These are the initial list of applicants/nomineeswhose applications/nominations were received by the ARMM Screening Committee Secretariat before the issuance/publication of the Notice to the Public on 19 August 2011. These applicants/nominees are requested to resubmit their applications with complete documentary requirements listed in the Notice on or before 5pm of August 26, 2011.

OIC-Regional Governor

1. Abantas, Zulfikar J.
2. Abubakar, Ismael B.
3. Ali, Omar “Solitario”
4. Ali, Sanchez
5. Alonto Abdani T.
6. Alonto, AbulKhayr D.
7. Alonto-Lucman, Datu Norodin
8. Amir – Hussin, Datu Salipada A.
9. Balangi, Maulana A.
10. Barra, Dr. Hamid A.
11. Boyog-Mama, Datu Yusoph
12. Camlian, Al
13. Candao, Zacaria A.
14. Datimbang, Sultan Bobby M.
15. Dianalan, Jiamil M.
16. Dilangalen, Datu Didagen “DIGS”
17. Dimaporo, Hatta Dimakuta
18. Djamla, Sultan Aleem Abdulmajeed D.
19. Esmael, Abdelnasser V.
20. Hadjinor, AlimAbdulbasit A.
21. Halipa, Sulay H.
22. Hassan, Hatimil E.
23. Hassan, Nur Abubakar
24. Hataman, Mujib S.
25. Husein, Dr. Jaypee Basheer A.Y.
26. Isnaji, Alvarez C.
27. Jaafar, Ghazali
28. Jamhal, iHadja Jeanette D.
29. Kabalu, Mustapha “Eid”
30. Langkuno, Abdulkarim T.
31. Lanto, Macabangkit B.
32. Lucman, Datu Alrashed A.
33. Lucman, Datu Norodin Alonto
34. Maglangit, Raida B.
35. Mambuay, Cader B.
36. Mamondiong, Guiling A.
37. Mangudadatu, Esmael “Toto”
38. Mangudadatu, Pax
39. Mastura, Al – haj, Datu Tucao Ahmad
40. Mastura, Kudarat V, Sultan Abdulaziz Salim D.
41. Mastura, Michael
42. Mimbatas, Aleem Abdul Aziz
43. Moner, Aleem Ansarodin S Lucman
44. Muhammad, Yusoph I. “Datu Oskie”
45. Mujiv, Hataman
46. Pangarungan, Saidamen B.
47. Pundato, Dimasangcay A.
48. Saludin, Saidina Eysa
49. Sani, Punduma B.
50. Saud Al – Haj, Sultan Mangakop U.
51. Sayre, Datu Said Ja- Alain
52. Sadain, Mehol
53. Sema, Datu Muslimin G.
54. Sharief-Ador, Dra. Norma M.
55. Solaiman, Ali – Asgar M.
56. Tago, Paisalin D.
57. Tamano, Salipada S.
58. Tillah, Ide
59. Timuay, Ust. Jayton Jala
60. Ulangkaya, Salipada T.

OIC-Regional Vice Governor

1. Abubakar, Hji Lad Jakaya S.
2. Alonto, Zafrullah M.
3. Datimbang, Bobby M.
4. Hadjinor, Alim Abdulbasit
5. Ladjalahal, Hamid K.
6. Mamondiong, Atty. Guilling
7. Pacalna, Baguinda – Ali Acmad
8. Tago, Paisalin D.

OIC-Regional Legislative Assembly Members

Basilan
1. Abasal, Atal J.
2. Abdurahman, Taib A.
3. Akbar, Omar M.
4. Alam, Mursidi M.
5. Al-Amin, Ahmad Y.
6. Awilun, Abdalun H.
7. Hamja, Jarah A.
8. Hussein, Jaypee Basheer A. Y.
9. Ibama, Amad Julian
10. Insung, Nathan B.
11. Mamang, Mario M.
12. Mujahid, Alim Abdulmuhmin A.
13. Sahao, Albert A.
14. Said, Jubaira S.
15. Salajin Al Hadj, Sakib A.
16. Sampang, Ustadz Datu Jhularab
17. Samsa, Mohammad Alih Mustal
18. Wahi, Abdulsalim K.

Lanao del Sur (1st District)
1. Alonto, Datu Haj Ansari D.
2. Amate, A’lim Saad Ibrahim
3. Balangi, Maulana A.
4. Bansao, Amrosi D.
5. Cali, Paisal I.
6. Disamburun, Alinog M.
7. Dumarpa, FaydahManiri
8. Gandamra, Majul U.
9. Gutoc, Samera A.
10. Ismael, Aquil P.
11. Lanto, Maamor D.
12. Macalangcom, Yussuf Candidato R.
13. Macabangkit, Zaragoza
14. Macaumbos, Datu Jubair L.
15. Madid, Nomaire M.
16. Mapandi, Jr., Gonoranao U.
17. Mitmug, Jr., Rasul Yap
18. Naga, Yasir Pangadapun
19. Pacasum, Saripada Lucman Jr.
20. Rasuman, Magombaya D.
21. Solaiman, Ali-AsgarMacabago
22. Tomawis, Ismael M.

Lanao del Sur (2nd District)
1. Amatonding, Bai Pindao L.
2. Ampaso, Abdulasis L.
3. Balindong, Yasser A.
4. Bantao, Zahrain M.
5. Bashier, Owaida T.
6. Hadjinor, Alim Abdulbasit A.
7. Macadato, Macacuna B.
8. Macapanton, Datu Ibra
9. Pamaloy, Madaraop B.
10. Paramihan, Alonto P.
11. Sumay, Camar D.
12. Tago, Paisalan P.
13. Yahya, Ahmad Tambas L.

Maguindanao (1st District)
1. Abdula, Odin T.
2. Adamat, Dr. Ronald L.
3. Algabre, Shiela
4. Ambolodto, Datu Habib S.
5. Bajunaid, Baglaph M.
6. Baraguir, Manan O.
7. Blao, Datu Khadafy Dilangalen
8. Kusain, Arafat A.
9. Lauban, Datu Marhomsal K.
10. Lidasan, Armando D.
11. Mangutara, Mimbalawag
12. Mastura, Camarod P.
13. Mastura, Habib M.
14. Mastura, Ishak V.
15. Sabpa, Datu Nestor B.
16. Sinsuat,Datu Bimbo Q.
17. Sinsuat, Datu Roonie Q.
18. Zaman, Saipona U.

