Bulatlat.com

RAGING DEBATES IN MINDANAO
New ARMM Law - Full of Holes, Violates 1996 Peace Agreement
(Conclusion)

By Fr. Eliseo R. Mercado Jr., OMI
Bulatlat.com

The most crucial issue in the present debates - i.e., MNLF split, MNLF leadership, the plebiscite, etc. - is the stand of the powerful OIC. A lot of people will make claims on the OIC's stand on the issues. The real best gauge of the OIC stand is the official papers of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers from 1972 until last June 25-27. Words may lie but documents spell the OIC stand in unequivocal, black and white print!

The OIC stands on the following:

Ų The OIC holds that the 1996 Final Peace Agreement is an international obligation and commitment of the Republic of the Philippines;

Ų The OIC, through the Committee of the 8, shall make the necessary representation with the GRP and the MNLF during the period not later than the end of 2001 in order to define the timetable for implementing all the articles of the 1996 peace agreement;

Ų The OIC recognizes the MNLF as the sole legitimate representative of the Bangsamoro People in Southern Philippines;

Ų THE OIC RECOGNIZES Prof. Nur Misuari as the leader of the MNLF;

Ų The OIC appeals to the GRP not to take any unilateral measures and, in particular, not to unilaterally conduct a plebiscite in ARMM in line with the peace agreement concluded between the MNLF and the GRP under the auspices of the OIC;

Ų The OIC urges the GRP to extend the first phase of the 1996 peace agreement and postpone the general plebiscite in order to ensure the complete implementation of all the procedures and policies provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the peace agreement, including expediting the execution of development projects and programs in the area dedicated to peace and development; and

Ų The OIC appeals to the GRP to reconsider extending the date for elections in ARMM to 2003.

Ill-advised

The government is not properly advised on the resolutions of the OIC. It is tragic to note the "ignorance" (or is it malice) of people who are considered "advisers" not to be aware of these resolutions when with a simple click of a mouse, these resolutions are readily accessible. Worse, the people who make policy are in the dark when it comes to the 1996 Final Peace Agreement! Tsk!

In any policy decision, particularly on the issue of implementation of the 1996 agreement, the OIC positions must be factored in. In many ways, the OIC is the guarantor of the said agreement.

New Autonomy Law

The new autonomy law or RA 9054 is solely a product of the Philippine Congress without the participation of the MNLF, the party in the 1996 Final Peace Agreement. The very purpose of amending RA 6734 or the ARMM Organic Act is the fact that the said law and the subsequent plebiscite in 1998 were unilateral impositions of the Philippine government without the participation of the MNLF. The 1992 peace process between the GRP and the MNLF that bore fruit in 1996 was the remedial political settlement as opposed to the two attempts (Marcos' and Aquino's) of unilateral imposition of any autonomy law and plebiscite. Sad to say, the new autonomy law and the plebiscite on August 14, proves true the cliché that says, "History repeats itself."

First, the new law, RA 9054, violates the peace agreement both in letter and spirit.

Second, Congress, in its exercise of its legislative prerogative, has not understood the international commitment and obligation entered into between the GRP and the MNLF on Sept. 2, 1996. The GRP referred to in the agreement is not only the Executive. It includes Congress since it has actively participated in the crafting of the said Final Peace Agreement through their representatives, designated advisers and congressional resolutions.

Third, I do not believe that the law is just and fair, because it deprives the peoples of the present ARMM the choice to ratify or reject RA 9054. Further, the peoples of other provinces in the SZOPAD are not voting on the law but on whether they want to be included or not in the expanded ARMM. The constitutional provision on the matter upholds the "sovereignty" of the concerned people and provinces and cities to approve or reject the law. Only the provinces and cities where the majority voted for the new law shall constitute the new geography of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. Provinces and cities that rejected the law are automatically excluded from its coverage.

RA 9054 deprives the peoples of the ARMM the opportunity to accept or reject the new autonomy law. And the same law deprives the peoples of the non-ARMM provinces and cities within SZOPAD to accept or reject the new autonomy law. It is the acceptance or rejection of the autonomy law that determines the coverage of the ARMM. This is true in the Cordillera as well as in Muslim Mindanao.

