GMANews.TV - Jun Mercado Blog

All-out war in Mindanao

Ten years ago on March 21st, former President Joseph Estrada declared the all-out war policy against the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).

The alleged basis for the said policy was the occupation of the Narciso Ramos highway by the MILF, which was a direct affront to the AFP [Armed Forces of the Philippines] and the Republic of the Philippines.

Prior to this declaration, the peace panels of both the GRP [Government of the Republic of the Philippines] and the MILF were trying to craft a win-win formula that would be satisfactory to both protagonists.

On the 20th of March, 2000, they came up with a solution that would entail the repositioning of the MILF forces about two kilometers away from the length of the Narciso Ramos Highway and the PNP would be in charge of the checkpoints along the said highway.

The formula was never tried.

On the early morning of the 21st, the AFP mounted ground and aerial assaults against all the MILF positions along the Narciso Ramos Highway.

It was a bloody war that was characterized by rituals of flag raising and feasting at every MILF camp bombed and taken by the AFP.

Hundreds of thousands were displaced as the ugly face of war unfolded.

The gap between the protagonists deepened and the destruction simply galvanized the will to continue the fight.

The all-out war policy never solves the problem of the MILF.

The Estrada War displaced the MILF from their camps but it never wrote ‘finis’ to the Moro fighters. In fact, the MILF simply withdrew from their camps and went deeper into the forests and the Liguasan Marsh.

The all-out war is a ‘quick fix’ by the Estrada administration to the MILF issue.

Yet, lessons from past engagements tell that in any war of insurgency, there is no such thing as a ‘quick fix’ or a ‘short cut’ solution.

A lasting peace among major protagonists is never won by war.

Peace is a product of long and participative negotiation that leads to a political settlement that is owned by the major stakeholders.

There is no such thing as a quick fix to the problem of insurgency.

There is no such thing also as ‘instant’ agreement to provide solution to a problem that involves not only of insurgency but also of shattered social cohesion over deeply contested issues like ancestral domain and self-determination.

It is rather weird that as we behold the futility and insanity of the all-out war policy declared by former Estrada ten years ago, the same guy who now aspires to become President of the Republic continues to mouth the same old policy as the cornerstone of his peace agenda.

He thought then the war policy actually boosted his acceptance rating in the year 2000 when his government was becoming infamous for his notorious midnight cabinet meetings and houses of his many spouses.

I dread that the same thought does enter his mind.

His tough stand and his openly declared all-out war policy vis-à-vis the MILF make him a real ‘macho’ to court the votes of the so-called war constituency and the people who believe in instant solution.

Sometimes, it has hard to believe that people believe that an all-out war policy is a solution to the problem in Mindanao.

But strangely enough, there are people who root for the candidates who espouse the said doctrine. They actually believe that by killing all the insurgents and burn all their camps, peace would ensue.

The problems of insurgency, whether MNLF or MILF or NDF, are rooted not on warriors that come and go, but on valid and legitimate grievances.

Political settlements through peace negotiations seek to address these grievances without creating new ones.

In the world, there are many long and protracted peace processes.

Foremost is the Israel-Palestinian question.

In fact, the lack of any progress in the said peace process is cited as one of the basis for the growing extremism in Islam.

Can the same be said in Southern Philippines?

The mainstream Muslim population and the two liberations fronts that seek to be their ‘guardians’ belong to moderate Islam.

The so-called extremists like al-Qaeda, ASG [Abu Sayyaf Group] and JI [Jemaah Islamiyah] are the minority though often they do hijack the media hook, line, and sinker.

It is refreshing to remember that the vast majority of Muslims in the South and the North and everywhere in the world are moderates.

They eke out a daily living and try hard to send their kids to good schools. They desire to live in peace like any decent family regardless of ethnicity and religion.

The real fear comes when this moderate block becomes agitated by a policy like all-out war. It is a policy that is best described as narrow, shallow, and hollow!

But in reality, the whole persona of Erap and his program of governance echo the same description.

Ten years ago, the whole nation was a victim of the narrow, shallow, and hollow all-out war policy.

Come May 10 elections, we hope that the electorate has learned their lessons.

God forbid that Mindanao would see yet another bout of an all-out war policy!

GRP-MILF peace talks: Quo vadis?

The possible break-up in the GRP-MILF [Government of the Republic of the Philippines-Moro Islamic Liberation Front] Peace Talks is a very real option as can be gleaned in the great divide that separates their positions.

The only positive thing is the fact that both the GRP and the MILF Peace Panels recognize the limitations of the ‘expiring’ Arroyo Administration.

The Philippine government has drawn the parameters that outline what are the realistic and achievable goals for the remaining four or five months of the Arroyo Presidency.

The government’s offer consists of what is now referred as ‘executive doables’ to mean actions or ‘deliverables’ within the existing laws.

These laws are the following: (1) RA 9054 or the Organic Act of the ARMM; (2) the IPRA; and the Local Government Code.

On the other hand, the MILF tends to adhere to the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA AD) that was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

The Philippine Government has clearly articulated that it can no longer negotiate an agreement that would require (1) legislative action and (2) Constitutional Change.

The only things the present Arroyo Administration can do in the next four months are actionable agreements within the powers granted by existing laws.

On the other hand, the MILF has also articulated its position that the present peace negotiation would require not only legislative actions but also Constitutional change.

However, the MILF also sees that neither Constitutional change nor legislative actions is possible under the ‘expiring’ administration.

With this realistic appreciation of the limitations of the present Arroyo dispensation, a comprehensive peace agreement between the GRP and the MILF is NO longer possible.

It is not also wise to enter in any agreement that the next administration would simply repudiate.

Any such move is counter-productive and harmful in the long run.

The best option is to explore the maximum ‘executive doables’ within the existing laws with the understanding that these actions would serve as ‘confidence building’ measures.

Good and immediately deliverable executive actions will, definitely, create the appropriate climate for the continuing peace talks.

Moreover, the trust built would bridge the peace talks from the expiring administration to the new one comes June 30th.

At this stage, neither the GRP Panel nor the MILF Panel expects a Comprehensive Peace Agreement.

Both Peace Panels hope, however, to consolidate the two new agreements: (1) the Agreement on the Civilian Protection and (2) the Agreement on the ‘International Contact Group (ICG).

With the renewal of the Term of Reference (TOR) of the International Monitoring Team (IMT) and locating it within the principle of civilian protection, everybody, including the panels, believe that the gap between the positions need not lead a new eruption of hostility.

If there would be a breakdown in the peace talks due to the wide gap between the two positions, the worst possible scenario (God forbid!) is the resumption of hostility with ensuing military encounters.

But this need not happen, because the cost of war is daunting on both sides.

Both in human and development terms, another major war and displacement are not tenable.

The two new agreements with the renewed mechanisms (CCCH [Coordinating Committee on the Cessation of Hostilities], IMT and ICG) put real pressure on both the GRP and the MILF to recognize and respect Human Rights Law and the International Humanitarian Law.

The so-called ‘collateral damage’ is a military doctrine that is now rejected in the community of nations.

Soldiers and rebels need to engage in ethical rules of engagement that provide security and safety to non combatants.

The likelihood to happen in the absence of any agreement is the status of ‘no peace and no war’.

The status quo means allowing the ceasefire agreement and the mechanisms of ceasefire to work while waiting for a new government.

The best scenario is to seize the moment, that is, the next five months to consolidate the gains of the ongoing peace talks and put the peace negotiation in a more solid basis by focusing on the ‘executive doables’ allowed by the existing laws.

There are many immediately ‘doables’ that the existing laws already allow.

But this to come true needs an executive political will and a real commitment to the peace process beyond rhetoric.

Definitely, these ‘doables’ would inspire trust and confidence in the talks.

RA 9054, IPRA and the Local Government Code contain so many executive ‘doables’ that will build not only a good climate for the on-going talks but also uplift the poor conditions of the ARMM constituents.

In the final analysis, this commitment is the single crucial issue that the GRP and the MILF need to face in this period of transition from one administration to another.

