By Atty. Soliman M. Santos, Jr.
Contributor
THE initialed but 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), the subject of much current controversy at the national level and of fighting in Central Mindanao, has been “set aside for all intents and purposes” by the Philippine government, at least by its Executive Department (we have to be clear these days which of the three departments is actually acting). The matter is still pending in the Supreme Court but the Executive has announced:“No matter what the Supreme Court ultimately decides, the government will not sign the MOA… in its present form or in any form.” In so many words, the MOA is dead. Those who were so worried about what they thought as the MOA giving away national sovereignty and territory to a new Bangsamoro state, in grave violation of the Constitution, need not worry anymore. The MOA is dead. What they should perhaps worry about now is whether the peace process with the MILF is also dead or at a dead end, where the detour taken could lead to a full-blown war.
The peace negotiations were meant to resolve the armed conflict on the Moro front through a negotiated political settlement for a just, lasting and comprehensive solution of the Bangsamoro problem. The ancestral domain aspect of that problem was lined up as the penultimate substantive agenda heading before finally working out the political solution and the legal modalities in a Comprehensive Compact. But this mutually agreed process has reached a dead end of sorts with the non-signing of the MOA, as far as the MILF is concerned. It remains to be seen whether this deadlock can be unlocked. The logic of the whole process would seem to dictate that, since the peace negotiations cannot proceed for the MILF, then it can be expected to consider “alternative means to achieve freedom and justice for the Bangsamoro people” (from an official statement of MILF chief peace negotiator Mohagher Iqbal). These other options include a return to armed struggle which the Moro liberation fronts had waged in the first place to achieve political objectives. And when this rebellion is met by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) in order to suppress it, then you have an armed conflict. This could go back in some ways to the situation during the early years of martial law before the 1976 Tripoli Agreement with the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF).
The Executive Department had announced that it will not sign the MOA due to “changed circumstances” like the ongoing controversy at the national level and the precarious ground situation in Central Mindanao, in effect saying that the MOA issue had become more political than legal. Stated otherwise, the MOA has become politically untenable to sign as far as the government’s own Christian majority constituency is concerned. The non-signing the MOA was calculated to give the Executive some space to engage in various political efforts to defuse the political situation as well as address the ground situation. As for the peace process, the Peace Adviser and the GRP Peace Panel Chairperson have mulled continuing this through “further negotiations” that already “move towards a Comprehensive Compact,” of course coupled with “consultation with various stakeholders” — the major lesson from the aborted MOA experience.
But there are strong indications that the MILF will not entertain any GRP proposal for “further negotiations” even towards a final peace agreement with the Arroyo administration after its firmed-up decision not to sign the MOA. For them, never mind if there is another indefinite impasse, they will just wait for the next President, “if we get there.” In the meantime, they will consider other options. Let me try to share my understanding of this likely MILF view of rejecting “further negotiations” with the Arroyo administration. They take what happened to the MOA (including but not just the Executive’s decision of non-signing) as the GRP having negotiated in bad faith, and thus the basic trust built by years of peace talks has been seriously eroded. The bottom line is that the Arroyo administration cannot deliver after all. This whole experience hurts for them but at least they now know the real score and where they stand vis-à-vis the whole Philippine side — Executive, Legislative, Judiciary, Local Governments, Business Sector, Media, General Public, etc. all ganged up on the MOA. The widespread and loud rejection of the MOA by the whole Philippine side is like a rejection of the Moros and their aspirations for recognition of their identity, way of life and longing for self-rule. The truth hurts but it sets us free.
