August 2008 Archives

By Pam Galisim I spent the first couple of minutes trying to figure out a connection between our asymptotic views. Thought I'd tell you what I was thinking that day and you replied to me by telling me of your passionate hatred towards my country...then I realized, "Simply Dear Expat, It's the Philippines and you are from a different country, don't take it any seriously ok?!". I'm hoping that by thinking like that all diversified disconnections, like our cultures (or the lack thereof) suddenly will be justified. But on one end, maybe you just wanted a spontaneous sharing of thoughts. I don't claim to be an expert but having lived here for the past 28 years spurred me to share this to you, my dear transient friend. In this spirit, I'd say that I have no further reaction than an insight of your hatred being a function of such "familiarity- breeding contempt". I have a friend who has gone to a marriage counseling session over her "defunct" marital relationship. Their counselor told her and her husband that you can tell if a couple will last a year, two or so by observing how they are with each other for the next 15 minutes. The observer would just have to take note of facial expressions, sighs which convey hints of contempt. Basically to see how much the couple can stand each other. At this, they would be advised if the relationship is still healthy of not. My point? In "'Expat time scale", a year or a little over is probably enough to render all the signs of contempt (should there be any) from a love-hate relationship that you've built with this country through time. Indeed , it is also possible that you haven't stayed in another country (other than your home) long enough to say it is better or, you have probably stayed in this country far too long to see so much of its flaws and realize how you just can't live with it. At which case, like any couple with such contempt, your relationship with this country is no longer healthy (for you, at the most part). So before even nudging a nonchalant comment about this country to any Pinoy or Pinay, think, think and think…how long have you been here?There is nothing more this country can do to make you love or at least accept it. Especially if it’s your choice to look at the dark side of things (e.g. traffic, pollution, corruption, hypocrisy etc). Despite the friendships you've formed, all the nice beaches and the affordable hobbies you can nurture, this country is or will soon be an "ex-lover" you can't wait to get rid of . The Philippines, however, will owe you no favors even if you start loving it; neither will it disappear in some dismal universe the more you curse it to its bones by over analyzing it. Either way, ordinary Pinoy parents can only continue to tell their kids to make this country if not the world a better place, corrupted politicians will tell their kids how noble their candy-coated jobs are while the middle-class will still struggle for a blind hope that things can only get better. When will it end? Please don't look at me. At the end of the day, it is you dear Expat who will grow tired and waste your measly days away should you keep digging. Thinking of the lawless, barbaric ways of this country is like going down a bottomless pit of disgusting flaws that could drain you, just by thinking about it. Perhaps it doesn’t take 28 years or a defunct marriage to merit giving an advice like this, only a diplomatic desire to "love where you are at". So much said, maybe a couple of points missed, it would help to know what really you are looking for in a country. In the end, like an ex-lover who has made years of your life hell, you might even thank this country whose insane qualities became your stimuli to find your ideal home.

REACTING to government's call for the MILF to surrender Kato and Bravo, Murad said: "It is not logical for the GRP to tell us to surrender Commander Bravo and Commander Kato because they are not bound by Philippine laws." How come Mr. Murad is saying that the MILF men are not "bound by Philippine laws?" Does this mean that when he goes to Malaysia, he does not use the Philippine passport or is he dreaming of pledging allegiance to Malaysia? Another question is: Is he anticipating of incorporating the Bangsamoro land into a federation with Malaysia? Wow, what an unfortunate page in our history had the MOA been pushed through. I think the Mr. Esperon would have been the national hero of the MILF men. Mr. Murad can migrate to Malaysia where he can be happy in his own right and forget dragging others to be with him. Anthony Benavidez, Zamboanga City (via e-mail)

