COMMENTARY: MOA-AD documents another injustice against the Bangsamoro – MILF

By Taher G. Solaiman

Cotabato City/February 25, 2009 -- Asserting that the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain Aspect of the Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 (MOA-AD), having been already initialed by the Parties to the peace negotiations, is a “done deal” and a “living document,” Jun Mantawil, head of the secretariat of the Peace Panel of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), claimed that the MOA-AD “documents another injustice being committed against the Bangsamoro people.”

In his paper titled “A Brief on the GRP-MILF Peace Talks as Option for Peace in Mindanao,” that he read before the participants of the two-day Mindanao Civil Society Organizations Peace Summit held in the El Manuel Convention Hall, this city, on February 18-19, 2009, Mantawil also said that “the unilateral action and heavy use of force by the government against so-called rogue MILF commanders (Kato & Bravo) had rendered the peace mechanisms ineffective and inutile to the destructions of lives and properties with a semblance of humanitarian tragedy where about 695,225 internally displaced persons (IDPs) were uprooted from their place of abodes particularly in Moro communities in Mindanao.”

In retrospect, the MOA-AD was initialed on July 27, 2008 by Sec. Rodolfo C. Garcia, chair of the GRP Peace Negotiating Panel and Sec. Hermogenes Esperon for the Philippine government; Mohagher Iqbal, chair of the MILF Peace Negotiating Panel, for the MILF, and Datuk Othman bin Abd’ Razak, chief Malaysian facilitator, for the
Malaysian government, as witness. The initialing was done in the presence of Sec. Norberto Gonzalez, chief national security adviser of the Philippine Government and Dato’ Ahmad Zamzamin bin Hashim, chief of the Prime Minister Research Department of Malaysia.

However, the signing ceremony that was set on August 5, 2009 in Putrajaya, Malaysia, was aborted by the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued by the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

As regards the possible resumption of the peace negotiations, Mantawil reiterated the five-point declaration that the MILF put forward for the peace talks to resume, namely:

1) There must be an international guarantee composed of states or group of states that both government and MILF to honor and comply with agreement forged by the parties;
2) The status of the MOA-AD must be settled first, because to the MILF it is "done deal,” but to the government, it is "no deal" and "unconstitutional;"
3) The International Monitoring Team (IMT) must lead the investigation of all violations of the ceasefire from July 1, 2008 to date;
4) The government to stop its offensive in Mindanao even against so-called rogue commanders of the MILF, and
5) Malaysia will stay as facilitator of the peace talks.

Besides, the MILF raised some questions that it wants answered first lest it fears the repeat of what happened in Malaysia on August 5, 2008 when the government was restrained by the Supreme Court from signing the MOA-AD.

These questions are:

1) Does President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo possess the political will now to
sign and honor its agreement and not buckle down to save her neck instead of taking risk, as any good and decisive leader dares do, to solve a centuries-old Moro Problem in Mindanao?
2) Does the peace process become the “national agenda” of the entire
government and not just the executive branch of government? Are other branches of government especially the Lower House and the Senate on board?
3) Has Arroyo already reined in anti-MOA-AD personalities to treat the peace
process as a real problem-solving exercise and not a counter-insurgency
tool?
4) Did she reach out to justices of the Supreme Court regarding her peace
agenda in Mindanao?
5) And lastly, is the government serious and not just to dribble the talks until
June 2010, the end of the term of President Arroyo, and in the interlude, pursues its mendicancy policy using the rehabilitation of Mindanao as the reason?

On his part, Atty. Zainudin Malang, executive director of the Center for Bangsamoro Law and Policy, who spoke on “Civil Society’s Role in Internationalizing the Resolution of the Mindanao Conflict,” noted that there is a need to internationalize the conflict resolution in Mindanao because “domestic institutions have either failed or refused to resolve the conflict” by refusing “to address serious legitimate grievances of the Bangsamoro” and that “State institutions (executive, judiciary, legislature) and non-state institutions (media, business, national civil society, church) have expressed opposition to the MOA-AD.”

