WE DO NOT BELONG...

By Robert Muhammed Maulana M. Alonto
MILF Peace Negotiating Panel

(Speech delivered during the Annual International Conference of the Philippine Political Science Association (PPSA) hosted by Xavier University at Cagayan de Oro City, April 12-14)

I belong to a generation that is said to have rapidly grown to maturity in a period marked by an exploding political and social turmoil. To borrow the words of Charles Dickens in his classical novel, “A Tale of Two Cities”, that period was “…the best of times and the worst of times”.

It was the ‘60s and pre-martial law ’70. The music of ‘The Beatles’, the ‘Bee Gees’ and ‘Peter, Paul and Mary’ melded with the sounds of street bullhorns and fiery revolutionary slogans emitted by angry voices from the marching crowd of rowdy youthful student demonstrators in their unwashed blue denims chanting defiance and clenching their raised fists at the Establishment. Sounds that also echoed the bursts of gunfire and teargas explosions fired from the phalanx of state security forces out to disperse protestant mass actions and eradicate any form of dissent.

It was a period of rebellion by young activists against a decrepit dog-eat-dog society; a society devoid of morality and conscience whose long-entrenched socials ills had already metamorphosed into a ‘cancer’ exacerbated by the rapacity of a ruling elite oblivious of the ‘unwashed’ hoi polloi consigned to abject silence and helpless resignation while wallowing in the midst of appalling poverty and a hand-to-mouth monotonous life of unmitigated despair on account of hopelessness. It was a period of the coming confrontation between an infant revolution, on one hand, that was born on the streets and campuses – or so we thought then - but had almost withered away when the going was at its toughest, and a reactionary state, on the other, that was well on its way to installing a dictatorship while a so-called dominant middle class - smugly complacent and comfortable in its position of apathy – remained fixated on the bourgeois illusion to reach that rarified atmosphere of wealth, fame, pomp, grandeur and obscene extravagance exclusive only to the elites ensconced in their ivory towers.  

It was in this milieu that our rebellious generation was ‘born’ into; a milieu that inevitably many among us would never see its end because they eventually either fell in one battle or another in the mountains of Mindanao and Sulu or had disappeared in the night never to be seen again. But it was also in this tumultuous milieu whereupon our defiant and rebellious generation earned for itself that nomenclature ‘The First Quarter Storm Generation’.

Belonging to the ‘First Quarter Storm Generation’, as my old friends from the North would invariably aver, confers on this generation that privilege and right to partake of the jubilation accompanying the commemorative celebration of that ‘historic moment’ in 1986 when the Dictatorship, which we all fought against in the streets and, our case, in the jungles of Mindanao in the days of our rebellious youth, finally met its ignominious end. So when by chance in February of this current year (2012) I met these old friends from the North, or what remained of them, sporting the now customary yellow ribbon that has become the symbol of the so-called People Power Revolution in 1986, I was asked why I did not wear one as the occasion of the commemoration of that ‘historic event’ requires, as if it were a coveted badge of honor. “Aren’t you a Moro of the ‘First Quarter Storm Generation’?” so went the friendly but, to me, provocative query.
For old times’ sake, I did not respond to my friends’ incredulous nagging question. Had I told them that I do not belong to what they call the 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution, they would not have understood. They would never have accepted any reason that explains why to a Moro Muslim like me, the commemoration at EDSA does not hold any meaning or import.
But friends are friends whatever the differences may be. I owed them an answer – an answer coming from the recesses of the heart.
And so here it is:
The school of revolution and struggle (jihaad) is the best university that a man can enroll in. Here, there is no graduation, no Ph.D. Learning is constant and ‘infinite’ until one finally joins his Creator. Here, one learns the truism that injustice flourishes like the perennial wild weed because it is watered by the silence and indifference of people. Martin Luther King, Jr. of the American civil rights movement once said: "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."

In retrospect, for more than a decade the Marcos dictatorship slaughtered the Bangsamoro people. This was met by silence from the people of the Filipino North. This ‘ethnic cleansing’ went on with intense ferocity and methodical brutality until the Dictatorship turned on the 'silent people' themselves and murdered Ninoy Aquino. Then and only then that that 'silence' morphed into anger that culminated in what they now call and commemorate as the EDSA Revolution. More than a million people, nay millions of people, surged out into the streets of Manila to kick out a despicable dictator in February 1986.

But in 1970, which was the Ilaga depredations in Mindanao, and up till the entire duration of martial law, more than one million Muslim Moros were uprooted from their homes, over 500,000 had to flee to Sabah (Malaysia), and over 200,000 were killed.

Yet, not even a handful, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, let alone a million, marched in the streets of Manila to decry the mass slaughter that was going on in Mindanao and Sulu. There were no yellow ribbons, black ribbons, red ribbons or any colored ribbon that one could think of under the rainbow that would even convey or symbolize a modicum of sympathy for the carnage being unleashed on us in the Moro South. Neither were there pins or streamers that read: “Hindi ka Nag-iisa”.
For the stark reality that stared at us during that nightmarish moment under martial law is that we were alone face-to-face with the excessive use of force that the Dictatorship so brutally utilized without compunction and without regard even for the dignity and honor of our Moro Muslim womenfolk. We stood alone in our fight to survive, we were alone when our communities were bombed to kingdom-come, and we were alone when thousands of us died.

In the North, however, it was business as usual. People spent and celebrated their fiestas, Christmases and New Year’s eves oblivious of the bombs that continuously fell on our homes and killed our women and children. In Manila, as in the rest of the country, they sang to the tunes of the hymn of ‘Bagong Lipunan’ praising a dictator who styled himself as the new messiah divined to “make this country great again”, and nodded in silent assent as he made a mockery of human and civil rights and turned freedom into a parody while his ostentatious wife sought to establish a novel synthetic metropolitan culture of the ‘good and beautiful’ against the backdrop of preponderant squatter communities that bared the real ugliness of the face of pervasive squalor and poverty. 

A friend once told Angela Davis, that Afro-American political, anti-war, and human rights activist in the United States in the 60s: "If they come for us in the night, they will come for you in the morning."
And, indeed, "they" came for us "in the night" but our cries for help and pleas for sympathy were ignored by the people in the North. That is, until "they" came for them "in the morning"...
And this is what they're celebrating about at EDSA.

As a postscript to EDSA 1986, the Marcos dictatorship may have long been gone but social inequities continue to batter and scar the landscape of an already fractured Filipino society. The predatory, corrupt and scandalous elites are still ensconced in their positions of power and excessive wealth, periodically taking turns in presiding over a failing Philippine State through a manipulable political process they call ‘electoral democracy’. And from their ranks, recycled and ‘rehabilitated’ remnants of the Dictatorship still aspire to become another Marcos while a military establishment that believes it alone could make or unmake a ‘king’ waits at the sideline for the right would-be dictator or tyrant who could offer the right price.

