Introduction

The peculiar realities of Mindanao cry out for a political structural solution that can rectify the inequalities of centuries as well as bring about greater democracy and equitable progress for all its people.

The clamor for decentralization and autonomy has never been stronger than in Mindanao. And while a Local Government Code is now in place, and an autonomy is now operational in the Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), the call for genuine self-rule remain, making the peace and order situation tenuous. Unfortunately for the national policy, both the MNLF and MILF do not recognize the ARMM as real autonomy. In fact, the secessionist movement is alive and well. Even a predominantly Christian-led, and with some tribal membership, Mindanao Independence Movement (MIM) has been added to the brew. Both Muslim and Christian separatists, however, have presently been held at bay although for how long, nobody knows.

A Muslim scholar, Judge Jainal D. Rasul, described the situation well in a 1986 article in the Moro Kourier: He said:

“Presently, the Muslims in this country are faced with a dilemma: (1) to remain in the Philippines under the present arrangement; or (2) to get away or secede from the Philippines and create its own Bangsa Moro State in order to preserve its religio-cultural identity.

Under the first, the Muslims may forcibly be assimilated under the so-called Integration Policies or Divide and Rule tactic. This is more traumatic than physical genocide. It is cultural imperialism.

The second, on the other hand, would mean fratricidal war because the Philippine government would resist fragmentation or dismemberment of the republic.”

With regards to the alternatives for the Muslim Filipinos, he says: “Undoubtedly, the federal form of government is the Constitutional solution to the age-old Moro problem.”

Indeed, the political alternatives being advocated presently in Mindanao range from decentralization to separation. The first may improve the situation but will not substantially change the structure of decision-making in relation to a central government. The other is an extreme and, usually bloody solution that results in dismemberment of the nation. Neither is good enough.

So why not Federalism instead?

The Advantages of Federalism

The not too obvious but significant advantage of Federalism is its ability to address the demands of a pluralistic society, meaning one that has a mixture of populations of diverse cultures and ethno-linguistic identities. This is nowhere more pronounced than in Mindanao, with its Moro population of about 4 million and Lumads numbering about 2 million, altogether making up about 40% of the total Mindanao population.

It is noted that only in a Federal structure of government it is possible to “properly ad correctly rule such a society in such a manner as to accommodate the distinctiveness of each nationality while orchestrating them all towards the common national goal which comprehends their diversities.”

The more obvious advantage is greater power-sharing between the National or Federal Government and the State/Local Government. Since the State will have their own legislatures, real decision-making is brought closer home to the people. This is the immediate consequence of the political re-structuring. But, in fact, the citizens can push further to ensure that in the Federal Constitution and the State laws, greater people participation in the decision-making process is institutionalized.

DIASADVANTAGES: One fear usually expressed about Federalism is that it may also institutionalize petty tyrannies by local warlords who may be given greater powers. But Federalism does not only localize power but expands it. Warlords now have to deal with State legislatures and peoples assemblies.

Doubts are also raised about whether the people are prepared for such a system. But we will never ever be prepared unless we consciously and systematically work for it.

Statement of Principles

The Philippines shall be a democratic, republican and socially-just federal state.

Being a democracy, sovereignty and all authority shall emanate from the people.

Such authority shall be exercised through the principle of representative government where duly elected officials represent and are accountable to the people. The functions of the state are exercised by legislative, executive and judicial authorities.

To ensure a more democratic participation, legitimate people’s organizations and assemblies shall be promoted and secured by the Federal law.

All federal and state actions shall be bound by law and justice according to the rule-of law principle. All citizens shall have the right to resist any person or groups seeking to abolish the constitutional order, should no other remedy be possible.

The social justice principle aims to guarantee equitable distribution of wealth and opportunities to all the people.

The federal system shall see to it that regional developments of the states is enhanced by operation of the principle of subsidiarity where local populations and communities are guaranteed the chance to pursue development according to their particular competencies and peculiar cultural differences.

The division of executive, legislative and judicial powers between the federation and the states aims to prevent over concentration and, therefore, the possible abuse of power.

1. Political Divisons

1.1. There will be 12 states consisting of the present regional groupings from regions 1 to 12, to wit:

1.2. The existing Cordillera Autonomous Region (CAR) and the Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) will retain their status as Autonomous Areas.

1.3. Metro Manila or NCR and Palawan will be constituted as Special Territories to be run either by the Federal Government or under a special charter.

1.4. As a start, the states will be made up of existing provinces within their jurisdictions and the provinces, in turn, by the existing municipalities and cities except chartered cities which are independent.

(Note: An alternative proposed in the 1986 Con-Con is to make Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao the States. Thus, the Federal Philippines will only have three states. Other variations, of course, can be worked out. But the above political divisions is being suggested as it will require minimum territorial boundary adjustments and can build on present inter-provincial relations).

2. Federal Constitution and Regional Charters

2.1. There shall be a Federal Constitution that lays down the form of government, the political divisions and the relationship between the Federal government and the States; that establishes a system of values where protection of individual freedom and human dignity is the highest principle of law, but where, at the same time, the value of social responsibility is inculcated in all levels and sectors of social life; as well as other necessary provisions.

2.2. There shall be Regional Charters, one each for Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao that will define intra-regional relationship among the States, and more specifically, set the guidelines for inter-state cooperation toward greater regional economic and socio-cultural development.

The Regional Charters, however, will not establish any regional political unit; the States will relate directly with the Federal government. Instead, a regional agency or authority to handle economic and socio-cultural development and cooperation among the regions’ peoples (i.e. Moro, Lumad and Christian population) may be organized.

2.3. The existing Autonomous Areas (CAR and ARMM) shall be governed by their own charters. Special Territories such as NCR and Palawan may also have their own charters.

(Note: The concept of territories usually refers to colonies or former colonies of a country or adjunct territories acquired by it through natural or legal processes. But in this paper, Palawan is proposed as a Special Territory owing to its peculiar location – in relation to Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao – and having been only one province all these years, it is too small to be a State. For this reason, it can be governed directly by the Federal government, or by its own separate charter. Metro Manila or NCR, on the other hand, is unique in its Metropolitan characteristics and may require a special Constitutional arrangement.).

3. Parliamentary System of Government

3.1. Given the Federal structure, the Philippine shall establish a Parliamentary instead of a Presidential system of government.

There will, however, be a President with minimal powers who will preside over a Council of Elders that will advise the government, monitor abuse of authority over the people, set the moral tone for the nation and serve as role models of probity and integrity. The President shall be elected by the members of the Council from among themselves. The Council shall be composed of all living ex-Presidents and Vice-Presidents, ex-Prime Ministers, former Speakers of the House and Senate Presidents, former Chief Justices of the Supreme Court, plus one representative per state to be chosen by the State Legislatures.

The Parliamentary system will enhance the role of “ideological” political parties and the politics of programs rather than personalities. Many parties may vie for power, but limitations shall be instituted so that only major parties that get that get the required popular support may participate in governance.

3.2. To ensure further democratization, a system of sectoral representation may be permanently established. A list of basic sectors of society shall be approved (e.g. farmers, labor, urban poor, fisherfolks, women, tribal Filipinos, Moro people, youth, veterans and elders) and from which will be sectorally elected members of Parliament representing the sectors rather than districts.

3.3. The Unicameral Parliament shall undertake laws of national concern and application only as well as those with international implications such as treaties and the like.

(Note: The above suggestion is for a one-chamber legislature. But an alternative could be a Parliament with a House of Representatives and a Senate with counterbalancing powers, although the Senators may be elected by the State as in the U.S.)

4. Power Sharing between Federal and State Governments

As a rule, there shall be powers and functions exclusive to the Federal government, those that are concurrent with the State government, and those that are exclusive to the State government. (Download PDF)

Early Period – Independent small kingdoms called “balangays” (sailboats) of about 100 families headed by datus. Later called “barangays”.

1450 – Sultanates
• Sulu
• Maguindanao 1619
• Simuay / Sulu – Spanish Treaties 1636-1645

1521 – Spanish Colonization
• Colony of Spain
• Monarchy
• Centralized Government
• Encomenderos (Regions)
• Organization of LGUs
- Provinces (Alcadias)
- Districts (Corregimientos)

1762 – British Invasion
• 2 years Protestants rule
• Capture of Manila
• 3 Governors General
- British
- Acting Spanish
- Rebel
• First election of Manila Council
• English language introduced
• Acquired North Borneo (Sabah) from sultan of Sulu
• Filipinos remain loyal to Spain

1896 – Philippine Revolution
• Declaration of Independence by Aguinaldo
• Revolutionary Government
• Malolos Constitution
• Reorganization of the Local Governments
• The First Philippine Republic

1899 – American Regime
• Spanish-American War
• Treaty of Paris 1898
• Philippine American War 1899
• Military Government
• Schurman and Taft Commissions
• Civil Government
• The First Philippine Assembly
• Filipinization of the Government
• The Commonwealth of the Philippines
• 1935 Philippine Constitution
• First national elections

1942 – Japanese Occupation
• Commonwealth in Exile
• Philippine Executive Commission
• 1943 Constitution
• The Second Philippine Republic
• A Puppet Government

1946 – Philippine Independence
• The Third Philippine Republic

1972 – Marcos Dictatorship
• 1973 Constitution
• 1976 Tripoli Agreement
• Interim Batasan Pambansa
• Batasan Pambansa
• Parliamentary System with a strong President
• Katarungan Pambarangay / Lupong Tagapagpayapa

1986 – People Power Revolt
• Revolutionary Government
• Freedom Constitution
• 1987 Constitution
• Return of Democratic Rule
• Establishment of ARMM
• Local Government Code 1992

2001 – EDSA II

CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOMMODATION OF A BANGSAMORO ISLAMIC REGION by SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR.

“Exploring Constitutional Structures for the Muslim Community” is a concisely well-stated theme for this roundtable discussion hosted by the UP Law Center’s Institute of International Legal Studies. This is precisely what we should do, explore solutions to the Bangsamoro problem. We know that the Moro Problem and, more so, the broader Mindanao Problem is a complex multi-dimensional holistic problem that needs a complex multi-dimensional holistic solution. The suspended GRP-MILF peace negotiations, at least the MILF side, seek foremostly a political solution as the key dimension. But a political solution without a constitutional solution will not go far. There can be no radical political restructuring without constitutional change. The constitutional dimension is very much part of the problem and of the solution.

