The advances in Science and Technology and the leveling of frontiers and boundaries have all contributed to a greater awareness of the pluralism of faiths, culture and peoples not only in the world but also in our own community.

Yes, we live amid many and diverse faiths, cultures and peoples. Though many and different, we need not be hostile or indifferent to each other. In fact, these diversities invite us to make a shift in our paradigm from hostility to partnership; from indifference to involvement; and from being close to being open to one another.

This relational paradigm teaches us that notwithstanding our differences and diversities we all live in this earth, in fact, in this piece of land. The bottom line is the affirmation that we are together in the journey through life. For better or worse, we are neighbors and we hope and believe that as neighbors, we can be partners in building not only a better world but more so a friendlier community where you and I, and our children live as brothers and sisters.



The first step to this direction is to take our pluralism seriously. The Philippines is NOT a mono religion though there is a strong ubiquitous presence of the Catholic Church. There are different faith traditions in the land. Believers, generally, respect and attempt to be sensitive to each other’s faith tradition, tough there remain some religious communities that glory in attacking other people’s faith traditions. The present spirit that reigns is to recognize our diversities yet seriously seek and experience our “kindredness” in love and service.

Second is to be open to learn not only from each other but more so to live with each other in tolerance. Yes, this is the challenge and the call that our living faiths ask each one to live, that is, to accept, to trust and to live together as neighbors. The imperatives of the two greatest commandments (Love of God and Love of Neighbors) are also the very imperatives of the latest Muslim letter, Common Word, addressed to the Christian leaders of the world.

Third is our faith-commitment to guarantee the rights and dignity of every person regardless of faith, gender, culture and color within our society/community. This commitment is the expression of our devotion to the common good and recognition of the fact that we are all made unto God’s image and likeness.

The basis of this commitment is our belief that all peoples even though they belong to different religions, nations, etc. all form ONE human family, created by the ONE and same God, living in the same world/community, and destined for a common end. The new addition to on-going interreligious dialogue is the common action to preserve and defend our ONE planet and the interconnected life systems.



In interreligious dialogue, there is one word that describes our efforts and endeavors – TRUST! But trust is NOT a universal element in human relations. It has to be slowly, patiently and sometimes painfully built through time.

I fondly remember the late Pope John Paul II when speaking of interreligious dialogue. His life, words and often symbolic gestures speak beautifully of this respect and recognition of the other faith traditions. A very appropriate description is a portion of his address to Muslims at Casablanca, Morocco on 18 August 1985.

“People do not accept their differences.
They do not know each other sufficiently.
They reject those who have not the same civilization.
They refuse to help each other.
They are unable to free themselves from egoism and from self-conceit.
But God created all equal in dignity,
Though different with regard to gifts and talents,
Mankind is a whole where each one has his/her part to play.
The worth of the various peoples and of the diverse cultures must be recognized.
The world is as it were a living organism.
Each one has something to receive from the others and has something to give to them.”

Again in his visit to the Grand Mosque of Damascus (May 2001), the then fragile, ailing Pope reiterated his message of interreligious dialogue between Christianity and Islam in these glowing words:

“It is my ardent hope that Muslim and Christian religious leaders and teachers will present our two great religious communities as COMMUNITIES IN RESPECTFUL DIALOGUE, NEVER MORE AS COMMUNITIES IN CONFLICT”. It is crucial for the young to be taught the ways of respect and understanding, so that they will not be led to misuse religion itself to promote or justify hatred and violence. Violence destroys the image of the Creator in his creatures, and should never be considered as the fruit of religious conviction.”

“Better mutual understanding will surely lead to a more objective and comprehensive knowledge of each other’s religious beliefs at the practical level, to a new way of presenting our two religions NOT IN OPPOSITION, as it happened too often in the past, BUT IN PARTNERSHIP FOR THE GOOD OF THE HUMAN FAMILY.”

“Many serious obstacles remain, yet the first step towards peace must be a steadfast conviction that a SOLUTION IS POSSIBLE WITHIN THE PARAMETER OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS. I appeal once more to all the peoples involved and to their political leader, to recognize that confrontation has failed and will always fail. Only a just peace can bring the conditions needed for the economic, cultural and social development to which the people of the region have a right."



