More than seventy years ago, the late missionary bishop Luis del Rosario, SJ heard of the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate that has been known in the Church as specialists in the most difficult missions.

The bishop was thinking of his frontier territories down south also known as the Moro Provinces – the empire province of Cotabato and there entire archipelago of Sulu.

This discovery prompted him to visit the OMI General House in Rome during his ad limina visit to the Holy Father. He spoke of the most difficult missions and the dangers of Cotabato and Sulu that melted the heart of the OMI Vicar General.

In 1939, the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, or OMI for short, accepted the challenge to mission in Sulu and Cotabato (as big as the entire central Luzon).

The first batch of the OMI Missionaries arrived in Manila on the 25th September of the same year after more than 40 days of boat travel from New York.

The second batch arrived a month after. The 7 OMI pioneers coming from USA were only given a week to pack their bags and sail for the Philippines.

None of them knew where the Philippines was, thus after their talk with their superior, they scampered to the library to search for information about the Philippines.

The seven pioneers became legends in Cotabato and Sulu. They were Frs. Gerard Mongeau (Superior of the new Philippine Mission), Francis McSorley, George Dion, Emile Bolduc, Egide Beaudoin, Joseph Boyd and Cuthbert Billman.

In OMI history, these pioneers were also known as the ‘Magnificent 7’ of the OMI Mission in the Philippines.

Fr. Gerard Mongeau, who became the first bishop of the empire province of Cotabato and Sulu, became known not only for establishing parishes and Notre Dame Schools in the empire province of Cotabato but for his innovative social action projects and media ministry.

Fr. Francis McSorley became a friend of General Paulino Santos and together planned the settlement of South Cotabato.

Where General Santos established his new municipality, Fr. McSorley established the parish and the school.

And later when Fr. McSorley became the first bishop of Sulu and Tawi-Tawi, he began his deep friendship with Moro leaders and developed the Notre Dame College of Jolo as first rate tertiary education for the Muslims.

Fr. George Dion, who also became bishop of Sulu, was associated with the first Catholic commercial broadcast media in the Philippines. His name was so much linked to DXMS (Cotabato), DXND (Kidapawan), DXMM (Jolo) and DXGD (Bongao). He also became director of Radio Veritas.

Fr. Cuthbert Billman was the writer in the group.

He immediately got involved in the National Catholic Paper, the Sentinel, and Commonweal.

He was responsible for the training of young journalists, the likes of Max Soliven, Emil Jurado, and Nelly Sindayen. These journalists were so well trained that they, too, got Fr. Cuthy’s mannerism and colorful expletives.

Fr. Billman was the founder of the first local newspaper in Mindanao, the Mindanao Cross that began printing in 1948, and the Sulu Star.

Fr. Joseph Boyd was the great liaison and procure man for the mission. He stayed in the Diocese of Manila and became a close friend to Archbishop Michael O’Doherty and his young Secretary, Mons. Rufino Santos.

Fr. Boyd was able to secure the pastoral responsibility from the Diocese of the former ‘friar’ land called Grace Park (a name taken from the Archbishop’s title, ‘His Grace’) north of Manila.

Fr. Emile Bolduc became the first Oblate Pastor in Sulu. He became famous not for his construction and projects but for his prayer life and spirituality.

He also became pastor in Grace Park and from there moved to the OMI Novitiate to become the towering symbol of religious and missionary life to young Filipino Oblates in formation.

At his funeral, Archbishop Mongeau gave credit to Fr. Bolduc for the success and the achievements of the OMI missions in Cotabato and Sulu. To the pioneers, Fr. Bolduc was the soul of the mission through his prayers and hours before the Blessed Sacrament.

There was not much said about the 7th pioneer, Fr. Egide Beaudoin.

He became the first Oblate Pastor in the whole territory now known as North Cotabato based in Midsayap. All the pioneers were interned at the UST Concentration Camp throughout World War II until the liberation of Manila in 1946. The harsh conditions of the concentration camp wrought havoc to his health that he had to go back to the US for recuperation.

They were actually three waves of OMI pioneers to mission in Cotabato and Sulu.

