finaldraft moa ad comment intervention signing updated
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/29/2019 FinalDraft MOA AD Comment Intervention Signing Updated
1/21
Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
En BancTHE PROVINCE OF THE NORTH
COTABATOET AL.,
Petitioners,
-versus-
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL
DOMAINET AL.,
Respondents,
x-----------------------------------------x
CITY GOVERNMENT OFZAMBOANGA,ET AL.,
Petitioners,
-versus-
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL
DOMAIN (GRP) ET AL.,
Respondents,
x------------------------------------------x
MUSLIM LEGAL ASSISTANCE
FOUNDATION, INC. ,
Intervenor.
x------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. 183591
GR No. 183752
COMMENT-IN-INTERVENTION
1
-
7/29/2019 FinalDraft MOA AD Comment Intervention Signing Updated
2/21
(By MUSLIM LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION, INC.)
Intervenor Muslim Legal Assistance Foundation, Inc. (hereinafter referred to
as Muslaf), by itself, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states:
Statement of the Case
On July 23, 2008, petitioners North Cotabato and Piol filed a petitiondocketed as GR No. 183591 seeking relief: (1) for the issuance of temporary
restraining order (TRO) and, in the alternative, writ of preliminary injunction
against public respondents to formally signing the MOA; (2) requiring the latter to
furnish petitioner the copy of the MOA inclusive of its annexes; and, (3)
prohibiting it to formally sign said MOA pending its disclosure to the public as
well as its public consultation and hearing. A day after, they filed an Urgent ex
parte Manifestation as well as Extremely Urgent Manifestation for the issuance of
Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or TRO.
On July 30, 2008, a resolution was issued requiring the public respondents
statutory counsel, Solicitor General, to file its Comment.
In the meantime, another petition was filed by the City of Zamboanga et. al.
docketed as G.R. No. 183752 which contain substantially the same allegations and
causes of action in G.R. No. 183591.
On 04 August 2008, a resolution was promulgated consolidating the two
separate petitions, GR No. 183591 and 183752; issuing a temporary restraining
order (TRO) directing public respondents to cease and desist from signing the
MOA; requiring Solicitor General to file its Comment in GR No. 183752 and to
2
-
7/29/2019 FinalDraft MOA AD Comment Intervention Signing Updated
3/21
furnish the Court and all the parties the copy of the MOA; noting the Comment of
public respondents in G.R. No. 183591; requiring petitioners in G.R. No. 183591
to file their Reply against public respondents Comment; and setting the case for
oral argument on August 15, 2008.
COUNTER STATEMENT OF HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS
The Mindanao Conflict (the Conflict) predates the birth of the Philippine
Republic. It began with the entry into these islands of Spanish Conquistadores,
fresh from expelling the Moors in Spain, only to find vibrant sultanates and
kingdoms who vigorously opposed colonization. Of these sultanates, two were
described by Jesuit priest Fr. Horacio dela Costa as full-pledged sultanates with
a fiscal administration, courts of justice, and a bureaucracy.1 They were, in
other words, already political entities as nations-states and not just nations in its
sociological sense by the time the Spaniards set foot and definitely long before
the birth of the First Philippine Republic in 1898.
The Conflict calls into question basic assumptions about the Philippines as a
nation-state, about whether the Philippine Republic from inception is a mono-
nation state or a plural-nation state. It further calls into question the lastingviability of the Philippines as a unitary state capable of accommodating distinct
ethno-nationalist histories and state-building trajectories.
Since the late 1960s up until today, the modern day reincarnation of this
conflict has thus far cost 120,000 lives. In year 2000, an all-out military
offensive produced 1,000,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) and, in year
2003, another all-out military offensive produced 400,000 IDPs.2 After the
resolution of the conflict in Aceh, Indonesia, the Mindanao Conflict now has the
1 Ruurdje Laarhoven, Triumph of Moro Diplomacy, New Day Publishers, 1989 (p. xvi).2 Norwegian Refugee Council/Global IDP Project, Profile of Internal Displacement:Philippines (2005), pp. 18 and 19, available at www.idpproject.org.