Malang also cited other reasons such as “the international community (foreign governments, international government and NGO institutions, international civil society, international media) have been instrumental, even indispensable, in resolving conflicts around the globe” such as “Northern Ireland, Southern Sudan, Aceh,” among others.

He, nonetheless, clarified that “although involvements by international community will not necessarily result in the resolution of a conflict, its participation increases the chances of just and sustainable peace” as he further stressed that “the international community has a right and duty to protect people where states or governments fail to do so.”

“However, just because it is a duty does not necessarily mean that the international community will step in or continue to involve themselves in resolving the conflict if there is no impetus or pressure for them to do so. And domestic society and institutions will oppose internationalization,” Malang said.

While Malang admitted that some aspects of the conflict are already internationalized, he lamented that “the level of internationalization does not match the magnitude of the crisis.”

He, then, emphasized that the international community “will not take the conflict seriously unless they see or hear stakeholders here take it seriously” and “they will not be pro-active in advocating for a just resolution of the conflict unless they see or hear stakeholders here being similarly, if not more, pro-active.”

Atty. Mary Ann Arnado, the secretary-general of the Mindanao People’s Caucus, also shared her thoughts on the “Role of Civil Society in Pushing for the Peace Process Forward.”

Arnado stressed the importance of reaching out to the “unconvinced” among the communities and such groups as the academe, media, business, civil society, church and local government units, as regards the MOA-AD.

At the end of the peace summit, the participating nongovernment organizations and people’s organizations were unanimous in their call for the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to stop its military operations in and immediately pull out its troops from the civilian communities; the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) to cause the safe return and rehabilitation of the internally displaced persons (IDP’s) to their respective places of origin; the international non-government organizations (INGO’s) and the international community to help urge the GRP and the MILF to return to the negotiating table, and continue the peace talks from where they stopped before the aborted signing of the MOA-AD.

Remembering the ‘Day of Treachery’ and Its Implications

By Maulana Bobby Alonto

Brother Al Haj Murad Ebrahim, Chairman of the MILF and Amirul Mujahideen, is right in designating February 11 as the ‘Day of Treachery’.

This is to remind the Bangsamoro people of what had happened on that fateful day of February 11, 2003, which is six years ago, when the Armed Forces of the Philippines, without rhyme or reason, suddenly unleashed an indiscriminate and devastating barrage of artillery and mortar fire on the Islamic Center at the Buliok Complex in Pagalungan, Maguindanao. The Islamic Center was the temporary ‘residence’ of Sheikh Salamat Hashim, the late Chairman of the MILF and Amirul Mujahideen, from where he also received visitors from all corners of the Bangsamoro Homeland and from all over the world after the ‘capture’ of Camp Abubakr as-Siddiq in 2000. The bombardment took place while the Islamic faithful were gathered in the mosque for the early morning congregational prayer to begin the celebration of ‘Id’l Adha, the end of Hajj, one of the two major Islamic religious holidays observed by Muslims worldwide.

To recall, it was Sheikh Salamat Hashim, who was delivering the khutbah, the ‘Id prayer sermon, when the artillery barrage commenced and shells from the AFP’s heavy cannons and mortars began exploding all over the Islamic Center and its vicinity. Undaunted, the Sheikh and the Muslim faithful in the mosque remained inside until the prayers, invocations and khutbah were over.

But the artillery barrage of the AFP was only a prelude to a massive ground attack by Filipino infantry formations and armored units on MILF forces in the Buliok complex and in all other fronts. This attack inaugurated the second all-out war that saw nearly 800,000 Moro civilians, majority of them women and children, being driven out of their homes and into refugee centers scattered all over Central Mindanao. Senator Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., however, would state several months after the attack that the number of refugees would reach almost the million mark.

Retrospectively, the attack on Buliok was a calculated operation of the Philippine government hatched in the backroom of Malacañang to eliminate the MILF leadership so as to permanently disable the Moro liberation movement.