A new thinking on conflict analysis

Peacemaking and conflict analysis have been with us for quite sometime. From the looks of it, they would remain with us for many more years to come.

In fact, the 9/11 tragedy, the Afghan War, the Iraq War, the so-called ‘War on Terror’ and the never-ending crisis in the Middle East point to “newer” and complex faces/images of conflict analysis and peace making.

The continuing violence and conflict notwithstanding troops and sophisticated armaments simply tell us that there is the urgent need to re-draw the map and re-configure the conflict and peace analysis.

Prior to the 9/11 tragedies, Afghan and Iraq Wars, the conflict “mapping” with few exceptions, told us that 96 percent of the conflicts worldwide were intra-states and the places of engagements were in the fringes or remote areas from the big city centers.

All these have changed overnight with 9/11 and the bombings in Madrid and London.

A new element has appeared in the radar screen overnight.

Wars and conflicts are no longer being fought in remote or obscure places.

They are now present and even with more terrifying faces in our mega cities.

The complications come not only from the identity and nationality of the protagonists in the war but also from the emerging definition of terrorism and the understanding of “War against Terrorism”.

Governments worldwide are being compelled to ‘come up” with their own versions of “Anti Terrorism Acts” regardless of whether the conflicts are based on legitimate grievances.

It is disconcerting, to say the least, that people wake up one morning and heard from news that they are not safe anymore in the cities.

For years, wars and conflicts are “tolerable” as long as they happen in some remote places in Southern Philippines or somewhere in Africa, Central Asia, Latin America and South and Southeast Asia.

The thought that citizens in the cities can be “targets” in an on-going war is something new.

In fact, the most vulnerable are the mass transport systems, malls, and other crowded places.

This possibility gives rise to jitters, discomfort and fear.

In mega cities, a sense of “safety paranoia” is on the rise. They begin to see the “enemy” in the faces of immigrants in their midst, especially people identified with Islam and the Middle East.

“Terror” has come home to roost.

The bottom line is the fact that no place and no one feels safe any more.

Anyone and anywhere can be a target.

War and conflicts have come “to roost” right at the “doorsteps” of the halls of powers and mega cities.

The horror of Madrid bombing and the London bombing, simply, magnify the tragedy of 9/11 to the tenth power.

In this kind of conflict, the so called ‘holy warriors’ no longer speak of a “fight towards victory.”

The idea of ‘holy warriors’ transforms persons into deadly human bombs. People willingly embrace death for the cause they believe in.

The goal of what seems to be ‘senseless’ acts seems to inflict “mass civilian casualties” and a maximum media coverage.

So far, bombing involves the traditional explosives.

But it will be a real nightmare, if the so-called “human bombers” would have access to “weapons of mass destruction” – biological or nuclear weapons.

Policies kill

One of the hard realities experienced on the ground is the knowledge that policies kill.

Good policies enhance peace and bad policies fuel the existing war and conflict.

Another truism is the fact that policies, no matter how recent or old, will always come back to roost.

And globalization has not changed this; it has simply multiplied the roosting a thousand times and with newer science and technology, including the use of modern weaponry.

Rightly or wrongly, any policy and legislation that discriminate cause injustice, often against minorities and the vulnerable sectors.

The same thing can be said of the behavior and “bias” of the dominant powers in the world today. Such behavior gives rise to the feelings of being “victims.”

No quick fixes

Conflict builds over time so does peacebuilding.

Unfortunately, there are no quick fixes to conflict.

Similarly, there are no quick fixes to what people now refer as “terrorism.”

You may have all the so-called pre-emptive strikes; and you can bomb all identified “targets” until kingdom come, but when the clouds of debris clear, your so-called “terrorists” still lurk around and bidding their time for new opportunities to “get even.”

Peacebuilding takes place over time – a very long time! There is a Spanish saying that tells “la ciencia de la paz es la paciencia”.

I believe this saying is addressed equally to policy makers and to all peacemakers and peace advocates, as well.

Civilian protection in peacekeeping

On the 27th of October 2009, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) signed an Agreement on Civilian Protection.

The agreement reconfirms the parties’ commitment to observe the Human Rights Law and the International Humanitarian Law.

By signing this important agreement, both the GRP and the MILF assume all the obligations under the Convention on Human Rights and the International Humanitarian Law.

This, in a special way, has elevated the peace talks between the GRP and the MILF into a higher plane.

What is Civilian protection, especially in areas of conflict?

By definition, Civilian protection refers to all activities aimed at obtaining full respect for the rights of the individuals and communities in accordance with the letter and spirit of the relevant bodies of law, international humanitarian law, and refugee law.

The objective of civilian protection agreement is to reduce the risk and extent of harm to civilians and non-combatants during the actual conflict or during military operations.

The protection of civilians and non combatants is a foremost duty of government and the liberation front.

Both the Human Rights Law and the International Humanitarian Law impose duties on all the parties to the conflict. They also set limits on the methods and means of warfare, particularly as they impact the vulnerable groups.

Worldwide, there is a growing concern over the impact of internal conflict on the non combatants, especially women and children.

Today, the international community requires combatants, government and rebels alike, to respect the dignity and right to life of non-combatants, the wounded and sick, and the prisoners of war.

The principle of civilian protection is anchored on human rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the four Geneva Conventions, the additional Protocol II covering non-international armed conflict, and the Philippine Constitution.

In short, the agreement on civilian protection takes the protection of the civilian population as the cornerstone.

With this agreement the question now centers on the so-called ‘collateral damage’ to non-combatants.

Concretely, the debate revolves around the issue of whether or not a degree of ‘collateral damage’ is acceptable.

In the past, the legitimacy of ‘collateral damage’ was premised on the ‘greater’ good and proportional damage.

The theory was debunked following the lost of the Americans in the Vietnam War.

The slogan, “In order to save the village, we had to destroy it,” was the epitome of the abandoned principle of collateral damage.

In view of the on-going discussion on the terms of reference (TOR) for the combatants on the civilian protection, there are basic questions that need to be answered.

1. Should combatants avoid military encounters in civilian communities?

2. In times of population displacement, do the protagonists provide safe passage to fleeing non-combatants?

3. Do the protagonists allow the non-combatants and the internally displaced unhampered access to relief and rehabilitation assistance?

4. Do the protagonists allow or assist in the return of the displaced to their areas of origin?

Notwithstanding the outcome of the present talks, the Civilian Protection (CP) is a good development and should become more robust as more people participate in the process, particularly of the Local Government Units and Civil Society, including the Private Sector (Business).

The Agreement on Civilian Protection, no doubt, provides challenges to both the protagonists and the stakeholders.

The protagonists and stakeholders must think through and beyond the conflict with a view to a common vision of individual rights and responsibilities.

From peace and development perspective, the more the process is coherent and has integrity, the better it becomes in terms of protecting lives and respecting rights.

Peace and development prospects for Southern Philippines

We are at a crossroads to decide whether to move forward or to ‘freeze’, albeit temporarily, the peace talks with both the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).

The Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the MNLF’s ‘official’ review of the implementation of the 1996 Final Peace Accord has remained uncertain and directionless despite three sessions held in Jeddah, in Turkey, and in Manila.

The end remains as nebulous as when they started the review of the implementation of the Final Peace Accord.

The two remain poles apart and that any possible convergence of views and reading of the realities on the ground is almost an impossible dream.

The disagreements between the GRP and the MNLF remind me of the challenge posed by the then Indonesian Foreign Minister, Hon. Ali Alatas, who said that “the real hard work begins after the signing of the agreement. For a peace agreement, or any other agreement for that matter, does not implement itself.”

The same can be said with the GRP and the MILF Peace Talks.

Since 1997, the talks have seen the changes and vagaries of three administrations with no real progress on the ground.

In reality, any peace agreement assumes concrete reality only on the accretions of activities completed on the ground.

The challenge for many, particularly on the leaders, lies on the solid ‘implementary’ achievements, contributions, cooperation and often inevitable sacrifices by all those who are supposed to make the peace agreement work.