3
http://www.idpproject.org/http://www.idpproject.org/ -
7/29/2019 FinalDraft MOA AD Comment Intervention Signing Updated
4/21
distinction of being the longest running conflict in Asia. Further, given the
gravity of its impact on the humanitarian and human rights situation, it threatens
to transform the conflict affected areas into the Darfur of Southeast Asia, if not
already.
Nexus Between Ancestral Domain and the GRP-MILF Peace Process
A. Ancestral Domain
1. Land Colonization Program
At the turn of the 20 th century when the Americans took over after the
Treaty of Paris, Moros comprised about 76% of the entire population of
Mindanao, Sulu, and Palawan.3 But by the turn of the next century, Moros
comprise only 19% of the population while that of settlers, their descendants, and
subsequent migrants now comprising the.4
The reason for this dramatic reversal is the numerous land colonization
policies mandated by the Philippine legislature and implemented by the executive
branch that encouraged settlers from Luzon and Visayas to colonize agricultural
lands in Mindanao5 even as lands owned byMoros by virtue of grants from Sultans
3 United Nations Development Program, 2005 Philippine Human Development Report(Human Development Network, Manila, 2005), p. 29; The World Bank, Social Assessment ofConflict Affected Areas in Mindanao (Environment and Social Development Unit, 2003), p. 8.4 Supra, 2005 Philippine Human Development Report, at p. 25.5 Act No. 2254 (1913), Agricultural Colonies Act creating agric colonies in Cotabato Valley;Act No. 2280 (1914) creating agricultural colony in Momungan (Balo-i), Lanao; Act No. 2206(1919) authorizing provincial boards to manage colonies (Zamboanga opened Lamitan, Suluopened Tawi-Tawi, Bukidnon opened Marilog, Cotabato opened Salunayan & Maganoy);Resettlement done by Interisland Migration Division (1919-1930) of the Bureau of Labor(opened Kapalong, Guiangga, Tagum, Lupon and Baganga in Davao, Labangan in
Zamboanga; Lamitan in Basilan; Cabadbaran in Butuan; Buenavista in Agusan; Momunganand Kapatagan valley in Lanao; brought in more settlers to Pikit and Pagalungan); Act No.4197 Quirino-Recto Colonization Act / Organic Charter of Organized Land Settlement (1935);Act No. 441 Creating National Land Settlement Administration (NLSA) (opened KoronadalValley and Ala Valley in Cotabato, and Mallig plains in Isabela); Rice and Corn ProductionAdministration (RCPA) created in 1949 to promote rice and corn production (opened Buluanin Cotabato and Maramag-Wao in Bukidnon-Lanao border); 1951, Land SettlementDevelopment Corporation (LASEDECO) (opened Tacurong, Isulan, Bagumbayan, Part ofBuluan, Sultan sa Barongis, Ampatuan); 1951, Economic Development Corps (EDCOR) for
4
-
7/29/2019 FinalDraft MOA AD Comment Intervention Signing Updated
5/21
and Datuswere invalidated and declared null and void.6
Inevitably, the programs generated not only resentment by Moros against
the government but also communal tensions such that by the late 1960s, militiasbegan to be formed and by the early 1970s, communal fighting between Christian
and Muslims villages broke out.7
2. Three (3) Injustices
The resentment and tensions caused by the land colonization program
during the American, Commonwealth, and post-WWII periods was compounded
by what Archbishop Orlando Quevedo sums up as three (3) injustices: injustice
to Moro sovereignty, injustice to Moro identity, and injustice to Moro integral
development.8
During the Malolos Convention which drafted the Constitution of the First
Philippine Republic, not a single one of the delegates was any of the Moro
sultanates. An invitation sent to the Sultan of Sulu by the Katipuneros was
ignored.
