Senator Noynoy Aquino on the SC decision declaring the MOA-AD unconstitutional

We find it disturbing that in weighing a matter of national and paramount importance, where no less than the territorial sovereignty and integrity of our country is at stake, the Supreme Court justices, who dissented on the decision to declare the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) between the government and the MILF as unconstitutional, did so on the sheer mootness of the case: the non-perfection of the MOA because it was merely "initialed" and the parties not having actually signed the MOA and the Palace's subsequent commitment that it will not be signed in its present form or in any other form.

The dissenting justices seem to have chosen to confront the issue on its alleged procedural infirmity rather than on its momentous constitutional relevance.

We believe that the mere act of initialing the MOA was sufficient to place it within the reigns of what constitutes a "live constitutional controversy." If the dissenting justices believed that the MOA, its mootness notwithstanding, is unconstitutional because its contents and concepts are not sanctioned by the Constitution, and the President is without power to commit an assurance that the Constitution will be later amended to accommodate the MOA, then it should have been easy for them to believe that the President and her peace advisers, in conducting talks, in negotiating for the MOA in its present form and in initialing the same on behalf of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, were acting beyond the constitutional constraints of their authority. We feel that there lies the "live constitutional controversy" the dissenting justices were desperately searching for in their respective dissenting opinions.

Further, we have a situation where the officials embarked in a clearly unconstitutional act and it was only due to public outcry and appropriate judicial intervention that this travesty was averted. However, the decision did not even admonish or recommend sanctions on these officials for proposing the MOA that would result in the dismemberment of the Republic. If it were an ordinary citizen who advanced the same MOA, it is almost certain that the Department of Justice, known for its selective justice, will file criminal charges for rebellion or sedition or whatever other criminal charges it can think of against the said citizen for proposing the breaking-up of the state.

We are perplexed at how close the decision was called when in essence all justices agreed that the MOA was contrary to law and patently unconstitutional. As the final arbiter on all constitutional issues in our land, the Supreme Court could have done this nation a great service if it issued a categorical and definitive ruling on the matter and espoused controlling principles therein. Instead, the dissenting justices seem to have sowed more confusion rather than enlightenment to the public when they declared the MOA as being moot and academic yet constitutionally infirm in its present state.

We take relief, however, that the majority of the justices still sees the transgressions and excesses committed by this administration and possesses judicial courage and integrity to denounce the same.

---

Disclaimer: The views and opinions advanced in this article is the author’s own, and may not necessarily represent the views and opinions of THE LOBBYiST, its editors, or its publishers.

Factual Errors? Email us at editorial@thelobbyist.biz.

Copyright 2007 The LOBBYiST. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the expressed permission of The LOBBYiST.