Unilateral impositions

Fourth, I believe that RA 209054 and the plebiscite are unilateral impositions of the GRP. The agreement explicitly stipulates the contrary. The Marcos presidential decree and plebiscite were unilaterally imposed by the Philippine government contrary to the letter and spirit of the 1976 Tripoli Agreement. Again during the term of President Aquino, the government likewise unilaterally imposed the ARMM law and the plebiscite that - again - violated the Tripoli Agreement both in letter and spirit. Now we are faced with the same dilemma! The Philippine government is doing it again for the nth time -- that is, unilaterally impose a new autonomy law, RA 9045, and the plebiscite on Aug. 14, 2001.

The basic question that government should ask itself is whether it upholds, as international commitment and obligations, both the 1976 Tripoli Agreement and the 1996 Final Peace Agreement initialed in Jakarta on Aug. 30, 1996, and officially signed on Sept. 2, 1996.

Congress and policy advisers need to thoroughly study the consequences of these international agreements. The government's assurance that it remains within the ambit of the constitutional processes and territorial integrity seems to run counter to the fact that the peoples of the concerned areas are the sovereign; they have the power to ratify or reject in a plebiscite the political settlement as contained in the Final Peace Agreement and shall be translated into law in toto with no deletion and no addition. The provisions had already been negotiated with the active participation of Congress. What really remain is to ratify or reject the said political settlement in a plebiscite. But as it is, the new autonomy law does NOT reflect in toto the 1996 Final Peace Agreement.

Meaningful or meaningless autonomy?

Chairman Misuari claims that RA 9054 is full of "impurities," meaning that it does not faithfully adhere to the provisions of the 1996 Final Peace Agreement between the GRP and the MNLF. Misuari's and the MNLF's view is that the new autonomy law, as approved by both the lower House and the Senate, cannot give the genuine autonomy as contained both in the 1976 Tripoli Agreement and the 1996 Final Peace Agreement.

Section 2a of the 1996 agreement provides that the new autonomy law amending RA 6734 "shall include the pertinent provisions of the Final Peace Agreement and the expansion of the present ARMM area of autonomy." RA 9054 contains 18 Articles and 239 sections. RA 9054 is actually a new autonomy law yet it is presented as "An Act to Strengthen and Expand the Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, Amending for the Purpose RA 6734, Entitled 'An Act Providing for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.'"

Believe it or not, the new autonomy law has no direct or indirect reference to the 1996 Final Peace Agreement when the very purpose of the new law is to comply with the obligation and imperative of the political settlement agreed upon in the 1996 Final Peace Accord between the GRP and the MNLF. One is not sure on the motive of Congress for such omission. The act of legislating the 1996 Final Peace Accord is not left to the initiative of Congress alone. The international commitment and obligations made by the GRP in the 1996 Final Peace agreement limit the powers of Congress to simply translating into law the agreed-upon provisions as contained in the said political settlement.

Final arbiter

The final arbiter for the said amendatory law to correct the unilateral law, RA 6734, will be the peoples of the concerned areas in a plebiscite that will ratify or reject a new law containing the provisions of the 1996 peace agreement both in letter and spirit. Following the constitutional processes laid down in Section 18, Article X of the Constitution, only the provinces and cities voting favorably on the new autonomy law shall constitute the coverage of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. Provinces and cities that shall not ratify the new autonomy law shall automatically be excluded from the coverage of the autonomous region.

By some ugly turn of events, RA 9054 did not only set aside the 1996 Final Peace Agreement but also "interpreted" the constitutional process in conducting the plebiscite for the purpose of concocting two different questions, one for the provinces that are already members of the ARMM and the provinces and cities outside of ARMM. As it is formulated, the peoples outside the ARMM are actually voting for inclusion or exclusion in the coverage of ARMM. They are not voting for the new autonomy law. On the other hand, the peoples of the ARMM are only voting on the amendments to RA 6734, without touching the issue of inclusion or exclusion depending on the ratification or non-ratification of the new autonomy law. The whole exercise is weird, to say the least!

So what is really being submitted for plebiscite? The answer: The new creation of Congress that is germane to the 1996 Final Peace Agreement (though there are several similarities between the two!) In short, the plebiscite on August 14 is an exercise in futility and a completely waste of our scarce resources. It has no validity and has no bearing on the 1996 Final Peace Agreement.

(*Editor's note: This two-part article form the author's discussion papers posted on an online discussion group and is published here with permission. The author is the president of the Notre Dame University in Cotabato City. He was a part of the GRP-MNLF peace talks in 1996, and also chairman of the Independent Fact-Finding Committee and the Quick Reaction Team that oversaw the implementation of the GRP-MILF ceasefire.) Bulatlat.com

We want to know what you think of this article.