The Right of Self-Determination

The Right of Self-Determination

Impact and Implications on the Mindanao Peace Process

Mohd. Musib M. Buat

No. 2007-01

Institute of Bangsamoro Studies

Institute of Bangsamoro Studies Discussion Paper No. 2007-01 March 2007

The Discussion Papers are preliminary versions of policy and research papers circulated to elicit comments. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily of the IBS.

The Right of Self-Determination Impact and Implications on the Mindanao Peace Process By Mohd. Musib M. Buat

Mohd. Musib M. Buat is a lawyer and a member of the peace panel of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front negotiating peace with the Government of the Republic of the Philippines.

The Institute of Bangsamoro Studies (IBS) is a non-profit and non-government institution the functions of which are to carry out research on Bangsamoro history, culture, politics, economy and contemporary affairs; conduct trainings to capacitate the youth, women and the poor; and render community services to poor and conflict affected communities.

2

Institute of Bangsamoro Studies Hadji Daud Bldg., Campo Muslim Cotabato City 9600, Philippines

Telefax: +63-64 4217886 Email: [email protected]

Institute of Bangsamoro Studies Discussion Paper No. 2007-01

The Right of Self-Determination

Impact and Implications on the Mindanao Peace Process1

Mohd. Musib M. Buat

Introduction During the initial resumption of the GRP-MILF Peace Talks in Tripoli, Libya on June

20-22, 2001, after it was stalled as a consequence of the all-out-war launched by former President Joseph E. Estrada in April of 2000, the peace negotiation which was proceeding smoothly suffered a brief snag. This revolved on the use of the phrase “self-determination” in the draft text of the agreement about to be concluded by the Parties which was earlier agreed during the crafting of the text of the agreement but the GRP Peace Panel members, headed by then Assistant Secretary Jesus Dureza, subsequently deleted it from the final text of the draft agreement the phrase in question. The peace talks would have broke up on this particular point on the issue of whether or not the phrase in question should be deleted or retained in the final text of the agreement about to be finalized by the Libyan Secretariat of the peace talks, had it not been for the skilled diplomatic facilitation of the Libyan and Malaysian officials jointly facilitating the peace talks.

The final version of the draft text contained on paragraph A.2 of the Agreement on

Peace Between the GRP and the MILF on June 22, 2001, reads:

“2. The negotiation and peaceful resolution of the conflict must involve consultations with the Bangsamoro people free of any imposition in order to provide chances of success and open new formulas that permanently respond to the aspiration of the Bangsamoro people for freedom (.) and self-determination.” The underscored phrase in question was the subject of contention between the

Parties. The Libyan and Malaysian facilitators met separately with the heads of delegation for about an hour each to persuade them to resume the peace talks. After some shuttle diplomatic negotiations by the facilitators, the Parties arrived at a consensus point to the effect that the questioned phrase may be deleted because the term freedom at the end of the paragraph has a broad meaning that includes the phrase – self-determination. After both Parties were satisfied with the clarification, the final draft text of the agreement was finalized for typing. The facilitators observed that the deletion of the phrase in question would not affect the whole context of the agreement because the succeeding portion of the final draft text of the agreement contain a provision clarifying the point in question with more emphasis compared with the deleted text above, which reads: 1 Paper presented before the Forum on Self-Determination and the Bangsamoro Issue, sponsored by the Institute of Bangsamoro Studies, held on March 3, 2007, Pacific Heights Hotel, Cotabato City.

3


“B.1. The observance of international humanitarian law and respect for internationally recognized human rights instruments and the protection of evacuees and displaced persons in the conduct of their relations reinforce the Bangsamoro people’s fundamental right to determine their own future and political status.” The above quoted stipulation in the Tripoli Accord of June 2001 acknowledges and

recognizes the fundamental rights of the Bangsamoro people to chart their own future and political status which in fact constitute the right of self-determination. After some clarification and discussions between the Parties, MILF Peace Panel Chair Al Haj Murad Ebrahim agreed to resume the peace talks. On June 22, 2001, the final text of the Agreement on Peace between the Parties was signed by the GRP and the MILF in appropriate ceremonies before members of the diplomatic community and the Muslim ambassadors, representing the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), presided over by Engr. Saiful Islam Qaddafi, son of Libyan President Muammar Qaddafi, Chairman of the Qadaffi International Charities and Foundations who hosted the peace talks.

The Tripoli Agreement on Peace between the GRP and the MILF of June 2001 is

regarded as the “Mother Agreement” because it laid down the framework of negotiation in the peace process under three aspects, namely: security aspect; humanitarian, rehabilitation and development aspect; and ancestral domain aspect. The two main aspects were covered by separate agreements on implementing guidelines. The third aspect on ancestral domain which was deferred for further discussion, involved a wide range of issues and concerns that would require the Parties appropriate time to prepare. In lieu of going immediately into formal talks, the Malaysian facilitator suggested that the ancestral domain aspect will be divided into strands to facilitate the discussions in the talks and the Parties may opt to enter separate agreements whenever they arrived at a joint consensus on a particular strand. It was further agreed by the Parties that they constitute their respective technical working groups (TWGs) to jointly meet to discuss the strands on ancestral domain. These strands consisted of the general concepts and principles common to the other strands, territory, natural resources, and governance. Thereafter, the consensus points arrived at during the TWG joint meetings will be taken up by the Parties during the plenary sessions.

