This early, the 2010 Presidential hopefuls are starting to position themselves. Some are already going around some strategic places in the country to make their candidacy known, though still subtly and not yet announced in the open, but already obvious. Some disguised in such public appearances as speaking engagements in inaugurations, foundations, anniversaries, graduation ceremonies, etc.

As we try to scrutinize each one of them, we are constantly reminded by concerned nationalistic and moral groups to make the wisest of choice. The irony is that, except for one or two, our choices are limited to the traditional politicians that they are. So far, we are presented with 12 personalities to choose from though this is still open to changes as some of them may just settle for the Vice Presidency as the deadline for filing of candidacy draws near. Those who are most probably falling into this category are Chiz Escudero, Bong Revilla, Loren Legarda and Bayani Fernando. Still, others have some pending conditions that would compel them to run. Those falling into this category are Joseph Estrada, Miriam Defensor Santiago, Richard Gordon and Bayani Fernando. With this scenario, I would consider only five of them as the most serious aspirants to the Presidency. They are Noli de Castro, Manny Villar, Mar Roxas, Ping Lacson and Jojo Binay. The sixth would be Sec. Gilbert Teodoro but KAMPI has yet to pick him as its standard bearer.

There are five variables that play around a candidate’s winning. These are 1) ranking in the surveys, 2) political machinery or dominance, 3) public demand, 4) name recall, and 5) the ability to mount and sustain a national campaign.

Survey

Survey ranking has been a consistent indicator except in the election where Fidel Ramos won despite trailing behind in fourth and fifth places in the surveys. In this area, we know that Noli de Castro and Manny Villar lead over the other aspirants.

Political Dominance

With respect to political machinery or dominance, Lakas has the widest network and has the most number of elected local officials followed by KAMPI. The Nacionalista, Liberal and UNO (United Nationalist Opposition) share the third spot among themselves. Lakas will have Noli de Castro for its standard bearer, Nacionalista has Manny Villar, Mar Roxas for Liberal, and Jojo Binay for UNO. I have a very strong feeling that, although KAMPI, Pres. Arroyo’s Party, is closely aligned with LAKAS, it will put up its own presidential candidate this time. Pres. Ramos, LAKAS’ founding Chairman, has distanced himself from Malacaňang and this was made more manifest when he expressed discontentment over Pres. Arroyo’s non-appearance during the EDSA Revolution anniversary last February. My best guess is that KAMPI will settle for Sec. Gilbert Teodoro.

Public Demand

By public demand, I mean the clamor of the majority for change no matter what givens and variables are we talking about. Pres. Obama won because it has come to a point where the Americans would consider anyone but Bush and his Party as the best choice. Pres. Cory Aquino won (though she was clearly cheated) because the Filipino people considered anyone but Marcos as the best choice. In this election, my gut feeling is that majority of Filipino voters would consider anyone but the administration candidate as the best choice. With KAMPI and LAKAS representing the Gloria Administration, there is the greater possibility that De Castro and Teodoro will be rejected by the voters. The Filipino people are fed up with issues of corruption under the Arroyo administration and its ineptness to manage the economy, handle the Moro problem and contain terrorism. With this one, Manny Villar, Mar Roxas and Jojo Binay shall be left as the better choices. Ping Lacson, aside from being a consistent loser in the presidential race before, suffers credibility with the issues of his involvement in the Kuratong Baleleng rub-out and Dacer-Corbito double murder case still looming over him plus his controversial human rights records while he was with the Metrocom which was largely thought to be one of the executioners of Marcos-Imelda devious martial law orders.

Name Recall

Narrowing the choices among Villar, Roxas and Binay, the two (Roxas and Binay) have relatively better public records than Villar who was accused by fellow Senators of designing a folly in the General Appropriations Act of 2009 to benefit his real estate business over the C-5 road projects. That was thought to have cost his Presidency of the Senate.

Now between Roxas and Binay, Roxas has a small edge on name recall from the illiterate voters because the name Roxas had become a household name from the time of Pres. Roxas to this day. Jojo Binay’s leveling advantage will be when he will be supported by Erap and Joe De Venecia. This is a very likely possibility especially if these two prominent political figures see UNO as the dominant opposition group. An Erap-De Venecia support for Jojo Binay will also make him at par with Mar Roxas with respect to the ability to mount and sustain a national campaign.

Ability to mount and sustain a national campaign

The Party and Candidates who will be able to mount a thorough national campaign are the following: Sec. Gilbert Teodoro if he becomes the official candidate of KAMPI; Noli De Castro of LAKAS; Manny Villar of the Nacionalista Party; Mar Roxas of the Liberal Party; Jojo Binay of UNO if Erap and Joe De Venecia support him; Erap may be limited by his physical condition; Ping Lacson, Miriam Santiago, Bayani Fernando, Richard Gordon and Loren Legarda are all dependent on the support that they can get from the business sector. I would like to believe that Chiz Escudero and Bong Revilla should better be seeking the Vice Presidency first. They are popular but they are not yet ripe for the Presidency. Popularity alone is not the absolute guarantee to the Presidency.

Thus all five variables discussed, we are now in a better position to make judgment on election day.

In that posting, I called upon bloggers to act in solidarity to establish some kind of detente before it gets too late. Now, it’s worth pondering on this posting below (taken from A Filipina Mom Blogger). If this intended measure gets through, the threat to the blogosphere becomes more real in the Philippines than elsewhere.

A Filipina Mom Blogger says..

I told myself that I should take a break from blogging. Just when I thought the waters are calm, Mike Abundo reveals that a hearing on a proposal by the Philippines’ National Telecommunications Commission that will require licenses for online content developers will be held today. The public hearing is set at 2pm Thursay GMT+8 (meeting got cancelled) at the NTC Executive Conference Room, 3rd Floor, NTC Building, BIR Road, East Triangle, Diliman, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines.

