Rudy B. Rodil
Achieving peace and justice in Mindanao through the tri-people approach
Introduction Tere was a time when the populations pop ulations o Mindanao and the Sulu archipelago were predominantly Moros and Lumad. As a result o the resettlement program initiated by the American colonial administration and later sustained by the government o the Philippines, settlers rom the northern islands poured in droves into the region. Within less than sixty sixt y years, they had displaced the indigenous inhabitants and became bec ame the majority population. Tis created an uneasible situation that did not benet the local population, or whom common good was measured in terms o numerical majority. oday oday we must consciously reshape the relationships o the present inhabitants o the region i we are to live a lie o peace and development. o this end, we propose the tri-people approach. One way o accentuating the need or the tri-people approach is by zeroing in on the Bangsamoro struggle or sel-determination, se l-determination, which has been at the center-stage o Mindanao history in the last 42 years, rom 1968 to the present. Te May 1 Maniesto o the MIM (originally Muslim, later Mindanao Independence Movement) declared its intention to establish an Islamic state in predominantly Muslim areas o Mindanao. Te Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) led the Moro struggle or national liberation, declaring its desire to create a Bangsamoro Republic within its claimed ancestral homeland, the entire area o Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan (Minsupala), through through armed struggle. From 1972 to 1996, no less than 75% o the Armed Forces o the Philippines were deployed in Moroland and between 100,000 to 120,000 lives were lost in that
Rudy B. Rodil is a ormer member o the Government Peace Negotiating Panel in the GRP-MNLF talks (1993-96) and GRP-MILF talks (2004-2008). He is a retired Proessor o History at the Mindanao State University-Iligan University -Iligan Institute o echnology, echnology, IIligan City. City. 25
26
war—50% MNLF, 30% AFP, and 20% civilians, mostly Moros in whose areas the war raged. Te Philippine government spent 73 billion pesos on on combat expenses alone. Ater the MNLF signed the Final Peace Agreement with the government in 1996, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) elt that the desired Bangsamoro sel-determination had yet to be attained and decided to resume resume the ght. Now it is technically at war though engaged in peace negotiations with the government. One may also include in the picture the kidnap-or-ransom activities o the Abu Sayya Group, whose targets tended to be non-Muslims, mostly Christians and Chinese businessmen, as a matter o act. Te social turmoil that revolved around the Memorandum o Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) between the Government o the Republic o the Philippines (GRP) and the MILF highlights the reasons or the guardedness among the tri-people. Te negative public reaction reaction rom Christian settlers, encouraged by opposition politicians, gave way to the petition or a emporary Restraining Order rom the Supreme Court to prevent the signing o the MOA-AD and the court’s eventual ruling that the document is unconstitutional. unconstitutional. Te very position o Malacañang, saying that it would no longer sign the document “in its present orm or in any other orm” orm” regardless o the Supreme Court ruling, may have triggered the resh outbreak o violence that was led by three top commanders o the MILF MILF in central Mindanao. All these indicate both the complexity o the problem and the grave urgency to resolve it. One must add to this complexity the Lumad’s own collective maniestos protesting their inclusion in the MILF-claimed Bangsamoro ancestral domain, along with their political position, which states that they are not Bangsamoro and thereore have their own ancestral domain and right to sel-determination. Tree distinct interest groups groups are coming to a head. How to reconcile these these positions within the Philippine republic whose very oundation is being questioned is one o the biggest challenges aced by the present Aquino administration. Tis paper is divided into our parts. Part One is on the historical background background o the tri-people tri-peopl e relationship; Part wo wo covers the Moro and Lumad assertions asser tions o right to sel-determination; Part Tree ocuses on the basic considerations in advocacy or peace and development, de velopment, and Part Part Four highlights specic recommendations.
27
Part One he Concept of ri-People Relationship It is only in Mindanao that we speak o a tri-people relationship. By tri-people we reer to the Moros or Muslims, the Lumad and the migrants, mostly Christian settlers and their descendants, the greater number now belonging to the second, third or ourth generations and are already considered homegrown Mindanawons; also, other migrants who are not Christians. Te grouping is loose and there are several overlaps in between, but the designations are popularly used in the region.
Te Moros Te name Moro was originally given by the Spaniards to those Muslims o northern Arica who occupied Spain or nearly eight centuries, rom 711 to 1492 A.D, and later to the Muslims o the Philippine archipelago. Now it reers to the 13 ethnolinguistic groups o the Maranao, Maguindanao, ausug, Sama, Sangil, Iranun, Kalagan, Kalibugan, Yakan, Jama Mapun, Panimusan, Molbog and Sama Dilaut, also popularly known to outsiders as Badjaos. Tey are mostly Muslims, except or the Kalagan, who are only partly Muslim, and the Sama Dilaut, who are generally non-Muslims. Tey constitute, according to the 2000 census, about 18.9% o the entire population o Mindanao and the Sulu archipelago and they are the majority population only in the provinces o Maguindanao, Lanao del Sur, Basilan, Sulu and awi-awi and in teen other towns—one in Cotabato, nine in Lanao del Norte, two in Sultan Kudarat, two in Zamboanga del Norte, and one in Palawan.
Te Lumad Te Lumad include approximately 35 tribes and sub-tribes indigenous to Mindanao, among which are, in alphabetical order- Ata Manobo, Bagobo, Banwaon, Bla-an, Bukidnon, Dibabawon, Higaunon, Mamanwa, Mandaya, Mangguwangan, Manobo, Mansaka, Matigsalug, Subanen, agakaolo, alaandig, igwa, ’boli, eduray and the Ubo Manuvu. Tere may be more because they normally reer to each other by their geographical and not by their ethno-linguistic names. Tey constitute, according to the 2000 census, about 8.5% o the entire population o Mindanao and the Sulu archipelago, and are the majority in only eleven towns—one in Agusan del Sur, our in Bukidnon, two in Davao del Sur, two in Maguindanao, one in Sarangani, and one in Zamboanga del Sur. Te name Lumad is Cebuano Bisaya but is the product o an agreement among representatives o 15 out o 18 ethno-linguistic groups that was arrived at during the ounding congress o Lumad Mindanaw in June 1986. Cebuano is their lingua
28
ranca. Although most o them are Christians, usually belonging to various Protestant denominations, depending on which group arrived at their place rst, they seldom reer to themselves in their religious identities.
