RP-MILF Peace Talks’ Snag Just Appropriate

The postponement of the RP-MILF peace talks which were supposed to resume tomorrow is just appropriate, considering the fact that the Philippine Government is now in a period of transition with the 2010 National and Local elections to be held in May.

The position of the MILF in pursuing a deal that is not within the bounds of the Constitution further erodes the possibility of coming up with a peace agreement before the end of President Arroyo’s term. This administration cannot guarantee amendments to the Constitution under this 14th Congress, what more under the 15th Congress.

The composition of the 15th Congress, which will be the one to tackle any revision or replacement of the Constitution, will only be known after the May 2010 elections. No one knows how the 15th Congress will collectively think about changes to the Constitution so even if the government gives in to the demands of the MILF for concessions outside the Charter, it cannot guarantee that the concessions will be followed by the new government.

It is even incumbent upon the Arroyo administration not to commit anything that it cannot deliver, such as amendments to the Constitution. It would be an empty promise and it would be unfair to the new administration and the new Congress.

The Arroyo Administration should not look at this peace agreement as just another feather in their cap or as another mark in their list of achievements to highlight the end of their rule. A peace agreement should not be forged just so that President Arroyo can say that it happened within her term. At this point, it is foolish to sign an agreement is not guaranteed to be implementable. The prevailing circumstances make it necessary to pass the torch of crafting the peace agreement to the next government.

The offer of “Enhanced Autonomy” by the Arroyo administration should also be abandoned. Aside from questions on what kind of and how much enhancement the Executive Branch can give without legislative action, the issue of a midnight deal comes to mind. In the dwindling hours of the Arroyo Adminsitration, it shouldn’t go into such commitments.

Instead of offering “enhanced autonomy”, the Administration should just work for the adoption of a Period of Peace beginning now and until the new government takes office. During such period, both parties agree not to engage in hostilities and continue talks at the technical level in order to prepare the ground for fresh round of talks between the MILF and the new government.

So What if the Americans Supported the MOA-AD?

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision on the petition filed regarding the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) between the Government of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), many comments and opinions have been forwarded reacting to and even dissecting the Supreme Court decision.

I have my own views on the MOA (which I hahve written in my blogs) and I would have settled for the Supreme Court decision. I was not even going to react to other people's comments, preferring to just say, "the Supreme Court has decided...your opinions will remain opinions."

But there is one reaction that I found incredlous, especially coming from the person who said it. He is the last person I would expect to say such comments.

I refer to a quote of Senator Joker Arroyo I read in an article in the Philippine Daily Inquirer where he was reported to have said that the MOA-AD was supported by the US:

On the phone from the United States, Sen. Joker Arroyo pointed out that the high court’s ruling practically rested on one vote, and that “a change of one vote changes the picture.”

Arroyo noted that the tribunal was “sharply divided” on the issue of an expanded Bangsamoro homeland.

“For a decision with such far-reaching consequences, the high court was sharply divided, 8-7, and it could pose more problems in the future,” he said.

“A change of one vote would make the minority opinion the majority decision, and conversely, the minority decision would become a dissenting opinion.”

“Rarely” has this happened, he added.

Arroyo also said the US government had implicitly supported the MOA-AD.

“It should be stated that the act that the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional had the indirect encouragement and blessings of the US. This is attested to by the joint statement titled ‘Fixing Mindanao,’ released by the immediate seven former US ambassadors to the Philippines,” he said.

Arroyo was referring to the statement that appeared on the Sept. 30, 2008, issue of the Asian Wall Street Journal, which was in support of the MOA-AD.

The statement, which appeared as an opinion piece, was jointly written by former US Ambassadors Stephen Bosworth, Thomas Hubbard, Richard Murphy, Nicholas Platt, Francis Ricciardone, Richard Solomon and Frank Wisner, along with US officials Chester Crocker and Eugene Martin, and Astrid Tuminez, senior research associate of the US Institute of Peace Philippine Facilitation Project.

I don't exactly know what the good senator, who has the image of a staunch nationalist, said during the itnerview (because sometimes interviews have their way of being edited and coming out misconstrued), but the report as written gave me the impression that he was justifying the MOA-AD because after all, it was supported by the Americans, as jointly written by seven former US ambassadors. Of course, everybody knows that even the current US ambassador was supposed to have been a witness to the signing of the MOA if it had pushed through.

Senator Arroyo's quote even seemed to be meant to contrast the decision of the Supreme Court, implying that the SC was wrong in making that decision on a matter that is supported by the United States.

I do hope that the Senator, whom I respect, was misquoted. Because my opinion is SO WHAT IF THE AMERICANS SUPPORTED THE MOA?