It’s not the money, although P6,000 is a lot. It’s using government policy to control and regulate content online. It’s a freedom of expression issue. It infringes on the constitutional right of free speech and expression.

Now, don’t you think now is the time to act? Meantime, I really hope that we can set aside (without ignoring it) the issue of journalism and blogging. This one is simply more urgent.

That said, I will not add confusion to haste, and doubt to obscurity. I must say, though, that the modern world has allowed both journalism and blogging to exist side by side because it is necessary.

Side Comments:

Point taken that technology continue to grow and people will never stop creating tools “To Express”.

Journalism and Blogging are two different different practices with unique qualities. Mixing both will kill a journalist career or maybe end-up with thousands of libel cases filed at the sala of “Judge Procopio”

Soon, whether you agree with me or not, blogging will be regulated and will have its own standard form. Then, people will find new form and new tools to view their ideas.

—————
Very good article distinguishing Blog from Jounalism. One thing you forgot however, was that you did not mention that Bloggers are pro-bono and are free to express themselves. Their opinion is not limited, and not having to worry about an employer who would fire them.

—————
Whatever is the reason, blogging is somewhat like an “alternative journalism”. It can be used to express the truth.

—————
That there is a distinction between journalism and blogging is clear, and I think, the more interesting thing now, if not the real challenge, is how to draw them quite close to each other. For now, I cannot imagine an ideal mix between the two. It will take so much growing, maturing, finer attitude and understanding from both sides before the world of journalism and blogging will even start moving towards each other. No ultra-modern technology can make that happen. The issue is attitude and freedom (of expression).

But we should be thankful though, that there is journalism and blogging that act like real branches of government and create an opportunity for the so-called ‘check and balance’ sort of thing. The supreme court is the reader who renders final judgment.

—————
The greatness of opinion or idea is not dependent on the clothes, education, profession or wealth of the maker but on its probable consequential effect to the society, in general, and to each and every person, in particular.

Even if that person is just wearing a pajama/rugged clothes or just graduated from the unfunded college or from the squatters area does not matter at all. Because ideas are invisible where it must also be measured by another invisible measuring device that is our conscience and inner desires, wishes or longings as mortal, weak or vulnerable human beings.

Everyone of us have wishes and always hoping for its realization. History tells that the greatest ideas are those ideas that is beneficial to all. That is why bible is acceptable because many principles and doctrines within it is good not only for a particular person or group of people but for everyone. Remember this that no selfish ideas had become famous and well honored.

—————
Even if that person cannot write his ideas in a correct grammar but he can articulately explain them in verbal or by words of mouth or even in writing with some few mistakes in grammar or vocabulary but still the thoughts and objects are comprehensible then it should be listened and be given a chance to be heard or a consideration.

The basis of accepting certain opinion or principle is not on the imperfection or perfection of the means to reach the intended audience but rather on the nobility of its intention and objectives.

—————
Ideas and desires came from a man’s wishful thinking and creative menagerie. Man created god or gods not the other way around to satisfy his desires to be good and spiritually enhanced by his mystical imagination. He created blogging to concieved his thoughts to every indulgence and mindless characters who love to express their idiotic wasteful opinion. The desire for truth could hurt a man’s egotistical ideologue but digging deeper into ones consciousness will liberate us to our rightful existence as a highly evolved creature.

—————
I sense “fear” in you… as long as you’re cool, don’t worry!

—————
You can be both. Though you are identified as a journalist, your brand of reporting or posting of articles will influence how your blog will sound but you can’t dish out the things that bloggers usually do. But responsible bloggers follow a sort of an unwritten set of ethics and that distinguishes them from trash bloggers.

—————
Perhaps we shouldn’t be forgetting that journalism also has a great potential for misuse. Today’s practice says a lot about this point; the “covenant” we’re trying our best to adhere to is set aside for a lot less noble purposes.

I think I would just like to say that blogging and journalism are not mutually exclusive. They don’t cancel each other out. Both have pros and cons. In fact I find some of your pronouncements about blogging a great disservice to the many men and women who use the medium as a weapon against corruption, oppression and ignorance.

It is with an open mind that we can harness the potentials of these two to further democratize information that the public needs.

—————
The case about the UP janitor and the erroneous information the blogger spread shouldn’t paint an ugly picture of blogging in general. It’s the mainstream press that should be accountable for failing to verify the “juicy” tidbit about the unpaid students loans.

—————
Ang pagpapahayag ng opinyon at saloobin sa mga pangyayari sa lipunan ay di lang para sa isang journalist at sa taong nagtatrabaho sa TV, Radyo, at sa Dyaryo. Ang pagpapahayag ng malayang saloobin at kuro-kuro ay karapatan ng bawat isa ayon na rin sa Human Rights hindi sa bansa natin pati na rin ng boung mundo. Maling ipalagay natin na ang pagsusulat sa blog ay maaring makasira sa iyong propesyon bilang journalist. Maari pa ngang sabihin na dito mo lang pwedeng sabihin ang mga salitang di mo kailanman pwedeng banggitin sa iyong trabaho. Hindi kailanman nating masasabi na ang Media, partikular na ang TV, Radyo at Dyaryo ay laging naghahatid ng totoong kaganapan. Isang halimbawa na natin ang issue ng mga mangagawa ng NESTLE na mahigit pitong taon ng naka strike at nakapaglabas na ng Decision ang Korte Suprema pero wala pa ring nangyayari. ito ba ay napabalita sa NEWSROOM na tinutukoy mo? Hindi. Pero sa blog lahat ng detalye at totoong pangyayari ay nakasulat na parang diary.

—————

You see the beauty of blogging? Sometimes the comments appear to be more interesting, but to be fair in this instant let me just say, they substantially supplemented the main article. And this sort of thing is quite remote in the mainstream media.

