This RA 9997 pertains to the creation of the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos (NCMF) which then abolishes the name of Office on Muslim Affairs (OMA) and will take over its powers, functions, responsibilities and appropriating funds. It replaced the 23-year-old Office on Muslim Affairs (OMA).

On Section 2 – Declaration of Policy:

It is henceforth the policy of the State to ensure the rights and well-being of Muslim Filipinos with due regard to their behefs, customs, traditons and institutions, as well as to further ensure their contribution to national goals and aspirations and to make them active participants in nation-building.

NCMF coverage shall be both local and national affairs involving Muslim Filipinos that include the implementation of economic, educational, cultural, and infrastructure programs for Muslim Filipino communities.

The Mandate of the Commission is to preserve and develop the culture, tradition, institutions, and well-being of Muslim Filipinos, in conformity with the country’s laws and in consonance with national unity and development.

Composition of the Commission

The Commission shall be composed of nine (9) full-time members who are Muslim Filipinos and shall be headed by a Secretary: Provided, That one (1) of the Commissioners shall come from the women sector, one (1) from the youth sector and another Commissioner shall come from the Ulama sector: Provided, further, That not more than two (2) Commissioners shall come from the same Muslim Filipino tribe at any given time, to ensure a more equitable representation in the Commission. The President shall appoint the regular members of the Commission. The Commissioners shall be academic degree holders and must speak and write fluently the Enghsh and/or Arabic languages. They shall be individuals who possess the highest degree of integrity and have the endorsement of their respective tribes or sectors.

New Commissioners

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo appointed Secretary Bai Omeira Dimakuta Dianalan Lucman – a Moro woman leader as secretary or head of office of the newly created National Commission for Muslim Filipinos (NCMF). Sec. Lucman, is a former undersecretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) and also served for five years at the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA). She is married to former Ambassador Dr. Alibasher Lucman.

Also appointed as commissioners by the President are Alladin I. Ampatuan (Maguindanao), Solaiman C. Mutia (Lanao del Norte), Hatimil E. Hassan (Basilan), and Raida B. Maglangit (women sector), former mayor of Kapatagan, Lanao del Sur.

Four others are Mufti Jaafar (Tawi-Tawi), Prof. Moner M. Bajunaid (Maguindanao), Atty. Edilwasif T. Baddiri (Sulu, youth sector), and Aleem Sharief Julasiri Abirin (Sulu, ulama sector).

National Commission on Muslim FiIipinos Act of 2009

MILF: New commission for ‘Muslims’ antidote to Moro RSD

The Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) branded the creation of the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos (NCMF) as nothing but counter-insurgency measure to liquidate the current struggle of the Bangsamoro people for right to self-determination (RSD).

“We have never been Filipinos in our entire life; only those subjects of Spain can rightly assume ‘Filipino” as their nationality,” Muhammad Ameen, chair of the MILF Secretariat, told www.luwaran.com.

He said this showed the government is not really focused and serious in the ongoing GRP-MILF Peace Talks.

“This is imposition, he said, citing a provision of the Tripoli Agreement on Peace on June 22, 2001, to wit: “The negotiation and peaceful resolution of the conflict must involve consultations with the Bangsamoro people free of any imposition in order to provide chances of success and open new formulas that permanently respond to the aspirations of the Bangsamoro people for freedom.”

However, Ameen took exception to the good intention of the legislators who sponsored the bill and all those who supported it.

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-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bangsamoro Struggle for self-determination

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

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

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

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

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

MOROLAND – Land of the Bangsa Moro

Manny Pacquiao Vs. Oscar De La Hoya

Fight starts at: ( undercards )

8:00 am Philippines === Dec 7, 2008 === Sunday Morning
6:00 pm U.S. ======== Dec. 6, 2008 === Saturday Evening
2:00 am U.K. ======== Dec. 7, 2008 === Sunday Morning
3:00 am Oslo, Norway = Dec. 7, 2008 === Sunday Morning

JUSTIN TV LINK:

http://www.justin.tv/feu11

http://www.justin.tv/globalhdworld

http://www.justin.tv/myboxingfans

http://www.justin.tv/phazeddl

http://www.justin.tv/hdprem

SOPCAST LINK:

sop://broker.sopcast.com:3912/24267
sop://broker1.sopcast.com:3912/6002

To all boxing fans. Enjoy!

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]

Dear All,

We don’t have money to further enrich the national dailies with a whole page AD.  So I do have to settle for alternative media prints “a la pobre”.  But it has the benefit of global interconnectedness.  Here’s my initial salvo to Frank’s ADS on MOA-AD.  I will elaborate my commentary much later.  For the sake of a broader debate, please help circulate this Open Letter on the MOA-AD.

Yours truly,
Datu Michael O. Mastura

An Open Letter
24 August 2008

My reply email was interrupted by a brownout amidst my composing thoughts I wanted to convey to our readers at the Mindanews website besides Luwaran website.  Hopefully someone from the editorial box of the national dailies (in particular PDI) will pick as news items warranting some space the legal views of lawyers (like me) who represent MILF as the real Party in interest across the GRP-MILF negotiating table.

