THE PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO vs THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN (GRP)

Facts:

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

The signing of the MOA-AD between the GRP and the MILF was not to materialize, however, for upon motion of petitioners, this Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the GRP from signing the same.

Issue: Is the MOA-AD unconstitutional?\

Held:

The MOA-AD is inconsistent with the Constitution and laws as presently worded.

In general, the objections against the MOA-AD center on the extent of the powers conceded therein to the BJE. Petitioners assert that the powers granted to the BJE exceed those granted to any local government under present laws, and even go beyond those of the present ARMM. The MOA-AD explicitly alludes to the international law concept of association,

Association is referred to on the MOA-AD. It is used to describe the envisioned relationship between the BJE and the Central Government.

4. The relationship between the Central Government and the Bangsamoro juridical entity shall be associative characterized by shared authority and responsibility with a structure of governance based on executive, legislative, judicial and administrative institutions with defined powers and functions in the comprehensive compact.

The MOA-AD, it contains many provisions which are consistent with the international legal concept of   association , specifically the following: the BJE's capacity to enter into economic and trade relations with foreign countries, the commitment of the Central Government to ensure the BJE's 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 aimed to vest in the BJE the status of an   associated state   or, at any rate, a status closely approximating it .

The concept of association is  not  recognized under the present Constitution

No province, city, or municipality, not even the ARMM, is recognized under our laws as having an "associative" relationship with the national government. Indeed, the concept implies powers that go beyond anything ever granted by the Constitution to any local or regional government. 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.

It is not merely an expanded version of the ARMM, the status of its relationship with the national government being fundamentally different

from that of the ARMM. Indeed, BJE is a state in all but name as it meets the criteria of a state namely, a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and a capacity to enter into relations with other states.

The spirit animating the MOA-AD - which has betrayed itself by its use of the concept of association - runs counter to the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic.

Article II, Section 22 of the Constitution must also be amended if the scheme envisioned in the MOA-AD is to be effected. That constitutional provision states: "The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development." An   associative   arrangement does not uphold national unity. While there may be a semblance of unity because of the associative ties between the BJE and the national government, the act of placing a portion of Philippine territory in a status which, in international practice, has generally been a   preparation for independence , is certainly not conducive to   national   unity.

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 GRP and the BJE, are   unconstitutional ,  for the concept presupposes that the associated entity is a state and implies that the same is on its way to independence.