Primary Holding

The Supreme Court declared the MOA-AD unconstitutional due to violations of the right to information, lack of public consultation, and provisions that exceeded the government's authority and contradicted the Constitution and existing laws.

Background

The MOA-AD was a proposed agreement aimed at resolving the armed conflict in Mindanao by expanding the autonomous region and granting significant powers to the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE). However, concerns arose regarding the lack of transparency and potential constitutional violations.

Facts

• 1. The GRP and MILF planned to sign the MOA-AD in Kuala Lumpur.
• 2. The MOA-AD aimed to expand the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and create the BJE.
• 3. The MOA-AD granted the BJE control over territory, resources, and governance.
• 4. Several local government units (LGUs) and concerned citizens filed petitions challenging the MOA-AD.
• 5. The signing was halted by a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) from the Supreme Court.
• 6. The government disclosed the MOA-AD to the public after the TRO.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. Respondents violated the right to information by negotiating the MOA-AD in secret.
• 2. There was a lack of public consultation with affected communities.
• 3. The MOA-AD unconstitutionally expands the territory of the autonomous region without a proper plebiscite.
• 4. The MOA-AD grants powers to the BJE that exceed those allowed by the Constitution.
• 5. The MOA-AD compromises national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. The petitions are moot because the MOA-AD was not signed and the GRP Peace Panel was disbanded.
• 2. The MOA-AD is merely a proposal and does not create legally demandable rights.
• 3. The MOA-AD's provisions requiring constitutional amendments would only take effect after those amendments were made.
• 4. Plebiscite is sufficient consultation.

Issues

• 1. Whether the petitions are moot and academic.
• 2. Whether the constitutionality of the MOA-AD is ripe for adjudication.
• 3. Whether the GRP Peace Panel committed grave abuse of discretion.
• 4. Whether there was a violation of the right to information and the policy of full disclosure.
• 5. Whether the MOA-AD binds the GRP to create a separate state or revise the Constitution.
• 6. Whether the inclusion/exclusion of certain LGUs in the Bangsamoro Homeland is justiciable.

Ruling

• 1. The petitions are not moot because the issues are of paramount public interest and capable of repetition.
• 2. The constitutionality of the MOA-AD is ripe for adjudication because the act of negotiating it allegedly infringed the Constitution.
• 3. The GRP Peace Panel committed grave abuse of discretion by failing to consult with affected communities.
• 4. The MOA-AD violates the right to information and the policy of full disclosure.
• 5. Several provisions of the MOA-AD are unconstitutional as they exceed the limits of autonomy allowed by the Constitution, intrude on national sovereignty, and violate the procedure for ancestral domain delineation.

Doctrines

• 1. Ripeness: A case is ripe for adjudication when the challenged act has a direct adverse effect on the challenger.
• 2. Locus Standi: A party must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.
• 3. Mootness: A case is moot if it no longer presents a justiciable controversy. Exceptions exist for grave constitutional violations and matters of public interest.
• 4. Right to Information: The right of the people to information on matters of public concern.
• 5. Policy of Full Public Disclosure: The State's duty to disclose all transactions involving public interest.
• 6. Doctrine of Executive Privilege: N/A, but touched upon and deemed waived by the respondents.
• 7. Self-Determination: The right of peoples to freely determine their political status and pursue their development, distinguishing between internal and external self-determination.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "By the mere enactment of the questioned law or the approval of the challenged action, the dispute is said to have ripened into a judicial controversy even without any other overt act."
• 2. "The right to information 'contemplates inclusion of negotiations leading to the consummation of the transaction.'"

Precedents Cited

• 1. Pimentel, Jr. v. Aguirre: Used to support the argument that a case is ripe even without an overt act.
• 2. Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe: Used to support the argument that a facial challenge to constitutionality is ripe for adjudication.
• 3. David v. Macapagal-Arroyo: Used to justify relaxing the rules on mootness and locus standi due to the transcendental importance of the issues.
• 4. Subido v. Ozaeta: Recognizes the statutory right to examine and inspect public records.
• 5. Baldoza v. Hon. Judge Dimaano: Affirms the right to information on matters of public concern in a democracy.
• 6. Mejoff v. Director of Prisons: Applied the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as part of the law of the land.
• 7. REFERENCE RE SECESSION OF QUEBEC: Discusses the right to self-determination in international law.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Constitution, Article II, Section 2: Adopts generally accepted principles of international law.
• 2. Constitution, Article II, Section 22: Recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities.
• 3. Constitution, Article II, Section 28: Policy of full public disclosure.
• 4. Constitution, Article III, Section 7: Right to information on matters of public concern.
• 5. Constitution, Article X, Section 1: Territorial and political subdivisions of the Philippines.
• 6. Constitution, Article X, Section 15: Creation of autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras.
• 7. Constitution, Article X, Section 18: Plebiscite requirement for the creation of autonomous regions.
• 8. Constitution, Article X, Section 20: Legislative powers of autonomous regions.
• 9. Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991): Provisions on public consultation.
• 10. Republic Act No. 8371 (Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997): Provisions on ancestral domain delineation.
• 11. Republic Act No. 9054 (Organic Act of the ARMM): Provisions on the definition of "indigenous cultural community" and "Bangsamoro people."
• 12. Executive Order No. 3: Government policy framework for peace.