(The series is an analysis of the draft peace pacts exchanged between the government and Moro Islamic Liberation Front peace panels on January 27, 2010 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The MILF did not show up for discussion the next day claiming the GRP [Government of the Republic of the Philippines] presented nothing new, that it offered “enhanced autonomy” again, an offer rejected in 2000 and 2003.

The two panels met again on March 4 in Kuala Lumpur for a Q and A session on the MILF’s draft Declaration of Principles on Interim Governance Arrangements, an 11-page extract from its proposed Comprehensive Compact. The GRP peace panel vowed to submit its counter-proposal but as of March 18, panel chair Rafael Seguis told MindaNews he has not submitted it because “I have to clear with the National Security Cabinet Group.”

Dialogue Mindanaw, a series of consultations organized by the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP), is supposed to “engage the people by informing them about the issues being discussed in the GRP-MILF peace talks, and by securing their honest feedback on these issues”

OPAPP Secretary Annabelle Abaya announced before Mindanao’s state university presidents who attended a peacebuilding conference in Penang, Malaysia in January that the Dialogue Mindanaw consultations will be specific as to the issues the government and MILF peace panels will be discussing at the negotiating table.

“The idea is to get back to the people on the issues they (panels) are discussing. What do they want?“ Abaya said.

But issues like “state-sub-state relationship” which was allegedly part of the proposal of the MILF in late January, has not been discussed in the consultations.

MindaNews’ Patricio P. Diaz got hold of copies of the draft peace agreements exchanged on January 27 from sources who asked not to be named.

This series is intended to help the readers understand the drafts and the issues being resolved now. Prof. Rudy Rodil has also written a separate commentary — MindaNews editor)

I. The Agreed Guidelines

GENERAL SANTOS CITY – From the various reports of the stalled peace talks of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), the inference is: The peace process to arrive at a political solution to the Mindanao Problem is not in a state of impasse; rather, it is in a state of by-pass: the MILF is resisting and the GRP is insisting on.

This interesting, yet intriguing, twist in the Kuala Lumpur negotiation the GRP and the MILF drafts of agreements tell, the media reports notwithstanding.

[Author’s Note: Incidentally and presumably, in response to my latest three-part COMMENT: “Peace Pact Still Possible?”, posted in MindaNews February 16, 20, 21 and 22, sources who asked not to be named sent copies of the GRP and MILF Drafts]

Moral Issue

The present stalled negotiation raises the moral issue of sincerity and honesty. The two Parties – GRP and MILF – have agreed to follow the talks agenda. On reading the Drafts, it is to be wondered: How sincere and honest are they to their agreements?

A year after the Supreme Court restrained the Government from signing the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) and later declared it unconstitutional, the two Parties “re-established official contact” on July 29, 2009 and issued the four-point “Joint Statement” to do so. This is a key reference of the resumed peace talks.

Joint Statement acknowledged the following:

1. Mutual effort to sustain the Government’s Suspension of Military Offensives (SOMO) and the MILF’s Suspension of Military Actions (SOMA).

2. Acknowledgment of MOA-AD as an unsigned and yet initialed document, and commitment by both parties to reframe the consensus points with the end in view of moving towards the comprehensive compact to bring about a negotiated political settlement;

3. Work for a framework agreement on the establishment of a mechanism on the protection of non-combatants in armed conflict;

4. Work for a framework agreement on the establishment of International Contact Group (ICG) of groups of states and non-state organizations to accompany and mobilize international support for the peace process.

What does Item 2 imply? Since the MILF never abandoned the MOA-AD, the acknowledgment of it as an “initialed document” was solely that of the GRP after having disowned it publicly and before the Supreme Court.

The GRP and the MILF, in committing “to reframe the consensus points with the end in view of moving towards the comprehensive compact to bring about a negotiated political settlement”, agreed to re-start the talks from where they had stopped – the initialed MOA-AD. That is a defining statement.