In the Southern Philippines, we all have traveled far through long and at times circuitous path to peace.

The 1976 Tripoli Agreement and the 1996 Final Peace Accord are products of patient and insistent peacekeeping and peacemaking.

This is the issue we need to grapple with as we ask the question how to make peace truly sustainable in our homeland.

No doubt, the past and present paradigms, including the controversial Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA AD), need re-drawing to be able to build a new culture, a new way of seeing, and a new way of relating to each other.

The efforts and attempts at peacebuilding, peacemaking, and peacekeeping seem NOT to lead to an acceptable formula that would engender a culture of peace.

It is the culture of peace that will, ultimately, transform and replace the prevalent culture of war.

Peacebuilding is often a more difficult task.

It concerns itself not only on a task of reconciliation but more so on finding and developing positive alternatives to the root causes of war.

This makes peacebuilding a vast project.

It is linked to: (1) building a New Paradigm or politics of living together; (2) a wholesale re-construction [development] of areas affected by conflict; (3) a new understanding of ‘security’ and safety; and (3) a new culture – a culture of peace.

In the past, our community has resembled an armed camp.

Today, there is a movement to reduce reliance on military power and to take steps towards re-construction and disarmament.

The conversion from military to civilian production and trade can make available the resources for programs of human development needed to provide economic and political security.

For peace to be sustainable, it is linked to development which is endogenous, equitable, and sustainable.

Human security and democracy can be provided by institutions and behaviors which ensure that the conflicts inherent in all human societies do not destroy the integrity and effective functioning of the society.

Within the human security framework, disagreement and conflict are managed through a process of participation, dialogue, mediation, and compromise, and political solutions are sought from which all can benefit.

For the next 5 months, the Arroyo administration faces a formidable challenge to pursue with ‘boldness’ peace and development alternatives or simply leave the existing ‘no peace and no war’ policy in the Southern Philippines.

To pursue peace and development with boldness would require not only a coherent national policy on Southern Philippines but also a shared vision of peace.

Sad to say, that these two have been lacking in our pursuit of peace in the land.

With the National elections in May 2010, the temptation is to simply dribble the ball and leave the peace process to the next administration.

It is tragic to simply ‘dribble the ball.’

Perhaps, what the GRP, the MNLF and the MILF can do is to focus and agree on the possible ‘doables’ to create the good climate and prepare a fertile ground for the peace talks under the new administration.

This may be the wiser option given the conflicting policies and views on Mindanao.

The challenge for the peace stakeholders is to engage the two leading political parties, Liberal Party and the Nacionalista Party.

Noynoy Aquino and Manny Villar need to define their vision of peace and development for the Southern Philippines.

No need to engage the former President Estrada since he believes that the solution in Southern Philippines is to imply go back to the ‘all out war policy’.

God forbid that he wins again the presidency!

A community approach to peacebuilding

Years of experience in conflict areas have taught us some solid lessons to chart a road map in peacebuilding.

The lessons do not have chronological order neither do these come in sequence.

Most often, they all come together as if they undergird each other in the concrete community peacebuilding.

Each lesson provides a direction in an on-going journey and it is, definitely, not a finished enterprise.

The first lesson is the process of establishing a good relation with the neighbors. The word “neighbors” refers to members of the concrete neighborhood without exception.

The Parable of a Good Samaritan comes handy in understanding this lesson. There are two ways to establish a good neighborhood relationship.

One is to approach it through the leaders of the neighborhood that also includes religious like pastors, parish priests, ulamas, and babaylans.

Once good relations among leaders are established, it is easily replicated among their constituents.

The other approach is a simple house to house or family to family good relation, which is actually the real meaning of good neighborhood relation.

There are simple expressions of this relation.

A sharing of salt and rice as people eke their living becomes a powerful symbol of a shared life.

Good neighborliness is, also, expressed in the natural capacity to celebrate together festivals and feast days like Christmas, Easter, Idul-Fitr, Idul Adha, etc.

The meals shared during the celebrations of weddings, rites of initiation, graduation, career promotion, and deaths are few examples of solidarity in action that goes beyond the borders and frontiers of religions and ethnicities.

The second lesson is the process of building a partnership based on common “stakeholdership” between and among members of the neighborhood.

This partnership bears fruit in common actions for the benefits of the community.

This type of partnership is, clearly, demonstrated in common actions like building farm to market roads, involvement in local infrastructures – repair of local schools, waste disposal, and management of potable water and health facilities.

The leadership in the local community is crucial in building the needed cohesion of members to undertake these local infrastructures.

The second leads to the third lesson that requires the development of capacities in the neighborhood.

Usually this takes training towards common undertakings like community firefighters, carpentry and masonry in local public works or building temporary shelters for refugees/displaced.

There is the need for training to capacitate local leaders, especially religious and civic leaders as MEDIATORS and HEALERS.

The local parish priest, pastor, Imam, school principal and community officials are natural mediators and healers.

Often, it is a question of recognizing and harnessing this “occupational” quality in peacebuilding and peacemaking at the grass roots.

The fourth lesson is the need for ‘sacred’ place.

The local churches, mosques, convents, madaris and schools can be ‘sacred’ places of healing and reconciliation.

These institutions can provide ‘sanctuaries’ for the victims.

They are natural fora for the shared stories and they can, also, ritualize forgiveness and healing in the neighborhood.

There is so much talk on the theme of trauma healing and yet there are few stories that tell of ‘wounded’ and ‘scarred’ people exchanging their tragedies to empower them to ‘pick up the pieces’ and move forward.

The wounds remain fresh and the bitterness hardens the hearts. They “lick their wounds, bury their dead” and they try to move forward, often, in pains and bitterness.

The fifth lesson in peacemaking is the capacity to mobilize the stakeholders, particularly the religious and civic leaders, to become active participants in peacemaking and peace building.

Often, the stakeholders’ call for cessation of hostilities serves as real pressure on warring parties to go back to the negotiating table.

They can also soften “hardened” positions in order to advance the peace process.

The active involvement of religious and civic leaders, often, provides the ‘glue’ in social cohesion that is absolutely necessary in peacemaking and peacebuilding.

No doubt, religions, at times, are the causes of divisions; yet they are also very potent sources in building consensus for any peace agreement or political settlement.

The sixth lesson is the need to build local institutions/mechanisms (Councils, Committees and Task Forces) that empower local communities for continuing active participation and actions towards peace making and peace building.

The warring parties may sign peace agreements and political settlements.

But peace agreement does not always lead to peace! Peace panels come and go. And peace panels are no guarantee also.

Ultimately, the true test of any peace agreement is a good neighborhood is established where people live not only side by side but a real community of friends that guarantees good relationship and partnership notwithstanding differences.

The prospects of ARMM for 2010

There are several questions people ask about the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao or ARMM. They wonder why the whole experiment on self-governance seemingly does not work.

The five component provinces (Basilan, Lanao Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi) remain the poorest in the country.

The region is a place where good local governance is, in fact, almost an ‘oxymoron.’ It would be worse if the region is measured by the standards of ‘autonomy.’ In fact, the provinces within the ARMM feel and believe that they are less autonomous as compared to the provinces outside of the ARMM.

It is high time for all — the government and the Bangsamoro — to call the experiment a ‘failure’ in self-governance and development.

No doubt, there are one thousand and one reasons for the failure. And there will be no end to finger pointing to who was responsible for the failed governance within the ARMM.

The 2010 elections of new sets of national leaders may pave the way towards the ‘abolition’ of the ARMM.

The year 2010 may, in fact, be a golden opportunity to go back to the drawing board and‘re-invent’ our paradigm of autonomy and governance in Southern Mindanao.

With the 1996 Final Peace Agreement between the GRP and the MNLF and the seeming substantial consensus points between the GRP and the MILF negotiations, we have good elements to shape a transitional structure that is all inclusive of all stakeholders in the area regardless of minority or majority status of inhabitants.