The Oblates of Mary Immaculate (OMI) in Southern Philippines have continued to walk this path of dialogue for nearly 70 years in the whole Archipelago of Sulu and Tawi Tawi and the former empire province of Cotabato. We have produced four witnesses (Bishop Benjamin de Jesus, Frs. Nelson Javellana, Benjamin Innocencio and Reynaldo Roda) who in the face of danger and threats to their personal safety did no flinched in their love, trust and service of the poor regardless of faith and ethnicities. The OMI missions, schools and institutions have espoused the promotion of interreligious dialogue not only in schools and parishes but they, too, have committed to “school” themselves and others in basic concept of religious tolerance, dialogue and partnership in actions and programs for the common good.

No doubt, you and I can spell the difference in making our community a genuine “space” of peace and partnership between and among Christians, Muslims and Indigenous peoples.

‘Imbroglio” is Italian word that means “confusion.” Nowhere is this confusion made more manifest than in the proliferation of acronyms to refer to many structures, institutions and associations in the Southern Philippines. A simple enumeration of these would tell all sundry that there is, indeed, a serious imbroglio in that geographical area.

It is tough to find the correct meanings behind the acronyms like RAG (Regional Autonomous Government), ARMM (Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao), SZOPAD (Special Zone of Peace and Development), SPCPD (Southern Philippines Council for Peace & Development), CA (Consultative Assembly), MNLF (Moro National Liberation Front), MILF (Moro Islamic Liberation Front), ASG (Abu Sayyaf Group), JI (Jama’a Islamiyya), BDA (Bangsamoro Development Authority) and SPDA (Southern Philippines Development Authority).

Mind you, this is only a sampling of what goes on in local and regional arrangements as these structures and institutions continue to mutate. A newcomer to Mindanao would need a glossary of terms to navigate the ocean of acronyms to find his/her way around. As the saying goes, the more changes go in structures and institutions, the more things remain the same.

But the real task is to find a consensus, particularly among Mindanawans and protagonists in the conflict, behind these institutions and organizations. The political imbroglio that ails us is the fact that we, Mindanawans, cannot get our acts together on the issue of governance and structures that the myriad of acronyms symbolize. We remain passionately divided over them! In fact these institutions and organizations are part of the painful political imbroglio that continues to bedevil the legality, unity and efficacy of institutional “accommodation” that these acronyms signify.

This was the tragic comedy that the MNLF Chair, Prof. Nur Misuari, and President Fidel Ramos had to face when they signed the FPA (Final Peace Accord) on Sept. 2, 1996. Though the signing of the peace agreement was heralded with much fanfares and high optimism both in the home front and the international community, they did not last for long. Even before the ink in the agreement dried up, divergent views and differing readings had began to emerge as to the interpretation and understanding of the peace agreements.

From Marcos to the present, every administration has to cope with the complex and highly volatile Southern Mindanao realities. They already have claimed tens of thousands dead and hundreds thousands displaced and the end is not yet in sight. The Government and the MNLF, notwithstanding the Final Peace Agreement remain poles apart. The same can be said of the GRP and the MILF Peace negotiation. Their positions, claims and counter-claims continue to change akin to the shifting sand of the Sahara. What was thought as “possibility of reaching an interim agreement on ancestral domain” few months ago, now, remains elusive and ambiguous as ever.

I believe that the shifting sands, the increasing gap in conflict fault lines coupled by a deep crisis in the national leadership are not fertile grounds for peacemaking.

The establishment of institutions as enumerated above was probably sincere and well-intentioned. But they have all practically “imploded” due to lack of managerial, financial and technical competence and support. Chiefs and leaders of these institutions are caught in a stifling bureaucracy, inadequacy of funds and instability of public policy as government in Manila changes. The “implosion” renders these institutions, basically, dysfunctional and this further deepens the existing imbroglio in Southern Philippines. But what else is new. In fact, people opine that the biggest imbroglio is the national governance.

There is yet, another imbroglio that afflicts us in Mindanao. This has a strong international flavour. For lack of terms, I call this the “multi-donor syndrome” that usually follows or accompanies the peace process, here and abroad. The donor agencies and countries have pledged and spent billions of dollars in development assistance for Mindanao. Where these money go; how they are spent; and who benefit from them are issues and questions that constitute a bigger and more complex imbroglio.

