Intro to Law Final Reviewer

Dworkins Interpretive Theory

Dworkin believes that legal interpretation, when properly carried out, requires the making of moral judgments.
This does not mean that rules of positive law will be declared invalid when they are judged to be immoral or
unjust. But it does mean that morality will exercise some significant influence over the way those rules are to be
understood and will thereby be inextricably intertwined with the positive law.
The law consists of explicitly adopted rules plus the best moral principles that can be understood to lie behind
those rules. The principles serve as legitimate bases of legal decisions, as well as help guide the interpretation of
legal rules in hard cases in which the right legal answer is unclear.
How does one determine which are the best moral principles?
o Dworkin: one must judge the degree of fit between some proposed principle and the rules.
Underlying principle must be logically consistent with the rule
Underlying principle must help to justify, or prove a rationale for, the rules
Cited example: The Fourth Amendment (privacy)
o The rule is a good one because it allows crimes to be effectively prosecuted while at the same time
protecting to a significant degree the right to privacy.
Cited example: Olmstead (wiretapping by government)
Dworkin: two types of skepticism
o External Skepticism: there is nothing objective in the world that can make a statement about our
moral obligations true or false; there is no right or wrong answer.
(con) Dworkin: It is wrong to think that disagreements over moral obligations require some
empirical method for resolving them
(con) Making moral judgments is a practice with its own standards of good reasoning and
should not be confused with the practice of making empirical judgments.
(pro) There exists several conflicting modes of moral argument; Bible, Koran, etc
o Internal Skepticism: the law has no integrity, it is simply a matter of might and not right
(pro) There is no consistent set of moral principles that underlies our laws. Rather, different
legal rules and doctrines reflect incompatible moral viewpoints. The law is riddle with moral
contradictions and inconsistencies.
Dworkins interpretative theory posits an important and necessary connection between law and morality but
avoids the problems afflicting the approaches of Aquinas and Fuller.
o Unlike Aquinas, Dworkin does not hold that unjust rules are invalid as laws.
o Unlike Fuller, Dworkin does not hold that the principles of legality are by themselves sufficient to
create a prima facie moral obligation to obey the rules of any system of positive law.
o Unlike Fuller, Dworkin locates the source of that moral force not merely in the principles of legality but
in the integrity of the law.
Problems with Dworkins Interpretative theory
o Judges are not authorized to decide a case on the basis of their own moral judgments or that the
correct moral judgments determine the correct legal answers.
o Integrity foes not guarantee the justice of the law, but it does guarantee that morality determines to
some degree what the law is.
Legal Positivism
Rejects the necessary links between positive law and morality

Austins Theory of Law

For Austin, laws are general commandments laid down by superiors to guide the actions of those under them.
o The general commands laid down by God for humans constitute divine law and impose moral
obligations. Those who act contrary to it are liable to punishment at the hands of God.
 o The general commands laid down by political rulers constitute positive law and impose legal
obligations. Those who act contrary to such rules are liable to punishment at the hands of the political
rulers (or their designated agents).
Positive law consists of general commands laid down and enforced by the sovereign of an independent political
society.
It is crucial to Austins view of law that the sovereign is defined solely in terms of power, not in terms of justice
or any other moral concept. The power that makes some person or group sovereign has no moral qualifications
whatsoever attached to it.
The existence of law is one thing; its merit or demerit is another. Whether it be or be not is one inquiry;
whether it be or be not conformable to an assumed standard, is a different inquiry. (Austin)
There is no necessary connection between legal and moral obligation; to have legal obligation simply means
that one is liable to undesirable consequences at the hands of the sovereign for acting contrary to its command.
If a person thinks otherwise or acts contrary to some rule he does not regard as a positive law, then the judicial
system will demonstrate the inconclusiveness of his reasoning by inflicting punishment. (Austin)
The moral obligations imposed by Gods commands must not be confused with the legal obligations imposed by
the commands of a political sovereign.
The absence of a global sovereign to issue and enforce commands means that, at best, the rules of international
law simply amount to a kind of positive morality for the international community, imposing no legal obligations.
The legal obligation of the individual is to obey the dictates of the sovereign, notwithstanding international or
natural law.
Assessing Austin
o Austin provides a truly clear and systematic alternative to the natural law approach.
o Is a rule enforced as a law by the courts a valid law if it is contrary to natural or morality?
o Austins argument that traditional natural law theory invites anarchy is questionable.
o So many different, conflicting ideas about justice and injustice prevail in modern society that the
practical effect of traditional natural law theory would not be moral progress but moral and social
confusion (Austin)