It also had economic implications. Buliok complex is located at the Liguasan marsh which is at the heart of the Cotabato Basin where natural gas and, most likely, petroleum have been discovered to abound in massive quantity. Significantly, this resource-rich area is under the control of the MILF, thus preventing the Philippine government, its predatory foreign transnational partners and the local Filipino political-cum-economic vested-interest groups in Mindanao from exploiting its natural wealth for their own benefit. A war to eject the MILF from the Liguasan was thus seen as the most expedient way to clear the area of any impediment to the exploitation of these natural resources rightly owned since time immemorial by the Maguindanaon Moros in particular and the Bangsamoro nation in general.

The timing was also right. Or so it seemed. The attack on the United States by ‘suicide bombers’ on September 11, 2001 had brought about the reconfiguration of attitudes and foreign policies of governments in the West and their allied regimes in the Third World. The so-called war on terror that the US, under George W. Bush, was to lead created a bandwagon among subservient regimes whose twin motives were to serve the imperial interests of the US and the West as well as use this opportunity to militarily crush legitimate liberation movements in their own backyards. And this, precisely, is what to my mind prompted the Arroyo regime to change course at that moment and attempt to ‘hit many birds with one stone’ when it veered away from the negotiating table, discarded its ceasefire agreement with the MILF, and launched its military adventure in Mindanao. With ‘Big Brother’, the US, at its back, the regime thought it could drop the peace talks with legitimate revolutionary movements by classifying them as ‘terrorists’ and then fight a war it knew it could never win on its own.

But even that was a miscalculation, a misreading of historical factors, deeply-entrenched sentiments and current trends as later developments would prove. For the aspiration of oppressed peoples and captive nations to be free can never be suppressed or defeated. The equation in conflicts brought about by the antagonism between state actors and liberation movements is such that the greater the repression, the greater the resistance. And this the Arroyo regime would find out soon enough when it foolishly unleashed the 2003 all-out war on the MILF and the Bangsamoro people.

Unknown to the public at large, the attack on Buliok was launched not only on an Islamic holiday; it was also done while preparations were being made by the MILF for the resumption of the peace negotiation with the Philippine government, which, under the Arroyo regime, was restarted in 2001 after it was suspended in 2000 as a result of the Estrada all-out-war. After the assumption to power of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo through a ‘people power revolt’ that cut short the term of Joseph Estrada, peace talks with the MILF were resumed with Malaysia and, for a while Libya, as third party facilitators.

During the preliminary talks prior to the formal negotiation in Tripoli (Libya), a Philippine government emissary, Eduardo Ermita, told the MILF representatives in Kuala Lumpur that never again would an ‘all-out war’ happen under the watch of Arroyo. But less than two years after Ermita uttered those words, the Buliok attack happened which subsequently triggered another all-out war. And this occurred while another round of peace talks was supposedly scheduled the following week after ‘Id’l Adha, the day of the aggression.

Indeed, if this was not an act of treachery, it would be difficult, if not well-nigh impossible, to define what an act of treachery is.
At the height of the Philippine military aggression, an insider in the Philippine government confidentially disclosed to some Muslims that in one of the many meetings called by President Arroyo in Malacañang with top honchos of the military establishment, she berated these officials for having failed to get Sheikh Salamat Hashim “dead or alive”. This insider vividly described Arroyo as near hysterical in her rage; accordingly, shouting at the top of her voice she repeated her orders to the military officials present to spare no effort to kill Sheikh Salamat at all cost or by hook or by crook.

I am not presuming to know if this disclosure were a hundred percent reliable. But one thing certain is that Sheikh Salamat was declared by the government and the military a “high-value target” as documentary evidence would later show. And this amounted to pretty much the same thing that the insider said was what Arroyo ordered her military commanders in the AFP to accomplish with respect to the physical elimination of Sheikh Salamat. Whatever it is, though, I am positively certain that the declaration of Sheikh Salamat as “high-value target” would have had the clearance of the highest authority in the Philippine nation-state.

In any event, this act of treachery, while peace talks were still on with the MILF, would impact greatly on the economic, and consequentially political, stability of the Arroyo regime. Already debilitated by entrenched corruption in all levels and institutions of government, the Arroyo regime would reel back from a guerrilla war that the MILF had relentlessly waged at that time in defense of its territories and its mass-based organized communities erroneously called ‘camps’ by the Philippine military. Much to the consternation of the government and the military, this guerrilla war could not be contained in a particular locale; on the contrary, it affected, directly or indirectly, almost all areas of Mindanao and Sulu.