Te Christian Settlers and their Descendants Composed mostly o the settler population o the 20th century and their descendants, the Christians settlers also include (in the census) the Bisayan-speaking natives o Mindanao, majority o whom came rom northern and eastern Mindanao and who were converted into Christianity during the Spanish period, and the Chavacanos o Zamboanga. Many o them are still known by their geographic place names, such as Davaweño, andaganon, Surigaonon, Butuanon, Camiguinon, Cagayanon, Misamisnon, Iliganon, Ozamiznon, Dapitanon, and so on and by some peculiarity in their respective accents. able 1.1 Muslim-Lumad-Other Indigenous-Migrant Populations In Mindanao, Sulu And Palawan Based On Mother ongue Classifcation By Province, 1970 Census Province
otal
Muslim
%
Lumad
%
Other Indigenous Inhabitants
%
Migrant
%
Agusan del Norte
278,053
1,350
0.49
1,998
0.72
3
0.00
274,702
98.79
Agusan del Sur
174,682
1,036
0.59
29,531
16.91
30
0.02
144,085
82.48
Bukidnon
414,762
3,998
0.96
73,359
17.69
5,533
1.33
331,872
80.02
Cotabato
1,136,007
438,134
38.57
62,326
5.49
4,703
0.41
630,844
55.53
South Cotabato
466,110
28,349
6.08
43,908
9.42
109
0.02
393,744
84.47
Davao del Norte
442,543
12,657
2.86
15,034
3.40
5,754
1.30
409,098
92.44
Davao Oriental
247,991
1,818
0.73
11,503
4.64
84,308
34.00
150,362
60.63
Davao del Sur
785,398
9,027
1.15
92,666
11.80
12,297
1.57
671,408
85.49
Lanao del Norte
349,942
83,921
23.98
999
0.29
11
265,011
75.73
Lanao del Sur
455,508
404,359
88.77
89
0.02
0
51,060
11.21
Misamis Occidental
326,855
485
0.15
2,828
0.87
0
323,542
98.99
Misamis Oriental
482,756
656
0.14
2,601
0.54
312
0.06
479,187
99.26
Sulu
425,617
412,591
96.94
1,573
0.37
581
0.14
10,872
2.55
Surigao del Norte
238,714
430
0.18
386
0.16
1
237,897
99.66
Surigao del Sur
258,680
1,701
0.66
2,204
0.85
698
0.27
254,077
98.22
Zamboanga del Norte
411,381
22,098
5.37
43,684
10.62
3,050
0.74
342,549
83.27
Zamboanga del Sur
1,029,479
178,146
17.30
47,103
4.58
154,710
15.03
649,520
63.09
Mindanao
7,924,478
1,600,756
20.20
431,792
5.45
272,100
3.43
5,619,830
70.92
236,635
32,328
13.66
9,353
3.95
91,434
38.64
103,520
43.75
8,161,113
1,633,084
20.01
441,145
5.41
363,534
4.45
5,723,350
70.13
Palawan Grand otal
Source: Republic o the Philippines. National Statistics Oce, Manila. 1970 Census o Population and Housing. able III.15. Classication by Sex, Major Mother ongue and Municipality.
29
able 1.2 Moro-Lumad-Migrant Populations In Mindanao, Sulu And Palawan Based On Mother ongue Classifcation, By Province, 2000 Census Province Mindanao
otal
Moro Number
%
Lumad Number
%
Migrant Number
%
18,104,337
3,643,032
20.12
1,530,266
8.45
12,931,039
71.43
Basilan
332,579
255,239
76.75
197
0.06
77,143
23.20
Zamboanga Norte
821,921
41,335
5.03
139,265
16.94
641,321
78.03
Zamboanga Sur
1,930,822
261,224
13.53
124,421
6.44
1,545,177
80.03
Bukidnon
1,060,253
8,684
0.82
201,387
18.99
850,182
80.19
Camiguin
74,134
152
0.21
131
0.18
73,851
99.62
485,978
1,055
0.22
21,809
4.49
463,114
95.30
1,123,529
9,689
0.86
30,671
2.73
1,083,169
96.41
Davao (Norte)
742,206
16,005
2.16
45,276
6.10
680,925
91.74
Davao Del Sur
1,902,993
49,778
2.62
269,400
14.16
1,583,815
83.23
Davao Oriental
445,733
18,041
4.05
73,238
16.43
354,454
79.52
South Cotabato
1,100,511
50,636
4.60
126,624
11.51
923,251
83.89
Sarangani
410,137
37,633
9.18
120,638
29.41
251,866
61.41
Compostela Valley
579,719
9,779
1.69
65,846
11.36
504,094
86.95
Lanao Del Norte
757,084
189,120
24.98
5,509
0.73
562,455
74.29
Cotabato (North)
957,294
187,195
19.55
60,062
6.27
710,037
74.17
Sultan Kudarat
585,768
129,373
22.09
45,682
7.80
410,713
70.12
Cotabato City
161,517
97,218
60.19
1,573
0.97
62,726
38.84
Marawi City
129,809
125,072
96.35
120
0.09
4,617
3.56
Lanao Del Sur
668,860
616,873
92.23
1,316
0.20
50,671
7.58
Maguindanao
800,369
632,382
79.01
58,983
7.37
109,004
13.62
Sulu
619,550
590,948
95.38
213
0.03
28,389
4.58
awi-awi
322,066
306,804
95.26
112
0.03
15,150
4.70
551,265
4,698
0.85
14,407
2.61
532,160
96.53
Agusan Del Sur
558,414
1,640
0.29
103,851
18.60
452,923
81.11
Surigao Del Norte
480,691
679
0.14
2,534
0.53
477,478
99.33
Surigao Del Sur
501,135
1,780
0.36
17,001
3.39
482,354
96.25
18,104,337
3,643,032
752,114
51,829
6.89
51829
6.89
648,456
86.22
18,856,451
3,694,861
19.59
1,582,095
8.39
13,579,495
72.02
Misamis Occidental Misamis Oriental
Mindanao Palawan Grand otal
1,530,266
12,931,039
Source: Republic o the Philippines. National Census and Statistics Oce, Manila. 2000 Census.
