GENERAL SANTOS CITY — The Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain of the Government with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front can be the ultimate solution to the centuries-old Moro problem – to write finis to the protracted peace process. Unfortunately, the GRP and MILF peace panels ignored essential realities, turning the solution into the problem.

Ignored were the Constitution, the Philippine system of government, and the rivalry of the Bangsamoro leaders — the MILF, the MNLF and the traditional leaders. Also ignored were the sentiments expressed in the 1989 and the 2001 ARMM plebiscites. Hence, the MOA-AD is a ship imperiled in a stormy sea.

Ironic Twist

Long before the MILF agreed to negotiate in 1996, it had already made known it did not recognize the Constitution. Dating back to 1976 Tripoli peace negotiation, the Philippine government had rejected the Moro demands for independence.

Fortunately for the Philippines, the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference), in urging the Philippine government in the behalf of the Moro National Liberation Front to grant autonomy to the Muslims, defined that autonomy in its ICFM (Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers) resolution in Kuala Lumpur in 1974 to be within the Philippines’ national sovereignty and territorial integrity. That upheld the Constitution.

That handicapped the MNLF in its negotiations with the Philippine government. In deference to the OIC, it had to be satisfied with autonomy. In each of the Tripoli Agreement of 1976 and the Jakarta Accord or the Final Peace Agreement of 1996, the Philippines wrote in the provision that the setting up of the autonomy would be subject to constitutional processes.

To avoid this handicap, the MILF insisted not to use the Constitution as a term of reference in the negotiation. In return, it would not demand for independence. The Philippine government agreed.

But how can a government founded on constitutional democracy deny its constitution? So, while the negotiating panels avoided reference to the Constitution, they adverted to “legal framework” which could also mean “legal system”. To complete the ironic twist, they kept “independence” and “freedom” out of their discussions, but not “Bangsamoro aspiration”. Yet, what is this aspiration but independence or freedom? Alarmed critics consider the MOA-AD as one step short of declaring independence.

Why Not Head-on?

Why did they not meet their problem head-on? The Constitution is not Muslim-unfriendly in its provisions (Article X, Sections 15 through 21) on autonomous regions. The argument that the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao is not a genuine autonomy is faulty. Why so? Manila granted the autonomy it was reluctant to fully give; the Muslim leaders hail autonomy but are as reluctant to be autonomous.

Instead of avoiding the Constitution – which could not be and should not have been avoided — the MILF should have demanded a genuine autonomy in exchange for its renunciation of its demand for an independent Islamic state. Necessarily, such autonomy would be within the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Philippines. But isn’t that what is when the MILF promised not to demand independence in exchange for avoiding the Constitution?

Is such autonomy possible under the present Constitution? The only test is to appraise the MOA-AD in the light of the Constitution stretching its provisions to the limit in their letter and spirit.

Testing

Article X, Section 15 provides for “autonomous regions … consisting of provinces, cities, municipalities and geographical areas sharing common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and social structures, and other relevant characteristics ….”

The MOA-AD Consensus points 1, 2 and 3 under “Concepts and Principles” define the Bangsamoro people and their birthright and the historicity of the ancestral domain. Is that inconsistent with Section 15 – noting particularly “sharing common and distinctive historical heritage”?

Consensus point 4 acknowledges the right of the Bangsamoro people to self-governance – an element of genuine autonomy – and stresses the necessity of territory to self-governance. Is this inconsistent with Section 15?

Territory is defined meticulously in the strand “Territory”. Is this inconsistent with Section 15 or any other section? A truly autonomous government should know the limits of its territory to determine the extent of its jurisdiction, not only politically but, more important, economically.

Section 20 provides nine areas over which the autonomous government has legislative powers: (1) administrative organization; (2) creation of sources of revenues; (3) ancestral domain and natural resources;(4) personal, family, and property relations; (5) regional urban and rural planning development; (6) economic, social, and tourism developments; (7) educational policies; (8) preservation and development of cultural heritage; and,(9) such other matters as may be authorized by law for the promotion of general welfare of the people of the region.

Are the consensus points under “Resources” inconsistent with Section 20? BJE under the MOA-AD has more powers and more control of the natural resources than the ARMM. Is that inconsistent with Section 20? For autonomy to be genuine, its government should have the full control to develop and use its natural resources. That is the handicap of the ARMM, not because of the Constitution but for not taking full advantage of Section 20.

Is such full control of natural resources contrary to Article XII on National Economy and Patrimony of the Constitution, Section 1 of which reads in part: “The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth ….”

Consensus point 4 under “Resources” (1) gives BJE the “option to establish and open Bangsamoro trade missions in foreign countries with which it has economic cooperation agreements”; and, (2) provides that “the Central Government shall take necessary steps to ensure the BJE’s participation in international meetings and events” affecting the ancestral domain.

This is being objected to by opponents of the MOA-AD. Decidedly, these are functions proper only to a sovereign state, exceeding the “associative” relation between Government and BJE – a relationship that is also deemed objectionable. But had this been discussed in the light of the Constitution, the parties could have anticipated the objections and agreed on remedies.

Are the consensus points under “Governance” contrary to the Constitution? The eight consensus points focus on one concern: the entrenchment of BJE as a strong and effective government that can “permanently respond to the aspirations of the Bangsamoro people”.

The second paragraph of Consensus point 7 under “Resources” alludes to the Constitution when referring to “[a]ny provisions of the MOA-AD requiring amendments to the existing legal framework”. Can critics be faulted if they reproach the GRP and MILF panels: You ignored the Constitution as you had nothing to do with it. Now you want to amend it.

To Reconcile

It sounds ridiculous to have ignored the Constitution in crafting the MOA-AD and now finding its amendment as most necessary to save it. For, in truth – despite cases in many countries where minority-majority conflicts were settled outside the constitution – in the Philippines the reality is: the Constitution cannot be ignored.

Had they referred to the Constitution, they could have – through extensive consultation with constitutionalists – reconciled the MILF demands with it and still come with up an agreement satisfactory to both parties. And, where it was necessary, they could have specifically agreed on what to propose for constitutional amendment.

But that’s water under the bridge. To save the peace process, the GRP should sign the MOA-AD and the MILF should agree that the few consensus points — only a few — objected to will be discussed and revised during the negotiation of the Comprehensive Compact.

Will the MILF agree? The final implementation of the Comprehensive Compact will not be really “unilateral and internal” to the Philippine government.

(To Be Continued)

Leave a Reply