FINAL DRAFT

June 11, 2015

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
MANILA

En Banc
PHILIPPINE
CONSTITUTION
ASSOCIATION
(PHILCONSA),
represented by its President
CONG. FERDINAND MARTIN G.
ROMUALDEZ,
FRANCISCO
S.
TATAD, ARCHBISHOP RAMON C.
ARGUELLES,
ARCHBISHOP
FERNANDO
R.
CAPALLA,
ARCHBISHOP ROMULO T. de la
CRUZ, BISHOP JUAN DE DIOS M.
PUEBLOS, and NORBERTO B.
GONZALES,
Petitioners,
- versus -

G.R. SP NO. __________________

For: Certiorari, Prohibition and
Mandamus under Rule 65, R.C.
with Prayer for Issuance of
Temporary
Restraining
Order
and/or
Writ
of
Preliminary
Injunction

PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT (GPH)

represented by Marvic M.V.E.
Leonen, in his official capacity,
and personal capacity, who
negotiated and executed the
Framework Agreement on the
Bangsamoro (FAB), and Miriam
Coronel Ferrer, in her official
capacity,
and
personal
capacity, who negotiated and
executed the Comprehensive
Agreement on the Bangsamoro
(CAB), Moro Islamic Liberation
Front (MILF), a self-styled entity
represented
by
MOHAGHER
IQBAL, using alias name, HON.
FLORENCIO B. ABAD, in his
Page 1 of 30

FINAL DRAFT
June 11, 2015

capacity as Secretary of the

Department of Budget and
Management
(DBM),
and
Commission on Audit (COA),
Respondents.
x-------------------------x

PETITION
Petitioners

PHILIPPINE

CONSTITUTION

ASSOCIATION

(PHILCONSA), represented by its President, CONG. FERDINAND

MARTIN G. ROMUALDEZ, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ARCHBISHOPS RAMON
C. ARGUELLES, FERNANDO R. CAPALLA, ROMULO T. de la CRUZ,
BISHOP JUAN DE DIOS M. PUEBLOS, and NORBERTO B. GONZALES, by
counsel, and to this Honorable Court, respectfully aver:
PROLOGUE
The Court once warned Nothing can destroy a
government more quickly than its failure to observe its
own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own
existence.1
No matter how noble and worthy of admiration the
purpose of an act, but if the means to be employed in
accomplishing it is simply irreconcilable with
constitutional parameters, then it cannot still be allowed.
The Court cannot just turn a blind eye and simply let it
pass. It will continue to uphold the Constitution and its
enshrined principles.
The Constitution must ever remain supreme. All must
bow to the mandate of this law. Expediency must not be
allowed to sap its strength nor greed for power debase
its rectitude. " 2
Mappv.Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 [1961]
Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, Lagman v. Ochoa, G.R. Nos. 192935 &
193036, December 7, 2010
1
2

Page 2 of 30

FINAL DRAFT
June 11, 2015

The Petition seeks to avert the destruction of the Republic of the

Philippines, the dismemberment of its territory, the fragmentation of
its people, the despoliation of its natural and human resources, and
the wreckage of its tripartite system of government.
This tragic case involves the unconstitutional and treacherous
Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro (FAB) negotiated and
signed by now Justice Marvic Leonen (LEONEN), Professor of Law
and former Dean of the UP College of Law; and the equally void,
flawed

and

polluted

Comprehensive

Agreement

on

the

Bangsamoro (CAB) negotiated and signed by Miriam Coronel Ferrer

(FERRER), Professor at the University of the Philippines, with the witting
or unwitting complicity and machination of the Moro Islamic
Liberation Front (MILF) represented by Mohagher Iqbal, using his alias
or assumed name as chairman of the MILF Negotiating Panel.
The FAB and CAB are the crafty and ingenious revival of the
MOA-AD declared unconstitutional3, littered with greater and more
vicious incursions into the Constitution, the laws and jurisprudence
deceptively wrapped in sophistic and stylish language to obfuscate
the odious radiations.
I. NATURE OF PETITION

Province of North Cotabato vs. GRP, 568 SCRA 402 (2008).

Page 3 of 30

FINAL DRAFT
June 11, 2015

This is an urgent special civil action for Certiorari, Prohibition and

Mandamus under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, with prayer
for issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and writ of preliminary
injunction, to declare as unconstitutional and void, and to restrain,
enjoin or prohibit the implementation of the Framework Agreement
on the Bangsamoro (FAB) dated October 2012 and Comprehensive
Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB) dated March 27, 2014,
executed to the satisfaction and pleasure of the MILF given
unwarranted benefits and advantages, but vitiated by respondents
grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. The agreements grant humongous and unconscionable
financial, social, economic and political benefits/advantage to the
MILF, causing manifest undue injury to the Government, fatal wound
to the Constitution, and grave prejudice to the majority of the Filipino
people.

