Seems like the whole Media fiesta that is raging around the the Dutertes of Davao City, specifically

on-leave
Mayor Saras fists and the Duterte father-and-son fingers is opening up old raw emotions about the
subjugation of Mindanao to the 100-year-old elephant in the room the legacy of colonial rule, Imperial
Manila. Many Davao folk have now taken to responding to perceived incursions of Manila-based pundits (not
to mention the investigation team sent by Malacanang to sort the sh*t out of Davaos quaint feudal politics)
into what they believe is their business.

Mind your own business apparently is the intelligent argument of choice of our Davao brothers, fellow
Luzonians. Is that a fair call?
Maybe it does hold water. After all, Filipinos for so long have seen their 400-year subjugation to the colonial
rule of Spain and then that of the United States over the first half of the 20th Century as shameful realities
of their history. This shame manifests itself in rather flaccid efforts mounted by one Filipino politician or
another over the last 60-odd years of independence to scrub off as many traces of this legacy as they
could from the cultural character (perhaps with a river stone, as tradition dictates). It started with
the summary re-writing of history declaring the 12th of June 1898 as the countrys day of independence
and relegating the realone on the 4th of July 1946 to some sort of token recognition of some imagined
friendship with the United States. And it all culminated with the kicking out of the Americans from their
military bases in 1991
Thanks to the 12 bozos who voted against US military bases in the Philippines in 1991 Senate President
Jovito Salonga, Sens. Wigberto Tanada, Teofisto Guingona, Rene Saguisag, Victor Ziga, Sotero Laurel,
Ernesto Maceda, Agapito Aquino, Juan Ponce Enrile, Joseph Estrada, Orlando Mercado, and Aquilino
Pimentel Filipinos have, right in their faces today, a sad lesson twenty years in the making in what it is
like to languish outside the American sphere of what is globally relevant.
Perhaps, today, the fact that the Philippines is still a nation that presumes to be composed of a northern
island historically ruled by a bunch of quaint Ilocano- and Tagalog-speaking tribes and a southern island
chain composed of largely Cebuano-speaking remnants of ancient sultanates, is a testament to the strength
and endurance of the colonial legacy of European civilisation in the Far East.
Beyond the passive-aggressive approach Filipinos take to loudly assert their indigenous identity above the
sheer weight of substance of European culture, not much more than a whimper comes out: laughable
changes in the names of major roads, a curiosity of an initiative to change the countrys name to
Maharlika, and, most misguided of all, imposing the northern imperial Tagalog dialect as de facto the
official national language. This inability to get beyond a rather pathetic idea of what being nationalistic
is all about begs a simple question:

Are we forcing the issue of a Philippine national identity?

One person who, along with Yours Truly, was cited by national treasure Manuel L Quezon III as delivering
among the most provocative works over the last twenty years is David C. Martinez. Martinez has taken a
scholarly approach to exploring the option of partitioning the Philippines into its natural constituent
nations
Poverty, inequality, and corruption plague the Philippines six decades after independence. Of the past five
presidents, only one took office and left it without military intervention, and he was a general. In his
controversial book, A Country of Our Own (2004), David Martinez describes the Philippines as a failed state.
The country in his eyes comprises five regions (nations): Cordillera, Luzon, The Visayas, Mindanao, and
Bangsamoro. He proposes holding legally binding referenda in each of these places to determine whether
those who live there wish to remain inside the Philippines or form their own independent country. In a
conversation moderated by Stanfords Don Emmerson, Martinez and the Filipinist scholar Lela Noble will
examine arguments and evidence relevant to a crucial question: Is the nation-state project still valid for
the Philippines?

Today, in the aftermath of the Duterte imbroglio, it seems that the issue of how different Mindanao is from
Luzon in both manner, style of thinking, and approach to governance has come to light. It is the elephant in
the room we could no longer ignore. Perhaps it is time we face the real debate on how viable this notion
known as the Philippines remains.
PARADIGM SHIFT| No
peace in Mindanao until
Muslims get their own
independent state
Posted on February 26, 2015 by Aland Mizell
IF WE WANT to have peace in Mindanao and particularly a self-sustained and long-term peace, we
need to be realistic, not just conjure up a quick fix. I endorse the current peace agreement between the
Philippine government and the MILF arguing that the peace process should continue, because the
absence of peace is war.

Understandably the people of this region are tired of war and want peace. But it would be nave to
believe the proposed Bangsamor Basic Law would bring long lasting peace to Mindanao. It is easy
enough for any rational individual to understand what Muslims in Mindanao want and why they have
been fighting for decades; they are loudly and clearly telling the Philippine government, Give us our
home back, and we will take care of our home. That is why passing the Bangsamoro Basic Law will
not put an end to the conflict in Mindanao.

