G.R. No. 183591, 183752, 183893, 183951, 183962; October 14, 2008
THE PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO, et al., CITY GOVERNMENT OF ZAMBOANGA, et al., THE CITY OF ILIGAN, et al., THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE, et al., and ERNESTO M. MACEDA, et al., petitioners,

vs.
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN (GRP), et al., respondents.

FACTS

On August 5, 2008, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) were scheduled to sign a Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The MOA-AD was the product of a long peace process, beginning with negotiations in 1996 and including prior agreements like the 2001 Tripoli Agreement on Peace. The MOA-AD aimed to establish a “Bangsamoro Juridical Entity” (BJE) with attributes of statehood, including its own basic law, judicial system, internal security force, and the right to develop and dispose of natural resources. The territory of the BJE was to be determined through a plebiscite covering specific areas in Mindanao and Palawan. Before the scheduled signing, several petitions were filed by local government units and officials (the Provinces of North Cotabato and Zamboanga del Norte, the Cities of Zamboanga and Iligan, and others) and by private individuals (including Ernesto Maceda, Jejomar Binay, and Aquilino Pimentel III). These petitions, commonly impleading the GRP Peace Panel, sought to compel the disclosure of the MOA-AD’s contents, prohibit its signing, and have it declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the signing.

ISSUE

Whether the GRP Peace Panel committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in connection with the negotiation and finalization of the MOA-AD.

RULING

Yes, the GRP Peace Panel committed a grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court, sitting En Banc, ruled that the MOA-AD was unconstitutional. The Court found that the process of negotiating and finalizing the agreement violated the Constitution and legal statutes in several key aspects:
1. Violation of the Constitutional Processes for Amending the Constitution and Creating Autonomous Regions: The MOA-AD effectively envisioned a change in the territorial jurisdiction of the Republic and the creation of a new autonomous region with expanded powers, bypassing the constitutionally mandated processes of congressional enactment (for organic acts of autonomous regions under Article X) or amendment/revision of the Constitution (for changes to national sovereignty and territory under Article XVII).
2. Violation of the Legal Requirements for Plebiscites and Consultations: The stipulation for a plebiscite covering provinces and cities not part of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) violated the requirement under the Local Government Code that only the residents of the local government unit directly affected could vote in a plebiscite for its creation, conversion, division, merger, or abolition. Furthermore, the negotiation and finalization of the MOA-AD were done without the required public consultation, violating the people’s right to information and participation on matters of public concern.
3. Violation of Laws Governing the Exploration, Development, and Utilization of Natural Resources: The provisions granting the BJE authority over natural resources within its territory contravened constitutional and statutory regimes which vest control and supervision over these resources in the State, with Congress determining the specific manner of their utilization.
4. Violation of the Constitutional Supremacy Clause: The MOA-AD’s provisions, which would make the BJE’s legal system subject to the “Bangsamoro Basic Law” and Shari’ah law, and would recognize its “associative relationship” with the Republic, created an impermissible asymmetry where the constitution and laws of the Republic would not be supreme within the BJE.
The Court emphasized that while the President has broad discretion in pursuing peace, this power is not absolute and must be exercised within the confines of the Constitution and existing laws. The MOA-AD, by its terms, required amendments to the Constitution and statutes for its implementation, which the Executive branch could not guarantee or preempt. Therefore, the signing of the MOA-AD was permanently enjoined.