During the Commonwealth period, when the land colonization policy was
already underway, Moro leaders issued the so-called Zamboanga Declaration.9
This was followed by the Dansalan Declaration issued on the eve of the 1935
captured and surrendered Huks (opened Arevalo in Sapad, Lanao del Norte; Genio inAlamada, Gallego and Barira in Buldon, all in Cotabato, and two others in Isabela andQuezon); RA 1160 (1954) created National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration(NARRA); 1963, Land Authority inaugurated land reform, also managed resettlement; RA6389 (1971) created Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), did resettlement thru theBureau of Resettlement. Note: Culled from Powerpoint Presentation of Professor RodolfoRodil, Vice-Chairperson, GRP Peace Negotiating Panel, presented at the University of the
Philippines, College of Law, August 8, 2008.6 Philippine Bill of 1902, Sec. 84.7 Thomas M. McKenna, Muslim Rulers and Rebels (Anvil Publishing, Manila, 1998), at p. 149.8 See Cotabato Archbishop Orlando Quevedo, Injustice: The Root of the Conflict inMindanao (Paper delivered by Cotabato at the 27th General Assembly of the Bishops'Businessmen's Conference in Taguig, Metro Manila, on July 8, 2004), available athttp://www.bangsamoro.info/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=46.9 Peter Gordon Gowing, Mandate in Moroland (New Day Publishers, Quezon City, 1983), at p.311.
5
http://www.bangsamoro.info/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=46http://www.bangsamoro.info/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=46 -
7/29/2019 FinalDraft MOA AD Comment Intervention Signing Updated
6/21
Constitutional Convention. The tenor of both was Moros were afraid of how they
will be treated if Mindanao, Sulu, and Palawan, were made part of the Philippines.
At the very least, these historical antecedents call into question basic
premises of the Philippines as a nation-state: whether the incorporation of the
Bangsamoro in the Philippine Republic was with their, or their leaders, consent;
whether the Philippines is a mono-nation or plural-nation state, and; assuming
the Philippines is a plural-nation state, whether the Unitary state structure of the
Philippines is capable of accommodating distinct historical and political
trajectories of the plurality of nations in its jurisdiction.
Indeed, as one legal expert on the peace process observes, the Mindanao
Conflict is a clash between two imagined nations or nationalism.10
B. The GRP-MILF Peace Process
The GRP-MILF Peace Process is only the latest attempt to resolve the
Conflict. This process started with then Executive Secretary Ruben Torres
exploratory and preparatory meetings with the MILF in August of 1996.11
Given the magnitude of the Conflict and the fundamental issues which
strike at the core assumptions of the Philippines as a nation-state, it has takenboth Peace Panels of the GRP and the MILF twelve (12) years to agree upon a
Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) which, it should
be hastily added, is not even the Comprehensive Peace Compact that the panels
deem as the culmination of their negotiations.12 But the ceremonial/formal
signing of the initialled Memorandum of Agreement was aborted after the
issuance by this Honorable Court of the Temporary Restraining Order.
10 Soliman Santos, Evolution of the Armed Conflict on the Moro Front, condensed in 2005UNDP Philippine Human Development Report(Human Development Network, 2005), at p.65, downloadable at www.hdn.org.ph.11 Soliman Santos, Dynamics and Directions of the GRP-MILF Peace Negotiations (AlternateForum for Research in Mindanao, Inc., 1st ed., Davao, 2005), at p. 5.12 Par. 7, Governance, GRP-MILF Memorandum of Agreement Ancestral Domain.
6
http://www.hdn.org.ph/http://www.hdn.org.ph/ -
7/29/2019 FinalDraft MOA AD Comment Intervention Signing Updated
7/21
The GRP-MILF Peace Process is not the first attempt to resolve the conflict
and address long-held Bangsamoro grievances by way of negotiations.
Unfortunately, all past attempts have failed. The 1976 Tripoli Agreement was at
best abandoned by both signatory parties or at worst, unilaterally implemented by
the government. On the other hand, the implementation of the 1996 Final Peace
Agreement was marked by a resumption of hostilities in 2001 and in the
incarceration of Prof. Nur Misuari, the signatory to the pact.
The GRP-MILF Peace Process has already taken twelve years. This was
marked by two all out military offensives in years 2000 and 2003, and countless
major outbreaks of fighting which produced almost One Million (1,000,000) and
Four Hundred Thousand (430,000) refugees, respectively, and thousands of homes
ruined. Human casualties, combatants and non-combatants, are indeterminate.
Meanwhile, the social costs of the continuing conflict is reflected in an opinion
poll commissioned by the United Nations Development Project showing half of
Filipinos would outright prefer a Christian over a Muslim job-applicant and that
about the same percentage see Muslims as terrorists.13
Yet, notwithstanding all these obstacles14 and the immensity of task
assumed by the GRP and MILF Peace Panels to resolve the Conflict, they
prodded on and eventually succeeded in crafting the MOA-AD which would have
paved the way to the formal negotiations on the Comprehensive Peace Compact.