The MOA is now an already closed chapter as far as the MILF is concerned, even as it remains an important document for them. The MOA had at least placed Moro aspirations on the national agenda, discourse and consciousness. They say that it has even become a rallying point for Moro unity. So, there is already with them some sense of moral ascendancy or even victory with the MOA issue. They cannot for their own self-respect go into “further negotiations” which would not be on the basis of a signed MOA. This was already the product of difficult but successful negotiations up to its final draft with the “Government of the Republic of the Philippines” (that’s what the MOA says, not just “Executive Department”) for more than three years starting 2005. They cannot defend doing this (“further negotiations” without first signing the MOA) to their own forces and constituency. They themselves do not see the viability of “further negotiations” for a final peace agreement which may end up just like the MOA. To use an Islamic expression, it would be like “getting bitten by a snake twice in the same pit.”
Still, the MOA should be seen an important document, and not just for the MILF and the Bangsamoro people. It is also an important document for the peace process, for history, for eventual understanding between two peoples, and no less for the Filipino people in addressing their various nation-building problems, not just the Bangsamoro problem. Notwithstanding the admittedly unfamiliar and difficult language and concepts in the MOA, Cotabato Archbishop Orlando B. Quevedo, OMI, says it “is a remarkable document. It is a very serious attempt to balance national sovereignty and Bangsamoro aspirations for self-determination and freedom. For this reason, I believe that the MOA can bring lasting peace…. The balancing act… may be seen in the concepts on governance, concretized in such terms as ‘associative relationships,’ ‘shared authority,’ the idea of ‘central government,’ and its responsibility for external defense, etc. For the GRP, the balancing continues with two fundamental democratic safety values — acts of Congress and referendum [or plebiscite].” In this sense, long live the MOA — as a landmark or watershed exercise in exploring the possibilities of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace between the Philippine and Moro sides, after decades of armed conflict with long historical roots and complex dimensions.
The MOA shows that at least some Filipinos and Moros can compromise or find a middle ground for a proposed Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) which would be something between the existing Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and independent statehood, the original common aspiration of the Moro liberation fronts. This aspiration is based on the historical sovereignty of the Moro sultanates which were once sovereign independent nation-states several centuries before there even was a Philippine State and Constitution. Thus, also a compromise or middle ground between a man-made Constitution with its sovereignty of the people, and a God-made Qur’an with its sovereignty of Allah. The MOA idea is for “shared sovereignty” between the Central Government and the BJE in an “associative relationship” where it is the former, not the latter, which represents the sovereign independent State.
Then, there is also a compromise or middle ground between the present ARMM territory and that of the original historical Bangsamoro homeland covering the whole of Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan. This was their homeland which was annexed to the Philippine Islands ceded by Spain to the United States by way of the 1898 Treaty of Paris, and then incorporated in the Republic of the Philippines granted its independence by the U.S. in 1946, in both cases without the plebiscitary consent of the Bangsamoro people. This was the same homeland in Mindanao which was 76 percent Moro in population in 1903 but which had become just 19 percent Moro by 1990 as a result of government resettlement programs which systematically brought Christian settlers from the Visayas and Luzon into Mindanao over several decades. The MILF to its credit is seeking as territory for the BJE basically those geographical areas which the Moros still actually occupy or where they are the majority per present reality on the ground, and still subject to plebiscite. In any case, this BJE territory would remain part of, not be dismembered from, the national territory.
If there is one thing that the MOA issue has opened up, aside from a deeper sense of Moro aspirations, it is the need to “think out of the box” of the Constitution. Newspaper columnist and Sociology Prof. Randy David pointed out, as early as 1999 to 2000, the need for “the readiness on the part of government to allow a wide latitude for institutional experimentation in the region, instead of the constant invocation of constitutional limits as a warning against insolent initiatives.” He also wrote of a certain “constitutional pragmatism” which is necessary to overcome “constitutional obstacles that that have needlessly prevented the exploration of more creative approaches to the Mindanao problem.” He is reminded of John Dewey’s insight: “The belief in political fixity, of the sanctity of some form of state consecrated by the efforts of our fathers and hallowed by tradition, is one of the stumbling blocks in the way of orderly and directed change; it is an invitation to revolt and revolution.”