Copies of the FAB and CAB are hereto attached and

marked as ANNEXES A and B, respectively and made integral

parts hereof.
There is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law except thru this Petition,
considering the blitzkrieg machinations and tactics employed by
the respondents.
II. PARTIES
Page 4 of 30

FINAL DRAFT
June 11, 2015

2.1

Petitioner

PHILIPPINE

CONSTITUTION

ASSOCIATION

(PHILCONSA), represented by its President Rep. Ferdinand Martin G.

Romualdez, is a non-stock, non-profit association established under
existing laws, organized purposely to defend, protect and preserve
the Constitution, with offices at the 2nd Floor, Philtrust Building,
Remedios corner M. H. del Pilar Streets, Malate, Manila. It may be
served with notices and processes of this Honorable Court through
the office of the undersigned counsel.

This Honorable Court has

recognized Philconsas legal standing (locus standi) to file cases on

constitutional issues with this Honorable Court.4
Petitioner Francisco Tatad, is of legal age, former Senator and
Cabinet Member, a respected public intellectual, writer and
journalist, a resident of Metro Manila, and may be served with the
processes of this Honorable Court through the office of the
undersigned counsel.
Petitioner Archbishop Ramon C. Arguelles, is of legal age,
Archbishop of the Metropolitan Archdiocese of Lipa, Batangas, a
resident of Batangas, and may be served with the processes of this
Honorable Court through the office of the undersigned counsel.

Philconsa vs. Gimenez, 15 SCRA 479; Philconsa vs. Mathay, 18 SCRA 300; Philconsa vs. Enriquez,
235 SCRA 506; Lambino vs. Comelec, 505 SCRA 160 wherein Philconsa is one of the petitioners
and Philconsa vs. JBC, G.R. No. 191059.
4

Page 5 of 30

FINAL DRAFT
June 11, 2015

Petitioner Archbishop Fernando R. Capalla, is of legal age, a

Roman Catholic archbishop-emeritus of the Archdiocese of Davao,
a resident of Davao City, and may be served with the processes of
this Honorable Court through the office of the undersigned counsel.
Petitioner Archbishop Romulo de la Cruz, is of legal age, is the
current Archbishop of Zamboanga, a resident of Zamboanga City,
and may be served with the processes of this Honorable Court
through the office of the undersigned counsel.
Petitioner Bishop Juan de Dios M. Pueblos, is of legal age,
Bishop of Diocese of Butuan, a resident of Butuan City, and may be
served with the processes of this Honorable Court through the office
of the undersigned counsel.
Petitioner Norberto B. Gonzales, is of legal age, former Defense
Secretary/National Security Adviser, a resident of Metro Manila, and
may be served with the processes of this Honorable Court through
the office of the undersigned counsel.
Indubitably, this case is of transcendental importance, of
overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public
interest.5

The Supreme Court leans on the doctrine that the rule on standing is a matter of procedure,
hence, can be relaxed for nontraditional plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers, and legislators
when the public interest so requires, such as when the matter is of transcendental importance,
5

Page 6 of 30

FINAL DRAFT
June 11, 2015

2.2

Respondent

Government

of

the

Philippines

(GPH),

represented by the Chair of the Negotiating Panel in his official and

personal capacity, Marvic Leonen in the FAB, and Chair of the
Negotiating Panel Miriam Coronel Ferrer in her official and personal
capacity, in the CAB, constituted under the Office of the Presidential
Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP), may be served with notices
and processes of this Honorable Court through the Office of the
President, Malacaang Palace and/or at the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) at its offices located at No. 134 Amorsolo Street,
Legaspi Village, Makati City.
2.3

The Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) represented by

the chair of its negotiating panel Mohagher Iqbal may be served

with notices and processes of this Honorable Court at Darapanan,
Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao;
2.4

Hon. Florencio B. Abad, is sued in his official capacity as

Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM)

and may be served with notices and processes at the office of DBM
in General Solano Street, San Miguel, Manila;
2.5

The Commission on Audit (COA), is a constitutional body

with the power, authority and duty to examine and audit

of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest. (Biraogo v. The

Philippine Truth Commission, 637 SCRA 79 (2010).

Page 7 of 30

FINAL DRAFT
June 11, 2015

expenditures/uses

of

funds

and

property

pertaining

to

the

government or any subdivisions or agencies and to allow or disallow

expenditures, and may be served with notices and processes at the
COA office in Quezon City;
III. AVERMENTS OF MATERIAL FACTS
3.1

In the quest for a just, comprehensive and lasting peace

to resolve the incessant conflicts in Muslim Mindanao, Pres. Fidel V.

Ramos issued on September 15, 1993 Executive Order No. 125 (E.O
125) DEFINING THE APPROACH AND ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE
FOR GOVERNMENTS COMPREHENSIVE PEACE EFFORTS.