However, rather than welcome the MOA-AD as another attempt to resolve
the Conflict peacefully and succeed where past attempts have failed, the instant
petition was filed. Soon afterwards, the TRO was issued and the scheduledAugust 5 signing of the MOA-AD was cancelled. Thereafter, hostilities resumed
13 See supra, 2005 UNDP Philippine Human Development Report, Appendix 1.1, Measuringthe Bias Against Muslims, pp. 53-58.14 See also Paul Oquist, Mindanao and Beyond: Competing Policies, Protracted Conflict andHuman Security(United Nations Development Program, Manila, 2002).
7
-
7/29/2019 FinalDraft MOA AD Comment Intervention Signing Updated
8/21
and in just one week, published number of refugees already number One Hundred
Sixty Thousand (160,000) persons.15
Issues in Intervention
I. WHETHER RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING COMMANDING PUBLIC RESPONDENTS TO
CEASE AND DESIST FROM FORMALLY SIGNING THE MOA-
AD.
II.WHETHER PUBLIC RESPONDENTS ACTED WITH GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN THEIR ALLEGED DENIAL TO
FURNISH THE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF
AGREEMENT ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN (MOA-AD)
BETWEEN PUBLIC RESPONDENTS AND MORO ISLAMIC
LIBERATION FRONT (MILF).
III. WHETHER PUBLIC RESPONDENTS ACTED WITH GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN PUBLIC RESPONDENTS
ALLEGEDLY FAILED TO CONDUCT PUBLIC
CONSULTATION AND HEARINGS PRIOR TO THE SIGNING
OF THE MOA BETWEEN THE RESPONDENTS AND THE
MILF.
Arguments and Discussion
I. Whether respondent is entitled to a
temporary restraining order
commanding public respondents to
cease and desist from formally
signing the MOA-AD.
15 See Inquirer Online, Humanitarian Crisis Looms in North Cotabato, athttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080812-154136/Humanitarian-crisis-looms-in-N-Cotabato-over-fighting.
8
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080812-154136/Humanitarian-crisis-looms-in-N-Cotabato-over-fightinghttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080812-154136/Humanitarian-crisis-looms-in-N-Cotabato-over-fightinghttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080812-154136/Humanitarian-crisis-looms-in-N-Cotabato-over-fightinghttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080812-154136/Humanitarian-crisis-looms-in-N-Cotabato-over-fighting -
7/29/2019 FinalDraft MOA AD Comment Intervention Signing Updated
9/21
Intervenors replead, reproduce and incorporate by reference all the foregoing
allegations.
A. The Signing of the MOA-AD will not result in irreparable injury to the
petitioners warranting the issuance of temporary restraining order (TRO).
The rule on the issuance of a TRO requires that there must be great or
irreparable injury that would result to the applicant before the matter can be heard
on notice.16 In the case of the applicants in this consolidated case, there is no
irreparable injury that will be caused by the formal signing of the MOA-AD. This
document is not self-executory. In fact, it will not even constitute the culmination
of the negotiations between the GRP and MILF. Rather, it is the signing of the
Comprehensive Compact which will signal the end of the negotiations. In fact, the
signing of the MOA-AD will merely put into motion the start of the formal
negotiations on the Comprehensive Peace Pact. On this point, the MOA-AD
clearly states:
TERRITORY
2. x x x
d. Without derogating from the requirements of prior
agreements, the Government stipulates to conduct and deliver, using
all possible legal measures, within twelve (12) months following the
signing of the MOA-AD, a plebiscite covering the areas as
enumerated in the list and depicted in the map as Category A attached
herein (the Annex). The Annex constitutes an integral part of this
16Sec. 5. Preliminary injunction not granted without notice; exception. No preliminary injuction shall be granted without hearing and priornotice to the party or person sought to be enjoined. If it shall appearfrom facts shown by affidavits or by the verified application that greator irreparable injury would result to the applicant before the mattercan be heard on notice, the court to which the application forpreliminary injunction was made,xxx
9
-
7/29/2019 FinalDraft MOA AD Comment Intervention Signing Updated
10/21
framework agreement. Toward this end, the Parties shall endeavor to
complete the negotiations and resolve all outstanding issues on the
Comprehensive Compact within fifteen (15) months from the signing
of the MOA-AD.