During the exploratory talks preparatory to the formal talks on substantial political

issues, the Parties may enter into a memorandum of agreement based on the consensus points arrived at to serve as basis for the crafting a comprehensive compact of peace. The remaining issue which was the cause for the impasse during the exploratory talks last September 7-8, 2006, refers to the delimitation and delineation of the territorial borders of the proposed Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) or sub-state. In view of the impasse in the exploratory talks on territory, the Malaysian facilitator suspended the talks, and requested the GRP Peace Panel, through its Chairman, Secretary Silvestre C. Afable ,Jr. to seek a fresh mandate from his principal on their definite stand on the territory issue. Secretary Afable remarked that he would need time to secure a clear mandate from President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and to submit the GRP Position not later than September 30, 2006. Unable to take up the matter with the President and the Cabinet Oversight Committee, he had asked for two more extensions to submit the same as promised. Finally, Secretary Afable got the approval of the President on the proposed GRP and the conformity of the

4


Cabinet Oversight Committee. On November 9, 2006, he wrote a letter to his counterpart, MILF Peace Panel Chairman Mohagher Iqbal, through the Malaysian Secretariat, specifying the GRP Position. The MILF Peace Panel upon receipt copy of the GRP Position on the issue of territory informed the Malaysian Secretariat that the MILF leadership and its Central Committee wish to be further clarified on the points stated in the GRP Position. Thus, a clarification session was set by the Malaysian Secretariat on December 30, 2006 for the Parties to exchange a friendly dialogue, short of resuming the exploratory talks, before the MILF Peace Panel will be able to submit its counter proposition on the issue of territory that will fall under the geographic jurisdiction of the Bangsamoro sub-state. Reportedly, both panels are preparing for the resumption of the talks after exchange of position papers through the Malaysian Secretariat. What is significant about the GRP Position is that it has expressly acknowledged and recognized the fundamental right of the Bangsamoro people to self-determination within their ancestral homeland and ancestral territory, a right guaranteed under international law and conventions, including the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The letter of Secretary Afable to Chairman Mohagher Iqbal of the MILF Peace Negotiating Panel dated November 9, 2006, stating the GRP Position, reads in part:

The Government of the Republic of the Philippines understands that “ancestral domain” does not constitute the end of the Bangsamoro struggle. We consider “ancestral domain” a necessary element in the broader goal of genuine self-determination, that of establishing a system of life and governance suitable and acceptable to the Bangsamoro people. In this light, Government respectfully proposes to enlarge the discussions on ancestral domain that we are currently pursuing, within the broader context of Bangsamoro self-determination. Concretely, in the next round of talks, the GRP would like to explore the following matters with the MILF:. . .” (What follows are proposed items for discussion by GRP Peace Panel with the MILF Peace Panel). Before we shall proceed further, it will be informative to revisit the brief history of

the Mindanao conflict and its relation to the Bangsamoro struggle for freedom and self-determination for sovereign independence and self-rule. The background of the Bangsamoro struggle can be traced back from the time the Spaniards landed into our shores to claim our native land in the name of the Spanish monarchy.

Antecedents of the Mindanao Conflict and the Bangsamoro Problem

The Bangsamoro people’s struggle for freedom and independence is one of the

longest saga in the history of armed resistance against colonial aggression and foreign domination, spanning for a period of about half a millennium, when reckoned from the historic Battle of Mactan in the 16th century between Raja Lapu-Lapu and Ferdinand Magellan, up to the present struggle of the Bangsamoro people against neo-colonialism by a successor state, the Republic of the Philippines. Raja Lapu-Lapu, the King of Mactan, whom the Bangsamoro people consider as the first Moro defender of freedom and a true patriot, had symbolized the first Malayan champion of freedom.

5


The Cebuano-Bisayan people together with rest of the inhabitants of the Visayan Islands during this period were undergoing a transition from their earlier Hinduized culture into the Islamic culture. The principal chiefs of the Islands had adopted Hindu royal titles for being former tributary states of the Sri-Vijaya and Madjapahit empires. At the height of the Islamized Kingdom of Malacca, Muslim Arab traders and preachers became regular visitors of the native port states. Many of them stayed behind, raised families and established Muslim communities in major settlements around the islands. The local kings who were traders themselves were attracted to the faith and culture of the Arab traders and who preachers at the same time. However, in the Islands of Mindanao and Sulu, Islam was well entrenched because the Islamic influence came centuries ahead.

In the old map of Asia drawn by the 16th century European cartographer, Abraham

Ortellius, there were no islands of Visayas and Luzon yet. The whole archipelago was known as Mindano. It was only the Spaniards who designated the whole archipelago into three geographic subdivisions for purposes of colonial administration. Mindanao and the Sulu archipelago remained outside of Spanish rule until they left the Islands. The Visayan and Luzon peoples were easily subdued by the Spaniards because unlike the Moros of Mindanao and Sulu who had already well organized political institutions, the native Bisayan chiefs and their people were still in process of building their institutions. For this reason, they failed to put up a united front to resist the Spanish invaders.

The presence and existence of significant Moro or Muslim settlements in Cebu at the

time of the arrival of Magellan, was recorded by the scribe of Legaspi, Racquel Herman who wrote in his memoirs of the existence of Muslim settlements in Cebu. The main propelling reason for the strong resistance by the native chiefs was their love for freedom and the defense of their way of life. According to the historian Majul, the “Spanish attitudes and actions against Islamic practices must have contributed to the further stiffening of Muslim resistance against the Spaniards. The people’s natural tendency to resist any form of external domination was further galvanized and reinforced by the will to defend a way of life.” (See Cesar Adib Majul, Muslims in the Philippines, Quezon City, 1973). The Moros or Muslims were the dominant inhabitants in the whole archipelago at the time of the arrival of Magellan in 1521. Originally referring to themselves as “Bangsa Islam,” (Nation of Islam), the Spaniards called the Islamized natives as Moros (or Moors), for having similar culture and religion with the Moors of Spain who ruled them for about seven (7) centuries. The Moors of Spain have dark brown complexion like the typical native Malays.

