Last March 10, 2010, the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), Nur Misuari faction, held its 4th Bangsamoro People’s National Parliament (BPNP) in Lanao del Sur. I understand Prof. Nur Misuari was there himself. The BNP came out with a curious resolution, among others, that needs to be reacted upon.

Among the resolution is a warning – repeat, warning – to Malaysia not to block the implementation of the GRP-MNLF 1996 Final Peace Agreement (FPA). We find this curious, not to say outrageous, because we don’t see the relevance of this particular resolution which points an accusatory finger at Malaysia on the presupposition that the latter is blocking the FPA.

Our brothers in the MNLF, most of whom are, or became, Philippine government officials or employees are barking at the wrong tree. Is this “warning”, which is an open display of arrogance, an oblique reference to Malaysia’s facilitation of the MILF-GRP peace negotiations? The nuance seems to indicate so. Regardless of the reason, Malaysia, which is a member-state of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), has never blocked the implementation of the MNLF-GRP 1996 FPA.

To call a spade a spade, if there is an entity that is responsible for the non-implementation of the FPA, it is the Philippine government (even the OIC now realizes this); and if there is an obstacle to it, it is the FPA itself that provides that obstacle! This infirmity in the FPA is very clear that even a high school student who reads English will not fail to notice it if he were to go through it thoroughly. Why did our brothers in the MNLF accept this infirmity? They themselves signed this document!

Come to think of it, brothers and sisters, how can you even urge the UN to recognize the right of self-determination of the Bangsamoro people when you, yourselves, recognized, acknowledged and accepted without question in the FPA the supremacy of the Philippine constitution and all “existing laws” over you? The Philippine government can easily demolish your arguments before any international body using the FPA as a ‘weapon’ against you.

Unless you abrogate, nullify and void the FPA your legitimacy as “sole spokesman and representative” of the Bangsamoro people holds no water. It’s mere rhetoric that doesn’t mean anything.

Let me quote the ‘Totality Clause’ of the 1996 Final Peace Agreement: “This Peace Agreement, which is the full implementation of the 1976 Tripoli Agreement, embodies and constitutes the totality of all agreements, covenant and understandings between the GRP and the MNLF respecting all the subject matters embodied herein. This Agreement supersedes and modifies all agreements, consensus, covenants, documents and communications….Any conflict in the interpretation of this Agreement shall be resolved in the light of the Philippine Constitution and existing laws.” (underscoring mine)
With this ‘Totality Clause’, the MNLF has provided the Philippine government with all the excuses, pretexts and reasons for obstructing the implementation of the FPA on the basis of the Philippine constitution and “existing laws”. So who’s to blame? Malaysia? Come on! Grow up, my brothers and sisters in the MNLF! You’ve been had at the negotiating table. Admit it.

I hate to say this (and it bleeds our hearts even to think of it) but you’ve been defeated politically by the adversary.

But you also personally benefited from this defeat by accepting plum positions in government, foremost of whom is MNLF Chairman Nur Misuari who became regional governor of ARMM and is now running for governor of Sulu for the second time in the May 10 Philippine elections. Now that many of you are out of power, or about to be out of power, you’re whimpering like small children deprived of their goodies. Stop these childish acts and unite with your brethren in the MILF instead of issuing resolutions with ridiculous ‘warnings’ which people never even give a hoot about. For once, think revolutionary and act revolutionary! We are all brothers and sisters in Islam, brothers and sisters in the struggle for our people’s right to self-determination, and sons and daughters of the Moro Malay nation. Let not the fitna of our adversary come between us.

Again and again, the MILF has stated that it is not negotiating with the Philippine government solely for the MILF but on behalf of the entire Bangsamoro people. These include us, you and me, and all those brothers and sisters who may or may not even be supportive of the MILF.

Brother Al Haj Murad Ebrahim and the entire leadership of the MILF stand on the firm ideological and political position that we have to struggle together as a nation – one Moro nation – regardless of organizational affiliation, ethno-linguistic identity or class status. ‘Unity in struggle and struggle for unity’ is the call of the time.

Can you not see that?

Let us, therefore, do away with these foolishness and stupidity, stop blaming those who have helped us and are helping us rise from this dire condition we are in today because of colonialism.

Contemplate on this: seriously and objectively.

-end-

The term “right to self-determination” – more popularly known by its acronym, “RSD” – and particularly in the context of Mindanao and the centuries-old struggle of the Bangsamoro people, has been widely misunderstood, especially by the mainstream majority of Philippine society. It is because it is always associated with the armed struggle, waged by the two major Moro Fronts against national government.

The sharp and sometimes violent reactions of Non-Moros (and also some Moros) against the struggle of the Bangsamoro is borne out of their ignorance of the latter’s history as a people, their way of life, their present problems, and their present struggles and aspirations. It is also caused by their fear of how the Bangsamoro will treat them and their properties if the Bangsamoro will be restored of their RSD. These imaginary fears (sometimes real) are partly due to not only by how the Moro were portrayed by the colonizers – which was carried over to the neo-colonial times, as traitors, villains and untrustworthy people – but also because of past bad experiences against the Moro, thus the stereotyping.

However, what many in the mainstream majority do not know of, or maybe even refuse to know of, is that Bangsamoro RSD is not only a simple armed struggle. It is an assertion that is being made by all the Moro groups that constitute the Bangsamoro spectrum. Like a prism, it has several facets to it, almost all (if not all) of which are based on a very long historical antecedent. Without this antecedent, there would not have been an impetus for an armed struggle or an overall assertion in the first place. Three of these stand out the most over the rest.

First, Bangsamoro RSD is anchored on the often-denied fact that the Bangsamoro, as a people and a nation, has existed centuries before the Declaration of Philippine Independence in 1898, much more so by the Grant of Philippine Independence of the United States in 1946. Prior to these dates, the Sultanates of Sulu and Maguindanao, the four Principalities of Lanao, and their respective tributary domains have been recognized in the Far East by the middle-aged Malayan states and even by such giant as the Chinese Empire. The treaties made by the Spanish government, and later the American government, with these sultanates are also proof that they have indeed been regarded as nations long before the Philippine Republic.

Second, Bangsamoro RSD has stemmed from age-old injustices done by Philippine colonizers, and then later by the Filipinos themselves, to the Bangsamoro people. According to Archbishop Orlando Quevedo himself, injustice was meted out on the Bangsamoro’s identity, on their ancestral territory, on their political sovereignty, and their integral development. These injustices have been done upon the Bangsamoro for many decades, not only by the foreign colonizers of the past, but also by the Filipino mainstream majority upon their assumption to power.

Third, Bangsamoro RSD is also hinged on the fact that the Bangsamoro people were forcibly made part of a nation that they did not want to be a part of in the first place, let alone asked if they wanted to be part of it at all, and then later treated as second class people, given the oh so rare privilege of being milked heavily of their ancestral territory’s rich natural resources in the name of nation building and receiving mere scraps and hand-me-downs in return for such humongous “forced tributes”. No wonder the assembled Moro leaders of the 1924 Zamboanga Declaration and the 1939 Dansalan Declaration called for a restoration of a Moro Nation that is separate and distinct from the Philippine archipelago. They had known long ago that the Moro people would never be treated properly should the Filipinos be given the privilege to govern their affairs, despite their categorical differences in way of life. And although claimed by the Filipino mainstream majority as part of the greater Philippine body politic, the Bangsamoro never felt part of this body from the very beginning. The five provinces that constitute the ARMM, with the highest scores in poverty, infant mortality, literacy, lifespan, and all other negative criteria of the Human Development Index, is more than sufficient proof of unresponsiveness or even willful neglect of the Philippine national government and the Filipino mainstream majority to the Bangsamoro people.

