Malacañang Was Warned About the Maguindanao Massacre Three Months Ago

The whole world was caught by surprise and shocked by the Maguindanao Massacre. It was something never before seen in our country and it has immediately placed us in the number one position in the list of the world’s most dangerous places for journalists to be assigned.

People are saying this was something unimaginable, that no one expected it and no one could have foreseen the carnage. Well, it turns out that those premises were wrong. Someone did see it coming.

Someone saw it coming and warned the government. He warned Malacañang. And the warnings went unheeded.

About three months ago, August 28, 2009 to be exact, the Senate Committee on National Defense and Security and the Committee on Peace, Unification and Reconciliation conducted a joint public hearing on the peace process in Zamboanga City. One of those invited to be a resource person was the Vice-Governor of North Cotabato Manny Piñol. Vice Governor Piñol is one of the most respected officials whose opinion matters when the Mindanao situation is discussed.

In his statement to the Committee, Vice Governor Piñol revealed that he had warned Malacañang about the potential for the outbreak of hostilities between the MAngudadatus and the Ampatuans in relation to the 2010 elections. It was a warning which was explicit and clear. But in spite of that, it was ignored.

Following is the statement of Vice Governor Piñol lifted from the transcript of that hearing :

MR. PIÑOL : Government must be clear and straightforward with the MILF on what it can and cannot give. Government peace negotiators must get out of the box of the international standards and methodologies for conflict resolution and look at the Mindanao conflict as a problem we cannot and should not compare to the Northern Ireland or Darfur conflicts.

We were amused by the idea of Tony Blair negotiating peace in Mindanao. We were appalled by the suggestion that Manny Pacquiao could bring peace to Mindanao.

This shows how shallow and superficial the appreciation of some of our leaders of the problems in Mindanao. There should be no generic solution to the Mindanao conflict given the fact that problems have different complexions depending on the political, social and economic conditions of a specific area.

Take, for example, Maguindanao. What is the cause of the conflict in Maguindanao right now? It is a feud between the Ampatuans, a big political family and the MILF. And mind you, I have already forewarned Malacañang of an impending bigger trouble come 2010 elections because the Ampatuans are facing another big family, the Mangudadatus, and the Ampatuans are being backed by the military, the government. And that Sends the Mangudadatus towards the MILF orbit and this could spell trouble for Maguindanao in 2010.

I have already warned the GRP panel about this and I have forwarded this message to Chairman Rafael Seguis of the GRP panel.

The statements of Vice Governor Piñol were quite clear. The government was warned. If the warnings were heeded and the government stepped in by disabling the private armed groups in the area, we probably wouldn’t be mourning the deaths of 57 innocent people.

On whose hands have their blood spilled?

The Mindanao Massacre

The Maguindanao Massacre should unanimously be condemned by society, considering the brutality, ruthlessness and wanton disregard for human life that was displayed by the perpetrators. Killings brought about by political motivation is already despicable by itself, but to include innocent bystanders, especially journalists, is something that is beyond diabolical.

This act of violence, occurring at the beginning of the election season, may be a preview to the level of violence that may happen once the heat of the campaign period begins. With the culture of clan wars and blood debts prevailing in that part of the country, it is not unlikely that retaliatory attacks will occur between warring sides unless the government steps in to enforce the law and ensure peace and order.

At this early stage, the government should step in, with the imposition of localized emergency rule a feasible option. Now is the time for the PNP, assisted by the AFP, to implement its mandate of controlling the proliferation of illegal firearms and dismantle private armed groups. The PNP is now aggressively pursuing individuals with expired firearms licenses, but perhaps it is about time it flexes its muscles against the real threats to peace and order and political stability, the private armies.

As an additional measure, the government should show that there is justice in this country by actively pursuing the perpetrators and deal with them to the fullest extent of the law. The enforcement of laws against illegal firearms and private armed groups in response to this act of violence should also be accompanied with efforts to bring justice to the victims. It is one way to lessen the need for the side of the victims to take matters in their own hands and resort to street justice.

In light of the impact of this massacre in the political scenario in Maguindanao and probably even the entire ARMM, the government should now consider holding the elections in that part of the country earlier than the rest. It has been the experience in past elections that the national polls are effected by what goes on in that portion of Mindanao.

If elections were held there earlier, the PNP and AFP will be able to focus on what appears to be the hottest of the election hotspots during the elections. The level of violence at this early stage is almost sure to escalate. Early polls will also ensure that the conduct and result of the national elections will be insulated from whatever happens in that region.

Lastly, this election related event in Mindanao further boosts the basis for my proposal way back in April of this year that the term of Armed Forces Chief of Staff General Victor Ibrado be extended until the end of President Arroyo’s term. If General Ibrado’s term as AFP Chief of Staff is not extended, he will retire on March 10, 2010, which is right in the middle of the campaign period. With the tense situation in Mindanao, it might be best for the AFP not to change leaders midstream.

Series of Bombings Will Put to Test The Government’s Ability and Credibility

The back to back bombings in Mindanao which claimed several lives and injured numerous other will now put a test the government’s credibility in handling the crisis.

The first test is whether or not the intelligence services, with all the resources allocated for Intelligence was able to get a sense of this bombing offensive. With 600 Million Pesos under the Office of the President, 270 Million Pesos in the PNP and 118 Million Pesos under the AFP, it is highly questionable why the series of attacks seem to go on without the authorities unable to give a clear picture of who is responsible.

The second test is whether our law enforcement agencies is able to investigate the bombings effectively and conduct arrests of the suspected bombers. Bombings are crimes that leave evidence behind and competent investigations will lead to at least an indication of the profile of the bombers.

The third test is the authorities’ ability to prevent further attacks. While the bombers had the initial advantage of surprise, the authorities now have the luxury of expectation. By this time, it should already be anticipated that the series will continue therefore measures should be put into place in order to enhance security and deter further attacks.

The fourth test is the government’s credibility in convincing the people that this is not part of a sinister grand plan to impose emergency rule. With all the talk about the administration doing its best to extend its tenure with scenarios ranging from amending the Constitution to sowing disorder as a basis for emergency rule, the people cannot be blamed for even considering that the bombings are the handiwork of operatives with a political objective. How the government will convince the people that this is not part of a grand political plan will depend on whether they pass or fail the first three tests.

 

 

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.

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.”