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]

Sometime in 2006, if memory serves me right, Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita told a group of foreign diplomats and media men that the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) finds it difficult to deal with the ‘Moro rebels’ because they are splintered into so many factions. Ermita was alluding to the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) as well as to the various factions of the latter.

The point that Ermita was trying to impress upon his audience was that the negotiation between the MILF and the GRP, which was going through a rough time at that particular moment, is quite impossible to conclude because the GRP does not know whom to deal with. That is why, he averred, the Moro Fronts have to unite first and put their acts together before the GRP can ink a final deal with the MILF. This is not, however the first time that Ermita raised this issue.

Apparently, Ermita at that time was looking for a good pretext to justify the GRP’s foot-dragging over the matter of concluding an agreement on Ancestral Domain with the MILF. This foot-dragging had caused the impasse in December 2006 as well as all the subsequent snags in the peace negotiation in 2007 and 2008.

But as recent events show, what Ermita was trying to project proves to be the other way around: the problem does not lie with the Moro liberation movement. The problem of  uncertainty  in concluding an agreement, especially on ancestral domain, that would usher in the end of the conflict in Mindanao is with the GRP.

For about four years since 2004, the MILF and the GRP were locked in critical negotiations over ancestral domain, which is the third and last aspect in the MILF-GRP Tripoli Agreement on Peace of June 2001. The MILF and GRP panels could not put closure to this Agreement until the Ancestral Domain is resolved and translated into a sub-agreement form. Once translated into sub-agreement form, i.e. the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD), the negotiation can now proceed to its last phase which is the table discussion on, and crafting of, the Comprehensive Political Compact which will embody the final formula designed for resolving the conflict in Mindanao.

Unfortunately, when the MOA-AD, which was earlier initialed by the chairs of the MILF and GRP panels, was set to be signed formally in an elaborate ceremony hosted by the Malaysian Government the Philippine Supreme Court acted on the petition of Filipino politicians headed by the colon vice-governor of North Cotabato, Emmanuel Piñol, by issuing a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to stop the GRP Panel from signing the MOA-AD. The TRO was issued on August 4, the eve of the signing ceremony at Putrajaya, the administrative capital of Malaysia. The result was what the MILF calls a faux pas, a ‘political and diplomatic’ blunder, that caused great embarrassment for the GRP because its last minute withdrawal from the ceremony made it appear like a fool before the representatives of the international community who were there to attend the would-be historic event.

There is however, a more a serious implication to this than just the faux pas in Kuala Lumpur. The whole debacle brings to fore the issue that Ermita raised on several occasions when he asked whom shall the GRP negotiate with in the face of the factionalism within the Moro liberation movement. But this time, it is the MILF that should ask the same question: With whom shall the MILF negotiate – the Arroyo regime, Congress, Supreme Court, the Church, the Big Business power blocs, the AFP or Piñol and the Filipino colons in Mindanao?

Former General Rodolfo Garcia, GRP chief negotiator, practically begged for this question when he stated to the media that in the event the Supreme Court rules against the legality of the MOA-AD, the GRP Negotiating Panel will have to renegotiate the Ancestral Domain issue with the MILF. After more than three months of ‘due diligence’ – three months that it took the legal experts commissioned by the GRP to study the constitutionality and legality of the draft MOA-AD – now the GRP Negotiating Panel Chair is telling us that the same issue which took four years to settle on the negotiating table has to be renegotiated.

What happened to the “due diligence” of the legal experts of the GRP?

Who are we going to negotiate with this time, the Supreme Court?

Who, indeed?

Why not Piñol and Celso Lobregat who seem to be more powerful than the GRP or the Philippine Republic?

If one has to listen to the griping against the MOA-AD and give validity to the claims of those Filipino sectors that say that they are the stakeholders in Mindanao but were not consulted, it is as if it is the Bangsamoro people who have no right to assert their own claim to their ancestral domain. The Filipinos have forgotten that the Moro homeland has been occupied and owned by the Moros since time immemorial and for which they have sacrificed many lives down the centuries to preserve and defend from aliens, including the Filipino colons, who covet it.