While I look upon the United States as an important ally of the Philippines, it cannot be denied that they always act with their own interests as their primary concern. Meaning to say, if they supported the MOA, it is not out of the goodness of their heart or particular desire for the welfare of the Philippines. They support it because it is in their best interest.

The constitutionality of the agreement is a purely Filipino concern and no foreign opinion or position should matter. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of legal questions in the Philippines, as provided for in the Constitution. Their supreme mandate is the defense of the Constitution so if there is any question of constitutinality, their final word is holy. It is ridiculous to even consider what foreigners think about matters brought to the Supreme Court.

What is their interest in Mindanao? There may be many, but one that would stand out is the American company Exxon's project to drill oil in the Sulu Sea. How would the MOA-AD play out in this project?

Well, under the proposed MOA-AD, the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity would have been empowered to enter into agreements with foreign governments or entities pertaining to their economy and use of natural resources. The MOA also provided the BJE with their own Exclusive Economic Zone with the determination of their territorial boundaries prescribed in the MOA.

So with the Americans supporting the MOA, one can be sure that the BJE will be a friendly entity to the United States, free from the restrictions presently being enforced by our Constitution.

Oil is a major motivation for the United States to get involved in a country's affairs. Iraq was and is not just about the atrocities of Saddam Hussein and the welfare of the Iraqi people. It is first and foremost about the control of oil in the Middle East.

What about other countries in the world where conflict, oppression and strife has caused human suffering? What involvement did the United States have? What about the genocide and war crimes in Darfur? While the US is funding a monitoring team there, the United States is not motivated to act against the government in Sudan in the same way as they did in the case of Iraq.

So in the case of the MOA-AD, so what if the Americans supported it? The Supreme Court has decided. Let that be the final word on the matter.

Comments on the GRP-MILF MOA from Another Blog

Atty. Bong Montesa, the Liberal party Director General who went on leave due to differences with the LP leadership on the issue of the GRP-MILF Memorandum of Agreement, made a comment on a statement I made during an interview on UNTV. Since he mentioned me and quoted my statements, I had to post a reply.

The Ateneo de Manila Law School professor (on leave) is the Executive Director of Institute for Autonomy and Governance (IAG), a political think-tank based in Cotabato City, Southern Philippines. He is also the legal counsel of the GRP Peace Panel.

Below is a portion of his blog post which mentioned me, followed by my reply:

He wrote:

"We are dealing here with a social problem and our toolkit must be beyond what the present Constitution provides. This is about policy. Let us propose a policy and then work out the needed changes in law and the constitution to make such policy a reality. It cannot be the other way around. We cannot say that all solutions must follow the present Constitution for that limits our capacity to solve the Bangsamoro problem.

I was listening to Cong. Ruffy Biazon over UNTV this morning and one of his arguments against the MOA on AD is that the President has a sworn obligation to “defend and protect the Constitution” ergo any intent to change or amend the Constitution is a violation of that sworn oath. That seems to be stretching the limits of constitutionality too much. The President has sworn to “protect and defend the Constitution”, a constitution which includes provisions of its very amendment. Changing the Constitution is part of the Constitution that the President is sworn to protect and defend."

I wrote:

Thank you for your comment on my statements during that interview in UNTV.

It was such a short interview, there was not enough time to elaborate on points. So I hope I will be given the privilege to respond here.

Perhaps my comment on the President’s oath may be seen as “stretching the limits of constitutionality too much”, but actually, from my point of view, I am trying to confine the MOA within the limits of my understanding of the text of the Constitution.

I am not a lawyer and I am not trying to pose as a legal luminary. My educational background is in the medical field, but being a three term member of the HOuse of Representatives, I believe I have enough experience dealing with the law for me to have a grasp of what the legal framework of this country says. Besides, every citizen is supposed to be a student of the Constitution, since it is the tie that binds all citizens of a country and the Rule that they must live by.

Having said that, I must admit I do not have a conclusion as to the constitutionality of the agreement per se. But I do have questions based on my reading and understanding of the Constitution vis-a-vis the MOA. Being a member of the Legislature and representing a district comprised of close to half a million citizens, I have the right and duty to ask questions about a matter that will affect the COnstitution I am sworn to uphold, and the country to which my constituents belong to.

While the MOA and the talks are between the GRP panel and the MILF, the matter of a just and lasting peace in Mindanao is not just a concern of the MILF, the indigenous peoples of Mindanao and the other citizens living therein, but it is also a desire and concern of all other Filipino citizens. Whatever ails Mindanao, ails the Philippines.

