QUEZON CITY (MindaNews/10 Sep) — The government has not only set aside the initialed but unsigned final draft of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP)-Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD); it has also dissolved the GRP Peace Panel which negotiated the MOA. The way things work in this country, this can only mean that they (the panel) must have done something good. I therefore wish to give them some tribute.

In the Harvard Negotiation Project’s now classic book Getting to Yes: Negotiating an Agreement Without Giving In by Roger Fisher and William Ury, the first of four main points of method here is to “Separate the People from the Problem” One of the notes under this is that “Negotiators are people first.” In negotiations, one is dealing not with abstract representatives of the “other side” but with human beings. They have emotions, deeply held values, and different backgrounds and viewpoints. That’s why one basic rule in negotiations is “Be hard on issues but be soft with people.” And who are these people whom many in the Filipino Christian mainstream are being so hard with now?

The GRP Peace Panel Chairman was retired GEN. RODOLFO C. GARCIA from San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan. When he retired from the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) in 2004, he was Vice Chief of Staff. His military service in Mindanao dates back to 1970, after graduating from the Philippine Military Academy (PMA). He was a Platoon Leader and later Executive Officer in the 26^th Infantry Battalion, Philippine Army (PA), covering Lanao del Norte, North Cotabato and Zamboanga del Sur. He rose to become the Commander of the 6^th Infantry Division, PA in Central Mindanao in 1999. His transition from man of war to man of peace was made in 2003 when, while still AFP Vice Chief of Staff, he concurrently become Chairman of the GRP ceasefire committee for the peace process with the MILF. After the military retirement, he joined the Office of the Presidential Adviser of the Peace Process (OPAPP) as an Undersecretary, was appointed a member of the GRP Peace Panel and later became its Vice-Chairman. He took over as Chairman only in July 2007 after the stint of Sec. Silvestre C. Afable, Jr. who oversaw most of the ancestral domain negotiations up to June 2007.

The GRP Peace Panel Vice-Chairman was PROF. RUDY B. RODIL from Upi, Maguindanao and long-time resident of Iligan City. He is a Mindanao historian, author of several books on Mindanao, and a long-time now retired history professor at the Mindanao State University (MSU)-Iligan Institute of Technology (IIT). He is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Philippine Studies at the University of the Philippines (UP) with a dissertation on ancestral domain, one of his lifelong fields of expertise. His active involvement in the government’s peace efforts started in 1988 as a Commissioner in the Regional Consultative Commission for drafting an Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). He then became a member of the GRP Peace Panel for the third and final round of negotiations with the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) from 1992 to 1996. He was a special consultant to the GRP Peace Panel for talks with the MILF from 2001, becoming a panel member in 2004.

A third member of the GRP Peace Panel was SEC. NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN, a Maranao from Marawi City. He is the incumbent Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) since 2005. His stint in public service started in 1993 as Chairman of the ARMM 2000 Technical Committee. His involvement with the GRP-MILF peace talks started in 2004 when he was designated to the GRP Technical Working Group (TWG) on Ancestral Domain in his capacity as DAR Undersecretary for Mindanao Affairs and Indigenous Peoples. He later headed the TWG team dealing with the Territory Strand of Ancestral Domain. He became a panel member only in September 2007. He has a Bachelor of Laws degree from the Colegio de San Jose Recoletos (CSJR) in Cebu City.

A fourth member of the GRP Peace Panel was MS. SYLVIA OKINLAY-PARAGUYA, a Higaonon from Impasugong, Bukidnon. She is the Executive Director of the Mindanao Alliance of Self-Help Societies-Southern Philippines Educational Cooperative Center (MASS-SPEC) based in Cagayan de Oro City since 2000. She is also Chairperson of the Mindanao Coalition of Development NGO Networks (MINCODE), Commissioner-at-Large and Vice-Chair for Peace and Multi-Culturalism of the Mindanao Commission on Women, and Co-Chair of the Economic Development Committee of the Regional Development Council (RDC) of Region X. She is a Chemical Engineer by profession, graduating as National State Scholar and College Valedictorian at the Xavier University in Cagayan de Oro City in 1984. She also has a Master of Business Management degree from the Asian Institute of Management (AIM) as an AIM Scholar in 1990.