In so agreeing, the MILF acknowledged the Decision of the Supreme Court and, by extension, the 1987 Constitution. However, the Court ruling should be noted well:

Its final resolution reads: “The Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain Aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 is declared CONTRARY TO LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION.”

Paragraph 4 of the Summary of the Supreme Court’s October 14, 2008 Decision reads: “The MOA-AD is a significant part of a series of agreements necessary to carry out the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace signed by the government and the MILF back in June 2001. Hence, the present MOA-AD can be renegotiated or another one drawn up that could contain similar or significantly dissimilar provisions compared to the original.”

What are to be noted well?

First, the Court declared unconstitutional only the MOA, not the AD as an aspect of the Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001.

Second, the Court recognized the Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 and the series of agreements already done to carry it out. The Court acknowledged the MOA-AD as a significant part of that series.

Third, the Court restrained the Government from signing the MOA-AD; however, on recognizing its significance to the GRP-MILF peace negotiation, it recommended three options to save the peace process: (1) renegotiate it; (2) draft a new one with similar provisions; or, (3) draft another with significantly dissimilar provisions compared to the unconstitutional MOA-AD.

Item 2 of the four-item agreement of the July 29, 2009 Statement is consonant with these options.

On December 9, 2009, the GRP and MILF agreed to cut short the negotiation by exchanging draft agreements drawn up following a seven-item guideline: (1) Identity and citizenship; (2) Government and structure; (3) Security arrangement; (4) Wealth-sharing, natural resources and property rights; (5) Restorative justice and reconciliation; (6) Implementation arrangement; (7) Independent monitoring.

The seven-item specific guideline, another key reference of the resumed peace talk, is consonant with Item 2 of the July 29 Statement and the final ruling of the Supreme Court on the MOA-AD. To reiterate the moral issue: Do the GRP and MILF draft agreements adhere to their agreed guideline? The drafts will tell how sincere and honest the Parties are.

Restatement

The Supreme Court decision recommends three options to revive the negotiations on the Ancestral Domain aspect of the Tripoli Agreement on Peace of June 2001.

The GRP-MILF Joint Statement of July 29, 2009 is a general agreement to reframe the consensus points of the MOA-AD to re-start the peace talks and move it toward the Comprehensive Compact.

The December 9, 2009 Seven-Item guideline sets the details of the Joint Statement as reference of the two Parties in drafting their Peace Agreement Proposal to shorten the negotiation to five months or less.

As the Armed Forces of the Philippines intensifies its aerial and ground bombardment of Moro communities in Mindanao and starving of Moro refugees with military food blockades to collect the multi-million peso rewards on the heads of MILF commanders Ameril Ombra Kato and Abdurrahman ‘Bravo’ Macapaar, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has been repeatedly announcing to the public the ‘new peace strategy’ of her regime in confronting the conflict in Mindanao. The President, says her spokesmen, has changed the rules of the game. No longer will she be holding peace talks with armed groups but directly with the communities. Also, any dealings with the MILF shall be in the context of DDR: demobilization, disarmament and reintegration (rehabilitation, as her spokesmen erringly put it).

From these pronouncements, it is clear that the Arroyo regime has abandoned the Mindanao peace process. After the aborted August 5 MOA-AD signing ceremony in Malaysia, the nationwide anti-Moro and anti-Muslim campaign, and the consequent fighting in Central Mindanao, Jesus Dureza, the presidential mouthpiece, informed all and sundry that the regime would no longer sign the MOA-AD “in its present form or in any other form”. Arroyo even followed this up by disbanding the government peace panel.

Here, there is no room for misinterpretation. Insofar as the Arroyo regime is concerned, the MILF-GRP peace negotiation is plain and simple kaput. Just like that. There is really no ‘new peace strategy’. There is no more ‘primacy of the peace process.’ Everything else is pure rhetoric. The reality is that it’s back to the old but profitable business of war. I am pretty sure the warmongers are jumping with joy. Behind the scenes, there would be a lot of back-slapping: “We’re back in business, boys! We’re back in business!”