Going back to my comments on the President;s oath, which says, ” I do solemnly swear/affirm that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President of the Philippines, PRESERVE and DEFEND its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation” ( not DEFEND and PROTECT, as stated in the post above), I used my literal understanding and avoided stretching the meaning of the text of the oath.

The dictionary defines PRESERVE as “To keep in perfect or unaltered condition; maintain unchanged”. DEFEND is defined as “To make or keep safe from danger, attack, or harm.” In interpreting this provision of the Constitution, I strictly confined myself within the meaning of the text, instead of stretching it, as commented above. To my understanding, the President is sworn to keep the Constitution in an unaltered condition, maintain it unchanged and keep it safe from attack until its very provision on amending it are availed of.

Indeed, the Constitution is a living document, allowing itself to be improved, through the appropriate procedure. My non-lawyer’s understanding of the Constitution’s provisions is that there are only three ways that amendments may be undertaken, that is, by a vote of three fourths of all the members of the Congress (a constituent assembly), a constitutional convention, and by an initiative of the People.

I noted that Article XVII, the Constitutional Provision on Amendments and Revision, also provided on who may propose or act on amendments or revisions of the Constitution. It said that the Congress, the members of a constitutional convention and the people are the ones who may propose changes in the Charter.

My non-lawyer’s unstretched interpretation of the text of the Constitutional provision on amendments is that the President does not propose changes to the Constitution, especially since the President’s oath is to PRESERVE and DEFEND it.

Other provisions in the Constitution which caught my attention in the diligent effort that I am undertaking to understand the whole issue are those that pertain to the rights of the indigenous people (which is the point of the MOA-AD). Two provisions come to mind:

Article XIV. Sec. 17, which says “The State shall recognize, respect, and protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to preserve and develop their cultures, traditions, and institutions. It shall consider these rights in the formulation of national plans and policies.”

There is no doubt that government is obliged to provide for the protection of the rights of the indigenous people. I myself believe in that and consider it my Constitutional duty to work for that, because the Constitution says so.

The second provision is:

Article XII, Sec. 5, which says, “The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development policies and programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social and cultural well-being.”

Again, it is clear that the State should protect the rights of the indigenous people. But the text of the second provision sets parameters on how the State will deliver on its obligation. It says, “subject to the provisions of this Constitution”. My non-lawyer’s understanding of the text is that any act of the State to protect the rights of the indigenous people should be within the bounds of the provisions of the Charter.

Meaning to say, if the Constitution says that there shall only be one police force (which it says in Article XVI, Sec. 6, then the State shouldn’t allow, or even offer, the creation of another security force (which the MOA provides).

These are only the perspectives of a non-lawyer. It is not a stretch of the meanings of the provisions of the Constitution but a reading of the charter’s text in simple terms. Perhaps the learned men of the law can provide me with a better interpretation which would show that I am mistaken.

Or better yet, the Supreme Court, which is mandated to interpret the law for everyone, as embodied in the Constitution should be left to do the interpretation.

But if there will be an opportunity for proponents of the MOA to clarify the issues, I would rather that such clarifications be done within the proceedings of an official body. That is the reason why I filed a resolution in the House of Representatives calling for an inquiry into the basis, purpose and prospects of the provisions of the MOA. It is not because I am blindly opposing the peace efforts in general and the MOA in particular, but it is because I would like to be enlightened so that I may be able to do my part in fulfilling the mandate to achieve peace in Mindanao and protect the rights of indigenous people.

MY COMMENT ON THE CALL FOR DISCERNMENT AND UNITY

Earlier, I posted a whole page ad published in the newspaper entitled "A Call for Discernment and Unity". It was a statement by several Mindanao-based groups regarding the peace process. Here are my comments:

The unsigned GRP-MILF Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain has sparked so much controversy and debate. Perhaps understandably so because the issues addressed by the agreement itself are, by themselves, subjects of negotiations between the two parties. It cannot be removed that in negotiations, there two, even more sides to the issues.

I think it will also be fair to say that parties not privy to the negotiations are not out of order when they begin raising questions about the negotiations itself and the product of such talks. Most especially if the outcome of the negotiations has an impact on the lives and concerns of those not party to the talks.

Therefore, it is only proper that an in-depth, objective and sober deliberation on the matter of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain be undertaken with all those who have concerns allowed an opportunity to be heard and to listen. After all, peace in Mindanao is not a desire limited to those who live in that great frontier but a just and lasting peace is a national vision and aspiration for all Filipinos.

It is disheartening to hear that those who raise questions about the agreement seem to be portrayed as not in unison with the objective of achieving peace in Mindanao and upholding the rights of the indigenous people. As mentioned earlier, these objectives are common to all, and it is not monopolized by those who are direct participants in the peace process. Those who ask questions want peace too.