In a report submitted to the 10th Session of the OIC Islamic Summit Meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on October 11-18, 2003, the MILF Central Committee stated, among others, that five regions in Mindanao were affected by the war: ARMM, Region IX, Region XI, Region X, Region XI and Region XII. In other words, the conflict covered 12 provinces, 5 cities, 74 municipalities, and 342 barangays.

The immediate result of this was that six months after it had exuberantly embarked on its military adventurism in Mindanao in February 11 the Arroyo regime had to return, like a humbled whimpering canine with its tail between its legs, to the negotiating table with the MILF. Had it not done so, it would have gone the way of the disgraced Estrada regime whose previous all-out war against the Bangsamoro people and the MILF had weakened it to such an extent that it became vulnerable to a military-civilian coup d’état euphemistically called ‘people power revolution’.

However, the Bangsamoro people and the MILF, too, would emerge from the effects of February 11 without being unscathed. Apart from the massive devastation of Moro communities and the deaths of hundreds of people insufficiently documented because of the viciousness of the war, the Bangsamoro people and the MILF lost their greatest mujahid leader of the time – Sheikh Salamat Hashim.

Reminiscing on those fateful events, one can hardly maintain control of one’s emotions because those were truly emotional moments. When Buliok was placed under siege by the AFP, Ustadz Salamat stubbornly refused to vacate the Islamic Center. Friends, brothers-in-arms and relatives alike appealed to him to withdraw to a secured area, but all these were in vain. The Sheikh was prepared to stand, fight and die as a Shahid (martyr in a state of jihaad). It took the convincing and persistent arguments of then MILF Central Committee Vice-Chairman Al Haj Murad Ebrahim to persuade him to seek safety in a more secured area, and it was only then that the late Sheikh agreed to move to the jungle fastness of Lanao del Sur where he would continue to conduct the MILF’s guerrilla war of resistance against the military aggression of the sitting Filipino regime.

The perilous journey of Sheikh Salamat to Lanao del Sur is a thrilling story very much like a movie plot that in itself needs to be told at the appropriate time. This writer and several other brothers contributed in a humble way to the successful and safe entry of the Sheikh into Lanao del Sur where he finally returned to the Mercy of his Lord and Creator several months later due to a lingering heart ailment exacerbated by harsh living conditions.

It was in the mountains of Lanao del Sur that I (as with other members of the MILF peace panel and the MILF Chairman’s staff) personally witnessed the incredible jihadi revolutionary patience, perseverance and sacrifices of the late Sheikh Salamat in the face of the intense military manhunt mounted against him by the Philippine government and the terrific deprivation that he was subjected to. All told, this took a fatal toll on his already weakened health that finally led to his death on July 13, 2003.

The demise of Sheikh Salamat Hashim indeed placed the whole Bangsamoro nation in a state of grief. The loss was felt by the humblest Moro peasant fighter of the MILF in the countryside of the Moro homeland. It reverberated to foreign shores where Moro expatriates, Muslim and Arab leaders and revolutionaries of the global Islamic movement alike mourned his death. But, it also shattered a myth – a myth that the Philippine government had been trying to make the public believe: that his death would lead to a leadership crisis inside the MILF, resulting in its disintegration.

But to the surprise and dismay of all who were expecting that the MILF would crumble because of power struggle after the physical exit of the Sheikh, the MILF emerged more united and organized contrary to what was anticipated by the enemies of the Bangsamoro Revolution. The smooth transition to the MILF chairmanship of Al Haj Murad Ebrahim and the manner by which he was elected by the MILF collective leadership to this position disproved once and for all the preconceived notion that the MILF was only good while Sheikh Salamat was alive.