Meantime, there is no way we should generalize blogging and bloggers. I agree with someone who said that responsible bloggers shoudl be separated from the trash ones. We should also do the same for journalism and journalists.

The “golf war” isn’t by any measure over, but the initial inquiry indicated it wasn’t a case of arrogance of power, but a display of hubris.

De la Paz’s children Bambee, 18, and Bino, 14, as dependents of an expelled member, were prohibited from the course. Bino, 14, is a member of the Philippine junior golf team, while Bambee is a golf scholar at University of Cincinnati in the United States.

And who started it all? The findings of the Board says it all and sundry..

“The board agreed that the statements of the witnesses established that Mr. De la Paz started the aggression by hitting Nasser Pagandaman Jr. with an umbrella,” according to the decision by the nine-member body.

“Mr. De la Paz’s conduct was the proximate cause and the spark of the fighting that ensued wherein Nasser and Mohammed Hussein Pangandaman retaliated against Mr. De la Paz,” it said.

The Pangandamans had sought permission from the golf marshall and informed the Dela Paz family..

The Pangandamans claimed in their statements that the mayor, although he arrived late, had pre-registered and was simply catching up with the group; that permission had been sought from the marshal and that De la Paz had been informed.

Now, who is a little bit more arrogant..

In spite of this, the Pangandamans said the De la Paz flight fired golf balls in their direction on the fairway without shouting “fore,” endangering an 8-year-old child in their group and triggering the brawl on a tee and in the clubhouse.

And with this one (below), it will naturally alert the security escorts of the Pangandamans..

Other members of the De la Paz family—reportedly the wife armed with a knife and a burly person carrying a baseball bat—attempted to join the fray that also involved armed bodyguards of the Pangandamans.

“If not for the timely intervention of the club’s security personnel and officers and other persons, the situation may have resulted in further violence and injuries,” the board said in its ruling.
Pangandaman Senior said the club ruling was “a vindication.”

It was unfortunate that Bambee’s account of the incident in her blog was probably the only source widely used by media writers and bloggers to justify their own ‘indignation’ to the point of maligning the Pangandamans.

Now, if you can’t do justice to this issue, you can help, at least, by ceasing and desisting to throw more fuel into the fire. Or, if you have to write about it, it is etiquette 101, or more appropriately.. a concern of journalism ethical standard, for media writers and bloggers to consider both sides of the story and delve on it from a balanced perspective.

I never thought that the dela Paz – Pangandaman match (some say mauling) at Valley Golf and Country Club, Antipolo City would create that much stir among bloggers and the media. I can understand the media people because that is their job to pick up whatever they think of as news-worthy events. Bloggers (like me) would also understand the outpouring of support for the dela Pazes as Bambee dela Paz (sister and daughter of the alleged victims) is a fellow blogger, who first posted the incident in her blog http://vicissitude-decidido.blogspot.com/. It was already detailed enough in that blog so I won’t get down to the details of the story/issue here. Rather, I shall endeavour to present the middle side of the story even if there are only limited sources from the side of the Pangandamans. One side of the story, even if how detailed, does not guarantee the whole truth.

Nasser Pangandaman Sr.

I have read and re-read the whole story from Bambee dela Paz’ own account of the incident in her blog and I was looking for the other side of the story, say from the Pangandamans, but I can only source it out from the media (print and tv). Of course, Sec. Pangandaman insisted that it was not his son-Mayor, much more his bodyguards, who started the fight. I would say it was a fight ( or rumble) and not mauling – these two terms are worlds apart. It was incidental that in the fight that ensued one party was outnumbered by the other party, and so, the superior force as always, would be tagged the mauler, and the other – the victim. The truth of the matter was – everybody was angry at somebody, everybody wants to hit somebody and nobody exercised self-restraint. Even then, Sec. Pangandaman offered his apology to the dela Pazes. From all indications, that was a sign of sobriety and civility on the part of Sec. Pangandaman.

Delfin dela Paz

The elder dela Paz (Delfin) admitted having used a closed umbrella “to defend himself”. Whether that was the first ‘hit’ or not, only the caddies on duty who have closely watched that incident could tell. We can, of course, ascertain at this point that there was verbal altercation before somebody started to hit someone.

It can be easily gleaned from the comments of the fellow bloggers that they had pre-judged the Pangandamans as the initiator of the fight (or maulers). There is no way to argue against them (or call for sobriety) in the comment section of Bambee’s blog or the others who have re-posted the same story in their respective blogs. Doing so would be exposing oneself within the range of fire (or ire) of the bloggers who are 99.9% pro dela Pazes. If you believe all of them, you will be convinced outright that the Pangandamans (or the Mayor – the younger Pangandaman) deserved to be hanged. (You may visit this blog site as it gives another damning balanced treatment of the incident: http://midfield.wordpress.com/2008/12/29/scandalizing-the-suffering-the-pangandaman-dela-paz-melee/).

However, one blogger’s comment got me pondering as it was probably the only source that gives a picture, at least, of who the dela Pazes were/are. I quote a portion of that comment: “Bambee, together with her mother fanning herself like crazy, joined my friend in his putting green, stroking the house balls here and there, oblivious to the presence of my friend. Golf etiquette 101: this is not beig courteous. the same issue they used against the pangandamans. Fortunately my friend is no Pangandaman and so the scandal happened days later and not involved my friend. After around 30 minutes of pure arrogance and “I am a champion and who are you” attitude from Bambee, she and her mother left my friend in the practice green with the 12 house balls strewn all around. Etiquette 101 again: this is not being couteous. The ball holders clearly bore the sign ‘replace after use.’ Well, the arrogant dela Pazes met their match in the equally arrogant Pangandamans.”

I also left a comment that I thought was neutral as I honestly meant it to be that way. But it was rather acknowledged by some bloggers as the “official Pangandaman side of the story..” In a way, the Pangdamans would also, most probably, want it that way. I suggested to leave the matter to the court after going through the volley of comments/opinions on the issue, only to find out one blogger-host’s childish imputations on the suggestion. Does he want to render his own judgment of the case which he has already pre-judged? How differently shallow! What a show of yet another arrogance!