Hart: Law as primary and secondary rules

Not all laws are commands; some legal rules do not prohibit or require but rather empower individuals to do
things that would otherwise be impossible for them to do.
Power-conferring rules
o A command seeks to alter the world by getting someone to do something. A power-conferring rule
seeks to alter it by empowering persons to do things that they would otherwise be unable to do.
o Still stems from the sovereign (defenders of Austin)
Government and Gunman analogy
o Being obliged to do something is not the same as being obligated to do it.
o According to Hart, the idea of an obligation is to be explained in terms of the idea of rule. A rule exists
when people generally (1) act in a certain way and (2) regard deviations from that way of acting as
something to be criticized.
o A person has an obligation when a certain kind of rule applies to him
Primary and secondary rules
o Secondary Rules the three special kinds of rules that could not exists unless there were other kinds
of rules that impose obligations (primary rules)
A society with a legal system must have a rule that singles out the rules that actually do
impose obligations in that society.
Rule of Recognition rule that helps people recognize the rules under which they
will officially be held accountable
A society must have rules that specify how the legally valid rules can be changed.
A society must have rules that empower specific individuals to enforce and apply societys
legally valid rules
 o For Hart, a legal system is a system that brings together both the primary and the secondary rules.
o Hart says that only in an extreme case would a legal systems primary rules be complied with by most
people solely out of fear of the consequences, but he insists that even such an extreme case can count
as a genuine legal system.
Assessing Hart
o Highly similar to Austin (government and gunman analogy)
The key is for Hart to distinguish a government under the rule of law from an arbitrary
government that uses law to control society as it pleases.
o Where Hart and Austin differ is over whether legal considerations regulate and control the source of
positive power.
o Governments have sovereign power, gunmen do not, which is why the former can impose legal
obligations and the latter cannot.
o Harts problem is that he never clearly explains why the existence of a legal obligation depends not
simply on whose power is imposing it but on how that power is being exercised.
o The point of positivism is that law does not need to meet any moral test in order to possess validity or
authority

Natural Law v. Positivism

Do legal obligations necessarily have some moral force?
Is there necessarily a moral dimension to any genuine legal obligation?

