Supreme Court: GRP-MILF MOA-AD Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court of the Philippines has recently held the GRP-MILF MOA-AD as unconstitutional. The MOA, the Supreme Court said, has violated the people’s right to information and for not consulting the local government units that will be affected by the memorandum of agreement.

But aside from that there are substantive issues, notably the “CONCEPT OF ASSOCIATION” which is referred in paragraph 3 on TERRITORY, Paragraph 11 on Resources, and paragraph 4 on Governance of the MOA-AD

What is this concept of association or what is this associative relationship between Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity?

The concept of association is an instrument of international law characterized by shared responsibility and authority. Association is formed when two unequal power voluntarily establish durable links. The Supreme Court cites, as an example, the relationship between the United States and the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), which were formerly part of U.S. administered Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

According to their compacts of free association, the Marshall Islands and the FSM generally have the capacity to conduct foreign affairs in their own name and right, such capacity extending to matters such as the law of the sea, marine resources, trade, banking, postal, civil aviation, and cultural relations. The U.S. government, when conducting its foreign affairs, is obligated to consult with the governments of the Marshall Islands or the FSM on matters which it (U.S. government) regards as relating to or affecting either government.

In the event of attacks or threats against the Marshall Islands or the FSM, the U.S. government has the authority and obligation to defend them as if they were part of U.S. territory. The U.S. government, moreover, has the option of establishing and using military areas and facilities within these associated states and has the right to bar the military personnel of any third country from having access to these territories for military purposes.

In the United States Constitutional and International practice, free association is understood as an international association between sovereigns. It has been said that, with the admission of the U.S.-associated states to the UN in 1990, the UN recognized that the American model of free association is actually based on an underlying status of independence.

In international practice, the “associated state” arrangement has usually been used as a transitional device of former colonies on their way to full independence. Examples of states that have passed through the status of associated states as a transitional phase are Antigua, St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, Dominica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenada. All have since become independent states.

The MOA-AD contains many provisions which are consistent with the international legal concept of association. These provisions of the MOA indicate, among other things, that the Parties aimed to vest in the BJE the status of an associated state or, at any rate, a status closely approximating it.

The concept of association is not recognized under the present Constitution.
The powers of the BJE goes beyond those of the Autonomous Regions of Muslim Mindanao and the Cordillera. These autonomous regions were created within the framework of the Constitution and the national sovereignty as well as the territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines. Meaning, their creation is bound within the limits of the present constitution.

As a Mindawan who desires Peace in this troubled island, I cannot help but ask: Can Peace in Mindanao be achieved under the present constitution? What is the true meaning of the People’s Right to Self-Determination and how can it be realized?

(Source:Original text of the SC Ruling on the Constitutionality of the MOA-AD)