Bangsamoro RSD, therefore, came from the pains, hurts, suffering and anguish experienced by the minoritized Bangsamoro people in the hands of the Filipino mainstream majority and the oppressive and suppressive rule of their government.

It is from the tormented massed ranks of the Bangsamoro people that the two Moro Fronts poured forth. And it is in defense of the very survival of Bangsamoro people that the two Moro Fronts have come to banner in the armed struggle against government, and later, have come to represent and negotiate for in the Moro-GRP Peace Process.

But then again, Bangsamoro RSD can be seen like a cake with two halves. One half delves in the realm of restoring the lost political status of the Bangsamoro as a people and a nation, while the other half focuses on the Bangsamoro’s integral development, both in the short and long term.

So, while the Moro Fronts are engrossed in pursuing the peace talks with national government, which is part of the mandate given to them by the Bangsamoro people, with the end in view of attaining a political status that would define the political relationship of the Bangsamoro people with the Philippine state, another major Moro grouping, the Bangsamoro civil society organizations – or the BM CSOs – can find their niche by drafting the Bangsamoro Development Agenda (BMDA). This is on top of their efforts to support the peace talks in many different ways.

Thus, Moro CSOs have converged and banded together to ask key leaders and representatives of groups and sectors that constitute the whole Bangsamoro spectrum to consolidate and develop the “Civil Society Organization – Bangsamoro Development Agenda”, or CSO-BMDA.

The twelve thematic development areas of the BMDA are deemed important areas of development of every society. The BMDA contains both more generic and specific strategies towards identified goals. The efforts at articulating the BMDA is as important as the struggle to achieve a certain level of political status. The latter shall serve to enforce the former.

The articulation of the BMDA will allow the Moro people, especially the non-Moro, to better appreciate the context and justification of the continuing assertion of the Bangsamoro of their right to self-determination.

The CSO-BMDA does not only articulate the aspirations of the Bangsamoro but also provides a readily available advocacy material for the Moro people.

The deep prejudices against the Bangsamoro is making the peace process doubly difficult to convince, especially to the non-Moro, that this is correcting the historical and social injustices against the Moro people and not to subordinate them under the Bangsamoro nor to confiscate their legitimately acquired properties.

It has to be made known and understood by as many groups as possible in a way that is non-harassing and non-threatening. This is the big extra challenge.

I will not add to the remarkable details and lucid insights assembled in the analysis of my mentor, Mr. Pat Diaz. What I will do is to view the problem from another angle.

In the first place I ask the question. Is it the Moro problem we are trying to solve? Or the GRP problem?

If it is the Moro problem, it has been with us since 1968, almost 42 two years to date.

A series of major Moro organizations articulated Moro aspirations. The Muslim Independence Movement (MIM) said it wanted to put up an Islamic State in predominantly Muslim areas of Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan (Minsupala). President Ferdinand Marcos responded by appointing its leader, former Cotabato Governor Datu Udtog Matalam, as presidential adviser on Muslim affairs. The organization died but the seed had been sown.

The Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) emerged immediately after and loudly proclaimed the birth of the Bangsamoro, and their intent to liberate the Bangsamoro from the clutches of Philippine colonialism and establish a Bangsamoro Republic in Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan, their ancestral homeland. The war netted more than 100,000 lives and cost the government more than seventy billion pesos in combat expenses alone. The GRP-MNLF peace negotiations that followed produced the Tripoli Agreement which established the Autonomous Region for the Muslims of Southern Philippines. It took 20 years before the two parties could agree on how to implement. Finally in 1996, they signed the Final Peace Agreement on the Implementation of the Tripoli Agreement, but 13 years have passed and the government has yet to fully implement its provisions. And the government admits it.

Perceiving that the Bangsamoro cause has been compromised, the MILF refused to accept the 1996 agreement and announced its resumption of the Bangsamoro struggle for self-determination. From January 1997 to the present, two big events were happening at the same, an active war in 13 provinces of Mindanao-Sulu Archipelago and a peace negotiation. Over the years the MILF has narrowed down its pursuit to the creation of a political entity somewhere in between the present autonomy and independence and very much an integral part of the Republic of the Philippines.

So, if I may reiterate, what is the GRP problem?

Since the time of President Marcos, from the first negotiating panel to the 18th, yes, Chairman Rafael Seguis is the 18th panel chair on the government side, the GRP position has been consistent: to uphold national sovereignty and the integrity of the Philippine territory; it agreed to negotiate but only within the framework of the Philippine constitution. The constitutional part became more specific in Article X of the 1987 Constitution. But the Moro problem remains unsolved.

This was why the Tripoli Agreement was acceptable to the GRP. It is new in Philippine political history, has 16 paragraphs and paragraph 16 says that the entire agreement was to be implemented in accordance with constitutional processes. It took 20 years for the two parties to agree on what that exactly means. But despite the 1996 accord, the GRP seems hesitant to fully implement it.

Thoughtful military officers who have fought in the Moro front since they were junior officers claim that the military has fought for 40 years; between 100,000 to 120,000 lives have perished, 50 percent were MNLF, 30 percent were AFP, and 20 percent were civilians; Php 73 billion have been spent in combat expenses alone. But the Moro problem is still there very much alive and kicking. It is obvious to them the war is not the answer.

In the negotiation front, the constitution is the main GRP framework for solution. The GRP is on its 18th peace panel chair and the same framework has been used. This is perfectly understandable. Every government employee as a matter of fact must swear to uphold the constitution as soon as he or she joins government service. How much more peace panel members who represent the republic through the office of the President. Still the Moro problem remains. Can we also say the constitutional solution is faulty?

It might help clarify a number of things if we review a series of interrelated events in Mindanao history.

The first event is the Treaty of Paris. Every Bangsamoro peace panel, whether MNLF or MILF, claims that they have never been colonized by the Spaniards but the Spaniards included them in their cession of the Philippines to the United States without their plebiscitary consent.

As a Mindanao historian who has done more than my share of historical research I know this to be true. As an assertion of our Filipino point of view, I should add that at the time of the Treaty of Paris, December 1898, it is doubtful if there was any part of the Philippines that Spain owned and could cede to the United States because the Filipino revolutionary leaders had declared Philippine independence in June of the same year.

The Cordillera was one territory she never colonized; the same may be said of Lumad communities which retained their independence through avoidance of contact with the Spanish forces. So, it is not only the Bangsamoro who should complain that they were never asked whether or not they wished their territory to be part of the Philippines; the Filipinos, too, and the Cordillerans and the Lumad – colonizers do not ask colonial victims for their consent. All this, of course, becomes moot and academic because we lost in the war against the Americans. As a consequence, we all became colonial subjects of America, in a colony they now called the Philippine Islands.

