Eyes On The Prize

Post Page Rank

The Cost of Peace: BJE MOA on AD

• Beginner’s Guide to Understanding the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) MOA-AD
• Let’s Begin
• Of BJE MOA-AD, ARMM Polls and Oil Price Updates
• Fragile Peace? Say It Isn’t So.
• Slow Progress is Still Progress.
• Winners and Losers
• The Case of the “Ex”
• Where Do We Go From Here?
• So You Think She Can Dance?
• Actually, We’ve Been Dancing the ChaCha re: BJE MOA
• The Buck Stops Here
• A Change of Pace on the BJE MOA: Other Avenues of Peace
• Deferred Peace is Expedited War
• You and What Army?
• Just Thinking Out Loud
• Eyes On The Prize
• Live and Let Live: The Non-Negotiable Solution
• Perception vs. Reality
• There’s No Turning Back
• There’s No Easy Way: Peace and Its Price

I need not elaborate. I'm sure any of you reading this have heard the news -- endless and hopeless as it may seem. Fighting continues in Mindanao. Ambush here. Strafing there. Evacuations here and there. Oral arguments re: unconstitutionality of BJE MOA (which, by the way, has been extended Firday once more, August 29) happened today. Sol. Gen. Devanadera submitted a petition for the SC citing GRP's decision not to sign the MOA, thereby rendering the petition filed against it "moot and academic". Torion, the petitioner's counsel, on the other hand insists on a court decision saying regardless of the BJE MOA being signed or not, SC's ruling is important so as to create a "guideline" for the GRP on it's expected "renegotiation" or "furthering of negotiations" and subsequently assure compliance to the constitution.

There are certain points in the oral arguments I'd like to comment on, as follows:

1. Oppositors to the BJE MOA claim that the GRP cannot talk peace/negotiate with the MILF if the terms are not within the ambit of the constitution. They refer in particular to the clause itself that seeks to amend the constitution so that it suits/satisfies the BJE MOA. Also, that the President does not have that power, which means she cannot promise what she can't deliver. Fair enough. But then if you would recall, this BJE MOA has been castigated ruthlessly for the mere absence of the term "philippine constitution" which owes itself to the fact the the MILF doesn't recognize our constitution -- precisely because they are a rebel group. And to talk peace with rebel groups means that, as Bong Montessa stressed "peace talks will always be unconstitutional" and similarly articulated by Ibrahim Canana at the MILF website, you have to think "out of the box". Otherwise, you can't talk peace.

Now, amazingly, in today's oral argument, when asked why the MILF was not considered as respondents to the case, Torion argued that "they did not know where to send the copies of the petition and that the MILF openly declared that they did not recognize the Supreme Court" and yes, similarly the constitution. And yet, the associate justices did not say anything about it. No word of disapproval. No counter-statement to the likes of "they must recognize the supreme court" or any other statement to that effect. I just find it odd. Because, to my mind, it meant, they agree that the MILF, being a rebel group, is not bound by the Constitution, and consequently, the SC. Now, if this is acceptable in this argument, why can't it be acceptable in the argument about the BJE MOA being unconstitutional in recognition of this fact? Just asking.

2. In the oral arguments, they say the President does not have power to amend the constitution. The legislative has that power. But in the BJE MOA, as I have read it, there were no claims whatsoever of the MOA itself being self-executory owing to the President's endorsement or approval. The MOA still maintains that enabling laws will have to be passed by the legislative. There were no promises -- only facts. But as we've seen so far, the mere idea of an amendment to the constitution is enough to incur the public's wrath -- politicians and regular "Juans". Garcia is right, "peace is not possible if Christian majority won't compromise". We are pushing our Bangsamoro brothers to the brink of despair. Another possibly good policy that may never materialize all because of PGMA's tainted reputation. This is where approval ratings matter. This is where trust/confidence ratings matter. So, to those saying "to hell with those ratings, they don't matter anyway" -- well, as you have seen, they do matter. And this BJE MOA is one such victim of that. And probably all suceeding policies of this administration will suffer the same fate.

