Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
RELATED CASES
- versus -
x--------------------------------------------x
- versus -
- versus
x--------------------------------------------x
- versus -
x--------------------------------------------x
- versus -
x--------------------------------------------x
x--------------------------------------------x
Petitioners-in-Intervention.
x--------------------------------------------x
x--------------------------------------------x
THE CITY OF ISABELA, BASILANPROVINCE, represented by MAYOR CHERRYLYN P.
SANTOS-AKBAR,
Petitioners-in-Intervention.
x--------------------------------------------x
x-------------------------------------------x
RUY ELIAS LOPEZ, for and in his own behalf and on behalf of Indigenous Peoples in
Mindanao Not Belonging to the MILF,
Petitioner-in-Intervention.
x--------------------------------------------x
x--------------------------------------------x
x--------------------------------------------x
x--------------------------------------------x
BACKGROUND
Consolidated Cases:
July 18, 1997 the GRP and MILF Peace Panels signed the
Agreement on General Cessation of Hostilities.
Towards the end of 1999 up to early 2000, the MILF attacked a number
of municipalities in Central Mindanao and, in March 2000, it took
control of the town hall of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte.
March 24, 2001 the parties signed the Agreement on the General
Framework for the Resumption of Peace Talks Between the GRP and
the MILF. The MILF thereafter suspended all its military actions.
June 20-22, 2001 Formal peace talks between the parties were held
in Tripoli, Libya giving birth to the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on
Peace (Tripoli Agreement 2001).
August 5-7, 2001 The second round of peace talks was held
in Cyberjaya, Malaysia where the parties signed the Implementing
Guidelines on the Security Aspect of the Tripoli Agreement 2001. This
lead to a ceasefire status between the parties.
July 13, 2003 Then MILF Chairman Salamat Hashim passed away
on and was eventually replaced by Mohagher Iqbal.
Years later, in 2005, several exploratory talks were held between the
parties which eventually lead to the crafting of the draft MOA-AD in
its final form.
MOA-AD Overview
The MOA-AD also identifies as TOR two local statutes the organic
act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and the
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA), and several International Law
instruments, the ILO Convention No. 169 Concerning Indigenous and
Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries in relation to the UN Declaration
on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples, and the UN Charter, among
others. It also includes the principle of Islam particularly the compact
rights entrenchment or the law of compact, treaty and order.
The body of the MOA-AD on the other hand is divided into concepts
and principles, territory, resources, and governance. Embodied in
concepts and principles, is the definition of Bangsamoro as All
indigenous peoples of Mindanao and its adjacent islands. It states tha
these people have the right to self-governance of their Bangsamoro
homeland to which they have exclusive ownership by virtue of their prior
rights of occupation in the land.
It then mentions for the first time the "Bangsamoro Juridical Entity"
(BJE) to which it grants the authority and jurisdiction over the Ancestral
Domain and Ancestral Lands of the Bangsamoro.
As defined in the territory of the MOA-AD, the BJE shall embrace
the Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan geographic region, involving the present
ARMM, parts of which are those which voted in the inclusion of ARMM
in a plebiscite.
ISSUES
Two, Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991
requires all national offices to conduct consultations before any project or
program critical to the environment and human ecology including those
that may call for the eviction of a particular group of people residing in
such locality, is implemented. 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.
Three, Republic Act No. 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act
of 1997 provides for clear-cut procedure for the recognition and
delineation of ancestral domain, which entails, among other things, the
observance of the free and prior informed consent of the Indigenous
Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples. The present Constitution does
not grant the Executive Department or any government agency the power
to delineate and recognize an ancestral domain claim by mere agreement
or compromise.
The MOA-AD states that the type of relationship between the parties
is Associative. This shows that the agreement vests into the BJE a status
of an Associated State, which was rejected by the Supreme Court
because its concept is not recognized under the 1987 Constitution.
Respondents contend that the powers vested to the BJE in the MOA-
AD is within Sub-paragraph 9 of Sec 20, Art. 101 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, it is claimed that a mere passage of a law is necessary in
1
SECTION 20. Within its territorial jurisdiction and subject to the provisions of this Constitution
and national laws, the organic act of autonomous regions shall provide for legislative powers over:
Such other matters as may be authorized by law for the promotion of the general welfare of the
(9)
people of the region.
order to vest the BJE with powers included in the Agreement. However,
the Supreme Court ruled that such conferment calls for an amendment of
the Constitution, otherwise the new legislation will not concur with the
present provisions of the law.
2
An Act to Strenthen and Expand the Organic Act for Autonomous Region in Muslin Mindanao,
amending for the purpose Republic Act 6734, entitled An Act Providing for the Autonomous
Region of Muslin Mindanao, as Amended
On matters relative to indigenous people, international law states
that indigenous peoples situated within states do not have a general right
to independence or secession from those states under international law,
but they do have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters
relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for
financing their autonomous functions. They also have the right to the
lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned,
occupied or otherwise used or acquired.
x-----------------------x
x-----------------------x
x-----------------------x
x-----------------------x
BACKGROUND
G.R. No. 204355 Petitioners Rev. Vicente Libradores Aquino et. al,
and International Ministries for Perfection and Party Against
Communism and Terrorism, Inc. (IMPPACT, Inc.) argue that the GRP
Peace Panel usurped the power of Congress to enact, amend, or repeal
laws since it bound Congress to agree to the provisions of the FAB and
abolish the ARMM.
