Facts: GRP and the MILF were scheduled to sign a MOA-AD aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 in Malaysia. The subjects of which are Security, Rehabilitation, and Ancestral Domain. Upon motion by petitioners, a TRO enjoining signing by the GRP of the same was granted by the Court. Petitioners, Vice Gov. Of and the Province of North Cotabato, in this petition through mandamus and prohibition: invoke their right to information on matters of public concern, and supplementarily, the declaration of the MOA-AD as unconstitutional. They seek to compel respondents to disclose and furnish them copies of the complete MOA-AD, and prohibit the signing thereof pending the disclosure of its contents, and the holding of public consultations thereon. Zamboanga City, its Mayor and Representative asked for the same relief and prayed that the City be excluded from the Bangsamoro Homeland/Juridical Entity Under the MOA-AD, both parties recognize that the ownership of the Bangsamoro homeland is vested exclusively to Bangsamoro people (natives or original inhabitants of Mindanao and its adjacent lands before colonization, including their descendants, whether full or half-blood) by virtue of prior rights and occupation. They were recognized as having the right to self-governance on the ground of suzerain authorities of their sultanates. They were granted with authority and JD over the Ancestral Domain and Lands of the Bangsamoro The territory of the Bangsamoro homeland is described as the land mass as well as the maritime, terrestrial, fluvial and alluvial domains, including the aerial domain and the atmospheric space above it, embracing the Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan geographic region, over which the BJE can exercise JD over natural resources within its internal waters and territorial waters described therein. The sharing of minerals in territorial waters between Central Govt and the BJE, but no similar agreement with respect to internal waters BJE is also free to enter into any economic cooperation and trade relations with foreign countries, and GRP is bound to ensure BJEs participation in international meetings (ASEAN, UNs agencies). Sharing of total production pertaining to natural resources is 75:25 in favor of the BJE. May cancel or modify licenses (timber, mining) and concessions, contracts made or granted by the PH Central Govt or the ARMM. Sol-Gen maintains the issue is not ripe for judicial adjudication because the MOA-AD remains to be a proposal, and does not contain legally demandable rights and obligations until the list of operative acts are complied with. The Court cannot pass upon issues based on hypothetical constitutional problems with no concrete bases, and petitioners perceived injury is merely illusory. Respondents also allege mootness of the case because of the Exec. Secs declaration that the President will not sign the MOA-AD and that the GRP panel is already disbandedIssues:1. Ripeness for judicial determination2. Mootness3. Did respondents violate constitutional and statutory provisions on public consultation and the right to information when they negotiated and later initiated the MOA-AD?4. Do the contents of the MOA-AD violate the Constitution and the laws?

Ruling:1. Yes, the case is ripe for Courts determination. To be ripe for judicial determination, petitioner must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of the act complained of. Concrete acts are not necessary to render the controversy ripe for adjudication. That the law in question is not yet effective does not negate ripeness. When an act of a branch of government is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. The GRP panel exceeded its authority under EO No. 3 by:a. Drafting terms of MOA-AD without consultation with LGUs or communities affectedb. Guaranteeing to MILF the amendment of the Constitution when it said that it will effect the necessary changes to the legal framework...2. The non-signing of the MOA-AD did not render the issue moot for determination because the decision in this case will apply also to on-going and future negotiations and agreements necessary for its realization. In fact, despite the mootness of a case, the SC can still render its ruling thereon if the following circumstances are present:a. There is grave violation of the Constitutionb. Case is of an exceptional character that requires resolution for public interesti. The case at bar is imbued with public interest since it concerns the countrys territory and political modificationsc. Constitutional issues raised require formulation of controlling principlesi. In the case at bar, the Court must formulate controlling principles since the MOA-AD is subject to further legal enactments including Constitutional amendments to guide the bench, the bar, the public, and the government.d. It is capable of repetition yet evading decisioni. In the case at bar, the petitioner-cities may possibly be affected if a decision is not yet rendered because the act of the government complained of is capable of repetitione. When defendant ceased to do the act complained of (voluntary cessation), especially when petitioner prays for reliefs MOA-AD is just part of the Tripoli Agreement in 2001 so mootness will not set in on the latter. It is with respect to the mandamus that it is moot since copies were already sent to petitioners and Court3. Yes. a. The MOA-AD is a matter of public concern since it involves the sovereignty and territory of PH which affects the lives of the public at large. The right to information on public concern under the Constitution includes information on negotiations leading to the consummation of the transaction. Consummated contract is not a requirement for it may be too late to point out its defects when there is already a contract. Sec. 28 (Art. 2) stating the right of public to disclosure of all transactions involving public interest is complementary to Sec. 7 of the Bill of Rights. The complete and effective exercise of Sec. 7 necessitates that Sec. 28 shall also be self-executory.b. EO No. 3 states that PAPP should conduct regular dialogues with the National Peace Forum, peace partners, and concerned sectors of the society in the national and local levels to render progress reports on the peace process. PAPP committed grave abuse of discretion by failing to carry out consultations. Executive privilege cannot be invoked because of provisions of EO No. 3 on public consultation.c. LGC states that national agencies and offices must conduct periodic consultations with appropriate local government units, non-governmental and people's organizations, and other concerned sectors of the community before any project or program is implemented in their respective jurisdictions. The MOA-AD is one peculiar program that unequivocally and unilaterally vests ownership of a vast territory to the Bangsamoro people,which could pervasively and drastically result to the diaspora or displacement of a great number of inhabitants from their total environment. It also failed to observe the provisions of the IPRA on free and prior informed consent of the IPs/ICCs.4. Yes.a. The MOA-AD contemplates an association between the Central PH Government and the BJE. Under international law, association is a relationship between a principal state and an associate whereby the latter delegates certain responsibilities to the former while maintaining its status as a state. Some of the arrangements under the MOA-AD that characterize association are BJEs capacity to enter into foreign trade relations, Central Govts responsibility to ensure BJEs participation in ASEAN and UN meetings, and more.b. This concept of association is not recognized under our Constitution because association implies the recognition of an associated entity as a state. It does not provide for transitory status that prepares any part of PH territory for independence. Association is often used as a transitional device of former colonies on their way to full independence.c. BJE is a state in all but its name for it meets the criteria of a state as laid down in the Montevideo Convention: permanent people, defined territory, government, and capacity to enter into trade relations with foreign states. It runs contrary to the sovereign and territorial integrity of PH. d. It is contrary to the Constitutional provision requiring a plebiscite for the creation of the autonomous region. Previous votes of the LGUs cannot be considered because they voted to be part of the ARMM, not the BJE.e. Contrary to Constitutional provision that only President can enter into foreign relations.f. Violative of Sec 22, Art 2 of Constitution because promotion of ICCs rights must be in the spirit of national unity and placing BJE in a transitional state to independence is not in harmony with national unity.g. Violative of IPRA that lays down the procedure of delineating ancestral domains.h. Indigenous people have right to internal self-determination (to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development while respecting the territorial integrity of existing state), but not external self-determination (establishment of a sovereign independent state)i. Notwithstanding the suspensive clause, however, respondents, by their mere act of incorporating in the MOA-AD the provisions thereof regarding the associative relationship between the BJE and the Central Government, have already violated the Memorandum of Instructions From The President dated March 1, 2001, which states that the negotiations shall be conducted in accordance with the principles of the sovereignty andterritorial integrityof the Republic of the Philippines.j. Despite the Presidents power to recommend to Congress or to the people constitutional amendments or revisions, she cannot guarantee to a third party that the required amendments will be put in place.