From GMA News (Feb 26): Understanding the Bangsamoro construct (by
The first understanding that needs to be put in the ‘right place’ is the very use of the word - ‘Bangsamoro’. This is a new political construct dating from the MNLF use of the word in 1972.
The Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro or FAB and the 4 Annexes use the word Bangsamoro in three levels: Bangsamoro as Identity; Bangsamoro as Territory; and Bangsamoro as Government. In all three levels, Bangsamoro is NOT merely historical or cultural concept; it is a political construct, first and foremost. The 4 Annexes are actual negotiations of powers and wealth sharing and territory.
The first understanding that needs to be put in the ‘right place’ is the very use of the word - ‘Bangsamoro’. This is a new political construct dating from the MNLF use of the word in 1972.
The Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro or FAB and the 4 Annexes use the word Bangsamoro in three levels: Bangsamoro as Identity; Bangsamoro as Territory; and Bangsamoro as Government. In all three levels, Bangsamoro is NOT merely historical or cultural concept; it is a political construct, first and foremost. The 4 Annexes are actual negotiations of powers and wealth sharing and territory.
The word Bangsamoro in all three levels is a paramount political construct, because IDENTITY matters. It is an important issue that must not be taken lightly. This new political construct would define and shape the Bangsamoro identity, territory and government. It would have consequences to the existing other political constructs like Muslim Mindanao, Indigenous Peoples and ‘Christian Settlers’ in Mindanao.
FAB defines ‘Bangsamoro’ as “those who at the time of conquest and colonization were considered natives or original inhabitants of Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago and its adjacent islands including Palawan, and their descendants whether of mixed or of full blood shall have the right to identify themselves as Bangsamoro by ascription or self-ascription”. Then it goes further to recognize the spouses… To wit: “Spouses and their descendants are classified as Bangsamoro”.
The non-Islamised people of the Southern Philippines ask whether the word Bangsamoro would include ALL the inhabitants of the Bangsamoro Territory. The current definition and uses of the word Bangsamoro as defined in the FAB and the Annexes point to an Identity that is ‘Exclusive’ to the natives and original inhabitants, their spouses and their descendants no matter whether they are mixed or pure blood. Thus the IP’s are classified as Bangsamoro, the Christian Settlers and their descendants, however, are excluded unless they are of ‘mixed blood’ or ‘spouses’ of a Bangsamoro.
The people also ask whether the Basic Law would recognize and respect different and multiple identities within the Bangsamoro Area? Would the Bangsamoro identity enjoy certain privileges and entitlements that the non-Bangsamoro would NOT enjoy like qualifying for certain positions either elective or appointive?
If the Bangsamoro Identity would mean entitlement and privileges, the non-Bangsamoro inhabitants within the territorial coverage of the autonomy would feel not only discriminated but they would feel that the equal protection of laws would not apply thus it would be violative of the Constitutional equal protection clause.
In the existing ARMM, though both RA 6734 (Cory’s Organic Act) and RA 9054 (post 1996 FPA) do not discriminate on the basis of religion or ethnicity, the actual practice has been ‘exclusion’ of IP’s and Christians in all top positions both elective and appointive. To wit: NO Christian or IP has ever been appointed since 1989 to any cabinet positions or elected to the Regional Legislative Assembly. While the Law allows for sectoral representations, the ARMM government, particularly the RLA, has NOT acted on this provision. As a result, NO IP or Christian inhabitant had occupied any cabinet position or a member of the RLA (except when PNoy directly appointed sectoral representation even without any RLA legislation.
While in the National Government there are growing awareness to become inclusive both in the appointive and elective positions, the same cannot be said of the ARMM. While the moves in the national level are still wanting, but one sees genuine efforts and attempts to be inclusive in governance. Except for PNoy Government, there always has been Muslim Representation in the Cabinet since the time of President Diosdado Macapagal.
The creation of the two Commissions - The National Commission on Muslim Filipinos (NCMF) and the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) that enjoy cabinet ranks is, yet, another testimony of this inclusive attempt. While we still await an appointment of qualified Muslim or IP as Justice in the Supreme Court, there are strong moves and lobby to this effect.
With the above considerations, the question whether there would be IP or Christian (minority) representation in the Bangsamoro Transitional Authority (BTA) would tell whether the new Bangsamoro would be inclusive or exclusive. If the Bangsamoro Transitional Commission (BTC) would be the measure, one sees the inclusive attempts on the part of both the GPH and the MILF by including among their nominees, IPs and Christian. As it is, the BTC has two IPs and a Christian notwithstanding the exclusionary clause in the FAB.
While Bangsamoro Identity is limited to the natives and original inhabitants (prior to the conquest and colonization), spouses and their descendants, the Bangsamoro Territory and the Bangsamoro Government should be inclusive of all inhabitants of the areas. There should be NO religious or ethnic or national test for both appointive and elected positions within the Bangsamoro structures. Else the whole Bangsamoro becomes exclusionary and discriminatory, and such institution/s would not be sustainable, in the long terms. CUIDATE!