G.R. No. 218407 Petitioner Jacinto V. Paras argues that the CAB
and the FAB violate the provisions of the Constitution, as well as the
consultation requirement under Executive Order (EO) No. 3 and
Memorandum of Instructions of the President. Petitioner further
contends that respondents exceeded their authority when they
guaranteed the amendment of certain provisions of the Constitution to
conform to the CAB and the FAB.
G.R. No. 204354 Petitioner Rev. Elly Velez Pamatong claims that
the constitutionally infirm MOA-AD of 2008 and the FAB are
substantially the same since they are both aimed at creating a "fully
independent Islamic State" covering Mindanao, Palawan, and Sulu.
Petitioner argues, among others, that there were no consultations
regarding the FAB. Petitioner further contends that the doctrine of res
judicata applies since the MOA-AD and the FAB are similar.
Consequently, the decision in the MOA-AD case is applicable.
Essentially, the petitions commonly seek to declare the CAB and the
FAB unconstitutional for being similar to the void MOA-AD, which was
struck down by the Court for violating, among others, the constitutional
provisions on constitutional amendments.
TIMELINE OF EVENTS
ISSUES
In the present case, however, the Court agrees with the Solicitor
General that there is no actual case or controversy requiring a full-blown
resolution of the principal issue presented by petitioners. Unlike the
unconstitutional MOA-AD, the CAB, including the FAB, mandates the
enactment of the Bangsamoro Basic Law in order for such peace
agreements to be implemented. In the MOA-AD case, there was nothing
in the agreement which required the passage of any statute to implement
its provisions, which in essence would have resulted in dramatically
dismembering the Philippines by placing the provinces and areas covered
by the MOA-AD under the control and jurisdiction of a Bangsamoro
Juridical Entity.
The CAB and the FAB cannot be implemented without the passage
of the Bangsamoro Basic Law. The CAB and the FAB remain peace
agreements whose provisions cannot be enforced and given any legal
effect unless the Bangsamoro Basic Law is duly passed by Congress and
subsequently ratified in accordance with the Constitution. The CAB and
the FAB do not purport to preempt this Congressional power.
It is not the CAB or the FAB that will establish the Bangsamoro but
the Bangsamoro Basic Law enacted by Congress and ratified in a
plebiscite in accordance with the Constitution. Congress must still enact
a Bangsamoro Basic Law. The requirement of a Bangsamoro Basic Law
under the CAB and the FAB ensures that the pitfalls under the invalid
MOA-AD will be avoided.
Petitions Dismissed.
Bai Sandra S. A. Sema vs. Comission on Elections
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
BACKGROUND
Later, three new municipalities were carved out of the original nine
municipalities constituting Shariff Kabunsuan, bringing its total number
of municipalities to 11. Thus, what was left of Maguindanao were the
municipalities constituting its second legislative district. Cotabato City,
although part of Maguindanao's first legislative district, is not part of the
Province of Maguindanao.
In one case3, Sema, who was a candidate in the 2007 elections for
Representative of "Shariff Kabunsuan with Cotabato City," prayed for the
nullification of COMELEC Resolution No. 7902 and the exclusion from
canvassing of the votes cast in Cotabato City for that office. Sema
3
G.R. No. 177597, Marquez vs Comelec
contended that Shariff Kabunsuan is entitled to one representative in
Congress under Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution and Section
3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution.
The COMELEC, did not address the issue and said that they issued
the resolution in the exercise of its administrative, not quasi-judicial,
power. Furthermore, Sema's prayer for the writ of prohibition became
moot with the proclamation of respondent Didagen P. Dilangalen as
representative of the legislative district of Shariff Kabunsuan Province
with Cotabato City.
4
"Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have
at least one representative"
5
"Any province that may hereafter be created, or any city whose population may hereafter increase
to more than two hundred fifty thousand shall be entitled in the immediately following election to
at least one Member x x x."
reason, a city with a population of 250,000 or more cannot also be created
without a legislative district.
The court held that COMELEC Resolution No. 7902, preserving the
geographic and legislative district of the First District of Maguindanao
with Cotabato City, is valid as it merely complies with Section 5 of Article
VI that each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable,
contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory, and each city with a
population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall
have at least one representative, and Section 20 of Article X of the
Constitution granting to the autonomous regions, through their organic
acts, legislative powers over other matters as may be authorized by law
for the promotion of the general welfare of the people of the region.
Cordillera Broad Coalition vs. Commission on Audit
ISSUE
1. Whether or not the issuance Executive Order No. 220 creating the
Cordillera Administrative Region is unconstitutional because it pre-
empted Congress from its mandated duty of enacting an organic act
which created an autonomous region in the Cordilleras.
Petitions Dismissed.