E.O 125

recognizes peaceful face-to-face negotiations to reach peace

settlements with the different rebel groups.6

It created a

Government Peace Negotiating Panel (GPNP) for each of the three

(3) rebel groups composed of a chairman and four (4) members for
each of the three (3) rebel groups, designated by the President as
his official emissary to conduct negotiations, dialogs and face-toface discussions with rebel groups.
3.2

E.O. 125 recognizes three (3) rebel groups to negotiate

with for peace. However, it failed to mention the three (3) specific
rebel groups.

Why and how the GPNP only negotiated with the

favored MILF is a riddle to be unfolded or unraveled.

6Section

3, par. c, E.O. 125.

Page 8 of 30

FINAL DRAFT
June 11, 2015

3.3

Said E.O. specifically enjoins the participation of a Panel of

Advisers for each of the three (3) GPNPs, composed of one member
each from the SENATE, the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, and the
CABINET, to be designated by the President in the negotiations,
dialogs and face-to-face discussions with the rebel group.
3.4

Contrary to and in violation of E.O. 125, the GPNPs were

not assisted by the Panel of Advisers.7

conducted

numerous

negotiations,

The different GPNPs

dialogs

and

face-to-face

discussions with the MILF, here and abroad bereft of the presence of
the requisite Panel of Advisers. This inflicted a mortal flaw upon the
peace process.
3.5

The conduct of the peace process itself is flawed. The

FAB and CAB as the products of the vicious process are necessarily
flawed. No poisonous tree can bear edible fruit.
3.6

On October 12, 2012, the Philippine Government thru

respondent GPH Chairman Marvic M.V.E Leonen (LEONEN), Professor

of Law and former Dean of U.P College of Law, negotiated, signed
and executed the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro (FAB)
with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).

Surprisingly and

unbelievably Chairperson LEONEN agreed to the following visible

and palpable unconstitutional provisions:
7Section

4, par. e, E.O. 125.

Page 9 of 30

FINAL DRAFT
June 11, 2015

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)

the Bangsamoro shall be established to replace the

Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)8;
the Bangsamoro is the New Autonomous Political Entity
(NPE) referred to in the Decision Points of Principles as of
April 2012;
the Bangsamoro government shall have a ministerial form
of government;
all law enforcement functions shall be transferred from the
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to the police force
for the Bangsamoro;
the relationship of the Central Government with
Bangsamoro Government shall be asymmetric;
the Parties recognize Bangsamoro identity and shall be
governed by Basic Law;
Bangsamoro Government shall have its exclusive powers;
Bangsamoro shall exercise judicial competence through
the Shariah Justice System. The supremacy of the Shariah
and its application shall only be to Muslims;
revenue generation and wealth and power sharing
between the Central Government and Bangsamoro
Government.
Bangsamoro shall create its own auditing body, Civil
Service Commission, Commission on Election (COMELEC),
Sandiganbayan, Commission on Audit (COA);
Bangsamoro shall have its own core territory that is
expandable as well as its own legislative body; and many
others, which are contrary to and in violation of the 1987
Constitution and existing laws.

Respondent Leonen thru the FAB agreed and granted

unimaginable social, economic, political, and financial benefits to
the MILF which the Executive Department may not legally grant
without

the

concurrence

of

the

legislative

or

the

judicial

department, or without first amending the 1987 Constitution. They

are all contrary to and in violation of the Constitution.

Note: To establish the Bangsamoro to replace the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
(ARMM) inevitably requires an amendment to the Constitution and the laws affecting and
creating the ARMM and its amendatory laws.
8

Page 10 of 30

FINAL DRAFT
June 11, 2015

3.7

On March 27, 2014, Chairperson FERRER executed the

Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB) with the MILF,

consisting of five (5) pages consolidating and reenacting of the
Twelve (12) Agreements executed by the GPH and MILF panels.
From the FAB and CAB, which are demonstrably unconstitutional
and void, the Bangsamoro Transition Authority (BTA) drew its void
mandate to draft House Bill 4994, which the President has reviewed
and transmitted as an urgent bill to Congress.
IV. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION
The conduct of Peace Process
itself is flawed.
4.

E.O. 125 recognizes that there are three (3) rebel groups

with whom the GRP Panel must negotiate for peace. However, it
failed to mention the three (3) specific rebel groups.

GPNPs

negotiated only with the MILF. There are no records to show that
GPNPs ever attempted to negotiate for peace with the two (2) other
rebel groups such as the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and
the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) which actively
participated in the Mamasapano Massacre.

The exclusive

negotiation with MILF, to the exclusion of the two (2) other rebel
groups referred under E.O. 125, the other Muslim groups, Christians
and Lumads in Muslim Mindanao, is a fundamental fatal infirmity.

Page 11 of 30

FINAL DRAFT
June 11, 2015

The peace process should be defined by all Filipinos as one

community and not by the GPNPs and MILF Panels only. There can
be no peace, until and unless the great majority, if not indeed all, of
the stakeholders participate in building the peace.
Moreover, E.O. 125 enjoins the participation of a Panel of
Advisers for each of the three (3) GPNPs composed of one member
from the SENATE, the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES and the CABINET to
be designated by the President. Contrary to and in violation of the
E.O. 125, the GPNPs negotiated only with the MILF, here and abroad,
without the participation of the required Panel of Advisers.

