|
Three decades of peace processes. Two failed peace agreements. Several all-out wars. More than a hundred thousand deaths. Millions displaced. And now the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD).
The 8-7 Supreme Court (SC) decision shooting down the MOA-AD drafted by the peace panels of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) may have failed to get the nod of the Judiciary but it may be an opportunity to “consolidate public support for the peace talks.”
The High Court on October 14 declared “contrary to law and the Constitution” the MOA-AD which was supposed to have been signed by the negotiating panels in Kuala Lumpur on August 5. The signing was aborted by a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) by the High Court granting the petition of the local government units of North Cotabato and Zamboanga City which feared inclusion in a proposed Bangsamoro territory. Days later, two MILF commanders attacked North Cotabato and Lanao del Norte. President Gloria Arroyo then dissolved the government panel of negotiators and declared that her administration cannot be forced to sign a deal on an expanded Bangsamoro homeland at gunpoint.
Mindanao historian and government peace panel negotiator Rudy Rodil said the failed MOA-AD may give time for “Mindanawons to rally public support” for the GRP-MILF peace talks. “Not all is lost. It is important to see this moment of time in the context of the larger and longer history of Mindanao and the Philippines,” said Ateneo School of Government Dean Antonio La Viña.
Unfortunately, Rodil says, the failed MOA-AD “reveals the deep-seated prejudices between the Christian majority and the Muslim minority. There is a pattern of prejudice by the majority against the minority.” He cited historical examples where bias was manifest—1989 Organic Act which provided for a plebiscite in 13 provinces was opposed by Christian residents, the 1996 Final Peace Agreement whose Southern Philippines Council for Peace and Development (SPCPD) was opposed by majority Christian residents in SPCPD territories and the aborted MOA-AD signing in Kuala Lumpur in August due to opposition by predominantly Christian-dominated provinces that would be covered by a proposed Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE).
“The issue is not about the language contained in the MOA-AD. The issue is substance and sensitivity to the other side,” Rodil said.
Lawyer Soliman Santos also welcomed the High Court’s defining the parameters for future negotiations. “These guidelines do not necessarily preclude, but on the contrary inform, any subsequent effort to re-frame the GRP-MILF peace negotiations as constitutional negotiations—which they should be, in order to settle the relevant constitutional issues once and for all, otherwise the charge of unconstitutionality will always be raised when a better form of self-determination is sought for the Bangsamoro people in order to solve the Bangsamoro problem.”
Santos questions the High Court view that “The MOA-AD cannot be reconciled with the present Constitution and laws.” “This early shooting down preempts and prejudices the whole peace process effort,” Santos said.
“For the Decision to say that “the concept [of associative relationship between the Government and the BJE] presupposes that the associated entity is a state and implies that the same is on its way to independence” is again highly debatable. There are states, including constituent states in a federal republic and associated states. But these said states are not sovereign independent states. There is nothing in the MOA-AD about a grant of independence to the Bangsamoro—even if they have good grounds for this [and maybe the Decision has just reinforced those grounds].”
Santos affirms the need for constitutional amendments to accommodate a political arrangement with the MILF. “Such needed constitutional amendments, as well as needed administrative action and new legislation, in pursuit of reforms aimed at addressing the root causes of the armed conflict, are well within the authority, mandate and parameters of the GRP Peace Panel to submit by way of recommendations to the Executive as a result of long discussions and eventual consensus at the negotiating table. Thereafter, the Executive may consider these for appropriate action by itself, or coordination with and referral to the Legislature which may then take the necessary legislative and constitutional processes,” Santos added.
source: http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2008/oct/31/yehey/moro/20081031moro1.html  Be the first to comment this article |  Add as favourites (27) |  Quote this article on your website | Views: 299 | E-mail | Read more...
|
