MANILA: Despite assurances by the government that the memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain (MOA-AD) with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) would be set aside, the Supreme Court could still rule on the validity of the MOA-AD due to the “potential injury” it could cause if it were to be signed, according to two justices.
Associate Justices Conchita Carpio-Morales and Alicia Austria-Martinez noted that there were exceptions under the law allowing the Supreme Court to decide on the case even if it were moot.
Chief Justice Reynato Puno asked why government did not adopt the negotiation model it used in forging peace with the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), as he described the model used to negotiate with the MILF “unrecognizable under our constitution and international law.”
“Why don’t you negotiate using the MNLF model, because we cannot determine the exact shape of this MILF model,” Puno said. “We have been arguing (over) the past three weeks and the MILF model is unrecognizable under our constitution and international law.”
The Supreme Court ordered the government to submit by Monday the formal declaration of Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita that the government will no longer sign the MOA-AD, the travel authority given to the government peace panel to go to Kuala Lumpur for the scheduled signing of the MOA-AD, and the final draft of the agreement.
The court also ordered all parties to submit their memoranda within 20 days. Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera told the high court that since the authority of the government negotiating panel is only recommendatory, the Office of the President has not been given a copy of the MOA-AD. This prompted Associate Justice Antonio Carpio to comment, “The MOA will be signed in front of all the dignitaries and yet the Office of the President has no idea of its contents.”
Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna asked Sedfrey Candelaria, the government peace panel’s chief counsel whether the government could work out a comprehensive peace agreement without the MOA, to which Candelaria said, “Yes.”
Azcuna even suggested that the government should set aside the MOA and instead create another autonomous region similar to the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.
“If we will follow the MOA, by the way it is worded, we are practically giving the MILF the moon and the stars,” Azcuna said. “If this will not be implemented, the MILF and the international state may feel deceived because there is no assurance that Congress will go along with what the executive wants,” he said.
Devanadera told the court that the government would set aside the signing of the MOA, which the Office of the President would evaluate. The agreement was to have been signed in Malaysia this month but which the Supreme Court had stopped after several groups questioned its constitutionality.
“Petitioners believed that there is a potential injury if this document will be signed. There is a potential injury here,” Morales said.
But Devanadera argued that the MOA-AD had not been fleshed out. “Thus the word potential. What do you understand by the word ‘potential?’ On that account, mootness cannot be invoked,” Morales countered.
Meanwhile, Martinez took note of four exceptions that would allow the Supreme Court to act on the merits of the case even if it were moot. She noted that the MOA should be declared unconstitutional to prevent repetition.
Earlier yesterday, Azcuna and Carpio warned that the MOA-AD was a “dangerous document” that could become a case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
