The ‘GRP’-MILF Draft MoA: Designed To Fail?

Written on Tuesday, August 5th, 2008 at 9:08 am | by Ding G. Gagelonia

I had initially intended to delay posting this here at FV lest I be accused of “hyperventilating.”

But I think I owe it to our readers to share this given the gravity of the issue no matter how others try to be dismissive or intellectually blind about it.

So here:

The Supreme Court, as the headlines this morning announce, issued a temporary restraining order on that Bangsamoro ancestral domain agreement between the Arroyo government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.

But as this writer has reported, the MILF ’scooped’ the Supreme Court TRO hours before it came out by announcing a later date, August 25, for the signing of the agreement.

A close reading of the subsequent details in the converging stories wil show that the Supreme Court set the oral arguments for the case filed by the local officials of North Cotabato and Zamboanga City for the 15th of the month, a full ten days before the MILF’s adjusted date.

This ‘coincidence’ clearly allocates a full ten days more before the de facto deadline of August 25, breathing space enough for both the Supreme Court to either junk or allow the agreement (an extreme likelihood) and for the government of the day to ‘calm the fears of and win over’ the MoA’s oppositors.

A ‘cooling down period’, in a manner of speaking, right?

But as Makati congressman and lawyer-journalist Teodoro Locsin, Jr. clearly puts it: “It is the formal and voluntary dismemberment of the Republic,”

Mon Casiple, Executive Director of the Institute for Political and Electoral Reform (IPER) elaborates:“Based on the few precious details available, the scope of authority of the BJE seems to approximate–if not the same as–the authority of a local state in a federal state system. If so, what is going to be signed on August 5 will be beyond the autonomy mandated by the 1987 constitution.

The constitution speaks of a national state territory including all those mentioned in the agreement. It also speaks of a unified armed forces and police force. Further, it specifically defines autonomy as the only possible framework for Muslim Mindanao and prohibits any delegation of state authority outside of the constitution.

Article XII, Section 2 also stipulates that, “All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State.”

The political question that arises on August 5 is: Where did the President and her negotiators get their authority to promise what they cannot give?’

“If what they are thinking of doing is to change the 1987 constitution in order to shift the Philippine state from its current unitary system (albeit recognizing local autonomy) to a federal state system with local states, then they are putting the cart before the horse. They should do this before negotiating on a federal framework for the peace process.

Otherwise, they open themselves to the charge of treason based on the dismemberment of the Philippine State and to accusation of acceding to an agreement in bad faith–when they do not have the constitutional mandate for their negotiating position and their signature on the eventual agreement.”

Finally, the Philippine Daily Inquirer’s John Nery gives us a very clear reading:

‘”… my impression after two readings of the PhilippineDaily Inquirer’s copy of the draft MOA is that the basic framework is actually not the government’s, but the MILF’s.”

And behind all these, could there be method in the madness now unfolding, could it be that the agreement was designed to be un-implementable?

Is it doomed to fail, as least within the remaining life of the current administration?

This, in my view, can be gleaned from the indicative timeline for the establishment of the so-called Bsangsamoro Juridical Entity which Manolo Quezon (MLQ3) posted in his Daily Dose last night, with the graphics from Mon Casiple as reportedly prepared by a member of the GRP team.

The time line clearly indicates the BJE with its officials will not be in place until after the May 2010 elections. This simply means it will be up to the next president to clean up the mess that could result from the cloak-and-dagger manufacture of the agreement for the Bangsamoro ancestral domain.

MLQ3 also shared in Daily Dose a map of the prospective Bangsamoro Juiidical Entity as contained in the uncirculated official draft of the infamous GRP-MILF MoA:

Now pray tell us, is this treasonous or not?

Tags: , , , ,
Add to del.icio.us | Digg this! | Yahoo MyWeb | Google Bookmark It! | Stumble It!
About The Author: Ding G. Gagelonia is a journalist of some 30 years, having worked in both radio and TV news and public affairs since his teens. Ding Gagelonia now writes independently and does corporate communications consulting. He has two kids, Felice and Luis. His journalist blog is at midfield.wordpress.com

Filed Under Internet, Lifestyle, National News, Politics, Science & Technology, Society

Related Entries:

Comments

5 Responses to “The ‘GRP’-MILF Draft MoA: Designed To Fail?”

  1. Bencard on August 6th, 2008 2:45 am

    mon casiple and others who label the proposed peace agreement as “treasonous” would do well to review the essence of the crime of treason, preferably a legal professional who knows what he is talking about. Art. 114 of RPC, which defines treason as the act of levying war against the government or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. unless one can stretch the nature of the agreement as an overt act of “levying war” or “adherence to enemies by giving them “aid and comfort”, a charge of treason may have a golpe de gulat effect but i seriously doubt it will ever see the light of day.

    as to the speculation that the agreement was designed to fail, a sinister ruse to benefit gma (as to what benefit, i can’t figure out), this is a classic example of pinoy’s ingenuity to conjure up a monster to terrorize him. adel tamano’s unqualified declaration that the exercise is intended as a backdoor way of forcing a cha cha, in which gma can be allowed to extend her term, unless he has credible proof of it, is unbecoming even for a man of the law who is dabbling in politics. evidently, he has calculated that there are a zillion gullible minds who would believe him.

  2. Ding G. Gagelonia on August 6th, 2008 8:59 am

    Bencard,

    Gullibility? C’mon, sir. I thought you’d have a better ‘rationalization’ about the patent treachery to the nation that is playing out. I hope Teddyboy Locsin bumps intoi you one of these days so you tell him “gullible” to his face.

    But the discussions here at FV are certainly enlivened by the vigorous participation of a GMA apologist. Level the field somewhat. One request po. Honor and enlighten us with an extended cerebral piece one of these days, beyond your legalistic missives and interjections.

  3. Bencard on August 6th, 2008 9:40 am

    ding, i’d rather leave it up to you, intellectuals, to write those “extended cerebral pieces”. since this is an open blog forum (or so i think), i’ll just call it when i see it, including “legalistic interjections”, whenever i deem it appropriate. but you are wrong about one thing in particular. as i told somebody else here, i am not a gma apologist although i have a view of her different from yours and those of your fellow travelers. if that “levels the field somewhat”, that would be good. otherwise most of you guys would be preaching to the choir, and this “filipino voices” would be a chorus of all tenors.

    i don’t consider mr. locsin “gullible” but if the shoe fits, he could wear it. i just pointed out that when someone (who ought to know something about law) makes accusation of a crime, he/she better know what constitute such a crime, as the law defines it.

  4. Ding G. Gagelonia on August 6th, 2008 9:57 am

    Sir,
    We do not assume we are “intellectuals”. We are simply Filipinos who have no other country but the Philippines.
    And thank you, indeed for keeping the FV field level, anf hopefully level-headed.
    And you yourself know that here, the exchanges far from echo each other but hopefully cross-fertilize.
    Thank for going on record that you are not a GMA apologist, Atty. Cardinez. FV a “chorus of tenors”?
    That’s something to chew on “Preaching to the choir”? Hmmm…
    Stay well, po.

  5. jay on August 19th, 2008 8:40 pm

    bbbbbbbbbbbbb

Leave a Reply