THIS refers firstly to your news report "'Abadilla 5' take case to victim's family" by Julie M. Aurelio (PDI, 8/23/08, p. A4). The headline is correct. But the report is not accurate in saying that only three (Lenido Lumanog, Augusto Santos, and Rameses de Jesus) of the A5 signed the Open Letter to the Abadilla Family on 21 August 2008 at New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, while the two others (Joel de Jesus and Cesar Fortuna) did not. They actually did, by writing their names and affixing their corresponding signatures on to copies of the printed out Open Letter which was originally prepared for the first three who were assisted in this by the undersigned as counsel for Lumanog and Santos and by PAO lawyer Abraham C. Ong as new counsel for Rameses de Jesus. Your reporter apparently based her information about the Open Letter on an electronic copy posted on the website of the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) in Hong Kong. Indeed, the electronic copy reflected the Open Letter originally prepared for only the above-mentioned first three. Just the same, we are grateful for her report which calls attention to the plight of the A5 who have consistently claimed innocence for the Sparrow unit-style ambush-killing of former PC Metrocom Col. Rolando N. Abadilla on 13 June 1996. The Open Letter itself calls the attention of the Abadilla Family to two of his personal objects (and thus familiar to them), which were taken by and recovered from a source evidently responsible for his killing, the old Alex Boncayao Brigade (ABB). These were his Omega wrist watch and .45 caliber pistol, now respectively with the Court and the PNP Crime Laboratory, which the family should check out for themselves to get to the truth about who were really responsible for the murder of their loved one. It is perhaps providential that on the day that the A5 signed the Open Letter, 21 August 2008, which is the 25th anniversary of the 21 August 1983 assassination of former Sen. Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino, Jr., your newspaper started the first of an intrepid front-page two-part series by Fe Zamora which named Col. Abadilla among the core of five persons evidently behind that assassination. How uncanny this link between two assassinations, 13 years apart but both involving Col. Abadilla, first as a plotter and second as the victim. How uncanny also that the convicts in both cases have been asking the respective victim's families to take a better closer look at certain pieces of evidence that would point to those really behind the respective assassinations. But will they take heed? Soliman Santos Jr., Cubao, Quezon City (via e-mail)

By Erika Tapalla INQUIRER.net Apart from the congested traffic during the daily rush hours, a normal sight along Katipunan Avenue in Quezon City would be the colorful tricycles that quickly traverse down the streets against monstrous trucks, missing nearby vehicles by mere inches. But the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) has banned tricycles from the area, drawing complaints from transport operators, students and residents. The MMDA has claimed that they only did this to ease traffic in the area. In the video below, INQUIRER.net multimedia reporter Izah Morales went to Katipunan to find out what people in the area think of this issue. But what do you think? Tell us how you feel about this issue! Send us a video. We invite our viewers to send video on what you think about this issue. Grab a camera, have someone film you and speak your mind -- this is your chance to be both seen and heard. Video clips should not be more than 1 minute long. Send video to http://dropbox.yousendit.com/inquirerbox. In the message field, please indicate the names of the people in the video, names of people who took the video, and the place where the video was taken. INQUIRER.net will only accept videos in the following formats: .MPEG, .MP4, .AVI, and .MOV.

Jose Ma. Montelibano

THEY SAY that when anxiety deepens, people pray more and the sales of candles increase. They say when people are depressed, people drink more and the sales of liquor go up. Frankly, I have not seen statistics to prove these assertions, but I have not heard much argument to the contrary either. Let me proceed, therefore, assuming that there is truth to them, enough to stimulate our minds to reflective, if not critical, thinking.

The agitation caused by the proposed Bangsamoro Judicial Entity (BJE) brings to fore old wounds which have never healed well. The heart of the controversy is not the terms in the proposed agreement but in the hearts of prejudice and historical animosity. After a thousand years when conflict first broke out between Christians and Moors in North Africa and Iberia, a great distrust has grown between three religions that all came from Abraham -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

On the surface, the BJE controversy covers the extent of what is considered "ancestral domain" and the resources therein. The issue is not only where and what, but who controls where and what. Glaringly, the chasm between Christian and Muslim relationship predicates everything, as though a concession for one is a defeat of the other. It is almost as though that one expects the other to remain an enemy despite a negotiated agreement.

When two groups are friends to each other, the blessings and victories of one are cheered on by the other. In the last 100 years, Filipinos have cheered victories of the United States against its enemies -- Germany, Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, North Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq and some more in Africa and the old Eastern Europe. When the opposite is true, Filipinos have mourned every defeat of the United States.

Muslims around the world may cheer the BJE as a victory of Filipino Muslims, which means that the BJE is a defeat of Filipino Christians. That is what partisanship and prejudice do to a spat between brothers -- make wounds fester rather than heal them. And there is enough ill will going around by this time between people of the same blood and country that makes it easy for vested interests to play one against the other.

The belligerent rhetoric that has dominated the air waves and print media stokes the resentment that is all so easily awaiting to be activated. Thank goodness that not everyone has jumped into the bandwagon of mindless drumbeating for war. Thank goodness that something deeper, like common blood, country and culture, can sometimes rise above the din of fear and anger and attempt to make these heard and seen.