Now I know why some people only appear to be intelligent.

I don’t want you to come to my house this Christmas, so please give yourself an early rest by striking my name off your list. I don’t care about the gift you thought I asked for; I don’t want it anymore. You can keep it. Better yet, give it to somebody else. The material gifts you bring don’t make me happy as much as they used to when I was a kid. Besides, I got my worldly wants all covered, thanks to an early gift I received in May (but no thanks to you).

Don’t worry about the gifts you reserved for my family. I also got those covered. This year, I will be their Santa Claus. It will be the first time I play you, so I hope I give justice to it. I promise to do my best. But I am sure we will be just fine. You can give the gifts you prepared for my loved ones to others. I assure you more people will be happy if you do that.

Don’t be mad. It is not that I don’t believe in you anymore. In fact, I still think you are that big guy in red and white with the cheerful “Ho-ho-ho!” preparing all sorts of gifts as Christmastime nears. How I wished to ride on your sleigh last night, with good old Rudolph, the red-nosed reindeer, leading the way around the world. The problem is, you make yourself so mysterious, almost to the point of nonexistence. That gets me (and a lot of other people) so confused. Are you even for real?

Don’t be sad. It is not that I am not grateful for all the things you have done and for all the dreams you made come true. I thank you with all my heart for these. You are very dedicated. I like that. Dedicated people deserve my friendship.

Having said that, you must know now that I consider you a friend. Let’s talk over a cup of coffee some time. My treat.

Santa, why do you do what you do? What do you get in return? And why do you leave Mrs. Claus all alone, out in the cold, on Christmas Eve? I think that is unkind of you to stay away from your loved ones on a night that is so special.

This Christmas I am away from my loved ones too because of my work. Thinking of it makes me sad. I wonder how you handle yourself when you go to work on Christmas Eve each year. Does staying away from home during the holiday season and giving without getting something in return make you happy?

I hope you are safe, Santa. More than your safety though, I wish that what you do makes you happy. I have many friends who are unhappy. I think they are stress by selfishness and by their unfortunate circumstances. I wish you could give them happiness instead of material gifts, which do not ensure long and lasting joy. Please make my wish come true for them.

I know God blesses all your efforts. I really love my friends. If only I could be Santa for them every day. But don’t worry, I don’t want to take your place.

Once again, let me tell you: Don’t visit me this Christmas. If I want a gift for myself, I would prefer to get it from someone I love. I know I love you in my mind, but it’s not the kind of love I give to people I spend the rest of my 365 ¼ days with during the year. I really wish gift-giving isn’t so materialistic this time. I want something from within, something someone dear to me has found especially for me. Do you get it?

I hope Jesus comes instead of you. Merry Christmas!

Stephen Norries A. Padilla, 21, works as an editorial production assistant in the Philippine Daily Inquirer

Dura lex sed lex

“The law is hard, but it is the law”. So goes that Latin legal maxim.

The Supreme Court decided that the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD), which was supposed to be signed by the GRP and MILF panels last August 5, 2008, was not consistent with the Constitution and existing laws. Its implications, notwithstanding, the decision was part of a “dura lex sed lex” nature of the legal domain.

Plain citizens, some members of the clergy, lawyers and non-lawyers reacted in various ways on the decision of the Supreme Court. The petitioners got their day in court and celebrated thereafter while those who have seen the wisdom behind the MOA-AD can only respect the decision while they ponder on with some degree of disbelief and awe. Pat Diaz, an avid follower of the peace process, like me, said, “on legal grounds, the Court may be right; but, on the import of the MOA-AD, the Court is wrong.” I agree. Not all that is legal is right, not all that is right is moral. In the same notion, not all that is unconstitutional is wrong.

The decision came out with a very slim margin of 8-7 vote and out of the 8 concurring votes two Justices concurred with separate opinions. From the looks of it, even the decision was hard by itself. We can only surmise that those who concurred must have succinctly trained their eyes purely on the legal dimension of what they have to decide on. Nothing else, for if they had considered their victim, that is, the MOA-AD, they must have joined the dissenters.

Those who realized how at a snap of the powerful legalese finger of the Supreme Court a supposedly monumental document like the MOA-AD can be zapped to naught are lamenting at how the MOA-AD met its fate. Dura lex, sed lex.

Irreversible

There is no way to refute, much more question the wisdom of the Supreme Court Justices who concurred with the decision written by Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of legal issues; there is no other recourse, except that, at least, we can write about it. The decision has already made its indelible mark in the annals of our jurisprudence. That is irreversible. At this point, we can only imagine the implications and how the members of both panels must have felt after working day in and day out to resolve conscientious and recurring issues which brought the MOA-AD into the form that it was.

But with the Supreme Court decision, it would be hard to imagine how after all those earnest endeavors and hard-earned consensus were achieved by both panels, everything could just end up to naught. How wasteful, how resentful!

Thinking “out of the box”

From the beginning both the GRP and the MILF peace panels realized that if they allow the Constitution to stand in the way of the negotiations they will not be at liberty to discuss the issues in the manner that they would wish to. But doing so was not easy. There was hard bargaining from both sides on top of the consensus building aspect and trade-offs that followed if only to make the ‘talks’ proceed and the peace process prosper. When both parties decided to sit at the negotiating table, there was a compromise. On one side was the MILF which agreed not to raise the issue of Moro independence in the negotiation; on the other side was the GRP which, to balance the MILF’s concession, agreed not to invoke the Philippine Constitution as framework for negotiation. Fair enough.