The second event is the marginalization of the indigenous Lumad and Moro communities of Mindanao starting with the American institutionalization of the ownership and disposition land through the imposition of the regalian doctrine and the torrens system. This means that the United States has become the owner of the new Philippine colony and reserves the right to pass laws to dispose of the land to its inhabitants. The US colonial government started the process by passing a law declaring as null and void all land grants made by traditional leaders if made without government consent.

At that point, 1903, no such traditional land grant had government consent. The legislative mill then churned out the public land laws and implemented the government resettlement program . Vast territories were opened for resettlement from north to south of the archipelago. This was how Filipino settlers from Luzon and the Visayas inundated Mindanao. In less than sixty years from the inauguration of the agricultural colonies in Cotabato in 1913 to 1970, the process displaced the Lumad and Moro communities from their traditional territories. And this was all legal, mostly at least, executed by government with government support.

Colonial government, and subsequently the Philippine government created the very conditions that marginalized the native Lumads and Moros in their own lands. The settlers who took part in the program unwittingly also contributed to this marginalization. So, now we have the Moro problem. And the Lumad problem. Threatened with extinction and aspiring to survive with dignity , both must now assert their right to self-determination within their respective ancestral domains.

The third event is the grant of independence to the Republic of the Philippines in July 1946. Filipino political leaders were responsible for the series of events that led to the Jones law in 1916, the Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934 and the Treaty of General Relations in 1946 which recognized the grant of independence. The 1935 Constitution defines Philippine national territory in Article I, Sec. 1, as follows:

“The Philippines comprises all the territory ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Paris concluded between the United States and Spain on the tenth day of December, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, the limits which are set forth in Article III of said treaty, together with all the islands embraced in the treaty concluded at Washington between the United States and Spain on the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred, and the treaty concluded between the United States and Great Britain on the second day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty, and all territory over which the present Government of the Philippine Islands exercises jurisdiction.”

Notice that this constitution, as does the 1987 constitution, upholds the legitimacy of the Treaty of Paris. Our sovereign republic is a direct product of colonial logic. The official line of the United States government was that there were no nations here (in the Philippine Islands), only different tribes fighting one another. But somewhere along the way, American officials made sure that the Sultan of Sulu waived his sovereign powers in favor of the United States of American. So, in the end, when it granted independence it was only to one Republic of the Philippines whose sovereign people are called Filipinos.

The Bangsamoro Struggle for self-determination

The Bangsamoro leaders’ political position challenges the very foundations of our present sovereign state. There is no question about this. And to defend national sovereignty and maintain the integrity of national territory, every government of the republic must uphold the constitution. And in any political negotiation it conducts with the MNLF or the MILF it is duty-bound to use the constitution as it guide and framework. But this is the very constitution that upholds the legitimacy of the Treaty of Paris! This is the very constitution that upholds the primacy of colonial logic in the formation of our Philippine republic. This is the very same logic that led to the marginalization of the indigenous peoples of Mindanao. And now, is the government saying that we should use the same tool and the same colonial logic to correct the historical injustice perpetrated upon the Bangsamoro and the Lumad?

If we uphold the legitimacy of the Treaty of Paris through our constitution, must we also de-legitimize the celebration of our national independence on June 12, 1898? If we do, this will in effect render meaningless President Diosdado Macapagal’s order to move celebration of independence from July 4 to June 12.

If we uphold the legitimacy of the Treaty of Paris through our constitution, are we not in fact upholding colonial principles against democratic principles?

To solve the Bangsamoro problem, it seems that we have to make a number of major decisions. One, we have to complete the decolonization of the country and declare the Treaty of Paris as a colonial legacy that must go. Two, uphold the legitimacy of the Sultanates of Sulu, Sultanates of Maguindanao as de facto states in their own right at the time of the Treaty of Paris. Three, reorganize the Philippine republic on the basis of consent of the governed. Needless to say, we have to adopt a new constitution.

(Prof. Rudy Buhay Rodil was vice chair of the government peace panel that negotiated with the MILF until the MOA-AD of 2008. Previous to that, the Mindanao historian and history professor, an expert on Moro and Lumad histories, was a member of the GRP peace panel that negotiated and forged an agreement with the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) from 1992 to 1996. Before becoming a panel member, Mr. Rodil was a member of the Regional Consultative Commission that drafted the Organic Act of Muslim Mindanao).

Development is not the way to peace. It never is. It will never in any way whatsoever build the foundations of lasting peace in Mindanao. The reason is simple. When development is introduced into a community without first tackling governance issues, then justice issues, and subsequently, peace issues, it would more often than not be perceived by those who are receiving it, or to the more aware as a pacification strategy or a “counter-insurgency’ approach by those doing the development interventions. Development as a “stand alone”, or as a first intervention to troubled areas, would be seen as something that would “fill up the stomachs and the pockets” of the people so that the injustices of the past would be forgotten.

POOR GOVERNANCE, NO GOVERNANCE

But let us just say for the sake of argument that development is the way to peace. With a “despotic” government implementing poor policies and manned by a substantial number of over qualified yet incompetent personnel that struggle to be righteous and politically correct by employing a highly ineffective and culturally insensitive “top-down” approach, development would still remain unsustainable, or even worse, development interventions would never become a reality. There is red tape, corruption, myopic attitudes and wrong work ethics everywhere. There is a state of “unpeace” in the very halls of our national public institutions, where partisan politics is the order of the day and the usual dynamic is between the “power-seekers” and “power-keepers”.

Then on the ground, there are a lot of local government units (LGUs) that are either in a state of “poor-governance” or “no-governance” at all. You have local chief executives who do not hold office in the local government halls, but are most of the time in their posh mansions in urban centers such as Davao City, Iligan City, Cotabato City, General Santos City and Cagayan de Oro City, to name a few. Elected leaders who strongly, though narrow-mindedly, believe that the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) of the LGU is his/her personal pocket money, that the 20% Development Fund is for salaries and MOOE, and that external funding is for LGU projects that were originally identified under the 20% Development Fund. You see LGU buildings that are magnificently built but are practically empty, or used for the wrong purpose originally intended, or unused at all. You see LGUs that are, for all intents and purposes, barely functional or totally non-functional, or are operated by one-men-armies. Development interventions would never reach the people who are supposed to benefit from them.

Public participation in decision-making processes is a pathetic myth in these types of LGUs, because there is no government institution that the constituency or civil society sector can go to or engage with for such democratic purposes as partnership, cooperation and collaboration. There is, therefore, “unpeace” also in the halls of local government.

What adds insult to injury in this sorry scenario is the reality that international development interventions, whether coming from bilateral or multilateral arrangements, donor agencies, or international NGOs, by the mere fact of their continued push towards providing as much “development” to Mindanao as possible, turn a blind eye to these very glaring gaps in national and local government. It is as if they are condoning this unjust condition of “poor-governance” or “no-governance” to perpetuate. This is very un-peaceful indeed. Development can, therefore, have the devastating potential of “doing much harm” by promoting the cycles of structural violence and injustice if implemented half-heartedly.