In the South, the Bangsamoro people remain chained to their colonial captivity. And the skies continue to rain bombs on Mindanao and Sulu. After Marcos, three all-out wars devastated the Bangsamoro homeland, and the now familiar story of Moro civilian displacement repeated itself again and has since gone on ad infinitum and ad nauseam. The victims’ cries are met no longer by a deafening silence but by collective approbation from the people of the North who now see the Moro Muslim as a ‘terrorist’. But in their conventional prejudice, little do the Filipinos who gather annually at EDSA, and in this country for that matter, realize that the Moro Muslim, whose aspiration is simply to be free, has become the convenient scapegoat for the monumental failure of their corrupt ruling elites to save their sinking ship of state.
No EDSA, or any other EDSA for that matter, will save this sinking ship of state from going down into the depths of the sea until the Filipinos discover for themselves the true meaning of justice, especially in respect of the oppressed Bangsamoro in the South and the masses of people all over the Philippine State floundering helplessly and aimlessly in an ocean of social and political injustice. Nor would counter-insurgency measures, no matter how they are well dressed up with so-called reforms such as what they’re currently doing to that “failed experiment” they call the ARMM, will put closure to the Moro Question. 
The Moro Question is, to put it simply, an issue of the colonization of the Bangsamoro homeland. It is not an issue that has invariably deliberately and mischievously been presented by the ruling regimes of the Philippine State as ‘secession’, for our Moro forefathers never willingly and voluntarily acceded to joining the then nascent political entity in 1935 and 1946, let alone in 1898, now called the Philippine Republic. Our homeland was occupied and converted into a colonial territory of the Philippine State with us, Moros, as the colonial subjects.  It is as simple as that. As such, the Moro Question is also a primordial issue of decolonization, of Moro right to self-determination, and, therefore, of Moro liberation.
This, the Filipinos should now know if they are to understand the sovereignty-based conflict in Mindanao and Sulu.

Like a spiritual epiphany, the Filipinos must come to realize by now that the institutionalization and, therefore, the preponderance of justice should not be left alone in the hands of the whimsical ruling elites, who are themselves the source of injustice, but it is a collective mandatory moral obligation of the people that takes precedence over any political or constitutional expediency. Absent that and what EDSA, or the many EDSAs in the pipeline, would merely be churning out is a Joseph Estrada, a Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, or, worse, another Ferdinand Marcos.

This, my friends from the Philippine State, is among the reasons why we cannot join the commemorative celebration of your EDSA People Power Revolution.
This, my friends, should also underscore why we reject and resist full incorporation into the Philippine State by way of integration and assimilation. If Filipino-Bangsamoro relationship is to work, it could only be by way of free association and ‘parity of esteem’; or, if that does not even work, then separation is the ultimate solution. 

Give us, Moros, back our freedom, give us back what is left of our occupied Homeland, give us back our Moro nationhood, and perhaps we will celebrate your EDSA and other national holidays with you.
It’s now or never.
Thank you and wa assalaamo ‘alaykom.       
-end-

Opening statement of Mohagher Iqbal, chairman of the MILF Peace Panel, during the 26th GPH-MILF Peace Talks held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from March 19-21, 2012.

The Clear Path Without Branches

         We are now in the last month of the first quarter of the year 2012, the timeline for signing the comprehensive compact between the MILF and the Government of the Philippines (GPH) which our honorable counterpart from the GPH had boldly claimed sometime in 2011. Honestly, we were fascinated by such boldness, which we know is very much possible if the Aquino administration is really committed to solve the age-old Moro Question and the armed conflict in Mindanao, following his “Matuwid Na Daan” or “Straight Path” policy, which I solemnly hope is the “Right Path”. 

Why I say this is possible in a straight path policy of any just or rightly-guided leader, if we view this policy in the light of the Islamic principles of “Siratal mustaquim”. In the daily prayers of Muslims, they recite the Surah Al-Fatiha, 17 times in five obligatory prayers and at least 17 in optional prayers, which they solemnly ask for guidance to the straight path. This is the first chapter of the Qur'an, which has seven verses that are all prayers for Allah's guidance, and for stressing on His Lordship and Mercy. 

Siratal Mustaquim is the clear path without branches, according to the language of the Qur’an. Hence the Qur’an would describe the honest person as being straight and the wicked person as being crooked, which includes one who does not fulfill promises and commitments made with fellow human beings. 

It is on this premise that I am hopeful that under the administration of President Aquino the Moro Question and the armed conflict in Mindanao will finally be put to rest.  It is also on this premise that I believe our honorable counterpart in the GPH would deal with us in straight-forward manner; meaning, what has been committed, as a product of honest discussion, will be pursued and followed sincerely, including signing it without delay. From it we can move forward with much trust and confidence, as we confront the most contentious issues of the negotiation.

Surely and without doubt, the comprehensive compact will not be signed now or perhaps even in April, despite the claim of the honorable Secretary Teresita “Ging” Deles-Quintos, banking on “miracle” to happen. The greater fear is that we might not even sign it at all if we are not firm on our resolve to push hard in our negotiation. Sad to note, however, that within the first two years of the Aquino administration, we have not signed anything of great consequence that we can show to our people and the world that indeed there is big happening in the current peace negotiation. I am afraid that we might not be as productive as compared to the times of Secretary Silvestre Afable III, Secretary Rodolfo Garcia, and Ambassador Rafael Seguis, notwithstanding the fact that we have a counterpart in the GPH which is led by a brilliant lawyer and a dean of law at that.

Honestly speaking, despite the stark picture of what is really happening in the negotiation, Central Mindanao provinces are dotted with placards and streamers, obviously coming from the military, proclaiming for the imminent coming of peace in Mindanao. While we congratulate the military for this support of peace in Mindanao; in fact, it is also our clamor, we are also perplexed no end, because such excessive building up of public expectation, will have serious backlash if at the end, there will be no signing. I don’t know why the military is in such frenzy for proclaiming that peace is forthcoming in Mindanao. We do not question their motive, but perhaps there is a communication gap between those in charge of the negotiation and those on the ground. I do not want to view it as a deliberate act for some special effects of unknown reason. Unless we succeed in the current negotiation, this one-sided portrayal of the positive side of the negotiation will only create frustration amongst our people and the possible negative backlash is unimaginable.

Up till today, I hope that the Aquino administration is still pursuing the first best option, which is to sign an agreement with the MILF, and the second best option, which is merely to reform the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), is not being pursued by the government in replacement of the negotiated political settlement of the Moro Question and the armed conflict in Mindanao. And clearly if the first is the option of the government, then we can expect seriousness in the current peace talks. But if the second is now the option, then it is very easy to see. Expect commitment made to be changed randomly.

Lastly, it is perhaps of interests to you that we share of our historic trip to Rome, Italy from March 5-8 upon the invitation of the Community of Sant'Egidio, which is a Christian community that is officially recognized by the Holy See as a “Church public lay association". It claims 50,000 members in more than 70 countries. It is also recognized by the United Nations within the ECOSOC.

Aside from being fascinated by the grandeur of Rome, we were also struck by the openness of the group for religious dialogues and their willingness to take part in conflict resolutions. They have welcomed us with open arms and they are seriously considering reaching out to the Philippine government and the Catholic Church in the Philippines, the two major players in shaping the direction of this state. This group has a good track record in settlement of conflicts from Africa to Bosnia Herzegovina, and to South America. They played the lead role in the settling of the bloody conflict in Mozambique in Africa where 1,000,000 died of starvation and of the fighting. The peace pact that ended this conflict was signed right at the room where we were received by their key leaders led by its president, Professor Marco Impagliazzo, 47, who is teaching history at the university for Foreigners of Perugia, and is now serving his second term as president. 

From Rome, we proceeded to Catalonia upon the invitation of Mr. Kristian Herbolzheimer of the Conciliation Resources, a member of the International Contact Group (ICG). With our own eyes, we were able to see how former monarchial and later dictatorial Spain has now transformed itself into more federal rather than unitary. Madrid had agreed to grant more and more autonomous powers to the 17 regions especially Catalonia and the Basque Country.  We have also talked to the movers of change in the Catalan political landscape and those who represent the status quo. Throughout our four-day visit, we never felt the stigma of the past and the curse of the 320 Moro-Spanish War in Mindanao. And Madrid, to our surprise, is at peace in allowing the Catalans to pursue their right to identity, language, and for a homeland. But still one of the battle lines of continuous hard bargaining is about the right to tax, which Madrid refuses to budge an inch to Catalan to this day.  