The ascendance of Al Haj Murad, a veteran Moro mujahideen leader, a committed revolutionary and a skilled diplomat, to the MILF chairmanship which was welcomed by the rank and file of the MILF and the Bangsamoro people proved yet again the resiliency of the MILF not only in times of military adversities but in periods of political and organizational difficulties. This resiliency demonstrated even to the enemies of the Bangsamoro Revolution who were forced to accept and admit, albeit grudgingly, even in their public declarations that the MILF is indeed an Islamic ideological revolutionary movement incomparable to the MNLF.

In ideological revolutionary movements, leadership styles may differ as one leader is replaced by another for whatever reasons. Each leader has a unique way of managing the affairs of the movement. But, what remains constant is principled policy because such is reflective of the ideology of the organization. This is demonstrated in the revolutionary dynamics of consultation (shurah) within the MILF, which is an inherent mechanism in Islam that allows for the translation of ideological principles into concrete policies whether by an Islamic revolutionary government and state or a movement.

Ustadz Salamat Hashim, when he was alive, believed that a negotiated political settlement is the most practical and civilized way to resolve the Bangsamoro problem without, however, derogating the central role of armed jihaad in the liberation struggle as the principal mode to defend the Bangsamoro people from colonialist aggression, repression and oppression by the Philippine nation-state.

This belief is not without any basis in the Qur’an al-Kareem, the Sunnah and the Seerah of the Holy Prophet of Islam (saw). In short, both armed struggle and peace negotiation find endorsement in Islam. The Prophet (saw) used both means to complement each other as evidenced by the battles he fought and the peace pacts he entered into with the hostile jahiliyyah tribes of Arabia, the most prominent of which was the Treaty of Hudaibiya which he concluded with the numero uno enemy of the Muslims at that time, the pagan Quraishi ruling class of Makkah.
That said, when Sheikh Salamat presented the idea of a negotiated political settlement of the Bangsamoro Problem, it was a natural consequence of the Islamic ideology to which he, not to mention the entire leadership of the MILF, adhered. It is, therefore, not surprising that such a belief would be translated into a principled policy of the MILF which its present post-Salamat leadership under Al Haj Murad would continue and uphold to this day.

The consistency with which the MILF has shown by holding on to the policy of a negotiated political settlement of the Bangsamoro problem despite the erratic behavior of the Philippine government in and out of the negotiating table illustrates the ideological-cum-political maturity of the MILF leadership. This ideological-cum-political maturity does not have any room for arbitrariness.

I believe that this policy consistency is what has unfolded before the very eyes of the international community, including the OIC, in the course of events after February 11, 2003, which explains why it views the MILF with more understanding and sympathy as never before. For, it was this policy consistency that the MILF demonstrated when it remained devoted to the peace process in the face of the aborted MOA-AD signing after 11 long years of painstaking negotiations trying to find a compromise formula to end the conflict in Mindanao and Sulu. It was this policy consistency that the MILF also displayed when it did not disband its panel of negotiators even as the Philippine government capriciously abandoned the negotiations by scuttling its peace panel in favor of another round of destructive offensive war in Mindanao. And, it was also this policy consistency that by and large restrained the MILF from responding in kind to the consuming war that the war hawks in the AFP wanted to draw the MILF into. The most that the MILF did was to adopt a defensive posture in the light of the aggressive and repressive nature of the wide-scale military operations that the AFP is currently conducting against MILF ground forces and Moro mass-based organized communities.

February 11, 2003, the ‘Day of Treachery’, will indeed be forever etched in the memory of our oppressed people and nation. Not only because that ‘black day’ unveiled to our people the blatant perfidiousness of the Philippine colonialist rulers of our occupied Moro homeland but, on the positive side, it also taught us lessons in patience, perseverance and sacrifice in the face of a mendacious adversary.

Indeed, the Qur’an, as always, speaks the truth when it said in effect that those who are patient and vie with one another for constancy shall be rewarded by Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala with success.

We lost a great mujahid leader, the Imam of the Bangsamoro nation, in the person of Sheikh Salamat Hashim as a result of February 11, 2003. But in return, we gained a new Amir of the Bangsamoro nation, Al Haj Murad Ebrahim, who is a devoted and loyal ‘student’ of the Sheikh and therefore a leader equal to the task that the late MILF founder had left behind. On top of that, we have learned to value and practice the patience, perseverance, sacrifice and constancy which the Sheikh, in his lifetime, epitomized.