ODA AND THE “POT OF GOLD”

Billions of pesos worth of Official Development Assistance (ODA) and development interventions has poured into Southern Philippines through the years, particularly after the 1996 Final Peace Agreement between the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF). But until now, twenty of the poorest provinces are still in Mindanao. Five of whom constitute the entire ARMM. Since the 1996 Final Peace Agreement, there has been no positive change in the plight of the Bangsamoro people. It has remained negative. The Bangsamoro are still the poorest in Mindanao. They still grow old the earliest and die the youngest. They still are the least educated. Some even say they have been “mis-educated”. They still are the most affected by human rights abuses and violations. And they still are the most adversely impacted by a war that they had not initiated nor had wanted in the first place. If the donors and international NGOs have seen this “Moro-Moro” before and had not done something about this, then shame on them. But if we allow this act of blatant disregard to continue, then shame on us.

What is more shameful to tell is that the Bangsamoro is literally sitting on a pot of gold. Its natural resources, both on land and under the sea is so rich that the Bangsamoro could live in “honor, dignity and prosperity” for many generations to come if they are only able to tap these to their own benefit. But they are not the ones tapping this “pot of gold”. It is the government that has the constitutional right to tap this, by virtue of the principles of “national sovereignty”, the “archipelagic principle” and the “one-nation policy”. That is, if one uses the “constitutional lens” and not the “historical lens”. There would have been no problem had the government given the Bangsamoro their rightful and equitable share of the produce. But out of the total amount of natural resources being tapped by government, 65% of which comes from the original Bangsamoro homeland of MINSUPALA, and less than 20% of that goes back and is shared among the Mindanawon – not only the Bangsamoro. Much of this produce is used primarily in Luzon and secondly in Visayas. And much of that is used – at a profit – by those with power, whether in government or in business. So, where is peace there?

That is the very reason why the Bangsamoro has “deputized” the MNLF and then the MILF to fight for their rights and welfare in an armed struggle against government, and then later mandated them to represent their interests in separate peace processes with government.

GOOD GOVERNANCE, HR AND JUSTICE, PEACE & DEVELOPMENT

So, let us try to shift our seemingly obsolete paradigms on development and try this four-fold conceptual framework instead.

Let us first advocate for national, regional, provincial and local government structures to practice genuine and sincere governance and for other stakeholders to practice good governance in their respective spheres as well. Let us change the status quo that graduate and post graduate degrees, or pleasing personalities, or “guns, goons and gold” are requisites for public positions. Let us work towards establishing and operationalizing schemes or mechanisms that would require would-be-leaders to undergo the proper formation needed so that they would possess the values and attitudes that would make them more attuned to their constituency and less attuned to their political patrons and the desire to plunder public funds prior to their assumption to office. If we are successful, we will have started to make these structures practice genuine transparency, accountability and responsiveness to the needs and rights of the people.

However, it is a sad fact that a very miniscule percentage of the international community has allocations for projects on good governance, for transparency and accountability, or even for responsible public leadership. Most donor funds are allocated primarily for development projects, and secondarily for peace and human rights projects. If there actually are allocated funds for good governance projects, it would still be based on a process where such projects would be implemented by the same government unit in question. To use a metaphor, “the fruits (development aid) don’t roll down to drop in the bin, because the funnel (government) it passes through is riddled with holes.” So the cycle continues.

Second, after good governance, let us next advocate for human rights and justice. Such incidents as the massacre of seven civilians and one MNLF integree of the Philippine Army by elements of the Navy and Army in Ipil, Maimbung in Sulu, or the killing of a farm boy by a Marine detachment in Baas, Lamitan City should become taboos to government and would cease to be an oft denied common, convenient and necessary practice of government personnel, or dare I say as an “unfortunate collateral damage”.

If we are likewise successful in this endeavour, both national and local government structures and mechanisms and other stakeholders in society would genuinely uphold the virtue of justice and sincerely promote the basic civil and human rights of the common people. Of course, we do not need to wait for good governance practices to perpetuate first before we start advocating for human rights and justice, because it would take time. The second advocacy can begin while the first is still being propagated. But the concept framework here is that, for us to have an effective and sustainable promotion of human rights and justice – then peace and then development – we must first address governance as an indispensable priority and at the very least try to begin the process of transforming our government structures into becoming genuinely “pro-people”. Because government, and not civil society, is the permanent structure and is the duty-holder. Civil society only enters into the fray when, and only when, government is not doing anything, or is doing it wrong.

After good governance and human rights and justice, let us next advocate for genuine peace. Not just a peace that is the absence of war or the mere cessation of hostilities, or a peace that is based on money, as what many have wrongly believed. These are manifestations of negative peace and are, thus, very temporary and limited to surface appearances only. What is needed is a peace that is based on the first two issues of good governance and justice. It is more meaningful and is assured to be more lasting and more “pro-people” this way.

Rebuilding a peace in Mindanao that incorporates the complete historical aspect of the conflict and the injustices in Mindanao – the truth, in other words – has a much greater chance of becoming sustainable. By studying our 400-year history of conflict first and using this as basis of the government framework in order for it to attain its long eluded dream of attaining “NIC-hood” (Newly Industrialized Country) we get to accurately address the prevalent issues in our personal and relational life, as well as in the sub-systems and systems that we are part of today, which are perpetuating violence, biases, prejudice, cultural chauvinism, and all the other ingredients that make Mindanao a hell-hole. In lay man’s terms, we don’t rely purely on the doctorate degrees and the law degrees and the megalomaniacal personalities of those in power to plan the future for all. This damnable practice has been the biggest mistake of leaders since time immemorial. Instead, we actually ask the people what has been missing all this years and what still remains due to them as humans and as a people that duty-holders must give to them. And then we make government and the other state and non-state stakeholders really listen to all of these and make them sincerely act on these.

In this way, the majority Filipinos and the leaders of the Philippines would understand the reason why the Bangsamoro people have never considered themselves part of the greater Philippine body politic – because their sovereignty as a people and a nation is centuries older than the Philippine government. Older even than the Malolos Constitution, which is the “progenitor” of the present 1986 Constitution. As an example, interpreting documents such as the MOA-AD within the framework of the 1986 Constitution, and subsequently acting on such limited interpretations, can be considered as a blatant disrespect of that pre-colonial sovereignty by those in power.

In one episode of the Clinton Global Initiative hosted by the former US President Bill Clinton himself, HE Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo said in so many words that the economy of the Philippines is healthy, and will continue to be healthy “with or without the peace process”. If we use a metaphor on this statement, it would be like picturing a fat Philippines with a cancerous lung. She may believe that the Philippines is healthy because she uses its being fat as an indicator of being healthy. But with the peace process in shambles (plus accusations of the insincerity of government and all that), the cancer has already become malignant. 600,000 civilians, almost all of whom are Bangsamoro, have been displaced. Prior to that, two million had been displaced, and prior to that, a 400-year long history of injustice, marginalization, disenfranchisement and displacement. Global crisis aside, can we now say that the Philippines is indeed healthy? Not by a long shot.

CONCLUSION

So, therefore, by using this paradigm, we thus make our vision for a just, peaceful and prosperous future more attainable. Also, mercy and reconciliation between parties-to-conflict, be it small or large, can easily be made at the latter part of a peace process if peace is worked out through this indispensable process.