Te Chavacanos were originally the Mardicas or Merdicas (meaning “ree people”) who were natives o ernate, Moluccas in present Indonesia. Tey were brought to Manila as soldiers by the Spaniards in 1663. Later, they were settled in ernate, Cavite; some must have been assigned to Zamboanga, possibly about 1718.
30
Constituting nearly two hundred thousand in 1898, these native Christians are now integrated into the majority population. Te entire migrant Christian population constitutes approximately 72.5% o the entire population o Mindanao and the Sulu archipelago.
Emergence of the ri-People Concept Te tri-people concept did not emerge in our history until around the early 1980s, shortly beore Lumad Mindanaw was ounded in June 1986. Te Lumads asserted their right to sel-determination as a distinct segment o the Mindanao population and they wanted to govern themselves within their ancestral domains in accordance with their customary laws. Genuine autonomy within the republic was their battlecry. Te Moros, or their part, have been vocal in their demand or recognition o their distinctness as a people. Tey are Muslims and would like to remain so. Teir political awakening reached its maturation under the leadership o the Moro National Liberation Front, which originally advocated independence rom the colonial clutches o the Republic o the Philippines through armed struggle. Tey wanted their own Bangsamoro Republic. In the ace o these Moro and Lumad assertions o their respective rights to sel-determination, the migrant population will have to rethink its position. Although they constitute the majority population, it no longer seems appropriate to speak in simple terms o majority rule. Democracy in Mindanao will have to be redened. Tere are undamental rights, interests and sensibilities involved that should be considered.
Stepping Back into History: Clarifying Political Realities In the 1998 commemoration o the centennial o the Philippine Revolution, which culminated in the establishment o the Republic o the Philippines in 1898, the nation took great pride in recalling the long process through which, rom the bondage o colonialism, it rose to establish national identity and won independence. But it is oten overlooked, or many are simply not aware o it, that the Lumad and the Moro in Mindanao cannot identiy with these commemorative activities; they were not part o that political process. Let us go back in history and examine why this is so.
Political Situation in 1898 On December 10, 1898, at the time o the signing o the reaty o Paris between Spain and the United States, the Philippines was almost six months old, still
31
in its inancy but a perectly legitimate de acto state. It declared its independence on June 12, 1898, and it is this date that is now celebrated as Independence Day. Te Sultanate o Sulu, a state in its own right, was established in 1450, ought the Spaniards or 333 years and had remained ree until 1898. While it is true the sultan signed a treaty with Spain in 1878 that technically reduced its political status to that o a protectorate, Sulu remained a de acto state, uncolonized to the end. Te Sultanate o Maguindanao, ormed in 1619 by the amous Sultan Kudarat rom the two powerul datuships o Rajah Buayan and Maguindanao, also ought the same Spanish colonizers. Its leaders signed agreements with Spain in the last 50 years o the 19th century that compromised the sultanate’s sovereign status but, like Sulu, it remained uncolonized until 1898. In short, there were at least two de acto states at that time, all ree and independent. I such was the case, which part o the Philippine archipelago belonged to Spain that she had the right to cede to the United States in the reaty o Paris? We could probably say Intramuros, that city surrounded by stonewalls in Manila by the Pasig river. Te political leaders o the United States were aware o this situation but chose to ignore it. When they paid the twenty million Mexican dollars to Spain or the Philippine archipelago, they claimed that there were no nations in existence here at that time, only scattered tribes ghting one another, thus neatly deecting any possible accusation that the United States was guilty o invading ree nation states. We say that the reaty o Paris was a spurious transaction, in which Spain sold what did not belong to her. Te two sultanates o Sulu and Maguindanao, including the Moros o the Pat a Pongampong o Ranaw, were never her colonies, and the Filipino people had just won their independence rom her. But issues like these, questioning the legitimacy o the reaty o Paris, were rendered moot and academic by American victory in arms in the wars that ollowed, specically in the Filipino-American War and the Moro-American War. Te Philippine islands, including Moroland, became, as described in American textbooks, “Our Insular Possessions”. In 1946, independence was returned only to the Republic o the Philippines, but not to the Sultanates o Sulu and Maguindanao and the Pat a Pongampong ko Ranaw. What about the case o the other indigenous peoples? Apparently, they did not have any social structures that would have merited the status o states. But in their simplicity, they contributed immensely to the anti-colonial struggle. Te peoples o the Cordillera ought of the Spaniards successully until 1898 and were never colonized. Te Aetas o Luzon, the Mangyans o Mindoro, the indigenous peoples o Palawan and the Lumads o Mindanao chose to avoid or evaded contact with the Spaniards and so had remained ree.