There is, of course, so much more subject matter involved in the MOA. There is still much to learn in further studying and discussing the concepts found therein as well as the issues which have emerged in the controversy about it. After an adequate period of dispassionate, informed and intelligent discussion of these concepts and issues by all concerned — “after some sanity is restored,” says Fr. Eliseo R. Mercado, Jr., OMI — the time should come when the parties can viably continue their peace negotiations, presumably from where they left off. Much depends on how an expected interregnum or hiatus or what the MILF’s Iqbal calls “purgatory” is handled by both sides in the coming weeks and months.
Given that prospect of no “further negotiations” as well as the danger of military options on both sides, the best bets for the remaining period (one year and ten months) of the Arroyo administration are to somehow maintain the ceasefire, enhance rehabilitation and development work and projects, and pursue the three-part imperatives suggested by Archbishop Quevedo. The premise for the first two “bets” is that the prior agreements on the security and rehabilitation aspects should not to be derogated or set aside. The Quevedo imperatives refer to: “consultation and dialogue, information and education, and building of a constituency supportive of the general goals and specific objectives as well as the processes and contents of peace negotiations.”
In these various ways, the ground is laid for a return to the ancestral domain aspect and other substantive matters of peace negotiation when this become more viable, even if in the next administration already. The time for the MOA will come but then in another form.
14 Feedbacks on "The MOA is dead! Long live the MOA!"
DOM
Peace with the Muslims in the south would not be reached not even in the next century but more of never. There could be lulls we may call pseudo peace once in a while. That is not what we dream of. But to reach that dream, it takes only a few seconds. Sign a real to goodness serious decree to shoot anyone sporting any firearms anywhere and on sight among civilians except housewives and daughters.
wonderwoman
It’s funny how our government commits so many blunders. From DepEd fiasco wherein 500 million pesos was waste on a lame duck project related to call center, from the fertilizer funds of Joc Joc Bolante, from the ostentatious and non-productive travels abroad of PGMA, from so many useless albeit inferior projects wherein the people will be directly or indirectly affected in the later years, by shouldering so much debts servicing our government has to pay because of foreign loan. How long can we go before our patience breaks.
The MOA related to the GRP-MILF was an act of treason by our government negotiators and PGMA. It all boils down to dismemberment of our Republic. And far more serious because the government of PGMA has no right to negotiate on such matter of paramount importance, according to our Supreme Court, and secondly, there was no transparency.
The sudden back track or about face of the executive branch shows how moron these public officials can be. And again, ExGeneral Esperon, one of the government negotiators has the penchant of getting involved with anomalous transaction. He got implicated to the “Hello Garci” case, and now, the MOA.
We, the people, have almost lost our trust to this kind of government. Instead of being a leader, a prime mover, we have to be forever vigilant to its misdemeanors. In the simple word, it is a trouble maker.
And now, we are faced again with another problem, our government budget for 2009 is ONE TRILLION AND FOUR HUNDRED MILLIONS PESOS! Our Gov’t has to pay P682B to service debts in ’09. With 90% of our population sinking ever deeper into poverty, we, the people, has to shell out what ever meager money we have to shoulder these loans.
Yet, in spite of the economic problems we are now facing, our government doesn’t exercise any prudence when it comes to disbursements of public funds. It squanders, it splurges, it is ostentatious in its spending, and it even steals.
This government is non-productive. It does not deliver services commensurate to the huge amount of money it receives in form of taxes.
Secretary Lapus and PGMA is a good example of public officials who waste millions of public funds by engaging on useless streamers scattered all over our country just to extol themselves on their pet projects. Let the people judges their accomplishments rather than advertizing themselves through streamers.
Our government has gone to the dogs!
wonderwoman
I have a solution as substitute to the MOA. Why not tell the seperatist (MILF) that they can claim Sabah. Then, if successful, occupy it and rule it.
“Si PGMA lang ba ang kaya ninyo?”