GOVERNANCE
7. The parties agree that that mechanisms and modalities for the
actual implementation of this MOA shall be spelt out in the
Comprehensive Compact to mutually take such steps to enable it to
occur effectively.
Any provision of the MOA-AD requiring amendments to the
existing legal framework shall come into force upon signing of a
Comprehensive Compact and upon effecting the necessary changes to
the legal framework with due regard to nonderogation of prior
agreement and within the stipulated timeframe to be contained in the
Comprehensive Compact.
8. The parties agree that the BJE shall be empowered to build,
develop and maintain its own institutions, inclusive of, civil service,
electoral, financial and banking, education, legislation, legal,
economic, and police and internal security force, judicial system and
correctional institutions, necessary for developing a progressive
Bangsamoro society, the details of which shall be discussed in the
negotiation of the Comprehensive Compact.
10. Matters concerning the details of the agreed consensus
points on Governance not covered under this Agreement shall be
deferred to, and discussed during, the negotiations of the
Comprehenssive Compact.
In fact, their act of applying for the TRO has caused the people of Mindanao
irreparable injury as hostilities or the state of un-peace has resumed. The 160,000
refugees that have had to flee their homes after the resumption of hostilities that
10
-
7/29/2019 FinalDraft MOA AD Comment Intervention Signing Updated
11/21
followed the cancellation of the signing of the MOA-AD 17 will bear this out. It
shows the both panels the futility of negotiating for twelve years because in the
end, all their efforts at confronting the difficult issues facing them will be put to
naught and their agreements can be readily set aside by a baseless allegation of
irreparable injury by petitioners.
B. In any case, the availability of the MOA-AD from various sources
renders the prayer for TRO moot and academic.
The Petitioners prayer for the issuance of the TRO is premised on the
alleged failure of the Respondents to furnish them copies of the MOA-AD.
However, assuming it were true that they have yet to obtain copies even before the
filing of their Petition, inasmuch as the Honorable Court had already ordered the
counsel for Respondents, the Office of the Solicitor General, to furnish thePetitioners copies of the MOA-AD, it is respectfully submitted that the TRO is
rendered moot and academic.
In any case, copies of the MOA-AD is already available in the public
domain such as numerous online news websites even before the issuance of the
TRO.18
Thus, it is with due respect that herein intervenors pray that the said TRO be
lifted immediately, as the purpose for which it was requested by the herein
petitioners, is already non-existent. The MOA-AD has already been released to the
17 See, for example, the fighting in North Cotabato that already produce 160,000 refugees.Inquirer Online, Humanitarian Crisis Looms in North Cotabato , athttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080812-154136/Humanitarian-crisis-looms-in-N-Cotabato-over-fighting18 http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/images/news/newspics/downloads/MOA%20On%20Ancestral%20Domain.pdf;http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080804-152469/GRP-MILF-draft-pact-on-Bangsamoro-homeland;
11
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080812-154136/Humanitarian-crisis-looms-in-N-Cotabato-over-fightinghttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080812-154136/Humanitarian-crisis-looms-in-N-Cotabato-over-fightinghttp://www.abs-cbnnews.com/images/news/newspics/downloads/MOA%20On%20Ancestral%20Domain.pdfhttp://www.abs-cbnnews.com/images/news/newspics/downloads/MOA%20On%20Ancestral%20Domain.pdfhttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080804-152469/GRP-MILF-draft-pact-on-Bangsamoro-homelandhttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080804-152469/GRP-MILF-draft-pact-on-Bangsamoro-homelandhttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080804-152469/GRP-MILF-draft-pact-on-Bangsamoro-homelandhttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080812-154136/Humanitarian-crisis-looms-in-N-Cotabato-over-fightinghttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080812-154136/Humanitarian-crisis-looms-in-N-Cotabato-over-fightinghttp://www.abs-cbnnews.com/images/news/newspics/downloads/MOA%20On%20Ancestral%20Domain.pdfhttp://www.abs-cbnnews.com/images/news/newspics/downloads/MOA%20On%20Ancestral%20Domain.pdfhttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080804-152469/GRP-MILF-draft-pact-on-Bangsamoro-homelandhttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080804-152469/GRP-MILF-draft-pact-on-Bangsamoro-homeland -
7/29/2019 FinalDraft MOA AD Comment Intervention Signing Updated
12/21
public. As such, the petitioners have already been informed of its contents. The
TRO is no longer needed.