In the midst of great uncertainty in an ugly environment polluted by corruption, poverty and violence, many Filipinos have turned to religion, turned to gambling, turned to fantasizing. Escapism has been the preference of people who cannot take the stark horror of daily societal life, the tens of millions of poor Filipinos who live from one meal to another. And leaders from the Church, from the State, from Business and Media have not come together to understand the deterioration of a national psyche and the corruption of a national soul -- then work together to counter the perversion of a beautiful people and culture.

Is it, then, a search for Utopia that I am caught up with? Is it Utopian to tie white ribbons for peace while many others scream for war? Is it Utopian to dream of a society where every human being is equal in worth and dignity, where each one works diligently and produces according to his or her talent, where the value of good relationships outweigh the value of money?

Was it Utopian when the early Christian communities shared everything with one another and no one was in want? Is it Utopian to believe that, indeed, these early Christians did exist and that, indeed, a lifestyle of caring and sharing is possible?

May I quote Oscar Wilde when he tried to describe Utopia:

"A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realization of Utopias."

It seems, then, that Utopia becomes an obsession when the day grows dark, when the night is chilly and empty, when the air is heavy and laughter disappears, when foreboding penetrates even the most optimistic of people. Perhaps, the demand for Utopia has wormed itself into the creative minds of artists, writers, performers and directors responsible for TV shows like Dyosa, Dyesebel, and Darna.

On the social front, the Gawad Kalinga movement is anchored on cultural and spiritual values like bayanihan, nobility and sacrifice, heroism and a vision that has in its center the presence of God and love of country. Its high-profile work has not prevented Gawad Kalinga from quietly but bravely establishing its presence and work in many areas considered delicate because of their history of conflict and violence. Its formula is simple: Filipinos are first brothers and sisters, before being government or anti-government, before being Left or Right, before being Christians and Muslims. Its plea is, hold the line for peace, and tie white ribbons anywhere and everywhere as peace symbols.

How many other individuals and groups have been there before Gawad Kalinga and kept Utopia in their hearts and have never tired of sharing it at our worst moments? How many managed to set aside personal comfort and convenience in order to pursue and promote the truth, in order to feed and clothe the needy, in order to keep alive hope and aspirations in the hearts of those bludgeoned by despair?

There must be more and more among us who will defend Utopia and ensure its perpetuity. There must be the warriors whose prowess for war is overshadowed by their capacity for nobility and virtue. There must be Filipinos who have become victorious in other lands who must come home with their sons and daughters to rescue those they left behind and help them build their Utopia.