UNDP, USAID, JICA, CIDA, EU, AU, WB, ADB, etc. constitute another set of “undecipherable” acronyms that parallel the imbroglio on the ground. In fact, people are beginning to question whether these development agencies are for real or they simply perpetuate themselves thereby developing a new type of dependency that would require their continued lucrative employment and consultancy. Southern Sudan, Timor Leste, Southern Philippines, Haiti are but few examples of re-construction where concerned citizens are beginning to question the operation, ethics and praxis of these so-called development agencies and financial institutions. No doubt, they are part of the imbroglio in the Southern Philippines, notwithstanding their claimed grants, donations and gift for development. People are beginning to criticize the very development “plan” they are pursuing as being unresponsive to the development needs of Mindanao.

Past and current modalities of development assistance have not had the desired impact on reducing poverty and providing adequate livelihood for a great portion of Mindanao's Christian, Muslim and Lumad populations. With fast dwindling resources available and the deepening poverty situation in Mindanao coupled by growing alienation from the national government should serve as strong “warning” and backdrop to the unintelligible development plan being proffered from the outside for Mindanao’s reconstruction.

The imbroglio that faces us is not solely our creation. We believe that the national government and the so called international donor agencies (that continue to act as our big brothers) have bigger contributions to our imbroglio. In Southern Philippines and else where in the world, they, truly, act as “big” brothers by their bigger offices, bigger vehicles, bigger salaries and bigger fees and bigger contracts. Tsk! Tsk! Tsk!

It is high time to craft an alternative development approach for Mindanao given the present imbroglio and complexities of our problems. In my “peligrination” of devastated areas undergoing re-construction, a “proud rebel” opines the need not only for a new development and reconstruction principle but also a new type of partnership with these so-called donor countries. But the UN and multi-donor countries and donor agencies have their own agenda and though they go by the name “reconstruction”, it never happens on the ground! In fact their operations and witnesses fuel the imbroglio, ambiguity and waste of resources. Me thinks that these development agencies are primarily for the development of their employees, consultants and their so called international partners usually located in the countries where the funds are coming from. Well, altruism is not the rule but an exception in development assistance!

A new paradigm of reconstruction needs to emerge to avoid the usual imbroglio. The first real question we need to ask is the viability of any re-construction work in the existing confused and dysfunctional structures and institutions. Similarly alternative governance is not possible until we have sorted out our imbroglio on the ground. In the final analysis, the problem we are facing is the biblical “no”! We do not “put new wine in an old wine skin”. By doing so, we not only spoil the wine but also burst the old wine skin. The biblical counsel is “to put new wine in a new wine skin.”

In the many “ups and downs” of the peace process in Mindanao, I have coined an “illness” that often afflicts not only the peacemakers but also policy makers. I called this illness “Sisyphus Syndrome. Peace building is akin to the mythical Sisyphus who continues to roll the big rock uphill and upon reaching almost the very top of the hill, the rock rolls down. Sisyphus rolls again the rock uphill and the cycle goes on and on without end. Sisyphus is condemned by the gods to forever roll the rock uphill.

I cannot help but accept Sisyphus as the paradigm in the operational peace process (then and now) in the southern Philippines. In 1986, we thought we were seeing a light at the end of a long tunnel. Post “People Power Revolution President Corazon Aquino made the bold move to meet Prof. Nur Misuari, the leader of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) in Jolo, Sulu. A ceasefire was agreed upon, putting an end to acts of hostilities between the Philippine Government (GRP) and the MNLF. A new peace talks began to resuscitate the 1976 Tripoli Agreement (TA).

Then the country adopted a new Constitution in 1987. The Constitution in Article X enshrines “autonomy” for two “minority” populations – one in the north for the people of the Cordillera and another in the South for Muslim Mindanao. Ah! We said then: this was the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel! No, it was not the end of the tunnel! It was a new opening of yet another tunnel.

Then when Mr. Fidel Ramos was elected President in 1992, he again re-opened the peace process based on the recommendations of the National Unification Commission that conducted a nationwide consultation on “what ails the country”. A new negotiation with the MNLF began for the nth time. Again we thought that a light was, finally, dawning after years of walking in a long tunnel. Our hope was bolstered by the historic signing of the Final Peace Agreement (FPA) between the GRP and the MNLF on September 2, 1996.