A fifth and alternate member of the GRP Peace Panel was ATTY. LEAH TANODRA-ARMAMENTO from Sibalum, Antique. She is presently the Assistant Chief State Prosecutor at the Department of Justice (DOJ) since 2003. Her legal career started with the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) as a Trial Attorney in 1986. She then moved to the DOJ as a State Prosecutor in 1991. She was designated head of the GRP TWG on Ancestral Domain and, in such capacity, was appointed as an alternate member of the panel only in July 2007. She graduated Bachelor of Laws Second Honors at the Ateneo de Manila University (AdeMU) in 1985. She is connected by affinity to Mindanao through her husband and in-laws from Cotabato City.

The first thing that has to be said about these people in the recently dissolved GRP Peace Panel is that it would have been completely out of character for them to commit any “grave abuse of discretion” in their negotiations with the MILF. They just are not the type. Thus, Cotabato Archbishop Orlando B. Quevedo, OMI, had been able to say: “At present, I give the MOA-AD and the two peace panels the benefit of the doubt. They have worked at the agreement for years, painstakingly hammering out every word and every phrase, every concept and its implications. I know that they have the interests of their respective constituencies always in mind.”

Secondly, their credentials speak for themselves in terms of competence and loyalty. How can anyone doubt the loyalty of Gen. Garcia who did his part in “defending every inch of Philippine territory,” particularly from Moro rebels in Mindanao? How can anyone doubt the competence of Prof. Rodil when it comes to Mindanao history, the Moro Problem, the peace processes with the MNLF and MILF, ancestral domain, and the Lumads? He was practically the institutional memory between the successive peace negotiations with the MNLF and then with the MILF.

Atty. Armamento is actually only one of several good Ateneo lawyers, all students of their constitutionalist guru Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., who grappled with the legalities and constitutionalities of the ancestral domain negotiations. And Bernas himself has lent his constitutionalist expertise to this peace effort. An interesting sidelight to all these are some prominent UP lawyers tending to be on the other side of the MOA debate. (But let’s not forget the provincial or promdi lawyers on both sides.)

Thirdly, all – yes, all — of the panel members have a connection to Mindanao, even Bulaqueño Gen. Garcia who had a long military stint in Mindanao, and Antiqueña Atty. Armamento who still visits her in-laws in Cotabato City. As for those Mindanao natives in the panel, there was a nice tri-people mix: Prof. Rodil who is of Christian settler family background, Sec. Pangandaman who is a Moro, and Ms. Paraguya who is a Lumad. She also represents NGOs and women. And still on the matter of mix or balance, there was good enough gender balance of three men and two women (at least better than the MILF’s all-men panel).

I think it will be hard to find another good panel like this. We said earlier that negotiators are people first, human beings with families too. In the end, for them, as for any of us I suppose, the most important appraisal is that which comes from one’s loved ones, like one’s own children who will ask you in the future what you did for their peace when you had the historical chance to do something. Take Prof. Rodil. He has been declared persona non grata by the City Council of Iligan where he lives. But his grown-up daughter Amillah writes, with much maturity:

“As of yesterday [Sept. 3], GMA has officially dissolved the government panel for peace talks with the MILF. (Disclosure to those who don’t know: my dad was part of the panel). I feel sad because I know how the panel has been working hard to achieve a deal. They were aiming to sign a final peace agreement by 2010. The controversial (and I think, misunderstood) Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain was part of the deal, and now it has also been scrapped along with the panel.”

“Attributing the breakdown of the talks to the Memorandum of Agreement itself is not fair. It was an attempt at a solution, and not (as some people think) something that GMA just thought of to extend her term. It was the result of years of negotiation. I believe what contributed to the breakdown of the talks was the series of knee-jerk chain reactions of the people involved.”

“For the good of all involved, I hope the ceasefire holds, and negotiations resume at some point. But the work to be done is not just with the negotiators. We should all be involved in creating a culture of peace, and it can be as simple as breathing deeply and thinking things through before opening your mouth, marching in the streets, attacking people, or ditching years of work down the drain.”

One big group of Mindanao civil society peace advocates, the Mindanao Peoples Caucus (MPC), through its Chair Prof. Octavio A. Dinampo (remember him who was kidnapped with Ces Oreña-Drilon), for their part, sent out this text message: “All said and done, we still salute the courage and sincerity of Sec. Garcia and Sec. Esperon in pushing hard not only peace but the very Moro right to self-determination… we’ll remember that.” And then to Sec. Garcia: “We protest vehemently the insinuation of your mishandling the peace process. Forgive them for they know not what they are doing. And be assured of our solidarity with you and Sec. Esperon.”

