Excluding the constituents
As the people’s participation has been excluded, we cannot expect an accountable ARMM. It should be noted that accountability of a political institution (which is extended to its public officers) is the state of being responsible to its constituents. But how can we expect ARMM’s accountability when its own constituency does not matter in the electoral exercise? Evidently, there is no constituency to be accountable to. Hence, there is no accountability.
Instead of fulfilling its duty in creating a condition where development may be realized by guaranteeing the people’s participation, the NG on the contrary has contributed in making them irrelevant and even had failed to protect their rights against the tradition of guns, goons and gold.
It may be argued that it is ARMM’s constituents and its traditional politicians and warlords that should take responsibility for its sorry status. This is incorrect. In that region where the marginalized is predominant in its population, the NG has to take a greater responsibility since the dominant vulnerable sector lacks the power to claim and assert their right against the politics of money and intimidation.
Unfulfilled duty
It is thus the duty-holder’s impotence in fulfilling its duty that caused the dysfunctional ARMM. The latter’s constituency physically exists but it has no place in ARMM as a body politic. It was reduced into thin air.
That is the reason that notwithstanding the infusion of fund from international aid, capability-building of its public officers, reconstruction efforts, among others, its growth is lagging behind the rest of the Philippines. The Human Development Index, which measures development, disclosed that ARMM development is the lowest in the Philippines. (Philippine Human Development Report 2005).
No wonder that the Summary of the Poorest of the Poor in 2003 by the National Anti-Poverty Commission shows that 23 out of the 40 poorest municipalities are from ARMM. Its constituency likewise suffer discrimination and exclusion. From 2000 to 2004, 1.4 million of its population became internally displaced persons.
What now?
What now for ARMM in view of the framework of rights-based approach to development? Has ARMM become an obstacle to development?
If we approach ARMM in the lens of GRP-MNLF Peace Agreement, since the present expanded ARMM is one of the components of the agreement: Is the present status of ARMM is what the framers of the peace agreement envisioned?
If we approach ARMM in the light of right to self-determination since autonomous region is a subtle form of right to self-determination: did ARMM’s constituents enjoy their own cultural identity and sense of ownership in the economic, social and political system in the region?
So what now for the constituency? Contributed to (Bulatlat.com)