No in-depth analysis is needed to understand that Arroyo’s ‘peace strategy’ is pure nonsense. It’s a lot of bull, to use a Yankee colloquialism. Peace negotiation with communities? What communities? Moro communities? The political aspiration of the Moro people has always been articulated and represented by the Moro liberation movement. Hence, if government wants a negotiation it has to deal with the Moro liberation movement. That means the MILF. That the regime will be negotiating with ‘communities’ – assuming these are Moro communities – and not with the Moro liberation movement is like performing shadow boxing.
This begs the question: What about DDR?

By putting forward DDR, the Arroyo regime has made it obvious that it does not want to conclude a peace agreement. What it wants – nay, demands – is the surrender of the MILF. But no revolutionary organization worth the name would succumb to such an outrageous demand or condition. And the MILF is a revolutionary organization. Brother Al Haj Murad, the Amirul Mujahideen and Chairman of the MILF, has made this very clear on several occasions. The Arroyo regime knows that the MILF would outrightly reject this absurd precondition for the resumption of talks. So by demanding for the impossible, the regime really does not want the talks to resume. Or, reconsider signing the MOA-AD. It appears now that everything was orchestrated, including the aborted signing, so that the talks would crumble. And it did crumble. That’s the harsh reality. That’s the inside story.

So where does that leave us? As I said, back to a state of war. Before the onset of the Holy Month of Ramadhan, I could hear these foreboding words of our brothers reverberating in the four corners of the Moro Homeland:

“Brace yourselves, brothers and sisters, the ‘Castilians’ are coming! They will bomb our homes, pillage our communities, put torch to our masajid, haul or young boys to prison as ‘terrorists’, and portray us as Dracula in their daily moro-moro. So brace yourselves! Man the barricades!”

Today, as we watch from a distance the smoke-filled air over the devastated Moro villages of Maguindanao, North Cotabato, Saranggani, Lanao del Sur and Lanao del Norte, these words of warning have come alive. The brown ‘Castilians’ are already here causing mayhem. And even during Ramadhan! But thank Allah, Most High, there are brothers ‘manning the barricades’.
But seriously, now that the peace process under the Arroyo regime is dead as in dead, the persistent question that a young former Moro neighbor is bugging me with is: will there be life for the peace process after Arroyo?

Pondering over this question intently, I saw that my former neighbor has a point – as a matter of fact, all the relevant points – in pestering me with this question. I asked myself also the same question until it dawned on me that the only way to answer this is to have a rundown of who the Filipino ‘presidentiables’ are in 2010, the year Arroyo leaves office (and I hope for good).

I abhor Philippine politics because it’s neo-colonial (in Islamic terminology, it is jahili politics) and therefore rotten. So, I never took interest in finding out who the presidentiables are lining up for the elections in 2010. I never even vote in all elections, national or local. I spent the best years of my youth in the struggle against Filipino regimes and presidents who had our Moro homeland invaded and devastated. I am one among the many Moros who holds a Filipino passport by force of circumstance.

But going back to the issue, if the peace process were to be revived it will be under a new regime, a new sitting president. The MILF-GRP negotiation was jettisoned by Joseph Estrada in 2000 when he waged all-out war against the MILF; but it was revived when Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo took over the presidency in 2001. The perception now is when Arroyo steps down in less than two years’ time there is the likelihood that the peace process will also be revived back to life. Or will it be?

But to satisfy my former Moro neighbor’s persistent question as well as my own curiosity, I made a short list of Filipino presidentiables using as yardstick their recent reactions to and/or views on the MOA-AD.

The first on the list would be Vice-President Noli de Castro, being next in line to the exiting Arroyo. As an aside, I don’t think he is even worth being considered a serious contender for the presidency. To the bourgeois elite, De Castro lacks the qualification, particularly the ‘intellectual sophistication’, for becoming president. In the recent brouhaha over the MOA-AD, he was conspicuously silent. He had no stand of his own and played safe staying quietly at the sidelines while his political colleagues in and out of government took turns lambasting the Moros, who happen to be the compatriots of his Moro wife. But then again, De Castro’s weaknesses might just be his strengths. To the exploitative Filipino ruling elite, he could be a useful tool, a puppet president.
Intellectually deficient, yes, but that would even make him a good puppet-on-a-string. As such, he would be a glorified servant of the powerful anti-Moro and anti-Muslim blocs, particularly the conservative Church and reactionary Big Business, which dominate the political and economic scene in the Philippines.

