Tag: Moro Islamic Liberation Front

Armed conflict, constitutional law, international law, media law, The News Media, The President

An end to War. The Bangsamoro peace pact. Civil liberties. The Cybercrime Law.

    War, portents of war, and breakthroughs in war,  are always elements of news — ask any news editor. Uncharacteristically, Malacañang not only released information  but announced the Bangsamoro “framework agreement” in a highly publicized press con, on a slow news day, a full week ahead of its signing.   They could not have chosen a better element of news — war ranks way up there in any editor’s book. And so, Malacañang knows, it thinks, this would outrank any news  story or discussion on the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

     When they were “out-of-power”,  in 2008, the Liberal Party questioned the constitutionality of the initial Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the MILF, which provided for a future comprehensive peace pact, hammered out by Gloria’s government. They  found enough adherents in the Supreme Court: By a narrow vote of  8 to 7, the Supreme Court struck down the peace agreement as “unconstitutional” – betraying everybody’s  ignorance that negotiated political settlements are always outside the legal frameworks of the State-parties . Now that they are in power, they forged a “framework agreement” honoring a “Basic Law” for the Bangsamoro.   Good. Finally.   I’m glad that potentially there will now be a negotiated political settlement of the armed conflict in Mindanao – the Liberal Party delayed it by four years on the argument that the proposed “Bangsamoro Juridical Entity” mentioned in the 2008 MOA required Charter Change. They, and everyone else of course, were not willing to grant that to Gloria (Cha-cha under Gloria – no way).

      Don’t look at me, I’ve  been consistently in favor of negotiated political settlements over war,  regardless of who were in power (look at the history of this blog and previous blog posts). But look at them. It took a maelstrom of a social media frenzy over the Cybercrime Law,  for an advanced announcement of a peace agreement to be made,  and to go on headlong with this.

     An end to war — civil liberties. Choose.

Armed conflict

The GRP-MILF Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain: A set of provisions preparatory to a negotiated political settlement of the war

  
  

photo by www.luwaran.com used here for non-commercial purposes
photo by http://www.luwaran.com used here for non-commercial purposes

 

 The TRO’ed GRP-MILF Memorandum of Agreement on ancestal domain is a set of provisions preparatory  to a negotiated political settlement of the war between the GRP and the MILF.     

 

    The terms of the negotiated political settlement of the armed hostilities will be contained in a future comprehensive pact, and what the MOA calls a “basic law” for the BJE.

   

 

        As everybody knows, the MILF is an armed group operating outside the legal system of the country and engaged in an armed struggle for “Islamic liberation” (please see their website for the program of government). Therefore, and of course, the provisions of the GRP-MILF Memorandum of Agreement on ancestral domain, and the comprehensive pact that would  follow, are outside the legal framework of the GRP. If the government could decimate the MILF on its own terms it would have done so a long time ago,  in those decades that it was trying to do that, more than a hundred thousand have been killed.  Those who are in the peace panels of the negotiations are, in the main, probably not conferring powers to the other side that it (the other side) does not already have or could wrest but with more blood shed.   In exchange for recognizing the other side there would be a  cessation of hostilities (not shooting at each other) while the comprehensive peace pact holds.

 

        Here are some of the pertinent provisions preparatory to a comprehensive pact.

        To my mind, the most important provision in this entire agreement is composed of four lines, it is the most important but it is also the most vague FOR BOTH PARTIES because it does not use legal terms : “The relationship between the Central Government and the Bangsamoro juridical entity shall be associative characterized by shared authority and responsibility with a structure of governance based on executive, legislative, judicial and administrative institutions with defined powers and functions in the comprehensive compact.”

      (The next most important provisions to that  are all those provisions that use the term “territorial jurisdiction”, one set, the term is found in   provisions on territory; “territorial jurisdiction” is a legal term, and when you use a legal term, you  confer powers. The next most important,  another section, the provision that grants the BJE the authority to enter into international agreements.)

       “associative characterized by shared authority and responsibility” is not a legal term/ not legal terms; they’re “social science terms”; in other words, it uses words and concepts not found in provisions of our laws, so, the lawyers will tell you: that has to be specified, we don’t know what it means, we cannot give you a “contract-review” because it is vague: Ask the parties to specify.   

       But maybe it was intentionally meant to be vague. For now.

      Here are some of the provisions:

(ON GOVERNANCE)

     Quote “4. The relationship between the Central Government and the Bangsamoro juridical entity shall be associative characterized by shared authority and responsibility with a structure of governance based on executive, legislative, judicial and administrative institutions with defined powers and functions in the comprehensive compact. A period of transition shall be established in a comprehensive peace compact specifying the relationship between the Central Government and the BJE.

XXXXX

 Quote “6.The establishment of institutions for governance in a comprehensive peace compact, together with its modalities during the transition period, shall be fully entrenched and established in the basic law of the Bangsamoro juridical entity. The Parties shall faithfully comply with their commitment to the associative arrangements upon entry into force of a comprehensive compact between the MILF and GRP.

XXXXX

Quote “8. The parties agree that the BJE shall be empowered to build, develop and maintain its own institutions, inclusive of, civil service, electoral, financial and banking, education, legislation, legal, economic, and police and internal security force, judicial system and correctional institutions, necessary for developing a progressive Bangsamoro society the details of which shall be discussed in the negotiation of the comprehensive compact.” Closed-quote.

               (I’m sorry i cannot do a line-by-line for now.)

              In any case, the Supreme Court stopped the signing by way of a TRO and has set the injunction case (the petition for certiorari and prohibition) for oral arguments on August 15.

            The threshold question therefore in that proceeding before the Supreme Court is: DOES THE SUPREME COURT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER ARMED HOSTILITIES BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND ARMED LIBERATION MOVEMENTS WHOSE MEMBERS CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO CUSTODY? I am sorry to ask that question. It is not a legal question; i cannot answer it.