Finally, what about the “adversary,” the MILF Peace Panel, what does it have to say about its dissolved GRP counterpart? Sometimes, the ultimate compliment comes from the adversary. MILF Peace Panel Chairman Mohagher Iqbal formally wrote Sec. Garcia: “We were saddened by the news that the GRP Peace Panel has been dissolved effective September 3, 2008. We felt that, indeed, the peace process has lost people whom we personally know are competent, trustworthy and sincere in addressing the long struggle of the Bangsamoro people…” Iqbal went on to say:

“We will always treasure the fruits of our hard work, sleepless nights and sometimes our constructive disagreements to thread together the two very far ends (very far when we started) of issues, particularly ancestral domain… This was not the end of the long journey to peace in Mindanao, but it initially showcased how far sovereignty and right to self-determination can harmonize and accommodate each other…”

“On behalf of the MILF Peace Negotiating Panel, we bid farewell to our worthy partners in peace, as my honorable counterpart puts it. Let me thank the good Secretary Rodolfo Garcia, Prof. Rudy Rodil, Atty. Leah Armamento, Atty. Sedfrey Candelaria, Sec. Nasser Pangandaman, and the energetic head of your secretariat, Director Ryan Mark Sullivan. We will never forget you and your wonderful team and we hope that in some future time and occasion we meet and cross paths for the sake of peace and humanity.”

Right now, it is the GRP and MILF themselves which should meet and cross paths for the sake of peace and humanity.

[Soliman M. Santos, Jr. is a Bicolano human rights lawyer, peace advocate, legal scholar; A.B. History cum laude (UP), LL.B. (UNC), LL.M. (Melb); author of The Moro Islamic Challenge: Constitutional Rethinking for the Mindanao Peace Process (UP Press, 2001), Peace Advocate (DLSU Press, 2002), Dynamics and Directions of the GRP-MILF Peace Negotiations (Alternate Forum for Research in Mindanao, 2005), and Peace Zones in the Philippines (Gaston Z. Ortigas Peace Institute, 2005); and co-author of Philippine Human Development Report 2005: Peace, Human Security and Human Development in the Philippines (Human Development Network, 2005). You can reach him at gavroche23@gmail.com.This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ]

PIKIT, North Cotabato (MindaNews/10 September) — In a recent article I wrote which was roughly titled “A New Perspective on the Mindanao Problem Based on Some Historical and Current Realities”, I tried to surmise some lessons and current insights based on the experience with the peace process as it has been. They may be worth mentioning here:

Lessons

- there is no one-shot formula to peace but any peaceful means is worth trying;

- any attempt to build peace will not succeed unless we build a critical mass of supportive peace constituency;

- people outside of the direct parties in the conflict should be given the chance to participate because the concern for peace is not confined to the direct parties just as the effect of conflict is;

- peace is not merely the absence of armed confrontation but it is social justice in all its form; and

- the ultimate goal of any peace effort is “personal cleansing”, that is, freeing one’s mind and heart from homegrown hatred, polarity, and giving dignity to every human being.

Current Insights

One of the strategic approaches to the Mindanao problem is the need to balance national sovereignty and Bangsamoro aspirations for self-determination. As always, the balancing act is not easy because it boils down to the issue of whether or not the Constitution shall be considered as one of the frameworks of the negotiation. A more creative approach is needed to achieve a perfect balance between the Constitution being a fundamental law and self-determination being an inherent right recognized by international law. As to how, only the direct parties are in the best position to determine in a negotiation. Then, consultation with the broad base of the population can take place after a draft is finalized not while it is being negotiated as most people would assert.

It is always possible to explore extra-constitutional means of settling the issue, according to Prof. Randy David, and try to craft out solutions “outside the box”. But how do we look at “agreements” reached out of the bounds of what is allowable under the Constitution? Is it not simply unconstitutional? Or, an out-of-constitution settlement can be allowed for as long as they are generally in the best interest of both parties? It would seem that the bottom-line here is coming out with a clear definition and understanding of the nature of the “agreement” that may be crafted between the GRP and the MILF. If it is a local agreement, ipso facto it is subordinate to the Constitution. If it assumes the nature and character of an international agreement then it can stand outside the sphere of the Philippine Constitution.