The question posed above, now primordial in view of the debacle in Kuala Lumpur, is what Ermita et al should answer.

Except for the politically senile Nur Misuari, the still potent factions of the MNLF are one with the MILF behind the Bangsamoro Ancestral Domain issue. Brother Muslimin Sema, the current mayor of Cotabato City and recently elected chair of the MNLF Central Committee, was there in Putrajaya; and so was Brother Jikiri, former MNLF-Bangsamoro Army Chief of Staff and now a member of the Philippine Congress, among others. Other MNLF leaders would have been there if it were not of the relatively heavy financial requirement for travel.

Moro civil society groups were also there in full force, including the representative of a once secret Moro revolutionary society in the late 60s whose members became the core of the first batch of young Moro foreign-trained guerilla cadres that formed what was to become the MNLF. They all came to witness a very historic, nay, a highly emotional event that was the near culmination of the long and hard revolutionary struggle of the Bangsamoro people. Every Moro who went to Putrajaya to witness the signing took part in it one way or the other.

But what is most interesting and highly significant is that the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) was present in the person of its representative, Dr. Sayed Al Masry, Adviser to the OIC Secretary General and Special Envoy for the Peace Process in Southern Philippines. According to Dr. Al Masry, his presence at Putrajaya is not only to witness the signing but to endorse the MOA-AD for and in behalf of the OIC.

It has to be noted that in the past the OIC had been hesitant to recognize any peace agreement other that those between the MNLF and GRP. This change of mind indicates that the OIC has now realized the reality on the ground in Mindanao that it is currently the MILF that is on the driver seat of the peace negotiation with the GRP. That the MILF has gained more than what was accomplished by the MNLF on the negotiating table is a realization that finally dawned on the OIC.

What do all of these presences signify? These signify the important fact that the MILF has done its homework of uniting behind the MOA-AD the domestic and international forces needed to be harnessed to give it legitimate recognition and legitimacy. In contrast, the GRP, alas, has dismally failed even to get the support of its own officials or, to be more precise, the other two major branches of government – the legislative and the judiciary. Worse, it even failed to draw support from its constituency, the Filipino public.

That said, the aborted signing in Kuala Lumpur reopened the proverbial can of worms. For one, it exposed the internal weaknesses of the GRP, particularly the inutility of the sitting regime. Having been forced to cancel the act of affixing its signature on a document that it had already initialed earlier, the GRP is cast in a situation whereby its capability to conclude peace agreements with the MILF, not to mention the MNLF and the National Democratic Front (NDF),  is now open to doubt. And this does not augur well for the peace process in Mindanao because elements within the Moro liberation movement who oppose negotiations with the GRP seem to have been proven right.

Indeed, why negotiate with a weak and inutile government that cannot exercise authority over its own people let alone deliver on its commitments in the agreements it signed with other parties?

This can of worms has also regurgitated another unsavory reality that has been with us ever since our forefathers fought the Spaniards and their Indio factotums: the anti-Moro attitude of the Filipinos.

We are aghast at the way Filipino politicians, whether in and out of government, and with the help of the media, have whipped up an anti-Moro, anti-Muslim hysteria that has swept the whole country. It is simply nauseating to see and hear on radio and TV these politicians blatantly and publicly distort the MOA-AD and turn it into propaganda to demonize the MILF, the Bangsamoro people and Islam. It is sickening to note that they are playing on the ignorance of the Filipino public to drum up opposition to an agreement that would be the key to resolving a long-drawn conflict that has confined both the Bangsamoro and Filipino peoples in the political, economic and social quagmire.

The MILF-GRP agreements, and notably the MOA-AD, never talk of Moro independence. Yet, with the way it is being presented to the public by these politicians and the media it is as if the MOA-AD were already a declaration of independence by the MILF and the Bangsamoro people.