The ARMM as it stands is exclusive, by design and operations, of the Muslims. This is, perhaps, one of the major reasons why the Christian majority provinces or territory averred even the thought of ‘integration’ into the said political geography.

The history of ‘partition’ of the empire province of Cotabato in the 50s was premised on a separate province/territory for Muslims and Christians.

In many ways this was a concept that is at work in the political ideology behind the concept of apartheid (separate development and governance).

The same reason was at work when the powers that be ‘gerrymandered’ the then North Cotabato Province in 1971.

The re-drawing of the map of the then North Cotabato was based on the principle of putting together, with few exceptions, all Muslim dominated towns into one province that gave birth to Maguindanao.

Pikit was the exception, because the political elite then in Pikit Municipality was dominated by Christians hence the opposition to a possibility of inclusion to Maguindanao.

Thus Maguindanao became a Muslim Province, by design and operation!

Following the principle behind the said partition, the Muslims could do whatever they want in their area so long as they do NOT interfere in the Christian dominated provinces of the present North Cotabato and Sultan Kudarat.

Following the partition, Marcos appointed Col. Carlos Cajelo as the governor of North Cotabato, Col. Songco (later Gen. Benjamin Duque) as ‘governor-general’ of Sultan Kudarat and Simeon Datumanong as the governor of Maguindanao.

The Muslims, the Christians, and indigenous peoples began coming together, again, in an experimental government structures following the 1976 Tripoli Agreement between the GRP and the MNLF.

Marcos came out with a ‘transitional structure’ of self-governance akin to a ‘work in progress’ until the 1987 Constitution that mandates the establishment of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao or ARMM.

The first structure was the creation of two autonomous and coordinative ‘Commissions’ one for Region XII and another for Region IX.

Simeon Datumanong was appointed “Commissioner” for Region XII and Admiral Romulo Espaldon for Region IX.

The commission-type self-governance and development was supplanted by the creation of two autonomous regions with complete trappings of executive (Lupong Taga Pagpaganap or LTP) and legislature (Regional Legislative Assembly or RLA).

The two autonomous Regions (IX and XII) included eleven provinces and all cities therein out of the 14 provinces enumerated in the Tripoli Agreement (less Davao del Sur, South Cotabato, Palawan).

In 1989, of the 14 provinces subjected to a referendum, only four provinces (Lanao Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi) favored inclusion to the autonomous region under Republic Act 6734.

The ARMM has seen two Maguindanao Governors (Candao and Ampatuan), two Taosug Governors (Misuari and Husin), and two Maranao (Pangandaman and now acting Governor Adiong).

The ARMM has gone full circle in terms of “ethnic governance” by the dominant Muslim groups.

The experiments do NOT work! Regardless of reasons, the time has come to come up with a major revision both of the blueprint design and operations.

2010 is a new beginning not only for new sets of officials but also for the medium term development goals.

I thought, for a while, that the crisis in the ARMM and the province of Maguindanao would have given that “impetus” and courage to put an end to the ‘failed structure’ that would have paved the way for a new transitional mechanism that is inclusive of all stakeholders and truly accountable to all constituents of the region.

Maguindanao Massacre, Part 3: The government’s response

When we speak of government, we refer, mainly, to the Executive branch. It may sound preposterous, yet the sequence of events tell us that the government’s initial responses to the November 23rd massacre of 57 people in Maguindanao have followed the people’s immediate reactions – shock and disbelief!

We begin with news from the grapevine that began to be distributed through text-messaging at about 10:30 am of that fateful day.

The text messages – in various versions – announced the tragedy as it unfolded.

It began with the news that the Mangudadatu convoy on the way to the provincial capitol was stopped by the PNP [Philippine National Police] and CVOs [Civilian Volunteer Organizations] under Ampatuan Jr. in Barangay Salman within the Ampatuan municipality.

A second text message later said that the victims were women of the Mangudadatu clan, including Ismael “Toto” Mangudadatu’s wife, Bai Genalyn, his two sisters, and the journalists and women lawyers.
Reports from the grapevine also said that one car at the tail end of the convoy was able to make a sudden U-turn and sped toward municipality of Esperanza to report the incident and seek immediate assistance.

But the tragedy was that the urgent assistance sought for was NOT arriving despite the proximity of the AFP [Armed Forces of the Philippines] checkpoints and the headquarters of the 601st Brigade, just a half hour and one hour away respectively, from the scene.

There was an SOS call from the Mangudadatu clan, but the immediate intervention to save lives of the entire convoy – including vehicles that were merely passing by – was not arriving.

On that fateful day, in a mysterious way, there was NOT a single helicopter in Awang Airport, the home of the 6th Infantry Division and the Philippine Air Force.

It all looked rather odd since on ordinary days, there would be two to four helicopters in the said airport.

Awang is the ‘frontline and forward’ airfield in the war against MILF [Moro Islamic Liberation Front] and the so-called renegade commander, Ustadz Amelil Ombra aka Commander Kato.

The Mangudadatus had to reportedly seek the assistance of their kin, the Mangudadatus of Sultan Kudarat province, for personnel and a helicopter to reach the place now known as the ‘mass graveyards’ prepared for the entire convoy.

Reports from the grapevine also indicate that the perpetrators reportedly scampered away without finishing the ‘burial’ of other victims. They reportedly thought that the incoming helicopter belonged to the AFP and flew in from Awang airfield.

Since the helicopter came rather late, the entire convoy was murdered.

There were 21 bodies sprawled on the ground and the rest of the victims and their vehicles were already ‘backhoed’ and buried in three common pits.

The ground troops reportedly arrived about 3 hours after the killing, so people say.

One of the reports had it that President Arroyo herself asked when briefed of the massacre why there was a delay of ‘four hours’ before the ground troops could go to the massacre scene.

The perpetrators, including the provincial PNP leadership, were reportedly identified by the victims and some witnesses.

Defense officials arrive at the scene, receive massacre briefing

On Day 2, November 24th, the ‘bigwigs’ of Imperial Manila from the Deparments of National Defense (DND), Interior and Local Governments (DILG), the PNP, and the AFP arrived at the scene as the horror of the massacre unfolded.

Officials were then briefed by the AFP at the 601st Brigade Headquarters, located in Tacurong City, about an hour and a half away from the massacre scene.

During the briefing, the Mangudadatus saw some of the ‘bigwigs’ to narrate their version of the massacre.

The massacre involved and ally of the President, the powerful Ampatuan family. The Mangudadatus and witnesses identified Datu Andal Ampatuan Jr. as the leader.

The government then decided to assign Secretary Jesus Dureza, the Presidential Adviser for Mindanao Affairs, to head a task force to talk to the Ampatuan clan.

He was told that Ampatuan Jr. would be willing to submit himself to due process.

On Day 3, November 25th, the Ampatuan clan ‘surrendered’ Ampatuan Jr. to Dureza for inquest proceeding by the Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera in General Santos City.

From there, the younger Ampatuan was flown to Manila and detained in a cell at the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

Day 4, November 26th, after Ampatuan Jr.’s ‘detention,’ the government declared a state of emergency in Maguindanao province of Sultan Kudarat and Cotabato City.

The Provincial PNP, the Shariff Aguak police chief, and other police officers reportedly involved in the massacre, were relieved and placed under preventive suspension.

Military checkpoints were then deployed along the highways and at the entry and exit of Cotabato City.

Overnight, firearms disappeared in public, including those in Cotabato City.

‘Toy guns’ collected, AFP commanders relieved of posts

On Day 5, 26th November, the state of emergency proclamation was followed by a show of ‘collecting’ the ‘toy guns,’ World War II vintage M1 Garand and M1 Carbine rifles which prompted people to wonder “where the real guns were.”

The area’s top two AFP commanders were also relieved after the state of emergency declaration. They were Major Gen. Alfredo Cayton of the 6th Infantry Division and Col. Medardo Jeslani of the 601st Brigade who both had operational control of the area.

Similarly, military personnel in the area were also relieved and new soldiers from other brigades and battalions were deployed in the area.