32
Ugly wist in Our History Te stain o an ugly twist in our history remains with us until today. Tose o our people who were colonized and became Christians ought and struggled to eventually give birth to the Filipino nation and to the Republic o the Philippines. Tis is what was commemorated in the Philippine centennial. Tose o our people, the Moros o the two sultanates o Sulu and Maguindanao, and the Cordillerans who were never conquered and colonized because they ought tooth and nail or their independence; the Aetas o Luzon, the Mangyans o Mindoro, the indigenous peoples o Palawan and the Lumads o Mindanao who succeeded in avoiding contact with the Spaniards and also remained ree—they all now sufer the status o cultural minorities. Teir own struggles against colonialism have yet to nd a place in the Philippine ag, while their own accomplishments have not been given their proper space activities commemorating independence. Nor are their eats mentioned in Philippine history textbooks used in schools. Tis is because we have yet to cleanse our consciousness o the stains o colonial mentality deeply embedded in our social structures. Colonialism contributed to the sowing o these stains, but the cleansing process is now in our hands.
American Share in the Process One o the achievements o the American colonizers that endured to this day is the labels they neatly applied on us. First, in the census o 1903, they categorized the population into two broad groupings o Christians and non-Christians. Te Christians were generally those belonging to any one o the eight linguistic groups o the agalog, Cebuano, Hiligaynon, Waray, Bikol, Iloko, Kapampangan, and Pangasinan, who predominated the Christian population; they were also characterized and called “civilized”. Te Spaniards colonized them. It was this group o people who rebelled against the colonizers and, ater more than 300 years, their struggle ripened into the Philippine Revolution. Tey gave birth to the Filipino nation and to the Republic o the Philippines. In 1898, they were the Filipino people. Te non-Christians, also tagged as “uncivilized”, were those—let me reiterate very quickly or emphasis—who ought back and were successul in maintaining their independence throughout the period o Spanish presence. Tese were the proud Moros o the two sultanates o Maguindanao and Sulu and the Pat a Pongampong o Ranaw, and the indigenous peoples o the Cordillera, known today as the Bontoc, Ibaloi and Kankanaey, Iugao, Ikalahan or Kalangoya; Isneg; Kalinga, Kankanais or Applais, and inguian. Te others were those who kept
33
out o Spanish reach, thereby remaining ree, among whom may be counted the Aetas o Luzon, the Mangyans o Mindoro, the indigenous peoples o Palawan and the more or less 35 Lumad tribes and sub-tribes o Mindanao already mentioned above. Because they were unconquered and had not been colonized, they never had to rebel against the Spaniards. Te Moros and the Cordillerans were always at war with these aggressors. Tey had their record o struggle against the Spaniards, separate and apart rom those ought by the Christians, and they are proud o it. Naturally, they had no part in the ormation o the Filipino nation and cannot identiy with the symbolisms o the Filipino ag.
Our Own Contribution to the Labeling Process Within ten years ater the Republic o the Philippines regained its independence, Congress passed R.A. 1888 that ormalized and made ocial the labels National Cultural Minorities upon those earlier called non-Christians. Te labels have since taken deep root in our consciousness. Some minor changes in the labels were later made to remove the social stigma – Cultural Communities in the 1973 Constitution and Indigenous Cultural Communities in the 1987 Constitution. However, the public continues to reer to the Lumad groups and individuals as non-Christian, uncivilized, or simply minorities.
Displacement in heir Ancestral Homelands, Only One Aspect of Marginalization Worse than the labels, it was the American-initiated resettlement programs that created permanent damage on the lives o the indigenous population. It opened the oodgates to a heavy inux o Filipino settlers rom the north, starting rom 1913, leading to the massive displacement o the local people rom their ancestral lands. Tis inow o settlers was so heavy that by 1948, according to the census, where once the indigenous population predominated, they now had become the numerical minorities. By 1970, the Muslims retained numerical majority only in the ve provinces o Maguindanao, Lanao del Sur, Basilan, Sulu and awi-awi. Te Lumads remained the majority in only eight towns all over Mindanao. Te provisions o the public land law and other related laws were stacked against the non-Christians. For instance, there was the Philippine Commission Act No. 718 o 1903 issued six months ater the passage o the Land Registration Act, making void land grants rom Moro sultans or datus or rom chies o nonChristian tribes when made without government consent. Te ollowing table shows the discriminatory land disposition provisions o the public land laws:
34
able 1.3. Public Land Laws and Resettlement1 Hectarage Allowed Year
Homesteader
Non-Christian
Corporation
1903
16 has.
No provision
1024 has.
1919
24 has.
10 has.
1024 has.
1936
16 has.
4 has.
1024 has.
Te Moros and the Lumads lost their lands to the settlers mainly by operation o law, in classic cases o class legislation. Teir displacement and dispossession in their own ancestral lands was legal! Tis was only one aspect o their marginalization. Being now numerical minorities, they had to submit to the dominance o majority rule. More concretely, they had to submit to a majority-dominated uniorm system o governance and justice, to a majority-dominated uniorm system o land landownership and land use, to a majority-dominated uniorm system o economic lie and to a majority-dominated uniorm system o education. Needless to say, what emerged in media and common usage is a majority-dominant culture.
1
Rodil, R. Te Minoritization o the Indigenous Communities o Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago, Revised Philippine Edition, Alternate Forum or Research in Mindanao, Philippines, 2004.