And because of that, we have matured.

We shall never forget 2/11, the ‘Day of Treachery’, particularly at this time when again the true colors of Philippine colonialism are coming out into the fore. Neither should this be forgotten by the next generation of Moros whose vision-mission is to bring to fruition the Bangsamoro nation’s struggle for the right of self-determination and freedom.

Commentary: INCREASING MYSTERIOUS MASSACRES OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS

By Mike G. Kulat

The massacre that happened in Sitio Udsodan in Barangay Mudseng, Midsayap, North Cotabato on November 12, 2008 brings the total number into three attacks on innocent civilians aside from the victims of the ongoing military operation in different parts of Mindanao. It should be recalled that in early November a massacre in Magsayasay, Lanoa Del Norte happened that followed by another ambush in Pikit, Cotabato area.

In an interview conducted by the members of the Bangsamoro Center for Just Peace, a network organization of the Consortium of Bangsamoro Civil Society with the lone survivor, Noraisa Dimalulon, it was learned that they were on board a manually operated banca (boat) at around last November 12 at 10:00 a. m. towards their rice field. When they were nearing their farm, suddenly undetermined number of armed men wearing black masks opened fire at them using high caliber firearms. It was found out later that the culprits used M-14 and other high powered firearms as shown by the empty shells left in the crime scene.

Killed in the incident were Adtega Dimalulon 40, Ali Kansa 35 and Tungan Dimalulon 5. The bodies of the victims were only recovered the following day as their relatives were restricted by the military to go to the area pending their ascertaining the identity of the victims and assurance that they are not members of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).

Noraisa narrated that at the first burst of the gunfire, she jumped out of the boat and swam away until she found a floating wooden block where she hid her head and that prevented her from being hit by bullets. After the firing ended she swam to farther to the bank and ran towards far-flung Barangay Nabalawag and finally found her way home at around 11:00 a. m. She revealed farther that her hand bag containing her mobile phone, earrings, cash and other valuables left in the boat were taken by the armed men.

These series of mysterious killings of civilians in the different parts of Mindanao were not given proper course by the duly constituted authorities or any legal actions to give justice to the victims. The incidences are also taking place at a time when there is much talk about the resurgence of the “ILAGA” movements in different parts of Mindanao. The movements are obviously, deliberately or not, being backed by the government through distribution of firearms to civilians that is spearheaded by Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Secretary Ronaldo Puno.

Reaction to "Thank you, Supreme Court of the Philippines"

We posted here last November 12 the article, Thank you, Supreme Court of the Philippines by Atty. Fatimah Bin Guerra. The same article was also posted in the www.luwaran.com last November 11.

Rahib L. Kudto, the national president of the United Youth for Peace and Development, Inc. (UNYPAD) and deputy secretary-general of the Mindanao People’s Caucus (MPC), sent us his reaction on the said article of Atty. Guerra. Here is Kudto’s reaction:

November 17, 2008

Dear Atty. Fatimah,

Assalamu Alaikum!

When I read your column in the Luwaran website, I could not pass this chance of personally thanking you for such a noble act on your part. I have so many reasons to thank you.

Thank you, Atty. Fatimah Bin Guerra, for the invincible spirit that you showed in speaking out your convictions. Your article shared a source of hope among us, Bangsamoro people, to continue our odyssey to find an enduring peace in our homeland. I can’t help but express my overwhelming admiration to how you waged this extraordinary fight through your writing. You effectively articulated our frustration over the government’s handling of the peace process. You powerfully stressed that the Mindanao conflict is not a business of the constitution but a political problem which requires a viable political settlement. You are worthy of our recognition since despite being a lawyer, you did not uphold the injustices of the Constitution and of the Philippine system but the more important cause of the marginalized and of the oppressed.

Cleary, those who supported and participated in the peace process with candor are not happy with the intervention of the Supreme Court.

Thank you, Atty. Fatimah Bin Guerra, for your honest principles. You fairly educated us on how the Mindanao problem should be treated under this government. We share the same disappointment. The unfortunate events resulted to the displacement of thousands of civilians in the conflict affected areas in Mindanao . These led to the failure of this administration to achieve a lasting peace that we envisioned for Mindanao .