When we will have started the process of perpetuating these three preconditions of good governance, human rights and justice, and finally, genuine peace, then and only then will development interventions can be more significant and lasting. Any development intervention that is utilized with utter disregard to the first three, and used as a sole point of entry to the communities, as was proven by so many precedents in the past, would more often than not end up as a waste. So many rice fields in Mindanao had been seeded and reseeded again from out of ODA, international aid, donor funds, and even government funds after a battle or after a war, only to be destroyed again and again by more battles and wars. How many health centers and other small scale infrastructure projects had been constructed in Mindanao using these funds, only to be damaged again by war? How many of them were built only to become white elephants because of the prevalent top-down mentality of overqualified but thoroughly incompetent bureaucrats, or if used, were relegated to the level of goat pens or evacuation centers? Finally, how many times have we given hope to the people, Filipino, Bangsamoro and Lumad, make them toil with a promise of a new tomorrow, only to rip it out from them again and again because of political necessities?

In conclusion, if development interventions will continue to be done in the same manner as it had been done since the past and up to the present, not even the most honest minded analyst would make any sense of it at all. One would now, therefore, invariably question the motives and reasons behind this “blind” downpour of development interventions in Mindanao. Are they indeed for the Mindanawon and the Bangsamoro, or are they for someone else?

(Tommy Pangcoga is the Training and Project Development Officer and a member of the Western Mindanao Cluster Team of the Consortium of Bangsamoro Civil Society, Inc. CBCS’ main office is in Cotabato City).

MOROLAND – Land of the Bangsa Moro

We did not start this conflict in any way. And yet you scorn us and attack us. Perhaps it is because you have read our history from the eyes and the pens of your historians. Our history is older, much older than yours. And if you could only see it through our own eyes, you would understand. But you do not, and perhaps you never will.

Before your nation was born, we already had our own sovereignty in Mindanao. We had lived peacefully with honor, prosperity and dignity and we had lived in peaceful coexistence with others of different cultures and beliefs within this land. This was before the Spaniards came to colonize you. This was before the Spaniards sold you – and us too, though without our knowledge and consent – to the Americans.

When your people finally gained your independence from the Americans, we had already been doubtful that you would treat us and our ways with respect. Because for over three hundred years, the colonizers had not only converted you to their faith and their western ways, they had also used you as shock troops against us. Where before their arrival, we had shared relations of amity and commerce and perhaps some history as well, now after over three hundred years of fighting one another, you with all your hate and enmity against my people, had been given the opportunity to govern us against our will.

And what have you done since that independence? You continued what the colonizers had done to us. You claim us to be part of your citizenry, yet you mock our ways, thinking our ways are backward and wrong and that yours are right. You forced us to follow your laws. You treated us as second class citizens. Even as savages. You claimed your prize for the three hundred years of servitude as shock troops of your colonizers and, through your laws, divested us of our ancestral lands. And when we became fed up and our braver brethren took up arms to make our point, you were contemptuous and assaulted us at every opportunity given to you. You knew that if you could force us to surrender, you could take all the natural riches underneath our ancestral lands for your own, in addition to the lands you have already taken away from us, either by force, deceit, or stealth. Because you have already needlessly wasted and squandered what little resources your lands have had before.

You are up in arms when only one of you is injured or killed by one of us. It is sensationalized on television. Yet you remain silent after millions of us have been displaced, tens of thousands left dying of disease and hunger, and hundreds killed by your army, your police and your vigilantes. We are lucky if we find an article about this on the last page of one of your little known tabloids. You have harmed our old folk, our women, and our children. You have not only marginalized us, you have also disenfranchised us and displaced us, socially, politically, culturally and economically. You have made us poor and weak. All this because we are different.

What we do is no different from what you do. We talk and laugh. We complain about work. We bleed when we are injured. And we wonder about growing old. We talk about our families and we worry about the future. And we cry with each other when things seem hopeless. All of the things you do with each other, that is also what we do. And for that we are called deviants, criminals, secessionists, even terrorists, and then are made to suffer.

What right do you have to make us suffer like this? What right do you have to change us? What makes you think you can dictate how we live our lives?

I and my people desire no rancor against you or anyone. We only aspire to live in peace, dignity, honor, and prosperity within our homeland — The Bangsamoro Homeland — or what little remains of it we can genuinely reclaim from you, anyway. We only seek to regain the things that your people and your governments, past and present, have taken away from us. We only seek to enjoy our right to self-determination and to live our way of life according to our beliefs, not according to yours. That is our rightful due.

You are the stronger “other”. If you wish to talk of peace, look through the lens of justice and of our history. If you wish to talk of peace, do not play double-talk, semantics, or word calisthenics. And if you wish to talk of peace, do not hold a sword behind your back. That simply will not do. We were not born yesterday.

I am a Moro. And I am proud to be a Moro. Deal with it, or leave me alone.

(Tommy Pangcoga is the Training and Project Development Officer and a member of the Western Mindanao Cluster Team of the Consortium of Bangsamoro Civil Society, Inc. CBCS’ main office is in Cotabato City).

No. They are not ‘Filipinos’ but they are ‘Philippine Citizens’ by operation of law. And how did that happen? It’s a long story. But let me first narrate its historical antecedents before I will talk about the issue on ‘Citizenship’.

Historical Antecedents

The Moros were once free and independent people under the suzerainty of their sultanates with a definite territory or homeland as recognized under various treaties with foreign powers like Spain, Great Britain, Germany and the Netherlands. The Moro sultanates, kingdoms and principalities at the time were known as karajaan or kadatuan  (negeri in Malay), endowed with all the elements of a nation-state in the modern legal sense. They conducted foreign trade and commerce and diplomatic relations and entered into treaties of peace and amity, trade and commercial relations with their Asian neighbors as well as various European powers.

The most significant of these treaties entered into by the Moro rulers or suzerains with Spain were the Sultan Qudarat-Lopez Treaty of 1645 and 1648, and the Rajah Bungso-Lopez Treaty of 1646, defining and demarcating the respective dominions of the sultanates of Maguindanao-Buayan and Sulu and the colonial possessions of Spain over the Visayas and Luzon. These treaties were honored by Spain until the last days of their colonial rule over the Visayas and Luzon. The so-called “Moro Wars” between the Moros and Spain were better known as ‘wars of supremacy’ between the two nations over the control and collection of tributes on the native inhabitants of the Islands of Visayas and Luzon, according to the Muslim historian Dr. Cesar Adib Majul (in Muslims in the Philippines, Quezon City, 1973).

The Royal Decree of July 30, 1860 decreed by Queen Isballa II of Spain and the Royal Decree of July 15, 1896 and the Maura law of 1893 that provided organization of municipal governments excluded the Moro territories of Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan. The latter Spanish decrees merely proposed for the establishment of politico-military governments in occupied territories of Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan, excepting the territorial dominions of the Sultanates of Mindanao and Sulu. The last significant treaty entered by the Spanish colonial government and the Sultanate of Sulu was the Sulu-Spain Treaty of 1878 which was more a treaty of peace and amity between Sulu and Spain and for the Sulu Sultan recognizing the protection of Spain against any foreign aggression. It was more of a protectorate relationship between Spain and Sulu, and not a territorial possession on the part of Spain over the dominions of Sulu.

The last agreement or treaty entered between the Sultanate of Maguindanao and Rajah Buayan realms with Spain in 1888 was the ‘Act of Conciliation between Spanish sovereign King Alfonso XIII and the Royal Houses of Maguindanao and Buayan,’ represented by Rajah Putri, Queen Regent of Maguindanao (Datu Utto’s wife) and by Datu Utto himself, representing Rajah Buayan, to end the war between Spain and Buayan. Like the Sulu-Spain Treaty of 1878, it was a treaty of peace and amity and not capitulation or surrender on the part Datu Uttu of Buayan and his Moro datu allies.