Harts International Law

International law not only lacks the secondary rules of change and adjudication which provide for legislature
and courts, but also of a unifying rule of recognition specifying sources of law and providing general criteria for
the identification of its rules.
Two main sources of doubt
o The idea that rules are supposed to be backed by threats
o The idea that each state is sovereign and independent
Can such rules as these be meaningfully and truthfully said ever to give rise to obligations?
o To argue that international law is not binding because of its lack of organized sanctions is tacitly to
accept the analysis of obligation contained in the theory that law is essentially a matter of orders
backed by threats.
In societies of individuals approximately equal in physical strength and vulnerability, physical sanctions are both
necessary and possible
o Aggression between states is very unlike that between individuals. The use of violence between states
must be public, and though there is no international police force, there can be very little certainty that
it will remain a matter between aggressor and victim, as a murder or theft, in the absence of a police
force, might.
Obligations and the sovereignty of states
o One of the most persistent sources of perplexity about the obligatory character of international law
has been the difficulty felt in accepting or explaining the fact that a state which is sovereign may also
be bound by, or have an obligation under, international law.
o The expression a state is not the name of some person or thing inherently or by nature outside the
law shows two things
That the people inhabiting that given territory are operating within the law
That the government enjoys a vaguely defined degree of independence
o To realize that there are many possible forms and degrees of dependence and independence is a step
towards answering the claim that because states are sovereign, they cannot be subject to or bound b
international law or can only be bound by some specific form of international law.
 o Some measure of autonomy is imported, as we have seen, by the very meaning of the word state but
the contention that this must be unlimited or can only be limited by certain types of obligation is at
best the assertion of a claim that states ought to be free of all other restraints
o What is the maximum area of autonomy which the rules allow to states?
The rules of international law are indeed vague and conflicting on many points, so that doubt
about the area of independence left to states is far greater than that concerning the extent of
a citizens freedom under municipal law.
o Voluntarist theories or theories of auto-limitation
Attempt to reconcile the absolute sovereignty of states with the existence of binding rules in
international law by treating all international obligations as self-imposed like the obligation
which arises from a promise.
o Three fold argument against auto-limitation
How is it known that states can only be bound by self-imposed obligations?
There must have been some rules and guidelines that would qualify the binding of states.
Even the most voluntary form of social obligation involves some rules which are
binding independent of the choice of the party bound by them
How is it that auto-limitation is the only way by which states can be bound?
o Exceptions to auto-limitation
New states
States that acquire a territory or enter a circumstance which is accompanied by obligations
An example is when a state suddenly acquires access to the sea thus binding it to
any applicable international laws pertaining to use of the sea
o International Law and Morality
What predominate in the arguments, often technical, which states address to each other
over disputed matters of international law are references to precedents, treaties, and juristic
writings; often no mention is made of moral right or wrong, good or bad.
The rules of international law, like those of municipal law, are often morally quite indifferent.
A rule may exist because it is convenient or necessary to have some clear fixed rule
about the subjects with which it is concerned, but not because any moral
importance is attached to the particular rule.
Though there may be a sense of moral obligation, it is difficult to see why or in what sense it
must exist as a condition of the existence of international law.
Adherence to law may be motivated by calculations of long-term interest, or by the
wish to continue a tradition, or by disinterested concern for others and not morality.
o If rules are in fact accepted as standards of conduct, and supported with appropriate forms of
social pressure distinctive of obligatory rules, nothing more is required to show that they are
binding rules.
o It is therefore a mistake to suppose that a basic rule or rule of recognition is a generally necessary
condition of the existence of rules of obligation or binding rules.
Such rules are a luxury found in advanced social systems.
o There is no basic rule providing general criteria of validity for the rules of international law, and that
the rules which are in fact operative constitute not a system but a set of rules, among which are the
rules providing for the binding force of treaties.

Rubi (pet.) v. Provincial Board of Mindoro (resp.) (March 7, 1919)

Application for Habeas Corpus.

o Rubi and the Maguianes claimed they were being held against their will in Tigbao, Mindoro
o Dabalos (fellow Maguianes) was imprisoned for running away from Tigbao
Relevant laws
 o Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917: With the prior approval of the Department Head,
the provincial governor of any province in which non-Christian inhabitants are found is authorized,
when such a course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and order, to direct such inhabitants to
take up their habitation on sites on unnocupppied public lands to be selected by him and approved by
the provincial board

Section 2145 of Administrative Code of 1917 did not violate due process of law and equal
protection of the laws since there exists a law, the law seems reasonable, it is enforced
according to regular methods of procedure, and it applies to all of a class.

o Section 2759 of the Administrative Code of 1917: Refusal of a non-christian to take up an appointed
habitation any non-Christian who shall refuse to comply with the directions lawfully given by a
provincial governor, pursuant to section 2145 of this code, to take up habitation upon a site designated
by said governor shall upon conviction be imprisoned for a period not exceeding 60 days.