35
Part wo Moro and Lumad Assertions of Right of Self-Determination Moro Rebellion Te MNLF-led revolution that erupted in late 1972 was the maturation o a series o Moro protests against the discriminatory treatment that they experienced within the Republic, the most inamous (prior to 1972) being the Jabidah massacre o 1968, wherein 26 o some 180 young Moro recruits undergoing secret military training in Corregidor were massacred or alleged mutiny. Tis was ollowed by the ormation o the Muslim (later Mindanao) Independence Movement or MIM, and its declaration o a denite desire to put up an Islamic state in predominantly Muslim areas o Mindanao, Sulu Archipelago and Palawan. Tere were also several other bloody events in 1971, including the merciless massacres at Manili in Carmen, Cotabato and acub in Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte. Te groundswell o Moro protests, spiced with reports o secret military training, became one o two excuses or President Marcos’ declaration o martial rule; the Communist rebellion was the other. Martial law provided the valve or the ull-scale eruption o the Bangsamoro armed struggle or national liberation rom, as the MNLF loves to say, the clutches o Philippine colonialism. In the beginning, the MNLF reerred to its people as Bangsamoro and stated in unequivocal terms that Minsupala was its ancestral homeland; it wanted to establish its own Bangsamoro Republic and it aimed to accomplish this through armed struggle. Te cost o that conict was staggering to all concerned. Te MNLF signed the ripoli Agreement with the GRP in December 1976, establishing autonomy or the Muslims in southern Philippines, more specically in the 13 provinces o Davao del Sur, South Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao, Cotabato, Lanao del Sur, Lanao del Norte, Zamboanga del Sur, Zamboanga del Norte, Basilan, Sulu, awi-awi and Palawan, and all the cities and villages therein. Paragraph 16 urther states that the entire agreement would be implemented through constitutional processes. Ater the two plebiscites o 1989 and 2001, only ve provinces, excluding the cities o Isabela in Basilan and Cotabato in Maguindanao, have remained rom the original 13 provinces. It took the GRP and the MNLF 20 years to agree on how to implement the document. Fourteen years ater the two parties signed a nal peace agreement, the ull implementation o the accord has yet to be seen, a shortcoming that the government admits.
36
he 1996 Final Peace Agreement or the implementation o the ripoli Accord, however, was not acceptable to the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and it decided to pursue the Bangsamoro struggle or sel-determination. At the same time, it also announced its openness to peace negotiations. When the negotiations started in January 1997, it submitted a single agenda item: to solve the Moro problem. Much ground has been covered but the peace process is still going on ater 12 years, and there is no clear end in sight. he GRP-MILF peace negotiations has so ar resulted in several important agreements, chie among which were the decision to a cessation o hostilities and the ripoli Agreement on Peace in 2001, which inalized the three agenda items o security, rehabilitation and development, and ancestral domain. A high point in the negotiations was the much publicized signing o the Memorandum o Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) on August 5, 2008. However, opposition politicians, mainly rom Cotabato, Zamboanga City and Iligan City, petitioned the Supreme Court to orbid the signing with the issuance o a temporary restraining order. hey got the RO and the rest is history. Malacañang announced that it would not sign the agreement “in its present orm or in any other orm” regardless o Supreme Court ruling. hree commanders o the MILF launched attacks on civilian targets in mid-August and by the summer o 2009, an estimated 6,000 evacuees were displaced rom their homes and arms. By mid-October o 2008, the Supreme Court decided that the MOA-AD was unconstitutional. he two parties have since issued separate orders or their respective troops to cease hostilities, negotiations have resumed, and some vital agreements have been reached (e.g. revival and expansion o the International Monitoring eam IM, the ormation o the International Contact Group ICG, among others). By the irst week o June 2010, the same month on which the term o President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was to end, the two negotiating panels signed a Declaration o Continuity, expressing the desire o the two parties to continue the peace process. here has been neither interim agreement nor comprehensive compact. he ball is now with the new president, Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III.
Lumad Assertion A Political Act Although never advocating armed struggle, Lumad Mindanaw and all its ailiate organizations have clearly indicated their desire to attain genuine autonomy within the republic. Lumad Mindanaw as an organization is no longer in exis tence but the concepts its advocates have sown are ver y much alive and attracting more adherents. hey wanted to govern themselves within their respective ancestral
37
domains in accordance with their own traditional laws. his is an assertion o collective political right, not just cultural identity.
1987 Constitution Upholds Ancestral Domain of Indigenous Communities For the irst time in our political history, the 1987 Constitution states its recognition o the ancestral domains o the indigenous communities. Being a product o the EDSA Revolution, the 1987 Charter carries a sincere attempt to cleanse our political and social system o the various stigmata o the martial law regime and our colonial past. Regional autonomy is clearly provided or the Cordillerans and the Muslims o Mindanao. But it was not until October 1997 that an enabling act or this constitutional recognition was promulgated or the Indigenous Peoples.
he Indigenous Peoples Rights Act A Reason o Rejoice Nurtured through the legislative process by committed and well inormed indigenous leaders, lobbyists and sympathetic legislators, R.A. 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) deserves to be hailed as a strategic irst in the history o Philippine legislation. It was the long-awaited ancestral domain law designed to protect the interests o the indigenous peoples and uphold their identity and dignity. Ater 94 years, it eliminated the inamous Philippine Commission Act No. 718 o l903. Native title is now part o the law o the land. Ancestral lands and ancestral domains include not only the physical environment but also the spiritual and cultural bond to said territories. hese ancestral lands or domains may now be titled. As o 2007, o the total certiicate o ancestral domain title (CAD) and certiicate o ancestral land title (CAL) applications covering 4.8 million hectares, only 19% had been approved; the processing o the remaining 81% is awaiting completion. Lack o unds has been identiied as the cause. he right to sel-governance in accordance with customary laws is also guaranteed. Communities living in contiguous areas where they constitute the majority population may orm a separate tribal barangay. he same guarantee is given to the exercise o their own judicial system. hey, too, shall have priority rights in the harvesting, extraction, development or exploitation o any natural resources within the ancestral domains. Outsiders who wish to tap said natural resources can only do so with the community ’s ree prior and inormed consent.