Under a De Castro presidency, the peace process might be revived but it will be a peace process with no direction, a peace process designed to perpetuate the status quo in Mindanao. It will all be for show to keep the international donors’ money flowing into the pockets of the corrupt Philippine officialdom. That kind of a peace process is a dead one. So forget it.

The second on the list of presidentiables is Senate President Manny Villar. Senator Villar has not been as vociferous as the other Filipino politicians in opposing the MOA-AD.
Nevertheless, he is against it. He is part of Big Business and the latter has vast economic interests in Mindanao. This being the case, Villar will oppose any peace process that will give the Bangsamoro people the kind of economic concessions and political rights contained in the MOA-AD. To the Moros, short of the MOA-AD agenda, there is no talking point in any resumption of negotiation. But Villar will not stand for resuming talks based on the MOA-AD.

He will ‘play safe’ by demanding that any peace talks be within the framework of the Philippine constitution. Therefore, there will never be a meaningful peace negotiation under a Villar presidency. Besides, Villar will also be looking forward to the next presidential election and I don’t think he can dare antagonize the mighty political and economic power blocs that really rule the country.

The third on our list is Senator Mar Roxas. There’s nothing more to be said about Roxas, a grandson of a Philippine president who also played a part in the colonization of the Bangsamoro Homeland.

Mar Roxas, an Ilonggo, has vehemently opposed the MOA-AD for two basic reasons: 1. inherent dislike for the Bangsamoro people which he probably ‘inherited’ from his colonialist forebears; and 2. fear that that the signing of the MOA-AD will set the stage for charter change leading to an extension of the term of Arroyo, thus aborting his plan to become president by 2010. Under a Roxas presidency, there might not even be peace talks between the MILF and the Philippine government. It should be noted that the Roxas family acquired political power and wealth under the status quo whose ‘bible’ is the Philippine constitution. So, Roxas is definitely hopeless. Perhaps, the only thing he knows about the Moros is that they are a source of ‘ghost votes’ during election time. And indeed, like Villar’s mindset, there is always a second term to look forward to. ‘Ghost voters’ from the ARMM will be useful to Mar Roxas so he cannot afford to give the Bangsamoro people the kind of freedom they want and need that is in the MOA-AD.

The fourth on the list is former senator Franklin Drilon. Like Roxas, Drilon is an Ilonggo. He heads the opposition wing of the Liberal Party. He is also a rabid opponent of the MOA-AD. In his one page-ad in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Drilon’s presentation of the MOA-AD for easy understanding by the public was good. But it was his conclusion that really mattered. He exposed his Filipino chauvinistic animus for the Moros by parroting the lie that the MOA-AD leads to Moro secession.

Drillon is a brilliant lawyer. Of all the presidentiables, he is perhaps the most intellectually capable of understanding the ‘Bangsamoro Problem’. But as a typical Filipino trapo (traditional politician) whose reactionary mindset is attuned to that of the anti-Moro Filipino settler-politician in Mindanao, Drillon does not want to understand the ‘Bangsamoro Problem’. He strongly denies and opposes the assertion of Bangsamoro identity. This refusal to understand the ‘Bangsamoro Problem’ he has craftily mantled in the rhetoric of defending the Philippine constitution.

So goes for Senator Cheez Escudero, another presidentiable. Or so they say. The Senate neophyte is popular for his ‘cause-oriented’ opposition to the Arroyo regime. But I guess Escudero’s past association with the deposed Joseph Estrada who had unleashed an ‘all-out-war’ in 2000 against the Bangsamoro people has left an indelible mark on his mind.
Escudero, a self-styled ‘Filipino nationalist,’ is among the most vocal oppositionists to the MOA-AD. By going against the MOA-AD, Escudero revealed his true colors: justice is only good for the Opposition, not the Moros. If he were to become president, we might have another ‘Erap’ in the making.