The first wave arrived in September and October 1939.

The second wave of seven came a year after in September 1940 (Frs. George Baynes, Edward Gordon, Emile Laquerre, Joseph Quinn, John Sheehan, Paul Drone and Bro. Michael Braun).

The third and last wave of pioneers consisted of four OMIs from the US Irish Province, and arrived in September 1941, few months before the bombing of Pearl Harbor (Frs. James Burke, Edward McMahon, Robert Sullivan & Bernard Clancy).

Not much credit and focus were given to the second and third waves and their names are hardly remembered yet they, too, were giants in the missions in Sulu and Cotabato.

In fact, the first blood shed for the mission belonged to these last two waves. Frs. Paul Drone, Edward McMahon and Bro. Michael Braun were beheaded by the Japanese during the war.

Seventy years ago, the Oblates of Mary Immaculate dared to accept the Church mission in Cotabato and Sulu. Through the years, the OMI’s have never been lacking in courage and generosity in building these frontier territories.

They have become all sorts to all people – builders, carpenters, farmers, educators, pastors and peacemakers.

The OMI Mission in 1939 has now become a robust Province that sends missionaries to Japan, Thailand, Korea, and China in Asia; Bolivia and Argentina in Latin America; and Canada and US in North America.

The OMIs have had their share of martyrs in their 70 years in the Philippines. The first martyr was election-related.

Fr. Nelson Javellana and his volunteers of the first Philippine movement for clean elections were ambushed near Tambunan, Cotabato on November 3, 1970.

Three martyrs shed their blood in Sulu and Tawi-Tawi – Bishop Benjamin de Jesus on February 4th, 1997, Fr. Benjamin Inocencio on December 28th, 2000 and Fr. Jesus Reynaldo Roda on January 15th, 2008.

Though painful and sorrowful, the OMIs take pride in their martyrs who paid the ultimate price for the values and beliefs close to their hearts.

They were not brave men, but because of the love for their people and the trust in God, they were able to muster enough courage to silence the fears in their hearts.

Today, as the OMIs celebrate the 70th anniversary of their presence in the Philippines, specifically in the remote islands of Sulu and Tawi-Tawi archipelago, they recognize their mission partners and friends as they look back with thanksgiving for what God has wrought through their various ministries.

They pray that God will continue to journey with them as they dare to move forward.

Everybody is gearing up for the resumption of the peace talks between the GRP and the MILF. Some say that the talks will take place the week post Ramadhan or early October.

Whichever is the case, the people on the ground are watching for signals of the impending resumption with renewed hope as they await eagerly for this to take place soon.

There are several questions they would like to ask on the eve of this impending resumption of peace talks.
The first question is the issue of the Internally Displaced Persons (IDP).

While the SOMO [Suspension of Military Operations] and the SOMA [Suspension of Military Action] generally hold and the IDPs are relatively experiencing ‘peace,’ the primary question behind their minds is the rebuilding of their homes and livelihood in places of their origin.

No doubt, most of the temporary shelters provided by multi-donors during the crisis look much better than the homes destroyed or abandoned in their remote places. Yet, the critical issue is livelihood.

Their continued stay in the ‘temporary’ settlement areas means that their agricultural farms are abandoned.

They can go back to the places of origin when ‘peace’ is more or less ensured by the two protagonists in the peace talks.

Some had sold their working animals and rebuilding their livelihood and homes would take a lot of assistance and assurance both from the LGU and military.

But in the long run, the return to their farmlands will be the preferable option to remaining in the temporary shelter located along the national highways or in new semi-urbanized towns.

The former would mean literally rebuilding their homes and farm, while the latter would mean continued dependence on aid and become the new ‘urban poor’ in these town centers that provided the ‘temporary shelters.’

The second major question is directly addressed to the conduct of the peace process.

The people continue to ask whether with the resumption of the peace talks, there will be guarantees for transparency, consultation, and accountability.

The three major stakeholders – the LGUs, the IPs, and the private sector – raise the issue of more than transparency and consultation but participation in the peace process.

The lessons of the MOA-AD had been traumatic experience for them that they are on ‘guard’ and they will measure the peace process on the basis of the above.