38
Need for Sympathetic Cooperation to Implement the IPRA Like any good law designed to protect and uphold the rights o cultural communities, numerical minorities that they are and vulnerable to manipulation due to their unamiliarity with the letter o the law and its operations, the success o IPRA’s implementation will denitely require sympathetic cooperation rom the rest o the government bureaucracy as well as rom the general population itsel. Tere have been recent instances o settler opposition to Lumad applications or ancestral domain claim. It can be recalled that the Commission on National Integration (CNI) o the past had very grand objectives but the government never released more than 50% o its budget allocation. Te inertia o history and cultural bias are very much alive and must be viewed as a built-in obstacle to the ulllment o the dreams visualized in this law. Decisive eforts rom all concerned must be exerted to generate a spirit o mutual acceptance and mutual cooperation among the various peoples o Mindanao.
39
Part Tree Basic Considerations in Advocacy for Peace and Development Te tri-people approach is without substitute in our peace building and development activities in the entirety o Mindanao and the archipelago o Sulu. It is also imperative that the local government units (LGUs), the provinces, the municipalities and the barangays should lead in the process. A way to carry this out is or central government to institutionalize the primacy o the peace process nationwide, and to engage the entire government machinery in the peace process, more specically at the level o LGUs. Combining peace and development is too big and too complex to be conned to peace negotiations alone between the government and rebel orces. Given the delicate nature o the problem in Mindanao, LGUs and the people themselves must be engaged, not only through sectoral representation but also through institutionalized peoples’ dialogue.
Citizens’ Participation in Creating A Culture of Peace Te tri-people approach is best analyzed in microcosm, specically within the ramework o the 13 provinces in the ripoli Agreement. Creating a culture o peace in these 15 provinces (rom the original 13, ollowing the recent creations o Sarangani province out o South Cotabato and Zamboanga Sibugay out o Zamboanga del Sur) is not a simple case o settling the implementation o the ripoli Agreement. Te MILF have added a ew more areas beyond those specied in the ripoli Agreement, but the basic elements afecting the inhabitants therein remain the same. Te plebiscites o 1989 and 2001 merely touched on the territorial coverage o the autonomy but not on the dynamics o the relationships o the tri-people within the autonomy and without. While it is true that the ripoli document clearly speaks o establishing “autonomy or the Muslims in Southern Philippines” in the 13 provinces, which may also be interpreted as the recognition o the ethnicity o the Muslim population, it is equally true that the same document is silent about the other major segments o the total population in the region. Naturally this is a major cause or concern among the non-Muslims; they certainly nd diculty identiying with this autonomy. Te Government must constantly be conscious o the demographic peculiarity o the area o autonomy. It is not possible to leave any sector out, especially the Lumad and the Christians, whose population in 1970 and later in 2000 was decisively greater than those o the Muslims. In 1970, the total population o the region, Palawan included, based on mother tongue classication, was 8,146,652. O this, the Muslims were 1,630,650 or 19.98%,
40
the Lumad 443,501 or 5.43%. Te Christian settlers and their descendants composed the remaining 6,086,962 or 74.71%. Tere is a loose population o 363,534 or approximately 4.45% whose collective identity is classied as “Other Indigenous Inhabitants.” Even i this number were deducted rom the settler population, the majority status o the Christian settlers remains overwhelming. Tis was not much diferent rom the gures o the 2000 census, where the total population o Minsupala region had more than doubled at 18,856,451. O this, the total Muslim population was 3,683,073 or 19.53%, and the Lumad 1,607,744 or 8.53%. Te Christian settler majority was an overwhelming 13,565,634 or 71.94%. Tis population reality has a direct bearing on the implementation o the ripoli Agreement, especially on the decision o the GRP and the MNLF to have a plebiscite, and, as the events surrounding the GRP-MILF Memorandum Agreement on Ancestral Domain have shown, also on the ate o the GRP-MILF peace negotiations. Eight o the 13 provinces2 listed as the territory o the autonomous region in the ripoli Agreement were Christian-dominated; only ve had a predominance o Muslims. So the result o the plebiscite o 1989 was not entirely unexpected, except or that inexplicable twist where the Muslim-dominated province o Basilan and the Islamic City o Marawi voted no. Tese same areas voted yes in the 2001 plebiscite, but the Christian dominated cities o Cotabato, a component city o the province o Maguindanao, and Isabela, a component city o Basilan province, voted no. Te most intense opposition to the GRP-MILF MOA-AD o 2008 emerged rom the Christian-dominated provinces o Cotabato and the cities o Zamboanga and Iligan. According to then Vice Governor Emmanuel Piñol o Cotabato, 173 barangays o his province were listed in the Category A o the MOA-AD without the benet o public consultation. Mayor Lawrence Cruz o Iligan City complained that the eight barangays o Iligan enumerated in Category A constituted more than 82% o the entire territory o the city. He argued that, while our o these barangays are Moro-dominated, the other our cannot possibly be Moro ancestral domain because Moro population there has always been a minority. In act, two o them, Hindang and Mainit, had only one Muslim each in the 2000 census. Tere were plebiscites in the territory o the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) in 1989 and 2001. In both the answer in Iligan was an overwhelming no to inclusion. In 2001, only a measly 2.67% voted yes.
2
In 1976, when the agreement was signed, the area o autonomy included only 13 provinces. With the creation o Sarangani and Zamboanga Sibugay, there are now 15. Both Sarangani and Zamboanga Sibugay are Christiandominated, bringing to 10 the number o Christian-dominated provinces in the Philippines.