But how did the Moros lost their freedom and sovereign independence? They lost it through deceit and misrepresentation and not by conquest by any foreign power, nor by capitulation or surrender. Spain shamelessly and immorally included the Bangsamoro territories in the cession of the Philippine Islands under the Treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898 to the United States. US President William McKinley who had entertained serious doubts as to the sovereignty of Spain over the Sulu Sultanate had promptly directed that a formal agreement be made with the Sulu Sultan on the basis of the Sulu-Spain treaty of 1878. The agreement entered into between Sulu Sultan Jamal ul-Kiram II and US Brig. General Bates is known as the Kiram-Bates Treaty of August 20, 1889 that later became very controversial. The Sulu Sultan and his royal datus maintained that it was a treaty of peace and friendship, the former merely accepted and acknowledged the protection of the American flag while the United States military authorities claimed that it was a tacit recognition by the Sulu ruler and his datus the sovereignty of the United States over the Sulu dominions and dependencies.

No agreements were entered by the US authorities with the Moro suzerains and leaders of Mindanao. The Moro leaders in the mainland, except some of the datus and sultans of the Lake Lanao region (Ranaw) who viewed with suspicion the Americans as not different from their hated enemies – the Spaniards, relied on the promises of the American officials to honor and respect the Moro culture and tradition, Islam religion and their institutions did not find the necessity of entering into formal agreements with the American authorities. The American authorities who had recognized and acknowledged the distinct identity and culture of the Moros and other natives of Mindanao from the Christian Filipinos in the Visayas and Luzon, established a separate administrative structure to govern and administer the affairs of the Moros and other non-Islamized native inhabitants, known as the Moro Province in 1903. It was a transition type of administration to last up to 1913 preparatory to the transfer of authority to the Moros after they were prepared to govern themselves in the art of modern self-government and administration. It was extended from 1914 to 1920 under a new name known as the Department of Mindanao and Sulu.

When news went around on the plan of the United States to grant Philippine independence after the passage of the Jones Law in 1916 by the US Congress and immediately after the end of the Moro Province, the Moro people of Sulu signed and sent a petition dated June 9, 1921 addressed to the President of the United States, expressing their desire and preference that the Sulu archipelago be made part of American territory instead of being incorporated with the Philippine Islands. They cited litany of grievances against the abuses of the Philippine Constabulary and Filipino officials on the Sulu Moros. In other separate petitions, other Sulu Moros longed for the return to the Moro Province administered by American officials.

On February 1, 1924, Moro leaders and datus led by Sultan Mangigin of Maguindanao gathered in Zamboanga and signed a petition popularly known as the “Zamboanga Declaration” addressed to the Congress of the United States, proposing that in the event that the US Government will grant Philippine independence, the Islands of Mindanao, Sulu archipelago and Palawan instead be made an unorganized territory of the United States; and should this be not feasible, they further proposed that 50 years after the grant of Philippine independence, a plebiscite (or referendum) be held in the proposed unorganized territory to decide by vote whether the proposed territory will be incorporated in the government of the Islands of Luzon and Visayas, remain a territory, or become independent. In the event that the United  States grant independence to the Philippine Islands without provision for the retention of the Moro territories under the American flag, the petitioners manifested  their firm intention and resolve to declare themselves an independent sultanate to be known to the world as the “Moro Nation” (Bangsa Moro).

Congressman Roger Bacon and others filed and introduced bills before the US Congress proposing either to make Mindanao and Sulu a component state of the United States or remain as an unorganized territory in preparation for the granting of separate independence. These moves were blocked by the lobby of the Filipino nationalists led by Manuel Quezon and his colleagues. When Quezon became President of the Philippine Commonwealth, his first national policy was the colonization of Mindanao and Sulu by Filipino migrant-settlers from the Visayas and Luzon with government support and backing. This was followed by the passage of land confiscatory laws passed by Philippine Legislature dispossessing the Moros and other native inhabitants of their ancestral domains and ancestral lands, a policy that started during the early American regime.

The Bangsamoro people during the American period (1898-1946) did not relent in their quest for freedom and self-determination. On March 18, 1935, during the Philippine Commonwealth, Hadji Bogabong together with prominent Moro datus and leaders of Lanao signed a petition now known as the historic  ‘Dansalan Declaration’ addressed to the President of the United States, expressing their grievances for the failure of the delegates in the 1935 Constitutional Convention to provide appropriate security and guarantee over the rights and interests of the Moros and the protection of their ancestral lands from being titled and occupied by Christian Filipino settlers. When this petition was not heeded by the US Government, Bogabong and his followers waged the famous ‘Cotta Wars’ (Moro Forts) in the Lake Lanao region which lasted shortly before the outbreak of the Pacific War in World War II.

After the Pacific War, the United States Government hastily granted Philippine independence on July 4, 1946, incorporating the Islands of Mindanao, Sulu archipelago and Palawan, particularly the geographic areas encompassed under the Moro Province and adjacent areas, without prior consultation or plebiscitary consent of the Bangsamoro people. America therefore reneged and betrayed her unfulfilled mandate in ‘Moroland’ to prepare and train the Moros in the art of modern self-government and administration as stated under former US President William McKinley’s Instructions to the Second Taft Commission and the US Congress on April 7, 1900 on the policy to be pursued by the US Government with respect to the Moros and other native inhabitants of the Philippine Islands.  America is partly to blame of the present conflict in Mindanao and Sulu archipelago and Palawan, and adjacent islands, as ‘protector’ of the Bangsamoro people. America shall therefore be urged to fulfill its unfinished mandate to ‘decolonize’ the Bangsamoro country (or Moroland) from the neo-colonial regime of the Philippine government.

The 50 year period in the ‘Zamboanga Declaration’ reckoned from the date of the grant of Philippine independence on July 4, 1946 matured in 1996, the year that the Philippine Government (GRP) and the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) signed the Final Peace Agreement in September 1996. Finding the GRP-MNLF agreement inadequate for failure to adequately address the legitimate grievances and aspirations of the Bangsamoro people, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) opted to continue the peace negotiations with the Philippine government in the hope of finding a just, peaceful and permanent solution to the Mindanao conflict through a negotiated political settlement.

I have reviewed the above historical antecedents to have a clear perspective on the question – why the Moros are not ‘Filipinos’. With respect to this particular issue, I find it convenient to just quote excerpts from my earlier paper which aptly discussed this subject.

The Bangsamoro People are not Filipinos

The question of allegiance by the Bangsamoros to the Philippine State, remain an unsettled issue up to this day. The Bangsamoro people have never regarded themselves as Filipinos but as “Philippine Citizens” by operation of law or for political convenience since they have always maintained their uniqueness as people or nation (bangsa) with separate and distinct identity on the basis of a “two-nation theory” within the Philippine nation-state entity which they believed they have an equal right to share a portion of the national territory as their separate national homeland and over which they have the right to govern themselves free from undue interference from the Central Government on the basis of the principle of “equality of peoples” under the law of nations. Regrettably, the present Philippine Constitution still reflects a highly centralized and unitary colonial system compared with other modern constitutions.

