MOA – Quo Vadis?

The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on the Ancestral Domain Aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 is supposed to be signed Tuesday, the 5th of August 2008. As in all peace agreements, the signing of the MOA is the easy part notwithstanding the protests and the many discordant voices from “foul” to “sell out”. The formidable task for the Philippine government (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) is to win public support for the accord that would eventually lead to a “successful” plebiscite in all the areas to be added to the core territory of the Bangsamoro (the present ARMM plus the six municipalities of Baloi, Munai, Nunungan, Pantar, Tagoloan and Tangcal in Lanao del Norte). To appreciate the MOA, one has to understand the struggle of the MILF in the name of the Bangsamoro peoples. In bold stroke, the peace process between the GRP and the MILF is geared towards solving a "sovereignty- based" conflict. The “non-understanding” of this kind of conflict is, precisely, the source of the many of the confusion or a lack of understanding about the nature of the struggle of the Bangsamoro. It is a truism that the solution to conflict depends on the type of conflict. There is no “ready- made” and “fit-all” solution to conflicts. The way to resolve the Bangsamoro question entails answering a sovereignty-based struggle that is at the root of their aspiration and dream as a distinct nation. The MOA on Ancestral Domain Aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 is, definitely, a step towards answering to that sovereignty question. The title "MOA on Ancestral Domain Aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001” is misleading. The MOA is not just about "ancestral domain" in the ordinary sense of the word. The MOA creates the very prism, the framework and the mechanism to realize their dream and aspiration. The MOA will be difficult to understand, simply because it introduces a new and unfamiliar paradigm in looking at the issues involved in the peace process. In the past, the peace negotiations were done and approached by insisting on the Constitution as if it were written in stone. It is no accident that the peace negotiators of the past had to negotiate within the “box”, that is, the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence. Atty. Camilo Montesa of the Institute for Autonomy and Governance, a Cotabato-based Think Tank, narrated to the Kusog Mindanaw Group the genesis of the new paradigm as used in the negotiation with the MILF beginning December 2006. The new paradigm is based on the concept of "earned sovereignty" as a way out of the intractable positioning of the parties. The new paradigm had the following three stages:

Stage 1: Shared sovereignty. The GRP and the MILF shall agree on an initial stage of shared sovereignty, whereby the Philippine State and soon-to-created sub-state, Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) will jointly exercise some sovereign authority powers and functions over a defined territory in Mindanao (with the present ARMM territory as the core). Stage 2: Institution building. During the period of shared sovereignty and prior to the determination of final political status, the sub-state BJE, with the assistance of the international community, undertakes to construct new institutions for self-government, or even modify present autonomy arrangements, e.g. ARMM. Stage 3: Future determination of the final political status. In some future time, the relationship between the GRP and the BJE will be determined by the Bangsamoro people themselves directly. Most probably the status will be determined by a referendum conducted by international third parties, i.e. the United Nations.

The main flaws of the otherwise a very good paradigm are basic which could have been addressed easily by government while negotiating with the MILF. The paramount flaw is the absence or utter lack of consultation of stakeholders, including Christian leaders, indigenous peoples in Mindanao, and peace advocates themselves. This flaw contravenes the very essence of any peace process which is participative of the stakeholders. The participative aspect of any process can NOT be overemphasized since this should lead to a regional and national consensus on the peace formula. The second flaw is the lack of transparency and thus the lack of accountability in the whole process. It is rather very tragic that a good paradigm is now being “torpedoed” on the basis of fundamentals (consultation and transparency) that could have been easily addressed. The same fundamentals are required in the upcoming negotiations on the Comprehensive Compact (or Final Peace Agreement). The third flaw is the fact that the government negotiating peace with the MILF is at its lowest ebb. The social capital and the credibility of Government are busted. For a peace process to bring to a successful conclusion will require a very high social capital and credibility that this Government sorely lacks. Government has to do a lot of “selling”, “cajoling” and “convincing”, especially so when the waters the Parties have navigated in coming up with the MOA are deep and little known. For this very reason, Government should have walked the extra mile in making sure that the stakeholders are on board. The way Government negotiated the MOA would appear that it will NOT deliver on its commitments. Thus I have made observations that point to the seeming “bad faith” of government in the negotiation of the MOA. In an earlier forum, I have raised the issue of Government’s real motive in coming up with this MOA knowing fully well that it cannot deliver. Is it simply a feather in its cap and feather it shall remain…? Or is this a plan to use the MOA for something more “sinister” like perpetuating itself beyond 2010 through charter change? What is the MOA? By the GRP-MILF MOA on ancestral domain according to Atty. Camilo Miguel Montesa, Executive Director of the Institute for Autonomy and Governance (IAG), the Philippine government agrees to:

- Recognize the Bangsamoro people as “distinct from the rest of the national communities;” - Grant the Bangsamoro people their own “distinct territory;” - Grant the Bangsamoro pople their own “government;” and, - Concede international recognition to the Bangsamoro people.

Who are the Bangsamoro? The Bangsamoro people refer to “those who are natives or original inhabitants of Mindanao and its adjacent islands including Palawan and the Sulu archipelago at the time of conquest or colonization and their descendants whether mixed or full native blood.” Spouses and descendants, including the Lumads, he said, are also classified as Bangsamoro “unless they choose otherwise.” “They are the ‘First Nation’ with defined territory and with a system of government having entered into treaties of amity and commerce with foreign nations,” Montesa said. Bangsamoro territory Under the MOA, the Bangsamoro territory comprises the following areas:

- the present Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM); - the municipalities of Baloi, Munai, Nunungan, Pantar, Tagoloan, and Tangkal in the province of Lanao del Norte, which voted for inclusion in the ARMM during the 2001 plebiscite; - additional geographic areas in the provinces of Sultan Kudarat, Lanao del Norte, and North Cotobato, “subject to plebiscite.”

Montesa said that under the MOA, the Bangsamoro homeland did “not form part of the public domain.” Thus, it is “not within the jurisdiction of the Philippine government.” The Bangsamoro homeland, he added, “encompasses ancestral communal and customary lands, maritime, fluvial and alluvial domains as well as all natural resources therein that have inured or vested ancestral rights on the basis of native title.” Bangsamoro government The Bangsamoro territory will be governed by the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE). Montesa said the “relationship between the Philippine government and the BJE shall be associative characterized by shared authority and responsibility with a structure of governance based on executive, legislative, judicial and administrative institutions with defined powers and functions.” The BJE’s purpose is to “establish a system of governance suitable and acceptable to them as a distinct dominant people.” Montesa said the public still does not know about the MOA. He said peace will not work if people are not informed about the agreement and why it should be supported. The MOA is expected to encounter rough sailing right after its initialing. North Cotobato, Iligan City, Zamboanga City are now raising their loud protests over the MOA and accusing the Arroyo government for lack of consultation and transparency. They claim that the MOA will require several other steps, including charter change and another plebiscite “only to face stumbling blocks along the way.” They warn the government is courting trouble by signing the MOA, especially when the leaders themselves are not aware of the content and the process of the MOA.