One way of posing the constitutional problem is this: What is the best possible structure for the political relationship between the central Philippine government and for that matter the Filipino people, on one hand, and the Bangsamoro people in the Southern Philippines, on the other hand? Or, is there space, can space be created, in the Philippine republican polity and constitutional system to accommodate a Moro Islamic system of life and governance (the main aspiration represented by the MILF)?

Before going further and deeper into this, just a note about the thematic focus on the Muslim community or the Bangsamoro people, if you will. The Mindanao Problem is a problem of relationships among the three peoples (Christian Filipinos, Muslim Moros and indigenous Lumad) there and with the central Philippine government, with the Muslim or Moro Problem as its historically and currently most critical expression, its cutting edge or key link. Recognition of the broader Mindanao context is not incompatible with the necessary focus on the Muslim or Moro Problem to give it its just due, albeit informed by or conscious of Mindanao’s tri-people character.

The Tri-People Approach emphasizes the existence of the three peoples which have to share Mindanao, the ideal of their equality and unity, and Mindanao itself as the basis of a new or additional identity as Mindanaoan or Mindanawon. But this should not negate Moro and Lumad identities, which are still struggling for better recognition. We seek not just harmony but harmony in diversity.

Going back now to the constitutional discourse, our exploration will be helped immensely by international legal studies, particularly on comparative and international law and practice. These studies will reveal a wide range of possibilities, a wide range of “constitutional choices” - between integration and secession (or independence). At both extremes, you have forced integration and forced secession, both attained by a military solution. You can also have free association (integration) and negotiated secession (or independence). But the general categories of integration and secession are not considered desirable or feasible, as the case may be, at present and for the foreseeable future. For example, it is not likely that the Philippine government and even the OIC and the UN would agree to a referendum on the question of independence even if only in the predominantly Muslim areas in Mindanao.

Then, you have the more feasible general categories of autonomy and federalism, each with a wide range of possibilities, models and structures. Autonomy has become somewhat of a bad word, especially in some Moro quarters, because of the generally negative experiences with it since President Marcos first instituted it in 1977/1979 to unilaterally implement the 1976 Tripoli Agreement. The latter called for autonomy for the Muslims in the Southern Philippines as the negotiated political solution to their problem. But the experiences in other countries show that what we have had so far, up to the autonomy envisioned in the 1996 GRP-MNLF Peace Agreement, has not exhausted the possibilities of autonomy for the Muslim community.

Some country experiences further show that autonomy can be even more self-determinative than federalism. In other words, autonomy is not necessarily of a lower category than federalism and can sometimes be closer than the latter to independence. Independence or secession, especially if negotiated, should not be ruled out entirely as solutions. But I believe the possibilities of non-independence solutions should be explored and exhausted first before resort to independence solutions.

According to one in a series of Cambridge studies in international and comparative law, “Secession cannot be accepted under international law if the grievances underlying the demands for secession can be removed through the exercise of internal self-determination…A high degree of autonomy can legally be demanded by those groups who have a separate right of self-determination. This cannot be refused as long as the territorial integrity of the state is respected…Secession whether leading to independence or to any kind of integration with another State, should only be achieved, in the absence of the consent of the State from which secession is sought, after a period of maximum autonomy.”

In short, failure to provide such maximum autonomy becomes justifiable cause for secession. If the Philippine constitutional system and the Filipino people cannot accommodate a Moro Islamic system in predominantly Muslim areas which want it, then Moro secession becomes a principal option. The premise here is that the Moro aspiration for an Islamic system, even in its maximum form of an independent Islamic state, is a legitimate aspiration because it goes to the core of cultural diversity: a people’s identity, way of life, and longing for self-rule. A case can also be made for Bangsamoro independence on historical, cultural, legal, moral and even religious grounds. Datu Michael O. Mastura, among others, has articulated Moro historic claims and legal rights. But, as we said, let us put off for now the case for independence.

At the same time, the Philippine alternative to Bangsamoro independence or an independent Islamic state would have to be as close to it as possible, as good as it gets, to merit acceptability from the Moro side. Low-intensity autonomy which the Moro side can hardly consider as “meaningful,” like the “political package” which is HB 7883, will not suffice to satisfy the more Islamic aspirations represented by the MILF, even as it may satisfy likewise legitimate political and economic aspirations of integration represented by the MNLF.

To restate the constitutional problem: how do we accommodate a Moro Islamic system of life and governance within the Philippine republic and territory considering the fundamentally opposing constitutional paradigms of the GRP and the MILF? How can such a system find space in a highly centralized presidential-unitary system dominated by a political and economic elite with a Western-Christian orientation? Can the MILF, with its Islamic revivalist orientation and political thinking, accept something less than an independent Islamic state? Can the GRP, with its tradition of constitutionalism, accept the non-practice of the Philippine constitutional system in a special Islamic region within its territory?

We have to consider the opposing constitutional paradigms, which partake of the nature of a “clash of civilizations,” culture and ideology, and which militate against accommodation on and from both sides:

1. Constitution vs. Qur’an
2. Sovereignty of the People vs. Sovereignty of Allah (hakimiyya)
3. Separation of Church and State vs. Integration of Religion and Politics/State (din wa dawla)
4. Autonomous Regions of a Unitary State vs. Independent Islamic State
5. National Territory vs. Bangsamoro Homeland
6. Philippine Flag vs. Moro Islamic Symbols

On the other hand, there are helpful concepts in the Philippine Constitution and constitutional law which could support accommodation of a Moro Islamic system:

1. Religious Freedom
2. Equal Protection and Due Process
3. Generally Accepted Principles of International Law and Right to Self-Determination
4. Rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities
5. Expanded Social Justice
6. Direct Democracy
7. Peace
8. Police Power, salus populi est suprema lex (the welfare of the people is the supreme law), the “law of overruling necessity”

In fact, there are also helpful Islamic concepts or devices which would allow a Muslim minority to reconcile itself with and accept living in a Christian majority state:

1. Dar al-Sulh (Territory of Peace or Truce)
2. Muwada’a (Treaty)
3. Islamic Pluralism, including li-ta’arafu (“know each other,” Qur’an, 49:13)
4. Shura (Consultation)
5. Khilafat (Vicegerency of Man)
6. Ijtihad (Creative Reasoning Effort)
7. Darurah (Doctrine of Necessity)

Furthermore, there is initial common ground between the parties which is found

in the GRP-MILF “General Framework of Agreement of Intent” of 27 August 1998:

1. human rights in accordance with the principles in the UN Charter, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
2. joint agreements/arrangements previously signed by the parties, especially the “Agreement for General Cessation of Hostilities” dated 18 July 1997
3. tolerance for the identity, culture, way of life and aspirations of all the peoples of Mindanao [may be treated as a recognition of Mindanao’s tri-people dynamic]

Significantly, the human rights approach to self-determination, including to ethnic group claims, is preferred over the historical sovereignty approach, going by recent thinking and trends in international law. In the Western Sahara case, (Advisory Opinion) [1975] ICJ Rep 12, involving the decolonization of Spanish Sahara, the International Court of Justice favored an approach based not on historical communities and ties but on contemporary human interaction and values, by which the future status of the territory would be determined through the free and genuine expression of the will of its contemporary inhabitants.

This seems to be echoed in the MILF’s Situation Report submitted to the OIC before its last Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers in June 2000 where it is stated that “It is not practical to consider only the prior right of a people to this Island. The actual situation should be given more weight in the formulation of policies. For this reason, the policy of the MILF vis-à-vis the Christians is: Mindanao belongs to all the peoples, Christians, indigenous tribes, and Muslims, who make this island their home.”

All told, however, though there are sources of hope in initial common ground and in helpful constitutional and Islamic concepts, these are outweighed by fundamentally opposed paradigms, structures and traditions, including inhospitable judicial tradition. From the Islamic perspective, how can the God-given Qur’an be subordinated to a man-made Constitution, no matter how democratic or progressive? How can the sovereignty of Allah be subordinated to the sovereignty of the people? From the Philippine constitutional perspective, how can the inviolable principle of the separation of Church and State not be violated by Islam as din wa dawla (religion and state)?

How can an Islamic system, not even an independent Islamic state, in predominantly Muslim areas of Mindanao govern itself in accord with shari’ah (Islamic law) when the Philippine Constitution specifically and unilaterally provides for an autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao with limited powers and always subject to central unitary authority, including national laws and processes?

What then is needed to break through this jam? We need a qualitative leap in rethinking constitutionalism and sovereignty: from modern to contemporary constitutionalism, and from old to new sovereignty. Then, we need key mutual compromises on national sovereignty but not territorial integrity on the part of the GRP, and on independent statehood but not Islamic system on the part of the MILF.

On the other hand, there is contemporary constitutionalism, as notably synthesized by Canadian scholar James Tully. The Constitution is reconceived as a form of accommodation of cultural diversity. It is also an activity of intercultural dialogue or multilogue between or among peoples or nations in one country in accordance with three important conventions: mutual recognition, consent, and cultural continuity. These principles guide the negotiations towards just forms of constitutional association. The aim is to accommodate differences in appropriate institutions and similarities in shared institutions.

It comes from the historical practice of “treaty constitutionalism” between Aboriginal peoples (the “First Nations”) of North America and the British Crown (later, Canada and the U.S.) as equal, self-governing nations resulting in relations of protection and interdependency, not discontinuity and subordination. In the case of the U.S., this became the definitive jurisprudence on US-American Indian relations by way of the landmark 1832 Supreme Court decision in Worcester vs. Georgia (31 US 515). This in turn was later incorporated into Philippine jurisprudence in the likewise landmark 1919 Supreme Court decision in Rubi vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro (39 Phil. 660) where the US policy on American Indians was affirmed to have been adopted for the “non-Christian” tribes (including the Moros) in the Philippines.

Old sovereignty refers to the kind centralized in a single locus which is the imagined nation-state. This sovereignty is conceived as permanent, exclusive, comprehensive, absolute, indivisible, inalienable, and imprescriptible. Typical of this is the statement of Sen. Franklin M. Drilon in connection with the NDF threat to terminate peace talks on the issue of VFA and national sovereignty: “The universal principle of national sovereignty is that it is one and indivisible and its powers are exercised by the State.”

