovisions in Article II as mere legislative guides, which, absent enabling legislation, do not embo

judicially enforceable constitutional rights x x x.49

Article II provisions serve as guides in formulatinand interpreting implementing legislation, as well as in interpreting executory provisions of thConstitution. Although Oposa v. Factoran50treated the right to a healthful and balanced ecologunder Section 16 of Article II as an exception, the present petition lacks factual basis to substantiathe claimed constitutional violation. The other provisions petitioners cite, relating to the protection marine wealth (Article XII, Section 2, paragraph 251)and subsistence fishermen (Article XIII, Sectio752), are not violated by RA 9522.

In fact, the demarcation of the baselines enables the Philippines to delimit its exclusiveconomic zone, reserving solely to the Philippines the exploitation of all living and non-livinresources within such zone. Such a maritime delineation binds the international community since thdelineation is in strict observance of UNCLOS III. If the maritime delineation is contrary to UNCLOS the international community will of course reject it and will refuse to be bound by it.

UNCLOS III favors States with a long coastline like the Philippines. UNCLOS III creates asgenerismaritime space the exclusive economic zone in waters previously part of the high seaUNCLOS III grants new rights to coastal States to exclusively exploit the resources found within thzone up to 200 nautical miles.53UNCLOS III, however, preserves the traditional freedom of navigatioof other States that attached to this zone beyond the territorial sea before UNCLOS III.

RA 9522 and the Philippines Maritime Zones

Petitioners hold the view that, based on the permissive text of UNCLOS III, Congress was n

bound to pass RA 9522.54We have looked at the relevant provision of UNCLOS II I55and we finpetitioners reading plausible. Nevertheless, the prerogative of choosing this option belongs

Congress, not to this Court. Moreover, the luxury of choosing this option comes at a very steep pricAbsent an UNCLOS III compliant baselines law, an archipelagic State like the Philippines will find itsedevoid of internationally acceptable baselines from where the breadth of its maritime zones ancontinental shelf is measured. This is recipe for a two-fronted disaster: first, it sends an open invitatioto the seafaring powers to freely enter and exploit the resources in the waters and submarine areaaround our archipelago; andsecond, it weakens the countrys case in any international dispuover Philippine maritime space. These are consequences Congress wisely avoided.

The enactment of UNCLOS III compliant baselines law for the Philippine archipelago an

adjacent areas, as embodied in RA 9522, allows an internationally-recognized delimitation of thbreadth of the Philippines maritime zones and continental shelf. RA 9522 is therefore a most vitstep on the part of the Philippines in safeguarding its maritime zones, consistent with the Constitutioand our national interest.

WHEREFORE, weDISMISSthe petition.

SO ORDERED.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote46symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote46symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote46symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote47symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote47symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote47symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote48symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote48symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote48symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote49symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote49symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote50symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote50symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote51symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote51symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote52symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote52symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote52symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote53symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote53symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote53symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote54symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote54symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote54symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote55symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote55symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote55symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote55symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote54symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote53symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote52symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote51symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote50symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote49symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote48symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote47symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html#sdfootnote46sym

5/24/2018 case 1- 25

9/286

G.R. No. 183591 October 14, 2008

THE PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO, duly represented by GOVERNOR JESUS SACDALAN and/VICE-GOVERNOR EMMANUEL PIOL, for and in his own behalf, petitionervs.THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN (GRP,respondents.

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

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO MORALES,J.:

Subject of these consolidated cases is the extent of the powers of the President in pursuing thpeace process.While the facts surrounding this controversy center on the armed conflict

Mindanao between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), the legal issuinvolved has a bearing on all areas in the country where there has been a long-standing armeconflict. Yet again, the Court is tasked to perform a delicate balancing act. It mu

uncompromisingly delineate the bounds within which the President may lawfully exercise hdiscretion, but it must do so in strict adherence to the Constitution, lest its ruling unduly restricts thfreedom of action vested by that same Constitution in the Chief Executive precisely to enable her pursue the peace process effectively.

I. FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS OF THE PETITIONS

On August 5, 2008, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the MILF, througthe Chairpersons of their respective peace negotiating panels, were scheduled to sign Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) Aspect of the GRP-MILF TripAgreement on Peace of 2001 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

The MILF is a rebel group which was established in March 1984 when, under the leadership of thlate Salamat Hashim, it splintered from the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) then headed bNur Misuari, on the ground, among others, of what Salamat perceived to be the manipulation of thMNLF away from an Islamic basis towards Marxist-Maoist orientations.1

The signing of the MOA-AD between the GRP and the MILF was not to materialize, however, fupon motion of petitioners, specifically those who filed their cases before the scheduled signing the MOA-AD, this Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the GRP from signing thsame.

The MOA-AD was preceded by a long process of negotiation and the concluding of several pri

agreements between the two parties beginning in 1996, when the GRP-MILF peace negotiatiobegan. On July 18, 1997, the GRP and MILF Peace Panels signed the Agreement on GenerCessation of Hostilities. The following year, they signed the General Framework of Agreement Intent on August 27, 1998.

The Solicitor General, who represents respondents, summarizes the MOA-AD by stating that the samcontained, among others, the commitment of the parties to pursue peace negotiations, proteand respect human rights, negotiate with sincerity in the resolution and pacific settlement of thconflict, and refrain from the use of threat or force to attain undue advantage while the peacnegotiations on the substantive agenda are on-going.2

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt1

5/24/2018 case 1- 25

10/286

Early on, however, it was evident that there was not going to be any smooth sailing in the GRP-Mpeace process. Towards the end of 1999 up to early 2000, the MILF attacked a number municipalities in Central Mindanao and, in March 2000, it took control of the town hall Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte.3In response, then President Joseph Estrada declared and carried oan "all-out-war" against the MILF.

When President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo assumed office, the military offensive against the Mwas suspended and the government sought a resumption of the peace talks. The MILF, accordin

to a leading MILF member, initially responded with deep reservation, but when President Arroyasked the Government of Malaysia through Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad to help convincthe MILF to return to the negotiating table, the MILF convened its Central Committee to seriousdiscuss the matter and, eventually, decided to meet with the GRP.4

The parties met in Kuala Lumpur on March 24, 2001, with the talks being facilitated by the Malaysiagovernment, the parties signing on the same date the Agreement on the General Framework for thResumption of Peace Talks Between the GRP and the MILF. The MILF thereafter suspended all military actions.5

Formal peace talks between the parties were held in Tripoli, Libya from June 20-22, 2001, th

outcome of which was the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace (Tripoli Agreement 200

containing the basic principles and agenda on the following aspects of th

negotiation: SecurityAspect, RehabilitationAspect, and Ancestral Domain Aspect. With regard

the Ancestral Domain Aspect, the parties in Tripoli Agreement 2001 simply agreed "that the same bdiscussed further by the Parties in their next meeting."

A second round of peace talks was held in Cyberjaya, Malaysia on August 5-7, 2001 which endewith the signing of the Implementing Guidelines on the Security Aspect of the Tripoli Agreement 20

leading to a ceasefire status between the parties. This was followed by the Implementing Guidelinon the Humanitarian Rehabilitation and Development Aspects of the Tripoli Agreement 2001, whicwas signed on May 7, 2002 at Putrajaya, Malaysia. Nonetheless, there were many incidence violence between government forces and the MILF from 2002 to 2003.

Meanwhile, then MILF Chairman Salamat Hashim passed away on July 13, 2003 and he wreplaced by Al Haj Murad, who was then the chief peace negotiator of the MILF. Murad's position chief peace negotiator was taken over by Mohagher Iqbal.6

In 2005, several exploratory talks were held between the parties in Kuala Lumpur, eventually leadinto the crafting of the draft MOA-AD in its final form, which, as mentioned, was set to be signed laAugust 5, 2008.