This

renders the process legally infirm. The end-products of the flawed

process, the FAB and CAB are grossly vitiated.
Respondents Leonen and Ferrer
acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction and/or with grave
abuse of discretion when they
agreed to cause the amendment
of the Constitution and existing
laws.
5.

The GPH Panels committed to cause the amendment of

the Constitution and existing laws to conform to the FAB and CAB,
for their legitimization. This qualifies GPH Panel Chairpersons Leonen
and Ferrer for the charge of usurping a power they did not have,
exactly as Justice Carpio points out in North Cotabato case when he
wrote, The Executive Branch usurps the sole discretionary power of
Page 12 of 30

FINAL DRAFT
June 11, 2015

Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution as well as the

exclusive power of the sovereign people to approve or disapprove
such proposed amendments.9 The FAB and CAB also agreed and
obligated to: (a) undertake matters in violation of the Constitution
and existing laws; (b) perform critical obligations and grant
concessions to the MILF beyond the powers of the President to grant,
in violation of the universally revered dictum and self-evident truth---Nemodat quod non habet---, you cannot give what you do not
have; (c) or perform acts which only the Legislative and Judicial
Departments or the sovereign people can do. Respondents GPH,
Chairpersons Leonen and Ferrer acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion.

The provisions of the FAB and CAB

agreements flagrantly violated
the Constitution and existing
laws.
6.

Contract[s]that violate the Constitution and the law, are

null and void and vest no rights and create no obligations. They
produce no legal effect at all.10
xxx In Serrano de Agbayani v. Philippine National
Bank, the Court held that xxxThe decision now on appeal
reflects the orthodox view that an unconstitutional act, for
that matter an executive order or a municipal ordinance
likewise suffering from that infirmity, cannot be the source
of any legal rights or duties. Nor can it justify any official
Concurring Opinion of Justice Carpio in Province of North Cotabato vs. GRP Peace Panel, 568
SCRA 414 (2008)
10 Frenzel vs. Catito, 406 SCRA 56 (2003).
9

Page 13 of 30

FINAL DRAFT
June 11, 2015

act taken under it. Its repugnancy to the fundamental law

once judicially declared results in its being to all intents
and purposes a mere scrap of paper. As the new Civil
Code puts it: "When the courts declare a law to be
inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void
and the latter shall govern. Administrative or executive
acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they
are not contrary to the laws of the Constitution. It is
understandable why it should be so, the Constitution
being supreme and paramount. Any legislative or
executive act contrary to its terms cannot survive.11
Accordingly, the FAB and CAB are nothing but toxic intellectual
contortions meant to delude and deceive the people into believing
that they could take them as a panacea for their organic ills when
they were actually designed to subvert them.

H.B. 4994 is the

emission/fruit of the unconstitutional agreements. It was drafted by

the Bangsamoro Transition Authority (BTA), reviewed and revised by
the Office of the President and transmitted to Congress as an urgent
measure. H.B. 4994 is the specific potion being dispensed by the
quack doctor. It is a potent extract from the poisonous roots FAB and
CAB nourished by the GRP and MILF Panels.

An unconstitutional act, whether

legislative or executive, is not a
law, confers no right, imposes no
duties, and affords no protection.
6.1

The provisions of the FAB and the CAB are all repugnant to

the 1987 Constitution and existing laws. The Constitution is supreme.

11Commissioner

of Internal Revenue vs. San Roque Power Corporation, 707 SCRA 78 (2013).

Page 14 of 30

FINAL DRAFT
June 11, 2015

Any exercise of power beyond what is circumscribed by the

Constitution is ultra vires and a nullity.
Hornbook doctrine is that neither the legislative, the
executive, nor the judiciary has the power to act beyond
the Constitutions mandate. The Constitution is supreme;
any exercise of power beyond what is circumscribed by
the Constitution is ULTRA VIRES AND A NULLITY.
In
Fernandez v. Cuerva, 21 SCRA 1095 (1967), Chief Justice
Enrique Fernando expounds:
Where the assailed
legislative or executive act is found by the judiciary to be
contrary to the Constitution, it is null and void. As the new
Civil Code puts it: When the courts declare a law to be
inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void
and the latter shall govern. Administrative or executive
acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they
are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution. The
above provision of the Civil Code reflects the orthodox
view that an unconstitutional act, whether legislative or
executive, is not a law, confers no rights, imposes no
duties, and affords no protection.12
Mandate for Congress to create
Autonomous Region in Muslim
Mindanao (ARMM) is vested only
in the First Congress.
7.

Sec. 1, Art. X of the Local Governments of the Constitution

has authorized and recognized only Five (5) Territorial and Political
Subdivisions namely: (a) provinces; (b) cities; (c) municipalities; (d)
barangays; and (e) autonomous regions.
7.1

Moreover, the mandate for Congress to create the

Autonomous

Region

in

Muslim

Mindanao

(ARMM)

and

the

Cordilleras is vested only in the First Congress elected under the

12Umali

vs. Commission on Elections, 723 SCRA 173 (2014).