On the other hand, there is new sovereignty, as already recognized by many scholars like Kurt Mills and by at least one notable head of state in Czech President Vaclav Havel. This is a reconceptualization of sovereignty as moving both downward (inward) from the state incorporating both human and peoples’ rights, and upward (outward) from the state as we look for ways to respond to the need to protect these rights within a global framework as well as respond to the increasing permeability of borders. There can be diffusion of sovereignty where it is inclusive, shared and disseminated, which divides power in various ways to allow regions, peoples and nations to govern themselves to different degrees. Sovereignty is seen in a new light as the authority of a culturally diverse people to govern themselves by their own laws and ways, free from external subordination.

In the 1997 Philippine Supreme Court decision in Tanada vs. Angara (272 SCRA 18) on the constitutionality of Philippine ratification of the WTO Agreement, it was held that state sovereignty cannot be considered absolute because of limitations imposed by the very membership in the family of nations and by treaty stipulations. This recognition of the upward devolution of sovereignty should logically lead to a recognition, whether express or implied, of the downward devolution of sovereignty.

From comparative and international law and practice, I have picked out one key concept or model and one key device that may help fashion a constitutional solution to the problem of coexistence of two or more sovereignties in the same territory. First is the “One Country, Two Systems” concept based on certain aspects of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vis-à-vis the People’s Republic of China which might be applied by analogy, to solve the problem of coexistence of peoples with two very different systems in one country. In Islamic terms, the two systems in peaceful coexistence in one country correspond to dar al-Islam (territory of Islam) and dar al-sulh (territory of peace or truce). One local symbolic example is the “Islamic City of Marawi” within the Philippine Republic. Why not an Islamic region which is substantive and not just symbolic?

Second is the treaty device, where a treaty is “a compact formed between two nations or communities, having the right of self-government” (from Worcester vs. Georgia). It would allow an Islamic entity to interface with a constitutional entity as equals. It addresses the Islamic concern for non-subordination of the Qur’an to any national constitution or non-subordination of Allah’s sovereignty to any other sovereignty. Muwada’a (treaty) is one helpful Islamic concept. There are treaty precedents and models both in early Islamic history (including treaties entered into by the Prophet Muhammad like the “Constitution of Medina”) and in Moro history (33 treaties with foreign powers).

A rethinking of constitutionalism and sovereignty should lead to key mutual compromises, as we said, on national sovereignty but not territorial integrity on the part of the GRP and on independent statehood but not Islamic system on the part of the MILF. Then, informed by comparative and international law and practice and by Mindanao’s tri-people character, we can create a constitutional structure or space that we might call a Bangsamoro Islamic Region (BI’R, from the Arabic word bi’r for well of water) within the Republic of the Philippines. What follows is a brief description which could also be the wording of a proposed constitutional amendment (with which we need not even touch the rest of the Constitution):

There shall be created a special Islamic region to meet the aspiration for a system of life and governance suitable and acceptable to the Bangsamoro people who opt for it. This region shall exercise maximum autonomy with independent legislative, executive and judicial powers under an Islamic system, as the Philippine constitutional system shall not be practiced there. This region shall be established pursuant to a peace agreement which shall have constitutional status as defining, among others, the relations of constitutional association between the region and the Bangsamoro people, on one hand, and the Republic and the Filipino people, on the other hand. The constitutional arrangements shall include personal or cultural autonomy for Moros outside the region, and guarantees for the protection of human rights.

Among the special considerations for this constitutional arrangement are upholding national unity and territorial integrity, securing the blessings of cultural diversity and lasting peace, and taking account of the history and realities of Mindanao.

The BI’R would have a very high degree of autonomy, except for national defense, foreign affairs and possibly currency. The governing law in this highly autonomous Islamic region would be shari’ah to the fullest possible extent. The Qur’an, as the first primary source of shari’ah, would be the real constitution of the BI’R. The Qur’anic blueprint covers all aspects of a whole way of life but Islamic governance is the most crucial aspect of an Islamic system.

In addition to the human rights regime under shari’ah, including the status of the dhimmis (non-Muslim minorities), the initial common ground of commitment to protect and respect human rights in accordance with the UN Charter’s principles and the UDHR should be carried through and eventually cover other international human rights standards, ideally with a unified approach to human rights which covers both individual and collective rights.

Aside from common terms of reference which should include human rights and other generally accepted principles of international law, and aside from mechanisms for dispute resolution in cases of conflict of laws and jurisdiction, the constitutional negotiations should also determine relations of interdependency, cooperation and even protection between the BI’R and the RP. A highly autonomous Islamic system need not be an enclave unto itself within the Philippine polity. A fair interaction is still the best policy for mutual benefit from cultural diversity.

The BI’R can be established whether the Philippines remains unitary or goes federal. Be that as it may, autonomy has certain advantages compared to federalism. Basically, autonomy is more purposively addressed to the particularities of an ethno-cultural region, including serving as a conflict-solving mechanism, while federalism applies across the whole country as a national structure – which makes it really another debate. Autonomy is, therefore, more flexible, with a wide range of options from minimum to maximum, up to just short of full independence. It can also assume a personal nature, as in personal or cultural autonomy, while federalism is always territorial and functional. Autonomy’s flexibility also extends to the instrument of creation such as a constitution, statute, treaty or a combination of these, while federalism is usually created only by a constitution.

Which brings us to the concluding portion of this paper. Assuming that the GRP-MILF peace negotiations be saved and eventually succeed in arriving at a peace agreement which provides, among others, for a special autonomous Islamic region with constitutional status, how is this to be established? How is the corresponding constitutional amendment to be made? There should perhaps be prior or simultaneous constitutional amendments to allow for special procedures in amending the constitution where ethno-religious minorities are concerned, considering that these minorities will always be outvoted in a national plebiscite. The recent poll surveys showing President Estrada’s popularity for his “all-out war” against the MILF do not inspire confidence in the prospective vote of the “broad masses of the people.”

But, as Naga City lawyer J. Antonio M. Carpio asks, “why should the peoples of Luzon – predominantly Christian – still have a say – by a plebiscite on constitutional amendments – on what personal law and political system should govern Muslims in a designated Muslim region in Mindanao? Aboriginal, in theirs? Would not the constitutionally accepted principles of international law – pacta sunt servanda (treaties must be observed), etc. – suffice?” Mindanao historian Rudy B. Rodil says, “The present form of democracy in the country, the democracy of number as in one- man vote, has been found to be detrimental to the basic interests of the Moro and Lumad communities. We should seriously explore other models of political decision-making. Smaller groups should not be drowned in the name of democracy.”

Perhaps, a referendum on the question of an Islamic system in predominantly Muslim areas as the unit of self-determination, reckoned down to the barangay level, would be fair enough as a democratic and constitutional process. In this regard, Atty. Carpio asks, “What, for instance, should be the just, fair, and sustainable proportion of predominance that would enable a political unit to be denominated the ‘Islamic Region of Southern or Western or Central Mindanao’? (As in ‘Islamic City of Marawi’)” This becomes a question of tri-people demography and geography, including possible territorial or spatial configurations for the two Moro streams represented by the secular modernist MNLF and the Islamic revivalist MILF.

Perhaps, there should be two autonomous regions for the two Moro streams which represent different but complementary Moro aspirations. If so, how would the special Islamic region relate with the (new) ARMM constitutionally and territorially?

Should the process for the establishment of a special Islamic region be “gradual and applied in stages” with a progressively increasing “Islamic angle,” a “gradual implementation of an expanding shari’ah,” as Commissioner Mehol K. Sadain proposes as a solution to the Mindanao conflict? Or should we have two levels (e.g. “low” and “high”) of shari’ah now but in different Muslim areas? In fine, there are the dimensions of time as well as of space.

All told, there are alternative approaches towards structural changes for the Muslim community. There are alternative constitutional structures and spaces for an Islamic system of the Bangsamoro people. These must be fully explored in order to prepare a constitutional

solution in confluence with the necessary political will and social goodwill that will make it happen.

SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR. is a lawyer, legislative consultant and peace advocate. This paper is based on his masteral law thesis at the University of Melbourne on Constitutional Accommodation of a Moro Islamic System in the Philippines.

Atty. Soliman M. Santos, Jr.

18 Mariposa St., Cubao, QCTel. 7252153 Fax 9205428 [email protected]

This article is a delayed reaction to the anti-federal statement of former Senator now Department of Education Secretary Raul Roco published months ago in a national newspaper. This writer will attempt to disprove the arguments of Sec. Roco point by point and let our readers judge for themselves who is correct and who is not.

Here is Sec. Roco’s opening paragraphs in said publication: “Federalism has no place here because it accentuates and strengthens the centrifugal forces in the Philippines.

“One of the criticisms leveled against the Filipino communities abroad is that, wherever you are, there is not only a Filipino association, there is also an association for every ethnic group – a Cebuano association, a Bicolano association, and so on. But that is not enough. There are also provincial organization – a Camarines Sur Association, for instance. And even that is not enough. There are organizations for every town and city – Nabua, Iriga City, and Naga City have organizations. Even Berlin Street in Naga City has an organization.

“We have this tendency to divide like the amoeba. Federalism as an idea strengthens that tendency. We should be promoting centripetal forces. We should be uniting and strengthening the diverse elements, making the legends of the Ibalon blend with the legends of the Muslims and the legends of the Ilocos and the Tagalog stories so that the bonding of the Filipinos would be strengthened.”

Now my reply to this. Clearly Sec. Roco is a centrist – meaning pro-centralization of political and economic powers in “Imperial Manila”. This is a very outmoded view and contradictory to the trend towards decentralization / devolution of political and economic powers from national to local. Over-centralization of political as well as economic powers are root causes of our nation’s present predicament. The key words to achieve good governance today and in the coming years are empowerment and self-rule or self-determination through genuine autonomy. And the Federal System of government is the highest level of autonomy.

Sec. Roco admitted that we are a diverse society. That’s true. A Federal System is most suited to a diverse culture for it will promote “unity in diversity.” Sec. Roco seems to be advocating for the opposite – meaning uniformity or policy if integration which have failed years ago. Thus, such kind of approach presently is very true unrealistic. Rather than stifle, we must enhance and unite in diversity. This is our strength than weakness.