II. STATEMENT OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Before the Court is what is perhaps the most contentious "consensus" ever embodied in ainstrument - the MOA-AD which is assailed principally by the present petitions bearing docknumbers 183591, 183752, 183893, 183951 and 183962.

Commonly impleaded as respondents are the GRP Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain 7and thPresidential Adviser on the Peace Process (PAPP) Hermogenes Esperon, Jr.

On July 23, 2008, the Province of North Cotabato8and Vice-Governor Emmanuel Piol filed petition, docketed as G.R. No. 183591, for Mandamus and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order.9Invoking the right to information omatters of public concern, petitioners seek to compel respondents to disclose and furnish them th

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt3

5/24/2018 case 1- 25

11/286

complete and official copies of the MOA-AD including its attachments, and to prohibit the slatesigning of the MOA-AD, pending the disclosure of the contents of the MOA-AD and the holding ofpublic consultation thereon. Supplementarily, petitioners pray that the MOA-AD be declareunconstitutional.10

This initial petition was followed by another one, docketed as G.R. No. 183752, also for Mandamand Prohibition11filed by the City of Zamboanga,12Mayor Celso Lobregat, Rep. Ma. IsabeClimaco and Rep. Erico Basilio Fabian who likewise pray for similar injunctive reliefs. Petitioners here

moreover pray that the City of Zamboanga be excluded from the Bangsamoro Homeland and/Bangsamoro Juridical Entity and, in the alternative, that the MOA-AD be declared null and void.

By Resolution of August 4, 2008, the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order commanding an

directing public respondents and their agents to cease and desist from formally signing the MOAD.13The Court also required the Solicitor General to submit to the Court and petitioners the officicopy of the final draft of the MOA-AD,14to which she complied.15

Meanwhile, the City of Iligan16filed a petition for Injunction and/or Declaratory Relief, docketeas G.R. No. 183893, praying that respondents be enjoined from signing the MOA-AD or, if the samhad already been signed, from implementing the same, and that the MOA-AD be declare

unconstitutional. Petitioners herein additionally implead Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita

respondent.

The Province of Zamboanga del Norte,17Governor Rolando Yebes, Vice-Governor Francis Olvis, ReCecilia Jalosjos-Carreon, Rep. Cesar Jalosjos, and the members18of the Sangguniang Panlalawigaof Zamboanga del Norte filed on August 15, 2008 a petition for Certiorari, Mandamus anProhibition,19docketed as G.R. No. 183951. They pray, inter alia, that the MOA-AD be declared nand void and without operative effect, and that respondents be enjoined from executing the MOAD.

On August 19, 2008, Ernesto Maceda, Jejomar Binay, and Aquilino Pimentel III filed a petition fProhibition,20docketed as G.R. No. 183962,praying for a judgment prohibiting and permanenenjoining respondents from formally signing and executing the MOA-AD and or any othagreement derived therefrom or similar thereto, and nullifying the MOA-AD for beinunconstitutional and illegal. Petitioners herein additionally implead as respondent the MILF Peac

Negotiating Panel represented by its Chairman Mohagher Iqbal.

Various parties moved to intervene and were granted leave of court to file their petition/comments-in-intervention. Petitioners-in-Intervention include Senator Manuel A. Roxas, formSenate President Franklin Drilon and Atty. Adel Tamano, the City of Isabela21and Mayor CherrylSantos-Akbar, the Province of Sultan Kudarat22and Gov. Suharto Mangudadatu, the Municipality Linamon in Lanao del Norte,23Ruy Elias Lopez of Davao City and of the Bagobo tribe, SanggunianPanlungsodmember Marino Ridao and businessman Kisin Buxani, both of Cotabato City; an

lawyers Carlo Gomez, Gerardo Dilig, Nesario Awat, Joselito Alisuag, Richalex Jagmis, all of PalawaCity. The Muslim Legal Assistance Foundation, Inc. (Muslaf) and the Muslim Multi-Sectoral Movemefor Peace and Development (MMMPD) filed their respective Comments-in-Intervention.