Wow! The entire MNLF made a final settlement with the GRP. The MNLF Chair, Nur Misuari, became Governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and Chairman of the two transitional administrative structures, the Southern Philippines Council for Peace and Development (SPCPD) and the Consultative Assembly, two transitional mechanisms that would coordinate the peace and development activities in the newly created special zone of peace and development (SZOPAD).

But when the euphoria settled, the promised peace and development were nowhere to be found. The light at the end of a long tunnel never followed the spark that was seen in 1996. The spark was a signal of yet another tunnel opening.

The Estrada Administration succeeded Ramos. It was a presidency with a lot of fanfares – a showbiz style of presidency. This time it was a Hollywood cowboy against the “Indians” (now referred as the First Nations) “ala” Clint Eastwood with a smoking gun. It would, forever, be remembered for its “all-out-war policy” that was waged by the known triumvirate composed of super “hawks” – Erap Estrada-Orly Mercado-Angie Reyes. The famous Erap’s slogans were: “Surrender your arms”; “Surrender your terroristic activities’ and “Accept the Constitution”. All the MILF camps were overran and Erap and his “cowboys” engaged in a tragic comedy of flag raising rituals in all the MILF camps that included a photo “ops” of soldiers planting the flag in the Butig Mosque’s minaret and a “pork”-feasting cum beer in Camp Abu Bakr.

The all out war policy displaced more than 60 thousand inhabitants in all areas caught in the fighting. But that policy did not bring the intended peace. In fact, it simply dispersed the MILF into smaller units and the disappearance of physical “camps”.

As in the myth of Sisyphus, the “big boulder”, that is, the peace process went rolling down the hill for the nth time.

Then came the Gloria Presidency. She tried to pick the pieces of the peace process. That was in 2001. Her Administration signed with the MILF yet another agreement (the Tripoli Agreement of 2001) that defined the “roadmap” for the resumption of the peace talks. Both the GRP and the MILF panels believed that they were seeing light at the end of the very long tunnel. Yet 10 years of negotiation, the initial spark was not the light. Ambiguity, lack of political will, and road map for peace are nowhere to be found!

Eleven year after the Final Peace Agreement with the MNLF and ten years of negotiation with the MILF, we still find ourselves lacking not only peace and development. Worst, we find ourselves with no forward movement in the peace front. Like Sisyphus, we are finding ourselves again going downhill. And hoping against hope that we can still muster a new energy to pick up the boulder and roll it again uphill!

Peace! I am happy that a number of people have participated in the discussion of the introductory article published in the maiden issue of Mindanao Front. The views and opinions shared are very encouraging to me that inspire me to exert every effort in making this blog a real platform of debates and discussion of issues confronting Mindanao.

There are several issues and concerns that pose great challenges both for the peoples of Southern Philippines and the National stakeholders, particularly the Philippine Government. The responses to these issues and concerns will shape character and the future of both the Mindanawans and the national leadership.

The first concern that we have chosen to address is the issue of Peace. The years (centuries) of armed conflict in Mindanao have produced a ton-load of negative stereotyping and a thick “invisible” wall that separates not only Mindanao and the rest of the Philippines but also between and among the various peoples of Mindanao. Sadly to note that these negative stereotypes continue to characterize the “inter” as well as “intra” ethnic relations in the country.

Negative stereotypes are bad; but if they have become the prism through which people, especially national leadership, see, judge and act on the issues of peace and justice, then, they are unjust and they also disempower peoples, especially the minority.

The many faces of these stereotypes are familiar enough. But they ugly faces were unmasked during the so-called “all-out war” in the year 2000. The Muslims, in general, are called by all kinds of names and adjectives. They were broadcasted and written in their crudity, except with few exceptions. And these exceptions were drowned by government propaganda led by no less than the President of the Republic (Joseph Estrada), the then Secretary of Defense (Orlando Mercado) and Chief of Staff (Angelo Reyes). Alas to the various Christian Churches that had remained silent amid the negative stereotype traditions notwithstanding the official policy of dialogue and commitment to Justice & Peace of the Vatican and the World Council of Churches.

This cultural “baggage” is so paralyzing that it blinds the majority to look at the political and economic issues confronting the peoples of Mindanao more objectively and rationally as we continue to search for formula that would serve the greater common good and the imperatives of justice and peace.

