Towards the full modernization of Mindanao
By Sen. Bongbong Marcos
Address of Sen. Ferdinand “Bongbong†Marcos Jr.
Philippine Constitution Association
30 June 2015
Philconsa Chairman
Justice Manuel Lazaro;
Philconsa President
Congressman Martin Romualdez;
Members of the Philippine Constitution Association;
Distinguished guests,
Ladies and Gentlemen:
It is both an honor and a privilege to address this assembly of the Philippine Constitution Association, at this particular time when great questions of law and policy engage the nation and when many of our people are embroiled in a debate on the proposed Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) for Muslim Mindanao.
Also, when Justice Lazaro told me that I would be receiving an award for being “the great defender of the Constitution†I found this quite ironic. First, that a non-lawyer would be accorded such a singular and, I must admit, flattering honor. Second, the greater irony is that it is Ferdinand Marcos Jr. that has become the “great defender†of the Cory Constitution! I can almost hear my father looking down upon these proceedings, scratching his head and asking, “How did that happen?â€
I come here from the frontlines of this national debate, which has taken me to many parts of our country, from North to South, as chair of the Senate committee on local government, which has conducted hearings and consultations with our people and stakeholders firsthand – often in the key capitals and towns of our Muslim communities.
The consultations have included our indigenous and Christian communities in Mindanao, as well as other communities in other parts of our country, mindful that their thoughts and feelings on this policy issue are vital to achieving the peace and stability we all desire.
We have even consulted with foreign business groups who have a keen interest in what happens in the South, like the European Chamber of Commerce and the IOC and its members, whose participation and assistance in economic recovery and expansion will help in the successful implementation of our future policy and plans in the South.
The Supreme Court’s shield and sword
My address today will be a report on our consultations, on the progress of our work, on the discussions held, the impressions I’ve had, the conclusions and insights, and the counsel we have received — all of which, when taken together, will help complete the final version of the substitute bill which I plan to submit to Congress upon the opening of our third and final regular session on July 27.
It is fitting that this visit with Philconsa should be an important part of this consultation effort, because your Association, throughout its 53-year history, has been steadfast and unwavering in preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of our Republic.
Central to that mission also is the protection and defense of our governmental trinity – the separation and balance of powers of the three branches of our government – the legislative, the executive and the judicial.
It has been suggested that the exquisite, if precarious balance of power that has kept our ship of state afloat and moving forward rests critically on our independent Supreme Court.
When the President or Congress attempts to weaken that independence by forcing the Judiciary to do the political work of the other two branches, they threaten that balance.
When the intrusion becomes obvious and substantial, even obsessive, it constitutes a clear danger to the nation, because it can dilute the people’s confidence in their Supreme Court. I learned at the feet of a parent who knew the law, that “the people’s confidence is both the court’s shield and its sword.â€
That confidence is clearly reflected in Philconsa’s recent decision to question before the Supreme Court the constitutionality of the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB) and the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro (FAB) that the government hurriedly and somewhat rashly signed with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).
When I saw some of your number on TV – holding the petition you filed in the Supreme Court, I thought to myself, “What a telegenic group of lawyers!†After reading the petition you filed, I told myself, “They’re not only telegenic, they’re right!â€
Your initiative, joined by others, is an inestimable service to the nation, because on these agreements rests the administration’s ambitious enterprise of creating a new Bangsamoro political entity or sub-state. With a favorable resolution from the high court, I see the possibility of our society vaulting over the divisions over this issue.
Because I hear it often used these days, I decided to look up the term “sub-state†in the leading English dictionaries and encyclopedias. I was surprised to discover that the word does not exist.
Each stop in our committee’s consultation effort has been important and significant. Each will have a place in the report that our committee will submit to the Senate plenary. And each will be reflected in the substitute bill that I will submit to Congress and the nation when Congress opens its last regular session on July 27.
In writing the report and crafting the legislation, we are being painstaking and as comprehensive as possible, anxious not to fall into the kind of errors that marred earlier efforts to write an enabling law for autonomy, peace and development for southern Philippines
I will not attempt here a summation of our committee report or a preview of my substitute bill, because my time here is short, and we all have work awaiting us.
What I will do instead is highlight some of the key themes that will be reflected in the report and the draft legislation.