Sec. Roco’s comment about our “tendency to divide like amoeba’ is irrelevant to the topic. If he’s so against this, why did he “amoebalized” DECS to DEPED by separating Culture and Sports from his department? In federalizing our governmental structure, it will only be in the regional level where some adjustments will be made based on a set of well-studied criteria. The other levels of government stay as is. No “amoebalization” as what he did with DECS now DEPED. Sec. Roco says one thing but does another. “Yaon naman maraming asosasyon ang Filipino ay kasama sa ating kultura. Ganyan ang Pinoy talaga! Bakit gusto niyang gawin tayong Americano?”

Sec. Roco, again made this irresponsible statement: “The United States adopted The Federal System for historical reasons. It also makes sense for them because they are so large. It doesn’t make sense to apply that in the Philippines. We’re smaller than California. Because we’re small, we should strengthen each other.”

Now my answer to this. I’m surprise that highly educated man like Sec. Roco would make such erroneous commentary. If the Philippines shift to a Federal System of government that would be history in the making. If he carefully reviews the Philippine history he will find out that our early barangays, Sultanates and even Catholic dioceses employed the principle of subsidiarity or self-rule. Our country has an area of about 300,000 sq. km. or 115,831 sq. miles. Sorry, I don’t know whether said area is during high or low tide. There are 3 progressive countries in the world smaller than Philippines in terms of area which are federalized. These are: 1) Austria with an area of 83,850 sq. km. or 32, 375 sq. miles; 2) Switzerland with 41,290 sq. km. or 15,940 sq. miles. ; and 3) Belgium with 33,100 sq. km. or 12, 780 sq. miles. What then is Sec. Roco talking about? And when you talk of population, the Philippines ranks 14 in the whole world, if I’m not mistaken. We have a very large population in the Philippines compared to some States in U.S. of A.

Sec. Roco’s continued “kamikazi” attack on federalism only exposes his lack of know-how, to say the least, of the Federal concept and our Muslim rebels’ real appreciation of ARMM. Hear Sec. Roco stumble: “There is no empirical support for the argument that Federalism would be good for development. Look at the effect of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and the Cordillera Autonomous Region (CAR), CAR seems to be against the autonomous region. And ARMM is not best example because of its infrastructure.

“They say they want to give Federal States power over matters of development, environment, local taxes and the police. Let them show, in the past 10 years during the experiment in ARMM, if there had been development. If they can show that, then it’s okay. But when they keep saying it will aid development and the 10-year experiment shows no such thing, then they are making decisions based on desire, not based on facts. You cannot develop, on the basis of desires. Development must be based on an actual assessment of reality.

“Take local autonomy. Theoretically, local autonomy is supposed to encourage you to raise your own funds. Out of 1,600 municipalities, I think 800 are fifth-and sixth-class municipalities. They are so small they cannot even support their own schools. In Bombon, Camarines Sur, there are 8,000 voters and less than 20,000 people. If you tax them, you will not get re-elected. So what happens? Everybody relies on the Internal Revenue Allocation (IRA) because it’s anonymous. How much is Bombon, Camarines Sur, getting from real estate taxes? Almost nothing. Everybody tries to hide behind the nonymity of a national tax.

“The same is true with the ARMM: have they imposed any taxes? I have not heard of them imposing their own taxes.

“I only hear their budget requests. It is very difficult to impose taxes at the local level, even at the regional level, because it becomes very personal. It is easier to tax at the national level.

“ARMM and CAR were supposed to get major infusion of funds. Figures released by Se. John Osmeña shows that ARMM has received around P24 billion in the last 10 years. What happen? Let them (the ARMM government) account for it.”

Again my response. We have already a glaring empirical support that our present Unitary System has promoted imbalanced development in the country not to mention other development aggressions and is really bad for our people. Why continue then, Sec. Roco, with it and promote further inequities and injustices?

We agree that ARMM is a total failure. Why? Because it was designed to fail in the first place: It is a sham / pseudo autonomy. It is like a bat. We don’t really know if it is a mouse or a bird! Without fiscal autonomy among other things, ARMM is inutile. Sec. Roco should know this. I’ve discussed ARMM with many MNLF and MILF leaders. They admitted that ARMM to them is an anomaly. They confessed that they really don’t give a damn about ARMM. Hence, they just treat it as a “milking cow.” They want independence or genuine autonomy. Forget ARMM Sec. Roco “Wala talaga yan.”

If you make one very dependent, you are actually stripping him/her dignity. Out highly centralized Unitary system made our people very dependent. It has stripped us of our dignity. Not only that, our Unitary system also taught us control, uniformity, apathy and other disvalues or counter-values. A Federal System, on the other hand, promotes empowerment, accountability, creativity, responsibility and other values vital to increased productivity and competitiveness. The problem of taxing mentioned by Sec. Roco is the result of dependency they taught us. We want to unlearn this through real autonomy. Allow us to chart our own destiny.

Our Local Government Code while it helps in some ways our local government units is better than no autonomy at all. “Mabuti lang sa wala.” It is very limited compared to genuine autonomy of a Federal System. That’s why LGU’s continue to suffer and can’t really take off, because of too much interference and control from the national government.

Sec. Roco, with all due respect to him, should be extra careful in giving his opinion on the Mindanao problem which he has no real grasp of. It will do him no good if he will recklessly tread in this complex issue. Let’s patiently, listen to him again: “They say Federalism is the solution of the problem in Mindanao. It is not a solution. It just creates pocket fiefdoms.”

“The Mindanao problem is so complex that it cannot be solved by division of land and territory. The cultural mix in Mindanao reflects the whole country – there is no Mindanaoan really except for the Muslim and the Lumads. There are as many Tagalogs, Cebuanos, Ilonggos in any particular area in Mindanao. It’s really a new community.

“We must get them to live together because even if you politically divide, it is not (geographically) splintered. Perhaps you can only isolate Basilan because it is divided by sea, at least it makes sense. But Marawi, where will you put it – in the woods? Even if you declare them autonomous – they still have to lie side by side with each other.

“And so it is human cooperation that must be generated. The only way to curb or minimize quarrels is through understanding, by making people understand each other. It is not done by political dictum. Do we think if we are federated now, quarrels will be solved? No. Neither logic nor history supports that conclusion.”

Now my reaction. Fiefdoms means an area controlled by feudal lords. Sec. Roco is equating federalism to feudalism! O my God. What an irresponsible equation. He is saying, in other words, that the component States or autonomous regions of federated prosperous countries are ruled by feudal lords. And if we adopt the Federal System in the Philippines, we will be creating “pocket fiefdoms” in Mindanao, Visayas and Luzon. In short, he doesn’t trust local government officials to run their affairs! He’s thinking most probably that only they – our national officials – have the monopoly of knowledge and administrative skill to expertly rule the country. Sec. Roco, please look what’s happening to our nation with your obsolete / unresponsive / unjust Unitary System, Fiefdoms? “Walang ganyanan naman.”

What do you mean Sir “no Mindanaoans really except of our Muslim and the Lumads? I was born and grew up in Manila. I adopted Davao as my new home in 1962.” I got married and raised all our 4 children here. We consider ourselves now as Davaoeños and Mindanaoans. We love this place which has been good to our family. Thus, we’re very much concerned of its development. Recently Congressman and former Governor Dodo R. Cagas of Davao del Sur lamented: “When will Mindanaoans be heard? … I am afraid that all jabberings, political bickerings, media wranglings have done more damage to us Mindanaoans.” There are many other residents of Mindanao who feel this way. To dismiss or deny us Mindanaoans just like that is adding insult to injury. Napakasakit Kuya Eddie!”

Look, Sec. Roco loves to talk about understanding one another. But how come he cannot understand what’s the real aspiration of our Muslim brothers and sisters? Why can’t he understand our frustration with “Manila Imperialism” and desire to be free from its clutches? It is because he is not really listening to our cry but only want to hear himself talk? “Mahirap gisingin ang taong-nagtutulug-tulogan!”

CHANGE OUR OUTMODED UNITARY SYSTEM

By: Chito R. Gavino III

“Over-concentration of political and economic powers is very bad for the country. We cannot effectively face tomorrow with tools of yesteryears. ‘Bulok na sistema, palitan na!””

Our under-development and disorder are that deep and widespread resulting to massive poverty in the country. Yes, there’s no “quick fix” to our problems because it’s systemic among other things. Even if we change Presidents several times or have more “EDSAs” nothing will come out of these if we do not undertake the needed radical (from the root) reforms. And assuming we start said reforms today, hopefully we can reverse our depressing situation maybe 15 or 20 years from now. Yes, it’s going to be a long-range process. This is the truth all Filipinos must be aware of. Hence, let’s not kid ourselves. The earlier we appreciate, accept and act on this reality the better for everyone. “Wala ng bolahan.”

One of the culprits that compound our predicaments is the obsolete / unresponsive / unjust Unitary System of government we presently have. Today it is passé and could no longer answer the demands of our people and of the new millennium. And if we dilly-dally in changing our Unitary System, our poverty will surely worsen and our country might face a bloody revolution in the near future. It is that serious my friends.

Let me repeat for the benefit of those who missed my previous article where I recited the ills of our highly centralized Unitary System. Here they are:

1. Our present Unitary System of government has already outlived its usefulness in the Philippines and is now obsolete or passé. Such out-moded System is experiencing tremendous difficulty in addressing the demands of the new millennium such as that of a globalizing economy, information age wherein knowledge is currently the major source of wealth; and rapid science and technological development.
2. The Unitary System we have which is a very centralized one has resulted in detachment of leadership or decision-making from the people; too complex and complicated coordination between government agencies; long and circuitous communication lines; and the central government.
3. Our Unitary System continues to promote economic disparities and political inequities. It perpetuates “Manila Imperialism” with the end result of imbalanced development in the country where a parasitic megapolis (Metro Manila) siphons most of the resources or wealth of the nations. Thus, our countryside remains undeveloped.
4. The country’s Unitary System with the bloated national bureaucracy is a model of inefficiency or waste; of wide-spread graft and corruption; of tremendous red tape; etc. It is considered as one of the worse in Asia.
5. Our rigid Unitary System cannot respond to the aspiration for self-determination or self-rule, which is now a universally recognized right especially of Muslim and Lumad Filipinos. This contributes much to lawlessness and disorder in the Philippines more so in Mindanao.
6. A Unitary System such as ours encourages dependency, control, uniformity apathy and other disvalues or counter-values. It stifles initiatives, creativity and innovativeness, resulting in unproductive and uncompetitive human resource.