By subsequent Resolutions, the Court ordered the consolidation of the petitions. Respondents fileComments on the petitions, while some of petitioners submitted their respective Replies.

Respondents, by Manifestation and Motion of August 19, 2008, stated that the ExecutivDepartment shall thoroughly review the MOA-AD and pursue further negotiations to address thissues hurled against it, and thus moved to dismiss the cases. In the succeeding exchange pleadings, respondents' motion was met with vigorous opposition from petitioners.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt10

5/24/2018 case 1- 25

12/286

The cases were heard on oral argument on August 15, 22 and 29, 2008 that tackled the followinprincipal issues:

1. Whether the petitions have become moot and academic

(i) insofar as the mandamusaspect is concerned, in view of the disclosure of officcopies of the final draft of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA); and

(ii) insofar as the prohibitionaspect involving the Local Government Units is concerneif it is considered that consultation has become fait accompliwith the finalization the draft;

2. Whether the constitutionality and the legality of the MOA is ripe for adjudication;

3. Whether respondent Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Pancommitted grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction whennegotiated and initiated the MOA vis--vis ISSUES Nos. 4 and 5;

4. Whether there is a violation of the people's right to information on matters of pub

concern (1987 Constitution, Article III, Sec. 7) under a state policy of full disclosure of all transactions involving public interest (1987 Constitution, Article II, Sec. 28) including pubconsultation under Republic Act No. 7160 (LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991)[;]

If it is in the affirmative, whether prohibitionunder Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Proceduis an appropriate remedy;

5. Whether by signing the MOA, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines would bBINDING itself

a) to create and recognize the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) as a separate stat

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;

c) to concede to or recognize the claim of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front fancestral domain in violation of Republic Act No. 8371 (THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLRIGHTS ACT OF 1997), particularly Section 3(g) & Chapter VII (DELINEATIORECOGNITION OF ANCESTRAL DOMAINS)[;]

If in the affirmative, whether the Executive Branch has the authority to so bind thGovernment of the Republic of the Philippines;

6. Whether the inclusion/exclusion of the Province of North Cotabato, Cities of ZamboangIligan and Isabela, and the Municipality of Linamon, Lanao del Norte in/from the arecovered by the projected Bangsamoro Homeland is a justiciable question; and

7. Whether desistance from signing the MOA derogates any prior valid commitments of thGovernment of the Republic of the Philippines.24

The Court, thereafter, ordered the parties to submit their respective Memoranda. Most of the partisubmitted their memoranda on time.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt24

5/24/2018 case 1- 25

13/286

III. OVERVIEW OF THE MOA-AD

As a necessary backdrop to the consideration of the objections raised in the subject five petitioand six petitions-in-intervention against the MOA-AD, as well as the two comments-in-intervention favor of the MOA-AD, the Court takes an overview of the MOA.

The MOA-AD identifies the Parties to it as the GRP and the MILF.

Under the heading "Terms of Reference" (TOR), the MOA-AD includes not only four earliagreements between the GRP and MILF, but also two agreements between the GRP and the MNLthe 1976 Tripoli Agreement, and the Final Peace Agreement on the Implementation of the 19Tripoli Agreement, signed on September 2, 1996 during the administration of President Fidel Ramos.

The MOA-AD also identifies as TOR two local statutes - the organic act for the Autonomous Region Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)25and the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA),26and seveinternational law instruments - the ILO Convention No. 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoplin Independent Countries in relation to the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peopleand the UN Charter, among others.

