Philconsa leads petitions to SC vs BBL: It’s repugnant

Bottom line

“The provisions of the FAB and the CAB are all repugnant to the 1987 Constitution and existing laws. The Constitution is supreme. Any exercise of power beyond what is circumscribed by the Constitution is ultra vires (beyond one’s legal power) and a nullity,” the Philconsa said.

“An unconstitutional act, whether legislative or executive, is not a law, confers no right, imposes no duties, and affords no protection,” it said.

The crux of Philconsa’s argument is the unconstitutionality of creating another autonomous region, saying that under the Constitution, no other autonomous region may be created, beyond the two already existing.

This was because only the first Congress, elected within 18 months of the creation of the two legislative chambers upon the passage of the 1987 Constitution, was allowed to create autonomous regions, Philconsa said.

The petition cited commentary from Fr. Joaquin Bernas, one of the drafters of the 1987 Constitution, who said that “any other area which wishes to become an autonomous region should seek a constitutional amendment.”

Bangsamoro nonentity

According to the Philconsa, “Bangsamoro” is a political and legal nonentity without constitutional recognition.

“The newly coined/invented term ‘Bangsamoro Political Entity’ 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,” the petition read.

“Unless and until the 1987 Constitution is first amended ‘Bangsamoro’ is a shadow entity of no legal consequence. Constitutionally, it is nothing, but a band of amorphous rebels,” it said.

Usurpation of power

Named respondents were chief government negotiator Miriam Coronel-Ferrer for her role in drafting the CAB, her predecessor in the government peace panel, Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, for his role in the FAB, the “self-styled” MILF, Budget Secretary Florencio Abad and the Commission on Audit (COA).

READ: Petitions before Supreme Court challenge legality of 2 Bangsamoro agreements

Abad and the COA were impleaded because of the funds that have been committed and released to the Aquino government’s peace process project.

The petitioners asked the high court to compel the COA to “examine, audit and disallow the funds/expenses that were released and expended” by the government in the implementation of the peace agreement.

It further asked that money already disbursed and spent “to support and implement unconstitutional agreements or undertakings” be returned.

Illegal commitments

The petitioners accused Ferrer and Leonen of producing a pact that would require constitutional amendments to be legal.

They said that the government negotiators illegally committed to have the Constitution and existing laws conform to the FAB and the CAB, for the latter’s legitimization.

“This qualifies [panel chairs] Leonen and Ferrer for the charge of usurping a power they did not have,” the petition read.

MOA-AD revival

“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,” it said.

The petitioners likened the peace agreement to the 2008 Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain, saying the FAB and CAB “are the crafty and ingenious revival” of the earlier pact which the Supreme Court nullified.

The petition also assailed the government peace negotiators for committing “grave prejudice to the majority of Filipino people” for signing the FAB and CAB, which “grant humongous and unconscionable financial, social, economic and political benefits/advantage to the MILF.”

Exceeded powers

In a separate petition, former Negros Oriental congressman Jacinto Paras impleaded Ferrer and the government peace panel members—Senen Bacani, Yasmin Busran-Lao, Mehol Sadain and presidential adviser on the peace process Teresita Quintos-Deles—for their roles in bringing about the CAB.

The Paras petition also sought to stop the implementation of the peace agreement, saying officials of the executive branch had “exceeded” their powers in negotiating and concluding the agreement.

In particular, the CAB violates the Constitution’s provisions on territory and offends the basic law for proposing a parliamentary form of government, Paras said.

“The grant of concurrent and exclusive powers to the Bangsamoro government is not in accord with the Constitution,” Paras said in his petition.

In December 2012, lawyer and perennial nuisance candidate Ely Pamatong asked the high court to nullify the FAB on grounds of unconstitutionality, the first such challenge against the peace deal.

Just this March, he asked the Supreme Court to resolve his still pending petition.

RELATED STORIES

Solon threatens reporter with contempt over BBL bribery story

Duterte pitches federalism as alternative to BBL