The present Spanish Constitution has categorically recognized the identity and the right to self-governance by its historic peoples or communities. The Basques, Catalans, Galicians and Andalusians of Spain are considered “historic nationalities or communities” which have retained their distinct ethnic identity and guaranteed their rights to self-government and practically independent from interference from the Spanish Central Government. The territories and regions of these historic communities are denominated under the Spanish Constitution as “Regional Autonomous States” within a central political structure. Indeed, a former colonial power such as Spain is more politically progressive and liberal than its former colony – the Philippines Islands.

As a matter of consolation in their realization that they have become part of an artificial and imaginary national community called Filipino not of their own choice or liking but by operation of law, the Bangsamoro people tried to cushion and mitigate that reality by affixing to Filipino the term Muslim or one who is a “Muslim Filipino” to maintain their separate and distinct identity from the Christian Filipinos. With the resurgence of Moro nationalism in the early 70’s, they restored their historical identity and added to the “Moro identity” the concept of a “Nation (Bangsa)”. Thus, their preferred ethnic identity is “Bangsa Moro”, meaning “Moro Nation”.

This is however not a new ethnic configuration for it has a long history dating as far back as the 17th century when the Moros started to consider themselves a “Nation” bound by Islamic culture and ideology despite their differences as domestic communities. There is a historical and legal basis for their assertion of a separate and distinct identity from the Christian Filipinos. In the first place, they were never the subject of the Spanish Catholic monarchy. They have remained a separate and independent people until they were unjustly incorporated under Philippine territory by the United States in the grant of Philippine independence on July 4, 1946. Secondly, based on legal and historical instruments they were neither considered Filipinos.

Under the Treaty of Paris of 1898, concluded between Spain and the United States, the Moros were not listed as Philippine Citizens. The Malolos Constitution of 1899 of the First Philippine Republic did not include the Moros under Article 6 thereof as Citizens of the Philippines. What appears is that President Emilio Aguinaldo in his letter of January 18, 1899 to the Sultan of Sulu recognized the independence of the Moro people and offered them “bonds of fraternal unity” and ‘solidarity on the bases of absolute respect for the beliefs and traditions of the Moros’. (See Peter Gowing). The Philippine Bill of 1902 passed by the U.S. Congress defines Philippine Citizens as ‘all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands who were subjects of Spain, their children and descendants’. The Moros were never subjects of Spain.

The Jones Law of 1916 passed by the U.S. Congress similarly defined Philippine Citizens as former subjects of Spain. It, however, contained a proviso which provides that, except by law the existence of Philippine Citizenship shall be provided by the Philippine Legislature which was a legal contingency. The 1935 Constitution may have extended Philippine Citizenship to the Moros in ambiguous terms when it provided that Philippine Citizenship covers: 1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of the Constitution; 2) Those born of foreign parents who before the adoption of this Constitution were elected to public office; 3) Those whose fathers and mothers are Citizens of the Philippines; and 4) by naturalization.

Although the Bangsamoro people may have been extended Philippine Citizenship, either by implication or by operation of law, the question of allegiance has remained disputed and unsettled because the Moros until the present have been asserting their separate national identity as Bangsa Moros and they could hardly accept being identified as Filipino for not having been the subject of the Spanish Catholic monarchy, nor Moroland a colony of Spain. One of the main general concept which the Peace Negotiating Parties have reached a consensus point was the MILF Position during the 7th Exploratory Talks held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on April 18-20, 2005, is the general principle that:

“It is the birthright of all Moros and other indigenous peoples of Mindanao to identify themselves and be accepted as ‘Bangsa Moros’. The Bangsamoro people refers to those who have been designated as natives or are identified descendants of those original inhabitants of Mindanao and its adjacent islands including Palawan and the Sulu archipelago at the time of conquest or colonization whether mixed or of full native blood. Spouses and their descendants are classified as Bangsamoro.”

Upon suggestion by the GRP Peace Panel which the MILF Peace Panel concurred, the Indigenous peoples are given the “freedom of choice” whether or not they wish to identify themselves as “Bangsamoros”. Except for a few, majority of the Indigenous peoples accept being identified as ‘Bangsamoros’. The Bangsamoro identity is the parallel of Malaysia’s “Bumiputra” which meant ‘children of the soil’, an ethnic configuration encompassing all Malays, Sabahans and Sarawakians as owners of all Federal lands of Malaysia, excluding the Chinese migrants. On top of this, the ‘Bumis’ are granted special privileges in both economic and political life, such as education, employment, medical services, housing, award of government contracts and business opportunities over those of the Chinese migrants and Indians.

The Bangsamoro identity is based on ethnic or cultural nationalism by a group of people seeking selfhood or nationhood which was usurped from them. They have now come of age and they now assert to restore that lost freedom via decolonization and through their collective right to self-determination under international law and norms, treaties and conventions. Indeed, the usurpation of the Bangsamoro political sovereignty and territorial integrity are the two major injustices and legitimate grievances that constitute the main root causes of the Mindanao conflict and of the Bangsamoro problem. The Moros who had successfully defended and preserved their freedom and independence from the aggression of various foreign powers, have become a ‘hostage nation’ to a post-world war fabricated neo-colonial regime – the Republic of the Philippines. (cf. Joseph Fallon).

The Bangsamoro dilemma is not without a formula or solution. “Ethnic nationalism” or the “politics of sub-nationalism” is a worldwide phenomenon of the post-world war era because former colonial powers realigned the historical borders of historic nations, peoples and communities making them ‘hostage nations’ by newly fabricated post-colonial states contrary to their own free will and consent. The United Nations came up with the lists of colonized peoples for ‘decolonization’ under the ‘trusteeship program’. However, many of these hostage nations, nationalities and peoples were unlisted for decolonization, among them are the Bangsamoro people of Mindanao, Sulu Archipelago and Palawan and adjacent islands.

Legal scholars and political authorities point out that “[Until] recently, most efforts to resolve sovereignty-based conflicts have faltered due to the limited legal and political tools available to policy makers. The two most applicable principles, sovereignty and self-determination have been reduced to little more than legal and political shields behind which states and sub-state entities justify their actions.” However, “[While] these two basic principles of international law may sometimes be reconciled to create a lasting settlement of a sovereignty-based conflict, more frequently they are a recipe for political gridlock and violence.” In view of this dilemma, recent state practice developed as ‘evidenced by a growing creativity among states and policy makers which has led to the emergence of a more elastic approach to resolving sovereignty-based conflicts…the seeds of which can be found in a number of recent peace proposals and peace agreements, can be termed ‘earned sovereignty’.” (cf. Paul R. Williams, et. al.).

For a group entitled to a right to collectively determine its political destiny, the Bangsamoro people appropriately falls within the UNESCO Experts’ definition of  “people” ‘as individuals who relate to one another and not just on the level of individual association but also based upon a shared consciousness, and possibly with institutions that express their identity. The indicative characteristics in defining ‘people’ according to the UNESCO are: “(a) a common historical tradition; (b) religious or ethnic identity; (c) cultural homogeneity; (d) linguistic unity; (e)  religious or ideological affinity; (f) territorial connection; and (g) common economic life.” (See Scharf). The Bangsamoro people possess sufficient or most if not all of the above distinctive identity or characteristics as a ‘people’ endowed with the collective right to self-determination.”