One more thing. Even if our economy slightly grow, the fruits of the growth will always land on the hands of the few elite families which control most of the country’s wealth. Hence, our rich continues to get richer while our poor get poorer compliment of our obsolete / unresponsive / unjust Unitary System. Clearly, no hope for our disadvantaged sectors with this present anomalous set-up.

That’s why we shout: “Wake up Filipinos! Dismantle this ‘Manila Imperialism!’ Change this outmoded Unitary System with more updated / responsive / just Federal System of government.

For this reason, we appeal to our people to be open now to Charter Change or Cha-Cha through Constitutional Convention or Con-Con for this is the only way we will be able to shift to a Federal System of government. This is the most crucial change in our political structure when we undertake constitutional reform.

“But many of our national politicians are trumpeting more the change in our form of government from Presidential to Parliamentary,” correctly observed some of our friends. “And these politicians want Congress to convert itself into a Constituent Assembly and do the serious job of amending / revising our present flawed Constitution. It’s cheaper and faster ‘daw’ this way,” our pals added.

“What is of dire importance to us is the transfer of more political powers and resources from the national government to the local government units. Yes this has something to do with decentralization / devolution. This can be achieved if we shift from Unitary System of government to the Federal System. The change in our form of government from Presidential to Parliament involves the transfer of political powers from the Executive Branch to the Legislative Branch. Thus, most of the political powers still remain in the central government. Therefore, we will still continue to have a highly centralized Unitary System which is detrimental to our people as we are experiencing presently,” I explained to them.

“Although we also support the change from Presidential to Parliamentary form of government, this is to us is secondary. Our primary concern is the shift from the highly centralized Unitary System to a highly decentralized Federal System of government. Without the latter, the former to us is not a big deal. With the latter, even without the former, we will already be very happy, “I further pointed out. Of course, better yet with both the latter and the former changes.

“A Constituent Assembly will never adopt a Federal System of government because our present Congress’ power will be greatly diminished by doing so. It is only through a Constitutional Convention where we will have a fighting chance to adopt a Federal System. Hence, beware of a Constituent Assembly to amend / revise our defective 1987 Constitution. It is a ‘Trojan Horse’,” I followed up.

Lastly, let me say that our highly centralized Unitary System continues to promote an oligarchic society in the Philippines. “Ibasura natin itong makapahirap na sistema!” We are racing against time concerning our worsening poverty situation.

Filipinos themselves must change for better – so with our out-moded systems. Both must go hand in hand.

Some elements of the Philippine military, some political leaders and some business groups had this notion that the insurgents should be terminated by force; that there is no way to lick them by peace; that they are merely a negligible portion of the population – 15,000 armed followers, 2,500 full timers, 40,000 mass support or roughly 1 percent of the 5 million muslims in the Philippines. But that is over simplification. There is no way to terminate the 55,000 without collaterally damaging, affecting or converting the 4,945,000 moro people and thereby making the war mutually destructive and unending.

Conversely, after 500 years of moro resistance to foreign domination, after 33 years of the recent phase of Moro conflict which started in 1970, the Moro Insurgents and the People in general should by now accept the fact that there is no foreseeable victory in the coming century if their idea is to curb out a portion of the Philippine territory and make it an independent republic ruled by the muslims. If victory is possible then they could have won in the early seventies when they were then a solid united front; when the OIC were extending to them unlimited financial, material and political support; when the masses of the moro people were solid behind them when the US was pinned down by détente or the Russian factor and unable to declare itself the policeman of the world determined to go into any country to run after suspected terrorists.

Now moro insurgents are deeply fragmented. A greater number of them are with the government or decided to lay low. The OIC will not anymore support armed struggles. The moro people as a support base was tremendously weakened, disheartened or lost hope in the moro insurgents. Now, the United States as the self-declared anti-terrorist crusaders of the world is alert and anger to go after muslim insurgents, wherever they are, specially if they can be declared terrorists.

The MILF desire for a United Nation supervised referendum is actually not feasible. It worked in East Timor because the Christians in that segregated group of Island are united and firm in their desire to secede from Indonesia. The moro people are not that united in a desire for secession and the MILF will not be allowed a free hand to coercively influence the outcome of a referendum. If the GRP should mobilize its instrumentalities and resources, as it certainly will, to influence the outcome of any referendum, then the MILF, mutual mistrust and hatred, and, eventually, being declared as Asia’s poorest.

Our hindrances to peace are tremendous. Our constitution is deemed sacred even if fighting can be avoided just by the expedience of restructuring the system of government as allowed and provided for in our constitution. There are some influential chauvinistic Filipino in Luzon and, specially, in Mindanao. They want nothing less than continuing and completing the crusade to terminate Islam and the muslims in this country. They think that after 5 centuries, success is near at hand with the muslims driven from Luzon and the Visayas and now constricted in only one third of Mindanao. What remain to be done is to finish them off so that full political and economic takeover of Mindanao can be desired.

It will take a strong willed and broader thinking Philippine leader to beyond the subjective analysis and recommendations of interest groups and reverse our maladies.

We must begin by accepting hard facts: that there is no military solution to the conflict. The antidote is peaceful, political and diplomatic.

It is a delicate and radical decision that the policy makers in this country must make. They must rediagnose this country in order to affirm the fact that this one is a pluralistic country. This is one state by accident of history but not one nation because nationhood is ethno-linguistic, religious, cultural, historical, artistic and serial. The moro people as far as nationhood is concerned is truly distinct from that of t he Filipino.

The Cordillera people, the Bicolanos, the Ilocanos, the Cebuanos, the Ilonggos of Western Visayas, the Warays of Eastern Visayas, those of the Cagayan Valley, the Tagalogs, those in Eastern Mindanao and Northern Mindanao, all of them are lumped under one system and one rule of conduct but they are all basically different. In each of their habitats, there are traditions and commonly accepted norms peculiar to that area and to which the inhabitants in that area feel comfortable but which the other areas or regions might consider unacceptable.

The GRP and the MILF are negotiating and talking about cessation of hostilities, ancestral domain, economic development, demilitarization and rehabilitation but there is constant violation of these agreements because there are no broad parameters, political systems, or structure of government that they will give way to mutual tolerance, co-existence, productive competition or unity in diversity tailored to the temperament, ethnicity, and plurality of the Philippine Society.

Federalism is herein proposed as possible savior of the peoples of the Philippines. Federalism is the embodiment of unity in diversity of productive competition, of mutual toloerance and co-existence, of giving way to plurality yet not giving away belongingness of encouraging the bringing out and optimum utilization of latent skills and resources in every region, of allowing the free advocacy and practice of distinctive culture and religion, of self-determination and autonomy in every region, of making each region responsible for their own future instead of relying and then blaming an over burdened central government.

By Federalism, the Philippines will be subdivided into states each of which will have their own state constitution providing for laws in consonance and complementary with a federal or national constitution. They also will have their own supreme court, their own state legislature and their own state executive branch headed by a chief minister. Instead of the National Government distributing IRA, shares of national wealth, congressional countryside funds, etc., the states will be in effective control of their regional resources but contributing portions of their income to sustain the efficient functioning to all the states like national defense, monetary system, customs, and foreign representatives of the whole country, promulgated and affirmed by the whole people of the Philippines, giving sufficient consideration to generally acceptable principles, but leaving local issues to be shaped by peculiar state policies.

Given a state of their own which they may call an Islamic State, where they may adopt the Qur’an and Hadith, as the main feature as the main feature of their state constitution, whose land and resources the muslims will effectively control, which is strong and progressive because it is a component of a bigger and mutually supportive formation, the pledge of the moro mujahideen for the liberation of the homeland and firm establishment of Din El Islam will have been achieved. It is also and honorable way out for the GRP who just have to resort to open-mindedness and constitutional amendment to keep this country intact, united and progressive.

Then all of us may then declare triple success – we gain what we want, we won it fast, and we won it through PEACE.

May the MILF and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines be divinely guided so that they will not look beyond a peaceful, political and diplomatic solution to the problem in Mindanao, not give up on peace, stop hostilities, and resort to FEDERALISM as a win-win option.

I. INTRODUCTION

While writing this piece there was the initial temptation to make this scholarly with graphs, legalese and historical tidbits. But that was deliberately resisted because Federalism is already appealing to the Mindanao intellectuals. We need not sound like some pundits to campaign for Federalism because the idea is plainly advantageous to provincial interest. What Federalism requires is mass appeal. It needs something to arouse the interests of many who find intellectualism as a boring profundity, cold circuitry or a dose of dialectics, aside from being plain “hard work”.

Profundity and hard work are alienating the masses from the Federalism cause. Federalism is not really that hard and difficult. The simple reason why we make Federalism our proposition is simply the bad experience we have under the present system of government.

The mathematics of Federalism is simply this: Plus for the provinces is minus for the Manila government. What we get for the states we take is from Central Manila. In the long run this deduction and addition will add up and multiply greatly for the benefit of the whole country. But first we need to state what our people feel under the present system. Samplings of pluses and minuses are what are written in this piece. Over-simplication and aggravation is intended to make this mass appealing, if not incendiary.

II. The Brief Bitter-Sweet Story
Growth and development of the provinces in the Philippines depends on the style and character of the Manila leadership. The style and character affects directly the provinces because the present political structure and systems allow it to be so. There is no barrier or cushion for the smile or frown of a Manilan in making others parts of the country sad or happy. So far the experience has always been sweet for Manila but bitter for the provinces. Really good for Manila but not so good for Luzon provinces, bad for Visayas and worse for Mindanao.

The Marcosian Rule was so far the scariest and ugliest experience. It was a deterioration of the Philippine democracy at its worst: Centralization in dictatorial form! The locus of growth depends on the interest of the Marcoses. Ilocandia and Leyte became starts in the growth race. The rest of the country barely survived in the oppression.