Thank you, Atty. Fatimah Bin Guerra, for your brave disposition in exposing how the Supreme Court manipulated the decision-making process on the MOA-AD. When the SC justices junked the MOA-AD, they snatched away the hope from us that this administration is sincere in bringing back what is due us.

If MOA-AD is nothing but a piece of paper, as commented by Father Bernas, a constitutional law expert, why would the highest court substantially spent its time and resources in deciding the constitutionality of a document that is nothing but a mere scrap of paper? While they sealed the coffin of the MOA-AD, they failed to address the real issues in Mindanao . No one appears to have a viable plan while innocent civilians continue to suffer and die.

I hope and pray that many more Fatimah will come out to help us in our fight for the liberation of the Bangsamoro people who have been under tyranny for over 400 years now. I hope that your words will reverberate throughout Mindanao and inspire young Moros to continue our fight until the political solution for the century-old Moro problem will be finally achieved.

I also hope that your words would serve as enlightenment among politicians, justices and other leaders in charge for protecting their personal vested interests.

I pray that you will be showered with more blessings and rewards. I pray for your safety from all dangers as you advance our common struggle for justice and freedom.

You deserve the highest form of gratitude from the Bangsamoro people!


Sincerely,

Rahib L. Kudto

Commentary: Are the Moros Filipinos?

By Mohd. Musib M. Buat

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.

COMMENTARY: Thank you, Supreme Court of the Philippines

By: Atty. Fatimah Bin Guerra

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.)

COMMENTARY: REVISITING MOA-AD: Mockery of the Century

By: Mike G. Kulat

The recent squabbles within the whole instrumentalities of the government and the deplorable conditions of over half a million civilians brought about by the aborted signing of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) between the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and the Government of Republic of the Philippines (GRP) scheduled on August 5, 2008 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia could be considered the greatest drama in the annals of history.

The whole drama intended to mock the centuries old Bangsamoro problem only exposed the rotten system and complete ignorance of those holding the reign of this government. This defect no doubt rendered it inept to manage a complex problem such as that of the Bangsamoro problem. The matter only justifies doubt and clamor of the people of decaying system in the past decades. People had long been restive of ever deteriorating political, economic and socio-cultural condition under different regimes. This social unrest consequently manifested by the ouster of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos, the unaccounted numbers of coup d’etat on the Aquino Administration, the ejection, conviction and imprisonment of Joseph Estrada of plunder case and the present shaky government of the Arroyo administration due to calls of anomalies ranging from illegitimacy, electoral fraud and human rights violations. On top of the above scenario, the problem in Mindanao surpassed all these regimes marred by sporadic peace and continuing war in Mindanao.

First, going back to the MOA-AD or that “piece of paper” as “nothing more than an elaborate collection of ‘wish-lists” as termed by veteran constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas and or “agreement of intent” as said by Archbishop Orlando Quevedo that shaked and brought about the exposure of ignorance and disorder that violated the doctrine of separation of powers among the three branches of the government – the Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Or the “MOA-AD: Build not Destroy” said Prof. Julkipli Wadi. But how all the mess started?

A brief review of how the branches of the government works under the principle of separation of powers and as taught to us by Fr. Joaquin Bernas is that: the MOA-AD is a “political question” which is under the prerogative and power of the Executive Branch. As quoted, the Supreme Court said in earlier case “that the doctrine of separation of powers calls for the departments (executive, legislative and judicial) being left alone to discharge their duties as they see it fit.”

After the Executive should have done an act or in the case of the MOA-AD should have been signed, the Legislative Branch should now intervene by formulating enabling laws to implement that act or deal entered into by the executive branch.
Only after the Executive and Legislative should have done the signing and formulated enabling laws respectively, should the Judicial Branch could interpose when “properly challenged in an appropriate legal proceeding.”
Recalling back the mess, it started when the Legislative Branch represented by Senators Mar Roxas and Franklin Drilon acting with their local political interest groups led by North Cotabato Vice Governor Emmanuel Pinol went on different media outlets raising hell of judgmental and irresponsible pronouncement on the unconstitutionality of the MOA-AD, a legislative action seen by laymen as overlying the function of executive and judicial departments.