Compromise

To illustrate this point further, there was a compromise by both sides in the course of the peace talks. While the Bangsamoro people have valid historical sovereign claims to their ancestral domain and homeland comprising the whole of Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan which, albeit grudgingly, even the GRP acknowledged, the MILF, for the sake of ‘balanced compromise’ and practicality, has substantially reduced the scope of this claim to areas, territories and provinces where the Bangsamoro people are still the majority. The larger part of Mindanao shall remain as it is.

Another example is the matter of Bangsamoro right of self-determination. Much can be said about this matter but suffice to say that the right of self-determination is a legitimate right accorded to all peoples and nations under international law. It is, in fact, a human right which the GRP, or the MILF for that matter, cannot deny and suppress.

That both parties, therefore, have accepted the fact that the issue of Moro right of self-determination has to be eventually addressed by the peace negotiation whether now or in the future is quite explicit and unequivocal not only in the Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 but more so in the official communication of then GRP Peace Panel chair, Secretary Silvestre Afable, Jr., to Mohaghir Iqbal, MILF Peace Panel chairman, on November 9, 2006 reaffirming the GRP’s recognition of Moro right of self-determination.

The rule governing the negotiation, notwithstanding, even the issue of right of self-determination had to undergo the process of give-and-take. The principle of right of self-determination cannot be subjected to compromise, but, the time frame and modality for the exercise thereof can be formulated to conform to the mutual liking of both parties.

Implications

With the Supreme Court decision, one of the implications is that the Constitution is now an inevitable instrument in all future peace negotiations and all existing laws of the land shall have to be the rule of the game. “Restricting the peace negotiation to the Constitution is not negotiation but dictation”, says Pat Diaz. Not only that. This also means that future negotiators are not allowed to agree on matters that would tend to amend the Constitution, plain and simple.

And now with very little space left for future peace negotiators to move around with, I am afraid that no one would be enticed to join both peace panels and spend time, resources and energy to engage in lengthy negotiation whose fate is already predictable. One of the reasons why there is negotiation is because no one is certain about its outcome.

Gone were the days when the Bangsamoro used to enjoy full rights to their ‘sovereign homeland’. Now, they see that past as their only hope for the future. But the laws crafted by the ‘majority’ Filipinos many years thereafter, including the Constitution, have overtaken that right. And now, they (the Bangsamoro) did not only lose that right; they cannot reclaim it anymore because recently crafted laws of the land would no longer allow that.

Apparently, any creative attempt to strike a political solution to the Bangsamoro issue under the present circumstances has gone down the river. For that matter, there are indications that the MILF will also disband its peace panel anytime soon.

Iota of hope, but..

If there is an iota of hope that can be gleaned from the SC decision, it was because the Court did offer that: “The MOA-AD is a significant part of a series of agreements necessary to carry out the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace… Hence, the present MOA-AD can be renegotiated or another one drawn up that could contain similar or significantly dissimilar provisions compared to the original.” Considering this one, the only problem would be Malacanang after it pronounced that it will not sign the MOA-AD in its present or any other form. Not only this. Those who had considered the MOA-AD a ‘poison’ are closely watching by. Any revival of the MOA-AD, or anything like it, is prone to attack.
Add to this the DDR (demobilization, disarmament, reintegration) as a precondition set by the national government before any peace talk can take place. With this imposition, all sensible persons have begun to doubt the sincerity of the national government in concluding peace with the Moro fronts. No rebel organization, in its right mind, will disarm and disintegrate first before negotiating peace. The DDR, from what we see anywhere in the world, is one of the by-products of peace negotiations, not a precondition.

Given this, the Bangsamoro has turned to the larger and more sensible body of civilized nations – the United Nations, to have a hand in the Mindanao peace process. A consortium of Bangsamoro civil society organizations had recently urged UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon to call on the GRP and the MILF to stop the war and resume the peace talks. The UN is the last resort of hope for the Bangsamoro to regain its birthright because in a situation where the majority lords it over the minority, there can be no fair and just settlement that can be expected, and not to mention the so-called “tyranny of the majority” or the game of numbers that is the rule in the Congress of the Philippines.

Let’s hope that there is still hope left after the Supreme Court decision. It was a significant decision, but certainly “not one of the best decisions of 2008” (Fr. Bernas).

On the whole, unless the current paradigm of the Arroyo peace strategy is modified, we see a bleak future for the peace process in Mindanao.
—————————————-
(Dr. Maugan Buat Mosaid holds a doctorate degree in rural development. He is a social researcher, freelance writer and teaches in the graduate school.)

In a recent article I wrote which was roughly titled “A New Perspective on the Mindanao Problem Based on Some Historical and Current Realities”, I tried to surmise some lessons and current insights based on the experience with the peace process as it has been. They may be worth mentioning here:

Lessons

1. there is no one-shot formula to peace but any peaceful means is worth trying;
2. any attempt to build peace will not succeed unless we build a critical mass of supportive peace constituency;
3. people outside of the direct parties in the conflict should be given the chance to participate because the concern for peace is not confined to the direct parties just as the effect of conflict is;
4. peace is not merely the absence of armed confrontation but it is social justice in all its form; and
5. the ultimate goal of any peace effort is ‘personal cleansing’, that is, freeing one’s mind and heart from homegrown hatred, polarity, and giving dignity to every human being.

Current Insights

One of the strategic approaches to the Mindanao problem is the need to balance national sovereignty and Bangsamoro aspirations for self-determination. As always, the balancing act is not easy because it boils down to the issue of whether or not the Constitution shall be considered as one of the frameworks of the negotiation. A more creative approach is needed to achieve a perfect balance between the Constitution being a fundamental law and self-determination being an inherent right recognized by international law. As to how, only the direct parties are in the best position to determine in a negotiation. Then, consultation with the broad base of the population can take place after a draft is finalized not while it is being negotiated as most people would assert.