On Day 6, the 27th of November, the media reported that the Department of Justice (DOJ) placed eight members of the Ampatuan clan in the Bureau of Immigration’s ‘watch list’ since they will be invited for the massacre investigation.

The list includes the Maguindanao Governor Andal Ampatuan Sr., Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao Gov. Zaldy Ampatuan, Nords Ampatuan, Akmad Ampatuan, Saudi Ampatuan Jr., Bahnarian Ampatuan, Sajid Islam Ampatuan, and Akmad “Tato” Ampatuan.

On November 28th, seven days after the massacre, the DOJ filed a multiple murder charge against Ampatuan Jr. and several ‘John Does.’

DILG Secretary Puno was designated to supervise all the LGUs [local government units] within the ARMM [Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao] and if need be ‘suspend’ local officials involved in the massacre.

He was also tasked to designate ‘officers in charge’ or administrators to take the place of the suspended local officials.

There were so many uncertainties on the ground from the first day and people were wondering what would be the next move.

The government through Sec. Dureza spoke of ‘plan of actions’ that would unfold in the coming days.

The ‘climax’ of the said action plan came on the early morning of December 5th though the grapevine was already abuzz about the impending Martial Law on the evening of the 4th.

Lt. Gen. Raymundo Ferrer, a military officer known for his peace advocacy and good relations with Civil Society Organizations, was designated as the ‘decent’ face of the Martial Law in Maguindanao.

The declaration was followed by entry into the premises and ‘houses’ of the Ampatuans, the ‘invitations’ of the leading members of the clan for investigation, and the collection of real arms, referring to M14, M16, M60, and M40 and a cache of ammunitions bearing the DND markings.

The declaration of Martial Law in Maguindanao province was met with mixed emotions.

Some welcome it with exhilaration, believing that extraordinary means are needed to meet the extraordinary realities in the province, particularly the warlords’ tight grip over the people and government, including offices of the Commission of the Elections (Comelec) and the PNP.

Others would like to observe its effectiveness in restoring the rule of law and peace and order in the province with watchful eye.

They believe that Proclamation 1959 under the 1987 Constitution is a different animal from Proclamation 1081 under the 1973 Constitution.

Though 1959 and 1081 may have the same sound bytes, they are essentially different as the former is strictly regulated with defined parameters by the Constitution.

Still, others feel that realities on the ground do not warrant Martial Law and that a government with political will can decisively act on the massacre’s perpetrators.

The suspicion is basically grounded on the fear of a ‘creeping’ Martial Law that may eventually spread throughout the country.

The other basis for fear is the trust deficit of President Gloria Arroyo.

In a recent conversation regarding Maguindanao realities, what has emerged are two viewpoints – the bird’s eye view and that of the frog’s.

The former is from the top or from Imperial Manila and the latter is from the ground.

The Supreme Court will soon decide on the merit of the Martial law in Maguindanao.

I believe that people, including the SC should seriously consider not only the text of the Constitution nor the views of solely of Imperial Manila – a sort of the bird’s eye view.

Fears, perceptions, and realities on the ground must be factor in the decision, also known as the frog’s eye view!

Both views are two factors that need to be considered in ruling on the merits of the Maguindanao Martial Law proclamation.

For most people in the province, the basic question is whether Martial Law in Maguindanao can

- Dismantle all structures of warlordism in Maguindanao;
- Implement a total ban on the public display firearms as well as the seizure of all illegal firearms;
- A halt to all forms of lawlessness committed with impunity in the province;
- Make all LGUs and courts systems in situ work; and
- Restore the rule of law in the province.

The people are desperate and are gripped by their collective fear. They beg for desperate solutions!

The Maguindanao Massacre, Part 2

The Maguindanao massacre brought to the fore the issue of ‘warlodism’ in Muslim Mindanao.

Warlordism in the Philippines, especially in Muslim Mindanao, is primarily based on a feudal system that continues to characterize the power relations not only between clans and families but also between the central power (Manila) and the periphery.

Warlordism is often associated with two major issues. The first issue involves the control over the machineries of the state that includes the security sectors (PNP and the AFP). The second issue is about lawlessness with impunity.

The ‘warlords’ are sort of ‘sui generis’ – ‘the rule of law’ is understood as the execution of their whims and caprices.

The traditional basis of the power of the warlords had been their ancestry to royalty, whether perceived or real.

The Datus, in times past, would hold sway over their ‘sakop’ in a typical feudal structure known in medieval times.

In modern times, the power basis of the warlords is no longer measured by the blood ancestry but by the actual ‘connection’ of the warlords to the all powerful Presidency of the Republic.

People cite the infamous three “Gs” – guns, goons, and gold – in the making of the warlords.

But the sad tragedy is that these three “Gs” are government’s ‘properties’.

Take guns.

A local warlord who is properly ‘connected’ would have unlimited access to firearms as the government’s courtesy in the fight against insurgency.

The second ‘G’ refers to goons, which have many faces on the ground.

Some belong to the Philippine National Police (PNP) while others come from the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).

Others also belong to so-called civilian volunteer organizations (CVOs) subsumed under local government units or the Cafgus [Civilian Auxiliary Forces Geographical Units] under the AFP.

Again, the ‘proper’ connection to power in Malacañang spells unlimited access to ‘goons,’ some of whom incidentally wear uniforms of the state’s security forces.

The third ‘G’ stands for gold, which also comes in many forms.

In many areas in Mindanao, particularly in the ARMM [Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao] where accountability and transparency are almost nil, the internal revenue allocation or IRA is the unlimited source of gold.

In other places, drugs and numbers game have, of late, been also lucrative sources of gold.

Many actually opine that the war against drugs and illegal gambling is a big joke in this country, particularly in the ARMM, when politicians and law enforcers are perceived to be the real ‘operators’.

Under the present dispensation, particularly in the ARMM, people speak in whisper of yet another ‘G’.

That fourth ‘G’ refers to Gloria or President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

The ‘unlimited’ access to this fourth ‘G’ is the all that distinguishes the small time ‘warlord’ to a paramount warlord of a province or a the entire region.

In Maguindanao, as in other provinces of the ARMM, the ‘rule’ over areas or territories is closely linked to families and clans.

To cite a few examples, there is the Ampatuan clan that is recognized as the ‘ruler’ in the former municipality Maganoy that is now subdivided into four municipalities (Aguak, Unsay, Mamasapano, and Hofer).

There is the Mangudadatu clan that is a recognized ruler of the former municipality of Buluan in Maguindanao and the Municipalities of Lutuyan and Palembang in Sultan Kudarat or the territories around the Lake of Buluan.

The more familiar clans that are similarly situated are the Sinsuats in the former Dinaig, the Matalams in the former Pagalungan, the Midtimbangs in the former Talayan, the Masturas in the former Nuling, and the Tomawis-Aratuc families in the Iranon towns of Barira and Buldon.

They are all rulers by rights and blood in their traditional ‘domain’ or fiefdom.

These ‘rulers’ enjoy both the authority of traditions (agama and customary law) and the state laws, because they are the ‘elected’ local officials in their own domain.

The rise of a paramount ‘warlord’ does not come often.

Usually, the rise and fall of a paramount warlord depended on the whims and caprices of the real paramount LORD that resides along the Pasig River.

The Ampatuan clan was able to venture outside their traditional ‘domain’ (Maganoy) with the ‘blessing’ of the paramount LORD in Malacañang.

Datu Andal Ampatuan, Sr. was already the ‘ruler’ of Maganoy during the time of Ferdinand Marcos.

President Cory Aquino in 1986 removed him from office and deprived him of access to the security forces of the state after EDSA 1.

But in the first election under the 1987 Constitution, Datu Andal Sr. became the undisputed Mayor of Maganoy.

His rival, Datu Surab Abutazil, also of the Ampatuan clan, was assassinated in broad daylight in a cafeteria right in the market place of Maganoy.

Mayor Andal was charged for the murder of Datu Surab but later the case was dismissed for lack of witnesses.

The turning point for the Ampatuan clan happened during the 2001 local elections.