Maguindanao (2nd District)
1. Amolan, Ramon Mike Z.
2. Ampatuan, Abdel Roden A.
3. Ampatuan, Aladdin I.
4. Ampatuan, Settie Farah M.
5. Bagundang, Kim M.
6. Esmael, Basit K.
7. Lumenda, Bensadie T.
8. Makakena, Saidali M.
9. Mangudadatu, Khadafeh G.
10. Mentang, Datu Pike T.
11. Midtimbang, Datu Nathaneil S.
12. Midtimbang, Midpantao M.
13. Mohammad, Edzrael L.
14. Sabpel, Abdullatip P.

Sulu (1st District)
1. Abubakar, Halman Rene Hernandez
2. Annil, DM, Dr. Amildasa D.
3. Burahan, Nedra S.
4. Gumbahali, Edmund C.
5. Hassan, Alhabsi M.
6. Indanan, SR. Abdurhaman S.
7. Izquerdo-Isahac, Dr. Charina (MPH)
8. Salahuddin, Abijar-E Anam
9. Timuay, Jayton Jala
10. Tingkahan, Rizal Jr. A.
11. Tulawie, Nevocadnizar
12. Ynawat, Nazir H.
13. Tulawie, Benhajar T.

Sulu (2nd District)
1. Alih, Nadia A.
2. Anni, Abdel S.
3. Burahan, Anton
4. Daiman, Nouh M.
5. Daud, Dehama T.
6. Estino, Abdullajid S.
7. Estino, Bensar S.
8. Jauhari, Abdulbasit A.
9. Karimuddin, Abdulwahab Jala
10. Sangkula, Nurudum A.
11. Tulawie, Nurwiza S.

Tawi-Tawi
1. Abubakar, Ponchita S.
2. Ahaja, Bahidjan Rowena K.
3. Alih, Eddie M.
4. Bawasanta, Rodolfo Antoyan
5. Dayan, Al-Trekee Pon
6. Hajiri, Hadji Hadar M.
7. Kadil, Nasser M.
8. Kamaluddin, Mabibi Kiram H.
9. Mahalan, Teddy H.
10. Matolo, Shameera S.
11. Mustapha, Joe Omar
12. Tambut, Amirbahar A.

Province not Indicated
1. Cali, Aboali J.
2. Kamaluddin, MabibKiram H.
3. Lucman, Salamudin
4. Suenan, Romeo D.
5. Abdulwahab, Jala Karimudin
6. Rejie M. Sahali – Generale
7. Adiong, Ansaruddin Abdul Malik Alonto
8. Amirbahar A. Tambat
9. Albert A. Husin
10. Nujay M. Sahali
11. Benito Agham

Mindanao scholars used to underscore the role of “local strong men” who were an essential component of the central state’s efforts to extend its writ over the region. The elite bargain was built upon the state’s willingness to eschew revenue generation and to grant politico-military dominance to a few Moro elites in exchange for the latter providing political thugs and armed militias to secure far-flung territories, fight the communists and separatists, and extend the administrative reach of the state.

The economic basis of the elite bargain has changed since then. Political office has become more attractive due to the billions of pesos in IRA remittances that electoral victory provides. The “winner-takes-all” nature of local electoral struggles in Muslim Mindanao also means that competition is costlier and bloodier. Meanwhile, political authority may enable control over the formal economy, but the bigger prize is the power to monopolize or to extort money from those engaged in the lucrative business of illegal drugs, gambling, kidnap-for-ransom, gun-running, and smuggling, among others. The piracy of software, CDs and DVDs, and the smuggling of pearls and other gemstones from China and Thailand are seen as micro and small enterprises. These illegal economies and a small formal sector comprise the “real” economy of Muslim Mindanao.

The failure to appreciate how this underground economy, coupled with entitlements to massive government-to-government fund transfers, shapes prevailing notions of political legitimacy and authority in the region partly explains the inability of the central State to deal with lawlessness and conflict.

Political legitimacy in Muslim Mindanao has very little to do with protecting people’s rights or providing basic services. People rarely depend on government for welfare provision, and are consequently averse to paying any taxes. People actually expect local leaders to pocket government resources, and are willing to look the other way so long as their clans dominate and they are given a small slice during elections. Legitimacy is all about providing protection to your fellow clan members by trumping the firepower of your competitors, leaving people alone, and forgetting about taxes.

There were positive signs in the recent past, especially among the Moro women and youth who bore the brunt of conflict and who sought a different future. But achieving their aspirations depends on their ability to rise above clan structures and the dynamics of hierarchy and collective self-defense that bound its members. This dilemma was painfully exposed in the Maguindanao massacre, where Moro women who usually played a strategic role in negotiating an end to rido became its principal victims.

The sad thing about the recent massacre is that it could have been avoided. Everyone in Central Mindanao knew about the looming violence between the Ampatuan and Mangudadatu clans as early as March 2009, when the latter’s patriarch Pax Mangudadatu confronted Andal Ampatuan in a public gathering and made known his clan’s intention to challenge the latter’s political hold on Maguindanao. This threat was in turn based on the knowledge that Ampatuan was planning to undermine the Mangudadatus by fielding a challenger against them in Sultan Kudarat.

In short, the “looming” rido which pundits are predicting today actually started more than six months ago. Yet neither Malacañang nor the COMELEC, PNP, and the AFP made any attempt to monitor their activities, disarm their private security, demobilize their loyalists within the police and military, and ring-fence their camps.

Why?

The answer lies in the newfound role of Muslim Mindanao to national political elites. The region is known for a long history of electoral fraud. The difference today lies in its ability to provide the millions of votes that can overturn the results of national electoral contests, a situation brought about by the creation of a sub-national state (ARMM) and reinforced by the sort of democratic political competition in the post-Marcos era that makes local bosses more powerful and national leaders more beholden to them. This was the case in the presidential elections of 2004 and the senatorial race in 2007. It will serve the same purpose in 2010. Whose purpose is served by arresting Ampatuan in an election year? Certainly not those of the ruling coalition.

This partly explains the foot dragging and the lame treatment of principal suspects in the massacre. And to those pressing for limited martial rule in Maguindanao, beware what you wish for. Having a surfeit of troops on the ground can provide a superficial peace at best. At worse, it may facilitate the same type of electoral fraud in 2010, or leverage the firepower of the dominant clan over another.