Opinions
o Carson, J. (concurring)
Non-Christian has a clear, definite, and well settled signification when used in the
Philippine statute book as a descriptive adjective applied to tribes, peoples or
inhabitants dwelling in more or less remote districts and provinces throughout the Islands.
Test to see if someone is non-catholic is the mode of life, the degree of advancement in
civilization, and connection or lack of connection with some civilized community
Acceptable degree of civilization: tribe is able to advance such that it is feasible and
practicable to extend to, and enforce upon its membership the general rules and regulations
which control the conduct of the admittedly civilized inhabitants of the Islands; withdrawal of
permanent allegiance from non-Christian tribe
Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is properly applicable when the basis is the
argument that the liberty and freedom of action of children and persons of unsound minds
is restrained, without consulting their wishes, but for their own good and the general
welfare; it is properly exercised when certain groups or individuals are found to be of such
low grade of civilization that their own wishes cannot be permitted to determine their mode
of life or place of residence.
o Johnson, J (dissenting)
The petitioners were deprived of the liberty without a hearing
o Moir, J. (dissenting)
Section 2145 and 2759 were unconstitutional seeing as how it deprived people of a specific
class from enjoying their liberty.
Other Issues
o Liberty is freedom to do right and never wrong. It is guided by reason and the upright and honorable
conscience of the individual. (Apolinario Mabini)
o non Christian used to refer to geographical areas and more specifically to the natives of a low grade
of civilization
o Police Power of the state is a power coextensive (commensurate) with self-protection
o Confinement in reservations in accordance with the law does not constitute peonage
o As far as the Maguianes themselves are concerned, the purposes of the Government are to gather
together the children for educational purposes, and to improve the health and morals will help begin
the process of civilization
o If, indeed, they did ill-treat any person thus confined, there always exists the power of removal in the
hands of superior officers, and the courts are always open for a redress of grievances. When, however,
 only the validity of the law is generally challenged and no particular case of oppression is called to the
attention of the courts, it would seem that the Judiciary should not unnecessarily hamper the
Government in the accomplishment of its laudable purpose.

Co Kim Cham (pet.) v. Eusebio Valdez Tan Keh and Arsenio P. Dizon (resp.) (Sept. 17, 1945)

Petition for mandamus to continue the proceedings of Civil Case No. 3012

Judge Dizon refused to take cognizance of and continue proceedings because of MacArthurs October
Proclamation

o That all laws, regulations and processes of any other government in the Philippines than that of the
said Commonwealth are null and void and without legal effect in areas of the Philippines free enemy
occupation and control
3 Types of De Facto Governments

o De Facto in a proper legal sense; gets possession and control of, or usurps, by force or by the voice of
the majority, the rightful legal government and maintains itself against the will of the latter.
o Established by military force through invasion and occupation of enemy territory during war
Existence maintained by active military power within the territories and against the rightful
authority of an established and lawful government
While it exists it must necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who, by acts
of obedience rendered in submission to such force, do not become responsible, as
wrongdoers, for those acts, though not warranted by the law of the rightful government.
o Establishment of independence through insurrection against the parent state

Article 43, section 3 Hague Conventions of 1907: the authority of the legitimate power having actually passed
into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all steps in his power to reestablish and issue, as far as
possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the
country

Issues
o Were the judicial acts and proceedings under the Japanese occupation valid after Japan left?

YES because they were civil in nature, not political.

o Whether MacArthurs declaration effectively invalidated the rulings of the courts during the Japanese
occupation

No because of Article 23 section 2 of the Hague Conventions of 1907 which prohibits the
belligerent to:

Declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and

actions of the nationals of the hostile party.

Similarly, MacArthur could have not had the power to invalidate the rulings of the courts due
to Article 23 section 2 of the Hague Conventions of 1907

o Whether courts can continue hearing ongoing cases from the Japanese occupation
 YES because Law once established continues until changed by some competent legislative
power. It is not changed merely by change of sovereignty. (Beale)

Opinions

o De Joya J. (concurring)

The government established in the Philippines during the Japanese occupation is and should
be considered a de facto government; and that the judicial proceedings conducted before
the courts which had been established in this country, during said Japanese occupation, are
to be considered legal and valid and enforceable, even after the liberation of this country by
the American forces, as long as the said judicial proceedings had been conducted, under the
laws of the Commonwealth of the Philippines.

o Perfecto, J. (dissenting)

When it is said that an occupiers acts are valid and under international law should not be
abrogated by the subsequent conqueror, it must be remembered that no crucial instances
exist to show that if his acts should be reversed, any international wrong would be
committed. (Wheaton)

General MacArthur says categorically all processes but the majority insist on reading
differently, that is: NOT all processes

A proper enabling law was needed in order for the cases and proceedings in the courts
during the Spanish era to be carried over to the American period therefore the same should
have been done with regards the cases and proceedings during the Japanese occupation
after the liberation and reoccupation of the Philippines by the Americans.

