(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-

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

POOR GOVERNANCE, NO GOVERNANCE

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

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

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

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

ODA AND THE “POT OF GOLD”

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

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

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

GOOD GOVERNANCE, HR AND JUSTICE, PEACE & DEVELOPMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

Don Loong discussed and tackled 6 major issues in his presentation discussed during the Young Moro Professionals Network roundtable in Zamboanga City and dozens of other dialogues among Young Moros and other stakeholders national and local. AIM Bridging leadership concepts such as multi-stakeholder approach, systems thinking, force field analysis was used to see the relationships among the major issues.

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

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

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

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

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

Historical Antecedents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bangsamoro People are not Filipinos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The MOA-AD is a New Formula in Conflict Resolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Injustice: root cause of the Mindanao problem 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why the Supreme Court declared the MOA-AD unconstitutional 

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Violation on the peoples right to information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. It may have been a binding International obligation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The spirit of the MOA-AD lives on 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The insult is even more excruciating with this accusation coming from comrades in the progressive movement, and especially with these comrades arriving at this analysis without any attempt to hear our side. Our opinion may not be as highly intellectual as yours, our analysis not as scientific, our political consciousness not at par. But in the spirit of democracy for which we fought along with you once upon a time, we think we deserve to be heard even if our basis is merely common sense.

First Point. As part of this political spectrum, we have always been assured of and thereby honestly believed in the block’s recognition of the Bangsamoro Struggle for Right to Self-Determination. However, raising the issues of constitutionality and national sovereignty leaves us wondering if all these time, RSD has only been a beautiful, empty slogan for you. Doesn’t the line BJE is treason sound familiar? Isn’t this the very same line of the very same exploitative and oppressive system you rise up against? For a non-Moro to say that the BJE is a betrayal of the legitimate interests and aspirations (of the Bangsamoro…since this is the currently proposed concrete form of RSD for the Moro people) is to echo the very chauvinism of the very bourgeoisie that you abhor, who looks down upon the Moro people as a stupid bunch, inept to run our own affairs, who must swallow your analysis of things that you shove down our throats, undeserving of the right to make decisions for ourselves. Is this your definition of RSD? We have long accepted the fact that there is indeed no hope for the Bangsamoro with this administration. The earlier discourse on the MOA-AD made us realize that we have no hope with the opposition either. Now, we are again faced with the realization that there is also no hope for us with the so-called progressives, not even with our own comrades. And so far, this is what hurt most.

Second Point. The infamous letter of the late MILF Chair Hashim Salamat to US President Bush in 2003, and the USIP Report released in February of this year, may be enough to cast shadows of doubt. But if we are for an impartial, responsible analysis, other truths and realities should have been considered.

Foremost, an MILF insider clarified that said letter was in response to the branding of the MILF as a terrorist group. It was written purposely to contend the allegation and not for the purpose of asking America’s help. In Chairman Salamat’s letter to President Bush he asks him to “use your good office in rectifying the error that continues to negate and derogate the Bangsamoro People’s fundamental right to seek decolonization… This has been criticized as selling out to US interests. But let us not forget it is the United States that started all this by illegally annexing the Bangsamoro Homeland to the Philippines when it granted the latter Independence in 1898. This mess is their creation, they have the responsibility to help clean it up. This is what the letter could be alluding to.

Nonetheless, the Bangsamoro has always distanced itself from the US, allying solely with other Islamic countries. It has not even relied much on the United Nations, knowing US influence on the body. Anti-US resentment among the Moro people stems not just from ideological differences but from a deeper, faith-based antipathy. Many Muslims believe that after the fall of Communism, Islam is now the greatest enemy of America who only has two policies for the Muslims worldwide, assimilation or annihilation. A collusion with them for the Muslims is tantamount not only to sleeping with the enemy but to sleeping with death itself. Have you forgotten that it is the Moro people that is the subject of the anti-terror policy of the US in the Philippines?

Earlier this year, the Moro people, including Muslim leaders, congressmen,governors, mayors, in Sulu, Lanao and other parts of Mindanao launched massive protest actions against the Balikatan Exercises, with the Moro youth, mostly from the MILF, throwing tomatoes at American soldiers, amidst harassments and persecution. If there are Americans in the Bangsamoro homeland now, that is because of the imposition of the National Government and against the will of the Moro people.

If we receive the extended hand of US, it is only in obedience to the Islamic teaching to be just even to those we do not like. But we have not forgotten that US hands are red with our ancestors’ blood. One hundred years after the Bud Daho Massacre, where almost a thousand of our people, including elders, women and children were helplessly killed, we still commemorate the tragedy every single year, so that we, and those who will come after us will not forget. How dare you now accuse us of selling our homeland, our people, our future, when no amount of billion dollars is enough to pay even for our past?

If America is poised to be the protector of our territory, well thanks, but no thanks. Did you honestly believe that we will allow that? You did not even bother to ask. No less than the USIP report, the instrument you now revere to contain the truth said, Some Moro and non-Moro leaders and civil society activists assumed that USIP was a Central Intelligence Agency front organization whose true objective was to infiltrate the MILF…, The report may have claimed that USIP overcame this assumption, but is this enough to judge us? Attendance or participation in their consultations cannot be construed as allegiance with them. Allow us to reiterate that the liberation movement of the Bangsamoro never relied on US intervention. How can it now, in the final stages of the process, just give it to US in a silver platter? And what, just abandon Malaysia, and the Organization of Islamic Countries, which has already given so much and proven their commitment to the cause? Political dynamics between Malaysia and US will tell us that Malaysia will never concur or give in to US dictate.

As for GMA’s Charter Change, we condemn the use of our legitimate struggle to serve her and her cohorts’ interests. We push for the MOA-AD because it contains general principles recognizing Bangsamoro RSD but we say No to Charter Change. We stand by our belief that there is nothing in the MOA-AD which requires Constitutional amendment before 2010. No less than Fr. Joaquin Bernas said so, many times. Fr. Bernas used to be an authority on matters of the Constitution, his opinion sought after in our past debates with this administration. How come these days, on this issue involving the same Constitution, everyone has become expert Constitutionalists, except Fr. Bernas?

Anyway even if we are against GMA’s cha-cha, why should we limit ourselves to the framework of the current constitution? The progressive movement has never limited the struggle to the constitutional framework and has in fact adopted strategies which lie outside the framework of the constitution.

Comrades, we were one with you in the fight to kick out the US from this country. We were one with you in the struggle to kick out GMA. We do not expect you to be one with us on this, we just did not expect that on the slightest provocation of a US report, you will turn against us in this manner and kick us out.