II. Whether public respondents acted with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of
jurisdiction in their alleged denial to furnish the
copy of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between public respondents and Moro Islamic
Liberation Front (MILF), thus, warranting the
issuance of a preliminary injunction .
Both petitions failed to show that they were denied by public respondents of
their right to information.
In G.R. No. 183591, there was no official record refusing the request for the
copy of the MOA. With respect to GR No. 183952, there was no request made torespondents to access the subject MOA.Indubitably, the petitions failed to present
before this High Court any breach of a right which is legally demandable and
enforceable.
In GR No. 183591, petitioners had requested (Annex C, Petition) a copy
of the MOA only July 21, 2008. Without waiting for the request, they filed two
days thereafter or on July 23 this petition without waiting for a reasonable time for
public respondents to act on the request. The filing, therefore, is premature. In the
first place, there is no official act to be complained of since there was no refusal of
the request by public respondents.
In G.R. No. 183752, the petitioner has not presented any document or letter
requesting from the public respondents a copy of the MOA. Thus, there was no
administrative denial and no evidence attached to the petition showing that their
right to information was denied.
12
-
7/29/2019 FinalDraft MOA AD Comment Intervention Signing Updated
13/21
Simply, except for the letter in attached as Annex C in the Petition G.R.
No. 183591, nothing in the petitions states that the petitioners formally requested
for a copy of the MOA-AD nor attempted to access the information at the office
of the OPAPP or their official representative in Zamboanga City and North
Cotabato. In fact, when Rep. Climaco of Zamboanga requested for a copy, she
was shown a draft copy of MOA-AD at Congress which was admitted in their
Petition at par 20 under Brief Statement of Facts page 10. At that moment she
could have made copies for which she could have shown to the governor, mayor
and her constituents at Zamboanga. Unfortunately, she failed to do so and is now
putting the blame on the Peace Panel. For easy reference allegation of the
petitioner in GR 183591 are reproduced below:
18. Also, on July 25, 2008, Petitioner Rep. Climaco wrote Sec.
Hermogenes C. Esperon, Jr., the current Presidential Adviser
on Peace Process, requesting for a copy of the Memorandum of
Agreement on Ancestral Domain. The request fell on deaf ears.
xxx xxx xxx
20. Prompted by the said news, the resident of Zamboanga
started clamoring for copies of the purported MOA-AD. Their
apprehension were confirmed when petitioner Climaco was
shown a draft copy of the same in Congress;
Petitioners would like this Court to believe that Rep. Climaco was never
provided a copy of the MOA-AD but upon his own admission he state that he was
shown a draft copy of the same in Congress. Thus their claim of not being
furnished a copy is a blind allegation on their part.
We respectfully invite this Honorable Court to note that
on all the letters sent and attached as annexes by the petitioners
none requested that they be provided with a copy of the
Memorandum of Agreement. As to their position to be heard,
they have already aired their position to the Peace Panel. This is
evident in their own allegations in par 15 to 17 complaint in GR
13
-
7/29/2019 FinalDraft MOA AD Comment Intervention Signing Updated
14/21
183591.
Their sentiment did not fall on deaf ears as the MOA-AD has a provision
that requires a plebiscite. Those affected will have their opportunity to be heard. If
there is anyone remiss in their duty to inform their constituents it is the
representatives of Zamboanga who early on were shown draft copies. They could
have easily made efforts to reproduce copies thereof and inform their people.
Even assuming arguendo that petitioners rights to information was violated,
this issue has become moot and academic when public respondents statutory
counsel, Solicitor General, complied with the resolution of this Honorable Court by
furnishing the latter and the parties with copies of the MOA.
III. Whether public respondents acted with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess
of jurisdiction when public respondents allegedlyfailed to conduct public consultation and hearings
prior to the signing of the MOA-AD between the
respondents and the MILF.