In a region where the rebellion-related conflict between the GRP and the MILF received all of the national and international community’s attention and aid, NGOs such as International Alert and the Asia Foundation have often decried the ignorance and indifference of the government and donor agencies to community-based inter and intra clan violence. As International Alert asserts, it is time to focus on the confluence between both types and sources of violence and conflict. Indifference will only lead to more death and destruction as the election approaches, when a convergence between rebellion-related, and inter and intra clan conflict occurs as military forces and armed rebels take sides between warring clans and factions.

Mindanao scholars such as Patricio Abinales, James Putzel, and John Sidel have previously noted how local strong men made Mindanao, and how the region provided an ideal case of the country’s “imperfect democracy” and “political bossism”. More recently, the conflict scholar Stathis Kalyvas called attention to the birth of “ruthless political entrepreneurs” who shape and are shaped by the dynamics between states, clans, and conflict. The viciousness of the Maguindanao attack shows how these phenomena resonates here. It demonstrates the weak and narrow reach of the central Philippine state in Muslim Mindanao, and how the continued reliance on local strong men will not end the cycle of violence.

(Francisco Lara Jr. is Research Associate at the Crisis States Research Center, Development Studies Institute, London School of Economics.)

1. There is clear absence of Governance in many LGU’s in ARMM areas specifically in the areas of ZAMBASULTA where these kidnappings take place (with notable exceptions of course), and since governance and the LGU executives could not resonate within the local populace, there is no actual process of peace and order. Imagine a PO1 relative of a mayor becomes chief of Police and the Municipal town hall unoccupied for six months inhabited by Goats.

2. There is a clear need for governance not only to be felt but for the communities to be actively participative, therefore to make sure that peace and Order becomes also a concern for them.

There were also other concerns raised by Cong Hataman, too many to be mentioned here. But what is worth saying is that we have a need to have more of his kind, selfless political leaders who continually strive for the betterment of their constituents. being a leader who rose from the ranks, Mujiv knows what he is saying and what changes are needed to be made. we do hope that Mujiv eventually is able to make the people in the national government realize that they should listen to his policy reccomendations or lose investor confidence.

We know for a fact that by these time, Politicos have already mapped out the terrain, making shady deals, worshipping lizards, hanging Tarzans and even allowing themselves TV coverage, praying in Quiapo. WOW!

But for the moment before we start our sharp pen aiming for their necks let us have a discourse on what the people of Mindanao would expect.

I would like to pose a question, Is the Moro Vote significant to a 2010 presidential candidate?

Although we know that TEAM GLORIA relies much on central mindanao votes previously and that all political operators submerge themselves in the cash-strapped ARMM and Moro dominated provinces, little is there any news of any presidentiable trying to actually win the hearts and minds of the Moros. I dont mind asking if the ARMM people still aim to “vote” again for another administration candidate. But perhaps a genuine discourse on the Mindanao Issue can guarantee, the actual votes being cast for “Fulan” (presidentiable). Thinsg like, do you really like to have a federal form of government? would Fulan like to have another form of MOA AD signed? would he allow the setup of a government model simmilar to the federation of malaysian states? would he allow again malaysia to assist him in negotiating Peace, or allow China to help. Or Allow Barack Obama to help in establishing lasting peace in Mindanao. Your guess is as good as mine for Fulan Bin Fulan.

 
The MOA-AD is “dead”. This became the headline in newspapers when the Supreme Court (SC) declared the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) as unconstitutional last October 14, 2008. The “death” of the MOA-AD had divided and polarized the country like never before in recent history. 

The debate on the MOA awakened dormant religious prejudice and discrimination between Muslims and Christians. While the people who were Anti-MOA celebrated, some Moros felt that they had lost something. Some other Moro sectors felt like an “anti-dote” to the Moro problem was deliberately withheld from them. Disillusioned MILF rebels renewed hostilities with the government forces. Suddenly, the dreaded “ilagas” emerge and revived past Muslim-Christian community conflicts. There is so much blissful celebration and emotional retaliation by each side respectively, yet only a few really know the issues involved that was “killed” by the Supreme Court decision.  

In a sense it was a pyrrhic victory for it gave the impression that a negotiated peace settlement is unfeasible, further pushing those in the jungles of Mindanao to pursue their armed struggle as the only way of, paradoxically, achieving peace.  

With the escalating conflict in Central Mindanao which is displacing close to half a million civilians, it is important to understand the implication of the Supreme Court decision. The ruling must be viewed not as a wall that bars dialogue but rather as guidance to a better and peaceful settlement.  

Injustice: root cause of the Mindanao problem 

In order to understand the issue on the MOA-AD, it is important to have a working background of the Mindanao problem. It will be biased, however, if it is based on the perspective of a Moro. Thus, a re-statement of points made by Archbishop Orlando Quevedo (Archbishop Quevedo), the former two-term President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) and current Sec. Gen. of the Asian Bishops’ Conference, during the 27th General Assembly of the Bishops’ Businessmen’s Conference in Taguig, Metro Manila, on July 8, 2008 entitled, “Injustic: root cause of the Mindanao problem,” shall be more credible. 

He argued that the roots of the problem in Mindanao are due to three injustices, namely, against: (1) The Moro identity; (2) The Moro sovereignty; and, (3) The Moro integral development.  

The injustices against the Moro identity were the centuries of effort to “subjugate, assimilate and integrate the Bangsamoro without regard to their historical and cultural make-up, which is an injustice to the Bangsamoros’ religious, cultural and political identity.”  

As to the second, Archbishop Quevedo considered “a fundamental injustice,” the loss of sovereignty of the Moro which it defended for three centuries, only to be gradually lost to the US and the Philippine government. 

Lastly, with regard to the injustices against the Moro integral development,  “with the loss of political sovereignty came the loss of great chunks of Moro ancestral lands by legal enactments” of the government during those times. “The loss of land was compounded by government neglect of the Moro right to integral development. In all dimensions of human development, political, economic, educational, and cultural, the Moro population continues to lag far behind its Christian Filipino counterparts.”  

As the quest for justice is the spirit of the MOA, its basic element is the clamor for equality between the majority Christian citizens and the minority Muslims in the Philippines – equality in terms of integral development. Is there equality when the Bangsamoro people live with human development index (HDI) equal to the poorest countries in Africa, like Congro and Ethiopia? The HDI what the United Nations use to collectively measure standard of living, education, health, security, access and opportunity. Where is equality when people in ARMM, in general, has a life expectancy 20 years lower than the people in the rest of the country? Can there be equality when a US-AID study recently showed that the english comprehension of a significant number of teachers in ARMM are equal to a grade 4 pupil in Manila? Is there equality when a Tabang Mindanao study in 2006 showed that more than 90% of the people in Basilan, Sulu & Tawi-Tawi do not have access to potable drinking water?  