Page 15 of 30

FINAL DRAFT
June 11, 2015

Constitution, within eighteen (18) months from the time of the

organization of both houses, to enact the Organic Acts for the
ARMM and Cordilleras.13
7.2

The First Congress elected under the 1987 Constitution is

the Eighth Congress that served from 1987 to 1992.

Section 19,

Article X, is very specific, only the First Congress is empowered to

pass the organic acts as part and parcel of the Constitution and not
mere laws.

In a nutshell, to establish legally the so-called

Bangsamoro Political Entity, we must first amend the 1987

Constitution to recognize Bangsamoro as a political entity and enact
the enabling laws pursuant to the consequent Constitutional
amendments.
7.3

Father

Joaquin

Bernas,

S.

J.,

member

of

the

Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution, makes

this point clear beyond the shadow of a doubt when he writes:
only the Cordilleras in the extreme North and Muslim
Mindanao in the South are given the distinctive privilege
of forming autonomous regions. To the question whether
Congress could created autonomous regions other than
for Mindanao and the Cordilleras, the clear and
categorical answer was that any other area which wishes
to become an autonomous region should seek a
constitutional amendment.(Bernas, Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines, Vol II, p.. 388-389; emphasis
supplied).

13

Sec. 19, Art. X of the Constitution

Page 16 of 30

FINAL DRAFT
June 11, 2015

This opinion is grounded on the proceedings of the

Constitutional Commission, from whose records we quote the
following:
FR. BERNAS. Before we vote, may I ask one clarificatory
question.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bernas may proceed.
FR. BERNAS. Is it then the sense of the Committee that
besides recognizing the Cordilleras and Muslim Mindanao
as autonomous regions, Congress is prohibited from
creating other autonomous regions?
MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, Madam President. I said that we are
adopting the Rodrigo observation during that caucus that
if there should be other regions aside from Muslim
Mindanao and the Cordilleras which would like to create
themselves into autonomous regions, they should seek a
constitutional amendment.
FR. BERNAS.
amendment?

They

should

seek

constitutional

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, Madam President.14

The newly coined/invented term Bangsamoro Political Entity
(BPE) is an intruder and interloper in the 1987 Constitution. It is a nonentity. Its existence/creation requires prior amendments to the 1987
Constitution before it can be recognized as a political entity. Unless
and until the 1987 Constitution is first amended Bangsamoro is a
shadow-entityof no legal consequence.

Constitutionally, it is

nothing, but a band of amorphous rebels.

A Struggle Under the Regime of the Constitution by Pablo P. Garcia, pp. 84-85, The IBP
Journal April 2015 issue
14

Page 17 of 30

FINAL DRAFT
June 11, 2015

We submit that without prior constitutional amendments, the

FAB

proposal

to

establish

the

Bangsamoro

to

replace

the

Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) as the New

Political Entity (NPE) is unconstitutional and void. AXIOMATICALLY,
ALL SUBSEQUENT ACTS/ISSUEANCES ARISING FROM, CONNECTED WITH
OR RELATED TO THE FAB AND CAB SUCH AS THE DRAFT H.B. 4994 ARE
ODIOUS AND TREACHEROUS VIOLATIONS OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.
Constitutionality of FAB and CAB
must first be resolved.
These critical and decisive issues must be resolved at the
earliest stage before anything irreversible is undertaken under cover
of an unconstitutional act. It cannot be denied that the FAB and
CAB have ushered in a most unpleasant and unstable climate of
dissension, confusion and conflict, with a clear tendency to
deteriorate unless seasonably and sufficiently addressed; the validity
or invalidity of the FAB and CAB must therefore be immediately
addressed before the nation sustains untold injuries.
The FAB and the CAB are cluttered with unconstitutional
experimental features contrary to the framework of the 1987
Constitution and clearly inimical to and destructive of the national
sovereignty

and

territorial

integrity

of

the

Republic

of

the

Page 18 of 30

FINAL DRAFT
June 11, 2015

Philippines.15 They are copious catalogs of classic unconstitutional

attempts to establish a new and distinct territorial political entity with
powers that cannot be vested in it, without first amending the
Constitution. What puzzles beyond understanding is the deliberate
and willful attempt of the respondents to violate the Constitution in
order to force the Congress and the people themselves, under the
threat of a more intense armed conflict if they did not agree, to
amend or revise the Constitution, via legislation.
Chief Executive can negotiate for
peace with MILF without crossing
the parameters of powers marked
in the Constitution.
9.