This issue must be resolved in the negative.
A. The MOA-AD, as the product of the GRP-MILF Peace Process that
seeks to resolve a centuries-old conflict contain provisions for the ultimate type of
public consultation, i.e., plebiscite.
The MOA-AD clearly provides that:
TERRITORY
2. x x x
14
-
7/29/2019 FinalDraft MOA AD Comment Intervention Signing Updated
15/21
d. Without derogating from the requirements of prior
agreements, the Government stipulates to conduct and deliver, using
all possible legal measures, within twelve (12) months following the
signing of the MOA-AD, a plebiscite covering the areas as
enumerated in the list and depicted in the map as Category A attached
herein (the Annex). The Annex constitutes an integral part of this
framework agreement. Toward this end, the Parties shall endeavor to
complete the negotiations and resolve all outstanding issues on the
Comprehensive Compact within fifteen (15) months from the signing
of the MOA-AD.
Based on the above provisions, it is clear that the people themselves, in their
sovereign capacity, will be asked to decide on the MOA-AD. It must be added that
the issue on the acceptability of the MOA-AD to the people is an inherently
political question.
Further, the MOA-AD likewise does not expressly seek to contravene any
existing law. Where its provisions do not appear to be consistent with existing
law, then the MOA-AD will not take effect unless and until the appropriate
changes to the legal framework is accomplished. This changes, considering that it
will have to be undertaken either through legislation or constitutional amendments,
are likewise political questions and constitute the ultimate form of consultation.
Thus, the MOA-AD states:
GOVERNANCE
7. The parties agree that that mechanisms and modalities for the
actual implementation of this MOA shall be spelt out in the
Comprehensive Compact to mutually take such steps to enable it to
occur effectively.
Any provision of the MOA-AD requiring amendments to the
existing legal framework shall come into force upon signing of a
Comprehensive Compact and upon effecting the necessary changes to
the legal framework with due regard to nonderogation of prior
agreement and within the stipulated timeframe to be contained in the
15
-
7/29/2019 FinalDraft MOA AD Comment Intervention Signing Updated
16/21
Comprehensive Compact.
B. On the contrary, it is the Petitioners who would deprived the
people of the opportunity to participate in the consultations which they accuse the
Respondents of denying.
Had it been signed, the MOA-AD would have set off a series of events
including the holding of a plebiscite in the affected areas. By seeking to prevent
the signing of the MOA-AD, the Petitioners in effect are seeking to prevent the
holding of a plebiscite which would have been the ultimate opportunity for the
people to be consulted and decide upon the MOA-AD. In other words, by seeking
an injunction on the signing, the Petitioners now arrogate upon themselves the
power to decide on behalf of the sovereign people.
Closing Statement
The Conflict has been going on for the past five centuries. For the past four
decades, it has produced more than one hundred thousand deaths and millions of
refugees. The total tangible and intangible costs the Philippines has had to bear
because of this Conflict is immeasurable.
This is the Conflict which the valiant men and women of the GRP and MILF
Peace Panels are trying to resolve. Although they have not been lacking in
obstacles and the peace process has not had a dearth of critics, yet they prodded.
Finally, after twelve years of continuously working for a peaceful negotiated
resolution of the conflict, they arrived at the MOA-AD which they hope addressesthe roots causes of the conflict.
Thus, rather than throw another obstacle to this tremendous task of
16
-
7/29/2019 FinalDraft MOA AD Comment Intervention Signing Updated
17/21
transcendental importance which they have imposed upon themselves, the Peace
Panels deserve commendation.
Lastly, intervenors wonder where is the logic in the argument that a peace
agreement is bad for peace when it should be the opposite. Clearly, an aborted
peace agreement and peace process will further set us back in our journey to peace.
As can be seen in the events that followed the cancellation of the MOA-AD
signing,19 the lack of logic in the consolidated petitions is clear. If at all, it is the
Filipino people and the peace process, nay peace itself, itself that has suffered from
the TRO. Intervenors hope that the damage is still repairable.