It is always possible to explore extra-constitutional means of settling the issue, according to Prof. Randy David, and try to craft out solutions “outside the box”. But how do we look at ‘agreements’ reached out of the bounds of what is allowable under the Constitution? Is it not simply unconstitutional? Or, an out-of-constitution settlement can be allowed for as long as they are generally in the best interest of both parties? It would seem that the bottom-line here is coming out with a clear definition and understanding of the nature of the ‘agreement’ that may be crafted between the GRP and the MILF. If it is a local agreement, ipso facto it is subordinate to the Constitution. If it assumes the nature and character of an international agreement then it can stand outside the sphere of the Philippine Constitution.

There is a need to revolutionize our understanding of the term ‘sovereignty’ as it applies to territorial integrity of a given state and as it is used to connote power and authority. In this sense, Mastura emphasized the traditional Moro statehood ‘earned sovereignty’ is already encapsulated by the Republic in its present form and structure as an autonomous entity presently in existence before the family of nations. Those who speak for the Philippines configure their constituencies into a political community which has beclouded a number of contested constitutional issues in the GRP-MILF negotiation.

The MOA on Ancestral Domain, though unsigned, should be seen as a faithful and earnest attempt to provide a leeway to provide balance between the zealously guarded issues of constitutionalism and sovereignty vis-a-vis self-determination and freedom. The MOA-AD may no longer become operational but it is to be appreciated as a document that embodies hard-earned consensus that somehow manifested that it is possible for some Filipinos and Moros to come to terms even under the most difficult circumstances.

Given a rejected MOA on Ancestral Domain, and maybe eventually a failed negotiation, “the only option available for the Bangsamoro, in lieu of armed struggle, is to revert to the original goal of independence and mount a campaign for decolonization under the auspices of the United Nations and the International Court of Justice” (Atty. Buat). This is, logically, the next best thing. In most bilateral negotiations powerful mediators are necessary requisites to peaceful settlements in almost all sovereignty-based conflicts. From my view, the GRP’s respect for Malaysia as mediator and facilitator in the peace talks is diminished. At the very least, it has doubted Malaysia’s resolve to stay neutral in the negotiation – a suspicion which could have possibly sprung out from the fact that Malaysia is a country being led by Muslims and one of the parties in the talks is Bangsamoro Muslim. While there were open statements on this one, no evidence, however, was cited.

The remaining years of the Arroyo administration (one year and nine months) may still be useful to a certain extent if it can somehow maintain the ceasefire, enhance rehabilitation and development works, and pursue consultation and dialogue, information and education, and building of a constituency supportive to the peace process. It may no longer appear to be a credible negotiator in the eyes of the MILF, after it has reneged on its obligation to sign the MOA-AD, but it can enhance or even just preserve the fundamentals necessary for the next round of talks which may still be possible in the next administration.

To sum it up, the Mindanao problem has taken new dimensions. The issues and controversies involved had become as ticklish as the attitude of people who were supposed to have expressed resolve to do something about it and to bring the peace process towards an acceptable compromise. Slowly but surely, the peace process may be headed towards a kind of reality in Physics: “When an irresistible force meets and immovable object something has to give up”. We can only pray that it is not people’s precious lives and hard-earned properties that should be given up.

What Now

Now, it is high time to ponder on how a new peace talk between the GRP and the MILF may proceed. Whether that is going to take place in this administration (of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo) or in the next is immaterial. The fundamental requirements are the same and only the frameworks and talking points may adapt new patterns and form considering the lessons and realities of past and recent experience with (or of) the peace process.

The fundamental realities stay the same viz:

It is inherently necessary that the peace process and the peace negotiation must continue. No civilized society in its right mind can allow a climate of un-peace and its dire consequences to continue to flourish indefinitely;

It is compelling for both parties (GRP & MILF) to come to terms sooner or later, otherwise, they suffer the consequences of the impatience, ire and loss of faith of their respective populace and constituents in the long run; and

Both parties have suffered enough. While ‘negotiation fatigue’ is likely for either side or both, especially given what I call the ‘lullaby strategy’ of the GRP in dilly-dallying the peace process, the drive to succeed should not be absent from both sides.

The latest fiasco in the peace talks was clearly the offshoot of the following circumstances:

The GRP’s lack of transparency on its part;

As a consequence thereof, some politicians (Pinol, Lobregat, Roxas, Drilon) reacted by questioning the MOA on Ancestral Domain before the Supreme Court. The Pinol-Lobregat petition was simply a mandamus-like relief to require the parties to make available copies of the MOA-AD. It was then logical that the Supreme Court had to restrain the signing of the MOA-AD to give time for people, or just the petitioners, to study the contents of said document. After said petition is served, the TRO may be lifted in due time and the MOA-AD may still be signed thereafter. What really complicated the matter was the Roxas-Drilon intervention asking the Supreme Court, not only to restrain the signing but also to rule on the MOA’s constitutionality. And this has prolonged the ‘legal due process’;

The non-signing of the MOA prompted two ‘uncontrolled’ commanders of the MILF (Kato and Bravo) to stage attacks in North Cotabato and Lanao del Sur which also triggered similar actions, presumably by the MILF also, in Sarangani;

Consequently, these ‘atrocities’ were exhaustively and conveniently used as excuse by the GRP to further justify its position of not signing the MOA “at gunpoint”. Now, criminal cases were filed against Kato, Bravo et al and the rest is a matter of ‘police action’. To concretize its position of not signing the MOA-AD, the Arroyo administration came out with the DDR (demilitarization, demobilization, reintegration) as added frameworks in the negotiation. “The DDR is more of a war strategy than a peace framework”, according to one respected personality in the peace process. As if this was not enough, the Arroyo administration announced the dismantling of the GRP negotiating panel to signal its complete abandonment of the peace talks;

Unspoken reality

The unspoken reality, however, was that the GRP may have realized that its panel was outsmarted by the MILF panel when they saw a somewhat ‘lopsided’ agreement from its point of view. But that was at no fault of the MILF. If the MILF panel was the better negotiator as compared to the GRP panel, that was no reason for the GRP to blame the product. After all, in all probabilities the GRP must have carefully selected the members of its panel.

