(A tale of two very differently treated cases)

By Soliman M. Santos, Jr.

WITH due respect, as we are supposed to say, the Supreme Court’s one-page resolution of November 11 (but released only on November 21) summarily “deny(ing) with finality” the two Motions for Reconsideration of its October 14 Decision, which by an 8-7 vote declared as “contrary to law and the Constitution” the initialed but unsigned final draft of the GRP-MILF Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD), is very disappointing, to say the least. According to a news report on the just released resolution, the SC reasoned therein that it had already passed on the “basic issues” and that “no substantial arguments were presented to warrant the reversal of the questioned decision.”

The disappointing nature of the SC resolution can be taken on several levels. But first it has to be pointed out that the two MRs came from several Bangsamoro civil society organizations which were intervenors in the MOA-AD case, intervening in support of the respondent GRP Peace Panel, in effect in support of the proposed MOA-AD and the unfinished GRP-MILF peace negotiations. One MR of 49 pages was filed by the Muslim Legal Assistance Foundation, Inc. (MUSLAF) on October 31. The second MR of 73 pages plus 19 documentary annexes was filed jointly by the Consortium of Bangsamoro Civil Society (CBCS) and the Bangsamoro Women Solidarity Forum, Inc. (BWSF) on November 5. [The GRP Peace Panel and its co-respondent government officials, represented by the Solicitor General, did not itself file a MR but a “Constancia,” i.e. a manifestation as a matter on record, expressing continuing concern about SC encroachment into executive power.]

In their MR, the CBCS-BWSF stated at the outset that “The members of the Court should do what great minds and great hearts should do, at least pause to reconsider. This includes listening to the muffled voices of the aggrieved Bangsamoro.” The CBCS-BWSF then pointed out that, after all, the several Bangsamoro civil society organization intervenors “were not (allowed to be) heard during any of the three oral argument hearings [on August 15, 22 and 29]. Their Memorandums and arguments are not even referred to in the Decision, showing that these were probably not even read.” It was as if the Bangsamoro were invisible to the SC.

[Read the rest of this entry »]

By Soliman M. Santos, Jr.
Contributor

THE government has not only set aside 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); it has also dissolved the GRP Peace Panel which negotiated the MOA. With the way things are working in this country, this can only mean that they (the panel) must have done something good. I therefore wish to give them some tribute.

In the Harvard Negotiation Project’s now classic book “Getting to Yes: Negotiating an Agreement Without Giving In” by Roger Fisher and William Ury, the first of four main points of method here is to “Separate the People from the Problem.” One of the notes under this is that “Negotiators are people first.” In negotiations, one is dealing not with abstract representatives of the “other side” but with human beings. They have emotions, deeply held values, and different backgrounds and viewpoints. That’s why one basic rule in negotiations is “Be hard on issues but be soft with people.” And who are these people whom many in the Filipino Christian mainstream are being so hard with now?

The GRP Peace Panel Chairman was retired Gen. Rodolfo Garcia from San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan. When he retired from the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) in 2004, he was Vice Chief of Staff. His military service in Mindanao dates back to 1970, after graduating from the Philippine Military Academy (PMA). He was a platoon leader and later Executive Officer in the 26th Infantry Battalion, Philippine Army (PA), covering Lanao del Norte, North Cotabato and Zamboanga del Sur. He rose to become the Commander of the 6th Infantry Division, PA in Central Mindanao in 1999. His transition from man of war to man of peace was made in 2003 when, while still AFP Vice Chief of Staff, he concurrently becomes Chairman of the GRP ceasefire committee for the peace process with the MILF. After the military retirement, he joined the Office of the Presidential Adviser of the Peace Process (OPAPP) as an Undersecretary, was appointed a member of the GRP Peace Panel and later became its Vice-Chairman. He took over as Chairman only in July 2007 after the stint of Secretary Silvestre C. Afable, Jr. who oversaw most of the ancestral domain negotiations up to June 2007.
[Read the rest of this entry »]

I really admire the order imposed against cutting trees by Mayor Lim. Definitely, deforestation and land degradation are serious problems in our country, which explains the worst floods in Metro Manila during heavy rains. This act may decrease the effects of the natural calamities and if we do not act on this, perhaps in the next 10 years, illegal logging will be so rampant that the local and national government will not be able do anything to stop it. Although they may have millions of reasons for cutting the Mahogany and Narra trees, this is does not make it right. Illegal loggers should be punishable by law if the case becomes legitimized.

Pircelyn B. Pialago, Bacoor, Cavite, via e-mail

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? [Read the rest of this entry »]