Prayer
WHEREFORE, premises considered, intervenor most respectfully pray for
the Honorable Court to:
1. Immediately lift the temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme
Court on 04 August 2008 for lack of legal and factual basis, and being moot
and academic;
2. Deny the petitioners prayer for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forlack of statutory and factual basis;
3. Deny the petitioners prayer for the issuance of Writ of Prohibition, for their
failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and for lack of statutory and
factual basis;
Other relief and remedies just and equitable under the circumstances are
19 See, for example, the fighting in North Cotabato that already produce 160,000 refugees.Inquirer Online, Humanitarian Crisis Looms in North Cotabato , athttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080812-154136/Humanitarian-crisis-looms-in-N-Cotabato-over-fighting.
17
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080812-154136/Humanitarian-crisis-looms-in-N-Cotabato-over-fightinghttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080812-154136/Humanitarian-crisis-looms-in-N-Cotabato-over-fightinghttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080812-154136/Humanitarian-crisis-looms-in-N-Cotabato-over-fightinghttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080812-154136/Humanitarian-crisis-looms-in-N-Cotabato-over-fighting -
7/29/2019 FinalDraft MOA AD Comment Intervention Signing Updated
18/21
likewise most respectfully prayed for.
Respectfully filed. San Juan City for Manila, 12 August 2008.
MUSLIM LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION, INC.
Suite 703, Jafer Placce Building, No. 19 Eisenhower St.
Greenhills, San Juan City, Metro Manila
By:
ATTY. MUSA I. MALAYANG
Intervenor
IBP#694198, 5-21-2007
CALMANA CHAPTER
PTR #9303761, 7-18-2007
Roll No. 30632
ATTY. CARIM L. PANUMPANG
Intervenor
IBP# 03104, Lifetime
MANILA III CHAPTER
Roll No.29501
ATTY. RASOL Y. MITMUG, JR.
IntervenorIBP#06790, Lifetime
COTABATO CHAPTER
PTR#9976993, 1-20-2008
Roll No.54196
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
I, MUSA I. MALAYANG, under oath, respectfully states:
That I am the Secretary General of the Muslim Legal Assistance Foundation,
Inc.
18
-
7/29/2019 FinalDraft MOA AD Comment Intervention Signing Updated
19/21
And upon deliberation of the subject petitions, we agreed to join as
intervenor, and accordingly cause the preparation of the foregoing Comment-in-
Intervention;
That we have read all the allegations of the said Comment-in-Intervention
which are true and correct of our personal knowledge.
Further, we hereby certify that we have not filed any similar action before
the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any division thereof, or before any
tribunal or agency involving the same cause of action; that in case we discover
later on of a similar case filed before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals orany division thereof, or before any tribunal or agency, we undertake to inform the
Honorable Court of such action within five (5) days from gaining knowledge
thereof.
MUSA I. MALAYANG
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me a notary public, for and in
Quezon City, this _____ day of August , 2008, affiant exhibited to me his
Community Tax Certificate No.01363710 issued on April 23, 2008 at Manila.
Notary Public
Doc. No. _____Page No. _____
Book No. _____
Series of 2008.
NOTIFICATION
The Clerk of Court
Supreme Court
G R E E T I N G S:
19
-
7/29/2019 FinalDraft MOA AD Comment Intervention Signing Updated
20/21
Please submit the foregoing Comment-in-Intervention upon receipt thereof
to the Honorable Court or its kind consideration and approval, without further
argument.
MUSA I. MALAYANG
Copy furnished:
Atty. ISRAELITO P. TARREON Registry Receipt No. _________
Counsel for Petitioners in GR No. 183591 Date : ___________
Torreon De Vera-Torreon Law Firm
2nd Floor, Torreon Building
1011 Washington St., Davao City
Atty. NORBERTO PATRIARCA Registry Receipt No. _______
Office of the City Legal Officer Date : ____________
City Government of ZamboangaCounsel for Petitioners in GR No 183752
2nd Floor City Hall NS Valderos St
7000 Zamboanga City
Office of the Solicitor General Registry Receipt No. _______
134 Amorsolo St Date : _____________
Legazpi Village
1229 Makati City
Explanation
The copies of the Comment-in-Intervention were furnished to the above-
parties by registered mail since personal service is not practical due to distance
and lack of messengerial service to effect personal service.
20
-
7/29/2019 FinalDraft MOA AD Comment Intervention Signing Updated
21/21