Since Islamic religion, culture and institutions were not yet prevalent among the

greater masses of the inhabitants in the northern islands, except among the aristocracy and the immediate members of their households, these natives easily succumbed to Spanish proselytizing and became Catholic Christians. In order to maintain their status and prestige from the old social order, the native chiefs who were titled rajas or datus adopted new Spanish titles such ‘caciques’, ‘ pricipalia’, and ‘alcalde mayor’, or ‘ presidente’. Those who refused to submit to Spanish colonial rule and be converted to Christianity migrated to Mindanao and Sulu to join their brother Moros.

6


What divided the native peoples of the north and the south was the Spanish colonial policy of fitting them against each other by recruiting and employing the Christianized natives as “mercenaries” in their military campaigns in Mindanao and Sulu. In retaliation to the Spanish aggression, the Moro chiefs organized raids and counter-military campaigns against Spanish held territories and took as captives of war, both the Castillans and Christianized natives in the Visayas and Luzon. The Moro chiefs who regarded the Visayan Islands as their tributaries competed with the Spanish authorities in exacting tributes from the natives of the northern islands.

This conflict that lasted for more than three centuries of warfare between the

Spanish colonial authorities and the Moro people had brought about deep-seated bias and prejudice between the Christianized natives and the Islamic peoples. This has been one of the main causes why the Bangsamoro people wanted to set up their own country and do not wish to be integrated and assimilated into the Filipino national community. Thus, the main roots of the Mindanao conflict have a long history. The resolution of the Mindanao conflict and the Bangsamoro problem must be a just and comprehensive political solution. Poverty is being cited by the government as the main reason of the Moro insurgency. On the contrary, poverty is the result of war or the long unresolved conflict between the Bangsamoro people and the central government or Imperial Manila.

Root Causes of the Mindanao Conflict and the Bangsamoro Problem

The right of self-determination is usually invoked by peoples, nations and

communities seeking to be free from systematic persecution or on account of unaddressed grievances, through a democratic fashion via a freely conducted plebiscite or referendum, to make it known, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong or have been a captive nation, like that of the Bangsamoro people of Mindanao, Sulu archipelago and Palawan, together with the adjacent islands. In this regard, we shall briefly review some of the major grievances of the Bangsamoro people that constitute the main root causes of the Mindanao conflict and the Bangsamoro problem.

The Moro grievances can be summed up into one term – INJUSTICE! By this we

mean the following:

Injustice to the Moro identity; Injustice to Moro political sovereignty; Injustice to Moro ancestral territory; and Injustice to Moro integral development.

The Bangsamoro people are a historic community with a definite territory and being

the First Nation that came into being in this part of the Malayan archipelago. They were once sovereign nation-states, originally exercised through the suzerainty of the Moro sultanates and datuships. They had trade and commercial relations with foreign nations and had entered into treaties of amity with European powers. They were the first to have established a highly organized political system and governments, independent of the Spanish colonial administration. It was the United States colonial regime who changed this political and social order and superimposed over them the Moro Province and later

7


by the Department of Mindanao and Sulu. The Bangsamoro territories of Mindanao, Sulu archipelago and Palawan were later included in the definition of Philippine territory under the Commonwealth Constitution of 1935, despite the objections of the Moro leaders for their inclusion. (See, The Dansalan Declaration of March 18, 1935).

For the first time in Philippine jurisprudence, the Supreme Court in the separate

opinion of then Justice Artemio Panganiban in the case of Cruz vs. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources (G.R. 135385, December 6, 2000), took judicial recognition of the use of the term “Bangsa Moro” as a status.

While the Philippine Constitution of the of 1987 recognizes the “right of self

determination” under Article II, Section 7 on State Policies, this particular principle is restricted by national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national interest.

The same Constitution under Article II, Section 1 on Declaration of Principles

“…adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, unity with all nations.” This is another restricted principle under the Philippine constitution. As interpreted by the Supreme Court, treaties entered into by the Philippines have the same category as domestic laws and as such like any legislation enacted by Congress, these treaties could be amended. (See, Abbas vs. Commission on Elections, 179 SCRA 287, 1989). This interpretation runs counter to the principle of pacta sunt servanda whereby the state parties are duty bound to honor their treaty obligations under treaties entered into. Thus, the Supreme Court in the Bayan case (BAYAN vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000), when the constitutionality of the VFA was raised before the Court, sustained the principle of pacta sunt servanda under international law.

This was the reason why the MILF Peace Panel during the resumption of he peace

talks in Tripoli, Libya registered its objection to the use of the Philippine constitution as the framework of negotiation. The MILF Panel preferred the adherence by the Parties on International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and the internationally recognized Human Rights instruments in defining the relations between the Philippine Government and the Bangsamoro people with respect, among others, their fundamental right to determine their future political status, which specifically refers to the right to self-determination. (See GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of June 2001).

Speaking of territorial integrity, this is another contentious concept. It is a fact that in

the definition of Philippine territory with particular reference to historic rights under the 1935 Philippine constitution, the various Moro treaties entered into by the Moro suzerains with foreign powers are cited as justification. Ironically, while the Philippines invoke historic rights as basis in defining Philippine territory, it has refused to respect the rights of the Bangsamoro people to self-determination over their historic homeland and territory, not until recently. The inclusion of the Moro territories in the definition of Philippine territory in the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898, is one of the injustices to the Bangsamoro territorial integrity. How could Spain legally cede to America Moroland which Spain never had any sovereignty or territorial possession, nor the plebiscitary consent of its inhabitants?