Municipal courts under Act No. 183; The Cabantag Case; The Doctrine of the
United States

The inevitable consequence is that the courts of the commonwealth of the Philippines, in
the absence of an enabling act or of an express legislative grant, have no jurisdiction to take
cognizance and continue the judicial processes, procedures and proceedings of the tribunals
that were created during the Japanese occupation since they derived their authority from
the Emperor of Japan and not from the Filipino people in whom, according to the
constitution, sovereignty resides, and from whom all powers of government emanate.

o Hilado, J. (dissenting)

The judge who presided over the proceedings in question during the Japanese occupation,
firstly, accepted his appointment under duress; and secondly, acted by virtue of that
appointment under the same duress. In such circumstances, he could not have acted in the
bona fide belief that the courts created by the Japanese were legally created.

Other Issues

o All judgments and judicial proceedings, which are not of a political complexion, of the de facto
governments during the Japanese military occupation were good and valid before and remained so
after the occupied territory had come again into the power of the titular sovereign.
 o The commander in chief of the Japanese forces proclaimed on January 3, 1943, when Manila was
occupied: all the laws now in force in the commonwealth. As well as executive and judicial
institutions, shall continue to be effective for the time being as in the past and all public officials
shall remain in their present posts and carry on faithfully their duties as before.

Republic of the Philippines (pet.) v. Sandiganbayan, Major General Josephus Q. Ramas, and Elizabeth Dimaano (resp.)
(July 21, 2003)

Case is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the resolutions of the Sandiganbayan.

o Recommended that Maj. Gen. Josephus Q. Ramas (ret.) be prosecuted and tried for violation of RA
3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and RA 1379 (The act for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired
property)

RA 1379 An act declaring the forfeiture in favor of the State any property found to have
been unlawfully acquired by any public officer or employee providing for the proceedings
thereof

o October 1990: Private respondents filed a motion to dismiss based on Republic v. Migrino on the basis
that the Court held in Migrino that the PCGG does not have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute
military officers by reason of mere position held without a showing that they are subordinates of
former President Marcos.

Relevant laws

o Section 2 of EO 1: The PCGG can only investigate the unexplained wealth and corrupt practice of (1)
AFP personnel who have accumulated ill-gotten wealth during the administration of former president
Marcos by being the latters immediate family, relative, subordinate or close associate, taking undue
advantage of their public office or using their powers, influence; or (2) AFP personnel involved in other
cases of graft and corruption provided the president assigns their cases to the PCGG

o Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (covenant) requires each
signatory state to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its
jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present covenant.

o Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (covenant) the revolutionary
government had the duty to ensure that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful
interference with his privacy, family, home, or correspondence

o Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (declaration) no one shall be arbitrarily
deprived of his property

Issues

o First Issue: PCGGs Jurisdiction to Investigate Private Respondents

The primary issue for resolution is whether the PCGG has the jurisdiction to investigate and
cause the filing of a forfeiture petition against Ramas and Dimaano for unexplained wealth
under RA 1379.
 We hold that PCGG has no such jurisdiction.

o The PCGG through the AFP Board, can only investigate the unexplained wealth and corrupt practices of
AFP Personnel who fall under either of the two categories mentioned in Section 2 of EO No. 1

It does not suffice, as in this case, that the respondent is or was a government official or
employee during the administration of former President Marcos.

Jurisdiction over all other cases not involving EO Nos. 1 & 2 is vested in the Ombudsman and
other duly authorized investigating agencies, not the PCGG.

o Second Issue: Propriety of Dismissal of Case Before Completion of Presentation of Evidence

Resolution of Repubic v. Migrino was August 1990

Petitioner has only itself to blame for non-completion of the presentation of its evidence.
This case has been pending for four years before the Sandiganbayan dismissed it.

o Third Issue: Legality of Search and Seizure

The revolutionary government, after installing itself as the de jure government, assumed
responsibility for the states good faith compliance with the Covenant to which the
Philippines is a signatory.

It is obvious from the testimony of Captain Sebastian that the warrant did not include the
monies, communications equipment, jewelry and land titles that the raiding team
confiscated. The search warrant did not particularly describe these items and the raiding
team confiscated them on its own authority. The raiding team had no legal basis to seize
these items without showing that these items could be the subject of warrantless search and
seizure. Clearly, the raiding team exceeded its authority when it seized these items.