Why can there not just be an independent Bangsamore State allowing them to do what they want to do
because ultimately they are going to do it anyway. Muslims have fought for decades for them to be left
alone, as an independent state with their own protection and leadership.

Undoubtedly, the Muslim people of Mindanao in the Autonomous Region are separated from the
Philippine government in many ways. The Philippines government obviously does not have any
sovereignty over the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM); if it did, those 44 police
commandos would not have died. Since Manila does not have control over the Muslims region, even
the Philippine government cannot conduct fair elections in the area and cannot have checks and
balances.

In addition, what has happened to the federal money that has been sent to the region? Where have those
funds been used? As of now state officials are hesitant to go there and implement initiatives or to
oversee ongoing efforts. Giving the Muslims their own state would not affect the Philippines as a
whole in any negative way after all, but rather would help. At least the government will not waste
Philippine tax money to make certain clans richer and richer. For Muslims to have independence, the
issues of the disputed Muslim territories must be resolved because it is very difficult to achieve
independence if the leaders do not know which territory they are going to control.

It is also nave to believe that if the Philippine government gives the Muslims their own state, there
would be any peace among them; the difficulty is that Muslims themselves need to unite enough to
form a government. As of now, if we do not see any fighting among the MILF, the MNLF, the BIFF,
or other Muslim rebel groups, it is because they all have a common enemy, which is the Philippine
state. Once the Philippine state gives them their own independent government, then they will fight for
power among themselves. It is true, though, that the Philippine government should not treat Mindanao
as a colony regardless of this probably outcome.

As a hindrance to peace, the large scale of corruption and a constant cycle of violence have empowered
segments of Mindanao. The poverty levels in its war torn areas are much higher than at any other time
or in any other part of the country, even though the Muslim region is rich in minerals, oil, and natural
gas. Experts already argue that the ARMM, set up in late 1980s, has been very bad. It is a corrupt
system of governance that empowers despotic warlords and nepotism. The peace must be accompanied
by the machinery of a true government that serves its people, not the corrupt few.
Every year since 1982 we have celebrated the International Day of Peace with the world promising to
end conflict, yet conflict still remains a painful reality around the globe. Likewise, conflict is the
greatest impediment to sustainable development on the Island of Mindanao. If we cannot put the
conflict to an end, Mindanao will still remain one of the poorest islands in the country, especially the
Muslim Autonomous Region. Peace sustains development, and development sustains peace. For these
reasons, both Muslims and the Philippine government should continue to make peace happen. The
more the Philippine government and the MILF push hard for peace to happen, the fewer people will
be killed in the conflict. The Philippine government and the MILF have already notched up some
important achievements by working together. We all know that without political commitments there
can be no peace. But making peace happen should not be reserved only for political leaders or national
or international organizations. Peace in Mindanao cannot be imposed from above. It must be fostered
from below, through third parties from churches, citizens, private organizations, among others, all of
whom stand to gain from the achievement of peace. The peoples cry for peace should convince those
at war that this current commitment to peace cannot be reversed, and that the guns must be permanently
silenced.

When we are involved in conflict, it is very easy to lose perspective. An angry man may seemingly
give his best speech but then he regrets it forever. Corruption in governance is the biggest obstacle to
peace in Mindanao, because it undermines trust and shared values that make society work. The reason
people pay taxes to the government is in return for essential public services, but when that government
starts to use public money for its own personal gain, then the benefits and services start to diminish,
followed by a loss of trust. All branches of government the legislative, judiciary, and executive
branchesalso have become compromised.

Corruption more often happens in autocratic systems where one person rules, so that there is no check
and balances among the branches, like in the ARMM region, because small groups of elites rule. The
effective way to keep corruption in check is to implement rule of law. If the current peace process
involves a broad swath of society, establishes balanced branches of government, and implements a
solid rule of law, then everyone will gain

Article excerpt

Introduction

Cesar Majul, a distinguished scholar of Muslim Filipino studies, relates the

following about the colonisation of Mindanao, which started in the early
twentieth century in the Cotabato region under the American colonial system:

When the Americans came to Muslim lands after

their arrival in the

Philippines, they initially labeled the

inhabitant[s] savages who

needed to be pacified.... The Americans then

assumed responsibility
 for westernising the Muslims so they would be as
capable of

governing themselves as the Christian Filipinos,

at least at

certain administrative levels. They sent

Christian Filipino civil

officials to Muslim area[s] to introduce new

ways of government to

the Muslims and to encourage both communities to

cooperate in civic

projects, in hopes of reducing deep-rooted

Christian-Muslim

animosity. Possibly, as part of this program,

they encouraged

Christian Filipinos to settle in Mindanao.

