Facts:

GRP and the MILF were scheduled to sign a MOA-AD aspect of the GRP-MILF
Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 in Malaysia. The subjects of which are
Security, Rehabilitation, and Ancestral Domain.
Upon motion by petitioners, a TRO enjoining signing by the GRP of the same
was granted by the Court. Petitioners, Vice Gov. Of and the Province of North
Cotabato, in this petition through mandamus and prohibition:
o invoke their right to information on matters of public concern,
o and
supplementarily,
the
declaration
of
the
MOA-AD
as
unconstitutional.
o They seek to compel respondents to disclose and furnish them copies
of the complete MOA-AD,
o and prohibit the signing thereof pending the disclosure of its contents,
and the holding of public consultations thereon.
Zamboanga City, its Mayor and Representative asked for the same relief and
prayed that the City be excluded from the Bangsamoro Homeland/Juridical
Entity
Under the MOA-AD, both parties recognize
o that the ownership of the Bangsamoro homeland is vested
exclusively to Bangsamoro people (natives or original inhabitants of
Mindanao and its adjacent lands before colonization, including their
descendants, whether full or half-blood) by virtue of prior rights and
occupation.
o They were recognized as having the right to self-governance on the
ground of suzerain authorities of their sultanates.
o They were granted with authority and JD over the Ancestral Domain
and Lands of the Bangsamoro
o The territory of the Bangsamoro homeland is described as the land
mass as well as the maritime, terrestrial, fluvial and alluvial domains,
including the aerial domain and the atmospheric space above it,
embracing the Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan geographic region, over which
the BJE can exercise JD over natural resources within its internal waters
and territorial waters described therein.
o The sharing of minerals in territorial waters between Central
Govt and the BJE, but no similar agreement with respect to internal
waters
o BJE is also free to enter into any economic cooperation and
trade relations with foreign countries, and GRP is bound to ensure
BJEs participation in international meetings (ASEAN, UNs agencies).
o Sharing of total production pertaining to natural resources is 75:25 in
favor of the BJE.
o May cancel or modify licenses (timber, mining) and concessions,
contracts made or granted by the PH Central Govt or the ARMM.
Sol-Gen maintains the issue is not ripe for judicial adjudication because the
MOA-AD remains to be a proposal, and does not contain legally demandable

rights and obligations until the list of operative acts are complied with. The
Court cannot pass upon issues based on hypothetical constitutional problems
with no concrete bases, and petitioners perceived injury is merely illusory.
Respondents also allege mootness of the case because of the Exec. Secs
declaration that the President will not sign the MOA-AD and that the GRP
panel is already disbanded

Issues:
1. Ripeness for judicial determination
2. Mootness
3. Did respondents violate constitutional and statutory provisions on public
consultation and the right to information when they negotiated and later
initiated the MOA-AD?
4. Do the contents of the MOA-AD violate the Constitution and the laws?
Ruling:
1. Yes, the case is ripe for Courts determination. To be ripe for judicial
determination, petitioner must show that he has sustained or is
immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of
the act complained of. Concrete acts are not necessary to render the
controversy ripe for adjudication. That the law in question is not yet effective
does not negate ripeness. When an act of a branch of government is
seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not
only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the
dispute. The GRP panel exceeded its authority under EO No. 3 by:
a. Drafting terms of MOA-AD without consultation with LGUs or
communities affected
b. Guaranteeing to MILF the amendment of the Constitution when
it said that it will effect the necessary changes to the legal
framework...
2. The non-signing of the MOA-AD did not render the issue moot for
determination because the decision in this case will apply also to ongoing and future negotiations and agreements necessary for its
realization.
- In fact, despite the mootness of a case, the SC can still render its ruling
thereon if the following circumstances are present:
a. There is grave violation of the Constitution
b. Case is of an exceptional character that requires resolution for
public interest
i. The case at bar is imbued with public interest since it concerns
the countrys territory and political modifications
c. Constitutional issues raised require formulation of controlling
principles