8


Another major injustice to Bangsamoro territorial integrity that triggered the present

Mindanao conflict is the policy of the government, initially started during the American colonial regime that had its peak under the Commonwealth government, the agricultural colonization of the Mindanao-Sulu and Palawan region by Christian Filipino migrant-settlers from the Visayas and Luzon, through government sponsorship and the passage of various land confiscatory laws. This was briefly interrupted by the Second World War and resumed during the postwar period under the Philippine Republic up to the present. At the time of conquest or colonization by America in 1898 the Bangsamoro people owned 98 percent of the lands in the Mindanao region. (See Aijaz Ahmad, “Class and Colony in Mindanao,” Southeast Asia Chronicle, No. 82, February, 1982, cited in Salah Jubair, Bangsamoro- A Nation Under Endless Tyranny, 3rd ed., 1999).

The passage of various land confiscatory laws along with the resettlement of

Christian Filipino migrant-settlers from the north steadily dispossessed the native inhabitants of Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan. All the lands in the Mindanao region were declared by law as forming part of the public domain despite the fact that these lands are Pusaka or ancestral lands of the Bangsamoro people since time immemorial as recognized under various Moro treaties with foreign nations. This injustice to the Bangsamoro people is one of the main causes for their marginalization and minoritization in their own homeland and ancestral territory in Moroland. The Bangsamoro people have remained under state of neo-colonialism. From the Moro perspective the Philippine Republic continue to act like a colonial power in dealing with the Moros of Mindanao. The common presence of Military occupation forces in Moroland is reminiscence of previous colonial regimes. Indeed, nothing has changed in the government policy from colonial times up to the present Republic.

In terms of budgetary allocation, Mindanao has the lowest share of the national

budget thereby depriving its people of integral development. Its rich and vast natural resources are exploited by multinationals and Filipino corporate elites, depriving its native peoples of their natural wealth and in behalf of their future generations. The Bangsamoro people have come of age. They want to chart their own destiny. If they are allowed to develop their own country and homeland, they honestly believe that can build a progressive independent nation of their own and sustain its development. In economic terms, the billions of pesos spent for military operations in Mindanao and Sulu should have been spent to alleviate poverty among poor Filipinos. In the long term, the Philippine Government will be freed from the Bangsamoro problem and concentrate on its own ‘Filipino problem’ of alleviating the poverty of millions of its citizens.

Government Approach and Responses

According to Bishop Orlando B. Quevedo (OMI), in his paper entitled: “Injustice: the

Root of Conflict in Mindanao”, he wrote that: “The present government’s ‘holistic approach’ has four fundamental components political, legal, and diplomatic component; socio-economic-psychological component; peace and order and security component; and information. It retains the idea of a ‘left hand approach’ and

9


right hand approach’. The national strategy admits that cutting down the ‘tree of discontent’ will not solve the insurgency problem. Its roots must be addressed.” The roots of insurgency according to the version of the National Security, identify

four main roots of insurgency, namely:

Poverty, which includes law, productivity’ criminality, marginalization, and environmental degradation;

Ignorance, which includes poor resource base, and low quality educstion; Disease, which includes malnutrition, poor delivery of health services; Injustice, which includes human rights, graft and corruption, land conflicts.

(Quevedo: 2003).

The four main roots of insurgency identified by government under its National Security that has to be addressed, amounts to admission by government its failure or incompetence in its policy to resolve the Bangsamoro problem. These concerns are legitimate functions of government which the Moro Front (MILF) in representation of the Bangsamoro people invokes as among its argument for seeking the right of self-determination. The alternative option from the MILF point of view is to allow the Bangsamoro people themselves to resolve their own problems by granting them the chance and opportunity to chart their own destiny through the exercise of their right to self-determination.

Bishop Quevedo provides us an alternative perspective by addressing the main

causes of the Bangsamoro problem. He cites three main roots or causes of the Mindanao conflict and the Bangsamoro problem, such as:

Injustice to the Moro Identity. Injustice to Moro Political Sovereignty. Injustice to Moro Integral Development.

Apparently, Bishop Quevedo has overlooked one of the main root causes of the

Mindanao conflict which in fact the proximate cause of the present Mindanao conflict and this is “Injustice to the Bangsamoro territorial integrity – landlessness!”

We do agree with Bishop Quevedo that the rectification of the injustices to the

Bangsa Moro People’s inherent rights would be a great task and undertaking on the part of the central government to resolve and address. The Moros were under the colonial administration of the United States for ten (10) years under the Moro Province, from l903- l913. The Moro Province was abolished and administration of Moroland was placed under the Department of Mindanao and Sulu (1914–l920). Subsequently, the department was abolished and Moro affairs were placed under the administration of the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes.

Thus, the administration of Moro Affairs has undergone a cycle of creation and

abolition. The last of the Offices established during the post war period was the Commission on National Integration (CNI) in the fifties and again was abolished shortly

10


before the Declaration of Martial Law in the early seventies. Fulfilling its promise of granting Filipino independence after a ten year transition from commonwealth status to an independent Republican state, America true to its words to the Filipino nationalists, granted Philippine independence after the Second World War on July 4, l946. However, America reneged from its mandate in Moroland to prepare the Moro people in the art of modern governance, and eventually self-rule (independence) based on their right to self-determination.

