Province of North Cotabato vs.

Governmentof the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel 1

on Ancestral Domain
Montemayor, Anna

Case Name: Province of North Cotabato vs. Government of the Philippines Peace Panel on
Ancestral Domain (GRP)
G.R. Number, Case Date: G.R. No. 183951, October 14, 2008
Ponente: Carpio-Morales, J.
Topic: Honest Public Service and Full Public Disclosure
Rule of Law:
 Sec. 28, Art. II, 1987 Constitution - Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the
State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving
public interest.
 Sec. 7, Art. III, 1987 Constitution – The right of the people to information on matters of public
concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining
to official acts, transaction, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for
policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitation as may be provided
by law
Issue and Holding:

Whether the respondents violate constitutional and statutory provisions on public consultation and
the right to information when they negotiated and late initialled the MOA-AD?

The respondents violated the constitutional and statutory provision on public consultation and the right to
information.
Undoubtedly, the MOA-AD subject of the present cases 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.
Matters of public concern covered by the right to information include steps and negotiations leading to the
consummation of the contract. In not distinguishing as to the executory nature or commercial character of
agreements, the Court has categorically ruled that the right to information contemplates inclusion of
negotiations leading to the consummation of the transaction.

x x x [T]he right to information contemplates inclusion of negotiations leading to the

consummation of the transaction. Certainly, a consummated contract is not a requirement
for the exercise of the right to information. Otherwise, the people can never exercise the
right if no contract is consummated, and if one is consummated, it may be too late for the
public to expose its defects.
Requiring a consummated contract will keep the public in the dark until the contract,
which may be grossly disadvantageous to the government or even illegal, becomes fait
accompli. This negates the State policy of full transparency on matters of public concern,
a situation which the framers of the Constitution could not have intended. Such a
requirement will prevent the citizenry from participating in the public discussion of
any proposed contract, effectively truncating a basic right enshrined in the Bill of
Rights. We can allow neither an emasculation of a constitutional right, nor a retreat by the
State of its avowed policy of full disclosure of all its transactions involving public
interest.
 Province of North Cotabato vs. Governmentof the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel 2
on Ancestral Domain
Montemayor, Anna

Intended as a splendid symmetry to the right to information under the Bill of Rights is the policy of
public disclosure under Section 28, Article II of the Constitution.
The policy of full public disclosure enunciated in Section 28 complements the right of access to
information on matters of public concern found in the Bill of Rights. The right to information guarantees
the right of the people to demand information, while Section 28 recognizes the duty of officialdom to give
information even if nobody demands.
The policy of public disclosure establishes a concrete ethical principle for the conduct of public affairs in
a genuinely open democracy, with the peoples right to know as the centerpiece. It is a mandate of the
State to be accountable by following such policy. These provisions are vital to the exercise of the freedom
of expression and essential to hold public officials at all times accountable to the people.
The effectivity of the policy of public disclosure need not await the passing of a statute. As Congress
cannot revoke this principle, it is merely directed to provide for reasonable safeguards. The complete and
effective exercise of the right to information necessitates that its complementary provision on public
disclosure derive the same self-executory nature. Since both provisions go hand-in-hand, it is absurd to
say that the broader right to information on matters of public concern is already enforceable while the
correlative duty of the State to disclose its transactions involving public interest is not enforceable until
there is an enabling law. Respondents cannot thus point to the absence of an implementing legislation as
an excuse in not effecting such policy.
The imperative of a public consultation, as a species of the right to information, is evident in the marching
orders to respondents. The mechanics for the duty to disclose information and to conduct public
consultation regarding the peace agenda and process is manifestly provided by E.O. No. 3. The
preambulatory clause of E.O. No. 3 declares that there is a need to further enhance the contribution of
civil society to the comprehensive peace process by institutionalizing the peoples participation.
The PAPP committed grave abuse of discretion when he failed to carry out the 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 and despotic exercise
thereof.
As for respondents’ invocation of the doctrine of executive privilege, it is not tenable under the
premises. The argument defies sound reason when contrasted with E.O. No. 3s explicit provisions on
continuing consultation and dialogue on both national and local levels. The executive order even
recognizes the exercise of the public’s right even before the GRP makes its official recommendations or
before the government proffers its definite propositions. It bears emphasis that E.O. No. 3 seeks to elicit
relevant advice, information, comments and recommendations from the people through dialogue.
 Province of North Cotabato vs. Governmentof the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel 3
on Ancestral Domain
Montemayor, Anna

Ruling:

WHEREFORE, respondents’ motion to dismiss is DENIED. The main and intervening petitions are
GIVEN DUE COURSE and hereby GRANTED.

The Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain Aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement
on Peace of 2001 is declared CONTRARY TO LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION.

Additional Notes:

The Court cited several cases related to the issue at hand:

 Subido v. Ozaeta
o The Court has recognized the statutory right to examine and inspect public records, a
right which was eventually accorded constitutional status.
 Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission
o “The right of access to public documents, as enshrined in both the 1973 Constitution and
the 1987 Constitution, has been recognized as a self-executory right”
 Baldoza v. Hon. Judge Dimaano
o The Court ruled that access to public records is predicated on the right of the people to
acquire information on matters of public concern since, undoubtedly, in a democracy, the
public has a legitimate interest in matters f social and political significance.