Doing the right thing
As I have endeavored to explain, the object of all our hearings and consultations is to produce the right law and policy for effecting the full cessation of conflict in Mindanao, for ensuring a stable peace, for accelerating the recovery and expansion of Mindanao’s economy, and for planning the long-term development of the South.
As a concept of political science, public policy is a government plan of action to solve a problem that people share collectively and cannot solve on their own. That is not to say that the subject problem is always solved; sometimes the plan can create more difficulties or sometimes even worsen problems.
It’s useful to remember the distinction between domestic and foreign policy. When the problem occurs within the country, the government response is domestic policy. When the problem concerns our relations with other nations, it is foreign policy.
Public policies are usually created by members of Congress in the form of new laws.
The role of Congress in creating and legitimizing policy through its lawmaking is critically important and takes precedence over that of other players.
The President may also create policy, by putting an issue on the public agenda, by including it in his budget proposal, by vetoing a law made by Congress, or by issuing an Executive Order that establishes a new policy or augments an existing one. Executive Orders sometimes can direct profound changes in policy.
Finally, the courts are policymakers as well. When the courts rule on what the government should do or not do, they are clearly taking an active policymaking role.
The fact that all three branches participate in the making of public policy should not confuse us on the primordial responsibility of Congress of lawmaking. It is a responsibility that we legislators must never abdicate. For the lawgiver must always answer when a particular law or policy fails, or worse, cause harm.
Ours is a system not only of separated powers; it is also a system of enumerated powers, meaning that the powers of each branch are limited to those explicitly granted by the constitution.
The point is clearly important because once we examine the problems that have bedeviled the President’s policies and actions on Mindanao, we find what some critics have called the arrogation of powers by the President.
It’s been suggested by some political scientists and scholars that the memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) undertaken by the Macapagal-Arroyo government was a case of thinking “out of the box†in order to establish an alternative process for lasting peace in the South.
By this measure, the CAB and the BBL are not only out of the box thinking; they are in the vacuum of outer space. This is the reason why controversy hounds the Bangsamoro experiment everywhere it turns, and why it finds scant support and little traction in Congress and in public opinion across the nation.
Some key findings at hearings
From our consultations and hearings, which listened not only to stakeholders, but also to key agencies of government and the private sector, I can outline some of our key findings, conclusions and insights, which consequently will be reflected in our committee report and substitute bill.
1. 1. The government peace panel did not consult with all stakeholders. The first of these findings is that in the peace negotiations leading to the FAB and the CAB, the presidential peace adviser and the government peace panel did not consult with all the stakeholders in Mindanao, whose well-being and welfare will be greatly affected by the changes contemplated by the BBL. It stunned entire communities – Muslim as well as lumad and Christian – to find that in the peace negotiations they were regarded as non-existent and non-entities. A particularly egregious example was that the heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu were completely excluded. This is a grievous oversight by the government negotiating panel as the peace process cannot succeed without an understanding of the process by, and the support of, stakeholders such as the Sultanates, the different tribes, LGU’s, the business community, the MNLF, Christian groups and IP’s to name a few.
Furthermore, it came as a surprise to them that the MILF, whom they neither authorized nor recognized as their representatives in the negotiations, were speaking and making decisions on their behalf in that process. It was only upon consultation with those stakeholders that their particular issues and concerns were brought to light.
1. 2. Treating 13 Filipino-Muslim groups as one homogeneous community. It is also a big puzzle why and how 13 Filipino-Muslim groups – were summarily lumped together as one community, to be represented and led by one group, the MILF and Maguindanao group.
These thirteen (13) ethno-linguistic groups are: Iranum, Magindanaon, Maranao, Tao-sug, Samal, Yakan, Jama Mapun, Ka’agan, Kalibugan, Sangil, Molbog, Palawani and Badjao.
Treating them as one homogeneous community is a misrepresentation of their respective identities and cultures. It also glosses over the fact that historically Muslim groups have oftentimes been in conflict with one another because of different concerns and priorities.
Introducing the term “Bangsamoro†is a clever attempt to unify them for separatism; but it is plainly a falsification of reality. For our government to take part in this misrepresentation is a fundamental mistake that has since come to plague the draft BBL.
On learning that they must submit to the leadership and control of the MILF, one Muslim tribal leader remarked, that under the guise of being liberated from imperial Manila, they would instead be subjected to the imperial rule of the MILF.
Linkback:
https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=80313.0