With the full support of the PNP and the AFP, Datu Andal had beaten the incumbent Maguindanao Governor and the 1st ARMM Governor, Zacaria Candao.

The decision to shift support to Datu Andal was the perception that Gov. Candao was MILF or sympathetic to the MILF.

Datu Andal became the ‘avid’ supporter of President Gloria in her decision to run for the Presidency in 2004.

He “delivered” the whole province to Gloria against the more popular Fernando Poe, Jr.

This electoral ‘feat’ made Datu Andal the new ‘anointed’ one not only for the province but also for the entire ARMM.

It was no accident in 2005, when the Ampatuan made a run for the head ‘honcho’ of the ARMM.

It was an invitation to the government and President Gloria to shift to a more ‘manageable and predictable overseer’ over the ARMM after almost nine years of disarray under the rule of the MNLF (more than five years under Nur Misuari and 3 years under Parouk Hussin).

With the ARMM falling into the hands of the Ampatuan clan and under the total patronage of Malacañang, the hold of the clan over the ARMM and Maguindanao has become undisputed.

It is a steady and phenomenal rise to almost absolute power.

The last known paramount Lord of the Cotabato Empire province was Datu Udtog Matalam in the 50’s and early 60’s.

During the 2007 elections, the Ampatuan clan had proven, beyond doubt, their complete control of all government machineries including the Commission on Elections and the security forces in the area by the delivery a 12-0 results in the senatorial slate for the administration.

This was also mirrored in the ‘no contest’ election in the province.

From the provincial slate to the municipal slate in 30 towns in Maguindanao out of 32, all the positions were not contested.

In the past, the national government was the ‘check and balance’ vis-a-vis local warlords.

The government in Manila made sure that the warlord’s control remains within his family or clan domain.

Even during the height of martial law, President Marcos made sure that no one family or clan dominated the whole region.

This equation has changed completely during the Presidency of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo following the 2004 national elections.

There evolved a sort of symbiosis in the political agenda between the central government and the Ampatuan clan gaining control over the province of Maguindanao and the ARMM.

The shifting national politics after the death of President Cory begins to impact the local politics.

Malacañang is no longer seen as the power that makes or unmakes local leaders.

In fact, this is the first crack in the hold of the Ampatuan clan over the province. This is further exacerbated by the fact that the Sr. Ampatuan CANNOT run anymore for the top post.

On the other hand, the Mangudadatu clan is telling the new emerging national leaders that the time has come for new ‘stewards’ in the province.

New political alliances begin to take shape in the province, when the Mangudadatu clan made known their intention to challenge the younger Ampatuan for the gubernatorial post.

These were the actual arrangements in the political chess board when the Massacre occurred in the Province of Maguindanao that fateful morning of the 23rd of November 2009.

The Maguindanao Massacre, Part 1

November 23rd is now etched in the history of the province as the day of shameless ignominy.

On that day, a convoy of women of the Mangudadatu clan accompanied by media people and their women lawyers headed for the provincial capitol in Sharif Aguak municipality was stopped by forces of the Philippine National Police.

These police forces were accompanied by hundreds of armed civilian volunteer organizations (under the command of the PNP) along the national highway in Ampatuan municipality.

The convoy was instructed to take the farm road leading to a deep hole meant to be the mass grave of the entire convoy members, including occupants of other vehicles that happened to follow the convoy.

I am beginning to piece the story of the tragic massacre.

It all began about three weeks ago with a Commission on Elections (Comelec) Resolution directing the transfer of the Comelec Satellite Office from Cotabato City to the Provincial Capitol in Maguindanao.

Then another resolution was issued, this time directing all candidates in the province to file their certificates of candidacy at the provincial ‘capitol.’

These resolutions looked innocent when read and seen outside the provincial’s concrete political context.

Anyone in the place knows that the said resolutions follow the logic of the local politics and the control over the Comelec on the ground.

Comelec cannot feign ignorance of these realities nor washes its hands in the ensuing massacre in Maguindanao.

The concrete experiences of 2004 and 2007 elections and the participation of Comelec in the province are too gross to ignore.

There is a reason and definitely politics in the physical shifting ‘capitol’ sites in the province. There is a need to locate the ‘capitol’ in a place to ensure total control.

For this reason, Maguindanao can qualify to put the capitol building on wheels.

It began in Cotabato City; then Datu Udtog moved it to Pagalungan; post-Datu Udtog, it was moved back to Cotabato City; then it was moved to Maganoy (Sharif Aguak); Zacaria Candao moved it back to Cotabato City; then he moved it to a new site in Sultan Kudarat.

The Ampatuan moved the ‘capitol’ back to Maganoy where it now stands.

The total control of the capitol ensures absolute control over all government machineries in the capitol site, including the Comelec, the PNP, and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).

Months ago, the buzz in the province and in Cotabato City has been the looming political contest between the Ampatuan clan, the present unquestioned ruler of the province and the ARMM (Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao), and the Mangudadatu clan.

Everybody in town is actually surprised by this challenge coming from the four Mangudadatu young, daring, and dazzling brothers (two mayors, one vice mayor and one assemblyman of the Regional Assembly of the ARMM).

The leader of the clan and the main challenger is the present Vice Mayor of Buluan, Datu Ismael ‘Toto’ Mangudadatu.

The challenge came as a big surprise, because the Ampatuan clan is ‘intimately’ connected to President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and the Lakas-Kampi-CMD Party both in 2004 and 2007 national elections.

The convergence of the political and electoral agenda of President Arroyo and the Ampatuans is well known both in the national and local levels.

The challenge emerged when talks that the ‘senior’ Ampatuan is no longer qualified to run as governor of the province.

The name of the ‘junior’ Ampatuan has begun to surface as the clan bet for who they thought would run for the uncontested governorship in the province come May 2010.

This development sparked talks and counter-talks of contesting the governorship, which led to shifting political alliances, especially with the waning of the star of Malacañang and her official candidates.

The relations between President Arroyo and the Ampatuans hinged on a symbiosis of political and electoral interests and as demonstrated by the clan’s ‘outstanding’ delivery capacity in all electoral exercises held in the province of Maguindanao.

When we speak of captive electorate, I refer to ‘managed’ and ‘owned’ elections.

Political parties and candidates also refer to the entire ARMM as ‘captive’ electorate. This is not a simple perception but the ‘actual ballot’ counts’ attest to this ‘winner take all’ elections.

This fact is known also to the Comelec.

No doubt, if electoral anomalies happen, the people who manage and secure the elections are equally controlled.

In most instances, the teachers and officials of the Comelec, including the PNP have little or no choices at all.

Their lives and their families, as well, are in jeopardy.

The Comelec resolution transferring its satellite office in Sharif Aguak and the requirement to file the certificates of candidacy in the ‘capitol’ is NOT as innocent as it looks unless Comelec were born yesterday!

This Comelec decision has forced the Mangudadatu to go into the heartland of the Ampatuan clan.

The Vice Mayor Toto Mangudadatu decided to go and file his certificate of candidacy.

But he was prevailed upon by the mother to let the women do the filing.

The clan believed that Toto’s presence in Aguak may lead to actual bloodshed.

The mother and the religious leaders believed that an all-women delegation accompanied by media people and women lawyers would be respected.

Islam strongly enjoins believers to respect women and children even during times of war.

As a double insurance for the delegation, the Mangudadatu has asked for police escorts from the PNP Provincial command. It refused to do so.

Understanding the perceived partisanship of the Maguindanao PNP, the clan asked for military escort from the 601st Brigade that has an operational responsibility for area.

They were told that the AFP does not provide security escorts for politicians.

The clan appealed to the highest military command in the region for a security escort for the women.

They were assured by the highest military command that the ‘road is safe and there will be no need to worry.’

With that assurance, the all-women delegation began the trek to Sharif Aguak.

Upon crossing Salman along the national highway in broad daylight in Ampatuan municipality, the convoy was stopped, including other vehicles that happened to passing by at that time.

