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.

Speech on Resolution 711, Inquiry on the GRP-MILF Memorandum of Agreement

I believe that the House of Representatives should exercise its duty and mandate to uphold the Constitution and to perform its oversight function over the Executive.

Nine days ago, at the opening of the Second regular Session of the Fourteenth Congress, the Speaker, the Honorable Prospero Nograles of Davao City, delivered an opening statement that gave me hope that indeed, this House is a House of the People, for the People and by the People.

Allow me to quote the Speaker of the House:

“And while we are focused on our legislative priorities, we also need to exercise, with more vigour and judiciousness, our institutional powers of oversight.

Congressional oversight is a democratic tool to promote good governance by helping curb graft and corruption, fostering economy and effectiveness in the use of public resources, ensuring fidelity to duty and our laws in the performance of public functions.

The leadership looks forward to more reviews of the performance of executive departments and its agencies. This shall be the order of the day. We need to demand more reporting and gather more information on all programs and projects.

We need to know how major laws are being implemented. Especially, why they are "perceived" to be implemented so poorly.

The House oversight function of review is not in exercise of legislative supremacy over the executive. Rather, it is in pursuit of the higher interest for more informed legislative policies.”

With this profession of the House’s vested responsibility, I am confident that a resolution that I filed, House Resolution No. 711, will be acted on favorably by the Chamber. The resolution calls for an inquiry, in aid of legislation, into the proposed Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain made between the GRP and the MILF.

I filed this resolution in order to clarify matters about the controversial MOA, which has sparked public debate on its basis, purpose, Constitutionality and wisdom. While I maintain that public discussion on the subject is healthy, I believe that the public venue must also be an official venue, not just in coffee shops, speaking engagements, the internet or the media. Those only serve as breeding grounds of ideas. But the fate of the MOA ultimately lies in an official venue for public discussion of policy----that is, Congress.

The MOA itself recognizes that the provisions therein may require legislative action:

“Any provisions of the MOA-AD requiring amendments to the existing legal framework shall come into force upon signing of a comprehensive compact and upon effecting the necessary changes to the legal framework with due regard to non-derogation of prior agreements and within the stipulated timeframe to be contained in the comprehensive compact.”

Therefore, it is not improper, not even unthinkable, for Congress to look into this agreement, especially since the GRP and MILF have already passed the negotiations stage and agreed to its contents. The Agreement is even in the public domain now, with its provisions published in newspapers and posted on the internet.

It is time for the Executive to remove the cloak over the Agreement and present the document to the House for scrutiny. To continuously leave the public in the dark as to how the provisions were arrived at, why they were adopted and what will be the repercussions of its acceptance or rejection only serves to fuel the fires of controversy, distrust and misunderstanding.

The hunger for Peace is not the exclusive domain of the Executive Branch. All of us desire peace in our land, whether it be in Mindanao, Visayas or Luzon. We must all take a part in the efforts to achieve peace. We should not be left in the dark to simply swallow whatever it is that is fed to us, because our constituents, the people who entrusted us this privileged position, expect us to make decisions based on carefully considered factual information.

Today’s newspaper reported that Executive Branch officials yesterday faced select members of Congress to explain what the MOA is all about. The reports said that the Members of the House who attended the closed door meeting were not satisfied with what was discussed.

While this act of reaching out by the Executive is appreciated, it is still not enough to satisfy the expected level of transparency that should be accorded to Congress, which is inevitably bound to this Agreement by virtue of its own provisions I quoted earlier.

Why make the presentation to only a selected few? Why not make the presentation to the entire House? After all, the passage of any legislative measure is not accomplished by a select few but by the entire membership.

In any team building exercise, participants are continuously indoctrinated into the concept of a “shared vision” and the “ownership” principle. Meaning to say, in order for an organization to succeed in its objectives, the goals must be “owned” by every member of the team. We are all part of one country ---the Republic of the Philippines--- therefore, all of us must be in on the game plan in order for us to succeed.

The Executive Branch is trying to pass a proposal to postpone the ARMM elections, citing it as a necessary component in the GRP-MILF peace talks. But what has the Executive done to convince members of the Chamber that this proposal is worthy to be considered? Instead of providing the substance of the argument in favor of the proposal and an understanding of the agreement that necessitates the passage of the postponement, we are just given limited information and are expected to vote simply on the basis of the measure being certified.

It is no wonder why so many voices are raising so many concerns about this peace effort…because so many people are kept in the dark about it. How can people be expected to support the agreement?

I may be rebutted with the argument that the Agreement affects only specific parts of Mindanao, therefore only those from Mindanao were given the opportunity to ask questions and be briefed. That may be true, but I disagree with the proposition.

While I reside in and represent a Metro Manila city, far from the reach of the MILF claims on Ancestral Domain, I am still a citizen of the Philippines and I am sworn to uphold the Constitution.

Whatever happens in a far corner of the country is a concern of mine, not only because of my duty as a public official serving national interests, but also as a Filipino citizen concerned about his country.

As one who has focused on Defense and National Security concerns in Congress, my concern also stems from the fact that whatever happens in the peace talks has an effect on my other constituency, those of the soldiers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

My father, who served 18 years in Mindanao, has seen the Mindanao conflict in various forms and from various perspectives. As a son who grew up with his father deployed in the conflict areas, I have also witnessed the ravages brought upon families not just of the families living in Mindanao, but also those of the country’s soldiers who fight in the name of this Republic. If there is anyone who is longing for peace, it is the man in uniform who fights in the front lines.

Aside from that, as I have stressed earlier, being a member of this Chamber, I am part of any legislative action that will be undertaken in pursuit of achieving peace in Mindanao.

As I conclude this speech, may I again reiterate my call for the House to act favorably on House Resolution 711. After all, this is not just for the interest of Mindanao, nor of the MILF, nor the Executive branch of government. It is in the interest of our nation.

As a final word, allow me to quote our Speaker, whose words of statesmanship are emblazoned in the lobby of this August Chamber:

“ When it comes to the national interest, there is no Majority and no Minority. There is only One House of the People.”

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.”