By Soliman Santos, Jr. Contributor IN the first five of the eight paragraphs of the Terms of Reference (TOR) at the start of the unsigned final draft of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP)-Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) are stated as TOR six prior peace agreements, four with the MILF and two with the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), including the 1996 Final Peace Agreement (FPA). This indicates a building on and need for harmonizing with the peace settlement already achieved with the MNLF. Then, in the sixth and seventh paragraphs are stated as TOR three Republic Acts (RA 6374, 9054 and 8371), three specific international treaties (ILO Convention No. 169, UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UN Charter, and Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and, in general terms, “International Humanitarian Law (IHL), and internationally recognized human rights instruments.” So, while there is no direct or express mention of the Philippine Constitution, there is reference to three national laws which carry that framework, as in fact so does the abovementioned 1996 FPA make reference to it. RA 6374 and 9054 are the previous and current Organic Acts for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). RA 8371 is the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997. This as well as ILO 169 and the new UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples provide for the protection and promotion of such rights. The TOR of “International Humanitarian Law (IHL), and internationally recognized human rights instruments” is also significant because “the generally accepted principles of international law [are adopted] as part of the law of the land” under the Philippine Constitution. But it is international law, not the Constitution, that has become a hopeful common ground or lingua franca between the GRP and MILF, they of their radically different paradigms. Finally, in the last of the eight paragraphs is this TOR found for the first time ever in any of the peace agreements involving the GRP and the various rebel groups: “Compact rights entrenchment emanating from the regime of dar-ul-mua’hada (or territory under compact) and dar-ul-sulh (or territory under peace agreement) that partakes the nature of a treaty device. For the purpose of this Agreement, a ‘treaty’ is defined as any solemn agreement in writing that sets out understandings, obligations, and benefits for both parties which provides for a framework that elaborates the principles declared in the Agreement.” Wow, forgive the expression, but I find quite exciting as a lawyer the infusion here of an Islamic element, something that is even overdue where one negotiating party is an Islamic liberation front. After all, these are negotiations so why must the TOR be limited to instruments which are most familiar to only one party? There is common (GRP-MILF) ground like prior agreements and international law. But the mention of national laws (GRP) as TOR is somewhat balanced by the mention of Islamic concepts (MILF). This already illustrates the give-and-take which part of the inherent character of negotiations. Aside from substantive laws and concepts, there must also be give-and-take in the matter of “formatic” language in peace agreements. Sometimes, one party must also accommodate the language of the other party, even if it sounds Greek or in this case Arabic. The reality is that different sides often speak different languages. And while the peace agreements are usually written in the difficult King’s language of English, it is not the first language of most of the negotiators on both sides. It is a common lingua franca that both sides have to grapple with -- difficult enough as a first language, more so as a second language, and most so with legal terminology (okay, gobbledygook) which has its own meaning often quite different from the ordinary meaning. Canadian scholar James Tully, in his book Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity (Cambridge University Press,1995), says that the most important and difficult first step in the dialogue process is listening to the voices of others in their own terms and traditions, as they want to be and as they speak to us. Speaking in their own terms includes their own terms of reference, such as Bangsamoro history and Qur’anic verses; thus the MILF’s insistence about defining the Bangsamoro problem as they perceive it to be. In fact, if the idea is better expressed in Basa Magindanaon, then so be it spoken. There is always the risk of the idea being lost in translation. Native Magindanaon-speaking negotiators of the MILF, however, would basically have to use their second or third language of English when communicating with the GRP, including draft consensus points. If there is such a thing as “Taglish,” maybe there is also “Maglish.” And so, give(-and-take) some leeway when it comes to the language of GRP-MILF peace agreements, especially the MOA-AD. Look at the spirit more than the letter. Mua’hada is Arabic for compact or treaty. The treaty device is very significant in Islamic tradition because of the Prophet Muhammad’s practice of peace treaty-making with non-Muslim tribes during his time. They are a form of ‘aqd (tie or conjunction) which more than just a contract in Western law, because it is treated like a religious obligation to be strictly observed. Perhaps the closest concept to this in Western law is pacta sunt servanda (treaties must be performed in good faith). In this