Their journey was halted by hundreds of armed groups believed to be CVOs [civilian volunteer organizations] that included some provincial PNP officials and a local mayor positively identified by the Mangudadatu.

The entire convoy was led to an open pit dug by provincial engineering equipment.

There the carnage began with brutality and no mercy for women, children, and the members of the media.

The last vehicle in the convoy, delayed by few minutes, saw the whole gang that stopped the convoy and made positive identification.

It turned back with speed and asked for help. But alas, the help came too late.

There were no survivors!

The first count was 21 fatalities in the afternoon of the same day. These were the bodies left on the ground and in the vehicles because of the haste.

The second day, the body count reached 46 as investigators began to dig the mass graves.

On the third day, the number has reached more than 60. They were all murdered with so much brutality that can only be compared to victims of savage animals in the wild.

The digging continues and the body counts continue to rise. The Mangudadatu can only account for 40 members of their convoy.

Beyond that number were innocent passersby who happened to be traveling the same road at that particular moment.

These innocent passersby include children!

They buried the whole vehicles with the murdered passengers.

Seemingly, the intent was to bury all the vehicles and all the victims in that big hole dug by the provincial ‘backhoe.’

But there was news that the troops were coming.

This made the perpetrators to hurriedly leave the scene without completing their evil intent.

Today, the people of Maguindanao and Cotabato City continue to be in a state of total disbelief whenever they hear news about the massacre as it continues to unfold.

They are stunned and shocked! The real word is feeling of revulsion for how things stand in the province and the community.

The Comelec has now allowed the filing of candidacy in Cotabato and in Sultan Kudarat without filing for an exception.

It has also returned the satellite office in the city.

Comelec shares the blame for this massacre.

Ignorance can never be an excuse! It is a very costly political decision!

Knowing the close ties between the President Arroyo and the Ampatuan, the Presidency and the national government are directly held accountable!

People ask, will there be immediate arrests of the identified perpetrators of the massacre?

Three days have passed by and there is not a single arrest made yet...! Will there be honest and objective investigation of the massacre?

While we debate over the massacre, the perpetrators and the hundreds of CVOs, bearing high-powered firearms, and identified leaders of the massacre roam freely and with impunity. Onli in da Pilipins!

'A Common Word between Us and You'

The second week of October, Amina Rasul and I were in Washington DC to participate in an International Conference that included among others two former Prime Ministers (UK and Norway), Muftis, Ministers and people with right honorable and right reverend before their names.

We were there to bridge the imperatives of the historical document, Common Word, and actions.

It all started two years ago, when 138 Muslim scholars, prominent leaders, and learned men and women wrote a letter entitled “the Common Word between Us and You” addressed to all Christian leaders of the world.

The letter‘s title echoes a Quranic chapter with the same title.

It attempts to retrieve the prophetic exhortation in the midst of the vast gap and differences between Muslims and followers of the others books, specifically the Christians.

The love of God and the love of neighbors are the two unifying teachings of Islam and Christianity. These two great commandments should characterize the relationship between Muslims and Christians.

Yet, through the centuries, war, prejudices, discrimination, and intolerance have marred the relations between Islam and Christianity.

The letter echoes the refreshing spirit of the second Vatican Ecumenical Council that exhorts all to forget and forgive each other and become partners as we journey forward in shaping a new world.

In the Philippines, particularly in the South, the interreligious gap and misunderstanding has a long history.

It dates back from the period of colonialism when the Philippines was annexed by Spain in the 16th century and later by the US at the turn of the 1900.

The period during the American period was also characterized by war, only this time, by military victory that put an end to the once powerful Sultanates in Mindanao and their annexation to the Philippines.

This annexation paved the way for the programs of pacification and assimilation which included among others the opening of Mindanao for migration from the Luzon and the Visayas.

These historical facts have given rise to three significant realities that continue to haunt Muslim-Christian relations in the Philippines, even today. To wit:

1. The lingering suspicion and lack of trust that continue to characterize the relations between Christians and Muslims;

2. The sense of injustice on the part of the Bangsamoro and the Indigenous peoples for their lost ancestral domain. After years of migration, they have found themselves a minority in their traditional homeland. The Muslims are now majority only in five provinces out of the 24 in Mindanao; and

3. Poverty and neglect that led to, among others, the highest in mortality, illiteracy rate, lowest in access to basic services, especially health and education.

This context calls for an urgent new interface of Christianity and Islam in the Philippines.

The ‘interface’ or ‘dialogue’ would distance the face of our faith traditions from the stereotypes of rebels/terrorists, on the one hand and oppressors and the government troops as army of occupation, on the other.

In the early 70’s, Christians and Muslims of goodwill, specifically bishops, ‘ulama, priest and lay leaders stood for justice and respect for human rights even during the height of battles between the Philippine regular army and the Moro National liberation Front.

The provinces of Cotabato and Sulu, the lands of many battles, have witnessed examples of solidarity of people of goodwill from Christianity and Islam who continued to stand for justice and human rights.

The first association of Christian-Muslim Religious Leaders in Mindanao began in 1973 few months after the declaration of Martial law.

Then following the Peace Agreement in 1976, a more formal national conference involving leaders of Catholics, Protestants, and Muslims began to address the problems of the South and to bring these issues to the attention of the national government.

Again, following the 1996 Final Peace between the Philippine Government and the Moro national Liberation, the Bishop-Ulama Forum was formed to support the peace process in the Southern Philippines and the implementation of the said accord.

Interreligious dialogue has a particular and peculiar history in the Philippines both in the local and national level given the situation of the war in Southern Philippines.

In this light, the ‘Common Word’ becomes an invitation to all people of goodwill to set aside the prejudices and hostilities of the past and venture into anew relationship based on the love of God and love of neighbor.

I wish to echo the late Pope John Paul II’s message in Damascus at the Great Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, 6 May 2001.

“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.”

In the letter, the ‘Common Word’, the Quranic verse on tolerance is quoted: “Had God willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. “Unto God ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ” (Al-Ma’idah, S. 5:48).

In time, this letter can create an opening and a greater convergence on the more delicate issues of religious freedom, the absolute value of human rights, the relationship between religions and society and the use of violence.

These are the current issues that worry all believers in our world today.

US gives big push for campaign against gun violence

All UN member states are meeting in New York this month to discuss security and disarmament.

Members of International Arms Network on Small Arms (Iansa), the global movement against gun violence, are campaigning for a treaty that will ban transfers of arms or ammunition if they will:

+ be used for serious violations of human rights or war crimes;
+ undermine development or involve corruption;
+ provoke or worsen armed conflict;
+ contribute to violent crime; and
+ risk being diverted into acts of terrorism

The decision of the United States to join the negotiations for a comprehensive Arms Trade Treaty was welcomed this week by campaigners against gun violence.

Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, announced that the US is committed to “actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty” containing “the highest possible, legally-binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons.”

This is a major policy reversal.

The previous US administration consistently opposed the effort to create a treaty.

“The US decision to support strong global controls on the arms trade is great news for countries in Asia like the Philippines where arms proliferate,” said Jasmin Nario-Galace, member of the Philippine Action Network on Small Arms (Philansa).

No doubt, the proliferation of arms in the Philippines, particularly in Southern Mindanao contributes greatly to the rates of injury and death, human rights, and international humanitarian law violations as well as armed conflicts.

Philansa believes that the sale and supply of small arms and ammunition must be strictly controlled.

States should pursue an arms trade treaty that would require the refusal of transfers when there is a clear risk that the arms will intensify armed conflicts and derail development initiatives.

The shift of US policy on small arms as articulated by Hilary Clinton is great news and a fresh wind for campaigners across the world.

The US is the world’s largest arms exporter. To read Hillary Clinton’s statement, please click here.

In the Philippines, the campaign on the control of small arms is lead by Philansa.

It is a network of 14 organizations and networks across the Philippines. They all work to address the complex issue of supply and control of small arms in the country.

Philansa is a member of Iansa, the global network that addresses the proliferation of small arms and it leads the campaign at the UN for an International Treaty on Small Arms.