To date the Peace Process in Southern Philippines remains very “hot” and controversial. In fact, it divides not only the people in government but also the peoples of Mindanao. The “operative word”, I believe, is the word “process”. This is the key to the understanding of the many “up’s and down’s in our several attempts to draw the “road map” to lasting peace in Mindanao, in particular, and the Philippines, in general. The whole search for peace, including peace agreements (from ceasefire to the final agreements), must always be seen as a continuing dynamic PROCESS. We must preserve and defend this “continuum” from the negotiation to signing of the agreement and to the actual implementation of the agreement. In fact, the most difficult phase in the peace process is not in the search for peace formula but in the actual implementation of the negotiated and agreed formula that includes among other the reconstruction not only of the region but the lives of individuals and communities.

The classic case of failure to grasp the concept of dynamic peace process is the failure to undertake a reconstruction program following the Final Peace Agreement forged by the Philippine Government (GRP) and the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) on September 02, 1996. It never dawned on the major stakeholders that the signing of the 1996 Peace Agreement was just the beginning of the long and difficult journey to peace. The Peace Agreement needed to be translated into concrete programs and plans not only for development that would sustain peace but also governance that would truly empower people in local affairs, specifically on basic issues (like land, identity, development and self-determination) that affect them most.

Everybody claims that the FPA speaks of “intense focus of peace and development initiatives” beginning 1996. But the letters of the agreement and government’s claims must be backed by actual budgetary allocations else they are simply rhetoric or clanging cymbals that make a lot of noise. People were looking for the so-called peace “dividends” translated in terms of job, infrastructures, development, and greater access to basic social services (health and education) among others. The actual value of that peace agreement should be weighed by a wholesale “increase” in the budgetary allocation not only for the ARMM but also for the entire Special Zone of peace and Development (SZOPAD). By undertaking the usual “retail” development program makes the post conflict reconstruction a big joke. Reconstruction is never undertaken by retail basis! It is characterized by an immediate and wholesale package of deliverable goods, services and infrastructures that shape the peace alternative and inspire new hope after years of conflict, neglect and destruction.

After eleven years have gone, the promised peace and development initiatives for the SZOPAD and the ARMM have remained promises for the most part. This is the major reason why people in the southern Philippines perceive the 1996 Final Peace Agreement as failure. Worst, we see the GRP or the MNLF engage in finger pointing match blaming each other for the failures. Perhaps, the closest to truth is the fact that all stakeholders but specifically the two protagonists and the Peace broker (the Organization of Islamic Conference) have defaulted in seriously pursuing the full implementation of the 1996 Peace Accord.

UNDP came out with its own assessment of the implementation of the 1996 Peace Agreement between the GRP and the MNLF. The UNDP Mission Report identified two core issues that are involved in the Southern Philippines question. The first is the issue of autonomy and the second is the issue of developmental assistance. Failure to adequately address these two issues gives new life to an expiring insurgency in Southern Philippines. Such an historic mistake is all the more lamentable because it could easily be avoided. The Philippine government and the OIC failed to bank roll what was a relatively low cost Peace Formula in Mindanao that is already been negotiated and only need be specified in terms acceptable to the relevant parties.

The failure to deliver the promised peace and development in the SZOPAD only strengthens the increasing disenchantment among the Bangsamoro in the peace process. There is no doubt that the failure of the 1996 Peace Accord between the GRP and the MNLF impacts the conduct and the shape of the on going peace talks between the GRP and the MILF.

Given the general default vis-à-vis the 1996 Peace Agreement, the likelihood of inking a new peace agreement with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front is rather slim. The best scenario, at this stage, is the possible inking of “interim agreement on ancestral domain” as the negotiation continues. But this scenario is also becoming slimmer by the day as the list of “non-negotiable” increases. And the already very difficult search for a workable formula is further complicated by a presidency whose moral authority, credibility and political will are almost nil.

Yet, our commitment to Peace, Dialogue, and Reconciliation needs to be sustained. With the great crisis that has hit the national leadership, the “navigator” has become dysfunctional and “north star” of our peace compass is “busted”. There is a real fear that the “peace boat” would flounder in these turbulent waters. More than ever, our people need a credible leadership to provide the strong mooring to wade the water of long-standing prejudices and conflicts, and the all encompassing poverty, neglect and powerlessness.