The wisdom, propriety and sensibility of the FAB and CAB

were discoursed upon with profound intellectual insight when Chief

Justice Puno wrote as follows:
The President as Chief Executive can negotiate
peace with the MILF but it is peace that will insure that our
laws are faithfully executed. The President can seek
peace with the MILF but without crossing the parameters
of powers marked in the Constitution to separate the
other branches of government to preserve our
democracy. Xxx Needless to stress, the power of the
President to negotiate peace with the MILF is not plenary.
While considerable degree of flexibility and breadth is
accorded to the peace negotiating panel, the latitude
has its limits the Constitution. The Constitution was
ordained by the sovereign people and its postulates may
not be employed as bargaining chips without their prior
consent.

15

Sec. 15, Art. X of the Constitution

Page 19 of 30

FINAL DRAFT
June 11, 2015

There is no power nor is there any right to violate the

Constitution on the part of any official of government. NO
ONE CLAIM HE HAS A BLANK CHECK TO VIOLATE THE
CONSTITUTION IN ADVANCE AND THE PRIVILEGE TO CURE
THE VIOLATION LATERTHROUGH AMENDMENT OF ITS
PROVISIONS. RESPONDENTS THESIS OF VIOLATE NOW,
VALIDATE LATER MAKES A BURLESQUE OF THE
CONSTITUTION.16
Neither LEONEN nor FERRER in their
official and personal capacities
has the power or the capacity to
commit the government to
constitutional
and
statutory
changes.
10.

The FAB and CAB made a real and actual commitment to

fully implement their letter and spirit by effecting the necessary

amendments to the Constitution and existing laws.

Lamentably,

respondents LEONEN and FERRER in their official and personal

capacities had neither power nor authority to commit the
government to statutory changes.
xxx GRP panel made a real and actual
commitment to fully implement the MOA-AD by effecting
the necessary amendments to existing laws and the
Constitution. xxx Only Congress and the people have the
competence to effect statutory and constitutional
changes in the appropriate manner xxx. xxx the GRP
panel had neither power nor authority to commit the
government to statutory and constitutional changes. xxx
Only Congress and the sovereign people have the
competence to effect statutory constitutional changes in
the appropriate manner provided by law. The GRP panel,
as a mere organ of the Executive Branch, does not
possess any such prerogative.17
Concurring Opinion of Chief Justice Puno in Province of North Cotabato vs. GRP Peace Panel,
568 SCRA 418 (2008)
17 Concurring Opinion of Justice Tinga in Province of North Cotabato vs. GRP Peace Panel, 568
SCRA 419 (2008)
16

Page 20 of 30

FINAL DRAFT
June 11, 2015

10.1 Any commitment to any entity on the part of the

President or his political appointees to amend the Constitution is
inherently ultra vires, because the Executive Branch does not have
the innate power to effectuate such changes on its own. Neither
does the President have the power to bind to positive action those
whom the Constitution entrusts the power to amend the charter,
namely: the Congress, the delegates to a constitutional convention,
and the electorate."18
V.
In
giving
unwarranted
advantages,
preferences
or
advantages to the MILF and
entering into the Agreements in
question thru manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence, which
are
manifestly
and
grossly
disadvantageous
to
the
Government and the Filipino
nation, the respondents may have
wittingly or unwittingly violated
Section 3 subpars. (e) and (g) of
R.A. 3019, as amended.
5.

Justice Leonen and Professor Ferrer, in giving unwarranted

benefits, advantage or preference to the MILF to the prejudice and

clear disadvantage of the rest of the Filipino people, have
manifested their partiality and betrayed their inclination toward the
MILF, against the Filipino people. In agreeing to replace the ARMM
Concurring Opinion of Justice Reyes in Province of North Cotabato vs. GRP Peace Panel, 568
SCRA 422 (2008)
18

Page 21 of 30

FINAL DRAFT
June 11, 2015

with the Bangsamoro, in violation of the Constitution and existing

laws, without first amending the Constitution and pertinent laws, the
FAB and the CAB have caused undue injury to the Government and
inflicted a fatal wound to the Constitution by subverting, diminishing
or weakening the sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines
(ROP) and seeking to dismantle the territorial jurisdiction of the
Republic of the Philippines (ROP).

Justice Leonen and Professor

Ferrer may have wittingly or unwittingly violated Sec. 3(e) of R.A.

3019 as amended which provides:
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the
Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
official administrative or judicial functions through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence. xxx xxx xxx. (emphasis supplied)
5.1

Moreover, Respondents Leonen and Ferrer have entered

into agreements manifestly and grossly advantageous to the

Republic of the Philippines, the Constitution and the Filipino people.
5.2
and void.

We submit that the FAB and the CAB are unconstitutional

They cannot create and give rise to any rights and

obligations. ALL ACTS/ISSUANCES ARISING FROM, CONNECTED WITH,

RELATED TO OR PURSUANT TO OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FAB AND
CAB ARE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VOID. They are the toxic products of
unconstitutional agreements and therefore carry the same infirmities.