sense, for the MILF to treat peace agreements like treaties should be reassuring for the GRP. Treaties are also very significant in Bangsamoro history. In the MOA-AD, under “Concepts and Principles,” paragraph 4, there is this sentence about the Bangsamoro (Moro nation): “They are the ‘First Nation’ with defined territory and with a system of government having entered into treaties of amity and commerce with foreign nations.” About 33 such treaties have been documented, 15 by the Sulu sultanate and 18 by the Maguindanao sultanate). One of these is the Treaty of 30 April 1851 between the Spanish Captain General of the Philippines and the Sultan of Sulu where the former guaranteed the free exercise of region and customs of Sulu’s inhabitants, and maintained the territorial integrity of Sulu and its dependencies as part of the archipelago belonging to Spain. And that Treaty had been referred to in the1922 Supreme Court decision in Adong vs. Cheong Seng Gee (43 Phil. 43), which listed treaty, organic law, statutory law, and executive proclamation as the various instruments where the purpose of the government towards the Moros/Muslims had been announced. And constitution has since been added to that list, with the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Art. X, Sec. 15-21 provisions on autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao (and the Cordilleras). So, there is Philippine jurisprudence that affirms treaty as a policy instrument of the government towards the Moros. And the best relevant definition of treaty, better than that above-quoted from the MOA-AD, is found in American jurisprudence which has in turn been incorporated into Philippine jurisprudence. This is the definition of treaty as “a compact formed between two nations or communities, having the right of self-government” found in the 1832 U.S. landmark case of Worcester vs. The State of Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, at 581, on U.S. government-American Indian tribes relations. Such a compact also partakes of the nature of a charter on the form of constitutional association between two nations/peoples. This concept and the quoted definition of treaty is more relevant to the GRP-MILF peace negotiations than the usual definition or understanding of treaty as an international agreement between States, which is useful only for international relations. The said U.S. case has been incorporated into Philippine jurisprudence through the 1919 Philippine case of Rubi vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro (39 Phil. 660). The treaty device also helps to realize the international law principle of equality of peoples, such as Filipino and Bangsamoro. It would indicate an at least symbolic, if not also substantive, equality between two peoples. After all, while Bangsamoro statehood has not been recognized, Bangsamoro “peoplehood” has. (for example, in the 1996 FPA, RA 9054 and Philippine jurisprudence in the case of Cruz vs. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources -G.R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000), which upheld the constitutionality of the IPRA. And in this case is interestingly found this description of the Constitution as “a compact made by and among citizens of a State to govern themselves in a certain manner…a solemn covenant made by all Filipinos to govern themselves.” In another Philippine case, BAYAN vs. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000), which upheld the constitutionality of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) with the U.S., there was an enumeration of other terms used for treaty or international agreement: “act, protocol, agreement, compromise d’arbitrage, concordat, convention, declaration, exchange of notes, pact, statute, charter and modus vivendi.” To these, we may add “compact” and “covenant” used in the IPRA case as synonyms for Constitution. And so, there may be more than semantic basis to treat a treaty and a Constitution on the same plane, in certain circumstances. In the MOA-AD, the GRP and MILF Peace Panels preferred to use the term “Comprehensive Compact” in lieu of “Final Peace Agreement” largely in order to avoid confusion with the 1996 FPA with the MNLF. If we go back to the early quoted definition of treaty in the MOA-AD, it can be gleaned from the wording “For the purpose of this Agreement, a ‘treaty’ is defined as a solemn agreement in writing that sets out understandings, obligations, and benefits for both parties which provides for a framework that elaborates the principles declared in the Agreement” that the “treaty” referred to here is not the MOA (which is the “Agreement”) but the envisioned Comprehensive Compact (“that elaborates the principles declared in the Agreement”). It is the Comprehensive Compact which would be the real deal “that sets out understandings, obligations, and benefits for both parties.” Let’s not overlook this now with all the sound and fury, and so much ado, about the MOA-AD. (The author is a Bicolano human rights lawyer, peace advocate, legal scholar and author of The Moro Islamic Challenge: Constitutional Rethinking for the Mindanao Peace Process (UP Press, 2001), Peace Advocate (DLSU Press, 2002), Dynamics and Directions of the GRP-MILF Peace Negotiations (Alternate Forum for Research in Mindanao, 2005), and Peace Zones in the Philippines (Gaston Z. Ortigas Peace Institute, 2005); and co-author of Philippine Human Development Report 2005: Peace, Human Security and Human Development in the Philippines (Human Development Network, 2005).