Rhetorics such as “politicians who in the past few days became willing mouthpiece in fueling chaos, fear, hatred and communal violence” tend to demonize anyone who raises a point of concern about the MOA-AD. Such statements seem contradictory to the call for people to “be responsible enough to tackle this issue in an intelligent and dispassionate manner, bearing in mind that we are all brothers and sisters, and that everyone in this country has the right and deserve to be treated with respect and dignity”.

While it cannot be denied that there may be some who may be throwing in a monkey’s wrench into the process for political gains, it does not give a justification to lump all those who raise questions about the MOA together and brand them as anti-peace, and prejudiced against indigenous people’s rights.

Just as we frown upon those who discriminate against minorities, we should equally frown upon those who fall into arrogance in the practice of reverse discrimination.

In a democracy, the right of the people to information and be heard on matters that affect their lives serve as a cornerstone. True peace advocates also exercise patience and tolerance, sometimes to the point of being unfair to themselves. While the proponents of the MOA-AD are consistent in saying that adequate consultations were made, the fact of the matter is that there are those who were not consulted but affected by the MOA.

While the government panel claims that there were 110 consultations, can they directly dispute the claim of Mayor Celso Lobregat, whose City Hall was included in the areas to be made part of the proposed BJE, that he was not consulted? If not, which they have not, then it is beyond argument that there were not enough consultations. Considering the impact of the agreement on the governance of the mayor, it is illogical for him to be left out of the consultations.

In the bigger picture, the continued negation of the executive department to educate the legislature about the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain, to my mind, does not help to quell the furor over the agreement. It may be arrogance or simply a lack of political acumen, but their failure to reach out to the legislature during these times of controversy over the MOA will only serve to raise more doubts as to the true motives behind the moves. The government is the one doing the injustice to the indigenous peoples by not taking the extra step to convince those to whom the MOA will eventually go to that the MOA will be good for the country (after the signing, the amendments to the legal framework will have to be done through congressional action).

Before I filed a resolution for the House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry into the MOA for Congress to be better apprised of its contents in a formal venue, the GRP panel met with select members of the House. I found it to be ineffective because even if they were able to convince those select members (which they did not), they would still have almost two hundred others who are still in the dark about the basis, purposes, and prospects of the MOA’s provisions.

After I had delivered a speech on the need for Congress to be briefed as an institution, the GRP panel once again met with select members, once again alienating others. Is this the transparency that they are harping about?

I am all for the resolution of the conflict in Mindanao. I am supportive of any move to uphold the rights of indigenous people. But let us do it in a manner which will not be tainted with controversies of our own doing. If there’s anyone to be blamed for the snag in the peace process, the government has no one else to blame but itself.

A CALL FOR DISCERNMENT AND UNITY

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

MILF ULTIMATUM AND THREAT AGAINST THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT IS A REVELATION OF THE MILF’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS RULE OF LAW AND ORDER OF CIVILIZED NATIONS

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

Congressman Biazon Files Resolution to Scrutinize GRP-MILF Memorandum of Agreement

Muntinlupa City Congressman Ruffy Biazon yesterday filed House Resolution No. 711, calling on the House Committee on National Defense and Security and House Special Committee on Peace, Reconciliation and Unity to conduct an inquiry in aid of legislation on the proposed GRP-MILF Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD).

Citing the controversy sparked by the alleged “non-consultation among the stakeholders and the people concerned and non-transparency of the draft Memorandum of Agreement” which was the basis for a petition for TRO filed in the Supreme Court, Congressman Biazon called on the House of Representatives to conduct the inquiry.

In the resolution, the Vice-Chair of the Committee on National Defense said the inquiry should be done so that the House will be “informed of the basis of the provisions of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain, and to determine legislative measures that need to be undertaken as proposed in the said agreement”.

“The MOA itself says that there may be a need to amend the existing legal framework of the Philippines in order to put into effect the provisions of this MOA and the eventual Final Peace Agreement. Who is supposed to do the amendments? Isn’t that the job of Congress? So it is just proper that Congress should scrutinize this MOA”, Biazon explained.

The stakeholders who claimed to have been left out of matters that will have a great effect on their lives are also entitled to be represented in crafting government policies. “The Congress is People’s Representation as prescribed by the Constitution. The People have a right to be heard and to ask questions through Congress”, the congressman averred.

Told that Executive Branch officials yesterday met with some members of the House representing the affected areas in a closed door meeting, Biazon replied, “That is good. But will they be able to pass legislation by themselves? Are we not putting on the line the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, which all of us are sworn to preserve and defend? Whatever happens in any part of the country affects the whole country. I think if the Executive Branch will do some explaining, they should do it before the entire Congress.”