We also had a side trip to Granada where that famous Alhambra Palace of the Moorish King is situated. We saw the grandeur of the palace, the greatness of the architecture, and the impregnable fort where the last battle between the Moors and Catholic army was fought that resulted in the decisive defeat of the first, which ended their almost 800 years rule in Spain. It is an experience of a life-time that brought us back in time, as Atty. Datu Michael Mastura, one ustadz, and I slowly made our way slowly through the crowd of mostly Japanese tourists, to examine every corner and room of the fancied palace.

To the Moros in Mindanao, this side trip is very important. Had not the Moors been defeated in Spain, the Spaniards would not have come to the Philippines and probably the whole of it would have become Muslims, because at the coming of Spain in 1570, Manila and Tondo were firmly under Moro hegemony. There were also many areas in Visayas and Luzon held by Moros especially Batangas, Mindoro, and Pampanga. But these are all water under the bridge. History has it that the unconquered is now at the mercy of the conquered. This is what we are trying to correct in this negotiation: the great imbalance of the totality of relationship between the Philippine state and the Moros of Mindanao.

On this note, I thank everyone in this session hall for lending me his or her ear as we made a rundown of what I believe as the true state of this 15-year old GPH-MILF peace negotiation in Mindanao.

Thank you and good day!

-----------------

Opening statement of Mohagher Iqbal, chairman of the MILF Peace Panel, during the 26th GPH-MILF Peace Talks held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from March 19-21, 2012.

Bangsamoro Brief

Bangsamoro Brief

By Maulana M. Alonto

There is no need to go into the lengthy historical narrative that underpins the conflict in Mindanao and Sulu as this has been the subject of the discourse that has been there with us since time immemorial.

What is imperative, however, is that in the collective quest to find a peaceful political resolution to this conflict, it behooves on us to understand its character, which, for quite some time has been erroneously called the ‘Moro Problem’ but which should properly be addressed as the ‘Bangsamoro Question’.

Positing it in this perspective rectifies the established notion and convention that it was the Moros who created this conflict and are not the wholesale victims of the colonialist and imperialist wars began by the Spaniards, the Americans and now the Filipinos. With this as a starting point, it would be easier to view this conflict objectively and clearly and, as such, proceed towards addressing its root cause, thus, allowing the formulation of a more permanent solution that is precisely attuned to righting the historical and current injustices committed on the Bangsamoro people.

In this context, the logical question that has to be asked is: what is the Bangsamoro Question?

In the language of international conflict resolution, the Bangsamoro Question is categorized as a sovereignty-based conflict. To be more precise, it is a conflict between two colliding principles, or ideologies if you may: the ideology of ‘Philippine sovereignty and territorial integrity’ on one hand, and the right of the Bangsamoro people to self-determination on the other.

The collision arose when the Philippine state, as the veritable successor-in-interest to Spanish colonialism and early 20^th century American imperialism, imposed and applied its ideology of ‘Philippine sovereignty and territorial integrity’ on the Bangsamoro people, thereby ignoring historical and moral factors that should - using the yardstick of what is right and wrong – not have spawned this conflict that is without question debilitating to both the Filipino people and the Bangsamoro people.

It is, on the other hand, the dictates of defense – defense of their freedoms, their homeland, their identity, their culture and Islamic faith – that this imposition by the Philippine State was, and is, now being met and confronted by armed resistance of the Bangsamoro people underpinned by their reassertion of the right of colonized and captive peoples and nations to self-determination and freedom recognized by international law and the universal principles of human rights.

Since the right of a modern nation-state, such as the Philippine state, to preserve and defend its national sovereignty and territorial integrity is also recognized by international law, it would seem that the sovereignty-based conflict that confronts us is complicated.

This perceived complication as seen from and by the Philippine side, however, is not grounded on firm historical antecedents simply because of the gross injustice surrounding the annexation of the Bangsamoro people and their homeland into the Philippine State without their plebiscitary consent initially in the 1935 Philippine Commonwealth and finally in the grant of Philippine independence by the US government in 1946. Looking farther back, neither would the Treaty of Paris of 1898 justify the inclusion of the Bangsamoro homeland into the Philippine islands hitherto possessed by Spain and sold to the Americans simply because Spain never exercised colonial suzerainty over the Bangsamoro people.

Simply put, the facts of history put a big question mark on the applicability of the Philippine State’s right to exercise that principle of ‘Philippine national sovereignty and territorial integrity’ with respect to the Bangsamoro people and their posterity.

At this juncture, Moro right to self-determination should be seen not only as a political issue but a big moral issue that underscores the question of justice. It is a question that involves the existing colonial relationship between the Philippine State and the Bangsamoro people – an unjust relationship that has given birth to the conflict that hounds us to this very day.

Today, the MILF and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GPH) are engaged in peace negotiation. To the MILF, the negotiation has as its guiding compass the restructuring and redefining of the totality of colonial relationship between the Philippine State and the Bangsamoro people. Addressing the root cause of the Bangsamoro Question, insofar as the MILF is concerned, must be the primordial objective of the negotiation without which the conflict will never end and will go on for generations.

However, the MILF also believes that midway between the right of the Philippine State to preserve its ‘national sovereignty and territorial integrity’ on one hand and Bangsamoro right to self-determination (which would cover a wide range of political options including political independence) on the other, is a compromise political formula sourced out from paradigms of similar sovereignty-based conflicts around the globe.

This compromise political formula necessitates the creation of a Bangsamoro state or sub-state within the larger framework of Philippine statehood. Such a political arrangement precludes outright separatism but restructures Philippine State-Bangsamoro colonial relationship into one that institutionalizes parity of esteem between the two parties by way of association similar to what has been successfully adopted by other states which were in conflict with their captive peoples and nations.

We are in full agreement with this compromise political formula presented by the MILF to the GPH on the negotiating table. This is the last card, so to speak, that would allow, short of political independence, the Bangsamoro people the space and freedom to reassume their Bangsamoro identity, preserve what is left of their ancestral homeland, exercise that right to genuinely govern it, recover control of their natural resources within their homeland for their development and progress, and finally to live according to their Islamic way of life.

Should this be absent, we have no other option, no other choice, but to continue the Moro liberation struggle but this time for complete independence.

-end-

Ranao Civil Society Leaders Face the Media

Special Report by Muhammad d Salahuddin

February 17, 2012-

A press conference with the theme: “TRUTH ABOUT LIES: LANAO PERSPECTIVE ON THE DESTRUCTION BROUGHT BY SENDONG” was successfully held at Brewberry Cafe ,Divisoria, Cagayan De Oro City. The event is in response to the allegation of  local government officials particularly Mayor  Vicente ‘Dongkoy’ Emano of Cagayan de Oro City and Mayor Lawrence Cruz of Iligan City, National Government and some members of the media that logging in Lanao is to be blamed for the destruction brought by Typhoon Sendong last September 16-17, 2011.

Typhoon Sendong  (international name ‘Washi’)  was the deadliest natural  disaster that hit the Philippines in 2011;  it affected about 30 thousand families and thousands perished  in that tragedy.

“Sendong was a tropical storm, a natural disaster. Whatever came its way would have been washed away, be they houses, cars or even trees.  How come it is being blamed on us?” asked Engr. Pipalawan O. Naga an environmental activist for more than 20 years based in Lanao del Sur.

Engr. Naga also belied the claim that the logs that killed many in some parts of Iligan City was stockpiled in Kapai, Lanao del Sur. “It may be true that the logs were cut illegally from Lanao, but it is possible and it is our claim that prior to December 16,2011 the logs were already stockpiled in Iligan City. We challenge anybody to present evidence that Lanao is to be blamed for  the destruction brought by Sendong.”