i. In the case at bar, the Court must formulate controlling

principles since the MOA-AD is subject to further legal
enactments including Constitutional amendments to
guide the bench, the bar, the public, and the
government.
d. It is capable of repetition yet evading decision
i. In the case at bar, the petitioner-cities may possibly be affected
if a decision is not yet rendered because the act of the
government complained of is capable of repetition
e. When defendant ceased to do the act complained of (voluntary
cessation), especially when petitioner prays for reliefs
- MOA-AD is just part of the Tripoli Agreement in 2001 so mootness will
not set in on the latter.
- It is with respect to the mandamus that it is moot since copies were already
sent to petitioners and Court
3. Yes.
a. The MOA-AD is a matter of public concern since it involves the
sovereignty and territory of PH which affects the lives of the public
at large. The right to information on public concern under the
Constitution includes information on negotiations leading to the
consummation of the transaction. Consummated contract is not a
requirement for it may be too late to point out its defects when there is
already a contract. Sec. 28 (Art. 2) stating the right of public to
disclosure of all transactions involving public interest is complementary
to Sec. 7 of the Bill of Rights. The complete and effective exercise
of Sec. 7 necessitates that Sec. 28 shall also be self-executory.
b. EO No. 3 states that PAPP should conduct regular dialogues with the
National Peace Forum, peace partners, and concerned sectors of the
society in the national and local levels to render progress reports on
the peace process. PAPP committed grave abuse of discretion by
failing to carry out consultations. Executive privilege cannot be
invoked because of provisions of EO No. 3 on public consultation.
c. LGC states that national agencies and offices must conduct periodic
consultations with appropriate local government units, nongovernmental and people's organizations, and other concerned sectors
of the community before any project or program is implemented in
their respective jurisdictions. The MOA-AD is one peculiar program that
unequivocally and unilaterally vests ownership of a vast territory to the
Bangsamoro people, which could pervasively and drastically result to
the diaspora or displacement of a great number of inhabitants from
their total environment. It also failed to observe the provisions of the
IPRA on free and prior informed consent of the IPs/ICCs.
4. Yes.

a. The MOA-AD contemplates an association between the Central PH

Government and the BJE. Under international law, association is a
relationship between a principal state and an associate whereby the
latter delegates certain responsibilities to the former while maintaining
its status as a state. Some of the arrangements under the MOA-AD that
characterize association are BJEs capacity to enter into foreign trade
relations, Central Govts responsibility to ensure BJEs participation in
ASEAN and UN meetings, and more.
b. This concept of association is not recognized under our Constitution
because association implies the recognition of an associated entity as
a state. It does not provide for transitory status that prepares any part
of PH territory for independence. Association is often used as a
transitional device of former colonies on their way to full
independence.
c. BJE is a state in all but its name for it meets the criteria of a state as
laid down in the Montevideo Convention: permanent people, defined
territory, government, and capacity to enter into trade relations with
foreign states. It runs contrary to the sovereign and territorial integrity
of PH.
d. It is contrary to the Constitutional provision requiring a plebiscite for
the creation of the autonomous region. Previous votes of the LGUs
cannot be considered because they voted to be part of the ARMM, not
the BJE.
e. Contrary to Constitutional provision that only President can enter into
foreign relations.
f. Violative of Sec 22, Art 2 of Constitution because promotion of ICCs
rights must be in the spirit of national unity and placing BJE in a
transitional state to independence is not in harmony with national
unity.
g. Violative of IPRA that lays down the procedure of delineating ancestral
domains.
h. Indigenous people have right to internal self-determination (to freely
determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social
and cultural development while respecting the territorial integrity of
existing state), but not external self-determination (establishment of a
sovereign independent state)
i. Notwithstanding the suspensive clause, however, respondents, by their
mere act of incorporating in the MOA-AD the provisions thereof
regarding the associative relationship between the BJE and the Central
Government, have already violated the Memorandum of Instructions
From The President dated March 1, 2001, which states that the
negotiations shall be conducted in accordance with the principles of
the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of the
Philippines.

j.

Despite the Presidents power to recommend to Congress or to the

people constitutional amendments or revisions, she cannot guarantee
to a third party that the required amendments will be put in place.