Another presidentiable on the list is the glamorous Senator Loren Legarda, a vice-presidential candidate who lost to De Castro in the last election. The problem with Loren is that she doesn’t even know whether to become a billboard ad model or be serious in her job as a government official. If she becomes president, a friend predicted that town and city streets as well as highways from Jolo to Aparri would all be adorned with those gigantic billboards displaying multi-colored pictures of hers in different poses endorsing a variety of cosmetic products and the latest fashion or announcing her projects for the nation.
Legarda is close to some members of the Moro elite. She was even given an honorary title as ‘Bailabi So-and-So’ in Lanao del Sur. That, however, doesn’t make her sympathetic to the Moro cause or an expert on the ‘Bangsamoro Problem’. In fact, her true feelings came out when she, too, opposed the MOA-AD. Assuming she becomes president, it is possible she would revive the peace talks though not to endorse the MOA-AD but to promote a cosmetic product! Pardon the pun.

Second to the last on our list is Senator Panfilio ‘Ping’ Lacson, another loser in the last presidential election. Nothing more can be said about Ping Lacson that the public, especially the Moros, does not already know. He was Estrada’s hit man during the incumbency of the former. It was during his watch as head of the Philippine National Police (PNP) under the Estrada presidency that four innocent Moro Muslims were brutally executed gangland-style on a street in Quiapo, Manila, by the police in broad daylight. The poor Muslims who were applying for jobs abroad were suspected, judged and executed all at one time as ‘MILF terrorists’. And this does not even include the many Muslims detained and/or who disappeared when Lacson was PNP Chief.

Ping Lacson doesn’t worry or care about human rights. He is a bully who does not believe in due process, no thanks to his stint as a Philippine Constabulary ‘enforcer’ during the dark days of the Marcos dictatorship. He is one of the architects of Estrada’s all-out war debacle in Mindanao together with Angelo Reyes, then the Chief of Staff of the AFP. Under a Lacson presidency, there might not even be a peace negotiation let alone the revival of one.
At the bottom of the list is Joseph ‘Erap’ Ejercito Estrada. I included the latter because of his recent innuendos that he might stage a political comeback “if the Filipino people demand it”. He still has a lot of fanatic followers who are unbelievably mesmerized by his movie antics being played out in real life. Knowing Philippine politics, it would not be difficult for a political has-been like Erap to invoke ‘the Filipino people’s demand’ and take the center stage in the fight for the Philippine presidency.

In the recent controversy on the MOA-AD, it is evident Erap never learned from his past blunders when he unleashed an all-war on the Bangsamoro people in 2000. From his lair in a posh suburban village in Metro-Manila, he continues to rant not only against the MOA-AD but against the MILF. He boasts that if he were still the president, the ‘Bangsamoro Problem’ would have been solved by his ‘pupulbusin-ko-kayo‘(“I will pulverize you”) military formula. Everyone knows the only ‘victory’ that Erap gained from his foolish military adventurism in Mindanao, Basilan and Sulu was a Pyrrhic one and that was when his troops ‘captured’ at a very high price a small piece of real estate inside Camp Abu Bakr As-Siddiq. He failed to literally reduce the MILF to smithereens as he arrogantly boasted to the public. This ignoramus cannot live a day without being inebriated so much so that he does not realize until now that the MILF’s tactical withdrawal from a small part of Camp Abu Bakr cannot be compared to his humiliating ejection from Malacañang and the subsequent public shame he was subjected to as a result of the venalities of his regime.

Nevertheless, Erap is one guy who holds extreme contempt for the Bangsamoro people, the MILF and Islam and if he were to become president again, he would declare the “Fall of Camp Abu Bakr” a national holiday and order all mosques throughout the country to celebrate it with imported wine and lechon.