An article published at Inquirer.net last December 31,2011 said that the task force created by ARMM-OIC Mujiv Hataman reported that VicMar, a Makati based logging firm, had been stockpiling timber in its log pond in the Kapai-Bayug river (ILIGAN) junction before processing these in its sawmill in Barangay Hinaplanon in Iligan City, which is along the Mandulog River.

“So after the logs were stocked at the log pond, these logs will be naturally drifted away to Iligan City through the Mandulog River,” the task force said.

“Only VicMar has been in operation in the area since 1975,” the task force further said.

VicMar, the task force said, got a Timber License Agreement for 18,730 hectares of forests in Kapai and Tagoloan II on Nov. 27, 1975. It expired on June 30, 1997, but VicMar applied for an IFMA. The IFMA, issued on March 25, 1996, reduced VicMar’s area of operations to 6,795 hectares. and would expire on March 24, 2021.

Vicmar’s  known owner is Vicente L. Angliongto,  former president of  the Philippine Chamber of Commerce. It was learned that Vicente L. Angliongto accompanied the late former president Cory Aquino, mother of now President Noynoy Aquino, in her first visit to United States of America in 1987. “We have the suspicion that the owner of said firm holds a special relationship with the Aquino family and this may be the reason why until now no case had been filed against them,”  said Drieza A. Lininding of BMYM.

Mr. Lininding also chided Mayor Vicente Emano of Cagayan de Oro for blaming logging in Lanao for the destruction suffered by his city. ” We really don’t see the connection of Lanao to CdO (referring to the drainage map presented by Engr.PIP NAGA earlier in the conference)”.

The organizers of the said conference advised Mayor Emano to instead turn to Plantation, Mining and logging companies as the causes in the destruction brought by Sendong.

A relevant article published at www.agham.org last December 22,2011 said that Francis Morales of the environmental group Panalipdan Mindanao pointed out that the vulnerability of the area (Cagayan de oro) increased because of the land conversion of watershed areas to benefit pineapple and jathropa plantations. This has been supported by a 2009 study by the University of the Philippines National Institute of Geological Sciences of CDO’s susceptibility to floods. It revealed the increased vulnerability of downstream communities after the conversion of 2,000 hectares of the Upper Pulangi Watershed’s forest cover into a pineapple plantation owned by Del Monte Philippines, Inc.

I has to be noted that Martin Ignacio Lorenzo of Del Monte Phillippines donated P20 million during Noynoy Aquino’s  presidential campaign in 2010.

One of those who organized and was present in the press conference, Ms. Hamida G. Guro of Young Moro Professionals Network Inc. (Northern Mindanao), appealed to the media to help reveal the truth. “Kami na ang biktima, kami pa ang sinisisi,” lamented Ms. Guro in Tagalog.

Since the Sendong tragedy happened, Lanao del Sur has been subjected to many operations by the Armed Forces of the Philippines. There were reported cases of human rights violations by soldiers like illegal search, confiscation, and harassment. Timber products including those already processed were considered illegal by the AFP particularly the 103^rd BDE based in Lanao del Sur.  Some furniture shops and hardware stores had to close down for fear of being the subject of said operations. As a result, the people of Lanao del Sur need to go down to Iligan and Cagayan de Oro to buy those timber products needed for construction.

INDEPENDENCE, NOT SUBSTATE OR AUTONOMY:
A MANIFESTO OF THE BANGSAMORO PEOPLE


December 10, 2011



Assalamu ‘alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh.



TODAY, December 10, 2011, marks the 113th anniversary of the signing of the
infamous Treaty of Paris between the Spanish and American imperialist governments.
Under such dubious agreement signed by the colonial powers in Paris, France on
December 10, 1898, the territories of the Moro Sultanates in Mindanao and Sulu
Archipelago were treacherously lumped together with the territories of the Spanish-
controlled Las Islas Filipinas which in reality only comprised the islands situated in
Luzon and the Visayas. Hence the territories ruled by the Spaniards and the territories
ruled by the Moros were sold by Spain to the United States for a sum of 20 million
dollars. As a consequence of the cession treaty, the Moros and their territories became
subjects of the United States. Of course, the cession of the Moro territories was “unjust,
illegal and immoral” for it lacked the plebiscitary consent of the Moro people on
whether they wanted to join the new entity called The Philippine Islands.



 The American occupation forces never had the chance of sleeping in peace while
colonizing the Moros. Granting in arguendo that some Moro leaders, in between the
signing of the Kiram-Bates Treaty of August 20, 1899 up to the creation of the Philippine
Commonwealth in 1935, allowed themselves to live under the shade of the American
flag, the Moros in general, valiantly fought to death the Americans and their occupation
forces composed of Americans and Filipino Constabulary troopers. Hence it cannot be
generalized that the Moros were totally subjugated; they were just colonized but never
been completely subjugated.



 While the Moro leaders were partially militarily crippled by their invading
American enemies aided by their Indios-turned-Filipino oppressors, they did not give
up their fight for freedom and independence for the sake of the next generations of the
Moros, to include the present generation. As evidence, the Moros in the February 1,
1924 Declaration of Rights and Purposes Addressed to the Congress of the United
States of America, gave the American invaders several peaceful solutions by way of
plebiscite to resolve the Moro Problem:



“In order that we may be fair to Filipinos and in order that they may not raise
an outcry to the effect that we wish to dismember the Philippine Islands, we
propose that fifty (50) years after independence may have been granted the rest
of the Philippine Islands, a plebiscite be held in the proposed unorganized
territory to decide by vote whether the proposed territory will be incorporated in


the government of the Islands of Luzon and Visayas, remain a territory, or
become independent.”



On that same Declaration, the Moro leaders had demonstrated their unity: “IT IS
OUR FIRM INTENTION AND RESOLVE TO DECLARE OURSELVES AN
INDEPENDENT CONSTITUTIONAL SULTANATE TO BE KNOWN TO THE WORLD
AS THE MORO NATION.” By saying so, the Moro leaders united themselves as “the
Moro Nation” which became “Bangsa Moro” and later “Bangsamoro”. The leaders of
the Moro Nation spoke in unison, resounding voice against their handing over to the
Filipinos in a future republic which became the “Republic of the Philippines” in 1946.



Even before and after the creation of the Philippine Commonwealth by virtue of
the Tydings-McDuffie Law of 1934, the Moros registered their strong opposition against
their inclusion in a future Philippine republic as manifested in the signing of the several
Dansalan Declarations in 1934 and 1935. In one of those famous declarations, the Moros
prophesized an unending “unrest, suffering and misery” between the Moros and
Filipinos, hence, they asked for the separation of Mindanao and Sulu Archipelago from
an independent Philippines, and prayed further that if the US couldn’t grant their
request, then “we must pray that Lanao should be melted so that we will be forever and
entirely eradicated.” But the Americans did not heed the Moro petitions and proceeded
to grant one independent state for the Filipinos without provisions for the future
political status of the oppressed Bangsamoro people.



Yet, the Moros also fought bloodily for their rights to remain free from Philippine
colonialism as epitomized by Maas Kamlun in the 1950s, Hadjal Uh in the 1960s, and
several other community-based uprisings against the neo-colonial invaders: the
Filipinos. Then came the Mindanao Independence Movement (MIM), Bangsa Moro
Liberation Organization (BMLO), Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), Moro
Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), and recently the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom
Movement (BIFM). These armed organizations were determined, in one way or another,
or by any means possible, to achieve freedom and independence for the aggrieved
Bangsamoro people. The MIM and BMLO died a natural death owing to various
reasons. The MNLF still fights for a “Bangsamoro Autonomous Government.” The
MILF is now pursuing a “Bangsamoro Sub-State.” The BIFM has not concretely defined
its objective except that it does not believe in peace negotiations as a way of achieving
an independent Islamic State.



