Case Digest (G.R. No. 105619) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) and allied petitioners, members of the Agta and Dumagat indigenous communities, farmer-beneficiaries, fisherfolk, residents of Casiguran, Aurora, and concerned sectoral organizations filed two consolidated Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 directly before the Supreme Court, assailing the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9490 (2007) and its amendment by Republic Act No. 10083 (2010), which created the Aurora Pacific Economic Zone and Freeport (APECO). RA 9490 initially established a 500-hectare economic zone in Barangays Esteves, Dibet, and Dibacong; RA 10083 expanded it to 12,923 hectares, divided into Parcels 1 and 2 covering several barangays, and imposed freeport status. Petitioners alleged they were neither consulted nor informed, that APECO covered award-worthy agrarian reform lands and ancestral domain areas without Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) approval, deprived fisherfolk of exclusive access, vi Case Digest (G.R. No. 105619) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties, Petitions and Relief Sought
- Petitioners: Agta and Dumagat indigenous peoples, farmer-beneficiaries, fisherfolk, residents of Casiguran, Aurora, through KMP and PIGLACASA.
- Respondents: Aurora Pacific Economic Zone and Freeport Authority (APEZA) Board, House Speaker, Senate President.
- Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 assail constitutionality of RA 9490 and RA 10083; application for TRO also filed.
- Legislative Background and Affected Areas
- RA 9490 (2007) created the Aurora Special Economic Zone (500 ha) covering Barangays Esteves, Dibet, Dibacong; aimed to promote tourism and investment.
- RA 10083 (2010) renamed it APECO, expanded to 12,923 ha (adding San Ildefonso, Cozo, Culat) and established an adjoining freeport.
- Impact on Lands and Communities
- Area includes irrigated rice lands, agrarian reform beneficiaries (CLOAs, pending petitions) and ancestral domain applications by 873 Agta/Dumagat over ~91,000 ha.
- Adjoining shoreline (57.4 km) used by subsistence fisherfolk; allegations of no prior consultation, passage of local resolutions, protests, and marches.
- Procedural History and Administrative Actions
- Direct filing in the Supreme Court (198688, 208282), consolidation in 2013; comments and replies exchanged; some indigenous leaders and DAR Secretary later withdrew.
- Mass protest (2012), DOJ and NEDA reviews (noting lack of master plan), DAR validation and order to cease land conversion, ongoing administrative cases before DAR and NCIP.
Issues:
- Procedural
- Is a Rule 65 petition a proper remedy to challenge the constitutionality of statutes and legislative acts?
- Do the petitions satisfy justiciability and the hierarchy-of-courts rule (actual case or controversy, standing, exhaustion of remedies)?
- Substantive
- Do RA 9490 and RA 10083 violate:
- Agrarian reform provisions (Const. II-21, XIII-1/4; CARL) by compulsorily covering awarded farmlands without DAR conversion approval?
- Indigenous peoples’ rights (Const. XII-5; IPRA) via lack of free, prior, and informed consent over ancestral domains?
- Subsistence fisherfolk rights (Const. XII-2, XIII-7; Fisheries Code) by converting fishing grounds to a freeport?
- Do the laws contravene due process, the non-impairment clause (stewardship contracts), local autonomy (plebiscite, taxation), and separation of powers (borrowing and utility regulation)?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)