Page 22 of 30

FINAL DRAFT
June 11, 2015

5.3

Notwithstanding

that

the

FAB

and

CAB

are

unconstitutional and void, appropriations have been made and

released for the implementation of the FAB and CAB and their
emanations. Accordingly, respondent Hon. Florencio B. Abad of
Department of Budget and Management (DBM) should be
enjoined/restrained from further releasing or spending for the support
and implementation of the FAB and CAB and their radiations.
5.4

Respondent COA be ordered to examine, audit and

disallow the funds/expenses that were released and expended by

the GPNPs here and abroad, and require the return of the money
received or spent by the different GPNPs as they were used to
support

and

implement

unconstitutional

agreements

or

undertakings.
VI.AVERMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND/OR WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
6.1

The petitioners replead and incorporate herein by

reference all the preceding allegations, submissions and arguments;

6.2

The foregoing allegations/averments demonstrate that

the petitioners are clearly entitled to the reliefs demanded, the

whole or part of which consists in restraining, enjoining, prohibiting,
ordering

and

mandating

respondents,

their

agents

and

Page 23 of 30

FINAL DRAFT
June 11, 2015

instrumentalities from further proceeding/implementing the FAB and

CAB and their emanations and radiations; and for Respondent COA
to disallow the audit of the public funds released/used and demand
for the return of unused funds;
6.3

Until and unless a TRO or preliminary injunction is issued,

grave due irreparable injury to the Republic and the Filipino people
will ensue since unlawful disbursements or uses of public funds to
implement/pursue the illegal/unconstitutional FAB and CAB will
escalate into continuing violations, if not a flaunting disregard or
defiance, of the Constitution, and the laws further prejudicing public
interest and welfare;
6.4

Respondents are doing and procuring to be done acts in

violation of the rights of the Filipino people whose welfare is being

gravely prejudiced and tending to render the judgment ineffectual;
6.5

Since the issues involved are clearly constitutional/legal

issues, it is prayed that the TRO and/or preliminary injunction be

issued without need of filing a bond.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court
that:

Page 24 of 30

FINAL DRAFT
June 11, 2015

1.

Upon the filing of this petition or immediately thereafter,

issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) restraining the respondents,

particularly HON. Florencio B. Abad, and any other persons acting
under their orders or instructions, FROM FURTHER RELEASING FUNDS
FOR ANY AND ALL ACTIVITIES TO PURSUE OR IMPLEMENT THE FAB AND
THE CAB AND ANY AND ALL ACTS AND ISSUANCES, SUCH AS H.B.
4994, ARISING FROM, CONNECTED WITH OR RELATED TO THE FAB AND
CAB AND RETURN THE BALANCE OF UNSPENT FUNDS TO THE NATIONAL
TREASURER;
2.

This petition be given due course;

3.

After proceedings, judgment be rendered declaring the

FAB and CAB as unconstitutional, illegal and void, inclusive of all

acts/issuances arising from, connected with or related to the FAB
and CAB, such as H.B. 4994 drafted by the Bangsamoro Transition
Authority (BTA), reviewed and revised by the Office of the President
and transmitted to Congress, being the fruits of the poisonous and
unconstitutional FAB and CAB;
4.

Mandate

the

COA

to

disallow

the

audit

of

all

funds/expenses incurred by the GPH Panels;

5.

To admonish and warn the Chairpersons of GRP panel to

be more prudent and cautious in dealing with the amorphous, selfPage 25 of 30

FINAL DRAFT
June 11, 2015

styled entity, inclusively, to the exclusion of other Muslims, Christians

and Lumads; and
6.

After hearing, declare the injunction permanent and issue

Writ of Mandamus to the COA.

Such other reliefs and remedies under the premises are also
prayed for.
Makati City for Manila, June 8, 2015.
M.M LAZARO AND ASSOCIATES
19th Flr. Chatham House Bldg.
Valero cor. Rufino Streets
Salcedo Village, Makati City
Tel. No. 8441540; 8441731
Email: mmlazarofirm@mmlazarolaw.com
By:

REYNALDO Y. MAULIT
PTR No. 1466745/06.11.15/Quezon City
IBP No. 0998630/06.11.15/Quezon City
Attorneys Roll No. 19260
MCLE No. IV-0020194/05.14.13

MANUEL M. LAZARO
PTR No. 4756435/01.08.15/Makati City
IBP LRN No. 00058/02.22.93/Makati City
Attorneys Roll No. 13204
MCLE No. IV-0017128/04.16.2013

BALDOMERO S.P GATBONTON

PTR No. 4756440/01.08.15/Makati City
IBP LRN No. 0988417/01.09.15/Manila IV
Attorneys Roll No. 25686
MCLE No. IV-0017104/04.16.2013

MICHELLE B. LAZARO
PTR No. 4756434/01.08.15/Makati City
IBP LRN No. 00446/01.19.96/Makati City
Attorneys Roll No. 39156
MCLE No. IV-0017127/04.16.2013

Page 26 of 30

FINAL DRAFT
June 11, 2015

JEREMY GATDULA
PTR No.2374253/01.29.15/Mandaluyong
IBP No. 0996162/02.17.15/Mandaluyong
Attorneys Roll No. 40879
MCLE No. IV-0021026/06.21.13

