Tag: peace talks

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, constitutional law, Rules of Court

The Impending Judicial Review of the GRP-MILF MOA on Ancestral Domain: Requirements

  The phenomenal oral arguments on August 15. For the first time, the photo by www.luwaran.com used here for non-commercial purposesSupreme Court of the Philippines would be asked to pass upon or exercise what the Court  

 

 

calls “judicial review” over a peace  (photo by www.luwaran.com used here for non-commercial purposes)

 agreement  (or a draft peace agreement,  or a draft agreement preparatory to a peace agreement depending on your point of view).  

        That is: for the first time, the Supreme Court of the Philippines would be asked to exercise judicial review of an agreement (or draft agreement) between the executive branch on one hand and an armed “liberation” group, on the other hand.

       The petitioner initially asked for just access to the document. Now that apparently the document has been made public (or that they have been given copies), that specific prayer has become moot and academic. Petitioner’s lawyer has made known that they are planning to amend their petition; that is, they will  ask that the Supreme Court declare the agreement (or draft agreement) unconstitutional.

      Many other politicians, because the campaign for the 2010 elections had started this week and the previous months, have come out on television to denounce the agreement and have threatened to file similar petitions in the Supreme Court to declare the agreement or draft unconstitutional.

      (Don’t you just love elections? It’s good business again: for PR people masquerading as news anchors,  for Gloria, for senator-wannabes, for presidentiable-wannabes, all at the expense of the peace negotiations , the Bangsa Moro struggle, and maybe all other liberation movements who have on-and-off peace negotiations, henceforth, your peace negotiations, joint declarations, memorandum, agreements have to passed upon by the Supreme Court, do you like that? Sorry; naiinis ako nang sinusulat ko ito.) I will humour  you. This blog post will give the requirements for judicial review (i hate doing this, because you’re talking about armed conflicts and you’re bringing those negotiations on the table of the Supreme Court, it’s ridiculous, but let’s humour you. Requirements.)

         Oral arguments before the Supreme Court en banc on August 15.

         Requirements. Hurdles. The hoops.

         (Assuming the parties have amended and by that time others have  filed Motions to Intervene or similar petitions to question the constitutionality of the  agreement or draft):

      Ripeness. Or ripeness for judicial review or ripeness for adjudication.

     The Court has time and again laid down the rule that it will refrain from exercising judicial review :

      1)“because of the danger of exercising the function in view of the possible consequences”;

      2)“comparative finality of those consequences”,

       3)“ consideration given to the judgment of the other repositories of constitutional power” (or the other branches of government); “necessity to keep within its power”;

      4)“inherent limitations of the judicial process, its largely negative character, and  its limited resources for enforcement” etc.  

      Ripeness. Petitioner has to demonstrate that the matter is ripe for adjudication. Has the agreement been signed?… Petitioner will say, no, your Honor but it has been initialled…. Do those initials mean that it has been signed? ….Your Honor, according to the MILF, the agreement is a done deal, it’s in their website….. Where is the MILF, are you going to present them? ….No, your Honor, we will just rely on their website and ask the Court to take judicial notice of their pronouncement….. Are we bound by their pronouncement as to the status of this agreement, aren’t they an armed group operating outside of our laws? ……We are not bound,  your Honor….. So what  is the status of this agreement? ….. It’s an initialled agreement.

      Let’s ask the solgen. What is the status of this agreement? …. It’s a draft, your Honor.

        Where’s the final agreement?

         None, your Honor.

         Petitioner, where’s the final agreement?

      Okay. Both of you. You come back here with a final agreement. Then we’ll see.

      But your Honor, it’s unconstitutional!! Very unconstitutional!!! Unconstitutional to the high heavens!!!

        What is?

        The agreement that was initialled and being negotiated.

        Then….. are you asking us to pass upon the constitutionality of the peace negotiations  itself?

 

        (i will stop here na ha. And we haven’t even traversed the nature of the Commander-in-Chief powers; calling out the armed forces to quell rebellion includes negotiations for the disposition of those armed forces and negotiations with rebel groups. You are asking the Supreme Court to strike those down. Let’s just shout during the oral arguments, your Honor, she’s a fake president anyway! Why are we talking about Commander-in-Chief powers? Let’s chant.  I will stop here na.  we haven’t even gone into the “status in law” of any peace agreement between the government and a “national liberation movement”: “Characterize the problem”, as Dean Merlin Magallona would say, “What is the characterization of the problem?”)