In an endless mantra that is already irritating to the ear, the Philippine constitution is said to have been violated by the MOA-AD. No consultation, they also aver, has been made by both the GRP and MILF panels regarding it.

Clearly, the Filipino politicians and their paid media hacks who peddle this lie either do not know the root cause of the Mindanao conflict or they are simply driven by their greed and colonialist impulses not to allow any measure of justice to be accorded to the Moros.

Whatever it is, the simple but ugly truth that now stares us in the face is: the Filipinos hate the Moros so much that they would never allow the latter to be free or even be given a semblance of self-rule.

The debacle in Kuala Lumpur and its aftermath – the reemergence of the anti-Moro, anti-Muslim sentiment in view of the MOA-AD – made this clear to all of us, including the international community.

But let us look at their arguments.

They say that there was no consultation on the matter of ancestral domain. This is a prevarication. The MILF held numerous consultation meetings with the Moro public on this. In May 2004, before panel discussion on ancestral domain commenced, a mammoth gathering was held in Camp Darapanan which was attended by more than 3 million Moros from all walks of life and from all parts of the Bangsamoro homeland. Consultation is one of the cornerstones of MILF policy-formulation. The MILF leadership had informed the representatives of the various sectors of the Bangsamoro people of the then forthcoming negotiation on ancestral domain. Subsequently, the MILF leadership received the mandate to negotiate for and in behalf of the Bangsamoro. This mandate was extended by the MILF leadership to the MILF Negotiating Panel.

If there are sectors of Moro society that were not consulted, it is because of extraordinary circumstances pertaining to security and/or the rule on confidentiality in the peace talks which the MILF, GRP and the Malaysian facilitators have all agreed on. But by and large, all sectors of Moro society were informed and appraised of the centrality of Ancestral Domain to the resolution of the conflict in Mindanao.

The Filipinos have no right whatsoever to accuse us of failing to consult our public. They should remember that the Bangsamoro people were not consulted when they were incorporated into the Philippine Commonwealth in 1935 and subsequently into the Philippine Republic in 1946.

During martial law, when Cotabato was gerrymandered and divided into smaller provinces of which the larger and richer ones were given to the Filipino colons, there never was any democratic exercise to consult the Moros on the parceling of their home province. The division of Cotabato was made while war was being waged against the Bangsamoro people by the Marcos dictatorship. Yet after the dictatorship was booted out of power in 1986, there was no attempt to rectify this anomalous gerrymandering of Moro territories by the new regime in Manila which claimed to have restored democracy and justice.

It has always been the rule under the Philippine colonial regime that when it comes to the partition of Moro lands, only the Filipinos have the right to do that, not the Moros. Even an institution like the so-called Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) which has been set up for the purpose of perpetuating the charade of political autonomy for the Moros does not have that right. Look at what happened to the now-defunct province of Sharif Kabungsuan. The Regional Legislative Assembly (RLA) of the ARMM created a new province out of the existing province of Maguindanao (albeit to serve the political interest of a Moro warlord close to the regime in Manila) but this was later nullified by the Philippine Supreme Court which ruled that it is not within the competence of the RLA to create a new province. What does this tell us? Only the Filipinos who dominate Congress can create provinces from Moro territories as they see fit. This should put an end to the myth of “Muslim autonomy”.

Which bring us then to the question of the Constitution.

The Mindanao Problem predates all of the Philippine constitutions – from the 1935 constitution to the 1987. It even predates the establishment of the Philippine Republic in 1946. In other words, the solution to the conflict in Mindanao can never be solved by and within the Philippine constitution. Any Filipino bright boy who says so is deceiving himself and the Filipino public. Why? It is because the conflict in Mindanao is colonial in nature; it is rooted in the historic usurpation of the sovereignty and freedom of the Bangsamoro people which the Spanish colonialists failed to achieve but which the Americans succeeded in partly accomplishing and which they passed on to the Filipinos as a colonial legacy. Nonetheless, though the Moros were forced to come under Filipino colonial rule at the point of American bayonets, they never gave up on their aspiration to regain their freedom and the restoration of their homeland. That is why all the way from American colonial rule to Philippine colonial rule, there was almost an unbroken chain of Moro armed resistance. This armed resistance is what the negotiation between the MILF and the GRP is trying to address and resolve peacefully “out of the box”, meaning outside the constrictive parameters of the Philippine constitution.