Adding fuel to the fire of confusion and shocking to rightly guided intellectuals was when the Supreme Court issued the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on August 4, 2008 restraining the GRP Negotiating Panel from signing the MOA-AD – an act which was premature and pre-emption of a supposed separate duty of the executive branch. This happened despite the pronouncement of one of the justices in their oral arguments that “..the Supeme Court is not a trier of facts.” Is MOA-AD not considered as facts, since there was no act of signing yet nor a law passed related to it? The Supreme Court is interpreter of laws. And Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera in one of her TV interviews said, “How can the Supreme Court declare unconstitutional a matter which was not yet consummated?” Then what did they interpret in the MOA-AD?

Completing the muddle is that after the Supreme Court decided to continue its hearing and conclude its decision on the MOA-AD, the Executive Branch announced that whatever is the decision of the court, it doesn’t matter to them. They gave pronouncements that they will never pursue signing of the MOA-AD in its present form or any other form. This is an act of total disregard and disrespect of the executive branch on the highest court of the land. Good enough for after all the Supreme Court started all the mess by pre-empting the acts of executive and legislative branches.

To sum up, the sham that shows the real character of this regime, the shameful picture of the Philippine government had been revealed in the backyard of a respected and proud capital city of Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia. For it was done at a time when all the diplomats, dignitaries of other countries, the representatives of the Organization of Islamic Countries including the US Ambassador to the Philippines Kristie Kenny and many more were all set for witnessing a historic ending of centuries old problem of the Bangsamoro, only to be informed that no signing would take place.

In other words, this shameful mockery of the Bangsamoro is all thrown back to the Philippine government and witnessed by the international communities which could be considered a milestone of treachery of a rotten system.

The final consequence of the MOA-AD misfortune is to paraphrase a title of issue raised by Atty. Soliman Santos Jr. which says: “The MOA is dead! Long Live MOA!” Yes the MOA-AD for the government is already a dead issue. Nevertheless, the incident will forever leave as trade mark of disorder and weak government and a worse treachery of the Philippine government.

For the Bangsamoro, “Long Live MOA”, for it doesn’t matter whether it is signed or not, but what is definite is it already become a significant landmark in the centuries-old struggle for self determination of the Moro People. It will become a momentous rallying point in the continuance of their aspiration for recognition as unique and distinct people. The distressing event is a blessing in disguise for it gave the Bangsamoro a time to re-think and search for other options. It could also be a fresh opportunity to the MILF as armed revolutionary movement to choose another option if peaceful means is not possible or shift their struggle to higher pedestal since a solution within the ambit of Philippine context is seemingly impossible.

COMMENTARY: Another Rejoinder to "The Philippines: The Impact of Exclusion on the Moro Peace Process"

By Amay Muamar

The best persons to explain why the Indigenous Peoples (IPs) are "shortchanged" in the MILF-GRP consensus points (MOA-AD) are no other than Ms. Paraguya and also Mr. Saliling. Did these two IP leaders read the MOA-AD? Did they have the feeling that the IPs will eventually lose 1 million hectares of their ancestral lands? Did the two IP leaders sell the rights of the IPs to the BJE? If yes, why did they not oppose it? I know Mr. Saliling will fight to the last drop of his holy blood to defend the rights of the IPs. And Ms. Paraguya, a very intelligent and articulate IP-woman leader will not also allow the IPs to lose their rights.

There may be something being brewed by "pro-IP" people to sow malicious intrigue between the Moro and IPs. The Moro had not taken the lands of the IPs. It is the other people who had and will continue to...

Lest you don't know, the Moro and the IPs are the victims and the other people will just be too happy to see the Moro (Abdul) and IPs (Saliling) fighting against each other. After all, ”Divide and Occupy” is still the best strategy ....

COMMENTARY: A Rejoinder to "The Philippines: The Impact of Exclusion on the Moro Peace Process"

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.