The legal panel meetings between the Philippine government and the MNLF are
achieving empty promises of GPH-MNLF “partnership.” The “endless, winding, and
directionless Peace Negotiations” (as the Mindanao Alliance for Peace has so coined it)
between the Philippine government and the MILF are also going nowhere for the
government has no concrete formula to finally put honorable closure to the centuries-
old Moro people’s struggle for their right to self-determination, freedom and independence. It seems though that the MILF has already abandoned the struggle for independence when the head of its negotiating team, Mr. Mohagher Iqbal, has officially announced at Kuala Lumpur on March 3, 2010 that:

 “We have declared time and again that the MILF will no longer
pursue independence as solution to the Bangsamoro problem in favor of
an asymmetrical arrangement of a “state-and-substate” arrangement”
(see http://www.luwaran.net).



The MNLF has been twice duped by the Philippine government: first in the
Tripoli Agreement of December 23, 1976 through its Paragraph 16, and second, in the
Final Peace Agreement of September 2, 1996 under its Item 153 by recognizing the
Philippine Constitution as final arbiter of any disagreement in the implementation of
said agreements.



And now the Philippine government is also trying to hoodwink the MILF by
stating in its 2010 Draft Peace Agreement the recognition by the MILF of “autonomy”
and “Philippine Constitution” thus the very first statement of the draft agreement
states: “Recognizing that the Philippines is a nation of ethnic and cultural diversity,
where people can claim autonomy within the framework of national sovereignty and
territorial integrity, as expressed in the 1987 constitution.” Such statement was refined
in the draft “ACCORD BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND THE MORO ISLAMIC LIBERATION FRONT (“2011 GPH-MILF
PEACE ACCORD”) or more popularly known as the “Three for One Formula” by
rephrasing it to read as: “This Agreement recognizes that the Republic of the
Philippines is composed of communities with diverse ethnic and cultural traditions,
where citizens can claim autonomy and self-governance within the framework of
national sovereignty and territorial integrity.” Worse, both statements have been so
elaborated in the DRAFT ACCORD as follows:



This Agreement considers the following key documents in its
interpretation and implementation: a…..; b…..; c….. and d. the Constitution and
laws, whenever appropriate, such as Republic Act No. 6734, as amended by
Republic Act No. 9054 and Republic Act No. 9333, as amended by Republic Act
No. 10153; Republic Act No. 8371; and Republic Act No. 7160.


It is not the intention of the Parties to derogate upon prior agreements
nor the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.



If it is true that the MILF “have declared time and again that the MILF will no
longer pursue independence as solution to the Bangsamoro problem,” then this is a
looming dilemma. This is contrary to the letter and spirit of the February 1, 1924
Declaration of Rights and Purposes Addressed to the Congress of the United States of
America, and all of the Dansalan Declarations. Such statement also runs counter and
diametrically opposed to all of the bay’ahs or solemn pledges or oath by the MILF
mujahideeen: “to make supreme the Word of Allah, and to work for the establishment
of an Islamic government until victory or martyrdom is finally achieved, insha’ Allah.”
The Bangsamoro people respectfully request the MILF leadership to affirm if the above-
quoted statement of Mr. Mohagher Iqbal reflects the official position of the MILF
Central Committee.



As a reminder, the then MILF Chairman Ustaz Salamat Hashim (may Allah be
pleased with him) once stated to the Crescent International (August 16-31, 1994) that “any
solution less than full independence of the Bangsamoro Muslims will not work” on the
ground that: Past experience since the beginning of the annexation of the Bangsamoro homeland
to the Philippines in 1935 have proved that the Muslims could not live a normal life
under a corrupt, secular government and that the two peoples, the Bangsamoros and the
Filipinos, could not get along with each other because of their distinct religions, cultures,
customs, and traditions. Besides, we believe that it will be for the best interests of the
Bangsamoros and the Filipinos if both were free.



Chairman Salamat Hashim reiterated such statement in 1999 by telling the
Crescent International that: “The MILF would never agree to any solution other than the
full independence of the Bangsamoro homeland” (Crescent International, March 16-31,
1999).



By all indications, it can be said that the MNLF has miserably failed in achieving
both the “Bangsamoro Republik” as dreamed of under the April 28, 1974 Manifesto for the
Establishment of the Bangsamoro Republik and the “Autonomy for the Muslims in the
South of the Philippines” envisioned under the 1976 Tripoli Agreement and the 1996
Final Peace Agreement even after ruling the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
(ARMM) for eight years from September 1996 up to September 2004 during the
administrations of MNLF Chairman Nur Misuari and MNLF Foreign Affairs chief Dr.
Parouk Hussin. The “Bangsamoro Autonomous Government” is also losing ground and
supporters due to the past failure of MNLF to govern the ARMM. The envisioned
Republic of Sulu and Sabah also failed to take off.



While not losing the all-out wars of 2000, 2003 and 2008, the MILF may have lost
the intellectual struggle to establish the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) when the all-
Christian Philippine Supreme Court declared the GRP-MILF Memorandum of
Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) as “CONTRARY TO LAW AND THE
CONSTITUTION” (568 SCRA 402). And we fear now that the MILF will lose the
envisioned “Bangsamoro Sub-State” if the Philippine government will drag the
negotiations through its misleading “Three for One Formula” and thereafter pass its
fate, and the fate of the peace process, to the next administration.


The civil society organizations, non-government organizations and people’s
organizations in Mindanao and the Philippines in general could also not provide
concrete, written alternative, if any, that could be regarded as “working draft” in
reformulating the MILF’s draft Comprehensive Compact and the Philippine
government’s draft “2011 GPH-MILF PEACE ACCORD”. Neither the International
Contact Group (ICG) has clearly done so. All that the CSOs are doing is to “ride on” the
issue of Sub-State for organizational, not necessarily personal, gains.



In view of the foregoing, the oppressed Bangsamoro people declare:



1. That the MNLF and MILF must reconsider and seriously rethink their
aspirations for “Autonomy” and “Sub-State” in favor of an
INDEPENDENT BANGSAMORO STATE taking into consideration
the previous written aspirations and declarations issued by the
Bangsamoro leaders and peoples as contained in (a) the February 1,
1924 Declaration of Rights and Purposes Addressed to the Congress of
the United States of America, and (b) Dansalan Declarations of March
26, 1934, May 15, 1934, May 16, 1934, July 13, 1934, and March 18, 1935,
calling for the granting by the US government of a separate
independent State for the Moros once the Filipinos were granted their
independence;




2. That the US government, the United Nations through the Secretary-
General, and the European Union must be seriously considered by
warring parties, i.e. the Philippine government, MNLF and MILF, as
“honest brokers” or “mediators” of the peace process taking into
consideration that the Moro Problem and the protracted war in the
Bangsamoro homeland were creations of the US government when it
signed the December 10, 1898 Treaty of Paris. Admittedly, major
powers in the world, as well as the United Nations, are strong brokers
of peace processes as how they have performed in the resolution of
sovereignty-based conflicts in Northern Ireland, East Timor, Kosovo,
Aceh, Bougainville, and South Sudan.


Eminent statesmen and powerful leaders are largely responsible as
mediators in forging peace agreements all over the world. Prime
Minister Dr. Tun Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia, President Bill
Clinton of the US, Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom,
and President Maarti Ahtisaari of Finland can make a difference and
great accomplishment in the resolution of the Moro Problem if anyone
of them is the “mediator” of the GPH-MILF peace negotiations, of
course with the full backing and sanctions of the UN, EU and the
Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). A strong mediator can
produce a highly respected peace agreement.