The series of full page ADS in PDI 08/22/08 and PD 08/23/08 of former senate president Frank M. Drilon simplify and focus on perceived infringements to the 1987 Constitution.  Those two Q & A pages make up powerful arguments for the continuing extension of what I call the “colonisibility status” of the Bangsamoro people, posing the matter of immediate infringement as a danger.

If we think rationally out of the maddening reactive anti-Moro sentiments generated by opinion-editorials and hardly balanced media coverage of the Government-MILF peace process, it makes me reflect the ‘triumph of diplomacy’ in our era of postmodern states. [N. B. this phrase is taken from the title of a book on how the Moro rulers of the Magindanaw sultanate and the Sulu sultanate had survived the era of treaty-making with Spain, an imperial power, and Holland, a commercial power, of the time and the United States up to 1916, when President Woodrow Wilson enunciated seminal ideas of the right to self determination.] Thus, there is no occasion to speak of Balkanization of this ungovernable part of the region.

Now the Country (el Pais)—Las Islas Filipinas—has just awakened to the depth of the Bangsamoro legitimate GRIEVANCES.  Instead of killing the ideas—the CAUSE (or SABAB)—embodied in the MOA-AD, the representatives of Government must face up to the Agreed Text as STATECRAFT.  It vindicates the JUSTNESS of the ORIGINAL POSITIONS to fix in constitutional construct. Traditional Moro negri (statehood) ‘earned sovereignty’ is encapsulated by the Republic in its present form and structure as an autonomous entity presently in existence before the family of nations since 1946.

Spokespersons for that Sovereign state called the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) configure their constituencies into a political community.  Such an assumption neglects a number of contested constitutional issues before the negotiating table.

What is the “territorial integrity” of the Philippines? When reduced to geographic maps with proper technical coordinates, the fundamental question we formally raised at the GRP-MILF Talks are as follows:

1. Is the present national territorial delimitation based on the Treaty of Paris of 10 December 1898 as corrected by the Treaty of Washington of 7 November 1900 and the treaty between the United States and England on 2 January 1930? Or,
2. Is it the current technical description of the archipelagic doctrine based on R.A. 3046 of 1961, as amended by R.A 5446 of 1968 as a system of straight baselines, its negotiating position on boundary delimitations under the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention?

An act of statesmanship is to ‘write sovereignty’ in terms of the ‘associative ties’ envisaged in the MOA-AD.  We cannot proceed with a serious debate as if the meaning of sovereignty were stable; for, in reality, not one but various forms of sovereign statehood exist. There’s no confusing justice with legitimacy for workable arrangements here.  However, there’s a truncated understanding of sovereignty when 12 June 1898 was fixed by law as an episodic event, following the inauguration of Philippine independence on 4 July 1946. Article 1 of Title I of the Malolos Constitution succinctly reads: “The political association of all the Filipinos constitutes a nation, whose state is called the Philippine Republic”.  At that point in time, the Bangsamoro homeland was not a part of the whole Country, for as a matter of historical narrative that Republic invited the Sultan of Sulu and the Sultan of Magindanaw to federate with it.

What matters for us present generation of patriots is that Driion’s half-a-million-worth of PDI ADS highlights the absolute necessity for a change in the first principles of the unitary system. How do we, then, fit inter-subjective understandings of ‘statehood’?  Former senate president Drilon, at least, seriously confronts the arenas of debate over the MOA-AD, but why does he not concede to explore the course of constitutionalism beyond the status quo of the existing constitutional order? That is unfortunate, because, what is placed before the Supreme Court is a new “elegant formula” of negotiability to balance between state sovereign authority and the right to self determination.

We need to examine the MOA-AD on the foundation of the formal division of sovereignty that favors “state rights” that have inhered in the Bangsamoro people, whose ancestral homeland was “illegally and immorally annexed” to the Republic without their plebiscitary consent.  Peace negotiations are said to be “the war after the war”.  Here, too, there is a subtle but in-depth way of looking at what amount of central authority in point of fact is compatible with “what is worth dying for” in the eyes of the majority of Bangsamoros in the contemporary politics of identity.

This is what the MILF-GRP negotiation process is all about: to determine the extent and limits of each side’s commitments. Clearly the premise of peace with your Muslim brothers under the MOA-AD precisely does not endanger but entrench the Country’s sovereignty.  The MOA-AD achieves, rather than contemplates the use of naked coercive force, the desirable levers of division, allocation and distribution of powers; in other words, shared and residuary authorities for the Bangsamoro people and the rest of the Filipino people.  All I can advance for now as an explanatory note is that the “general welfare clause” of the Philippine Constitution matching the principle of maslaha wal mursalah in Islamic constitutionalism is a catch all framework to accommodate “a medley of associative ties and tiers”.

I will elaborate on these points in a separate commentary on specific provisions of the MOA on AD. If only a healthy environment for serious debate is not drowned out by the intrusion of the mass media into the negotiating process that now encourage the politics of fear at the Metro Manila capital while excessive use of force are applied to villages in Mindanao, we can peaceably settle the conflict in Mindanao.

All the best,
Datu Michael O. Mastura