The havoc of the uncontrolled sale and supply of small arms is deeply felt in conflict areas, particularly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

In Southern Mindanao, violence and conflicts show their ugly faces in the form of widespread supply of small arms. Government troops, rebels, warlords, bandits, and terrorists have access to small arms beyond belief.

An international Treaty on Small Arms will, definitely, seek to control the transfer, sale and possession of small arms.

Over 90 percent of deaths in conflict areas are caused by small arms that include among others M 16 and M 14, the standard issue for combatants, warlords’ army and bandits, terrorists, and militias.

The staggering statistic of violent deaths related to small arms makes it imperative for all people of goodwill to muster their resources and capitalize on the new and fresh wind coming from Washington DC for a new push for intensive lobby on a comprehensive Arms Trade Treaty with strict enforcement standards at the level on the United Nations.

If you desire to join the campaign contact:

PHILANSA c/o Jasmin Galace on +63 906 465 2744
IANSA c/o Alastair McKay on +44 (0)20 7065 0870

Kidnapping in Southern Philippines

By all standards, kidnapping is a heinous crime against humanity.

The recent abduction of Fr. Michael Sinnott of the Columban Fathers, once again, has accented the terror that the peoples of the Southern Philippines face daily.

No one is exempted and all religions condemn the crime. Why kidnapping pays and goes on with impunity is a mystery to all.

Yet, people believe that the crime is perpetrated by few people who continue to elude the law for years.

There are places in Southern Philippines that are prone to kidnapping. These places are identified.

Foreigners are not allowed to visit them and their respective embassies give them appropriate advisory.

Foreign missionaries are often told of this danger and the real possibility of kidnapping. Yet, their faith and their ‘mandate’ hold strong that their presence continues notwithstanding the danger.

With the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, I have, since 1996, counseled our major superior to pull out foreign missionaries from those identified places and assign them in relatively ‘safe’ places. Local missionaries are not exempt from kidnapping.

Who are the perpetrators of this crime?
They bear many and different names. The labels are a plenty. They identify them as ‘al Qaeda or Abu Sayyaf Groups (ASG) or Jama'a Islamiyya (JI) or Pentagon groups, etc.

They are, perhaps, few in number but the government's continued failure to stop kidnapping make people ask the hard question whether there are collusions between some government law enforces and lawless elements or between the kidnappers and the liberation fronts.

To cite some examples, many believe that the leaders of the latest kidnapping of the ICRC are (or were one time) so-called 'assets' of the very people in charge of security and law enforcement in the area.

The government keeps declaring an all-out war against these lawless elements and keep claiming that their numbers are decimated yet kidnapping continues with impunity.

Since 1996, the government has estimated their numbers to be below 500. The all-out war against these criminals has been going on since 1996.

And there is no relief in sight.

The government appears impotent; the liberations fronts are mum about it; and the government security forces make bold claims with no results.

No doubt, kidnapping, killing and other lawlessness directly affect the Christian-Muslim relations, especially in building an atmosphere of trust which is the glue for any social cohesion required for any peace agreement in Southern Philippines.

The ordinary Muslims and Christians are against this lawlessness. They cannot understand why these crimes continue with impunity.

Both the Muslim and Christian inhabitants dream and aspire for a community without these crimes. The tragedy is when religion is cited as a reason for these crimes. No one shall kill or kidnap in the name of God!

These crimes are perpetrated by a few people and by people with agenda whether political or economic.

In times of crisis, kidnapping is a lucrative business. The going price for release of the kidnapped victims goes from one million to P15 million for the locals and one to five million US dollars for foreigners (meaning Caucasian).

People fear that as Election Day nears (May 2010), kidnapping can be lucrative source of campaign chess for some unscrupulous candidates.

Why some of the leaders of kidnapping become assets?

It is claimed that they become ‘informants’ for the so called international terrorists – peoples identified with the likes of al Qaeda or JI. This is one of the ‘accidental’ fruits of the big bounty placed by US government on the heads of the so called foreign terrorists. They become ‘assets’ with the objective of bagging the big bounty.

With payments of five million dollars or ten million dollars, who would not be tempted?

In the Southern Philippines, missionaries are open targets and foreign missionaries are more targets than their local counterparts.

The Oblates of Mary Immaculate who are assigned in Cotabato, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi have an ample share of martyrs in the last ten years in the Archipelago of Sulu.

Bishop Benjamin de Jesus was shot in front of the Jolo Cathedral in February 1998; Fr. Benjamin Innocencio was shot at the back of the Jolo Cathedral on Dec. 28, 2000, Fr. Reynaldo Roda, OMI was brutally murdered in Tabawan, Tawi-Tawi on January 14, 2008.

The Claretian Fathers has one martyr, Fr. Rhoel, in Basilan. The Italian Missionaries (PIME) has several missionaries kidnapped with Fr. Bossi being the last one (hopefully).

Fr. Michael Sinnott is the 3rd among the Columbans. The first attempt was with Fr. Rufus who resisted his kidnappers and shot in Malabang, Lanao del Sur. And the third one was the former Prelate of Marawi, Fr. Desmond Hartford.

The kidnapping will continue until the government and the liberation fronts decide, with seriousness and determination, to put an end to this tragic phenomenon.

I also believe that the government and the liberation fronts (MNLF and MILF) have the wherewithal to put an end to this crime and other lawlessness in Mindanao.

A no-nonsense LGU in place is a strong deterrence to kidnapping.

Here I will cite the case of the once notorious places of Buldon, Barira, and Matanog.

With strong and determined LGUs in place and with the help of both the government forces and the Liberations Fronts, peace has been established.

The three LGUs have also established a Council of Religious Leaders to mediate the family and clan feuds (rido) that often disturb the peace.

For quite sometime now, there has been no report of kidnapping in these areas. This only shows that kidnapping can be stopped!

Accepting and respecting our differences

Eph’pheta, that is, “Be Opened”! This phrase is taken from the Gospel of St. Mark.

“And they brought to him a man who was deaf
and had an impediment in his speech;
and they besought him to lay his hand on him.
And taking him aside from the multitude privately,
he put his fingers into his ears, and he spat and touched his tongue;
and looking up to heaven, he sighed, and said to him,
“Eph’phata”, that is, “Be opened.”
And his ears were opened, his tongue was released, and he spoke plainly.” (Mk. 7: 32-35)

In a plural society, a preferred trait toward a good neighborliness given the diversities of culture and education is OPENNESS.

This demands a basic openness of mind and heart to accept and respect our differences in faiths and cultures.

There are three basic attitudes that will help us walk this new path of openness. They are as follows:

The recognition that our life, future and destiny are intimately linked to each other.

No, we cannot espouse a politics of separatism, a culture of exclusivism, and nor can we act as sole proprietors of the land.

Second is to be open, that is, Eph’pheta/Iftah, to each other –learning not only from each other but more so to live and work as partners in shaping our common lives and destiny in peace, justice and care of the earth. Yes, we must not be afraid or hesitate to accept, to trust, and to work with each other as partners.

Third is our commitment and involvement in the promotion and guarantee of the rights and dignity of every person regardless of faith, gender, culture, and color within our society/community.

The basis of this commitment is our belief that all peoples even though they belong to different religions, nations, etc. form ONE human family, created by the ONE and same God, living in the same world/community, and destined for a common end.

For emphasis, I take a portion of the late Pope John Paul II’ s address 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.”

Pope John Paul II presented to the world his dream and hope for Christianity and Islam as they journey together into the new millennium.

In his last Addresses to Muslims and Christians in Syria at the Great Umayyad Mosque in Damascus on 6 May 2001, he said:

“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.”

Openness is NOT a universal element in human relations. It has to be slowly, patiently and sometimes painfully built through time.

To achieve peace in the Philippines, we must steadily school ourselves to prefer openness to fanaticism; trust to hostility; and respect to intolerance.

We begin by being living witnesses of this openness to each other by accepting and respecting our differences.

‘The Magnificent Seven’ of the OMI

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.