Bishop Quevedo has an alternative perspective on the Bangsamoro problem which

we shall adopt with some modifications and they are as follows

Moro Identity The Moro identity is the heart of the Moro struggle as a distinct nationality with

more than 300 years of history in resisting waves of military campaigns by colonial Spain, 20 years under America, ten (10) years under the Philippine Commonwealth, and one and a half century (151 years) under the Philippine Republic. As a distinct political domestic community, the Moro people shared a common socio-political structure and an indigenous mode of governance based on the sultanates and datuships with defined territories that was recognized under various treaties with foreign powers. Although they spoke different languages with some degree of differences in culture and tradition, they are bound by common ideological and religious bond of Islam and by their common Malay culture and heritage. Similarly, the indigenous tribal peoples share common culture and heritage with the Moro people.

The Moro (or Bangsamoro) people’s sense of nationhood (nationalism) and selfhood

(statehood) had matured as early as the 16th to the 18th centuries long before the Christianized natives or “indios” asserted their Filipino nationhood during the Philippine revolution against Spain in 1896. Prior to this, the Filipino leaders and intellectuals were for reforms and possible integration with the Spanish monarchy, though representation in the Spanish Cortez (parliament). The revolutionary government of General Emilio Aguinaldo had recognized the distinct identity and nationhood of the Bangsamoro people by offering union with the latter under a real federation between their two nations.

The emergence of the Moro sultanates of Sulu and the Mindanao principalities as

nation-states in the modern legal sense was not an isolated phenomenon. The period coincided with signing of the Treaty of Wesphalia in Europe in the 16th century and which treaty established the territorial borders of the princely states and kingdoms of Europe that became the forerunner of the modern nation-states. This period also marked the reigns of the Sultan Qudarat of Maguindanao, and Rajah Bongsu of Sulu who had declared independence from Brunie.

The restoration of the original declaration of independence from Spain from July 4,

1946 to June 12, 1896 by former President Diosdado Macapagal did not only do justice to the Philippine Revolution and its leaders but at same time revived the memories of the Bangsamoro people that they were indeed once sovereign nation-states up to the time of conquest and colonization of the Philippine archipelago by the United States of America.

11


Moro Political Sovereignty

The Moro Nation (Bangsa Moro People) was deprived of their sovereignty

and territorial integrity when their homeland (Moroland) was ceded by Spain to the United States even without their plebiscitary consent. Spain did not have the right to sell the Moro territories which it did not have territorial possession nor sovereign authority. The last treaty between Sulu and Spain of 1878 was for Sulu to become a protectorate of Spain and and not a territorial possession. This was the basis for the signing of the Kiram-Bates Treaty of August 20, 1899 between Sultan Jamal-ul Kiram II and General Bates of the U.S. Army. There were no formal agreements entered with the Moro suzerains of Mindanao in view of the friendly attitude of the American authorities and that the intentions of America was friendly. The Americans told the Moro chiefs that they came to train the Moros in the art of modern government and administration and to extend to the Moros the benefits of modern civilization. Despite the resistance by some Moro datus, the greater part of the Moro leaders and the Moro population in general came to like the Americans for their goodwill gesture by building roads and schools and the expansion of trade and commerce.

After the abolition of the Moro Province and the Department of Mindanao and Sulu,

Moro leaders petitioned the U.S. Congress either to retain the Moro Province as unincorporated territory of America or grant them separate independence. The petitions of the Moro leaders were blocked by Filipino lobby because the latter were too eager to take over America in the control of Moroland. In the grant of Philippine on July 4, l946, the Moro territories was annexed part of the Philippine territory thereby foreclosing the aspirations of the Bangsamoro people to become a free and sovereign nation. Indeed, the United States of America in complicity with the Filipino nationalist leaders committed grave injustice to the political sovereignty of the Bangsamoro people.

According to Dr. Corpus,“(T)here were three political subdivisions in the

archipelago in the 1650’s: Filipinas and the Sultanates of Maguindanao and Sulu. . .The costly wars between the Christians and the Muslims, peaking in 1799, certainly shaped our political destiny. Had they accepted each other, and co-existed in peace, we would probably be not one republic today, but two or more independence states.” (Onofre D. Corpus, The Roots of the Filipino Nation, vol. I, x, l999). Dr. Corpus may be partly correct because the real cause for the loss of Bangsamoro sovereign independence was America’s ill conceived vision of uniting the Moros and the Filipinos to constitute as one united nations without taking into account and serious consideration the appeals of the Moros to either the retain them for a certain period under American tutelage or grant them separate independence. The Moros did not wish to be integrated and assimilated with the Christian Filipinos who were their former enemies under Spain.

During the early part of the American regime, the U.S. authorities were in fact

divided as to whether to deal with the Moros through a policy of indirect rule or direct rule over Moroland. Dr. Jacob Schurman, President of the First Philippine Commission was keen about adopting the ‘indirect rule’ arrangement through a residency system which the British had worked out in the 1870s with respect to the Malay Sultans of Perak,

12


Selangor, Pahang and Negri Sembilan. But some U.S. military officials were for diect rule. Thus, the plan for the Moro Province came about after the passage of the Philippine Bill on July 1, 1902 by the U.S. Congress. The establishment of the Moro Province in 1903 was a departure from the policy instructions of President Mckinley to recognize and respect the indigenous political organizations of the native inhabitants of the Philippine Islands.