The present Chair of the GRP Peace panel negotiating gives the assurance of transparency and consultations, particularly of the LGUs and the IPs within the territorial coverage of the talks.

In fact, Ambassador Rafael Seguis has been visiting and holding talks with the governors and the mayors of the affected provinces and cities, including the leadership of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.

With the various consultations, round table discussions, and focus group discussions on the ground, both the GRP and the other stakeholders, including the MILF and the MNLF may, hopefully, get the real pulse of the people whom they all claim to represent.

The third question post MOA-AD is the ‘magic’ formula that may shape the relations between the Bangsamoro and the national government without ‘walking’ through the constitutional ‘flaws’ enumerated in Supreme Court Decision.

While all these concerns may sound legalistic, the real crux of the matter is the willingness of the major stakeholders in Mindanao and in the national level to agree to a formula that is based on TRUST and on our cherished principles and values.
I consciously put the word ‘magic’ to the formula to describe the paradigm of modus vivendi for Muslims, Christians, and Indigenous peoples.

There is, yet another difficulty in arriving at the said ‘magic formula’ and that is the issue of a common platform for the various ‘gate keepers’ of the Bangsamoro people.

The three more prominent claimants to speak for and in behalf of the Bangsamoro peoples are the MNLF, the MILF, and the traditional leaders who now have almost complete control of the LGUs in places where the Muslims are the majority population.

Some of my friends do tease me that the search for such a ‘magic formula’ is akin to the search of the Golden Fleece.

The fourth question is the issue of facilitator of the peace process.

Malaysia is the present ‘facilitator’ of the peace talks between the GRP and the MILF.

The Philippine government has made known to the Malaysian Government that there is a growing perception and cry that Malaysia is partisan to MILF and it is not neutral, because of the Sabah issue.

At this stage, it is good to make specific distinction that the role of Malaysian government in the talks is one of facilitation and NOT mediation, though in the ordinary use these two words are often confused or ambiguous.

The MILF has a vote of confidence in the Malaysian facilitation.

The Philippine government welcomes a broader facilitation involving other countries.

For the resumption of the peace talks, Malaysia remains the ‘facilitator.’

There can also be a distinction between the government of Malaysia and the person actually doing the facilitation. I thought that the objections may be against the person of Datu Othman, a Minister in the Prime Minister Office of Malaysia.

But judging from my attendance of the Senate public hearing held in Zamboanga City in the last week of August, it appears that the objection is on Malaysia also.

The fifth question is the issue of international ‘guarantors.’

Lately, the term officially being used is ‘international contact group’ or ICG. Are they simply international ‘friends’ of the peace process? There are varying positions on the issue.

No doubt, more discussion and debate are needed to arrive at a common understanding of the ICG or ‘guarantors.’

This issue is important to understand in order to remove the suspicion of ‘foreign ‘interventions in the peace process.
In our globalized world, peacebuilding as well as reconstruction are not domestic issues.

Worldwide, peacebuilding and reconstruction are affairs of all.

The peace process is not something isolated in the southern Philippines.

NO! It is a local issue, no doubt! But it is also a NATIONAL and REGIONAL as well. In fact, it is also an international issue hence the presence of the multi donor countries, the UN in the work of relief and reconstruction.

I am happy that the prospect of resumption of the peace talks is now real.

In fact, you can now smell in the air. I see this as an important ‘grace’ and ‘blessing’ of the Ramadhan. There are so many ambiguities on the ground.

While there are still remaining few mechanisms, particularly the CCCH and the BDA, that are still in place, their terms of reference need to be reviewed; and definitely there is a need of injecting new dynamism and blood in the process.

I am confident that the MOA-AD has brought home some hard lessons that should guide the paths of the peace process on what is achievable, at least in our own lifetime.

The willingness of the protagonists to go back to the negotiating table inspires confidence.

It will not be easy, definitely!

We pray that we shall find a formula that is a balance between the demands of the constitution and a magic that inspires confidence that whatever agreement is achieved in the future will be, in some degree, honored and kept.