Some will dismiss this by putting all the blame on the Moros. Yet, who has the political and economic control in this country that can allocate resources and can have the political will to address major challenges? Sadly, the only consistent resource regularly sent to ARMM  are bombs and bullets. 

Economics Nobel price winner Amartya Sen, in his book, “Development as Freedom” expanded the definition of development. From simply a measure of income he included human capabilities. He calls this the “substantive human freedom.” In essence, he said that a people whose capabilities are not harnessed and developed are not free. In other words, a person whose mind, faculties, talents, gifts and capabilities are not developed and utilised are trapped in a poverty worst than the lack of money.  

SMART CEO Manny Pangilinan during a Philippine Business for Social Progress (PBSP) anniversary said that the ARMM is beset by the worst poverty of all, the “Poverty of Capacity.” Why? Because it constrains people to the point of being unable to even help themselves. A people who is blindfolded with ignorance and shackled with poverty are no worse than prisoners in a cell. If we really belong to one Nation, under one flag, why do we let more than four million people, who all belong to the minority Muslim ethnic groups, live as prisoners of ignorance, poverty and neglect? 

These perspectives have become the generally acceptable premise for grievances and sentiments that must be addressed by the present Administration and the Filipino people in general. This search for redress is, therefore, the spirit of the MOA-AD.  

Why the Supreme Court declared the MOA-AD unconstitutional 

If the quest for a solution to the injustices is the spirit of the MOA-AD, then that answer was not barred after all by the Supreme Court. Instead, what had only been declared unconstitutional was the means in arriving at such end as founded on five main grounds, to wit:  

(1) That no consultation was made on an issue that affects significantly a large territory and population;  

(2) That the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) had provided a clear procedure on how ancestral land may be granted to indigenous peoples and the Executive Branch does not have the power to unilaterally supersede a procedure mandated by law;  

(3) That it would have been a binding international agreement that would compel the Philippines to support the right to self-determination of the Bangsamoro people;  

(4) That the Executive Branch cannot guarantee that the Constitution will conform with the MOA; and, 

(5) The concept of “Associative” relationship is a “transition point to independence” which threatens the territorial integrity of the Country. 

1. Violation on the peoples right to information

Section 7 Article III of the Philippine Constitution recognizes ”the right of the people to information on matters of public concern.” The Local Government Code of 1991 further “require all national agencies to conduct periodic consultations with appropriate local government units before any program is implemented in their respective jurisdictions.” Yet, in this matter that is definitely of public concern, no consultation nor public information was made. Thus, the Supreme Court declared that the government negotiators abused their discretion by not informing and consulting the people most affected by the proposed policies, as mandated by law. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court did not forbid the Executive branch from proposing peace solutions. It merely slammed the deceptive secrecy in the drafting of the peace agreement.  

An overview of the petitions will show that the primary relief sought was the exclusion of their territory in the proposed BJE. It is evident, therefore, that the greatest fear of the MOA-AD oppositionists is to be under a proposed Bangsamoro government, whose present condition in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) is far from encouraging. Statistics say that it has the highest poverty incidence, the lowest access to all government services, and the poorest governance indicators.  

Hence, this challenge must first be addressed prior to any contemplated expansion. ARMM should first be made the model region in the country not necessarily in economic prosperity but even just in the transformation from “governance of the guns” to good governance. The success of “internal self determination” must first be proved with an improved bureaucratic and service delivery system in ARMM before other people would realistically be expected to say “yes” to a plebiscite to be part of it. 

2. The IPRA has its own procedure that must be followed

The MOA-AD had envisaged “ancestral domain” to be given by virtue of an executive agreement. The Supreme Court declared it as unlawful since it is contrary to the procedure laid out by the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act.  The law requires a process of delineation, presentation of proof, investigation and approval of by the National Council of Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) and due notice. 

In spite of this, Father Joaquin Bernas, S.J. believes that an executive agreement is no longer necessary to grant the Moros their Ancestral Land as the IPRA law may suffice.  

Flashing back to a hundred years ago, the Americans, after purchasing the Philippine Islands were actually “shocked” by the “small dots” of territory that Spain controlled in Mindanao.  However, the government declared all lands without Torrence titles issued by the Spaniards as public lands. With almost all Moro land not registered with the Spaniards against whom they had fought for more than three centuries and to whom they did not surrender their sovereignty, almost all Moro lands in Mindanao were declared public property. Now, what are left to the Moros are the small islands of the Sulu archipelago, the outskirts of the Lanao Lake, and the volatile plains of Maguindanao.  

It is true. This past historical injustices that were allowed by the laws then could not be corrected by another injustice to the present generations who now occupy the lands. However, there are still thousands of hectares that remain as public property that may be given to the Moros thru the issuance of Ancestral Land titles. These may still be granted to correct a historical wrong.  

The Subanon tribe, with a national indigenous peoples survey estimating their population at 90,000, is currently processing an application for 15,000 hectares of Ancestral Land title in Zamboanga Peninsula. If they can forward a claim, then why can’t the more than 4.3 million Muslims in the Philippines apply and reclaim some of the Ancestral land “legacies” that Moro ancestors had defended and fought for three centuries?  

It is a popular belief by the public that the MOA-AD will grant Ancestral Land titles even if it is already under private ownership. This is not true. What the MILF wants to take back are those public lands that remain unused, unutilized, or at least uninhabited. Also, Ancestral land titles awarded by the IPRA cover lands that are State-owned and do not include areas already owned by private individuals. In fact, according to the NCIP, of the 15,000 applied for by the Subanon tribe, only 9,000 may actually be awarded since the rest are already of private ownership. It is clear then that the law ensures that land already owned by its citizens are protected. This may also give an insight that the individual tribes of the Moro must apply to the IPRA to avoid the confusion since the term Bangsamoro is defined differently by the ARMM organic act compared with the proposed MOA. This may also hasten the delineation between the Ancestral domain of different tribes considered under the term Bangsamoro. 