The Cory government was yellow. It raised bright expectations but plead with frustrations. Power and interest used to be centralized around Marcos, were shifted back to the elite around Cory. For Marcos Mindanao was the fertile ground for springing up martial law. For Cory it was a blackhole to stuck profits for Manila based businesses.

Ramos leveled the playing field. The un-equal fight under the same rule. The poverty and labor of the Third World versus the power and technology of the tandem EU and USA are equal in a globalizing economy. Tyson versus Pacquiao in a boxing mis-match of the century. Mindanao is an equal partner in a system favoring Manila.

The ERAPan period was comic. The form was unchanged but the character did. It was funny that the systems could be played and scored around POGI (person opinion and gambling interests) points. Manila or Mindanao is not the real concern. It was the pogi Erap that matters. It was like having a child for a king and the Cabinet focused on pleasing the child-king with lollipops. The lollipops were bought out of provincial jueteng and masiao hawl.

Government is sweet when it serves best. Our present system is sweet only for Manilans but bitter for Mindanaoans. Probably, for us here in the south nothing has really changed in relation to central Manila government. A twisted kind of “bottom-up and trickle-down” is the practice. This means that resources from Mindanao go up but the attention of Manila leadership merely trickles down. They get our resources but trickled us with promises. Among the practices which drained Mindanao or place the provinces at disadvantage are:

1. Money for Manila;
2. The Torture in Having to Please Manilans;
3. Un-necessary and Damaging Delay;
4. Remote-transparency and Front-Accountability;
5. Detached-Involvement;
6. Centralized Authority, Not People Empowerment;
7. Consequent Dependency Than Depended On.

1. THE MANILA –BOUND MONEY

We know that governments, business and churches are Manila-based. A portion of any amount we pay to buy for any item goes to Manila. A deposit in the bank goes to the bank owner in Manila. An offering in the church goes to the church leaders in Manila. Everything goes to Manila.

Because our money is in Manila, our beautiful women go to Manila, our brilliant men go to Manila, and our best products go to Manila. We are left with less money, the less beautiful, and the less brilliant and have factory defects or rejects for our consumption. One glaring example of this one-way traffic flow of money to Manila is the travel cost of our local leaders in business and government.

a. The Cost of Local Executives’ Travel

Let me start with a conservative but experientially valid assumption: 50 of the 78 provincial governors, 50 of the 80 city mayors and 100 of the 1500 municipal mayors travel to Metro-Manila at lest ones a month. Their business may range from the personal to the official which in reality and practice are naturally and inextricably mixed.

For every travel a governor and a city mayor will spend an average of not less than 25T a month or for 100 governors and city mayors a total of at least P2.5M a month or P30M a year. A municipal mayor will spend not less than P15T a month per travel or P15M a month for 1000 mayors or P180M a year. In other words, at the most conservative estimate these local executives will incur a total of P210M for official business in Central Manila.

b. The Cost of Line Agencies’ Travel

There are 12 government agencies with provincial offices or their equivalent. Each of the provincial offices has probably more than 2 officers who travel ones a month to Manila. For a conservative assumption the travel costs of 2 officers for 12 agencies in 75 provinces will be about P216M for one year. For regional offices the travel costs will be about P90M for a minimum of 5 officers who travel monthly for each region. Or a total of about P300M annually for both provincial and regional offices.

c. The Costs of Personal Travel for Businessmen

Again at a very conservative estimate we will place at 100 business people having official business in the central government offices of Manila for every province. These 100 businessmen travel to Manila at lest ones a month. At an average travel expense of P20T per businessman the total costs will be about P2B.

d. Implications

The total cost of travel for the government and business executives will be about P2.5B a year. Equated with the cost of road construction at P1M per kilometer the amount could mean 2,500 km of new roads annually or at P20T per hectare it could mean 125,000 hectares of reforested land or 250,000 hectares of riceland at P10T per hectare.

Annually our local leaders will take P2.5 billion to Metro-Manila for travelling costs alone. This means that they drain each of the 78 provinces with development funds worth more than P30M yearly. The IRA share given under the present Local government Code is almost meaningless when compared with this forced bleeding of local resources.

2. THE TORTURE OF PLEASING MANILANS

Mindanaoans suffer a roller-coaster of emotions in an efforts to access funds, get attention or promotions from Manila leaders.

One very sad story was that of a young beautiful wife who went to Manila to follow up at PAG-IBIG the benefits of her dead husband. She stayed with a friend to follow up the endless requirements. The costs of her follow up exceeded what she finally got. She was even impregnated by a married man who helped her in her efforts. She came home totally without money but with a fatherless baby. Credit it to her stupidity or the helplessness in being a stranger in a strange concrete jungle.

When a Manilan comes to the province he or she is treated as a prince or princess. If he is a dissatisfied with the attention given, woe to the provinciano or provinciana who will someday inescapably visit Manila for official business.

Manilans go to the provinces with orders, memos or forms for more work. Provincianos will come to Manila with gifts and greetings. Otherwise he or she will come home empty.

News from Manila on the updates of some requests could end the provincianos high or reeling in tidal of emotions. In a moment bursting in white-like bubbles of excitement then seconds later crushed with a ton-load of bad news. Often the waiting is unnecessary and damaging.

3. UN-NECESSARY AND DAMAGING DELAY

The provinces are made to plan and set targets. We are made to commit to the people for some projects. But Manilans approve or disapprove our plans, targets and commitments. The damage is not only on our honor; the damage is most often real, quantifiable and tangible. Season for planting are not met, specifications and budget fall short, frustrations transformed into insurgency or rebellion.

Most often the reason for delay is the failure to meet the SOP. The disapproval based on belonging to the wrong party. Or misplaced or lost of document which could not be found in the long trail from the province to Manila.

Centralization pile up documents on documents. The voluminous load is often made the excuse for the delay. And always only the rule of “kuot” or “oil” can work through the loads of work. But why do they refuse to unclog by decentralizing, by federalism? Because it would mean that opportunity for juicy transactions will be reduced or decentralized.

For Manilans the delay is bearable with the opportunity. For Mindanaoans the delay is both un-bearable and lost of opportunity. Consequently we have intoxicating urbanization and massive rural poverty.

4. REMOTE-TRANSPARENCY AND FRONT-ACCOUNTABILITY

Having a federal system will have real transparency. The approving authority will be within the range of vision of the people. Under the present system Manila is clouded by remoteness. Accountability is reposed in the provincial leaders who will have to suffer and lie to protect the image of Manila leaders. The provinces are the front in the bureaucratic lie emanating from Manila. Maybe, Manila or the provinces are liars all and small or big they are still. But why not break lies with state separation, check the lies with federalism?

5. DETACHED INVOLVEMENT

One very sad experience of the people from the island provinces was the deprivation of the opportunity to become a hero. The making of People Power 1 and 2 was not the monopoly of Manilans. But our archipelagic republic make it seem a heroism of Manilans because our people’s involvement cannot be made direct by the separation of the islands. Leaders of Manila have easier task of making a name compared to the leaders of the provinces who will have to depend on the appointing authority of Manila leaders.

Consultation has limitations. One foreign funded project conducted a nation-wide consultations to be able to package poverty needs and make it attractive for the donors or lenders of development funds. But after they get the money most of the projects approved and funded are those in the Luzon provinces because the consultants and officers of the Project are relatives or have connections with people of Luzon and Manila. The poorer areas of southern Philippines are used to attract investors but the investments are delivered to the northern parts because of connections. Mindanaoans are involved in the consultations but are detached in the implementation. Conscious efforts to correct this leaning cannot prevail against the un-conscious and natural tendency to favor places of birth or origin.

6. CENTRALIZED AUTHORITY, NOT PEOPLE EMPOWERMENT

Realization of people empowerment goals is restrained by the present centralized system. The local government code was one step towards people empowerment. The next step should be federalism. Certainly no one in his right mind will think federalism as a barrier to people empowerment. But this correct view is often clouded by cupidity of the Manila leaders who do not want to delegate authority and share opportunities with state leaders.

7. CONSEQUENT DEPENDENCY THAN DEPENDED-ON

The obvious and logical consequence of centralization is dependency. Rather than depended on with a sense of ones own direction and vision, the planning is directed, the goals become predetermined and often they served the interests of the North than its own. We become producers of what they want than what we want, we become their workers than our workers. In politics we are simply voters, not leaders.

The irony of this dependency id that Mindanao has the resources to be independent. Only the sense that fragmentation into smaller countries is a backward move makes independence and separation undesirable. The normal way is for countries to expand not contract. But if we are to preserve our integrity as a nation we must preserve it with dependable and federated states.

II. CONCLUSION

To physically reverse the flow from the North to the South is almost impossible and un-realistic. If it is attainable, it will not be correcting the situation but committing the same mistake in a reverse fashion. The South will then be guilty of what the North is committing. Besides we will need the power, the population size, the quality, the beauty, the brilliance and the resources of New York or any bigger city than Metro-Manila to reverse the situation, reversed the flow of money from Manila to Mindanao.

But the present drain of resources, capital and talents from Mindanao to Manila or from the Philippines abroad can be minimized or managed. Knowing what to do is easy but Federalism is against the immediate political and economic interest of Manila leaders except Manilans who have greater and long term interest for the Philippines.

Impasse-Breaker?
AN ISLAMIC STATE WITHIN
A FEDERAL PHILIPPNES

The stage is set for another potentially stultifying political deadlock in Mindanao. This will stem from a classic situation that will pit “an irresistible force against an immovable object.”

The Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) established the “immovable object” around 1984 when it separated from Nur Misuari's original MNLF. Back then, Dr. Hashim Salamat declared the splinter group's intention to form an Islamic State in Mindanao, and expressed disapproval at the MNLF's apparent scaling down of its demands.

Well, Hashim Salamat was to shy away from public view for almost 15 years, even as his MILF continued to expand and gain political strength as a rival champion of the Moro aspiration for self-determination.

Then on December 1997 - at the height of frantic manueverings and regroupings by traditional political parties in preparation for the following year's presidential election - the self-effacing MILF chieftain resurfaced in grand style.

Convening his troops and adherents to the MILF's 15th General Assembly at Camp Busrah in Butig, Lanao del Sur, Dr. Salamat pointedly reiterated his group's demand for an Independent Islamic State. He also stressed that this position is "non- negotiable."