PGMA has expressed a "shift" on strategies by moving discussions and consultations to the "community" -- the stakeholders. Meanwhile, the MILF leaders maintain that they will not renegotiate, further claiming that the <p>I need not elaborate. I'm sure any of you reading this have heard the news -- endless and hopeless as it may seem. Fighting continues in Mindanao. Ambush here. Strafing there. Evacuations here and there. Oral arguments re: unconstitutionality of <b>BJE MOA </b>(which, by the way, has been extended Firday once more, <b>August 29</b>) happened today. <b>Sol. Gen. Devanadera </b>submitted a petition for the <b>SC</b> citing GRP's decision not to sign the MOA, thereby rendering the petition filed against it "moot and academic". Torion, the petitioner's counsel, on the other hand insists on a court decision saying regardless of the <b>BJE MOA</b> being signed or not, SC's ruling is important so as to create a "guideline" for the GRP on it's expected "renegotiation" or "furthering of negotiations" and subsequently assure compliance to the constitution. </p> <p>There are certain points in the oral arguments I'd like to comment on, as follows:</p> <p> <img src="http://adayinthelifeofrj.com/wp-includes/js/tinymce/plugins/wordpress/img/trans.gif" mce_src="http://adayinthelifeofrj.com/wp-includes/js/tinymce/plugins/wordpress/img/trans.gif" alt="" class="mceWPmore mceItemNoResize" title="More..." /> <p>1. Oppositors to the BJE MOA claim that the GRP cannot talk peace/negotiate with the MILF if the terms are not within the ambit of the constitution. They refer in particular to the clause itself that seeks to amend the constitution so that it suits/satisfies the BJE MOA. Also, that the President does not have that power, which means she cannot promise what she can't deliver. Fair enough. But then if you would recall, this BJE MOA has been castigated ruthlessly for the mere absence of the term "philippine constitution" which owes itself to the fact the the MILF doesn't recognize our constitution -- precisely because they are a rebel group. And to talk peace with rebel groups means that, as Bong Montessa stressed "peace talks will always be unconstitutional" and similarly articulated by Ibrahim Canana at the MILF website, you have to think "out of the box". Otherwise, you can't talk peace. </p> <p>Now, amazingly, in today's oral argument, when asked why the MILF was not considered as respondents to the case, Torion argued that "they did not know where to send the copies of the petition and that <i><b>the MILF openly declared that they did not recognize the Supreme Court</b></i>" and yes, similarly the constitution. And yet, the associate justices did not say anything about it. No word of disapproval. No counter-statement to the likes of "they must recognize the supreme court" or any other statement to that effect. I just find it odd. Because, to my mind, it meant, they agree that the MILF, being a rebel group, is not bound by the Constitution, and consequently, the SC. Now, if this is acceptable in this argument, why can't it be acceptable in the argument about the BJE MOA being unconstitutional in recognition of this fact? Just asking.</p> <p> 2. In the oral arguments, they say the President does not have power to amend the constitution. The legislative has that power. But in the BJE MOA, as I have read it, there were no claims whatsoever of the MOA itself being self-executory owing to the President's endorsement or approval. The MOA still maintains that enabling laws will have to be passed by the legislative. There were no promises -- only facts. But as we've seen so far, the mere idea of an amendment to the constitution is enough to incur the public's wrath -- politicians and regular "Juans". Garcia is right, "<b><a href="http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storyPage.aspx?storyId=128871" mce_href="http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storyPage.aspx?storyId=128871">peace is not possible if Christian majority won't compromise</a></b>". We are pushing our Bangsamoro brothers to the brink of despair. Another possibly good policy that may never materialize all because of PGMA's tainted reputation. This is where approval ratings matter. This is where trust/confidence ratings matter. So, to those saying "to hell with those ratings, they don't matter anyway" -- well, as you have seen, they do matter. And this BJE MOA is one such victim of that. And probably all suceeding policies of this administration will suffer the same fate.</p> <p><b>PGMA</b> has expressed a "shift" on strategies by moving discussions and consultations to the "community" -- the stakeholders. Meanwhile, the <b>MILF</b> leaders maintain that they will not renegotiate, further claiming that the <b>BJE MOA </b>is no less than a "done deal". To them, such plans of "renegotiation" would only mean that the GRP will renege on the MOA. They even go as far as asserting that <b><a href="http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080822-156251/Only-way-to-peace-is-to-sign-MOA-AD--MILF-chief-negotiator" mce_href="http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080822-156251/Only-way-to-peace-is-to-sign-MOA-AD--MILF-chief-negotiator">peace will only happen if the <b>GRP</b> signs this MOA</a></b>.</p> <p>All the while, the citizenry of <b>Iligan</b> and other at-risk areas are arming themselves. They even have the government's support through the distribution of 1,000 shotguns. It's more than official -- we are at war with fellow Filipinos. What a tragedy -- not to mention the many repercussions of arming civilians. </p> <p>This fighting has to be stopped. But how? No side seems to be willing to give up or give in.</p> <p><b>PGMA</b> spoke of the need for <b>MILF's</b> "<b>disarmament</b>" and "<b>demobilization</b>" -- without which, we will not "further" the negotiations. MILF, on the other hand, through their spokesperson said that disarmament will only happen as part of a "<b>post-conflict resolution</b>". </p> <p>Both sides remain unfazed. Stalemate.</p> <p>The peace process has now reached an impasse. And unless this is resolved, we don't have the slightest chance of ever achieving the dream of a peaceful, prosperous Mindanao.</p> <p>This time calls for hope. Amidst all these issues, let us not falter at the sight of a roadblock or despair at the sound of chaos. We must not lose sight of the goal. The <b>BJE MOA</b>, however flawed, was designed for this goal. Let not distractions consume us. Let's work on peace. It has always been that and will always be that. Peace will pave the way for development, open door for opportunities, and buoy Mindanao to the realization of its dreams -- to finally live up to its title "the land of promise".</p> <p>Let us talk. Amidst criticism on the BJE MOA -- let us talk. Amidst the rumors of political agenda -- let us talk. Amidst the threat of an all-out war -- let us talk. Let us not cut the lines of communication. Let us not burn bridges.</p> <p>No matter what happens, let us be steadfast. Let's fix our eyes on the prize. Let us fix our eyes on peace. Is there anything more important than that? I can't think of any. Can you?</p> <p><img class="alignleft" src="http://signatures.mylivesignature.com/85704/rjmarmol/sig_1217605896.jpg" mce_src="http://signatures.mylivesignature.com/85704/rjmarmol/sig_1217605896.jpg" border="0" alt="" width="181" height="38" /></p>

Suggested Further Reading:

• The Buck Stops Here
• Perception vs. Reality
• Of BJE MOA-AD, ARMM Polls and Oil Price Updates
• Fragile Peace? Say It Isn’t So.
• Where Do We Go From Here?

Popularity: 1% [?]