The Supreme Court noted further that there is a significant difference though with Ancestral Domain as proposed in the MOA and Ancestral Land as defined in the IPRA. The former involves more control over the resources found in the land while the later is simply a land title as evidence of ownership. Nonetheless, since the present law already grants Ancestral Land titles, the Moro indigenous people must not wait for another decade to apply. By the time another peace agreement is signed, all areas may have either been converted to private land or granted as Ancestral land to other indigenous groups. 

Basically, the Supreme Court did not declare that the Moros are not entitled to their Ancestral Land. The Court simply stated that there is a procedure that must be followed based on the existing law.  

3. It may have been a binding International obligation

Justice Adolfo Azcuna warned that the MOA-AD “would have provided a basis for a suit in an international court ”since the Philippines made a unilateral declaration before representatives of the international community.” Moreover, since international law is not limited by precedence, the MILF GRP MOA may have become a landmark case that would have compelled the Philippines to enforce the agreement. 

However, even without the MOA, there is now an international customary law that supports the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples. Last September 13, 2007, the UN General Assembly adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples through General Assembly Resolution 61/295. The Philippine government was one of the 142 countries that signed the declaration. Article 3 of the declaration states: “Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” Furthermore Article 26 states: “Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.” 

Along this line, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the Philippines “adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land.” This makes the UN Declaration part of the laws of the Philippines. Furthermore, the doctrine of “pacta sunt servanda” in International law obliges the Philippines to “perform in good faith” such UN Declaration. This enjoins the country to continue searching for a remedy to the valid grievances of the Moros. Of course, democratic processes must be followed and proper consultations made, not only in the implementation, but to include the conceptualisation process. 

4. The Executive branch cannot guarantee the Constitution to conform with the MOA 

Justice Ruben Reyes said that the Executive Department went beyond its powers in unilaterally guaranteeing an amendment to the Constitution to conform with the MOA-AD. Such power, as Justice Antonio Carpio also contended, belongs to Congress and the People. On the other hand, Justice Minita Chico-Nazario deemed it within the powers of the Executive to offer solutions beyond what the present constitution allows when circumstances of ”internal conflict” justifies. Nonetheless, the majority of the SC Justices agreed that the Executive Department “gave a promise that it could not deliver.”  

The Supreme Court recognizes the power of amendment to the Constitution to reside with Congress and the people and not with the President. The Executive may recommend, but not guarantee, amendments. Thus, the peace process should change gear and direction and move towards the realization of the Federalism proposal. A charter change that will push for a federal-presidential government system with a regionalized senate will help the country decentralize political and economic power. Indirectly, this will move will give the Moro a more meaningful autonomy.  

Now is the time for a serious debate on this issue not only by the legislators, but by all stakeholders, especially the people. More importantly, the MNLF, MILF and other minority sectors who have issues should start preparing concrete proposals, conduct consultations and popularize their issues. At the end of the day, good ideas will just be thrown in the garbage bin if it does not get the acceptance of the leaders and general public.  

Only by long term comprehensive planning that engages all stakeholders can we truly arrive at a sustainable national roadmap. The case of the MOA may have been another product of disjointed planning where the left hand plans things that the right hand, and absurdly, even the “head”, does not know. Where else can you find a government that suddenly declares a MOA-AD as a solution then retracts a few weeks thereafter? Like a fickle, it suddenly reverses its statement. It announces that it will not sign it “in any form” and states that it will shift be changed to “community based consultation”, and, then, changes strategy yet again to a Disarmament, Demobilisation, and Rehabilitation (DDR) program. This clearly shows a lack of long term comprehensive agenda.  

Having three distinct plans with only a few weeks of intervals shows a total lack of deep understanding and political will to solve to address this national problem; but, the present administration should not totally be blamed. It is the system itself that makes political survival and post-administration security the number one priority of any president. 

5. The “Associative” relationship is a “transition to independence.”

The decision of the court stated “In international practice, the ‘associated state’ arrangement has usually been used as a transitional device of former colonies on their way to full independence.”   

As regards to the transition aspect, the “associated” relationship was used by the British government as a transitional phase for its former colonies, most of whom were members of the short lived West Indies Federation. As colonies of the British Crown, they were inevitably on the way towards independence due to the process of decolonization after World War II. The British government themselves had the political will to grant independence. Almost all countries held as colonies by Western and European countries have ever since been granted independence.  

In the case of the Philippines, political will for the dismemberment of the country is an unimaginable option. The GRP and MILF negotiators may not have intended the “associative” relationship as a jumping board for independence. In law, the nature of contracts are not only defined by what they are called but more importantly by the elements present. Moreover, the basic characteristics present in the “associative” system are also present in the Senate Joint Resolution No. 10 as endorsed by 16 senators this year. In fact, the much feared power of being able to demand independence in an “associative” BJE is also present in the Federal proposal. The Senate proposal gives a State the right to secede upon approval of two thirds of Congress voting separately. Also, the “associative” power of having State police while external defense rests with the “central government” is also present in the proposed Federal system. So is more power given with regard to control of natural resource and having foreign economic ties. In essence actually, the BJE is an empowered version of the Bangsamoro State proposed by the Senate. 

While the Supreme Court has “killed” the proposed MOA by the Executive Department, the “spirit” of the MOA is still proposed by the Legislative Branch in the Federal system of government proposal. It is just waiting for its time to come. The Supreme Court had declared that only the Legislature and the people are endowed with the power to change the Constitution. It is beyond the power of the Executive to transgress. But then again, if the Country will have a new Charter after the 2010 elections, then the Supreme Court will have a new frame of reference in declaring unconstitutionality. What may be unconstitutional today, may not necessarily be unconstitutional a few years from now.  

The spirit of the MOA-AD lives on 

In summary, the spirit of the MOA survived. The Court merely required consultation, the proper IPRA procedures and restrained the President from giving promises it cannot keep. It also identified the Legislative and the people as the ones with the real power to give what the spirit of the MOA seeks. Therefore, the peace process should focus on being able to convince the legislative branch of government and the people to co-own aspects of the MOA that can lawfully be incorporated during the Charter Change.  

The Supreme Court decision can be viewed “as a light that shows the right way” instead of being perceived as the “executioner” of the peace process. With this decision, where does the path to peace go? The practical and feasible way is the Federal system of government proposal. Much of the points raised in the MOA can be accommodated in the Federal concept. The aspect on Ancestral domain, may at this point be pushed through the IPRA law.  