On June 30, 1998, of course, a new president of the Republic of the Philippines was sworn into office. Given his macho background, it did not take very long for Joseph Ejercito Estrada to have the issue joined by throwing verbal bricks at the MILF's stonelike posture. President Estrada was to say, " Over My Dead Body" at Salamat's assertion.

Several frightening skirmishes later (including armed shootings and confrontations between the MILF and the AFP last December and January), the potential impasse became real. And President Estrada minced no words - and symbolic gesture (coming down in full fatigue uniform to visit ARMY soldiers in Cotabato last February) to make it known that he is not beyond unleashing the republic's military might to "settle" the issue.

The government's "irresistible force" is on short lease and is apparently ready to pounce on the "immovable object" anytime. Oh, if only this were a plain chess game or a college debate - we could sit back, relax and enjoy the spectacle. But this is a real political game, with deep historical roots and deadly current ramifications.

But what exactly is the issue? It is this: Can the Philippine government allow the establishment and operation of an Independent Islamic State within its sovereignty? Can the President of the Philippines cede a portion of its territory without violating his oath to protect and preserve the integrity of the Republic?

This is precisely what President Estrada is asserting. That he will violate his mandate if he allows the dismemberment of the republic, and dismemberment is what will happen in this instance given the present constitutional framework upon which the government of the Republic of the Philippines is established.

So if the MILF insists on its demand as it most likely will, and the government stands pat on its position as it understandably must, will we have a full-blown war in Mindanao again, one that may put in final jeopardy the prospects for real economic development, one that will certainly and once again victimize hundreds of thousands of innocent Mindanawons whose lives will be unnecessarily scattered and derailed when they become forced refugees or get caught outright in the vicious crossfire?

This daunting and horrific scenario is no longer just a stuff for wild imaginings. Unfortunately, Mindanao is a certified, one can almost say patented, battleground where macho posturings are normally challenged with live bullets and real firefights (which, incidentally, cut down more bystanders and passerby than the armed combatants).

It is, therefore, extremely necessary to look for a viable alternative that can untangle the potential political gridlock. Here's a preliminary look at one such possible impasse-breaker:

Self Determining But Not Independent Islamic State

This will require the MILF to move one step back (although it is a large leap) by dropping the demand for independence, and making "non-negotiable" only the establishment and full operationalization of an Islamic State for Muslims - a Bangsamoro homeland living in principled and working harmony with the other and more numerous Mindanao peoples, the Lumads and Christians.

Indeed, an Islamic State where Islam is the way of life and the basis of common law, where the natural and mandated Muslim culture of peace and basic righteousness will hold sway, and where religious tolerance and respect for cultural diversity is in effect - is the birthright of avowed and dedicated Muslims.

It is truly unpardonable that a people so steeped in a glorious religion that makes Koranic tenets the basis of community life and the full measure of their socio-political system be made to follow or be governed wholesale by an "alien" life-system.

Still, the Muslim brethren must realize and accept certain changed realities. The Islamic State as a 'birthright' no longer refers to the whole of Mindanao as its territory. While for centuries Mindanao was basically Muslim and/or Lumad, it is today predominantly Christian (no matter how nominal in practice the majority of them are). While for centuries, too, Mindanao remained unconquered by foreign colonizers, it has been for almost a century now, a "mental colony" of western (read American) thoughts and processes and the lode mine of foreign and Filipino (read Manila-based) vested capitalist interests. Well, include political interest groups there as well.

While it used to be Mindanao for the Muslims, it is no longer so today. (In fairness to the Muslim brethren, this stance has almost completely been discarded a while back). Owing to the incontrovertible reality of a shared present and common destiny, Mindanao residents or citizens have to expand the concept to encompass "Mindanao for Mindanaoans"

Mindanawons As A Transcendent New Identity

But this very assertion presupposes a new and common identity, that of Mindanaoans - persons born in Mindanao or who have made a conscious choice and commitment to make Mindanao home and live for it. Admittedly, this is a concept that has still to gain wider (and deeper) acceptance and conscious use among Mindanao residents, although the last decade has seen significant strides in promoting this idea of a transcendent identity encompassing all tribal, ethno-linguistic-religion-politico and regional distinctions. (By the way, I agree with friend Prof. Rudy Rodil that the more ethnic-derived term Mindanawons is preferable to Mindanaoans to describe the Mindanao peoples as a collective and would use it henceforth.)

The broader distinction, on the other hand, is useful in the light of Mindanao's traumatic experience of neglect and abuse by central authorities and even private offices and their foreign patrons, partners or financiers. This unjust relationship is perpetuated by our peculiar brand of unitary and centralized government, patterned mostly after the US system but distinctly (and crazily) Filipino in its actual expression and operationalization. This skewed structure is characterized by a major decision-making process that almost completely is done in Manila and by persons in the central offices who have no clear idea about and sympathy for the local situation. For this reason, Mindanao has remained to serve the Philippine polity as a "cash cow that is served dog food."

Be that as it may, Mindanao cannot be for Mindanawons only. For as long as we remain one nation and one country - and for as long as Mindanawons would bear with the contradictions of this system (which are decidedly unfavorable to Mindanao), we are formally one people (Filipino) and legally one country (the Republic of the Philippines).

Islamic State and the Federal Republic

But this is precisely where some serious rethinking of the national structure has to be made. When such structure has turned out to be unjust, rectification is imperative. And the more rational and empathetic and realistic the approach could be, the more assuredly stable, relevant and effective the change will be for all.

We would like to humbly submit as a core idea that should go through a process of enhancement and refinement through more extensive study and discussions, the re-structuring of the Philippine government into a federal republic to be composed of several autonomous states (possibly with their own respective constitutions).

Under this set-up, Mindanao could be re-formed and may constitute say five or six States, one of which would be the Islamic State to be composed of the predominantly Muslim provinces (and contiguous municipalities). At present and as per official census, these provinces are: Sulu (97% Muslim), Tawi-Tawi (96%), Lanao del Sur (94%), Maguindanao (75%) and Basilan (71%). Some municipalities of western Sultan Kudarat, southern Lanao del Norte and North Cotabato that are predominantly-Muslim and are contiguous to the above-named Muslim provinces, can be part of the Islamic State. The status of Cotabato City, whose population is almost evenly divided between Christians and Muslims, require further study.

Since all the component states of the proposed Federal Republic of the Philippines (say 5 or 6 in Luzon, 3 or 4 in the Visayas, and 5 or 6 in Mindanao) will presumably be governed by their own respective constitutions which, in turn, will be "guided" by a Federal constitution, an Islamic State may not even be a special concession but just a logical recomposition that is solidly based on socio-cultural and ethno-demographic considerations.

The matter of geographic distance of some of the Muslim provinces to the others may be addressed by a creative Sub-State arrangement that may, in fact, take into further consideration the major tribal formations among the Tausogs, Maranaos and Maguindanaoans.

In this proposed configuration of the Islamic State, it can be assumed that Koranic laws will apply only or mostly to adherents of Islam. Non-Muslims, however, will be covered and protected by minority rights, even as Muslims living in predominantly Christian states will enjoy said minority and basic human rights.

The important thing is that, under a federal republic system, virtual self-determination for component states is institutionalized. Indeed, division of powers is what Federalism is all about. Powers that pertain only to the Federal Government and those that pertain only to State governments are clearly defined by the common and basic law. Some other governmental powers, however, may be shared between the two components under what the Germans, for instance, would call concurrent laws or responsibilities.

By the way, some of the most politically stable and economically advanced countries in the world follow a federal set-up. These include Germany, the United States of America, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Brazil, Mexico, Austria, Argentina and, closer to home, India and Malaysia.

While the co-relation with the federal political system still has to be established, it is interesting to note that seven of the top twelve countries in the world in terms of Per Capita Income in 1997 were federal, while six of the top twelve in Gross Domestic Product were likewise federal. (Note that there are only about 20 federal countries out of almost 200 countries in the world!)

The Challenge to Mindanawons

The point we are trying to make in this initial write-up is that the Federal System is worth looking into as a more ideal set up for the Philippines. More importantly, it is one system that may be able to effectively address the current and peculiar situation of Mindanao not only as a victim of neglect but also as a unique island-region that harbors three peoples of diverse backgrounds, customs, culture and social systems. More specifically, it is a political option that may help prevent a stalemate that can lead to another Mindanao "war".

Clearly, what Mindanao needs is unity in diversity - not integration, not assimilation - or at least harmony in diversity. Admittedly, Federal is more friendly to this ideal than the unitary and centralized system that we have.

So the challenge to all of us today is two-fold. One, we should all begin to transcend our ethno-religious and tribal or regional origins and become Mindanawons (and think and act as such) and, Two, acting in concert, work towards the re-structuring of the country into the Federal Republic of the Philippines.

The first goal, although still difficult to attain, can be achieved (you may not believe it) by sheer clearness of mind and pureness of hearts of all concerned. But the second would require an amendment to the Constitution. In short, Charter Change or Cha-Cha.

Which is another still controversial matter. Which requires further discussions. Which is material for another follow-up article.

In the meantime, it is fervently hoped that this present one can provoke spirited though peaceful reactions and intelligent and principled discourse.

Rey Magno Teves TACDRUP, Davao City
23 April 1999

FEDERALISM : AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME
By: Rey Magno Teves

Conflict and adversity have a way of defining what could or should be. What otherwise would seem vague and unacceptable during relatively calm periods, would suddenly gain credence and a sense of urgency.

This is what seems to be happening to the idea of Federalism in the Philippines. It is gaining currency in the light of the apparent intransigence of a rebellion that seeks independence for the Bangsamoro homeland, and will thus dismember the republic.

World history, of course, is replete with the examples of all manner of states or nations struggling for self-determination, autonomy or outright total freedom. Most of these were characterized by bloodshed and bitter fighting.

Such, indeed, is the still on-going struggle of the Moros in Mindanao for the chance to run the affairs of their people on the basis of the verities of Islam. But all armed conflicts result in one grievous tragedy: displacement, deprivation, destitution and death to hundreds of thousands of non-combatant women, children and men. Regardless of creed, ethnic origin or political affiliation. The bullets are simply marked: “TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN”.

How to end it? Not through any simple or simplistic solution, certainly. And surely not by throwing fire on fire. The so-called Mindanao question or problem has deep historical roots, ethno-religious context and broad politico-economic implications that defy over-simplification and a militaristic approach.