Negotiation, you say? Under Erap, no way. This man has the mentality of a gangster. Just like the underworld characters he played in his B-grade movies.
I was considering including in my list the likes of Senator Richard Gordon and Senator Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. but their chances of being presidentiables, while not nil, are slim. But even assuming that they stand the chance of becoming presidents, these two also opposed the MOA-AD.

Pimentel is a big disappointment to the Moros because he hails from Mindanao and is an advocate of ‘Mindanaoan’ rights. It turned out, however, that he is no different from the rest of the Filipino politicians. All talk but no sincerity and commitment.

I likewise ignored House Speaker Boy Nograles, who is from Davao City, because though he ranks third or fourth in the government hierarchy, he hasn’t as yet made any open manifestation of joining the presidentiables. It is very unlikely that he would. He is not that popular to the Filipinos in the North. Like Pimentel, Nograles was a fervent advocate of federalism. When he became Speaker of Congress, this advocacy fizzled out like a strong typhoon hitting land and turning into a mere rain shower. Temptations of power have overcome this spineless ‘Mindanaoan’ who cannot even voice out a whimper of protest against the atrocious devastation that militarization is now causing in Mindanao.

Another presidential aspirant not on my list of presidentiables is Bayani Fernando, head of the Metro-Manila Commission (did I get the name of the office right?). In fairness to him, he never said a word for or against the MOA-AD. But the man is a joker, a nondescript character. He is better off trying his luck singing and dancing on TV ? la ‘American Idol’ than vying for the presidency. Or, even better, directing traffic in Metro-Manila. Perhaps the only Moros he knows are those impoverished Muslim ‘squatters’ (refugees from the past wars in Mindanao) he was trying to eject from that reclamation area in Pasay City.
There are also showbiz people and religious leaders of Christian charismatic groups who are toying with the idea of becoming presidentiables but I omitted them. These people are all clowns who think of the Philippine presidency as the apex of their showbiz career or the ultimate pulpit from where bible-thumping preachers-turned-politicians could promise to ‘rain’ manna on the poverty-stricken masses though not from heaven but from Malacañang. This is the crowd that doesn’t give a damn about what happens to the Moros.

I showed my former Moro neighbor my list plus the corresponding observations I made and he concurred with my analysis. Finally, he also agreed with me that only a Filipino president fully in control of government and with the caliber of the late French President Charles de Gaulle or even a Vicente Emano of Cagayan de Oro can we say with a degree of certainty that there is going to be life for the peace process after Arroyo.

I mentioned Vicente ‘Dongkoy’ Emano, the non-Muslim vice-mayor of Cagayan de Oro City, because he was the only official who openly opposed the military operations in Mindanao and who declared that the Moro cause is a just cause. This he boldly declared in a large gathering of Mindanao officials that included Moro governors and mayors whose lips were zipped for fear of displeasing the current regime.

Meantime, however, with the kind of presidentiables arrayed before us, my former Moro neighbor now shares my doubt as to whether 2010 can bring the peace and justice that our people have been longing for; unless, of course, Allah gives us a miracle. He knows best. But until then, this is how the situation stands.

As a footnote, a few days after I last met up with him, I saw my former Moro neighbor carrying a backpack waiting at the public terminal for his ride. It was the end of Ramadhan and the ‘Id’l Fitre congregational prayers had just been concluded. I asked him where he was going and he gave me a glowing smile I would never forget. Then he whispered, “I am joining the mujahideen.” That was all and except for the ‘salaam’ and customary fraternal embrace, he left without another word.

-end-

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

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

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

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

Injustice: root cause of the Mindanao problem 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why the Supreme Court declared the MOA-AD unconstitutional 

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Violation on the peoples right to information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. It may have been a binding International obligation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The spirit of the MOA-AD lives on 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who, indeed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But let us look at their arguments.

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

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

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

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

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

Which bring us then to the question of the Constitution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-End-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS:

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

2. RIGHTS OF CITIZENS IN AN ISLAMIC STATE:

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

3. RIGHTS OF ENEMIES AT WAR:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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