Before World War I, they

were even responsible for establishing at least

seven agricultural

colonies in traditional Muslim areas. Unlike the

Spaniards, the

Americans did not encourage Christian-Muslim

animosity. By sending

thousands of Christian settlers to Muslim lands,

however, they

sowed seeds of tensions and conflict between the

two communities.

(1)
Interestingly, all instances of 'they' appearing in the above quotation connote
'Americans'. Majul, equating the Christian Filipinos with the Muslims as 'the
colonised', explained that 'the Americans' had promoted the Christian Filipino
migration to Muslim areas. In the passage above, Majul obviously plays
down and masks the role played by the Christian Filipino elite (the ilustrado)
in Philippine colonial state-building. This description oversimplifies the
relationship between the Americans and the Christian Filipinos, the coloniser
and the colonised. Similar arguments can be found in other scholarly works
that emphasise the strong desire of the Americans to develop and exploit
Mindanao's abundant natural resources. (2)

Mindanao was viewed as a land of promise by the US military and American

capitalists and merchants who saw the island as having great potential for
economic investment. (3) Governor Leonard Wood of Moro Province, for
example, attempted various plans to develop the island. These included the
extension of the Public Land Act to Moro Province, the acceptance of
labourers to mitigate the labour shortage, the construction of customs posts
and an invitation to commercial shipping from Hong Kong to dock at
Zamboanga. Wood also enthusiastically supported railway construction in
Mindanao. (4) Meanwhile, Christian Filipinos also viewed Mindanao as a
land of promise, although in a different sense. Though initially not forming a
majority of the island's population, they had migrated in great numbers to
Surigao and Misamis in northern Mindanao at the start of the twentieth
century. Since their encounters with Mindanao began during Spanish rule, it
is worth examining how Christian Filipinos viewed Mindanao and how they
contributed to Mindanao's colonisation during this formative period of
Philippine colonial state-building.

In order to trace the role of the Christian elite, both resident in Mindanao and
elsewhere in the Philippines, this paper will focus on the workings of the
Philippine Assembly during the early American administration, through
which bills related to Mindanao's colonisation took shape from 1907 to 1913.
This study will explore in particular the debate between the Philippine
Assembly (hereafter the Assembly) and the Philippine Commission (hereafter
the Commission) over the bills, and will illustrate to what extent the
Assembly, as a Lower House, was involved in policy-making concerning
Mindanao's colonisation. It will also examine the motives and intentions of
these bills' authors against the background of a vociferous public debate over
proposals to separate Mindanao from the rest of the country.
Last of four parts

Will the Bangsamoro agreements help solve the root causes of rebellion in Muslim Mindanao?
The answer would give a fair indication whether the accords would succeed in its ultimate goal: lasting peace
in Mindanao. For if the drivers of discord and separatism continue to fester in the envisioned Bangsamoro
despite its enhanced autonomy, then the political, economic and social problems fueling separatism could
regain their centrifugal force.

There is, of course, no way to assess in one chapter of this special report on the peace accords how the
Framework Agreement and Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (FAB and CAB), along with their
six Annexes and one Addendum can affect every major grievance and problem fissuring Mindanao.
Still, analyzing the main drivers of insurrection would give a substantive idea of how positively the peace pact
could impact Muslim Mindanao. That is the focus of a key chapter in the Bangsamoro special report to be
published this week by the Center for Strategy, Enterprise & Intelligence, excerpted in this four-part article.
(For complimentary copies of the CenSEI report, email report@censeisolutions.com.)
Three of those paramount drivers of rebellion are the historic resistance of Mindanao Muslims against external
rule, the endemic and entrenched poverty and underdevelopment in their region, and the religious, feudal and
tribal frictions and confrontations pitting Mindanaoans against one another. Lets look at them one by one.
The quest for freedom

The struggle to establish a homeland for Mindanaos indigenous people, called Bangsamoro in the peace
agreements and annexes, springs from centuries of Muslim resistance against foreign subjugation, first by the
Spanish colonizers from the 16th to the 19th centuries, then the Americans in the 20th.
All that time, recounted Philippine Army Lt. Col. Alan Luga in his 2002 masters thesis at the US Army
Command and General Staff College, Mindanao and the rest of the Philippines were, in effect, separate
countries. The strong feeling among the Muslims that they constitute a distinct and separate nation from the
Philippine nationhood and that the Philippine government is a colonial government engendered a strong desire
for freedom and independence resulting in the organization of the resistance movement in the 1960s.
Writing in the Small Wars Journal last September, political risk analyst Priscilla Tacujan cites a strong
consensus among scholars of Philippine Muslim politics that the only practical and just solution to the ethnic
problem in Mindanao is to grant the Muslim insurgents exclusive right to their lands based on the principles of
self-determination and cultural separatism.