Case is dismissed and remanded to the Ombudsman as well as referred to the BIR for a determination of any tax
liability of respondent Elizabeth Dimaano.

Opinions

o Puno, J. (separate opinion)

My (Puno, J.) disagreement is not with the ruling that the Bill of Rights was not operative at
that time, but with the conclusion that the private respondent has lost and cannot invoke the
right against unreasonable search and seizure and the exclusionary right; whether she
(Dimaano) can invoke these rights in the absence of a constitution under the extraordinary
circumstances after the 1986 EDSA Revolution.

Natural rights are those rights that appertain to man in right of his existenceall those rights
of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the
natural rights of others.

In the organized society, natural rights must be protected by law and although they owe to
the law neither their existence nor their sacredness, they are effective only when recognized
and sanctioned by law.
 The rights against unreasonable search and seizure is a core right implicit in the natural right
to life, liberty, and property. The life to which each person has a right is not a life lived in fear
that his person and property may be unreasonably violated by a powerful ruler. Rather, it is a
life lived with the assurance that the government he established and consented to will
protect the security of his person and property.

A natural right to liberty indubitably includes the freedom to determine when and how an
individual will share the private part of his beings and the extent of his sharing; in
unreasonable searches and seizures, the prying eyes and the invasive hands of the
government prevent the individual from enjoying his freedom to keep himself and to act
undisturbed within his zone of privacy.

Considering that the right against unreasonable search and seizure is a natural right, the
government cannot claim that a person was not entitled to the right for the reason alone
that there was no constitution granting the right at the time the search was conducted.

With the extraordinary circumstances before, during, and after the EDSA revolution, the
Filipinos simply found themselves without a constitution, but certainly not without
fundamental rights.

o Vitug, J. (separate opinion)

The Bill of Rights (under the 1973 constitution) during the interregnum remained in force and
effect not only because it was so recognized by the 1986 People Power but also because the
new government was bound by international law to respect the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights

o Tinga, J. (separate opinion)

President Aquino definitely pledge in her oath of office to uphold and defend the
constitution, which undoubtedly was the 1973 constitution, including the Bill of Rights
thereof.

Cruz v. DENR (Dec 6, 2000)

Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa (pet.) v. Secretary of DENR (resp.)

Suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions
of RA 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997
Issues
o Sections 3 (a), 3 (b), 5, 6, 7, 857, 58 violate the regalia doctrine
o Sections 3 (a), 3 (b) violate the rights of private landowners
o Sections 51-53, 59, 63, 65, 66 violates the right to due process
Use of customary law
NCIP has sole authority to delineate ancestral domains and lands
Rule 56, section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure

Province of North Cotabato v. GRP (October 14, 2008)

 SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus.