PHILIPE T. AQUINO
PTR No. 4756441/01.08.15/Makati City
IBP LRN No. 09930/04.19.11/Makati City
Attorneys Roll No. 59537
MCLE No. IV-0017036/04.16.2013

Republic of the Philippines)

Makati City
)S.S
VERIFICATION and
CERTIFICATION ON NON-FORUM SHOPPING
Rep. Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez, Francisco S. Tatad,
Archbishop Ramon C. Arguelles, Archbishop Fernando R. Capalla,
Archbishop Romulo T. de la Cruz, Bishop Juan de Dios M. Pueblos,
and Norberto B. Gonzales19, all of legal age, Filipinos, and residents in
various provinces of the Philippines as earlier indicated, after having
been duly sworn in accordance with law, do hereby depose and
state that:
1.
Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez is the President of
Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA) and is the duly
authorized representative of PHILCONSA one of the Petitioners in
the instant case, a copy of the Board Resolution is hereto attached
as Annex C and made integral part hereof;
2.
They have caused the preparation and filing of the instant
Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus;
3.
They have read the foregoing Petition and affirm that the
allegations therein are true and correct of their own personal
knowledge and/or based on authentic documents and records;
4.
They further attest that they have not filed or commenced
any action, claim, or proceeding involving the same or similar issues
with the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal
or quasi-judicial agency; and that to best of their knowledge no
The Supreme Court leans on the doctrine that the rule on standing is a matter of procedure,
hence, can be relaxed for nontraditional plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers, and legislators
when the public interest so requires, such as when the matter is of transcendental importance,
of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest. (Biraogo v. The
Philippine Truth Commission, 637 SCRA 79 (2010).
19

Page 27 of 30

FINAL DRAFT
June 11, 2015

such action, claim, or proceeding was filed or is pending in the

Supreme Court or Court of Appeals or in any division thereof or any
other tribunal or agency;
5.
If they should thereafter learn of such similar action or
proceeding, they undertake to inform this Honorable Court within
five (5) days from knowledge thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, they hereunto affixed their signatures, in
case of petitioner Romualdez, he affixed his thumbmark this ____ day
of __________ at Makati City, Philippines.
PHILCONSA
By:
REP. FERDINAND MARTIN G. ROMUALDEZ

FRANCISCO S. TATAD

RAMON C. ARGUELLES

FERNANDO R. CAPALLA

ROMULO T. de la CRUZ

NORBERTO B. GONZALES
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of _______
2015 in Makati City affiants exhibiting to me as competent proofs of
their identities:

Ferdinand Martin G.
Romualdez
Francisco S. Tatad
Ramon C. Arguelles
Fernando R. Capalla

Gov. Issued ID

Date/Place Issued

Philippine Passport
No. EB7642481
Philippine Passport
No. EB1089031
Philippine Passport
No. EB3923911
Philippine Passport

March 14, 2013/

DFA Manila
October 1, 2010/
DFA Manila
October 21, 2011/
DFA Manila
April 15, 2015/
Page 28 of 30

FINAL DRAFT
June 11, 2015

Romulo T. Dela Cruz

Juan de Dios M.
Pueblos
Jeremy Gatdula
Norberto B. Gonzales

No. EC3912535
Philippine Passport
No. EB297686
Philippine Passport
No. EB3406821
Philippine Passport
No. EC3537020
Philippine Passport
No. EC1490233

Davao City
July 9, 2011/
DFA Davao
August 17, 2011/
DFA Manila
February 26, 2015/
DFA Manila
June 22, 2014/
DFA Manila

Doc. No. _____;

Page No. _____;
Book No. _____;
Series of 2015.
Copy furnished:
Miriam Coronel Ferrer
Government of the Philippines
Malacaang Palace
Jose P. Laurel Sr., San Miguel, Manila
or
Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process
6th Floor, Agustin 1 Building
F. Ortigas Jr. Avenue (formerly Emerald Avenue)
Ortigas Center, Pasig City
Marvic M.V.E. Leonen
Supreme Court of the Philippines
Padre Faura Street, Ermita, Manila
or
Office of the Solicitor General
134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village,
Makati City
Hon. Florencio B. Abad
Department of Budget and Management
General Solano Street
San Miguel, Manila
Commission on Audit
R-7, Quezon City
Page 29 of 30

FINAL DRAFT
June 11, 2015

Moro Islamic Liberation Front

Darapanan, Sultan Kudarat
Maguindanao
EXPLANATION
In compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended, please be informed that service of the
instant pleading is being effected upon the aforenamed counsel by
registered mail in accordance with Section 7 of the aforesaid Rule 13
for the reason that personal service thereof is not practicable
considering the distances between their offices and this Court as
well as undersigned counsels offices, and the prevailing traffic
conditions.

PHILIPE T. AQUINO

Page 30 of 30