NOT A RELIGIOUS WAR

It is important to emphasize that the conflict in Mindanao is not, repeat not, basically a religious conflict. And that it is to the greater interest of the Filipino nation and the future of the republic that this be kept so. The lessons of history are clear. A religious war tends to be more vicious and extremely difficult to resolve.

But the political stalemate that is surfacing even more clearly now amidst the intermittently escalating armed clashes and confrontations between the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) is not devoid of solution.

We noted in a paper last year that the GRP-MILF situation smacks of the classic impasse between “an irresistible force and an immovable object”. The MILF insists on an Independent Islamic State in Mindanao while the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) stands pat on its “constitutional duty” to protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the republic. So, what gives?

Well, with the Federal alternative, nothing and no one really. That is to say, it is a potentially effective solution that proceeds from a kind of win-win formula where the fundamental demands of the contending parties are met without anyone losing face or conceding major “non-negotiable” points.

In the present instance, we humbly suggest that transforming the unitary and centralized form of the Philippine government into a Federal Republic such as Germany or a union of states such as America or one with appropriate and relevant features of both models as well as the Malaysian, Indian, Canadian, Australian, Brazilian, South African or Mexican models, formulated within the context of Philippine history and present realities is a solution that meets these criteria.

Indeed, it is possible under this federal framework to constitute a Bangsamoro or even an Islamic State without seceding from or impairing the territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines.

FEDERALISM & PLURALISM

Under a federal system, the Philippines can be re-constituted into any appropriate number of states, each one having its own constitution to address their peculiar and particular diversities, but all flowing from or hewing to a basic framework defined in a federal constitution or basic law.

In the context of the Mindanao situation, the Muslim-dominated provinces can be formed into a state where the Shariah law, the Madrasah educational system and other basic features of the Islamic “way of life” can be worked into the State Constitution. Of course, the Islamic tenets will apply only to the Muslims, while the Christians and other minorities in the State will be protected by fundamental human and national rights.

We hope we are not being presumptuous in claiming that this formula substantially covers the primary demands of the MILF and other serious Moro groups for self-determination or effective self-governance short of secession. It may, however, be presumptuous of us to claim that this is the best solution that can even be offered. But until other substantial alternatives are presented, the federal option certainly is worth serious consideration by government, the MILF, and the national polity.

Already, diverse voices are being expressed in favor of the political re-structuring of the Philippines from its present unitary and centralized form into a more power-sharing federal system where the component states have well-defined rights to self-governance of their own affairs and resources.

The latest expression of this growing political trend is the Senate Resolution jointly filed by Senators Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. of Cagayan de Oro City, John “Sonny” Osmeña of Cebu and Francisco “Kit” Tatad of Camarines Sur calling for a Constitutional Convention that will adopt a Federal System of government. It is interesting to note the convergence of three leaders from regions in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao that share the same strong sentiments for greater autonomy and self-governance.

Nene Pimentel is, of course, a founding leader of the PDP-Laban which has federalism as a primary platform, and is honorary chair of a new movement, while Sonny Osmeña was a leading light of a federal movement launched in the early 90’s (Pilipinas ‘92). Kit Tatad is a Bicolano leader who knows only too well the meaning of central government neglect of regional needs and concerns.

The National Federal Movement established sometime ago by another Mindanao leader, Reuben Canoy, is still operational and conducts occasional campaigns.

INITIATIVES FROM THE GRASSROOTS

But a new movement spearheaded by the NGO community of Mindanao and encompassing the various elements of civil society (indeed, including local government leaders and technocrats) has been organized about a year ago. It is being fueled by the dynamic spirit of volunteerism and positive activism characteristic of development NGO involvement and commitment.

Lihuk Pideral – Mindanaw has set out to conduct workshop-seminars, symposia, and even trainors’ training on Federalism as a political option in various regions of Mindanao. It plans to cover sectoral groupings in the island but aims to link up with federalism advocates in the Visayas and Luzon during the next half of this year.

It has catalyzed general acceptance of the idea in bigger forums such as the KUSOG MINDANAW roundtable conference and national political formations such as AKBAYAN and various political institutes such as the Institute for Politics and Governance (IPG) and the Institute for Popular Democracy (IPD). Several other groups in Luzon and the Visayas have begun discussions and study of the federal alternative.

It should interest the readers to know that a good number of Muslim professors and scholars from Zamboanga, Basilan, Sulu, Cotabato, Marawi, Iligan, and General Santos City have participated actively in the workshop seminars of Lihuk Pideral, with most of them already signing up as members of the movement. Some of these Muslim professors have informal linkages with either the MNLF or the MILF. In fact, informal and unofficial discussions with some elements of the said moro groups have also been started.

This development does not surprise us. Some of the early proponents of federalism were or are Muslim scholars, including the former Congressman Michael Mastura of Maguindanaw who, along with several delegates from Mindanao to the 1971 Constitutional Convention (i.e Nene Pimentel of Misamis Oriental and Sammy Occeña of Davao) reportedly initiated some unsuccessful moves there to introduce federalism.

Suffice it for now to state what may just be a conjecture (in the absence of actual head count) that there are probably more Muslim brothers and sisters who will go for the federal option than there are who will support secession. Of course, considering that independence is being espoused by armed and organized rebel groups, there is no certainty as to how the majority will go if the armed challenged will be pursued to its logical end.

Our bet, however, is that the leaders and supporters of the MILF can be convinced by a sincere and credible government to consider Federalism as an alternative. Of course, the Administration has to be convinced about this first. In this regard, we suggest that the Estrada government seriously look into the 4-point formula being suggested by Senator Nene Pimentel, for starters.

A REALIST APPROACH

If we may be allowed a little brashness, the Pimentel option (which provides for restructuring towards a federal system as the fourth point) is a far more realistic and practical approach to the Mindanao situation than the Administration’s “all-out-war” policy, which is guaranteed to produce more victims than victors. Even then, a successful military campaign will not ensure the elimination of the rebellion, considering its deeper root causes.

So what’s the use of spending billions of pesos on war campaigns when these are better utilized, with greater over-all and long term dividends, for development efforts. Peace can be effectively achieved only through the ways of peace.

On the graves of hundreds of dead mujahiddens and in the temporary shelters of thousands of dislocated Muslim men, women and children who are alive but hardly living because of the abnormal conditions usually obtaining in such emergency arrangements – we also appeal to our brothers and sisters in the liberation movements to give peace a chance and give true meaning to the practice of Islam as a religion of peace.

There is a chance for self-determination without having to fight a war and shed blood (whether Muslim or Christian, the color is the same). It is possible, too, to institutionalize the practice of Islam in a State of predominantly Muslim population and run entirely by Muslims, but still belonging to a national Filipino entity that may be called by such names as the United States of the Philippines or the Federal Republic of the Philippines, or such other title as the nation may agree on through a constitutional convention and national referendum or plebiscite.

Let a Muslim scholar, then judge, now Justice Jainal D. Rasul, speak about the imperatives of federalism within the context of the Moro situation.

“Presently, the Muslims in this country are face with a dilemma: (1) to remain in the Philippines under the present arrangement; or (2) to get away or secede from the Philippines and create its own Bangsa Moro State in order to preserve its religio-cultural identity.”

“Under the first, the Muslims may forcibly be assimilated under the so-called Integration Policies or Divide and Rule tactic. This is more traumatic than physical genocide. It is cultural imperialism.”

“The second, on the other hand, would mean fratricidal war because the Philippine government would resist fragmentation or dismemberment of the republic.”

He goes on to conclude this portion of his article by stating emphatically: “Undoubtedly, the federal form of government is the Constitutional solution to the age-old Moro problem…. Only in a federal structure of government is it possible to properly and correctly rule such a society (of mixed cultures) in such a manner as to accommodate the distinctiveness of each nationality while orchestrating them all towards the common national goal which comprehends their diversities.”

HARMONY IN DIVERSITY

Harmony in diversity. That is the goal of peace and the path to peace. And federalism is one mechanism that is more likely to facilitate this than any other. Truly, its time has come.

But lest this advocacy be construed as purely a Mindanao concern, allow us to state that by definition, the Federal System is the opposite of a Unitary and Centralized form of government. It is characterized by a division of powers between a national government and the component states, and not merely a sharing of powers between a central authority and local governments. It is guided by the principle of subsidiarity which states that the unit or level of government that is best able to understand and address a problem or undertake projects benefiting its own constituency should be allowed to decide and act on such problems or projects.

The derogatory reference to an Imperial Manila is drawn from our negative experience (especially of regions far and farthest from the national capital). It does not infer that Manilans are bad people. It points more to a system of government that is generally run from the center, and where decisions affecting far-flung provinces, towns and communities, are being made by people who don’t have a good idea about their situation—and who probably couldn’t care less, anyway. It also refers to a system that siphons off provincial resources towards the center, at which point decisions about how much and what will go back to the provinces are also made by such officials or executives who have the faintest idea about the needs and concerns of these communities. It does not make for good governance, to say the least.

By no means is a federal system perfect, of course. Indeed, there is no perfect political system in the world. But there are effective systems as there are lousy ones. There are relevant and responsive systems as there are abusive and oppressive ones.

Over-all, our unitary and centralized presidential system of government (copied mostly from the US – but why did we not copy its federal structure which has survived more than two centuries already as the pillar of American democracy) has not served well the needs of majority of the Filipino people who reside in regions outside of Metro Manila. The statistics on Philippine poverty is proof of this. In fact, majority of the Filipino poor are in Mindanao, particularly in the Muslim areas. Other significant clusters of our poor people are in the Samar, Negros, Bicol and Cordillera regions. (It is no coincidence that insurgency and rebellion grow and thrive in these distant regions).

Truly, the Federal alternative is a national alternative. It is not an exclusive Mindanao concern or advocacy. A re-structuring of the entire Philippine political system is long overdue. Mere decentralization, particularly the cosmetic one, or even an autonomy such as ARMM, is no longer adequate or timely. Running an autonomy within a unitary and centralized presidential system apparently still results in the stifling and limiting of that autonomy.

But running even an Islamic State within a Federal framework of constitutionally-defined division-of-powers-scheme is possible and workable.

The time to seriously consider the federal option is now!