Is this possible and legitimate? Yes. The wholesale injustice committed on the Bangsamoro people should make this possible and legitimate as well as moral. Contemporary paradigms in resolving sovereignty-based conflicts around the globe, such as the Mindanao problem, are geared at the outset toward addressing the root cause of these conflicts before constitutional issues are brought up to accommodate the political formulas agreed on at the negotiating table. In short, in resolving these conflicts the constitutions of the states involved were never taken as obstruction in the way of crafting political formulas that would end these conflicts to the satisfaction of the parties concerned. This happened in resolving the sovereignty-based conflicts in Northern Ireland, South Sudan, Bougainville, etc. Shared sovereignty, as a modality for addressing the sensitive issue of state sovereignty versus the right of self-determination of a captive nation, has found its way into the constitutions of established nation-states. And the states which accomplished this were not only able to resolve a debilitating problem but move forward to political stability and economic progress.

Cognizant of this fact, at the beginning of their negotiations in 1997 and again in 2001, the MILF and the GRP came into a compromise: the issue of independence will not be raised by the MILF and the GRP will not invoke the Philippine constitution as framework for formulating the negotiated political settlement of the conflict. With this mutual understanding, the parties proceeded with the incremental peace negotiation that took almost 11 years to reach the present stage that it is in now.

But even with this arrangement, the MILF, in all its dealings with the GRP in or out of the negotiating table, never required the latter to violate its own constitution. Never. The record of the minutes of the meetings that took place since the negotiation began in earnest in Kuala Lumpur in 2001 should attest to this. What the MILF demanded from the GRP is that it should fulfill its commitments in the agreements. If fulfilling the agreements requires amending the Philippine constitution to accommodate these agreements, the MILF posed no objection because this is an endeavor that is internal to the GRP and its constituency. What matters most to the MILF is the GRP’s commitment and sincerity to fulfill its end of the bargain. As to whether this would entail constitutional changes or not is never the concern of the MILF.

What the Filipino politicians – and the Filipino public for that matter -  failed to comprehend is that the MILF is not bound to a constitution that it does not recognize. The MILF is a revolutionary organization, not a political party that operates within the ambit of the constitution. Furthermore, the MILF is not the MNLF, which ultimately recognized and accepted the supremacy of the Philippine constitution over the agreements it forged with the GRP.

The MILF cannot make the same mistakes that would lead to the failure of any agreement with GRP as what befell the agreements between the MNLF and the GRP. This is basically the reason why the MILF rejected the Philippine Constitution as the framework for negotiations with the GRP. On the other hand, it does not prevent the GRP from taking ‘legal’ measures and processes to accommodate in the Constitution the agreements signed on the negotiating table.

This is clearly reflected in the MOA-AD where it mentions the holding of a plebiscite in areas that are to be included in the territory of the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) outside of the present ARMM areas and the six Moro-dominated municipalities in Lanao del Norte which voted for inclusion in the ARMM. If the MILF was inconsiderate of the dilemma that the GRP would be facing in delivering these Moro areas to the BJE, it would not have consented to a plebiscite, which is a constitutional process. In fact, those who vociferously cry out that the MOA-AD has not gone through the process of consultation ignore the provision on plebiscite which is stipulated in the document. What better popular consultation can one have than a plebiscite?

And to those who are falling for the lie that we Moros are forcing the indigenous peoples (IPs) to join the BJE, better look at the MOA-AD again. There you will find among its provisions the declaration that the IPs  have been given the free choice – repeat, free choice – to join or not to join the BJE. And talking of IPs, we Moros are the indigenous people of Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan. Even before our forefathers embraced Islam and became nations under the Muslim sultanates, we occupied and lived in the lands that the Filipinos now claim as their ‘territory’ under their constitution.