By Atty. Soliman Santos, Jr. Contributor IS the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE), proposed in the unsigned Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP)-Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD), a sovereign independent nation-state separate from the Philippine state? Will it mean the territorial dismemberment of the country? These are among the worst fears about the MOA-AD and its BJE splashed or aired over the Philippine media. Let us try to “tackle this issue in an intelligent and dispassionate manner,” guided by truth, reason and justice. Under the terms of the MOA-AD, the BJE is clearly not a sovereign independent nation-state separate from the Philippine state and, therefore, whatever territory pertains to it would not constitute dismemberment of the country. We shall deal more with statehood rather than territory here. It is not enough to recall the old political science or Philippine political law definitions of the state and its four essential elements of people, territory, government and sovereignty, then say that since the BJE seems to have all these, ergo it is a “state,” and then raise hell about it as if there were a declaration of war. Other juridical entities (if I may also use the term), including my city of Naga and province of Camarines Sur easily have elements of people, territory and government, so it is usually sovereignty or a certain level of it that makes the difference between statehood and non-statehood. This refers to sovereignty that is independent of external control that has absolute power to govern, unlimited power to make laws, as manifested by power to make and change the fundamental law, which usually resides in the people. Then also does international recognition. Sovereignty at the country level has traditionally been deemed absolute and indivisible but this notion has changed over several centuries due to both external and internal entities that countries have to deal with. Anyway, long before there was a Philippine state in the 20th Century, there were already in these islands sovereign independent nation-states that were the sultanates of Sulu and Maguindanao, beginning in the 15th and 17th centuries, respectively. The relevance of this is indicated in the MOA-AD, “Concepts and Principles,” paragraph 4, with the Parties, to their credit, reaffirming certain historical truths: “Both Parties acknowledge that the right to self-governance of the Bangsamoro people is rooted on ancestral territoriality exercised under the suzerain authority of their sultanates and the Pat a Pangampong ku Ranaw. The Moro sultanates were states or karajaan/kadatuan resembling a body politic endowed with all the elements of nation-state in the modern sense.” But that was of a time past. By the early 20th century, such historical sovereignty of the Moro sultanates was lost and since then never recovered, first under the American colonial regime and then under the newly independent Republic of the Philippines. The Moro liberal fronts of the past four decades have sought to regain that lost sovereignty for the Bangsamoro people, initially through armed struggle against the Philippine government. The negotiated political settlement of that armed conflict and its roots in sovereignty and related issues are what the peace negotiations are all about. The settlement reached with the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) since 1996, resulting in a new Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), has proven to be inadequate. Thus we saw the subsequent and ongoing negotiations with the MILF for a higher and better form of self-governance or self-determination for which the GRP usually draws the line at independence or secession. That the BJE under the MOA-AD is not independent and separate from the Philippines is perhaps best shown by the characterization of their proposed restructured relationship as “associative” in several provisions, notably those under “Governance:”