The MOA-AD includes as a final TOR the generic category of "compact rights entrenchmeemanating from the regime of dar-ul-mua'hada(or territory under compact) and dar-ul-sulh(

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

During the height of the Muslim Empire, early Muslim jurists tended to see the world through a simpdichotomy: there was the dar-ul-Islam(the Abode of Islam) and dar-ul-harb (the Abode of War). Thfirst referred to those lands where Islamic laws held sway, while the second denoted those lanwhere Muslims were persecuted or where Muslim laws were outlawed or ineffective.27This way viewing the world, however, became more complex through the centuries as the Islamic wobecame part of the international community of nations.

As Muslim States entered into treaties with their neighbors, even with distant States and integovernmental organizations, the classical division of the world into dar-ul-Islamand dar-harbeventually lost its meaning. New terms were drawn up to describe novel ways of perceivinnon-Muslim territories. For instance, areas like dar-ul-mua'hada(land of compact) and dar-

sulh(land of treaty) referred to countries which, though under a secular regime, maintaine

peaceful and cooperative relations with Muslim States, having been bound to each other by treaor agreement. Dar-ul-aman(land of order), on the other hand, referred to countries which, thougnot bound by treaty with Muslim States, maintained freedom of religion for Muslims.28

It thus appears that the "compact rights entrenchment" emanating from the regime of dar-mua'hadaand dar-ul-sulhsimply refers to all other agreements between the MILF and the Philippin

government - the Philippines being the land of compact and peace agreement - that partake

the nature of a treaty device, "treaty" being broadly defined as "any solemn agreement in writinthat sets out understandings, obligations, and benefits for both parties which provides for

framework that elaborates the principles declared in the [MOA-AD]."29

The MOA-AD states that the Parties "HAVE AGREED AND ACKNOWLEDGED AS FOLLOWS," and stawith its main body.

The main body of the MOA-AD is divided into four strands, namely, Concepts and PrincipleTerritory, Resources, and Governance.

A. CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt25

5/24/2018 case 1- 25

14/286

This strand begins with the statement that it is "the birthright of all Moros and all Indigenous peoplof Mindanao to identify themselves and be accepted as Bangsamoros.'" It defines "Bangsamopeople" as the natives or original inhabitants of Mindanao and its adjacent islands includin

Palawan and the Sulu archipelago at the time of conquest or colonization, and thdescendants whether mixed or of full blood, including their spouses.30

Thus, the concept of "Bangsamoro," as defined in this strand of the MOA-AD, includes not on"Moros" as traditionally understood even by Muslims,31but all indigenous peoples of Mindanao an

its adjacent islands. The MOA-AD adds that the freedom of choice of indigenous peoples shall brespected. What this freedom of choice consists in has not been specifically defined.

The MOA-AD proceeds to refer to the "Bangsamoro homeland," the ownership of which is vesteexclusively in the Bangsamoro people by virtue of their priorrights of occupation.32Both parties the MOA-AD acknowledge that ancestral domain does not form part of the public domain.33

The Bangsamoro people are acknowledged as having the right to self-governance, which right

said to be rooted on ancestral territoriality exercised originally under the suzerain authority of thsultanates and the Pat a Pangampong ku Ranaw. The sultanates were described as states "karajaan/kadatuan" resembling a body politic endowed with all the elements of a nation-state

the modern sense.34

The MOA-AD thus grounds the right to self-governance of the Bangsamoro people on the pasuzerain authority of the sultanates. As gathered, the territory defined as the Bangsamoro homelanwas ruled by several sultanates and, specifically in the case of the Maranao, by the Pat Pangampong ku Ranaw, a confederation of independent principalities (pangampong) each ruleby datus and sultans, none of whom was supreme over the others.35

The MOA-AD goes on to describe the Bangsamoro people as "the First Nation' with defined territo

and with a system of government having entered into treaties of amity and commerce with foreig

nations."

