SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES IS ASKED TO NULLIFY AND VOID THE BBL- BANGSAMORO BASIC LAW WHICH MALACANANG BRANDED THE PETITION AS “BASELESS”!
Shortly Before March 11th, 2015 I, Myself called on the Supreme Court with respect to the Unlawful and Unconstitutional BBL, Bangsamoro Basic Law which reads…… “There MUST BE an "INJUNCTION PLACED AGAINST THE B.B.L.".... I Am Calling On The Supreme Power Of The Land and For Her People Of The Republic Of The Philippines For The Supreme Court To LAWFULLY Place A Temporary Injunction On The B.B.L. Whereas By Doing So, The Legalities Can Be Reviewed And Will Be Able To Withdraw The B.B.L. From Enactment Thereof.”
THE BBL- BANGSAMORO BASIC LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VIOLATES PHILIPPINE SOVEREIGNTY- ANY GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL WHO VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION AND SUPPORTS THIS UNLAWFUL ACT CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR TREASON!!!
“The Supreme Court Needs To Show Its Integrity And Place An Injunction On The Enactment Of The Unlawful BBL Thereof.”
SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES IS ASKED TO NULLIFY AND VOID THE BBL- BANGSAMORO BASIC LAW
Former National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales, Bishop Romulo Dela Cruz, Leyte Rep. Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, Former Senator Kit Tatad, Archbishop Fernando Capalla And Former Justice Manuel Lazaro File A Petition To Review The Draft Bangsamoro Basic Law Before The Supreme Court Yesterday.
MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) was asked yesterday to void the agreement forged by the government with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) for the proposed creation of a Bangsamoro entity in southern Philippines.
Petitioners Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa) and former Negros Oriental representative Jacinto Paras asked the high court to declare unconstitutional the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB), including the earlier Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro (FAB) and its annexes.
Both alleged that the government peace panel committed grave abuse of discretion in signing the FAB and CAB on Oct. 12, 2012 and March 27, 2014, respectively, as both are mere revivals of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) forged by the previous administration with the MILF and which was declared unconstitutional by the high court in October 2008.
Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) spokesman Emmanuel Fontanilla welcomed the filing of the petition, saying the CAB will abrogate the 1996 peace accord, which was brokered by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
“It’s a welcome development as this will highlight our position that the CAB runs counter to the provision of the Constitution,” Fontanilla told The STAR in a telephone interview.
He added that CAB is a betrayal of the 1996 agreement of the government and the MNLF because it deals with the same people and territory, recalling that the government abandoned the older agreement in its final stages.
Malacañang, which has repeatedly called for the passage of the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL), questioned the timing of the petition and branded it as baseless.
“The government will be ready to answer once the Supreme Court directs us to do so. It is interesting that these challenges to the FAB and CAB come at this time,” deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte said.
She described the timing as “quite odd” because the FAB and CAB were signed in 2012 and 2014, respectively.
She described the timing as “quite odd” because the FAB and CAB were signed in 2012 and 2014, respectively.
She added that it was baseless to claim that the MILF would be receiving “humongous social, financial and political benefits” after the BBL’s passage.
“Using the word humongous was being hyperbolic and meant to skew the opinion of the public against the BBL,” Valte also said.
Leyte Rep. Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, leader of the House’s independent bloc and Philconsa president, said they are merely making sure that the BBL is consistent with the Constitution and contains no legal infirmities.
He reiterated his support for genuine peace in Mindanao “that can only be ensured if the BBL is legal and constitutional.”
VOID MEASURE:
In its 24-page petition, Philconsa argued that the agreements violated Article X Section 1 of the Constitution, which authorizes and recognizes only five territorial and political subdivisions – provinces, cities, municipalities, barangays and autonomous regions.
The group pointed out that the power to create the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) was vested only in the First Congress under the 1987 Constitution.
In its 24-page petition, Philconsa argued that the agreements violated Article X Section 1 of the Constitution, which authorizes and recognizes only five territorial and political subdivisions – provinces, cities, municipalities, barangays and autonomous regions.