3. That it is high time that the US and Spanish governments re-negotiate
in its entirety the December 10, 1898 Treaty of Paris so as to rectify the
great mistake in including the independent territories of the Moro
sultanates of Mindanao and Sulu in the delimitation of the territories
ceded by Spain to the US.




4. That the GPH-MILF peace negotiations and GPH-MNLF legal panel
meetings must set shorter and more definitive time-frames (just six
months for the Aceh-Government of Indonesia to complete the peace
process and seal the conflict which also started in contemporaneous
with the Moro Question in the 1500s!). Fourteen years of peace
negotiations is too lengthy a time-frame. If President Maarti Ahtisaari
did it for six months, then Prime Minister Dr. Tun Mahathir can also
do it for six months starting January 2012, insha’ Allah! Prolonged
negotiations only produce negotiation fatigue and a state of “no war
no peace” which is disadvantageous on the part of the Bangsamoro
people.




5. That the mass movements of the Bangsamoro and Filipino peoples, to
include the Bangsamoro People’s Consultative Assembly (BPCA), the
Mindanao Alliance for Peace (MAP), the Mindanao People’s Peace
Movement (MPPM), the Mindanao People’s Caucus (MPC), the
Consortium of Bangsamoro Civil Society (CBCS), and all other Moro
mass movements must join ranks to seek the assistance of the good
offices of the UN, US government, EU and OIC in resolving the Moro
Question by way of a UN-supervised/administered referendum in lieu
of the current protracted and endless peace negotiations.


We must openly admit that the Philippine government is just
fooling around the MILF at the negotiating table by way of delaying
tactics while at the same time pouring in thousands of its Armed
Forces in and around the well acknowledged MILF camps all over the
Bangsamoro homeland and strategic coastal areas with the technical
and military assistance of the US Armed Forces and the Australian
Defense establishment. Such massive deployment of colonial troops
sends a strong message that it is determined to crush the MILF and the
MNLF under the pretext of seeking “all-out justice.”



6. That the Bangsamoro people respectfully wish to remind the
leadership of the BPCA, to include Prof. Abhoud Syed M. Lingga who
has become a Member of the MILF Peace Panel, of the BPCA’s
Resolutions issued during its first gathering on December 3-5, 1996 in
Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao, stating that “the only just, viable and



lasting solution to the Bangsamoro problem is the establishment of
an independent Bangsamoro state and government,” and during its
second assembly in the same area on June 1-3, 2001:




1. That the only just, meaningful, and permanent solution to the
Mindanao Problem is the complete independence of the Bangsamoro
people and the territories they now actually occupy from the Republic
of the Philippines.

2. That pursuant to this declaration of Bangsamoro independence
and in the spirit of justice and human brotherhood, we also extend
recognition and support to the same right to self-determination of the
indigenous highland tribal community and the Christian settler
peoples of Mindanao if and when they so opt to exercise this right.

3. That in view of the forthcoming peace negotiation between the
Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the Government of the Republic of
the Philippines, we are giving our full support and mandate to the
MILF to represent us in the said negotiation, as well as in the
Organization of Islamic Conference and the United Nations;
provided, however, that the MILF does not deviate from our demand
for complete independence and accept a compromise formula sort of
this aforesaid demand. Should the MILF choose to deviate, these
support and mandate are deemed automatically rescinded and
withdrawn, and we shall pursue the struggle through any means
open to us until Allah, the Most High, has given us the victory or
granted us the honor of martyrdom.



We would like to be clarified of the official position of BPCA regarding
its two resolutions calling for “complete independence” and the
mandate it has given to the MILF to negotiate for “complete
independence” vis-à-vis Mr. Mohagher Iqbal’s statement “that the
MILF will no longer pursue independence as solution to the
Bangsamoro problem in favor of an asymmetrical arrangement of a
“state-and-substate” arrangement.”



7. That the Bangsamoro people seriously forewarn the MILF leadership
and its Peace Panel NOT TO SIGN any agreement that would
deliberately foreclose the aspirations for freedom and independence
and the legitimate rights of the Bangsamoro people for self-
determination without provisions for the determination of their future
political status, and especially NOT TO SIGN an accord that would
state:




“Nothing in this agreement shall be construed as implying in any
form or manner that the intent of the Parties to allow a present or


future political status separate from that of the national territory and
sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines.”



The Bangsamoro people also caution the MILF leadership and its Peace
Panel NOT TO SIGN any compact that would provide for the
demobilization and disarmament of the Bangsamoro Islamic Armed
Forces (BIAF) as this armed wing is among the potent forces that make
the Philippine government and whole world respect the MILF and the
Bangsamoro people. Once demobilized and disarmed, the MILF and
the Bangsamoro people are NOTHING as how the Philippine colonial
government currently treats the MNLF, its leadership and followers.



8. That the Terms of Reference of the International Monitoring Team
(IMT) must be fully enforced and respected by everybody taking into
account that local government officials like the City Mayor of
Zamboanga and the Provincial Governor of Zamboanga Sibugay do
not give the IMT the freedom of coordinated movement necessary to
perform its duties as mandated. If the Philippine government cannot
even enforce the ToR of the IMT, then there is no cogent argument
why it can enforce any future peace pact with the MILF.




9. That it is for the best interest of the Bangsamoro people to explore
other alternatives to complement and further enhance the Bangsamoro
Sub-State proposition, such as: a) Judge Soliman M. Santos’ Bangsamoro
Islamic Region and Bangsamoro Self-governing Region; b) UP Professor
Dr. Samuel K. Tan’s Federated Islamic States of Southern Philippines; and
c) complete independence from the Republic of the Philippines.




WE FINALLY CALL UPON all able bodied Bangsamoro people to stand firm in
defending their rights to self-determination and strengthen their preparation to pursue
the Jihad fi sabeelillah and the struggle for the liberation of our people from Philippine
colonial rule in every available means and manner allowed under the tenets of Islam
and International Law, insha’ Allah.



NO TO ENDLESS AND DIRECTIONLESS PEACE NEGOTIATIONS!

Down with Philippine colonialism over the Bangsamoro Homeland!

Long live the Bangsamoro Jihad fi Sabilillah!

Long live the Bangsamoro struggle for freedom and independence!

Victory or Martyrdom!

ALLAHU AKBAR! ALLAHU AKBAR! ALLAHU AKBAR!



Wassalamu ‘alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh.

UNDERSTANDING BANGSAMORO INDEPENDENCE AS A MODE OF SELF-DETERMINATION

UNDERSTANDING BANGSAMORO INDEPENDENCE                                                                  AS A MODE OF SELF-DETERMINATION

[Paper delivered during the Forum on Mindanao Peace sponsored by the University of the Philippines in Mindanao Department of Social Sciences, the Philippine Development Assistance Programme and the Association of Mindanao State University Alumni on February 28, 2002 at its City Campus, Iñigo St., Davao City, Philippines.]

Abhoud Syed M. Lingga


Introduction
I would like to thank the University of the Philippines in Mindanao, the Philippine Development Assistance Programme and the Association of Mindanao State University Alumni for the invitation to share with you some thoughts on the issue of Bangsamoro independence. As a mode of self-determination, independence occupies, and will always occupy, space in the discourse on the Mindanao Problem since it is the core issue in the struggle of the Bangsamoro people for self-determination.
I am happy that this issue is given separate treatment in forum like this outside the circle of the Bangsamoro people. Discussion on issues of independence, autonomy and federalism in the search for solution to the Mindanao Problem will certainly contribute positively in the quest for peace in Mindanao.
Right to Self-determination
The right to self-determination is the collective right of a people to determine their own future free of any outside interference or coercion. It includes the right to determine their political status and to freely pursue their economic, social, spiritual and cultural development.