Given the fundamental realities, how then must the peace talks proceed if and when resumed in the future? Fr. Mercado says: “After an adequate period of dispassionate, informed and intelligent discussion of the concepts and issues by all concerned, after some sanity is restored, the time should come when the parties can viably continue the peace negotiations, presumably from where they left off”.

There are hitches that should be surmounted before the peace talks can resume. If the ‘talks’ resume in the time of the Arroyo administration, the DDR is the first issue to be resolved. If it resumes in the next administration, it will depend on whether or not the new administration adapts or drops some of the frameworks and policies put forward by the Arroyo administration.
The Arroyo administration has learned a painful lesson from the botched Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain and hope that it, or the government in general, will be better prepared for new talks in the future.

Pointers

When the peace talks resume sometime in the future, the following pointers are worth considering:

First, what is needed is a clear, written instruction from the President to the government panel on what it can negotiate with the MILF and what it can sign. At the recent Supreme Court hearing on petitions against the proposed memorandum, Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera said the government panel had authority only to negotiate, not to sign. Fresh instructions for a prospective new panel should spell out clearly the extent of its mandate.

Second, the new panel should be headed by a diplomat who is experienced in international negotiations, not by a retired general who may bring his military mindset to the negotiating table. True, Gen. Manuel Yan was a military general who headed the panel that negotiated with the MNLF, but he was an experienced diplomat before he was appointed to the position. A diplomat is trained to bargain hard, but do it in a tactful manner.

Third, the negotiators have to be backed by a strong panel of experts in constitutional and international law. Had the just disbanded GRP panel been backed by experts in constitutional and international law, it should have taken a more proactive position in defending the MOA rather than silenced by attacks from the media and some politicians.

Fourth, public hearings should be conducted on the main points of the proposed agreement, principally in Mindanao and in key cities of the country. All the stakeholders should be invited to these hearings so that the negotiating panel can hear various views and obtain various perspectives. In the case of the botched MOA-AD, it appears that no public hearings were conducted, and the first time most people, including high-ranking government officials, heard about the proposed agreement was only a few days before it was scheduled to be signed.

Fifth, an extensive and continuing public information campaign has to be conducted on the proposed agreement to keep the people updated on the progress of the negotiations. In the case of the collapsed MOA, it appears that the administration was determined to keep the agreement secret and concealed from the people. Even senators and congressmen didn’t know about the contents of the memorandum, and were furnished copies only after there was a hue and cry in the media and public forums.

Sixth, the government should define the timing of public consultations to allow open, impassionate and intelligent discussions to take place. It is to be admitted that the publics and media cannot intervene at the sensitive formative stage of the issues. Atty. Michael O. Mastura, senior member of the MILF panel, emphasized that “healthy environment for serious debate (should not be) drowned out by the intrusion of the mass media into the negotiating process (which only) encourages the politics of fear at the Metro Manila capital..”

Finally, the GRP panel should act like the MILF panel. The former is more arbitrary as compared to the latter. This was the result of ambiguous mandate given the GRP panel. In fairness the government panel negotiates with all candor and earnest but under a shadow of ‘hit and miss’ situation as Malacanang is more prone to believe the so-called ‘spoilers’ of the peace process than its own panel. The problem with the President is sometimes she equates trust and respect with accommodation. Thus, she makes appointments more on the basis of political accommodation even if she has little of the trust and respect on the appointee. This was quite clear in the case of General Rodolfo Garcia as head of the GRP panel and, more recently, Luis ‘Chavit’ Singson as Deputy National Security Adviser.

We hope the President, if not, the next Administration will do it in more absolute terms next time. We hope the government panel will get it right and do it right next time.

To be sure, the MILF also bears its responsibility over the current crisis-situation. Both parties actually share the challenge to reach out and to strengthen the confidence of the broader public opinion towards the talks they have been conducting for the last years. It is troubling to observe that instead of working together to broaden the peace-constituency, the two parties focus on blaming each other, thus eroding the confidence that has taken so many years to build.

There was never any intention to create ‘a republic within the republic’

——————————————————————————–

Amidst the rumblings surrounding the aborted signing of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD), the nation once again finds itself in a dilemma on whether to pursue the peace process or resort to military solution to finally put an end to the armed conflict in Mindanao.

As we await the Supreme Court’s pronouncement on matters raised against the MOA-AD, it is perhaps high time to look at the MOA-AD in its proper context devoid of prejudices, stereotyping, political color, unfounded fear and speculation as we have witnessed the past four weeks. Only through the prism of disinterested passion and with the highest regard for a just and lasting peace could we responsibly deliberate upon genuine solutions to the present armed conflict with the MILF.

Background

A basic understanding on how peace negotiations around the world are presently conducted will be instructive, specifically for those uninitiated in the process, as a starting point to put the MOA-AD in the proper context.

It is commonplace today to see peace negotiations divided in stages, namely: pre-negotiation, preliminary agreement, comprehensive framework and implementation. The agreement on ceasefire may come in sometimes early on in the talks or during the agreement on final cessation of hostilities at the last stage of the negotiations.

In the case of the talks with MILF, prior to the discussions on the MOA-AD, it is crucial to note that the MILF had entered into a ceasefire agreement and subject to the supervision by an International Monitoring Team led by the Malaysians. After 2003, Mindanao had enjoyed considerable calm and very low level of violence on account of this ceasefire.

The MOA-AD is not a stand-alone document but constitutes a codification of consensus points (e.g. principles, territory, and resources) prior to Governance and the Comprehensive Compact. It is the result of more than a hundred consultative dialogues or fora with various stakeholders conducted by the GRP Panel spread to about 3-4 years, inclusive of the periodic technical working group meetings here and abroad between the Parties.