Alignment of political forces is shaping up and the playing field is becoming crowded by the day. Everybody seems to enjoy projecting himself/herself as the hope of the motherland.

Though there are positive developments in the playing field of candidates, the electoral system by which we will elect leaders of this country remains very shaky.

To date, the automated electoral system or AES is the chosen mode by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to use in the May 2010 elections.

The contract has been signed with Smartmatic, Inc. and its local partner to not only to deliver the machines (Optical Mark Reader or OMR) but also provide and train personnel to run the machines.

Though there is a standing petition in the Supreme Court to nullify the contract on the grounds of non compliance with the existing computerization law of elections, the issuance of the ruling on the matter is anybody’s guess.

Against the AES mode of electoral processes is the Open Electoral System or the OES.

The main contention of the proponents of this system is the limited preparation, shortness of time, the staggering cost and the lack of personnel to manage the machines, among others.

The OES camp would go for a partial computerization of the May 2010 elections. This would mean we still go manual in the precincts, yet the canvass and transmission will be computerized.

Until today even after the Comelec’s signing of the contract with Smartmatic, the AES and OES continue to be loggerheads.

I am no expert in the two systems yet, when briefed on both systems, I do not see that this should be a case of an either/or… AES or OES!

I see the two systems as complimentary if only the ‘faces’ behind the two modes would be able to distance themselves from the seeming colliding modes of electoral systems.

For the May 2010 elections under the AES, Smartmatic will deliver 80,000 OMR machines and field them in 42,000 voting centers nationwide.

You would need at least 42,000 OMR technicians to be fielded in all voting centers. The Department of Science and Technology (DOST) will certify each OMR machine before fielding them in voting centers.

Many consider the simple delivery certification of 80 thousand machines coupled by fielding and training of 42 thousand technicians as a logistical nightmare.

The other nightmare associated with AES is the real possibility of great or gargantuan voters’ error beyond the tolerable limit during the actual elections that would put in doubt the ‘winners’ in May 2010.

The size of the ballot, the number of names in the ballots, the small oval space to be filled by the voters, and the lack of familiarity by voters in the new election mode are real factors for voters’ error in the actual date of elections.

What is the tolerable voters’ error? Is it 20 percent or 30 percent? In the real score, a 20 percent or 30 percent of voters’ error nationwide is a wide margin?

We have barely nine months before Election Day.

The 80,000 OMR machines are still to be delivered.

The DOST has, to date, nothing to certify.

Whether DOST has the capacity to do in a limited period is yet another debatable issue.

Smartmatic under the Comelec’s supervision still has to get contractors to recruit and train 42,000 technicians.

In the meantime, Comelec still has to educate and familiarize the voters on the new system.

At this stage, I cannot simply imagine that this would all be possible.

The either/or option is truly mind boggling, to say the least or ‘nightmarish’ at its worst.

However, a combination of AES and OES may still be possible at this stage to have credible and relatively ‘fast’ elections in May 2010.

But the peoples behind the systems are at loggerheads.

It may be possible if we remove the ‘faces’ associated with the two systems.

We all need to be concerned, because the specter of failure of elections becomes a real possibility.

The argument that OMR has already been tested in the last ARMM elections in 2007 is a debatable issue.

The machine supplier is NOT the same; the program to be used may not be the same; the number of names in the ballots is a big difference.

In the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), people were only voting for one Governor, one Vice Governor, and three Assemblymen per districts.

In the actual contest, there were practically few names in all the offices ‘contested’ since there was actually ‘no contest’ in real terms.

The law states that the system is to be piloted in at least two provinces and two cities.

The other issue involved is the fact that the electoral program needs to be vetted by interested parties. How is this done and who are the ‘interested parties’?

I join the call that the Senate before it concludes its present session and before it goes on recess before May 2010 elections must elect a Senate President that is not among the expiring 12 senators.

In case of failure of elections in May 2010, everybody becomes ‘illegals,’ except for the barangay chairs and council and the 12 senators who cannot elect a Senate President nor come to a proper session for the lack of quorum.

The 12 senators with no quorum is ‘inutile’. Oh what a nightmare!