4. The relationship between the Central Government and the BJE shall be associative characterized by shared authority and responsibility with a structure of governance based on executive, legislative, judicial and administrative institutions with defined powers and functions in a Comprehensive Compact. A period of transition shall be established in a Comprehensive Compact specifying the relationship between the Central Government and the BJE. 5. In the context of implementing prior and incremental agreements between the GRP and MILF, it is the joint understanding of the Parties that the term ‘entrenchment’ means, for the purposes of giving effect to this transitory provision, the creation of a process of institution building to exercise shared authority over territory and defined functions of associative character.

Shared authority and responsibility connote “shared sovereignty.” If sovereignty is to be shared by the Central Government and the BJE, then they are necessarily not independent and separate from each other. The MOA-AD speaks of a transition, presumably to what would be the final political status of the BJE, but what this might be is still subject to negotiations of the Comprehensive Compact. Ordinarily, there are three general options for self-determination, or more precisely for a Non-Self Governing Territory to reach a full measure of self-government, indicated in UN General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV) of 1960 (admittedly quite dated):

1.Emergence as a sovereign independent State; 2.Free association with an independent State; or 3.Integration with an independent State.

In the MOA-AD at least, the choice for the BJE appears to be the “free association” option, not the “sovereign independent State” option. The “integration” option is basically what the Bangsamoro people have had under the Republic of the Philippines. Note how the autonomy (which is not only in the form of the ARMM) and federalism options are not mentioned here, which doesn’t mean these are not viable options. Both the GRP and MILF are well aware, in particular, of the federalism option but the concept they preferred to use for the BJE, at least for the period of transition, was an “associative relationship.” Apart from “shared authority and functions,” the specifics of this relationship have yet to be determined in the Comprehensive Compact. Parenthetically, some have questioned the terminology “Central Government,” saying this is proper only for a federal set-up. But it was the terminology used in the1976 Tripoli Agreement, one of the terms of reference (TOR) for the MOA-AD. And the mention in that TOR of the 1976 Tripoli Agreement, 1996 GRP-MNLF Peace Agreement, Republic Acts Nos. 6734, 9054 and 8371 are in fact indications of a non-independence option in the MOA-AD. These legal instruments in turn make their own references to the Philippine Constitution (Attention those looking for something along this line). Aside from the provisions of the MOA-AD, UNGA Resolution 1541 contains these concepts or principles about free association, so that we might have some idea of this self-determination arrangement short of independence:

(a) Free association should be the result of a free and voluntary choice by the peoples of the territory concerned expressed through informed and democratic processes. It should be one which respects the individuality and the cultural characteristics of the territory and its peoples, and retains for the peoples of the territory which is associated with an independent State the freedom to modify the status of that territory through the expression of their will by democratic means and through constitutional processes. (b) The associated territory should have the right to determine its internal constitution without outside interference, in accordance with due constitutional processes and the freely expressed wishes of the people. This does not preclude consultations as appropriate or necessary under the terms of the free association agreed upon.

So, much depends really on “the terms of the free association agreed upon.” This precisely is what the GRP and MILF are in the process of doing, with such terms to be found in the MOA-AD and more importantly for finality and detail, the Comprehensive Compact. We do not have any more space here to discuss examples of free association, and can only mention a few associated states of the U.S. which are of some familiarity to Filipinos: the Commonwealth of the Philippines from 1935-46; the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and the Marshall Islands; Puerto Rico and Northern Mariana Islands. Some of these later emerged as a sovereign independent State (notably the Philippines), others stayed as associated states of the U.S. All of them, even non-independent states like Puerto Rico, can participate as such in the Olympics, which is really the truer “United Nations.” To sum up, the BJE under the MOA-AD is neither independent nor a full-fledged state. Given “shared authority and responsibility,” it may be safer to refer to it as a “semi-state” or “quasi-state.” Being sub-national in its territory, we might also call it a “sub-state.” This might jibe with the general notion that free associated states are usually smaller minor partners to larger major partners, e.g. an existing independent State or the former colonial power. But again, the terms of the free association agreed upon can provide for a more equitable relationship between peoples or nations which are ideally sovereign equals. The MOA-AD seems to be going in this direction, which is just as well for redressing historical grievances and imbalances. Perhaps, a best effort at an “associative relationship” should be made and be given a chance -- before all concerned consider other options.