In the exercise of that right, people at one end can demand and pursue within the nation state more political power, active participation in the decision making and administration of government affairs, equitable redistribution of economic benefits, and appropriate ways of preserving and protecting their culture and way of life. On the other end, they have also the right to organize their own sovereign and independent state with the right to international recognition.
The United Nations declaration on decolonization states, “All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”.
As a people, the Bangsamoro possess the right to self-determination. Both the Philippine government and the MILF recognize that right. Paragraph B (1) of the Agreement on Peace Between the Government of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, otherwise known as the Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001, signed on June 22, 2001 in Tripoli, Libya, provides:
“The observance of international humanitarian law and respect for internationally recognized human rights instruments and the protection of evacuees and displaced persons in the conduct of their relations reinforce the Bangsamoro people’s fundamental right to determine their own future and political status.”(Emphasis supplied)
The use of the word “reinforce” implies that “the Bangsamoro people’s fundamental right to determine their future and political status” exists even before the signing of the agreement. Negotiated and signed in the presence of foreign dignitaries in foreign country made that recognition with international character.
The recognition of the “aspirations of the Bangsamoro people for freedom” (Paragraph B (2) of the above cited document) substantiates the legitimacy of their right to self-determination.
Having also a long history of independence in the same territory they now occupy and possessing distinct identity and culture, in the assertion of their right of self-determination the Bangsamoro people choose to regain their independence. Both the liberation fronts and the civil society movement share the vision of reemergence of the Bangsamoro state and government in their homeland
History of Independence
The historical experience of the Bangsamoro people in statehood and governance started as early as the middle of the 15th century when Sultan Sharif ul-Hashim established the Sulu Sultanate. This was followed by the establishment of the Magindanaw Sultanate in the early part of the 16th century by Sharif Muhammad Kabungsuwan. The Sultanate of Buayan and the Pat a Pangampong ko Ranao (Confederation of the Four Lake-based Emirates) and other political subdivisions were organized later.

By the time the Spanish colonialists arrived in the Philippines the Muslims of Mindanao, Sulu - Tawi-Tawi archipelago and the islands of Basilan and Palawan had already established their own states and governments with diplomatic and trade relations with other countries including China. Administrative and political system based on the realities of the time existed in those states. In fact it was the existence of the well-organized administrative and political system that the Bangsamoro people managed to survive the military campaign against them by Western colonial powers for several centuries and preserve their identity as a political and social organization.
For centuries the Spanish colonial government attempted to conquer the Muslim states to subjugate their political existence and to add the territory to the Spanish colonies in the Philippine Islands but history tells us that it never succeeded. The Bangsamoro states with their organized maritime forces and armies succeeded in defending the Bangsamoro territories thus preserving the continuity of their independence.
That is why it is being argued, base on the logic that you cannot sell something you do not possess, that the Bangsamoro territories are not part of what where ceded by Spain to the United States in the Treaty of Paris of 1898 because Spain had never exercise sovereignty over these areas.
The Bangsamoro resistance against attempts to subjugate their independence continued even when US forces occupied some areas in Mindanao and Sulu. At this time the resistance of the Bangsamoro governments was not as fierce as during the Moro-Spanish wars but group-organized guerrilla attacks against American forces and installations reinforced what remained of the sultanates’ military power. Even individual Bangsamoro showed defiance against American occupation of their homeland by attacking American forces in operation called prang sabil (martyrdom seeking operation).
Opposition to Annexation
When the United States government promised to grant independence to the Philippine Islands, the Bangsamoro leaders registered their strong objection to be part of the Philippine republic. In a petition to the president of the United States dated June 9, 1921, the people of Sulu archipelago said that they would prefer being part of the United States rather than to be included in an independent Philippine nation.
In the Declaration of Rights and Purposes, the Bangsamoro leaders meeting in Zamboanga on February 1, 1924, proposed that the “Islands of Mindanao and Sulu, and the Island of Palawan be made an unorganized territory of the United States of America” in anticipation that in the event the US will decolonize its colonies and other non-self governing territories the Bangsamoro homeland would be granted separate independence. Had it happened, the Bangsamoro would have regained by now their independence under the UN declaration on decolonization. Their other proposal was that if independence had to be granted including the Bangsamoro territories, 50 years after Philippine independence a plebiscite be held in Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan to decide by vote whether the territory would be incorporated in the government of the Islands of Luzon and Visayas, remain a territory of the United States, or become independent. The 50 years period ended in 1996 the same year the Final Agreement on the Implementation of the Tripoli Agreement was signed by the MNLF and the Philippine government. The leaders warned that if no provision of retention under the United States was made, they would declare an independent constitutional sultanate to be known as Moro Nation.

The opposition against annexation continued. On March 18, 1935, the datus of Lanao met in Dansalan (now Marawi City) and appealed to the United States government and the American people not to include Mindanao and Sulu in the grant of independence to the Filipinos.
Continuing Assertion
Even after their territories were made part of the Philippine nation state after it gained independence from the United States in 1946, the Bangsamoro people continue to assert their right to independence. They consider the annexation of their homeland as illegal and immoral since it was done without their plebiscitary consent.
The armed resistance of Kamlon was the manifestation of protest in response to the usurpation of their sovereign right as a people. And to show their strong desire to regain independence through all possible means, Congressman Ombra Amilbangsa filed House Bill No. 5682 during the fourth session of the Fourth Congress that sought the granting and recognition of the independence of Sulu, even knowing that it would not pass Congress since there were only few Muslim members. Then on May 1, 1968, Governor Datu Udtog Matalam of Cotabato issued the Mindanao Independence Movement (MIM) manifesto calling for the independence of Mindanao and Sulu to be known and referred to as the Republic of Mindanao and Sulu..
When it became evident that it would not be possible to regain independence within the framework of the Philippine nation state system, the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) was organized to complement the political struggle with military force. When the MNLF accepted autonomy within the framework of Philippine sovereignty a faction of the MNLF separated and formed the Moro Islamic Liberation Front to continue the struggle for independence.
Even the Bangsamoro civil society, through peaceful and democratic means, joins the campaign for independence. The 1,070,697 delegates to the First Bangsamoro People’s Consultative Assembly (BPCA) held on December 3-5, 1996 in Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao were unanimous in calling for reestablishment of the Bangsamoro state and government.

The Second Bangsamoro People’s Consultative Assembly held on June 1-3, 2001 at the same place, this time attended by 2,627,345 delegates from all over the Bangsamoro homeland, including representatives of non-Muslim indigenous communities, unanimously declared that “the only just, meaningful, and permanent solution to the Mindanao Problem is the complete independence of the Bangsamoro people and the territories they now actually occupy from the Republic of the Philippines.”

Bangsamoro leaders, headed by Sultan Abdul Aziz Guiwan Mastura Kudarat IV of the Sultanate of Magindanaw, meeting in Cotabato City on January 28, 2001 expressed their strong desire to regain the Bangsamoro independence. The Declaration of Intent and Manifestation of Direct Political Act they issued states:
“As sovereign individuals, we believe that the Bangsamoro people’s political life, as matters stand, call for an OIC-sponsored or UN-supervised referendum in the interest of political justice to decide once and for all:
• To remain as an autonomous region
• To form a state of federated union
• To become an independent state”
Bangsamoro, Not Filipino
The feeling of having distinct identity and culture reinforces the political consciousness of being separate from the Filipinos. Historical documents show that the Bangsamoro people have distinct identity. This was the reason why the US organized the Moro Province as a separate administrative unit to administer the Bangsamoro territories.

The MIM manifesto asserts that the Muslims’ culture and history are distinct from the Filipinos. That feeling of separateness is still strong until now as we can read in placards and streamers during rallies and demonstrations saying, “We are not Filipinos, we are Bangsamoro”.