The restoration of the Bangsamoro people’s political sovereignty and their ancestral

homeland and territory is the only practical formula and solution in rectifying the injustice to the Moro political sovereignty. As a distinct nationality and nation their co-existence with Filipino nation shall be defined through the principle of equality of all peoples’ under international law, either by associative or federative arrangements via negotiated political settlement, referendum or treaty (constitutional compact). In the decision in the case of Worcester vs. Georgia (1832), a landmark in American constitutional history, penned by Chief Justice John Marshall, the first luminary in American jurisprudence, he held that “the settled doctrine of the law of nations (e.g., the Cherokee nation) is that a weaker power does not surrender its independence—its right to self-government, by associating with a stronger and taking its protection (through a treaty).”

The right to self-determination is fundamental right guaranteed and recognized by

the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN General Assembly Resolution No. 1541 (XV) and UN General Assembly Resolution No. 1514 (1960), UN General Assembly Resolution No. 41/128 (1986), and UN General Assembly Resolution of 1991. The right to self-determination is also recognized and guaranteed under international law and conventions. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of December 16, 1966, the International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention No. 169, concerning indigenous and tribal peoples in independent countries, and the UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, all guarantee and recognize the rights of all peoples to the right of self-determination, including the right to freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources.

Moro Homeland and Ancestral Domain

As a consequence of the loss of the Moro Political Sovereignty came along the loss of

Moro territorial integrity. The Moro people need territorial space for their human security, welfare and wellbeing as a distinct people. Their historic and legal claims to their ancestral domain are both genealogical and territorial. The Moro people were the first to establish a well developed system of indigenous form of governance independent from the Spanish colonial administration, nor from any foreign intervention, in the whole Philippine archipelago. They were an organized domestic community with clear and definite definition of powers and relations between and among those who governed and the governed. They were contained in codified form as evidenced by the Maguindanao Codex (Luwaran) and the Principal Sulu Code (Diwan or Shara).

Thus, the right to self-governance of the Bangsamoro people is rooted on ancestral

territoriality exercised originally under the suzerain authority of their sultanates. The

13


Moro sultanates were states or karajaan/kadatuan endowed with all the elements of a nation-state in the modern legal sense. As a domestic community distinct from the Filipinos, they have a definite historic homeland. They are the First Nation with defined territory and with a system of government recognized by foreign nations, having conducted diplomatic relations with Asian and European powers and entered into treaties of amity and commerce with foreign nations.

With the loss or deprivation of Moro Political Sovereignty followed by the loss of

large portions of the Moro ancestral domain and territory, they became to this day a cultural community and marginalized people. This was the outcome of series legal enactments since the American regime, the Commonwealth government up the Philippine Republic, dispossessing the Moro people of their ancestral landholdings, along with the agricultural colonization of Moroland by migrant-settlers from the Visayas and Luzon.

Integral Development of the Bangsamoro People and their Homeland

A captive nation such as the Bangsamoro despite the rich and vast resources of their

homeland cannot expect progress and development as long as they remain a captive nation. Volumes of studies and research have written on the causes of underdevelopment in the Mindanao region and the Bangsamoro people. A brief and precise analysis on the causes of underdevelopment of the Philippine south is given by Lourdes Saulo-Adriano as follows;

`“The roots of (Mindanao’s) past underdevelopment can be attributed to four factors: (1) its relegation to the role of raw materials and food supplier of the country; (2) neglect of its infrastructure needs; (3) the previous bias against agriculture in favor of industry; and (4) the peace and order problem. (This) resulted in a vicious cycle. . . where the lack of employment and economic opportunities led to declining incomes, where extremely limited demand resulted in less jobs and greater poverty, where high unemployment and poverty incidence fuelled political unrest, and where political instability further discouraged investment that create economic opportunities and jobs for Mindanaoans.”

Commenting on Adriano’s above analysis, Martinez observes that Adriano’s

“objection is not against development per se, but against monopolistic and ruthlessly exploitative nature of the type of development pursued by Imperial Manila and its coterie of favored capitalists.” (Lourdes Saulo-Adriano, “Explorations into Mindanao Development: An Introduction”, cited in Martinez, op.cit.)

Similarly, the MILF is not against development per se, but against the explotative

nature of development by multinational companies and favored Filipino capitalists and carpetbaggers who have amassed wealth through the exploitation of Mindanao’s natural resources, depriving the Bangsamoro people of their patrimony and legitimate sources of livelihood and their development. What they get in return are environmental degradation, health hazards, disease, and other forms of health risks, loss of income and legitimate source of livelihood.

14


Self-Determination: Concepts and Principle

International law has traditionally viewed the formation of new sovereign entities or

states as purely a domestic political matter between the parent state and the sub-state or quasi-state. It is only after the de facto existence of the new state that international law come into play. It was during the period of decolonization where more than 100 new sovereign states were recognized that the creation of new states was for the first time subject to international law in the form of self-determination. Articles 1, 55 and 73 of the United Nations Charter include the principle of self-determination. The U.N. General Assembly has repeatedly recognized the right to self-determination in a series of resolutions adopted.

Although these resolutions are not in themselves binding, they constitute an

authoritative interpretation of the U.N. Charter and may represent opinio juris respecting customary international law. The principle of self-determination was further codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which together constitute the international “Bill of Rights”. These two covenants constitute binding treaty law.( See Michael P. Scharf, “Earned Sovereignty: Juridical Underpinnings”).

Almost all nations carry within their territories other nations or who are captive

nations, and since secession is synonymous with the dismemberment of states, the international community has viewed it with suspicion. The right to seek independence is an exercise of the principle of self-determination. Originally, it was applied only to people under “colonial domination,” “alien domination”, “racist oppression”, and under the principle of uti possiditis states were permitted to become independent only within their former colonial boundaries.