The term "First Nation" is of Canadian origin referring to the indigenous peoples of that territoparticularly those known as Indians. In Canada, each of these indigenous peoples is equally entitleto be called "First Nation," hence, all of them are usually described collectively by the plural "FiNations."36To that extent, the MOA-AD, by identifying the Bangsamoro people as "the First Nationsuggesting its exclusive entitlement to that designation - departs from the Canadian usage of thterm.

The MOA-AD then mentions for the first time the "Bangsamoro Juridical Entity" (BJE) to whichgrants the authority and jurisdiction over the Ancestral Domain and Ancestral Lands of th

Bangsamoro.37

B. TERRITORY

The territory of the Bangsamoro homeland is described as the land mass as well as the maritimterrestrial, fluvial and alluvial domains, including the aerial domain and the atmospheric spacabove it, embracing the Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan geographic region.38

More specifically, the core of the BJE is defined as the present geographic area of the ARMM - th

constituting the following areas: Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu, Tawi-Tawi, Basilan, and MaraCity. Significantly, this core also includes certain municipalities of Lanao del Norte that voted f

inclusion in the ARMM in the 2001 plebiscite.39

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt30

5/24/2018 case 1- 25

15/286

Outside of this core, the BJE is to cover other provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays, whic

are grouped into two categories, Category A and Category B. Each of these areas is to b

subjected to a plebiscite to be held on different dates, years apart from each other. Thus, CategoA areas are to be subjected to a plebiscite not later than twelve (12) months following the signing the MOA-AD.40Category B areas, also called "Special Intervention Areas," on the other hand, are be subjected to a plebiscite twenty-five (25) years from the signing of a separate agreement - thComprehensive Compact.41

The Parties to the MOA-AD stipulate that the BJE shall have jurisdiction over all natural resourc

within its "internalwaters," defined as extending fifteen (15) kilometers from the coastline of the Barea;42that the BJE shall also have "territorial waters," which shall stretch beyond the BJE internwaters up to the baselines of the Republic of the Philippines (RP) south east and south west mainland Mindanao; and that within these territorialwaters, the BJE and the "CentGovernment" (used interchangeably with RP) shall exercisejointjurisdiction, authority an

management over all natural resources.43Notably, the jurisdiction over the internal waters is nsimilarly described as "joint."

The MOA-AD further provides for the sharingof minerals on the territorialwaters between the Cent

Government and the BJE, in favor of the latter, through production sharing and econom

cooperation agreement.44

The activities which the Parties are allowed to conduct othe territorialwaters are enumerated, among which are the exploration and utilization of naturresources, regulation of shipping and fishing activities, and the enforcement of police and safemeasures.45There is no similar provision on the sharing of minerals and allowed activities with respeto the internal waters of the BJE.

C. RESOURCES

The MOA-AD states that the BJE is free to enter into any economic cooperation and trade relatiowith foreign countries and shall have the option to establish trade missions in those countries. Sucrelationships and understandings, however, are not to include aggression against the GRP. The BJmay also enter into environmental cooperation agreements.46

The externaldefense of the BJE is to remain the duty and obligation of the Central Government. ThCentral Government is also bound to "take necessary steps to ensure the BJE's participation international meetings and events" like those of the ASEAN and the specialized agencies of the UThe BJE is to be entitled to participate in Philippine official missions and delegations for thnegotiation of border agreements or protocols for environmental protection and equitable sharinof incomes and revenues involving the bodies of water adjacent to or between the islands forminpart of the ancestral domain.47

With regard to the right of exploring for, producing, and obtaining all potential sources of energpetroleum, fossil fuel, mineral oil and natural gas, the jurisdiction and control thereon is to be veste

in the BJE "as the party having control within its territorial jurisdiction." This right carries the provisotha"in times of national emergency, when public interest so requires," the Central Government may, fa fixed period and under reasonable terms as may be agreed upon by both Parties, assume direct the operation of such resources.48

The sharing between the Central Government and the BJE of total production pertaining to natu

resources is to be 75:25 in favor of the BJE.49

The MOA-AD provides that legitimate grievances of the Bangsamoro people arising from any unjudispossession of their territorial and proprietary rights, customary land tenures, or their marginalizatio

