G.R. No. 79156 - Animos vs. Philippine Veterans Affairs Office

The cases involve consolidated petitions challenging the constitutionality and validity of the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB) and the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro (FAB), entered into by the Government of the Philippines (GPH) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) in 2014 and 2012, respectively.
Petitioners include various organizations and individuals such as the Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa), Tanggulang Demokrasya (TAN DEM), clergy members, and private citizens. Respondents include the Philippine Government, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, and related officials and entities.

Philconsa and co-petitioners argue the CAB and FAB violate the Constitution and existing laws, asserting:

Only negotiations with the MILF were done without including other rebel groups, violating Republic Act No. 3019 sections dealing with corrupt practices of public officers by giving unwarranted advantages.
The Executive committed to amending the Constitution and laws to conform to these agreements, which is beyond its power and amounts to grave abuse of discretion.

TAN DEM claims the agreements aim to create a virtual sub-state (Bangsamoro Political Entity) that replaces the ARMM, and attempts to shift the Philippines from a unitary to a federal state, which the GPH Peace Panel cannot commit to.
Rev. Vicente Libradores Aquino and others argue the Executive usurped Congress' power by binding it to abolish the ARMM and impose the CAB and FAB provisions, citing ambiguity and violations of RA 9054.
Jacinto V. Paras claims violation of constitutional consultation requirements under Executive Order No. 3, and that respondents exceeded authority in guaranteeing constitutional amendments.
Rev. Elly Velez Pamatong contends that the CAB and FAB resemble the voided 2008 MOA-AD, which sought an independent Islamic State, thus applying the doctrine of res judicata. The petitioner asserts that the FAB lacks necessary consultations, is unconstitutional under Article X Section 18, amounts to a conspiracy for an independent Bangsamoro, and guarantees unconstitutional amendments.

Executive Order No. 125 (1993) and EO No. 3 (2001) created and reaffirmed the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP), tasked to conduct comprehensive peace negotiations with Muslim rebels, including the MILF.
Negotiations led to the MOA-AD in 2008, which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court for violating constitutional provisions, particularly on the creation of autonomous entities and constitutional amendments.
Under President Benigno S. Aquino III, negotiations resumed with MILF, led initially by Marvic M.V.F. Leonen and later Miriam Coronel-Ferrer. On 15 October 2012, the FAB was signed, laying the groundwork for replacing ARMM with the Bangsamoro autonomous entity.
Subsequent Annexes and an Addendum clarified and detailed transitional arrangements, revenue generation, power sharing, normalization, and maritime zones.
EO No. 120 (2012) created the Bangsamoro Transition Commission to draft the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) and recommend constitutional amendments. The BBL was submitted to Congress in 2014 but was not enacted before Congress adjourned in 2016.
President Rodrigo Duterte later issued EO No. 08 (2016), expanding the Bangsamoro Transition Commission's membership and functions to continue drafting proposals for the BBL and recommend constitutional amendments.

Multiple petitions were filed from 2012 to 2016 challenging the CAB, FAB, and related agreements.
The Court consolidated the cases and considered issues surrounding the validity and constitutionality of the agreements, pending enactment of the Bangsamoro Basic Law.
The main issue posed was whether the CAB and FAB, as peace agreements, violate the Constitution and existing laws, particularly with respect to the process of constitutional amendments and autonomy creation.

Whether the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB), including the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro (FAB), is constitutional and valid in the absence of an enacted Bangsamoro Basic Law.
Whether the Executive Peace Panel exceeded its authority by committing to amend the Constitution and enact laws to implement the CAB and FAB.
Whether the CAB and FAB are merely redesigns of the cancelled MOA-AD and therefore suffer the same constitutional infirmities.
Whether the lack of consultations with other rebel groups or stakeholders violates constitutional or legal requirements.
Whether the agreements effectively usurp legislative powers, violate provisions on autonomy under the Constitution, or guarantee unconstitutional outcomes such as the creation of a sub-state or a federal state.