Procedural Issues

o Ripeness

It was alleged that respondents drafted the terms of the MOA-AD without consulting the
LGUs or communities affected, nor informing them of the proceedings.
It was alleged that the provisions in the MOA-AD violated the constitution
Stipulation in the MOA-AD in effect, guaranteed to the MILF the amendment of the
constitution. Such act constitutes another violation of its authority.
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.
o Locus Standi
When issues concerns a public right, it is sufficient that the petitioner is a citizen and has an
interest in the execution of the law.
For a taxpayer, if there is an alleged wastage of public funds through the enforcement of an
invalid or unconstitutional law.
o Mootness
MOA-AD is a part of a series of agreements
CAPABLE OF REPETITION YET EVADING REVIEW
Substantive Issues
o Did respondents violate constitutional and statutory provisions on public consultation and the right
to information when they negotiated and later initialed the MOA-AD?
MOA-AD is a matter of public concern seeing as how it involves the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of the state.
EO No. 3 establishes petitioners right to be consulted on the peace agenda, as a corollary to
the constitutional right to information and disclosure.
The right to information contemplates inclusion of negotiations leading to the
consummation of the contract
If it is already consummated, it may be too late for the public to expose its defects
PAPP Esperon committed grave abuse of discretion when he failed to carry out pertinent
consultation. The furtive process by which the MOA-AD was designed and crafted runs
contrary to and in excess of the legal authority, and amounts to a whimsical, capricious,
oppressive, arbitrary despotic exercise thereof.
o Do the contents of the MOA-AD violate the constitution and the laws?
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.
Creation of associative relationship
o The concept of association is not recognized under the present
constitution.
o The constitution does not contemplate any state in this jurisdiction other
than the Philippine state, much less does it provide for a transitory status
that aims to prepare any part of the Philippine territory for independence.
The BJE was made a far more powerful entity than the autonomous region
recognized in the constitution
o Has the elements of a state namely people, defined territory, government,
and capacity to enter into relations with other states
 o MOA-AD would not comply with article 10, section 20 because the BJE was
given more powers than the autonomous state as provided for in the
constitution
Paragraph 7 on Governance in the MOA-AD (necessary changes will be
implemented to the legal framework after signing) is inconsistent with the limits of
the Presidents authority to propose constitutional amendments.
Opinions
o Carpio, J. (separate concurring)
The executive branch usurps the sole discretionary power of Congress to propose
amendments to the constitution as well as the exclusive power of the sovereign people to
approve or disapprove such proposed amendments.
The executive branch has no power to commit to the MILF that the constitution shall be
amended to conform to the MOA-AD
The incorporation of the Lumads, and their ancestral domains, into the Bangsamoro violates
the Constitutional and legislative guarantees recognizing and protecting the Lumads distinct
cultural identities as well as their ancestral domains; this makes the MOA-AD patently
unconstitutional
o Puno, C.J. (separate concurring)
Conduct of the peace process is flawed.
Where a controversy concerns fundamental constitutional questions, the threshold must be
adjusted to allow judicial scrutiny, in order that the issues may be resolved at the earliest
stage before anything irreversible is undertaken under the cover of an unconstitutional act.
Even in times of war, our system of checks and balances cannot be infringed. The
Constitution was ordained by the sovereign people and its postulates may not be employed
as bargaining chips without their prior consent.
o Ynares-Santiago, J. (separate concurring)
The language of the MOA-AD shows that the GRO panel made a real and actual commitment
to fully implement the MOA-AD by effecting the necessary amendments to existing laws and
the Constitution.
o Chico- Nazario, J. (separate opinion)
The MOA-AD has not been signed and will never be. It is nothing more than a piece of paper
with no legal force or binding effect.
The power of judicial review of the court is for settling real and existing dispute, it is not for
allaying fears or addressing public clamor.
o Velasco JR, J. (dissenting opinion)
The courts cannot rule with the GRP alone as respondent; the obvious result is that the Court
would not be able to fully adjudicate and legally decide the case without the joinder of the
MILF. The court cannot nullify a prospective agreement which will affect and legally bind
t=one party without making said decision binding on the other contracting party.
The MOA-AD has remained and will remain a mere proposal as the GRP has put off signing it
permanently.
Court cannot reasonably formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles,
precepts, doctrines or rules for future guidance of both bench and bar based on a non-
existing ancestral domain agreement or by anticipating what the executive department will
likely do or agree on in the future of the peace negotiating table.
o Brion, J. (concurring and dissenting opinion)
After the respondent declared that the MOA-AD would not be signed, there was nothing left
to prohibit and no rights on the part of the petitioner continued to be at risk of violation by
the MOA-AD
Summary
 o The MOA-AD is of public concern, involving as it does the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the
State, which directly affects the lives of the public at large.
o The failure of respondents to consult the LGUs or communities affected constitutes a departure by
respondents from their mandate under EO NO. 3
o Respondents exceeded their authority by the mere act of guaranteeing amendments to the
constitution.
o Any alleged violation of the constitution by any branch of government is a proper matter for judicial
review.
o 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 BJE.
o MOA-AD is declared contrary to law and unconstitutional

Judges

Independent

Impartial
o Classical
Judge is blindfolded; Limited because all men are naturally social beings that are affected by the
world around them
o Relational
Judge empathizes; Limited because of our limited capacity to relate to others
o Situational
Trying to see the case from multiple points of view
Main Question: Would people feel like they were treated fair even if they lost the case?