Peace at last?

By | November 2, 2012

“Today is a great day of hope. A day which sees the dawn of a new beginning for the people of Mindanao,” thus said Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak during the signing of the Framework Agreement between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.

With those simple, yet eloquent words, the Malaysian prime minister, whose government had mediated and hosted the long-drawn peace negotiations between the panels representing the Philippine government and the MILF, summarized what many in Mindanao, the entire nation and the international community felt following the signing ceremony in Malacanang.

Indeed, it was another opportunity to hope and dream of a peaceful and progressive Mindanao where both the Muslims and Christian peoples of the region could work together in harmony towards a path, in the words of President Aquino, “where opinions are heard and hope is shared; where understanding and consensus breed meaningful solutions for all stakeholders; one where every child is offered the opportunity to shape his own destiny.”

And yet, for every hope there are risks to take and challenges to face, and for every dream, the danger of waking up to the stark reality of another disappointment.

“But as the saying goes, the devil is in the details. We are now at the beginning of a comprehensive agreement that will map out the detailed steps, detailed commitments, and detailed programs that will lead to the fulfillment of our long-term goals,” President Aquino warned, acknowledging the fact that while the signing of the Framework of Agreement “marked in a new chapter in our history,” it is not without roadblocks.
The first roadblock is the apparent rejection of the agreement by the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), led by chairman Nur Misuari, and the MILF breakaway group Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF), led by the ailing Ameril Umbra Kato.
Misuari insists that the Philippine government cannot unilaterally revoke the 1976 Tripoli Agreement during the regime of President Ferdinand Marcos and the Final Peace Agreement signed in 1996 during the administration of President Fidel V. Ramos. He said that only 25 percent of the 1996 agreement has been implemented and that the rest were completely ignored by succeeding administrations.

“We really love peace in Mindanao, (but) this so-called framework agreement… is a recipe for another crisis and war in Mindanao,” he said.
Misuari said that a few days after Malacañang announced the agreement, some 17,000 armed fighters of the MILF bolted the group and joined the MNLF.
“The message is very clear. The framework agreement is ominous. It could lead to the dissolution of the remaining MILF group under Hadji Murad and the unification of the Bangsamoro people under the aegis of our leadership,” he said.
Misuari’s claim of 17,000 MILF rebels bolting to the MNLF appeared exaggerated, but one cannot discount the possibility that Misuari would revive the MNLF and recruit MILF rebels who have shown unwillingness to surrender their firearms, which signals distrust of the government’s sincerity. A resurrected MNLF and the determined BIFF, which has vowed to fight till it achieves an independent Bangsamoro state, can pose another threat to the peace and security of Mindanao.
When asked if they were willing to surrender their firearms as part of the peace accord, Abdulhamid Ganalan, a close-in aide of MILF chairman Murad Ebrahim said: “I will not agree. That is like full surrender.”

And then there is the equally daunting task of putting into law the provisions of the Framework Agreement and making such law conform to the 1987 Constitution.

Next year is an election year and it is highly doubtful if the members of Congress, most of them running for reelection or for other seats in the May polls, would have the time and the willingness to enter into contentious debates at this time.

In fact, even if some politicians find such debates an opportunity to grandstand, it would probably be better off being discussed after the elections to avoid lengthy and confusing discussions.

However, calendaring the proposed law until after the elections would risk the real possibility of Aquino losing control and influence over Congress by the time it is presented for deliberations.

The congressional deliberations would definitely be more contentious than the whole issue appears now. There are just so many questions that must be answered.

Former Sen. Francisco S. Tatad raised some very valid questions about the peace accord in his column in the Manila Standard.

He asked: “In Section 1 of Article X, the Constitution provides: “The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines are the provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. There shall be autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras as hereinafter provided.”
“Since the NPE contemplated here is not a province, city, municipality, barangay, nor is it described as an “autonomous region,” is it a state, a sub-state, or nation?”

On the term “Bangsamoro identity,” Tatad asks: “Does this not suggest the existence of a nation separate and distinct from the Filipino nation? Or of a people separate and distinct from the Filipino people?”

Tatad adds: “Still in Article I, the agreement provides that the Bangsamoro government “shall have a ministerial form.” What exactly does it mean? Shall the Bangsamoro NPE be headed by a prime minister, instead of a governor as ARMM is right now? How can a part of a country that is under a presidential system have its own ministerial form of government? How would such an arrangement work or appear?”
Tatad further asks that since the agreement provides that the Bangsamoro Basic Law “shall reflect the Bangsamoro system of life and meet internationally accepted standards of governance,” is the term “system of life” defined strictly in terms of ethnic and cultural traits or mainly by religious belief? If by religious belief, will this not create a confessional political entity, which would place political officials below the authority of religious leaders even in non-religious or moral issues? How will it affect the constitutional separation of Church and State, as guaranteed by the Constitution?”
There are just so many questions that need to be ironed out in the enacting law that would be presented in Congress, such as those pertaining to property rights, control over the police force, the new entity’s effect on the Philippines’claim to Sabah, and so many other things.
When the enacting law finally passes Congress and signed into law by the President, it will have to be approved in a plebiscite, which also raises the question of whether only the people of the proposed Bangsamoro entity would vote or should the entire Filipino people be allowed to decide on an issue that affects the entire country.
Indeed, the path to peace is not really a “daang matuwid” but a long, winding and rough road littered with land mines that can either bring peace or trigger a bigger war.
But the people of Mindanao have suffered through 40 years of war; any chance at peace would be worth pursuing. Peace has been elusive in Mindanao, but the Filipino people cannot give up seeking an end to hostilities. It is reassuring that Aquino said before the signing that his administration is committed to peace.
Again, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak said it best: ““After four decades, peace is within reach. Let us grasp it with both hands, and never let go.”