There is a need to revolutionize our understanding of the term “sovereignty” as it applies to territorial integrity of a given state and as it is used to connote power and authority. In this sense, Mastura emphasized the traditional Moro statehood “earned sovereignty” is already encapsulated by the Republic in its present form and structure as an autonomous entity presently in existence before the family of nations. Those who speak for the Philippines configure their constituencies into a political community which has beclouded a number of contested constitutional issues in the GRP-MILF negotiation.

The MOA on Ancestral Domain, though unsigned, should be seen as a faithful and earnest attempt to provide a leeway to provide balance between the zealously guarded issues of constitutionalism and sovereignty vis-a-vis self-determination and freedom. The MOA-AD may no longer become operational but it is to be appreciated as a document that embodies hard-earned consensus that somehow manifested that it is possible for some Filipinos and Moros to come to terms even under the most difficult circumstances.

Given a rejected MOA on Ancestral Domain, and maybe eventually a failed negotiation, “the only option available for the Bangsamoro, in lieu of armed struggle, is to revert to the original goal of independence and mount a campaign for decolonization under the auspices of the United Nations and the International Court of Justice” (Atty. Buat). This is, logically, the next best thing. In most bilateral negotiations powerful mediators are necessary requisites to peaceful settlements in almost all sovereignty-based conflicts. From my view, the GRP’s respect for Malaysia as mediator and facilitator in the peace talks is diminished. At the very least, it has doubted Malaysia’s resolve to stay neutral in the negotiation — a suspicion which could have possibly sprung out from the fact that Malaysia is a country being led by Muslims and one of the parties in the talks is Bangsamoro Muslim. While there were open statements on this one, no evidence, however, was cited.

The remaining years of the Arroyo administration (one year and nine months) may still be useful to a certain extent if it can somehow maintain the ceasefire, enhance rehabilitation and development works, and pursue consultation and dialogue, information and education, and building of a constituency supportive to the peace process. It may no longer appear to be a credible negotiator in the eyes of the MILF, after it has reneged on its obligation to sign the MOA-AD, but it can enhance or even just preserve the fundamentals necessary for the next round of talks which may still be possible in the next administration.

To sum it up, the Mindanao problem has taken new dimensions. The issues and controversies involved had become as ticklish as the attitude of people who were supposed to have expressed resolve to do something about it and to bring the peace process towards an acceptable compromise. Slowly but surely, the peace process may be headed towards a kind of reality in Physics: “When an irresistible force meets and immovable object something has to give up”. We can only pray that it is not people’s precious lives and hard-earned properties that should be given up.

Now, it is high time to ponder on how a new peace talk between the GRP and the MILF may proceed. Whether that is going to take place in this administration (of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo) or in the next is immaterial. The fundamental requirements are the same and only the frameworks and talking points may adapt new patterns and form considering the lessons and realities of past and recent experience with (or of) the peace process.

The fundamental realities stay the same as in:

It is inherently necessary that the peace process and the peace negotiation must continue. No civilized society in its right mind can allow a climate of un-peace and its dire consequences to continue to flourish indefinitely;

It is compelling for both parties (GRP & MILF) to come to terms sooner or later, otherwise, they suffer the consequences of the impatience, ire and loss of faith of their respective populace and constituents in the long run; and

Both parties have suffered enough. While “negotiation fatigue” is likely for either side or both, especially given what I call the “lullaby strategy” of the GRP in dilly-dallying the peace process, the drive to succeed should not be absent from both sides.

The latest fiasco in the peace talks was clearly the offshoot of the following circumstances:

The GRP’s lack of transparency on its part;

As a consequence thereof, some politicians (Piñol, Lobregat, Roxas, Drilon) reacted by questioning the MOA on Ancestral Domain before the Supreme Court. The Piñol-Lobregat petition was simply a mandamus-like relief to require the parties to make available copies of the MOA-AD. It was then logical that the Supreme Court had to restrain the signing of the MOA-AD to give time for people, or just the petitioners, to study the contents of said document. After said petition is served, the TRO may be lifted in due time and the MOA-AD may still be signed thereafter. What really complicated the matter was the Roxas-Drilon intervention asking the Supreme Court, not only to restrain the signing but also to rule on the MOA’s constitutionality. And this has prolonged the “legal due process”;

The non-signing of the MOA prompted two “uncontrolled” commanders of the MILF (Kato and Bravo) to stage attacks in North Cotabato and Lanao del Norte which also triggered similar actions, presumably by the MILF also, in Sarangani;