In order to reconcile the opposing principles of state sovereignty and the equally recognized principle of the right to self-determination, the government and the MILF Peace negotiating panels came up with a new and novel formula. And what is this new formula?

The MOA-AD is a New Formula in Conflict Resolution

The Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) is an elegant document and a new formula designed to resolve historical injustices, one of which is ‘injustice to the ‘Moro identity’. The Bangsamoro struggle for freedom and defense of homeland for more than 300 years against colonial Spain is not well recognized and acknowledged by the dominant Christian majority. The Moros equally deserve recognition of their separate and distinct identity as ‘Bangsamoro’, not that they wish to secede or establish a separate independent state. They equally fought for this land known as Philippine Islands. They are simply invoking a ‘two-nation’ theory which means two or more nations may co-exist in the same territory and as in other plural societies.

This is precisely, why the MOA-AD has contained the concept of ‘associative relations’ between the proposed Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) and the Central Government or akin to that of ‘federacy’ under a unitary system. The proposed BJE as a political entity is ‘in-between’ the range more advanced than ‘enhanced autonomy’ but short of being a full ‘free associated state’ as understood in current political theory and practice. At most, it has the status of a ‘sub-state’, (or a ‘conditional state’, or at least a ‘quasi-state’). It could later become a component federal state with residual powers, if ever the Philippines decides to amend or revise the Philippine Constitution and shifts to a federal form of government.

The ‘associative relationship’ between the proposed BJE and the Central government is a concept not the same as the ‘Free Associated State’ similar to those of Marshall Islands, Mariana and Pulau who are in ‘free association’ with the United States as the latter’s former trust territories. The BJE may be designed to have some features with that of Cook Island or even Puerto Rico but not exactly parallel and its final configuration or designation is still subject to further discussion during the formal negotiation of the Comprehensive Peace Compact, and may not be immediately fully implemented but will still undergo a transition period for capacity and institution building preparatory to its exercise of self-governance while being gradually devolved with ‘shared powers and authority ‘ from the parent state (Central government) under the concept of ‘shared sovereignty’.

On top of this, it is still further subject to any necessary changes in the legal framework to make it fully operational as a juridical entity. The objections to this concept are all speculative and unfounded for fear of the ‘unknown’ and an obvious manifestation of an ‘anti-Moro bias and prejudice’.  If the Filipinos don’t like and care for the Moros, why not allow them to chart their own separate ways to become independent? But if, indeed, the dominant Filipino majority do care and love the Moros, give them what they deserve!  With the declaration of the MOA-AD as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the Bangsamoro people are compelled to seek redress from other international forums or revert to their original position of aspiring for independence by whatever means, including under international law and diplomacy.

Thank you, Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices for showing us how justice works in this country.  Thank you for issuing the TRO on the MOA-AD, for showing to the Filipino people how fast you can actually act upon cases filed by powerful politicians like Emmanuel Piñol and Celso Lobregat.  Indeed, the speediness at which you have acted on this case was extraordinary and phenomenal.  In 3 months time, you have struck down a document which took more than 10 years of painstaking negotiations to accomplish.

Thank you, too, for helping MILF base Commanders Ameril Ombra Kato and Bravo recruit more fighters and supporters.  Your decision vindicated what they have always believed from the very beginning — that this government will never be sincere in talking peace with the Bangsamoro people.  Now we are faced with the world’s longest running armed conflict that sees no resolution in sight.  Thank you for condemning Mindanao as the next Afghanistan or Darfur in Asia.

As you said, you went farther to rule on the constitutionality of the MOA-AD as it involves a matter of transcendental importance.  And for the guidance of everyone, you struck down the MOA as unconstitutional. Scouring on the voluminous pages of your decision including the separate, concurring and dissenting opinions, one could not help but ask, “where is the guidance?”

Thank you, Supreme Court for making us realize that we still have a lot to learn from the history of Mindanao.  That we still have a long way to go in healing the wounds of the past, in correcting the historical wrong committed against the Bangsamoro and indigenous peoples.  Thank you if you can agree that some of you could use a great deal of refresher in the History class of Prof. Rudy Rodil,  a well respected historian and scholar who by the way is now a persona non grata in his own home city in  Iligan.  But that’s not something new.  Jesus Christ himself was also a persona non grata in Nazareth.

Hear ye, hear ye, Supreme Court of the Philippines, thank you for making us understand that the minority definitely has no place in this country.  This was glaring in the series of Oral Arguments where you generously provided ample time to lawyers, politicians, mayors, senators and generals to argue against the MOA-AD.  Yet, no single Moro soul has ever been allowed to speak about her own identity, the desecration of her culture, the militarization of her community and the blatant discrimination that she feels as a Muslim Filipino.  Is this the kind of equality that the blind-folded lady of justice bears? What an ostentatious display of fair play, Honorable Justices!

Thank you also for reigniting the fire of animosity and hatred between Christians and Muslims. The resurgence of fanatical and anti-Muslim local vigilante called Ilaga came not as a surprise. Local politicians, exploiting your decision, unleashed this menace in order to curb the Bangsamoro’s quest for justice.  Thanks to the 10,000 shotguns the other Puno in the DILG distributed to arm the civilians, the theater of communal violence in the ’70s is now showing again.  Can Puno “TRO” the other Puno, too?

Thank you for helping these politicians secure their interests over vast tracts of lands they have grabbed from the Moro people.  By the way, land grabbing was “legal” because it was in accordance with the Public Land Act which “legitimized” the dispossession of the non-Christian tribes from their ancestral lands.  Never mind if it is not just, notwithstanding if it is not fair, for as long as it is legal and in accordance with the Constitution.

Thank you for making us understand why in the JPEPA case, you upheld the exercise of executive privilege by Malacañang while in the MOA-AD it simply cannot be.  Vis-a vis the interests of superpowers like Japan and the US, it’s okay to compromise sovereignty, we are their puppets anyway.  But with regards to the Bangsamoro people, that’s another story. Our business interest over their ancestral domain is of such transcendental importance to these Senators, Congressmen, Mayors, Generals, Lawyers, Vice Governors  cum owners of mining, logging, banana, pineapple and jatropha plantations in Mindanao – they cannot be compromised.

Thank you for affirming that we are indeed one country, one people, one nation.  As such, one cannot help but wonder why the military indiscriminately drop bombs over civilian communities in Mindanao akin to the carpet bombings in Iraq.  If you stubbornly insist that the Bangsamoro people cannot be allowed to dismember from this Republic, you should at least treat them like they are members of this country in the first place.

But alas! Thanks that seven of you, Honorable Justices, will be retiring next year.  Whether it is this court or next year’s full Arroyo court, it doesn’t matter to ordinary Moros, lumads and settlers anymore.  There is no place for them in your court anyway.

In the meantime, there are more urgent tasks to do in Mindanao — attending to the sick, burying the dead, consoling the orphans, securing our homes and communities.  As children slowly die of hunger and diarrhea in congested evacuation centers, they ask?  “Why is there war again”.  May you take it in your conscience to explain to them how the constitution is far more important than the innocent lives of hundreds of thousands of people.  They pay such a high price for your Constitution. You should thank them for that, Supreme Court of the Philippines.

—
You may send your comments and reactions to fatimahbinguerra@yahoo.com.

 
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]