- CASE DIGEST -
GR No. 183591, October 14, 2008
Facts: In pursuit of peace in Mindanao, the Philippine Government and
MILF agreed to undergo peace talks. The fruit of the talks is the Memorandum of
Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD). The parties were about to sign the
agreement but petitioners filed for Mandamus and Prohibition with Prayer for
the Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order.
The Court issued the TRO.
The MOA-AD essentially would create a Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE), which would result to an associative relationship (a state within a state).
ISSUE: Whether or not the MOA-AD is inconsistent with the Philippine
Constitution and laws.
RULING: UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The provisions of MOA-AD establishes an associative relationship with
the Philippine Government and the BJE resulting to the latter as a separate
independent state or a juridical, territorial, political subdivision not
recognized by law. 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 (a state within a state)
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.
While there is a clause in the MOA-AD stating that the provisions
thereof inconsistent with the present legal framework will not be effective
until that framework is amended, the same does not cure its defect. The
inclusion of provisions in the MOA-AD establishing an associative relationship
between the BJE and the Central Government is, itself, a violation of the
Memorandum of Instructions from the President, dated March 1, 2001, addressed
to the government peace panel. Moreover, as the clause is worded, it virtually
guarantees that the necessary amendments to the Constitution and the laws will
eventually be put in place.
On the recognition of the BJE
entity as a state. The
concept implies power beyond what the Constitution can grant to a local
government; even the ARMM do not have such recognition; and the fact is such
concept implies recognition of the associated entity as a state. There is
nothing in the law that contemplate any state within the jurisdiction other
than the Philippine State, much less does it provide for a transitory status
that aims to prepare any part of Philippine territory for independence. As such
the MOA-AD clearly runs counter to the national sovereignty and territorial
integrity of the Republic.
On the expansion of the
territory of the BJE.
The territory included in the BJE includes those areas who voted in the
plebiscite for them to become part of the ARMM. The stipulation of the
respondents in the MOA-AD that these areas need not participate in the
plebiscite is in contrary to the express provision of the Constitution. The law
states that that "[t]he creation of
the autonomous region shall be effective when approved by a majority of the
votes cast by the constituent units in a plebiscite called for the purpose,
provided that only provinces, cities, and geographic areas voting favourably in
such plebiscite shall be included in the autonomous region." Clearly,
assuming that the BJE is just an expansion of the ARMM, it would still run
afoul the wordings of the law since those included in its territory are areas
which voted in its inclusion to the ARMM and not to the BJE.
In sum, upholding such an act would amount to authorizing a usurpation
of the constituent powers vested only in Congress, a Constitutional Convention,
or the people themselves through the process of initiative, for the only way
that the Executive can ensure the outcome of the amendment process is through
an undue influence or interference with that process.
No comments:
Post a Comment