Consequently, these “atrocities” were exhaustively used as excuse by the GRP to further justify its position of not signing the MOA “at gunpoint”. Now, criminal cases were filed against Kato, Bravo et al and the rest is a matter of “police action”. To concretize its position of not signing the MOA-AD, the Arroyo administration came out with the DDR (demilitarization, demobilization, reintegration) as added frameworks in the negotiation. “The DDR is more of a war strategy than a peace framework”, according to one respected personality in the peace process. As if this was not enough, the Arroyo administration announced the dismantling of the GRP negotiating panel to signal its complete abandonment of the peace talks;

The unspoken reality, however, was that the GRP may have realized that its panel was outsmarted by the MILF panel when they saw a somewhat “lopsided” agreement from its point of view. But that was at no fault of the MILF. If the MILF panel was the better negotiator as compared to the GRP panel, that was no reason for the GRP to blame the product. After all, in all probabilities the GRP must have carefully selected the members of its panel.

Given the fundamental realities, how then must the peace talks proceed if and when resumed in the future? Fr. Mercado says: “After an adequate period of dispassionate, informed and intelligent discussion of the concepts and issues by all concerned, after some sanity is restored, the time should come when the parties can viably continue the peace negotiations, presumably from where they left off”.

There are hitches that should be surmounted before the peace talks can resume. If the “talks” resume in the time of the Arroyo administration, the DDR is the first issue to be resolved. If it resumes in the next administration, it will depend on whether or not the new administration adapts or drops some of the frameworks and policies put forward by the Arroyo administration.

The Arroyo administration has learned a painful lesson from the botched Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain and hope that it, or the government in general, will be better prepared for new talks in the future.

How a new peace talk may proceed…

First, what is needed is a clear, written instruction from the President to the government panel on what it can negotiate with the MILF and what it can sign. At the recent Supreme Court hearing on petitions against the proposed memorandum, Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera said the government panel had authority only to negotiate, not to sign. Fresh instructions for a prospective new panel should spell out clearly the extent of its mandate.

Second, the new panel should be headed by a diplomat who is experienced in international negotiations, not by a retired general who may bring his military mindset to the negotiating table. True, Gen. Manuel Yan was a military general who headed the panel that negotiated with the MNLF, but he was an experienced diplomat before he was appointed to the position. A diplomat is trained to bargain hard, but do it in a tactful manner.

Third, the negotiators have to be backed by a strong panel of experts in constitutional and international law. Had the just disbanded GRP panel been backed by experts in constitutional and international law, it should have taken a more proactive position in defending the MOA rather than silenced by attacks from the media and some politicians.

Fourth, public hearings should be conducted on the main points of the proposed agreement, principally in Mindanao and in key cities of the country. All the stakeholders should be invited to these hearings so that the negotiating panel can hear various views and obtain various perspectives. In the case of the botched MOA-AD, it appears that no public hearings were conducted, and the first time most people, including high-ranking government officials, heard about the proposed agreement was only a few days before it was scheduled to be signed.

Fifth, an extensive and continuing public information campaign has to be conducted on the proposed agreement to keep the people updated on the progress of the negotiations. In the case of the collapsed MOA, it appears that the administration was determined to keep the agreement secret and concealed from the people. Even senators and congressmen didn’t know about the contents of the memorandum, and were furnished copies only after there was a hue and cry in the media and public forums.

Sixth, the government should define the timing of public consultations to allow open, impassionate and intelligent discussions to take place. It is to be admitted that the publics and media cannot intervene at the sensitive formation stage of the issues. Atty. Michael O. Mastura, senior member of the MILF panel, emphasized that “healthy environment for serious debate (should not be) drowned out by the intrusion of the mass media into the negotiating process (which only) encourages the politics of fear at the Metro Manila capital..”

Finally, the GRP panel should act like the MILF panel. The former is more arbitrary as compared to the latter. The problem with the President is sometimes she equates trust and respect with accommodation. Thus, she makes appointments more on the basis of political accommodation even if she has little of the trust and respect on the appointee. This was quite clear in the case of General Garcia and, more recently, Luis ‘Chavit’ Singson.

We hope the President, if not, the next Administration will do it in more absolute terms next time. We hope the government panel will get it right and do it right next time. (MindaViews is the opinion section of MindaNews. The author is a freelance writer, social researcher and professor in the graduate studies. He holds a doctorate degree in rural development. He has been involved in peace advocacy efforts since early 1980s. Presently, he serves as Executive Assistant to the Mayor of Pikit, North Cotabato and Adviser to a group of local peace advocates based in the same town.)