On the other hand, there is the archipelagic principle which the colonizers and the

central Philippine government wanted to use in justifying the inclusion of Moroland into Philippine territory. But based on the archipelagic principle for archipelagoes, the Sulu archipelago which falls within the Philippine archipelago is an archipelago itself. Thus, the Philippine nation-state formed out of two or several archipelagoes is a fiction of national territory, and perhaps a fabricated state? This alone is an argument for self-determination by the Bangsamoro people, in addition to the theory of “salt-water colonialism”. (See, Reuben R. Canoy (1979), “Real Autonomy: The Answer to the Mindanao Problem,” Philippine Sociological Review; and Kazeem (1989), “The Muslims in the Philippines: A Case of Conflict of Ideology,” Mindanao Islamic Journal).

Recently, the international community subscribed to a theory of “salt-water

colonialism” wherein self-determination could only apply to territories which were separated from their metropolitan parent by oceans or high seas, like that of Mindanao, Sulu archipelago and Palawan. It is said that during the post-colonial period, the right of self-determination is rarely recognized until it was won through a bloody battle. However, some modern constitutions like those of Nevis and Kitts, Ethiopia and USSR

15


have provided in their constitutions the right to secession or the right to self-determination of their nationalities or republics. The modern trend as evidenced by the writing of government as the right of non-colonial people to dissociate from an existing state has been supported strongly by the United Nations’ 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations. It has framed the proper balance between self-determination and territorial integrity.

The U.N. bodies have made further references to the right to “remedial secession”

contained in the 1993 Report of the Ropporteur to the U.N. Sub-Commission Against the Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities on Possible Ways and Means of Facilitating the Peaceful and Constructive Solution of Problems Involving Minorities and in General Recommendation XXI adopted in 1996 by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. (Scharf, op.cit.).

Self-determination or the right to self-determination (RSD) has evolved as a reaction

against European colonialism and frequently against tyrannical rule. It developed at least before 1859 as an ethical concept and political principle by the world community against hundred of years of European colonialism. As universal ethical right of individuals, the concept attempted to translate self - determination with political freedom, of religion and freedom of speech and apply these to people like the humanist concept of sovereignty. At times self-determination or as a concept is usually equated with secession or liberation from colonial rule. The ideal of self-determination found its early expression in the declaration of independence of the United States of America, thus bringing about the birth of the United States as a nation and the first early expression of secessionist ideals in modern history.

Technically, however, these two political concepts are not exactly the same.

Secession specifically refers to territory, meaning to severe ties or association of a particular territory from the parent state or territory and to establish itself as separate or self-governing territory from actual or perceived colonial rule or domination by a colonial regime either via national liberation struggle or through the democratic and diplomatic process of decolonization under international law.

The right to self-determination refers to the concept or principle wherein a people or

nation exercise the right to statehood or self-rule, and that such right has an equal right to sovereignty. The RSD is usually achieved either through peaceful negotiation between the sub-state and the parent state or via a democratic process known as referendum or plebiscite. The community of nations favors this latter process. It is in fact sanctioned under international law. The two concepts on the other hand overlap. For instance, when the right to self-determination is achieved or realized by peoples, nations, or communities via unilateral act of declaration of independence, not necessarily national struggle through liberation from colonial rule but by simply asserting the right to self-rule, it is known as “remedial secession”. This usually happens to historic peoples, nations, or communities who achieved self-rule or independence although not covered within the definition of peoples under colonial rule as defined under the United Nations decolonization program of 1960. The independence of East Timor is a classic example.

16


The following are some concepts and principles on self-determination under international law and practice. “..Self-determination is not a de stabilizing concept. Self-determination and democracy go hand in hand. If democracy means the rule of the people, by the people, then the principle of self-determination secures that no one people may rule another – and herein lies its enduring appeal…”.-(Nadesan Satyendra in Why Division, 1998).

“…the right of peoples to self-determination exists as such in modern international law, with all the consequences that flow there from…” (Hector Gross Espiell, Special Ropporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, 1980). “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By the virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development”. (Article 1.1.-The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966). Self determination also exists within a spectrum. It usually comes in the form of

simple autonomy –enhanced autonomy - statehood within a federal union – Free State Association – or ultimately sovereign self-rule or independence.

The rights of all people, nations or communities to decide their final political status

is an exercise of the right of self-determination. It is a universally recognized fundamental right of all peoples, nations, or communities (specifically historic communities like the peoples of Basque country, Quebec, Ireland, Ache and Malays of South Thailand, including that of the Bangsamoro people.)

The Bangsamoro people consider themselves as a separate nation (Moro Nation)

distinct from the Filipinos. Their existence and identity as a distinct nation far antedated the so-called Filipino Nation. Prior to the Philippine revolution of 1896, the Christianized natives were referred to by the Spaniards as Indio’s. The Filipinos were Spaniards born in the Philippines. Moroland (Mindanao, Sulu, and Palawan geographical region) is their homeland and ancestral domain. As a political construct, this identity extends to the non-Islamized Indigenous peoples who are equally descendants of the original occupants of the Mindanao region prior to conquest or colonization. The latter, however, are given the freedom of choice to opt of becoming Bangsamoro nationals or remain under the neo-colonial rule of the Filipinos.

While it is true the Philippine government has extended citizenship to the

Bangsamoro people, the issue of allegiance to the Philippine State as the only Christian nation in this part of the world is an unsettled issue? Until now many Bangsamoros cannot accept being called Filipino for having a derogatory connotation to them, as an unconquered people nor were they under the colonial rule of Spain. They prefer to be called Moros or Muslims or better still Bangsamoro (Moro Nation).

