Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Philconsa v. Philippine Government

    Uploaded by

    Dan Abania
    86 views2 pages
    1) The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of peace agreements between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). 2) The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions on the ground of prematurity, as there was no actual case or controversy yet. The agreements would require enactment of further legislation to be implemented. 3) For the Court to exercise judicial review, there must be an actual conflict involving asserted legal rights and not a hypothetical question. As the challenged agreements had not been implemented through required legislation, the issue was not ripe for adjudication.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    09. Philconsa v. Philippine Government

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of peace agreements between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). 2) The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions on the ground of prematurity, as there was no actual case or controversy yet. The agreements would require enactment of further legislation to be implemented. 3) For the Court to exercise judicial review, there must be an actual conflict involving asserted legal rights and not a hypothetical question. As the challenged agreements had not been implemented through required legislation, the issue was not ripe for adjudication.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    86 views2 pages

    Philconsa v. Philippine Government

    Uploaded by

    Dan Abania
    1) The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of peace agreements between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). 2) The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions on the ground of prematurity, as there was no actual case or controversy yet. The agreements would require enactment of further legislation to be implemented. 3) For the Court to exercise judicial review, there must be an actual conflict involving asserted legal rights and not a hypothetical question. As the challenged agreements had not been implemented through required legislation, the issue was not ripe for adjudication.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CASE DIGEST

    Philconsa v. Philippine Government


    Constitutional Law

    Date November 29, 2016


    Petitioners Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA) represented by its President
    Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez, et al.
    Respondents Philippine Government (GPH) represented by Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, et al.
    Ponente Carpio, J.
    Overview A case regarding the peace agreements between the GPH and the MILF following the
    MOA-AD’s declaration of unconstitutionality
    Relevant topic Requisites of Judicial Review – Prematurity
    Prematurity – one of the aspects that affects the determination of WON there is an actual
    case/controversy that warrants judicial review

    - Issue must not be raised too early


    - Issue is not conjectural or anticipatory that would amount to an advisory opinion
    of the court

    RELEVANT CHARACTERS:

    FACTS:
     Petitioners challenge the constitutionality and validity of the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro
    (CAB) and the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro (FAB)
    - Entered into between the GPH and the MILF on March 27, 2014 and Oct. 12, 2012 respectively
    - Contend that the provisions of the CAB and the FAB violate the Constitution and existing laws
     Contend that the conduct of the peace process was defective
    - GPH peace panel only negotiated with the MILF and not with other rebel groups
    - Gave unwarranted advantage to the MILF
     Grave abuse of discretion
    - Respondents committed to cause the amendment of the Constitution and existing laws to conform to the
    FAB and CAB
     Said peace process was resumed under the Aquino Administration
    - MOA-AD was declared unconstitutional under PGMA
     Leonen headed the peace panel and became chief peace negotiator in July 2010

    ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

    ISSUES HELD
    1) WON the issue presents an actual case or controversy that is ripe for NO
    judicial adjudication

    RATIO:
     Court’s power of judicial review is limited to actual cases or controversies
    - Court does not issue advisory opinions nor resolve hypothetical and academic questions
    - This ensures that the Court does not intrude into areas specifically confined to other branches of
    government
     Actual case or controversy
    - Involves conflict of legal rights, assertion of opposite legal claims, susceptible of judicial resolution
     Ripeness is closely linked with the actual case requirement
    - Issue is ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the
    individual or entity challenging it
    - Petitioner must show that:
    1. There is an act performed by a branch of government
    2. He has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of the act
     In the Province of North Cotabato case
    - The GPH and the MILF were about to sign the MOA-AD in the presence of representatives of foreign
    states in Kuala Lumpur
    - The timely action of the Court in issuing a TRO prevented this
     Compared to the MOA-AD, the CAB and FAB mandates the enactment of the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL)

    Page 1 of 2
    CASE DIGEST
    Philconsa v. Philippine Government
    Constitutional Law

    - Without the enactment of the BBL, the CAB and FAB may not be implemented and will remain mere
    peace agreements whose provisions cannot be enforced
    - MOA-AD did not provide for the passage of subsequent legislation to implement its provisions
    - MOA-AD provisions were immediately implementable after signing
    - The CAB and FAB also, contrary to fears of petitioners, does not commit that the Constitution will be
    amended
    - The CAB and FAB also do not compel Congress to enact the BBL
     No actual case or controversy since the BBL is not yet passed into law

    RULING:
    WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petitions on the ground of prematurity.

    Page 2 of 2

    You might also like