41
Oten taken or granted and thereore let unarticulated as such are the intense emotional outbursts triggered by publicized concessions to Moros, represented by the MNLF and the MILF. Te settlers’ angry reactions to the MOA-AD were not new. Similar expressions were exhibited in the 1988-1989 discussions on Muslim Mindanao and ARMM and in the atermath o the signing o the interim agreement on the creation o Southern Philippines Council or Peace and Development (SPCPD) in 1995-1996. Te ollowing words have become triggers that set of loud and oten angry reactions among settlers: “Muslim Mindanao,” “SPCPD,” and “MOA-AD.” Feeling rejected on a massive scale by these outbursts, the Muslims in turn naturally elt that their ght or sel-determination is ully justied. It is equally important to bear in mind that the various Lumad tribes, all 12 ethno-linguistic groups within the 15 provinces, along with the rest o their kin all over Mindanao, have since the mid-1980s started to articulate their own right to seldetermination within their ancestral domain. Te Christian population, most o whom are third or ourth generation descendants o immigrants rom Luzon and the Visayas but also o whom a large number is indigenous, see themselves as genuine Mindanawons and distinct rom the others. o this extent, they may also be deemed to possess a certain level o “ethnicity”.
Need to Establish Commonalities Te tri-people must take part in identiying what is common among them and work out a modus vivendi rom there. Tis is not something that can be the subject o negotiations between the GRP and the MNLF or the MILF. Tis cannot but be part o the broader peace process. We are talking about harmonious relations at the community level. Te events rom the early 1970s to 2008 are more than sucient evidence to prove this. Konsult Mindanaw pioneered by the Bishops Ulama Conerence (BUC) and the succeeding Dialogue Mindanaw have amply documented the same popular call or community dialogues, public consultation and peaceul resolution o conicts. Perhaps, this is one moment in history when we must grapple with realities in a manner radically diferent rom the way the colonizers did. I we must unite, we must do so as distinct entities; we must do so as equals accepting and respecting each other’s unique identity and dignity, regardless o population size. We must do so because unity in diversity is mutually benecial and best or all concerned. Tis is an important rst step in the creation o a culture o peace. Balanced with one another, ethnicity and recognition o each other’s political right to sel-determination can be an instrument or sustaining a peace culture, which, in turn, is a vital component or the development not only o the autonomous region but also o Mindanao and the rest o the Philippines.
42
Peace Credo; the Organic Whole; Implications to Development A number o peace advocates and educators rom all over Mindanao and Sulu assembled at the Southeast Asia Rural Leadership Institute (SEARSOLIN), Xavier University, Cagayan de Oro City, in July 1996. Tis gathering was aptly called Consultation-Workshop on Peace Education in Mindanao, with the theme “Journey to Peace and Harmony”. It was hosted by the Mindanao Support and Communication Center or Agrarian Reorm and Rural Development (MINCARRD) and the Oce o the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP). Te participants produced, ratied and adopted a Peace Credo in Filipino. Te English translation here is mine. It is appropriate to recall it here. Kalinaw Mindanaw! Lumad, Muslim, Kristiyano Magkaiba, Magkaisa Isang Diyos Isang Lupain Isang Adhikain Kalinaw Mindanaw! [English ranslation] Peace Mindanaw! Lumad, Muslim, Christian Tey are diferent, they can be one One God One land One dream Peace Mindanaw! What the Peace Credo advocates is that on the level o the people, the tripeople approach in peace advocacy is creating a stream o uniying ideals among a diverse population whose basic interests may sometimes be conicting. It is molding a common agenda and a common vision; it is creating unity out o diversity. It is seeing ourselves as integral parts o an organic whole. Following the idea o an organic whole, the same people will do well to see themselves as one with nature and the physical environment in which they live. Ten rom there, nd the inter-links, or the uniying thread among the various orces o nature. With a closer look, one can easily see the interactive roles o the various resources or orces o development in Mindanao in the overall orward movement o the region and the country.
43
ake industrialization as a case in point. One may say that industrialization is possible only with a continuous ow o electrical energy. Electricity comes largely rom the Agus river hydroelectric plants, seven o them generating a total o 944 megawatts. Te six dams along the Pulangi river will produce a total o 1,003 megawatts and service irrigation systems. Other smaller projects will have a combined capacity o 714 megawatts. Te Mt. Apo geothermal plants alone are projected by the Philippine National Oil Company to produce a total o 220 megawatts o electricity. Te 22 sites, excluding the geothermal plants, in Mindanao are expected to produce a total o 3,006 megawatts. From the sources o energy to the distribution o electricity, we can eel a very intimate interconnection between the peace process and the economic development. Water, the source o power that turns the giant generators, is dependent on the integrity o the watersheds. Keeping watersheds alive require the nurturing care o people, people who share a common desire to keep the water owing or the common welare. Te vital watersheds in Mindanao are located in Moroland and within the ancestral lands o Lumad communities. Maintaining the watersheds will mean not only preserving the water resources in all lakes and major river systems, it will also mean a sustained supply o water or agriculture, another strong component o Mindanao economic development. Te best illustration o the latter is the potential o the Cotabato and Agusan river basins. For the Lumad communities in particular, sustaining the integrity o the watersheds is respecting the sacredness o their domains, both physical and spiritual. Sustained efort rom a diverse population will only be possible i the same is unied by a common goal. What this boils down to is that peace in Moroland is a vital component in the restoration and preservation o the watershed areas that will, in turn, assure us o the continuous ow o electricity. Tis or its part will uel the industries. Te cycle can continue ad innitum. Te cycle we have presented here is not meant to be complete but the concept o the organic whole approach to development seems worth exploring.
ri-People Approach: Implication to National History Te Filipinos o today are not the same as the Filipinos o 1898. In those days, the Filipinos, the colonized segment o the population that elt the need to liberate themselves rom the clutches o Spanish colonizers, did so and in the process produced the Filipino identity, the Filipino nation and the Filipino Republic. Tey put together a ag which aithully represented their political realities and consciousness. But there were other segments o the population that we cannot so identiy or lack o bases in historical act. Te Sulu sultanate ought Spanish colonialism as a state;
44
so did the Maguindanao sultanate, o which the Moro are extremely proud. We cannot take this away rom them. Te Lumad, who avoided contact with the Spaniards and were thereore not colonized, could not be identied as Filipinos either because they were not part o that process that brought about the Filipino nation. Te American segment o our colonial experience changed all this. Having conquered and colonized all o us, it was the American colonizers who decided that we share the same territory and should all be Filipinos. Tis is why it can be said that only one independence was restored in 1946. Te Muslims were not particularly happy about that. Content or not with what we have inherited rom the American colonizers, we have a problem to solve. We have a shared destiny and a shared territory but we have conicting views about it.
