Activity 1

The Province of North Cotabato, et al. vs. The Government of the Republic of Philippines, et al.
Facts:
By virtue of the government’s policy of pursuing peace negotiations with the Moro Islamic Liberation
Front, former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo together with Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad
conducted negotiations which eventually led to the finalization of the Memorandum of Agreement on
the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD).
Pursuant to said agreement, it provides an associative relationship of the Central Government and the
BJE as characterized by shared authority and responsibility. Bangsamoro Juridical Entity exercises the
authority and jurisdiction over the Ancestral Domain and Ancestral lands of the Bangsamoro. This would
include the present geographic area of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) which are
the following areas: Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu, Tawi-Tawi, Basilan and Marawi City. Also
included are certain municipalities of Lanao del Norte who voted for inclusion in the ARMM in 2001. BJE
moreover has the the freedom to enter into any economic cooperation and trade relation with foreign
countries.
Upon motion of petitioners, the Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the GRP
from signing the same.
Issue: Whether the Memorandum of Agreement in question is constitutional.
Ruling:
No. 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 the BJE, a r e unconstitutional, for the concept presupposes that the associated
entity is a state and implies that the same is on its way to independence.
The failure of respondents to consult the local government units or communities affected constitutes a
departure by respondents from their mandate under E.O. No. 3. Moreover, respondents exceeded their
authority by the mere act of guaranteeing amendments to the Constitution. Neither the GRP Peace
Panel nor the President herself is authorized to make such a guarantee. 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.
Prof. Merlin M. Magallona, et al. vs. Ho. Eduardo Ermita, et al.
Facts:
In 1961, Congress passed Republic Act No. 3046 demarcating the maritime baselines of the Philippines
as an archipelagic State. Congress amended RA 3046 by enacting RA 9522 to make it compliant with the
terms of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III). RA 9522 shortened one
baseline, optimized the location of some basepoints around the Philippine archipelago and classified
adjacent territories, namely, the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal, as "regimes of
islands" whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones.
Petitioners, in their respective capacities as "citizens, taxpayers or . . . legislators," assail the

constitutionality of RA 9522 on two principal grounds, namely: (1) RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime
territory, and logically, the reach of the Philippine state's sovereign power, in violation of Article 1 of
the 1987 Constitution, embodying the terms of the Treaty of Paris 11 and ancillary treaties, 12 and RA
9522 opens the country's waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and
aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security, contravening the country's nuclear-
free policy, and damaging marine resources, in violation of relevant constitutional provisions.
Issue:
Whether RA 9522 is constitutional.
Ruling:
Yes. The contention of the petitioner that RA 9522 resulted to the loss of 15,000 square nautical miles is
devoid of merit. The truth is, RA 9522, by optimizing the location of base points, increased the
Philippines total maritime space of 145,216 square nautical miles. The Supreme Court emphasized that
UNCLOS III is not a mode of acquiring or losing a territory as provided under the laws of nations. Had RA
9522 enclosed the islands as part of the archipelago, the country will be violating UNCLOS III since it
categorically stated that the length of the baseline shall not exceed 125 nautical miles. Sovereignty will
not bar the Philippines to comply with its obligation in maintaining freedom of navigation and the
generally accepted principles of international law. It can be either passed by legislator as a municipal law
or in the absence thereof, it is deemed incorporated in the Philippines law since the right of innocent
passage is a customary international law, thus automatically incorporated thereto.

Activity 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Activity 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Activity 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Province of North Cotabato, et al. vs. The Government of the Republic of Philippines, et al.

Issue: Whether the Memorandum of Agreement in question is constitutional.

Prof. Merlin M. Magallona, et al. vs. Ho. Eduardo Ermita, et al.

Petitioners, in their respective capacities as "citizens, taxpayers or . . . legislators," assail the

Whether RA 9522 is constitutional.

You might also like