By Ted Regencia Contributor AT the height of the US presidential primaries that pitted Chicago's very own Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, one Filipino American social butterfly emphatically said, "Ay, ayaw ko kay Obama! Baka yung White House magiging Black House (Oh, I don't want Obama! The White House might turn into a Black House)." It's a sentiment not so few of Chicago's Filipino-Americans feel towards their very own senator who is an African-American. Now that he is the Democratic nominee for president, a historic achievement for a black candidate, the antagonism has only intensified. It all started when Obama won the Iowa caucus on January 3. Shortly after, an online group of Filipinos received a forwarded email attacking Obama's "Muslim upbringing." The email asked, "Are you aware that Obama's middle name is Mohammed (It's actually Hussein, which means "the handsome one" in Arabic). Strip away his nice looks, the big smile and smooth talk and what do you get?" It warned that Obama is "possibly a covert worshiper of the Muslim faith, even today." "This guy desires to rule over America while his loyalty is totally vested in a Black Africa," it added. The smear provoked a sharp response from Chicago-based Filipino publisher and editor, Mariano Santos, who described it as "worse than witch-hunt." "People who started this fear-mongering are more dangerous than their black propaganda. Filipinos had lived through this dark age, when they cannot even rent a house in a white neighborhood, or date a white American without being in danger of lynching. Now these pathetic Pinoys are circulating this email like they are scions of the Ku Klux Klan," he said referring to the white supremacist group, KKK. "These rumor mongers have only prejudice and lies to peddle. They are the danger to true American way of life," Santos said while castigating the source, a Filipino American and devout Catholic. The online message turned out to be just an initial assault of the candidate. A second version of the email immediately followed. This time, it accuses Obama of having "a black Muslim" father "a white atheist" mother, and "a radical Muslim" Indonesian step-father. "Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's presidential candidacy. The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level," it warned. Curiously, the attacks were not based on Obama's liberal policy positions, like his support of abortion rights and civil unions for gay couples. Or even his Iraq withdrawal plan. Rather, it was an in-your-face attack of his race, and his "Muslim links." Reports of Obama's Muslim upbringing, however, have been repeatedly debunked by international news organizations like CNN and New York Times. Americans of the Muslim faith also assailed the malicious implication that being a Muslim automatically equates to being unpatriotic, or worse, a supporter of terrorists. By March, as the odds of an Obama nomination increased, the voices of opposition within the Filipino community became even louder. A former president of the Filipino-American Council of Greater Chicago taunted the Chicago-based publication, PINOY Newsmagazine, by e-mailing altered pictures with the heading, "If Obama wins." One image shows the Kentucky Fried Chicken logo with Colonel Sanders wearing a turban. Another photo shows the iconic McDonald's sign changed to McHammed's. The Chicago alumni president of a very reputable Catholic university in Manila chimed-in by forwarding a message with the subject entitled, "Interesting: Barack H. Obama, 50 Lies and Counting." Asked by one of the recipients, who is he recommending for president, his loaded reply was, "The one who tells the TRUTH." When confronted, he feigned innocence by saying that he was only trying to pass the information around. Yet another personality, who was crowned Mrs. Philippines in Chicago, was more direct. Santos, the newspaper publisher, recalled that after writing about Senator Obama, he was confronted in public by the said individual who claimed "in loud and emotional outburst" that Obama is an "evil man." That same community leader also heads the Philippine Lions Club of Chicago. The onslaught of racially-charged denunciations continued by the start of Spring. On the 40th Death Anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr. last April, for instance, this reporter invited a friend to watch a one-act play honoring the legacy of the foremost civil rights leader. Out of nowhere, a pointed rejection came: "Those blacks are parasites" followed by an Obama-bashing comment. Another friend, a graduate of the Philippines' oldest university, could not hide his disdain of Obama either. As a healthcare practitioner, he said that he had encountered a number of African-American patients. He said that they are "lazy" and dependent on government dole-outs. He concluded that a win by Obama will only perpetuate the black's sense of victimhood. Suspicions and mistrusts towards the African American community run deep, and the Filipino community is not immune to those false impressions. For one, many Filipino immigrants have limited understanding of the very violent black experience in America. As Filipinos migrate to America, many bring with them, some deep-seated prejudice against people of darker color, in itself a product of colonial mentality that dictates that everything white is superior. Even religious upbringing may have unwittingly played a role in forming these pre-conceived notions about color. In church, black always represents sin and bad omen. A wild child in the family is called a "black sheep." It's not always the fault of Filipinos migrants to have brought with them these views from the motherland. Many are hard-working, decent and God-fearing individuals who only have the best interest of their families and community in their hearts. But, as they become part of a multi-cultural and pluralistic society like the United States, it is also necessary for them to understand the new dynamics of the whole community, including the important issue of race. Ignorance of that can create misinformed if not bigoted views. A deep economic disparity, however, generally prevents Filipino Americans from interacting with their African-American brothers and sisters. An estimated 60 percent of Filipino-Americans have income over $50,000 a year, allowing them to live in middle-class and upper middle-class neighborhoods. Meanwhile, majority of blacks who suffered many decades of racial discrimination remains disproportionately stuck in the lowest income level, pushing many of them to live in urban ghettos. Many become unemployed for long periods and get involved in various crimes. Absent those physical bonds, the opportunity to have a healthy social integration and interaction between the African American and Filipino-American communities is vastly limited. The only exposure many Filipinos may have of blacks is when they appear in the news about gang shootings and drug arrests, and that only exacerbates the already dysfunctional view towards the black community. The recent spike in murder rate in Chicago -- which is naturally getting intense media attention -- only highlights those existing unease. It's not unusual to hear comments by Filipinos like, "They're lazy! "How come we've managed to improve our way of life here in America, when we are only here for five, 10 years?" "These blacks have been here in America their whole life, and they're still poor." While maybe true, comments such as those are myopic and ill-informed. It does not take into account the long history of slavery and racial discrimination. It also misses the fact that a significant number of African-Americans have climbed up the economic scale by sheer hard work, just like many others. Indeed, even here in the Windy City, home of well-loved African Americans like the entertainment titan Oprah Winfrey and sports legend Michael Jordan, racial understanding still has a long way to go. And that's the fragile scenario, where all these political dramas about Senator Obama are being played. As the new face of politics, the Hawaii-born and Harvard-educated politician has become "a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." As CNN political commentator Donna Brazile said, "Race is one of the most difficult issues to navigate in presidential politics especially when often the race card is played. So it all depends if the race card is play and whether or not Barrack Obama will be able to navigate that. Bottom of the deck." In this 2008 presidential derby, the challenge for the Filipino-American voters is to avoid being dealt with those race cards, as they decide on their choice for president. A vote for Republican candidate Senator John McCain should not be a vote against Senator Obama's skin color. Rather it should be about what the Arizona senator stands for on critical issues at that matter. Let it be about the debate on the economy and national security, and never about who does and doesn't look "All-American." It was not too long ago when Filipinos from all over the world were up in arms over the perceived racist treatment of Filipino doctors by the popular US television show, "Desperate Housewives." And rightly so, for indeed Filipino doctors are of the highest caliber. Locally in Chicago, Pinoys slammed the department store H&M for the racist slur directed at a Filipino-American customer Frannie Richards, who is a nurse and a U.S. Air Force Reserve Staff Sgt. There was also the brouhaha over the identification by a local television station, of a crime suspect as "Filipino." The protesters argued that by calling the suspect by his country of origin, it stigmatized the whole Filipino community. The station would later apologize, while the suspect was convicted. Filipino-Americans cannot claim to be victims of racism, while turning a blind eye on its own prejudice towards the black community and the candidacy of Barack Obama. The larger point is, Filipino-Americans cannot allow the stain of racism smudge its image as a model community. It must confront it head on and condemn it with full force. So when history is written, we will not be sidelined with a footnote as a bunch of racist minority. Ted Regencia is a Chicago-based Filipino journalist. He is a journalism graduate at Silliman University in Dumaguete City.

I think this kind of agreement should be done through a plebiscite and various consultations with the Filipinos, both Muslims and Christians. The government should publish the whole agreement (nothing hidden) so the people can form their educated opinion on this very important matter. Congress, both houses, should approve this agreement too. The executive branch cannot do this by itself unless our country is no longer democratic. Ruben Lacap, Daly City, California (via e-mail)