The urgent and important issue that must be addressed by the peace process, the proposed federal government or the present Administration is the problem of education in ARMM. Since education is the greatest equalizer amidst poverty, an “intensive-care” approach should be made in rehabilitating the educational system of ARMM. The government must elevate the principle of “Parens Patriae” to apply to the region and take responsibility over the deteriorating quality of education in ARMM which is debilitating the next Moro generations. 

According to Al Jazeera news channel, the father of President Barrack Hussein Obama was born and raised in one of the poorest communities in Africa, with no access to electricity and television. Since his grandmother and most of his relatives in Kenya are Muslims, he faced a double edged prejudice – first, as an African-American and second being associated to Muslims. Yet in spite of these negative stereotypes and being part of the minority, it was simply quality education that empowered the son of a poor African-American to become the most influential man on earth today. More amazing is that, it can happen in one generation. The fact that Obama got elected as President of the US shows that there is hope for change in this world. The spirit of change, emanating from the most powerful country in the world, may hopefully also spark the momentum of change in our Country. 

The aborted MOA signing should be taken as a positive change in the long history of war the Philippines. A recognized revolutionary armed group is willing have a paradigm shift to seriously believe in a negotiated agreement instead of an armed struggle. Although the GRP negotiators may be scolded for making gross mistakes, the MILF should still be given credit for believing in the democratic process. The burden of being within the bounds of the laws rested on the government and not with the MILF. Thus, the peace process should continue. But a real peace process must involve the government as a whole and its people.  

The fear of having part of the country secede, should be met with sincere effort to address the root causes that divide the country. Fear and military force should not be the iron chain that keeps this country together. It should be the universal love by the Country to all its citizens no matter what religion, ethnicity, and geographic location. The Moro people must be given a chance to be equal with his fellow Filipinos in all aspects:  in practice and not just in law – in reality and not just in the ideal sense. 

At the end of the day, the spirit of the MOA-AD will continue to find a way to be realized. The MOA proposal may have been stopped on its tracks by the Supreme Court, but the grievances and injustices that drove it still exist. Hence, as long as the spirit of the MOA-AD, which Archbishop Quevedo divided into three injustices, lives on and the gross inequality between the minority and majority remains, then there will always be a clamor for change and justice.  

The interconnected problems of wars, poverty and illiteracy are merely symptoms of deeper causes such as the aforementioned injustices. Only by addressing these injustices can we stop the vicious cycle of conflict that hampers development. While there are those who advocate justice by democratic means, most of them simply fall on deaf ears or are silenced. Consequently, only those who advocate with guns are heard. Thereafter, the government misinterprets this as purely a security problem which can only be resolved by “an all out war.” However, a military solution is only palliative in nature and will never address the issues raised nor solve the problem. If only the hundreds of billions of pesos spent on war is used to address the injustice to the Moro integral development, perhaps peace would be more within reach. 

Change and justice will never be achieved by having more blood spilled on the fertile lands of Mindanao, but by the ink of the pen on paper. In fact, Muslims are taught that “the ink of a scholar is holier than the blood of a martyr.” Undeniably, as the beginning of the injustice started with unjust laws and executive policies a century ago, justice can only be institutionalized by incorporating affirmative action into our Constitution, statutes and jurisprudence.  

More than quarter of a million people have already died due to the Mindanao conflict in the last five decades. How many more people must die by the bullets and bombs for a cause that only a pen can resolve? 

—
Comments regarding this article may be emailed to donloong@yahoo.com 

[Engr. Don Mustapha Arbison Loong is the President of WMSU Law Students’ Association, the former Provincial Administrator of Sulu, a US State Dept. International Visitor Alumni, a British Chevening Fellow to Bradford University, UK, an AIM Bridging Leadership Fellow, a former delegate to the South East Asian Conflict Studies Network in Thailand, an Outwardbound Global Leader to the peak Mt. Kilimanjaro, Tanzania, Africa, and the President of the Movement for Economic Development in Sulu Foundation, Inc. He is also one of the founding co-convenors of the Young Moro Professionals Network]

When the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front caused a wave of protests among different sectors of society, we feared the resurging of anti-Moro discrimination and prejudice.

Though we believed that the said Memorandum of Agreement could have been a major breakthrough in the peace process, we adhered and respected the Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Supreme Court, acknowledging the right to information and consultation raised by the protesters. We welcomed this opportunity for calmness, rationality and objectivity in the discussion and study of the Agreement, thereby easing our aforementioned fear. 

However, today (August 6, 2008) our fear stared right in front of us, right in the front page of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, coming from the least expected person, as we have revered and esteemed him for his eloquence, brilliance and uncorrupted stance in major public controversies in the past.

Exercising utmost prudence, we did not settle for what the news reported. We asked for a copy of the mentioned Privilege Speech of the Honorable Representative Teddy Boy Locsin, and much to our grief, the words in the actual Speech only served to confirm our fears.

We recognize the oppositions against the content of the Agreement, even the process by which it was carried out. But to put forward arguments based on misconceptions about Islam and derogatory statements about the Moro people is uncalled for, especially from a statesman such as the Honorable Representative.

If a highly educated, respected authority like Congressman Locsin thought and felt this way towards the Moro people and Muslims in general, one can only surmise what an ordinary non-Moro, non-Muslim thinks about us.

It is for this consideration, that we are compelled to negate some points raised by the good Congressman, made not in bad faith, we would like to believe, but out of the lack of acquaintance with the Moro People’s History and the dynamics of Islam.

Enumerated in the Speech under Items Four, Five and Six are what the Representative say will result from the MOA – an allusion to the establishment of an anarchic, Afghanistan-style government, “an educational system teaching even undemocratic political values along with intolerant religious ideas,” “without any of the civilized limitations in the Bill of Rights, such as equal protection of the laws, due process, and the prohibition against such cruel and unusual punishments as stoning to death a woman taken in adultery or just suspected. Indeed, it shall possess absolute powers without any prohibition against the discrimination, abuse and enslavement of women, which happens in some Muslim states.”

We do not deny the fact that these occur in countries where Muslims are a majority (there are questions among Muslim authorities on the use of the term “Islamic State” as the claim of some countries to be such is still highly debated upon), but they are also occurrences in many non-Muslim nations. Yes there are Muslims who allege that these are Islamic teachings, but many Muslims believe that these are misrepresentations arising from conservative interpretation of Islam, contrary to the true essence of Islam as established in Qur’anic hermeneutical exegesis. We are not in the position to lecture on Islamic theology and we know that this is not the proper forum. However, allow us to share the following Rights prescribed in Islam:

1. BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS:

1. The Right to Life
2. The Right to the Safety of Life
3. Respect for the Chastity of Women
4. The Right to a Basic Standard of Life
5. Individual’s Right to Freedom
6. The Right to Justice
7. Equality of Human Beings
8. The Right to Co-operate and not to Co-operate

2. RIGHTS OF CITIZENS IN AN ISLAMIC STATE:

1. The Security of Life and Property
2. The Protection of Honor
3. The Sanctity and Security of Private Life
4. The Security of Personal Freedom
5. The Right to Protest Against Tyranny
6. Freedom of Expression
7. Freedom of Association
8. Freedom of Conscience and Conviction
9. Protection of Religious Sentiments
10. Protection from Arbitrary Imprisonment
11. The Right to Basic Necessities of Life
12. Equality Before Law
13. Rulers not above the Law
14. The Right to Avoid Sin
15. The Right to Participate in the Affairs of the State

3. RIGHTS OF ENEMIES AT WAR:

1. The Rights of the Non-Combatants
2. The Rights of the Combatants

1. • Right Against Torture with fire
   • Protection of the Wounded
   • The Prisoner of War should not be Slain
   • No one should be tied to be killed
   • No looting and destruction in the enemy’s country
   • Sanctity of Property
   • Sanctity of a Dead Body
   • Return of Corpses of the Enemy
   • Prohibition of Breach of Treaties
   • Rules about Declaration of War

These Fundamental Rights were laid down by Islam six hundred years before the concept of human rights was said to be introduced in the Magna Carta of Britain. They are Rights due to every single being, regardless of race, sex or religion. Muslims are to uphold these Rights with utmost compliance because in the words of the Muslim scholar, Syed Maududi, “…when we speak of human rights in Islam we really mean that these rights have been granted by God; they have not been granted by any king or by any legislative assembly. The rights granted by the kings or the legislative assemblies, can also be withdrawn in the same manner in which they are conferred. But since in Islam human rights have been conferred by God, no legislative assembly in the world, or any government on earth has the right or authority to make any amendment or change in the rights conferred by God. No one has the right to abrogate them or withdraw them. Nor are they the basic human rights which are conferred on paper for the sake of show and exhibition and denied in actual life when the show is over. Nor are they like philosophical concepts which have no sanctions behind them.”

Furthermore, no less than the Prophet (S.A.W.) said, “On the day of judgment, rights will be given to those to whom they are due (and wrongs will be redressed…)

The violation by some Muslims of this decree does not justify the attribution of cruelty to all Muslims or to Islam in general.

We hope to have shed a speck of light on the issue of Islam, Human Rights and Democracy. Allow us now to clarify some points raised about the Moro People and our Struggle for Right to Self-Determination.

Rep. Locsin started his speech by saying it is easy for one (such as Rep. Dilangalen) to approach the issue calmly, for he stands to gain an entirely new country. May we remind or if indeed he is ignorant of the fact, inform his honor that the Moro’s struggle is not about GAINING a new country, but about REGAINING what was unjustly taken away from us. And in this particular agreement, this opportunity of regaining what is rightfully ours is not even without conditions.

The Moro people is not what he called new-minted citizens. Sir, we have been a civilized people long before the Spaniards came. We were a sovereign nation 448 years before the Philippines even became one. Our government had treaty relations with the Spaniards, the French and the Americans. Long before Magellan discovered the Philippines, Jolo was already serving as one of the international trading ports in the Malayan world, frequented by Arab, Chinese and other Asian traders. We had a defined land territory and we are not solely seafarers as mentioned. Perhaps the good Congressman forgot, Manila started as a Muslim community ruled by Rajah Sulayman.

If we have become the lowly people that we are now, bereft of civility and dignity as many see us to be, we can only point to a stepmother who has forsaken us after forcibly taking us along with our legitimate inheritance into her custody. From the very beginning, the Moro people were not remiss in their resistance against inclusion in the Philippines. But despite pleas, petitions and clamors in every means imaginable, the interest of the Moro people was never sufficiently addressed or at the very least heard. In the drafting of the 1935 Constitution, a group of Moros wrote a letter to the Constitutional Convention, asking for a guarantee of their political, economic and socio-cultural survival as a people. This found no space in the said Constitution. The letter was not even read. It is said that in protest of this injustice, a Christian Filipino delegate from Lanao, Hon. Tomas Cabili did not sign the Constitution.

But despite these, many of us grew up to be loving, respectful and obedient children of this nation. But just like illegitimate children, we are forever challenged to prove our loyalty, to struggle in order to gain respect and acceptance or even just to belong. We are eternally striving to prove our worth and to at least get the attention that we deserve but never had. And in times when we cry, longing for our identity in our own home, we are called insurgents, rebels, traitors and dealt with as such.

The Filipino nation has not and from the recent debacles about the peace process, will never be able to accept us unconditionally for who and what we are. Yet, the Filipino nation denies us, even a glimpse of hope to regain our lives. What can be more cruel than that?

This is not to serve the interest of the peace process, more so push for the contentious Memorandum of Agreement. Public debates on the issue are everywhere. This is a mere attempt to provide an alternative perspective on what has been said, particularly in the subject Privilege Speech, which we know, represents the feelings and insights of many of our Christian Filipino brothers and sisters.

Lastly, the said Speech also questioned the intervention of the Malaysian government. We cannot speak in behalf of Malaysia. But this we can say, the Moro People’s Right to Self-Determination is a universally upheld Right. Between Malaysia, who recognizes this right, and one who is not aware of, much more support this right, who now is bereft of the spirit of human rights, democracy and justice?

TOMORROW the Government of the Republic of the Philippines will sign with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, in Kuala Lumpur, the capital of the country that was funding the secessionist struggle in the South, a peace agreement. It is styled as an innocuous “MOA” (memorandum of agreement), supposedly on just the subject of ancestral domain. In truth, it shall be part of a comprehensive peace agreement whose details are, however, also spelled out in the MOA, which, for all intents and purposes, gives away the very vitals of a sovereign country, a republic and a democracy to boot.

In fact, the MOA also styles itself as “a treaty,” which can only be between sovereign countries.

The MOA “promises” or rather already concedes on the part of the GRP

1. 1. A virtually new state with a new name, Bangsa Moro Homeland (a designation it can substitute for, say, the Bangsa Moro Republic, once it assumes the full status of sovereign state which the GRP effectively grants it.) True, the agreement uses the seemingly neutral phrase “juridical entity” but the terms of the agreement flesh out this abstract concept with all the attributes of a sovereign entity.
2. This new state shall have new-minted citizens called Bangsa Moros, not Filipinos.
3. It shall have a defined land territory such as the bold sea-faring Muslims in the Philippines never had in their entire history.
4. It shall have the right—no, the power, for right assumes the GRP will continue to play the sovereign part in its affairs that it thereby effectively surrenders—yes, it shall have the power to choose any form of government even theocracy, though more likely anarchy as in Afghanistan.
5. It shall have its own police force, civil bureaucracy, financial system, personal and family, commercial and political laws, and an educational system teaching even undemocratic political values along with intolerant religious ideas.
6. As such, it shall exercise absolute political powers, without  any of the civilized limitations in the Bill of Rights, such as equal protection of the laws, due process, and the prohibition against such cruel and unusual punishments as stoning to death a woman taken in adultery or just suspected. Indeed, it shall possess absolute powers without any prohibition against the discrimination, abuse and enslavement of women, which happens in some Muslim states. Never mind, to borrow Lincoln’s famous words, that “a house divided cannot stand,” a democracy cannot be half slave and half free. And no free country can willingly consign any part of itself to autocracy, even a divinely sanctioned one.
7. It shall posses not the right—for again the GRP shall have lost all legal control over it—but the power to conduct foreign relations for its own account. This power is timidly limited only by the faint hope that the Bangsa Moro Homeland shall not enter into a treaty of war with a foreign country against the Philippines; a useless collatilla because no country has entered into a treaty to wage war since World War I, like that between Russia, France and Serbia. The usual treaty is a nonaggression pact or a mutual defense pact, which, the Bangsa Moro Homeland may enter into with a foreign state, like Malaysia, against any attempt by its former sovereign, the Philippines, to regain in a subsequent administration what it lost of the country in this one.
8. It shall have the power to exploit, with just the smallest expectation that it will share with the Philippines 25 percent, all the wealth the Bangsa Moro Homeland is able to extract by itself or with foreign countries while recognizing its right to terminate at will any and all existing property rights or contractual relations in the area.
9. It shall do all these things regardless of what our Constitution may require because the agreement nowhere spells out that the Philippine Constitution shall govern, let alone hinder, the full implementation of any part of the agreement. Under the Parol Evidence Rule, no evidence of past or contemporaneous agreements or negotiations is admissible to change or interpret the terms of any agreement other than the words of the agreement itself, exclusively. Indeed, I was told that the Malaysians insisted that the phrases Philippine Constitution, Bill of Rights, or Philippine law be firmly excluded from the language of the agreement. So how can they limit or govern an agreement that firmly denies them any role.

In fact, the agreement nowhere mentions a requirement for charter change—as presumed by opposition leaders. And if I recall rightly, the agreement shall be binding on the parties upon the  signing of the same by the same, without need for any other act, such as charter change or enabling legislation.

The MOA that will be signed tomorrow is a self-executing agreement to which the Malaysian observers will hold the Philippines before international tribunals and bodies, first and foremost the Organization of Islamic Conference and, probably, too, the United States which has long wanted to give with one hand what it firmly withholds in another part of the world: an independent though malleable state for Muslims in the Philippines but never for Palestinians in Palestine.

In fact, there is in that agreement a good faith clause that is deemed violated when further negotiations veer in any degree from its strict terms.

We were told that giving due course to the bill postponing the ARRM election was a confidence building measure to keep the MILF at the negotiating table until the agreement tomorrow is signed. Well, let us wait to see if it will be signed. So let us wait until tomorrow to vote on the postponement.

Now we are told that the fate of the agreement is not in any way contingent on the fate of the postponement of the ARMM election. Especially since the there is only the smallest hope that the bill on the floor will pass in the Senate, or that even if it is a law, it will be heeded by the COMELEC unless the Supreme Court issues an injunction against it—all of which may be too late.

We are told now that just passing this bill in the House with scant regard to its certain defeat in the Senate will be more in the manner of a political statement by a political body, the House of Representatives, which is the House of the People, that it agrees with the first steps taken by the GRP in the peace talks, the postponement of the ARMM elections which are no part of the agreement, and including the Memorandum of Agreement which creates a Bangsa Moro Homeland as I have described.

That is why we are here speaking for or against that agreement because this vote today will be taken to mean our tacit consent or outright rejection of an agreement that gives away part of our country, to an armed movement that may treat its inhabitants with the brutality that has long characterized its actions—regardless of race or creed.

For we stand here today, not for Christians nor for Muslims, but for all law-abiding Filipinos who do not wish to be put under the iron rule of those who have not only lived by the gun but, by the craven posture of the GRP panel, triumphed with the gun in this agreement.

Had this been a bill merely to accommodate the political needs of our Muslim colleagues in the House, I would vote for it as I pushed through both House and Senate an earlier measure to postpone the ARMM elections.

But this is a bill tied to a larger issue, an issue about which all the members of this House, except for Ronnie Zamora and me, have been treated like mushrooms; which is to say, kept in the dark and fed manure.

Even Muslim mayors voiced as the main concern of their constituents the pushing through, rather than delay, of the ARMM polls. Not least because it will put in place democratically elected officials who will truly reflect the real Muslim consensus in Mindanao about a peace agreement that may end up favoring the reckless, the bold and the brutal rather than the peaceful and law-abiding.

Charter change, which is not provided for in the agreement, may, after all, be the real motivation. But this government is so mistrusted, not to say disliked, that even a successful shift in the form of government will not perpetuate it beyond 2010.

Perhaps the lure are the rich financial prizes awaiting those who pave the way for foreign business and foreign governments to strike deals over natural resources in an independent Bangsa Moro Homeland, without the usual hassles from a rambunctious Philippine democracy and free press.

We are told by the leadership of the House that this vote is no longer just about the forlorn hope of postponing the ARMM elections but about tacitly ratifying an agreement none of you has seen and which actually does not need your approval to go into effect. Join me then in voting NO top what you do not know.

Friendship, of course, is of the greatest importance to me and the rest of us; without friendship what is life; but country, country cannot be compromised, for without country, what are we? Thank you.