On February 1, 1924, Moro leaders led by Sultan Mangigin of Maguindanao,

petitioned the United States Congress either to remain as an unincorporated territory of the United States or be granted separate independence – their country to be known as Moro Nation (Bangsamoro). However, if their territories will be included as part of Philippine independence, along with Visayas and Luzon, they further petitioned the U.S.

17


Congress to cause the holding of a plebiscite or referendum 50 years after the grant of Philippine Independence to decide by vote whether they should be part of the Philippine territory, or continue to be an unincorporated territory of United States, or given separate independence.

The 50 years grace period stated in that declaration of February 1, 1924, reckoned

from the grant of Philippine independence on July 4, 1946, matured in 1996, the year that the GRP and MNLF entered into the Final Peace Agreement on September 2, 1996. The MILF leadership rejected the GRP-MNLF Peace Accord for failure to effectively address the legitimate grievances of the Bangsamoro people and their political aspiration for genuine self-rule and self-determination. This was the main reason why the MILF resumed peace negotiations with the Philippine Government. Except for the contentious issue on the definition of the geographic borders that will fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the proposed Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (sub-state), the Parties have reached general consensus points during the exploratory talks on the aspects on general concepts, natural resources and governance.

Concluding Remarks

The Bangsamoro people’s quest for freedom, justice, equality and self-determination

is at the core of the Mindanao conflict and the Bangsamoro problem. The central government,(starting from the American colonial administration, up to the present Philippine Republic), have tried various solutions to the Mindanao conflict but none of them worked successfully. Unless the root causes and the major grievances of the Bangsamoro people are effectively addressed with the right solution or formula, the Mindanao problem will remain unresolved. It therefore calls for a comprehensive and just solution based on freedom, equality, justice and the right of self-determination. The relationship of the Bangsamoro people with the Filipino people shall be based on the principle of equality of peoples as defined under international law. Their relations as two separate and distinct nations shall be in the form of associative or federative relationship. There shall be no derogation by one sovereign entity over the other.

The new relationship will be characterized by associative arrangements. It will be a

political relationship between two jurisdictions wherein neither one is the subject to the legal constraints of the other, in order to peacefully conclude the fundamental differences over equally legitimate political aspirations of the Bangsamoro people in relation to the whole country, with concrete implementation of a new formula that will permanently respond to their legitimate aspirations for freedom and self-determination. This new formula will be implemented through a more elastic approach to resolving sovereignty-based conflict, particularly the Bangsamoro people’s demand for the restoration of their sovereign “Moro Nation” (Bangsa Moro), which shall be expressed via popular consultation leading to a referendum after a certain period of transition, to afford the Bangsamoro people time and opportunity to decide whether to remain as part of the Philippine national community or to establish their own separate country, and become a free, sovereign and independent member of the community of nations. This new approach, the basic elements of which are found in a number of peace agreements, is termed as “earned sovereignty or shared sovereignty”. It has also been referred to as

18


intermediate sovereignty, provisional statehood, conditional recognition, and earned recognition.

Most frequently the mantra of sovereignty is used by states to shield itself from

international action to prevent them from violating human rights and committing atrocities in their attempts to stifle self-determination movements. (See Paul R. Williams, Michael P. Scharf, and James R. Hooper, “Resolving Sovereignty-Based Conflicts: The Emerging Approach of Earned Sovereignty,” Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 31:3, 2004). Whereas, the ability to share sovereign authority and functions between states, sub-state entities and international organizations created an opportunity to disperse the often violent tension associated with sovereignty-based conflicts and provided the parties to pursue a path for long term resolution of the conflict.

There are perceptions from some quarters that the new MILF leadership and its

Central Committee have abandoned the original goal and objective of the Bangsamoro people’s struggle for self-determination, this is far from the truth. While it is true that independence is one of the legitimate options for self-government under the U.N. General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV) of 1060, offering self-determination, the MILF is open to the idea of undergoing a period of political transition to enable and give opportunity for the Bangsamoro people to undertake capacity and capability building and to build institutions capable of exercising increasing sovereign authority and functions, with the assistance and cooperation of the Philippine Government and the support of the international community. The Bangsamoro leaders do realize and anticipate the great tasks and responsibility ahead in building a stable and progressive new country out of the ruins of the past, that could stand proudly in the community of nations.

What would be an ideal vision for a future Bangsamoro sovereign nation and

state? I shall share with you my own vision of the future Bangsamoro sovereign state, before I will finally conclude this narrative, to wit:

A Prospective Vision of the future Bangsamoro Sovereign Nation-State: An ideal future vision of a Bangsamoro sovereign and independent country may be composed

of people of many cultural and ethnic origins who felt themselves as part of Bangsamoro homeland and who sensed oneness with the native Bangsamoros: a citizenry that supported the revitalization of Bangsamoro culture with its traditional world view and approach to life, and a Bangsamoro country that is ruled by Bangsamoros. A nation that is not lost in the past, but embracing the present and the future from a uniquely Bangsamoro perspective, and going about life in the “Bangsamoro way” of being free, patriotic, noble, brave, and being an unconquered race or nation by any colonial power in body and spirit. This is the “Bangsamoro way”, a trademark of courage, nobleness and proud branch of the Malayan race, bearing the legacy of Sultan Qudarat, Lapu-Lapu, Amai Pakpak, Panglima Hassan, Datu Tahir, Jakiri, Rajah Bungsu, Datu Ali, Sultan Pandapatan, , Leon Kilat, Dagohoy and other native Moro and Visayan patriots, heroes and martyrs. Long live the Bangsamoro Homeland. Allaho Akbhar!

19

The Right of Self-Determination

Documents

Transcript of The Right of Self-Determination