The political opposition to the MOA-AD that spurred the nationwide reaction against the MILF and the Bangsamoro people has dangerously transformed a peace process that is supposed to bring reconciliation to two peoples at war with each other into a grim scenario that allows no space for the Moros to have a breathing spell.

Through the MNLF, the Moros asked for a meaningful political autonomy in 1976. Instead they were granted a fake one by the GRP under the Marcos regime using the 1976 Tripoli Agreement which allowed constitutional processes to shortchange the Moros. In 1996, the Moros again under the MNLF demanded for meaningful political autonomy; and again what they were given in the so-called MNLF-GRP Final Peace Agreement (FPA) was the ARMM, which was created before the FPA and whose autonomy was clipped by the Philippine constitution. Inevitably, the ARMM ended up reduced to merely being an extension of the Office of the Philippine President. Later, it was even taken out of MNLF hands and became a political prize awarded to the Moro warlord most loyal and subservient to the sitting regime.

Now, under the MILF, the Moros want to recover whatever little is left of their ancestral domain and be given the chance to govern themselves as a sub-state entity within the larger Philippine nation-state. Peace on the basis of justice is about to be achieved under this formula. But even this does not sit well with the Filipino elite, the politicians, the Church and the Filipino colons in Mindanao. They have sabotaged the efforts of their own government. All, including those who claimed to be sympathetic to the plight of the Bangsamoro people like Senator Aquilino ‘Nene’ Pimentel, Jr., have ganged up against the Bangsamoro people to prevent them from even reclaiming areas which  they now actually occupy and where they are the majority. The result: back to square one. Mindanao again is on the edge of an all-out war.

The selfishness of the Filipino ruling elite in general and the Filipino politicians in particular is dumbfounding. Their lack of sense of justice is appalling. They and their drumbeaters in the Philippine media can lie through their teeth and still have a nice sleep at night. Imagine telling the public the fantastic spin that Malaysia is arming the MILF and the Americans are behind the Moros’ desire to be an “independent Islamic State”. Why, they can’t even make sense of their allegations and lies!  You can never find any mention of an “independent Islamic state” in the MOA-AD even if the pages were turned upside down. To even say that the Americans are behind the attempt by the MILF to create a “Bangsamoro Islamic State” is absurd.  What fantasy! What ignorance! Hollywood hogwash has taken grip of the Filipino mind that it no longer knows what is real and what is imaginary. No wonder why the Philippine nation-state is moribund. No wonder why tens of thousands of Filipinos are leaving this country for good. Now I can better appreciate the context of what Ustadz Salamat Hashim, the late MILF Amir, said when he stated that we should not believe the Filipino unbelievers even when they say that the crow is black!

What needs to be stated here for the record is that we Moros are not inclined to abandon our homeland to these vultures. We will fight for it as our ancestors fought for it. The mestizo leftovers of the Spaniards such as the likes of Teddy Locsin and Lobregat, and Filipino colons in Mindanao like Piñol as well as their capitalist patrons ensconced in Makati can go hang themselves from nearest lamp post for all we care. The Moros will fight. MILF Base Commander Ustadz Amirul Ombra Cato will not be alone. A war in Mindanao will drag down this pathetic, artificial country and its government to perdition. Perhaps this time we will no longer settle for a sub-state or a federative arrangement with the Filipinos. It’s useless anyway because they would never grant it. They would always insist this is ‘secession’ even if we do not have the intention to secede. So let’s give them a dose of their own medicine. Let’s aim for independence this time. For real.  Like what the Algerians did when their clamor for autonomous rule was repeatedly and violently denied by the French colons. Given the Filipinos’ hostile attitude to anything Moro and Muslim, there is no other option left. This is now the reality facing us.

-End-