The group pointed out that the power to create the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) was vested only in the First Congress under the 1987 Constitution.
“We submit that without the prior constitutional amendments, the FAB proposal to establish the Bangsamoro to replace the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao as the New Political Entity (NPE) is unconstitutional and void,” it argued.
The group also reasoned that “axiomatically, all subsequent acts/issuances arising from, connected with or related to the FAB and CAB, such as the draft House Bill 4994 (or BBL), are odious and treacherous violations of the 1987 Constitution.”
Joined by former senator Francisco Tatad, former national security adviser Norberto Gonzales and archbishops Ramon Arguelles of Lipa, Fernando Capalla of Davao and Romulo de la Cruz of Zamboanga, the Philconsa argued that FAB and CAB granted concessions to the MILF beyond the powers of the President and in violation of the provisions of the Constitution and existing laws.
“The FAB and CAB made a real and actual commitment to fully implement their letter and spirit by effecting the necessary amendments to the Constitution and existing laws. Lamentably, respondents (officials of the peace panel) in their official and personal capacities had neither power nor authority to commit the government to statutory changes,” the petitioners argued.
Philconsa added that the conduct of the peace process with the MILF violated Executive Order No. 125, as issued by former President Fidel Ramos, which requires the presence of a panel of advisers composed of one each from the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Cabinet to be designated by the President.
“Contrary to and in violation of EO 125, the GPNP (Government Peace Negotiating Panel) were not assisted by the panel of advisers. The different GPNPs conducted numerous negotiations, dialogues and face-to-face discussions with the MILF here and abroad, bereft of the presence of the requisite panel of advisers,” the group concluded.
Apart from voiding the CAB and FAB, Philconsa also asked the high court to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the implementation of the two agreements and the allotment of funds to pursue activities to implement them.
Petitioners sought to enjoin the implementation of all other acts and issuances such as the BBL that are related to the FAB and CAB. They said the draft Bangsamoro Basic Law in Congress is a “fruit” of the two “unconstitutional” agreements.
Petitioners also asked the high court to issue mandamus directing the Commission on Audit (COA) to disallow the audit of all funds incurred by the government peace panel.
Named respondents in the petition were former government peace panel chief and now SC Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, chief peace negotiator Miriam Coronel-Ferrer, MILF peace panel head Mohagher Iqbal, Budget Secretary Florencio Abad and the COA.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
Paras, for his part, alleged that CAB and FAB are unconstitutional when they defined the “territory” and “territorial waters” of the proposed Bangsamoro entity.
Paras, for his part, alleged that CAB and FAB are unconstitutional when they defined the “territory” and “territorial waters” of the proposed Bangsamoro entity.
Article V Section 1 of FAB defines “core territory” as covering the current territory of ARMM, plus the cities of Cotabato and Isabela. Article V Section 4 of the FAB, on the other hand, provided for “territorial waters” of the entity.
“The term territory is an element of statehood. Article X of the 1987 Constitution allows only the creation of an autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao, not a separate state or sub-state,” he argued in 34-page petition.
Article I Section 2 of the FAB provides that “the government of the Bangsamoro shall have ministerial form,” which Paras said pertains to a parliamentary form of government.
“The Constitution contemplates a structure of government that is anything except a parliamentary government,” he stressed.
Just like Philconsa, Paras believes that the CAB and FAB were similar to MOA-AD as he pointed out that “the CAB, particularly its FAB and corresponding annexes, were negotiated and signed without any public consultation.
“This means that the herein respondents acted in a whimsical, capricious, oppressive arbitrary and despotic manner when they negotiated and caused the signing of the CAB, particularly its FAB and its corresponding annexes,” he added.
He named Ferrer, presidential adviser on the peace process Teresita Deles and other representatives of the government peace panel Senen Bacani, Yasmin Busran-Lao and Mehol Sadain as respondents in his petition.
Paras did not name Leonen as a respondent, but sought his inhibition from the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment