By Carlos H. Conde
Cyberdyaryo
Published: Aug. 14, 2001
WHEN voters from the four provinces of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) troop to the polls today for a referendum on the fate of the New ARMM Organic Act (Republic Act 9054), they will be deciding on a law that violates the letter and spirit of the 1996 Final Peace Agreement signed by the government and the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF).
Moreover, the ARMM constituents will be deciding on a law that is a product of indifference, ignorance and political manipulation in Congress, even among Moro congressmen.
The referendum today — which will ask ARMM residents, as well as residents of the 11 provinces and 14 cities that are not within the non-ARMM but are within the Special Zone of Peace and Development (Szopad), if they agree to RA 9054 that amended the original organic act (RA 6734) — is, thus, an exercise in futility that has far-reaching implications on peace in Mindanao.
This is the belief of some Mindanao peace advocates, led by Fr. Eliseo Mercado Jr. OMI, president of the Notre Dame University in Cotabato City and a key figure in the peace process in Mindanao.
In a position paper written last week, Fr. Mercado concluded that this referendum is “weird, to say the least!” The plebiscite, he said, “is an exercise in futility and a complete waste of our scarce resources. It has no validity and it has no bearing on the 1996 Final Peace Agreement.”
A unilateral imposition
He said RA 9054 is solely the initiative of the Philippine government, “without the participation of the MNLF,” the other party in the peace agreement. It is, thus, a unilateral imposition on the Moro people.
Fr. Mercado explained that the very reason the original organic act was amended was, that law and the plebiscite that ratified it in1998 were unilateral impositions by the government.
As a compromise, and in order to push the peace process forward, both parties agreed that RA 6734 should be amended and another plebiscite be held. These were designed to be a “remedial political settlement” to correct the unilateral nature of RA 6734.
Therefore, Fr. Mercado argued, it is only logical that the MNLF, which had no hand in the drafting of the first law, be involved in its “remedial political settlement” through RA 9054 and today�s plebiscite.
As an aside, Fr. Mercado noted that the 1996 Final Peace Agreement was also a “remedial political settlement” to the previous unilateral impositions on the MNLF by the Marcos and Aquino administrations in the 1976 Tripoli Agreement and the creation of the ARMM, respectively. “Sad to say, the new autonomy law and the plebiscite on August 14 proves true the clich� that �History repeats itself�,” the priest wrote.
Moreover, Fr. Mercado pointed out that, contrary to what the 1996 Final Peace Agreement provides, RA 9054 is practically a new autonomy law that has, “no direct or indirect reference to (the 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 peace agreement.”
GRP is not only the Executive
Here, the priest faulted Congress. “Congress, in its exercise of its legislative prerogative, has not understood the international commitment and obligation entered into between the GRP and the MNLF.”
He added, “The GRP referred to in the agreement is NOT only the Executive. It includes Congress since it actively participated in the crafting of the 1996 Final Peace Agreement through their representatives, designated advisers and congressional resolutions.”
Conversely, “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 translate into law the agreed provisions as contained in the said political settlement.
“The final arbiter (of) the said amendatory law to correct the unilateral RA 6734 will be the peoples of the concerned areas in a plebiscite that will ratify or reject the new law (which should) contain the provisions of the 1996 Final Agreement both in letter and spirit,” Fr. Mercado explained.
According to Fr. Mercado, Congress should have transformed the 1996 Final Peace Agreement into law “in toto, with no deletion and addition.” He supported this argument by saying that the provisions of the agreement “have already been negotiated with the active participation of Congress.”
What needs to be done, he said, is for the people concerned to ratify or reject the new law.
But, as it is, he says, “The new autonomy law does not reflect in toto the 1996 Final Peace Agreement.”
In addition, Fr. Mercado said, RA 9054 “did not only set aside the 1996 Final Peace Agreement but also interpreted the constitutional process in conducting the plebiscite by concocting two different questions, one for the provinces that are already members of the ARMM and the other for provinces and cities outside of the ARMM.”
Mercado continued, “As it is formulated, the peoples outside the ARMM are actually voting for inclusion or exclusion in the coverage of the 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.”
Government ignored OIC
Fr. Mercado is convinced that the government committed a blunder when it ignored the stand of the Organization of Islamic Conference on this issue: “The most crucial issue� is the stand of the powerful OIC.”
Based on documents generated by the OIC�s Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, the OIC recognizes the 1996 peace agreement as an international obligation and commitment of the government.
It also wants the government to extend the first phase of the agreement�s implementation so that the Southern Philippines Council for Peace and Development (SPCPD) will be given enough time to complete its projects and programs.
More importantly, the OIC has asked the Philippine government not to make any unilateral decisions, policies and measures regarding the ARMM, such as this plebiscite.
The government, Fr. Mercado concluded, “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� do not know these resolutions. Worse, the people who make policy are in the dark when it comes to the 1996 Final Peace Agreement.”
He stressed that the OIC positions must be factored into any policy decision on the implementation of the 1996 agreement, “(because) in many ways, the OIC is the guarantor of the said agreement.”
Lawyer Macapanton Abbas Jr. of the Muslim Reform Party agreed with Fr. Mercado. He cited some questionable legal actions taken by the government which, he asserted, are unconstitutional. One of these is the law that reset the date of the plebiscite (from between May and June to August 14) and the ARMM elections to November this year.
This law signed by President Arroyo was effectively an amendment to RA 6734 that had originally set the date for the plebiscite and the election. And, being an amendment, Abbas argued, the law should have been subjected to plebiscite.
This may be a small legal point but Abbas�s main contention is, “What�s the use of negotiations when the GRP does not honor its commitments? Why respect the Constitution when the GRP does not respect the Constitution when it comes to the ARMM and Muslims?”
Moro congressmen didn’t get their act together
Meanwhile, a former Congressman from Mindanao told CyberDyaryo that the Moro congressmen “did not really get their act together,” especially in pushing for the provisions in the peace agreement to be included in RA 9054, and in seeing that these provisions would not be watered down.
“They didn�t really fight for the peace agreement,” the source said.
The former representative said that there was poor lobbying from the SPCPD and peace advocates to make RA 9054 consistent with the letter and spirit of the peace agreements.
“We hardly got any pressure from the outside. So we were pretty much left to our own devices during the long time the bill was being deliberated on,” he recalled. “And since more than three-fourths of the membership (of the House) didn’t really understand what it was all about, they couldn’t care less whatever was the outcome of the deliberations. They would just follow the orders of the (House) leadership or Malacanang.”
He disclosed, “I couldn�t count the number of times I argued with (North Cotabato Rep.) Daisy Fuentes, (General Santos City Rep.) Lu Antonino and (Zamboanga Rep.) Celso Lobregat who were really determined to come up with an amendatory law that was not faithful to the Peace Agreement.”
The former Congressman confessed, “I know I will always feel guilty for being part of the Congress that approved RA 9054 and I shall never get over the experience of legislating (this) law in a Congress that did not seem to really understand the root causes of the problems in Mindanao and the importance of the peace agreement.”
–CyberDyaryo
Recent Comments