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt40

5/24/2018 case 1- 25

16/286

shall be acknowledged. Whenever restoration is no longer possible, reparation is to be in such foras mutually determined by the Parties.50

The BJE may modify or cancel the forest concessions, timber licenses, contracts or agreemen

mining concessions, Mineral Production and Sharing Agreements (MPSA), Industrial ForeManagement Agreements (IFMA), and other land tenure instruments granted by the PhilippinGovernment, including those issued by the present ARMM.51

D. GOVERNANCE

The MOA-AD binds the Parties to invite a multinational third-party to observe and monitor thimplementation of the Comprehensive Compact. This compact is to embody the "details for theffective enforcement" and "the mechanisms and modalities for the actual implementation" of thMOA-AD. The MOA-AD explicitly provides that the participation of the third party shall not in anway affect the status of the relationship between the Central Government and the BJE.52

The "associative" relationshipbetween the Central Governmentand the BJE

The MOA-AD describes the relationship of the Central Government and the BJE as "associative

characterized by shared authority and responsibility. And it states that the structure of governance

to be based on executive, legislative, judicial, and administrative institutions with defined poweand functions in the Comprehensive Compact.

The MOA-AD provides that its provisions requiring "amendments to the existing legal framework" sh

take effect upon signing of the Comprehensive Compact and upon effecting the aforesa

amendments, with due regard to the non-derogation of prior agreementsand within the stipulatetimeframe to be contained in the Comprehensive Compact.As will be discussed later, much of th

present controversy hangs on the legality of this provision.

The BJE is granted the power to build, develop and maintain its own institutions inclusive of ciservice, electoral, financial and banking, education, legislation, legal, economic, police and internsecurity force, judicial system and correctional institutions, the details of which shall be discussed the negotiation of the comprehensive compact.

As stated early on, the MOA-AD was set to be signed on August 5, 2008 by Rodolfo Garcia anMohagher Iqbal, Chairpersons of the Peace Negotiating Panels of the GRP and the MIrespectively. Notably, the penultimate paragraph of the MOA-AD identifies the signatories as "th

representatives of the Parties," meaning the GRP and MILF themselves, and not merely of thnegotiating panels.53In addition, the signature page of the MOA-AD states that it is "WITNESSED BDatuk Othman Bin Abd Razak, Special Adviser to the Prime Minister of Malaysia, "ENDORSED BAmbassador Sayed Elmasry, Adviser to Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) SecretaGeneral and Special Envoy for Peace Process in Southern Philippines, and SIGNED "IN THE PRESENC

OF" Dr. Albert G. Romulo, Secretary of Foreign Affairs of RP and Dato' Seri Utama Dr. Rais Bin YatimMinister of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia, all of whom were scheduled to sign the Agreement last Augu5, 2008.

Annexed to the MOA-AD are two documents containing the respective lists cum maps of thprovinces, municipalities, and barangays under Categories A and B earlier mentioned in thdiscussion on the strand on TERRITORY.

IV. PROCEDURAL ISSUES

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_183591_2008.html#fnt50

5/24/2018 case 1- 25

17/286

A. RIPENESS

The power of judicial review is limited to actual cases or controversies.54Courts decline to issuadvisory opinions or to resolve hypothetical or feigned problems, or mere academic questions.55Thlimitation of the power of judicial review to actual cases and controversies defines the role assigneto the judiciary in a tripartite allocation of power, to assure that the courts will not intrude into areacommitted to the other branches of government.56

An actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claimsusceptible of judicial resolution as distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract difference dispute. There must be a contrariety of legal rights that can be interpreted and enforced on thbasis of existing law and jurisprudence.57The Court can decide the constitutionality of an act treaty only when a proper case between opposing parties is submitted for judicial determination.58

Related to the requirement of an actual case or controversy is the requirement of ripeness. que