Leonen inhibits self from petitions vs Bangsamoro peace agreement


Associate Justice Marvic Leonen. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines – Newly appointed Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonen inhibited from handling the petitions questioning the constitutionality of the framework Bangsamoro peace agreement.

Prior to his appointment, Leonen was head of the government peace panel in talks with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).

Lawyer Elly Pamatong and religious leaders from Mindanao questioned the constitutionality of the Framework Agreement.

Pamatong, in his petition, said the Framework Agreement was similar to the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD), which was junked by the high court.

He added that the agreement was also a “unilateral abrogation” of the Tripoli Agreement among the GPH, Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), and the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC).

Reverend Vicente Libradores Aquino, Rev. Marcidita Redoble and the International Ministries for Perfect and Party Against Communism and Terrorism (IMPPACT, Inc.) said the government peace panel abused its discretion hence it bounded the entire government to acts that violate the Constitution.

They told the high court that the framework agreement which stipulated the creation of a Bangsamoro government in five provinces—Basilan, Maguindanao, Lanao del Sur, Sulu and Tawi-tawi and the cities of Marawi, Cotabato and Isabela and six other municipalities of North Cotabato were all covered by the 1976 Tripoli Agreement.

With the implementation of the Framework Agreement, they said this would nullify the 1976 Tripoli Agreement and the 1996 Final Peace Agreement.

Petitioners pointed out that the existence of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) was by virtue of the 1976 Tripoli Agreement, an international treaty recognized by the Organization of Islamic Conference and the 1996 Final Peace Agreement.

“The dissolution of the ARMM will mean the dissolution of the two agreements…Indeed, in 1987, the Philippine government honoured its commitment to an international agreement by including in the Constitution the creation of an ARMM…,” petitioner stated.

The case will be raffled off again to another justice.

Get Inquirer updates while on the go, add us on these apps:

Inquirer Viber

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OHOD5EA75DBBUH53UKLRXRK764 Mang Teban

    With conflicts of interests that come now and then, the supposed 15 independent-minded justices of the Supreme Court are reduced by inhibitions that equate to a vote of abstention. This is the problem with appointed justices who, by the nature of their previous jobs dealing with the Executive Branch, make them candidates to inhibit for conflict of interest over particular petitions questioning acts of the State. This should be part of the considerations in processing candidates for the judiciary by the Judicial and Bar Council to avoid appointees prone to inhibit on cases involving the Executive Branch. 

  • disqusted0fu

    possible scenario: Leonen was forced to come up with a peace deal whether constitutional or not, or whether beneficial for the country as a whole or not as long as it will be agreeable for the MILF. now that that was done, not only that the public will think that it is a great accomplishment for Aquino, it is also a job well done by Leonen, which will not make anyone question his appointment as associate justice. being appointed as associate justice, he now owes Aquino one… then Arroyo comes in the picture… now her case/s are being handled by Leonen. and since Leonen owes Aquino…  need i say more?

    see the clearer picture? a tit for a tat… its all part of the plan.

To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.

Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:

c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City,Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94


editors' picks



latest videos