Name: SERRANO, ARIAN JAY D.

Course & Section: BSCRIM 1L

Course Code: Socsci 122
Course Description: The Contemporary World

TASK 04
The Province of North Cotabato et. al. v. The Government of the Republic of the
Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, G.R. No. 183591 October 14, 2008.
Facts
 GR 183591 filed by the Province of Cotabato and Vice Governor Pinol on
its request that the MOA-AD be made public and accessible to public
consultation.
 GR 183752 by the City of Zamboanga et al on its petition to declare said
MOA-AD null and unconstitutional and to exclude the city from the BJE.
 The City of Iligan filed GR 183893, enjoining the respondents from signing
the MOA-AD and also pleaded Exec. Sec. Ermita.
Issues
 WON the petitions met the procedural conditions for exercising judicial
review.
 WON respondents negotiated and later initialed the MOA-AD, they
violated constitutional and legislative rules governing public consultation
and the access to information; and
 The contents of the MOA-AD were found to be in violation of the
Constitution and the laws.

Rulings
 On the Procedural Issue
 On the Substantive Issue
 On matters of the Constitution.
 On matters of domestic statutes.
 On matters of international law.
 On the basis of the suspensive clause.
 On the concept underlying the MOA-AD.

Discuss the validity of the Memorandum of agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-
AD) between the Republic of the Philippines and the MILF.
The proposed Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD)
included the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (Sulu, Maguindanao, Lanao del
Sur, Tawi-Tawi, Basilan, and Marawi City); six municipalities in Lanao del Norte;
hundreds of villages in the provinces of Sultan Kudarat, Lanao del Norte, and North
Cotabato, which voted in 2001. It was to have its own "basic law," police and internal
security force, banking and finance system, civil service, education, and legislative and
electoral institutions, as well as complete authority over minerals and other natural
resources.
 However, the agreement was met with strong public opposition, with some
groups claiming that the proposed Bangsamoro homeland would result in the formation
of an independent state. Some officials, lawmakers, and interest groups petitioned the
Supreme Court to hear the case.

Also, on the internet research the cases of Simbolon v. Romulo, G.R. No. 175888,
February 11, 2009 and Saguisag v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 212426, January,
2016.
Simbolon v. Romulo, G.R. No. 175888, February 11, 2009
Facts
 Lance Corporal (L/CPL) Daniel Smith is a member of the United States
Armed Forces. On November 1, 2005, he was accused of rape against the
petitioner, a Filipina.
 Under the terms of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) signed on
February 10, 1998, the United States was given custody of defendant
Smith awaiting the outcome of the proceedings.
 Clark and Subic, as well as other Philippine areas covered by the 1947
RP-US Military Bases Agreement, were not Philippine territories because
they were omitted from the cession and maintained by the US.
Issues
 Whether or not the visiting troops agreement is valid and binding given
that it was not confirmed by the United States Senate.
 The validity of the Romulo-Kenney accord.
 Petitioners contend that these undertakings contradict another article of
the Constitution, which says that this Court has sole authority to determine
procedural rules for all courts in the Philippines. (Art. VIII, Sec. 5[5]). They
argue that in order to... Allowing the transfer of custody of an accused to a
foreign state creates a distinct set of rules for that accused, which also
violates the Constitution's equal protection clause. (Art. III, Sec. 1.).

Rulings
 To begin, as mentioned in Bayan v. Zamora the VFA was properly adopted
by the Philippine Senate and is recognized as a treaty by the United
States, as attested and verified by the duly authorized representative of
the United States... government.
 The second reason is the VFA's association with the RP-US Mutual
Defense Treaty dated August 30, 1951. Both the Philippine and United
States Senates signed and confirmed the earlier agreement.
 Clearly, combined RP-US military exercises focused on enhancing the
ability to repel an armed attack are covered under the requirements of the
RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty. The VFA, which is the agreed-upon
instrument for combined military operations between the Philippines and
the United States... The primary RP-US Military Defense Treaty is merely
an implementation agreement.

Saguisag v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 212426, January, 2016.

 Facts
 This is a Resolution on the Motion for Reconsideration seeking to overturn
the decision of this Court in Saguisag et al. et al. v. Executive Secretary,
January 12, 2016.
 The primary cause for the Motion for Reconsideration is the petitioners'
disagreement with the Decision that the VFA and Mutual Defense Treaty
are implemented by EDCA. (MDT).
 Petitioners contend that the EDCA's provisions go beyond the supposedly
limited scope of the VFA and MDT because it offers a broader framework
for military bases, troops, and facilities than the VFA and permits the
development of U.S. military posts.

Issues
 Whether or if the necessary conditions for judicial review exist.
 Whether the President may enter into an executive agreement relating to
foreign military bases, troops, or facilities.
 Whether or not the provisions of EDCA are in accordance with the
Constitution and existing laws and treaties.
Rulings
 As a requirement for judicial review, the petitioner has demonstrated the
presence of an actual case or disagreement. Section 25 of the
Constitution, Article 18, specifies that the presence of foreign armed forces
in the country shall be permitted only by a treaty approved by the Senate.
As a result, the petitioners raised major constitutional questions that give
an adequate basis for the Court.
 Long usage has affirmed the Executive's authority to enter into binding
agreements without Congressional approval. In contrast to treaties,
executive agreements do not require Senate approval.
 According to the Constitutional Commission, executive agreements are
generally meant to implement a treaty that has already been enforced or
to establish the intricacies of its implementation that do not impair the
state's sovereignty. The case explored how, as an executive agreement,
EDCA supplements existing treaties.

Determine the similarities and differences of both cases.

The apparent similarities, property ownership is only one component of a broader
whole that must be addressed before the constitutional restriction is breached. As a
result, the petitioners' claims about operational control will receive more consideration in
the next discussion.
However, policy considerations are outside the province of judicial review and will
not be explored. Because they established a special arrangement to address detention,
the parties to the VFA clearly understood the difference between confinement during the
trial and incarceration after conviction.

Discuss the validity of the Visiting Force Agreement (VFA) and the Enhances Defense
Cooperation (EDCA) based on the two cases.
 The validity of these treaties has been a source of dispute and contention in the
Philippines, with some disputing their legitimacy and others contending that they are
important for the country's defense and security.
Finally, the legitimacy of the VFA and EDCA is determined by one's point of view
on these topics. Some say that these treaties are essential for the Philippines' defense
and security, while others see them as a threat to the country's sovereignty and
independence. As a result, any evaluation of their validity must take into consideration
the numerous stakeholders' differing perspectives and interests.