Joint statements are released to the public on key issues tackled after every exploratory talk. The GRP Panel is also in receipt of local government resolutions, statements and memoranda expressing their sentiments on the key issues (for example, opposition to inclusion in Bangsamoro Homeland and the need for consultations, adding representatives to the Panel, etc, …)

Structure of the MOA-AD and substantive issues covered

Discussions on the MOA-AD hit a snag for about a year on the matter of territory before November of 2007. The final codification process of consensus points on the MOA-AD was completed thereafter.

By early 2008, the two Panels have arrived at an understanding of the final text of the MOA-AD and a thorough review of its legal implications, particularly on the needed appropriate legal processes which may be undertaken by the GRP side to address the proposals contained in the MOA-AD.

Judging from the various Supreme Court justices’ interpellations of the counsels for both the petitioners and the respondents, the following contentious issues are worth examining in seriatim: (a) legal characterization of the MOA-AD; (b) status of the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE); and, (c) authority of the GRP Panel to negotiate and sign the MOA-AD.

Legal characterization of MOA-AD

There were several attempts by petitioners during the oral arguments to advance the theory that the MOA-AD is classified as a treaty under international law.

The rule laid down under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is that an international agreement must be entered into by two states in writing and governed by international law. Petitioners’ argument immediately fails this test because the MOA-AD is one entered into between a state and a non-state entity.

Related to this is the difficulty of characterizing it under municipal law as an ordinary contract because of the political character of the obligations arising from it. Thus, even the matter of governing law and applicable remedial measures would now be a serious legal concern when attempting to enforce this type of instrument.

Elsewhere, it has been observed by Christine Bell that, “(a) lack of legal formality enables parties to avoid the appearance of commitment to compromise, which could undermine the move toward talks and give ammunition to dissenters and outbidders…” She maintains that peace agreements “do not easily fit within traditional legal categories.”

The MOA-AD contains the following crucial provision which may also explain the unique and non-self-executing character of the document:

“The Parties agree that the mechanisms and modalities for the actual implementation of this MOA-AD shall be spelt out in the Comprehensive Compact to mutually take such steps to enable it to occur effectively.

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

The practice of negotiating peace agreements confirms that “(b)y their nature, implementation agreements involve new negotiations…as parties test whether they can claw back concessions made at an early stage.” Therefore, the tentative character of the principles, concepts and framework may evolve as the parties continue to move to the next stage of the negotiations.

Status of the BJE

A series of discussions ensued on the matter of creation of a new state as a result of the MOA-AD.

In this regard, the Montevideo Convention of 1933 provides for the qualifications of a state: (1) permanent population; (2) a defined territory; (3) a government that is in effective control of its territory and independent of any other authority; and, (4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states.

Nowhere in the MOA-AD could one derive that all the requisites (of an independent state) are present. On the contrary, the reference to “Central Government” and the need to undertake legal processes within the GRP confirm the hierarchical relationship similar to an empowered autonomous region which already exists in our Constitution. Perhaps, the petitioners were harping at the “state-in-the-making” theory which is highly speculative in nature.

Nothing in the MOA-AD grants territory to the BJE without the benefit of plebiscites at three levels: the more than 700 barangays in Category A (within 12 months from signing of MOA-AD), Category B (not earlier than 25 years from the signing of the Comprehensive Compact) and the implementation of the BJE after the Comprehensive Compact. There were reasonable criteria for choosing the areas subject of the plebiscites such as: historical, population patterns, contiguity, and functionality.

Secession was never an issue between the two Panels. It is even more instructive to note that the current Senate Joint Resolution No. 10 initiated by Sen. Pimentel, et. al. on the establishment of a Federal System of Government, including a Bangsamoro State, provides the right to secede for every state. Not even the MOA-AD went this far!

Clearly, there was never any intention to create “a republic within the republic.” It may be recalled that this was practically the same fear expressed when the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) was questioned before the Supreme Court on the matter of ancestral domain claim based on native title.

But vested property rights of all are, in fact, respected in both IPRA and the MOA-AD. The free choice of indigenous peoples inside BJE is also assured, i.e they may continue to enjoy their stay inside their own ancestral domain as this constitutes clear vested right.

Those inside the political subdivisions to be constituted within the BJE will be governed by the principles of equality of peoples and mutual respect and guaranteed protection of their civil, political, economic and cultural rights.

Authority of the GRP Panel to negotiate and to sign the MOA The premise of most peace negotiations is to address key issues in the conflict. In some cases, law reform initiatives or even constitutional amendments result from political commitments or settlement.

When the GRP and MILF Panels came to the negotiating table, they were driven by what is possible and not by what is unthinkable.

Under E.O. No. 125 (September 15, 1993) and E.O. No. 3 (February 28, 2001), the comprehensive peace process may require administrative action, new legislation or even constitutional amendments. These are well within the mandate of the GRP Panel to submit by way of recommendations to the Executive as a result of discussions at the negotiating table. Thereafter, the Executive may consider these for appropriate coordination with the Legislative Branch which may now undertake the necessary legal processes.

In summary, there was never any attempt to supplant the powers of a co-equal branch of the Government by entering into the MOA-AD.

The way forward

After weeks of fingerpointing and costly armed engagements resulting to loss of innocent lives, it is the hope of any responsible and peace-loving citizen to find durable solutions instead of inflaming deep-rooted biases and misconceptions. As peace negotiators, the eye for breakthroughs even in the most trying moments of the process will remain focused and unrelenting.

Justice will have to be served in so far as the atrocities committed by rogue MILF elements are concerned. Confidence building and trust will have to be creatively worked on once again.

In the end, the process of achieving peace is beyond the MOA-AD signing. One may silence the MOA-AD, but not peace itself.

The author is chief legal consultant of the GRP peace panel for talks with the MILF.