Subido-Romulo Agreement

While moA-AD would not be a mere international agreement or a binding unilateral declaration for the Philippines under international law, the respondents` act of securing amendments is already, in itself, a violation of the Constitution that fatally renders the MOA AD defective. The comparison between the MOA-AD “suspending clause” and a similar provision contained in the 1996 final peace agreement between the MNLF and the CCA is highly instructive. The MOA-AD provides that its provisions requiring “changes to the existing legal framework” will come into force at the signing of the comprehensive pact and when implementing the above-mentioned amendments, taking due account of the non-acceptance of previous agreements and within the time frame provided by the comprehensive pact. How it will be discussed at a later date will depend in large part on the current controversy over the legality of this provision. MR. OPLE. I would like to answer that question on behalf of President Nolledo. Commissioner Yusup Abubakar is right that some concrete steps have been taken to implement the provisions of the Tripoli agreement on an autonomous region of Mindanao. This is a good first step, but there is no doubt that it is only a partial response to the Tripoli agreement itself and to the broader standard of regional autonomy provided for in this agreement and now by state policy. [173] [173] (emphasized) Based on the experience of the Philippines, the link between peace agreements and the constitution has been recognized by no less than the authors of the Constitution.

Behind the provisions of the Constitution on Autonomous Regions,[172] there is the intention of the authors to implement a specific peace agreement, namely the 1976 Tripoli Agreement between the CCA and the MNLF, signed by the Under-Secretary of State for National Defence Carmelo Z. Barbero and the then MNLF President, Nur Misuari. The external defence of the BJE must remain the obligation and obligation of the central government. The central government is also required to take “the necessary measures to ensure the participation of the BJE in international meetings and events” such as those of ASEAN and UN specialized agencies. The BJE has the right to participate in official Philippine missions and delegations to negotiate border agreements or protocols for environmental protection and to share income and income equitably with waters adjacent to the islands that are part of the ancestral zone. [47] It thus appears that the “compact rights” emanating from the Dar-ul-mua`hada and dar-ul-sulh regime refer only to all other agreements between the MILF and the Philippine government – the Philippines being the country of the pact and the peace agreement – which participate in the nature of a part of the treaty, the “treaty” being, in essence, “any formal agreement” , commitments and benefits for both parties that provide a framework defining the principles set out in the [MOA-AD].” [29] [29] 41. In this case, the parties to the conflict are the legitimate authority of the state and the RUF, which does not have statehood and is, in all respects, a fraction within the state. The non-contractual signatories of the Lomé Convention were moral guarantors of the principle that “this peace agreement is implemented in an honest and good faith manner by both parties, in accordance with Article XXXIV of the agreement.”

Leave a reply