DOM
Why would the administration thought of the MOA-AD in the first place? It would have established a sanctuary for the likes of Bolante expected to be deported soon. It would be a safe haven for exile after 2010.
lea dizon
Great thoughts wonderwoman !
anak t. salit
From news reports on the questions and side comments posed by certain justices during oral arguments, it appears that the MOA issues, altho being muddled by a few, shall be resolved in favor of the government position. It appears that Fr. Joaquin Bernas might be right after all: that the basic principles learned by heart of students of political, international and remedial law shall be used: the principles of “justiciable issues,” “jus cogens,: “political question,” “separation of powers,” and “lack of abuse of discretion in the use of powers.” Most importantly, sticking to facts as stated in the MOA document itself and used as guideline by the panel of the alleged CA bribery” case, is the way to go about in dealing with MOA.
If Fr. Bernas shall turn out to be right, woe to the politicians who grandstanded on the issues, woe to certain sectors of the press who tried to interpret and speculate for the people, instead of just reporting the facts, and, incidentally woe to us readers who are not getting any further report of the facts on the alleged CA bribery scandal, involving corruption which used to be the favorite serialized topic by print & broadcast media, especially ABS-CBN/ANC; and woe to the innocent people who may have died as the muddled issues fanned “the flames of conflict.”
May we always stick to facts, the real issues and the laws applicable to MOA. The MOA document should have been read carefully by the MILF panel before it initialled it. Initialling it without appreciating the fact that it is subject to the legal framework of the Philippines was bad; using arms to force it through was worse.
Abdullah Maulana
Wake Up call to Bangsamoro!
The Aborted signing of MOA-AD is a wake up call to bangsamoro to go hand in hand and support our MILF Mujaheedin.
Because of the MOA-AD, ordinary moro able to understand what the MILF is fighting for….
Because of the MOA-AD, moro people start searching about the philippine history and Mindanao history…
Because of the MOA-AD, Moro struggle become international issue….
The MOA-AD is not actually enough for the rightful claim of Bangsamoro
Because of the MILF, MOA-AD came into existence….
Because of MILF, thick forested land between two lanao provinces is still untouch…
Because of MILF, thick forested land between Maguindanao and Lanao del sur still intack…
Because of the MILF, some of our right is recognize by the Philippine government…
as a Muslim Bangsamoro, it is our duty to fight and depend our Land in the name of Islam, depend our culture in the name of Islam, depend our tradition in the name of Islam, and depend our religion in the name of Almighty.
an ordinary moro civilian can contribute in our cause in deed, thought, word, and little percentage of our earnings… PESO every month for every moro in Mindanao would mean P 20 Million income and reserve for food and ammunittion.
INSA ALLAH this fight will end through bangsamoro victory with a little sacrifice.
ALLAH HO Akbar….
ronald
MILF should remember that we have only one country & that is the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES”.
they must respect our country’s law. killing innocent civilians only proves that they are not human. we should not tolerate those kind of demonic actions. they must be punished.
the government must show it’s power & force in wiping out criminals.
where are our traditional politicos? why don’t they do or say something about the issue? why are they silent? where is the
De los Reyes
Good that GMA has scrapped the peace panel. The purpose behind its creation was noble but the course of action taken by the panel was catastrophic. And so after eleven years of peace talks the negotiation ended in a shooting war. Some peace panel indeed.
A lot of serious mistakes were committed by both the GRP and the MILF. What can be learned from all this? It was a mistake GMA’s negotiators played a flawed tactical strategy in rewarding the Moro separatists with an expanded ancestral domain that was not only beyond the constitutional mandate but the panel was obviously poorly counseled on constitutional issues. Also, an absolutely neutral and impartial country other than Muslim Malaysia should have been chosen to mediate in the negotiation. To complicate matters, the GRP panel misjudged the expectations of the people for lack of transparency on the fundamental and vital issues particularly on ancestral domain which has profound impact on the inhabitants of Mindanao who were effectively marginalized. On the other hand, the MILF showed pigheadedness in insisting the MOA is a done deal and not recognizing the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over the MOA to determine its constitutionality and impulsively resorted to violence to show its fury. That atrocious reaction only gave GMA and her peace panel a gracious exit plus a good excuse to justify her resolve not to sign any agreement at gunpoint.
Again, the root cause of the problem is, as usual, lack of transparency and the failure of presidential advisers to anticipate any conceivable problems their decisions may create as a direct result of their pre-planed actions. Although some quarters dismiss the MOA as just an inconsequential “piece of paper” which they claim will still have to pass Congress and a plebiscite anyway and therefore not worth worrying about but look at the number of innocent lives lost and the chaos this piece of paper has brought to Mindanao. Someone has to answer for this idiocy.
Bianca C.
who are the 6 parties/sides of MOA - AD??
mark allen sinogo
I am really against with this agreement because it is really violates our constitution. It should have been decided not only by the government officials but also to the citizens. Kung hihiwalay ang Mindanao, babaguhin nito ang lahat ng kultura, kasaysayan, at ari-arian ng Pilinas. What I mean is, it will cause to change our flag and the rules and laws of our constitution, there will be more limitations on our territory and all cultures of Mindanao will be erased and take it as their own….. Pag nawala ang Mindanao sa mapa ng Pilipinas, parang hindi na ito Pilipinas, ang bansang kinagisnan ng mga Pilipino at ng ating mga ninuno….
De los Reyes
Editorial
EXECUTIVE BULL
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/editorial/view/20081017-166830/Executive-bull
“…Ermita, once a presidential adviser on the peace process himself, said the 8-7 decision was a reminder for future government negotiators to “follow the instructions of the President. In other words, the MOA-AD wasn’t the President’s doing.”
Oh, really. Ermita is trying to absolve the president from any responsibility that could have resulted in the worst constitutional crisis to hit the country. Consider this: Had Esperon signed the MOA AD that would have meant this government recognizes the MILF as the rightful owner of the vast ancestral domain of the MILF’s choosing in total disregard of the rights of those settlers presently occupying them. That would have also given the MILF the right to seek universal relief even from the United Nations, the OIC, or the World Court in the event the signed MOA AD is rejected by the Filipinos in a referendum, and charge the Philippine government of reneging on an agreement.
.
Esperon and his peace panel had been given absolute authority to negotiate with the MILF in Malaysia where peace talks were held, but to claim the president was completely unaware of how the situation was developing is clearly a lot of bull. There is so much at stake in the peace negotiation. No presidential peace adviser on earth would proceed in his task up to its full conclusion without making regular situation reports to the president. Cover up has become the standard practice every time this government commits a grave mistake. Ermita should know by now that cover up would not be necessary if there was transparency. Worse, he has shifted the blame to Esperon just to save the president from any responsibility but who in fact had the last word on this. What a farce! Ermita must be taking the people for fools and morons.
hill roberts
Ronald on MILF:
How right he is in saying that there is only one PHilippines. Indeed. However, may I ask some of these print and and other media reporters why they like to tag Mindanao as “Muslim Mindanao”? This is one of the reasons why many people are confused, let alone, let down, by the newspapers themselves. Giving wrong ideas to readers is tantamount to more trouble ahead, not from the so-called troublemakers, but from the journalists themselves who do not think one iota what consequences might occur in the future. Time to stop tagging Mindanao anything but Mindanao itself. My question is, journalists do not seem to tag Luzon or Visayas as anything other than what they are called, officially. Perhaps, one should start calling Luzon “Typhoon Luzon”,
or Visayas, “Singing Visayas”? Take your pick, folks!
RLTJS
hillroberts is right. I think it is improper to describe Mindanao as “Christian” or “Muslim” Mindanao. There is only one Mindanao. There is a north, a south, an east, a central, a west - parts of it.
Christian and Muslim added to the word Mindanao is divisive and or adding to existing feelings of divisiveness in some people.
Please Leave a Comment!