Even the Philippine government acknowledges their distinct identity. The Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 in several occasions refers to the Muslim inhabitants of Mindanao, Sulu - Tawi-Tawi archipelago and the islands of Basilan and Palawan as Bangsamoro people and they occupy a definite territory referred to in the document as Bangsamoro homeland. This was a total departure from the usual reference as “Muslim Filipinos” or “Muslims in the Philippines,” and “Southern Philippines” when referring to their place of domicile.

Democratic Approach
It now becomes clear to all of us that the fundamental issue in the Mindanao Problem that has to be addressed is the continuing assertion of the Bangsamoro people of their right to independence. No doubt that the problems of mass poverty, neglect and underdevelopment and other social inequities should ultimately be addressed but it should be after the issue on the political status of the Bangsamoro people is settled. It should be noted that all these economic and social problems had taken roots when the Bangsamoro homeland was illegally annexed to the Philippine nation-state.

In addressing this issue, there is within the democratic space a mechanism that can be used. The decision whether to be free and independent or not has to be made by the Bangsamoro people themselves. This can be done through referendum, a universally accepted means of settling political conflicts, like the case of East Timor. It is also resorted to in determining the will of the people on certain political issue, like when the Province of Quebec organized a referendum to decide on the issue of sovereignty, which would pave the way for the separation of the province from Canada.

The Philippine government and the MILF, as well as countries that witnessed the signing of the Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001, recognized the need for referendum as a method of peaceful resolution of the Mindanao conflict. The agreement provides:
“The negotiations and peaceful resolution of the conflict must involve consultations with the Bangsamoro people free of any imposition in order to provide chances of success and open new formulas that permanently respond to the aspirations of the Bangsamoro people for freedom.” (Emphasis supplied)
The document mentions of consultations, and referendum is the universally accepted method of doing it. It is the peaceful and democratic way to conduct consultations free from imposition.
To address all issues, it is preferable to widen the range of choice, rather than confine the choice to “yes” or “no” to independence, to include questions on whether the Bangsamoro people want to be free and independent, a federated relationship with the Philippines, a federated relationship with the United States as earlier proposed by the leaders during the American occupation, a federated relationship with any Muslim country in the region with whom they share common cultural, religious, political and social ties in the past, or maintain the status quo of autonomous relationship.

The referendum shall be held in areas where the Bangsamoro people presently occupy. This includes the provinces of Maguindanao, Lanao del Sur, Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi, and the cities of Cotabato, Marawi and Isabela. There are also towns in the provinces of Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, South Cotabato, Sarangani, Davao del Sur, Davao Oriental, Lanao del Norte, Zamboanga del Sur, Zamboanga del Norte, Zamboanga Sibugay and Palawan that should be included, subject for discussion with the people in the areas. Territories that will vote for independence shall constitute the separate independent Bangsamoro state.
The referendum has to be supervised by the UN in order to be credible in the eyes of the Bangsamoro people, the Filipino people and the international community. Common sense dictates that a party to a conflict cannot be credible to conduct or supervise such political exercise. The UN is the best body to oversee that the result of the referendum is respected and implemented. If there will be a need, the UN can organize its force to disarm those who will refuse to respect and implement the sovereign will of the Bangsamoro people.
Options for Christians and Indigenous Peoples of Mindanao
Although the whole of Mindanao, Sulu – Tawi-Tawi archipelago, the islands of Basilan and Palawan are the traditional homeland of the Bangsamoro people, the demographic reality is that they now share the territories with the Christian settler communities and the Indigenous People. In the spirit of justice and human brotherhood, the Bangsamoro people recognize the right of the two communities to self-determination. If they will opt to exercise that right and decide to secede from the Philippines and establish their own governments, the delegates to the Second BPCA commit to recognize and support any peaceful and democratic efforts to achieve that.

Having three independent states in Mindanao – for the Bangsamoro, the Indigenous People and the Christian settler communities – may be better because each can address the specific and unique needs of their citizenry. But being independent from each other cannot prevent them to cooperate on areas of common concern and matters of mutual benefits, like development of shared resource, in the fields of international relations, trade and regional security.
If the other two communities prefer to remain part of the Philippines then that decision has to be respected.
Independent Bangsamoro State
An independent Bangsamoro state shall be founded on the principles of freedom, democracy, equality of all men and women, respect to religious and political beliefs, and adherence to universal human rights.
System of Government
The system of government to be adopted shall be determined by the Bangsamoro people themselves. A provisional government shall see to the drafting of a constitution and to its adoption.
The constitution shall include a bill of human rights and freedom, and recognition of every region’s right of self-governance.
Rights of Citizens and Residents
Residents of the territory at the time of independence shall be the citizens of the Bangsamoro state. They shall enjoy equal rights, privileges and obligations. They will have rights to suffrage, ownership of properties, practice of their religious beliefs and participation in public affairs.

Residents who will prefer to remain citizens of the Philippines after independence can choose whether to remain as permanent resident alien or move to Philippine territory with the right to bring with them all their properties. For their immovable properties they can sell them to private individuals or opt for government compensation.
International Conventions and Agreements
The Bangsamoro government shall assume the obligations and enjoy the rights arising out of international conventions to which the Philippines is a signatory, in accordance with the rules of international law. Multilateral and bilateral agreements signed by the Philippines that directly apply to the territories of the Bangsamoro state shall be honored.
Special Relationship with the Philippines
Through treaties, the independent Bangsamoro state can have special relationship with the Philippines, like for example on development of shared resource, exploitation of resources to benefit from economy of scale, flow of goods and services, movements of their citizens, regional security, and other concerns.
Continuity of Laws
Laws passed by the Congress of the Philippines that specifically apply in the territory of the Bangsamoro state at the time of independence shall remain in force until amended or repealed by the Bangsamoro legislative body.
Pensions payable to retirees shall continue to be paid by the Bangsamoro government according to the same terms and conditions. Permits, franchises and authorizations that have been issued shall remain in force until their expiry.
Apportionment of Properties and Debts
The Bangsamoro government may conclude agreements with the Philippines on matters relating to the apportionment of properties and debts of the Philippines.
Win-win Option
A political commitment on the part of the Philippine government to allow the holding of referendum under the supervision of the United Nations after an agreed period of time to finally decide on whether the Bangsamoro people want independence or not will be a win-win option. It will ultimately resolve the Mindanao Problem since it will put to rest the issue of the political status of the Bangsamoro people. It will certainly redound to the good of the Filipinos and the Bangsamoro people because it will put an end to a war that causes the death of tens of thousands, displacement of millions from their homes, division of people and the drain of the economic resources of the Philippines.

If the budget spent to wage the war in Mindanao is spent for infrastructures, education and other social services, there will be more farm to market roads, bridges, school buildings for our children, hospitals and health centers, and more teachers to teach in the rural areas, and doctors and nurses to attend to the sick.
We should be reminded that sovereignty and territorial boundaries are not sacred that they cannot be re-configured. Historical events and contemporary realities tell us that sovereignty and territories shift from time to time whether through bloody wars or peaceful means. The experiences of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and other countries are recent to remind us that territorial boundaries can change to respond to people’s political aspirations.

Countries that respond to this aspiration without resorting to war develop tremendously, like the case of the separation of Singapore from the federation of Malaysia, while those who continuously deny the people’s fundamental right of self-determination suffer economic stagnation and remain nation divided.
Statesmanship of leaders are not measured on how bloody and how long they can suppress people’s right to freedom and independence but how they see through that these people enjoy this fundamental human right. History is never been kind to leaders who do not hesitate to use the might of the state apparatus to repress people’s aspiration to be free.

If the only road to peace will lead us to political division, without hesitation we should bravely tread that road. It is better to live in peace under two nations rather than to live in one nation without peace.