Mindanao is Shared erritory At this point in our history, not a single segment o the population can claim Mindanao as theirs. It is already shared territory. Te three segments o the population are capable o working out a modus vivendi that can make Mindanao a home o peace and harmony. What Mindanao has taught us is that we can still be Filipinos, but the basis o our unity cannot be our difering experiences with Spanish colonialism. Neither can it be the present Filipino ag that is the product o a diferent era. It must be our mutual acceptance o one another as distinct peoples in one nation, with our respective histories, identities and dignity sharing the same territory. It must be our common vision crated rom present realities. Perhaps, we should explore the easibility o designing an entirely new ag and a new constitution, to represent an expanded historical experience and an expanded nation that allows or sucient social spaces or the tri-people. Tis will make uture commemorations o independence something all Mindanawons can identiy with and nd more meaningul.
45
Part Four Recommendations Tere is no question that everybody wants peace and development in Mindanao. But we must get our acts together. We can start by dreaming o producing a new generation o Mindanawons in 20 years, Mindanawons who are not weighed down by deep-seated prejudice, who can come to terms with each other’s diferences and social spaces, and who are willing to listen to one another in peace and dene common dreams. But the government must lead this process, especially the local government units, complemented by non-government organizations and the private sector, including the various religious institutions. o accomplish these goals, this paper makes the ollowing recommendations.
First, nationalize the primacy o the peace process and engage the entire mechanism o government in the peace process. Tis should not be limited to the Oce o the President through the Oce o the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process and to the security sector, the Armed Forces o the Philippines and the Philippine National Police. Te local government units must take the lead in their respective areas. Formal peace negotiations alone will resolve neither the rebellion o the Bangsamoro nor the rebellion o the Communist Party o the Philippines-New Peoples Army (CPP-NPA). Te same primacy o the peace process can be adopted in other areas o the country and adjusted to their specic requirements. In particular, it will help i: a) Te LGUs at the provincial, municipal and barangay levels will be mandated to institutionalize and lead in community dialogues where citizens o the LGU can listen and decide on major community issues, especially peace and development problems; b) Te national line agencies should have a peace component in their structure and projects; c) Te Department o Education and the Commission on Higher Education will enshrine peace education in their curriculum, in the primary, secondary and tertiary levels; d) Te universities and colleges, both public and private, will revise Philippine history textbooks to include appropriate space or Mindanao history rom the perspective o the Bangsamoro and the Lumad.
Second, a new Constitution is imperative to solve Mindanao’s problems. Te resolution o ancestral domain and sel-determination issues afecting the Bangsamoro and the Lumad will ultimately require structural changes in governance. Bangsamoro and Lumad communities need to have their ancestral territories and social spaces secured constitutionally to make the solution permanent. It is time or a new constitution that secures the Lumad and Bangsamoro where previous constitutions and legal rameworks
46
have been instrumental in marginalizing them. Community dialogues led by LGUs will enable the non-Lumad and non-Bangsamoro to understand and appreciate the undamental issues involved, such as dening the concrete meaning o sel-determination and how this will relate to the central government. For years, state policy was or amalgamation or integration o the non-Christian populations. Te result was marginalization. Te 1987 constitution gave way to autonomy and the recognition o the ancestral domain rights and distinct cultures o these peoples. Now we have the Organic Act or the ARMM and IPRA or the indigenous peoples. Tese obviously are not enough. Tere is a need or government to loosen up and allow or secured social spaces or the Bangsamoro and the Lumad, within they can develop at their own pace. It must nally be admitted that the country’s basic laws, such as the reaty o Paris, the Philippine Bill o 1902 (Te Philippine Organic Act), the Jones Law o 1916 (Te Philippine Autonomy Act), the ydings-McDue Act, the Philippine Constitution o 1935, the 1973 Constitution, and the present 1987 Constitution, operated within colonial logic: that there were no nations here when the American colonizers arrived and there was only room or one independent Republic o the Philippines in 1946. Te 1935 Constitution, in particular, armed the legitimacy o the reaty o Paris. It was within the ramework o these laws that the amalgamation and marginalization o the Bangsamoro and Lumad communities took place and were justied. We must now rethink whether the same laws that created the problem can still be used to resolve the same problem.
Tird, ast-track the processing o Lumad applications or Certifcates o Ancestral Domain itle and Certifcates o Ancestral Land itles. Ater a century o displacement, this requires no urther elucidation. Every day o delay leaves the door open or settlers to insert themselves into Lumad domains. A CAD or a CAL is the Lumad’s best deense against unwanted intrusions; it is also their best assurance o long-term peace. Fourth, the details o the peace talks with the MILF and with the CPP-NPA should be disclosed to the LGUs and the public so that these can be discussed openly. It should be the task o OPAPP, and not o the negotiating panels, to deal with public inormation and public consultation. Fith, the President o the Republic must stand by the signed agreements with rebel groups and ensure that these are duly communicated to the other branches o government and or implementation. By the non-ull implementation o the 1996 Final Peace Agreement with the MNLF, or instance, the government is actually missing by deault on a crucial opportunity to stabilize the situation in Moro Mindanao. What happened to the GRP-MILF MOA-AD has delivered its lessons; the least that we can do is learn rom them.