That seems to be the goal of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) in its peace negotiations, even asking
for a sub-state. The Bangsamoro Agreements get close, providing for a parliamentary government different from
the rest of the country, enlarged territory and shares of resources and revenues, an enhanced system of Islamic
Shariah justice, and the creation of a regional police not explicitly placed under presidential control as provided
in the Constitution (see Part 3 this past Wednesday).

The MILF had previously demanded even more powers, including the making of treaties with foreign states
stipulated in the Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain Aspect of the Tripoli Peace Agreement
of 2001 (MOA-AD) forged with the Arroyo administration. These were set aside at least for now after the
Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional in its 2008 ruling striking down the MOA-AD.
There could be efforts to further expand Bangsamoro powers or, as Part 3 warned, move toward independence
as the entity becomes more and more like a separate state. Hence, it is a must not only to follow and enforce the
Constitutions limits on autonomy, but also to show Muslim Filipinos that there are big gains in being part of
the Republic.
The imperative for development

Thats where the other two age-old obstacles to peace in Muslim Mindanao come in. Reducing poverty and
internal conflicts would uplift the masses of Muslim Filipinos and hopefully give them reason to stay with the
Philippines. Will the Bangsamoro Agreements help significantly to bring about these long-sought gains?
After nearly one and a half decades, the current autonomy initiative, the Autonomous Region in Muslim
Mindanao (ARMM), remains the poorest area in the country. And as the 2009 Maguindanao Massacre of 56
people has shown, as well as continued bombings, attacks and abductions, longstanding feudal, political,
religious and ethnic conflicts remain serious threats to peace, harmony and security in the south.

The Bangsamoro Agreements would channel more funds to the region. Besides increasing its share of mineral
revenues, the pact also empowers the envisioned entity to impose its own taxes. But public funds isnt really the
problem. The ARMM too had ample revenues as well as a huge chunk of the national budget. But as countless
reports have attested, massive corruption diverted mammoth amounts away from development needs.
As late as 2010, a Commission on Audit special report noted that the ARMM budget had P850 million set aside
for infrastructure, but not one construction project was completed that year. COA also reported that 90% of the
regions funds was allocated to salaries, but until now, that money has not been accounted for.
There is no provision in the Bangsamoro Agreements specifically targeting corruption. Further, it is debatable
whether the shift to ministerial government would address it. It may make it easier to replace undesirable leaders
and administrations. But as seen in the pork barrel scams, lawmakers themselves could be sources of corruption,
and they could very well abuse their enhanced clout in a ministerial system.
Moreover, the much greater power and resources enjoyed by Bangsamoro ministers and lawmakers may just
further intensify existing rivalries among political and social factions in the region, with even more clout and
cash to fight over. And if the military gives up its law enforcement functions as required under the FAB, there
would be less firepower to restrain Mindanaos private armed groups (PAGs).
The Annex on Normalization provides for a national government drive to dismantle PAGs in tandem with
decommissioning MILF forces. Just like progress and peace in Muslim Mindanao, however, that disarmament
goal in a land still rife with internal divisions and discord, will demand far more than the Bangsamoro
Agreements.
(The first three parts on the constitutionality of establishing Bangsamoro; on power sharing, geographic area,
and taxation and resources; and on security were published on April 4, 7 and 9. For the full Bangsamoro
report, email report@censeisolutions.com.)

* To end the root of Conflicts and to give peace a change in the Central and
Souther Philippines
* To end the internal race discrimination
* To protect the threatened cultures
* To have a self governance
* To fast-paced the dreamed progress by a fair distribution of collected taxes
of each states and for easy access of funding for Technology and
infrastructure Development
* To have a Good and equal representation from its States to a National
Government

The Visayas and Mindanao Language and Culture

The majority Visayas and Mindanao Language and culture have been rejected
by the manila Government and discrimination persist to these groups.

In spite of the majority spoken language by the whole country are Binsiayan or
also called Bisayan (Cebuano), the Manila government insisted that the
national language must pattern to Tagalog as the language of the people in
the capital.

People in the remote Visayas and Mindanao strive hard to understand

Tagalog but always failed and finally give up to get involved in the Manila
political discussion as it could not be understood by the majority Filipinos in
the Visayas and Mindanao.

People from Visayas and Mindanao are always at the last priority in anyway.
Job applicants from Visayas and Mindanao are less entertained compared to
the people from the Katagalogan regions.

The discrimination of Visayans and Mindanaoan seems to be never ending

which independence from the Manila Government is the best solution. An
independence that doesn't need to be a separate country from the Philippines,
a genuine independence that the discrimination will end, and independence
that the majority Spoken language "Binisaya" could be recognized as official
language for both Bisayans and Mindanaoans.

Huge amount of taxes from Visayas and Mindanao are also sip by manila
Government for its own development and less prioritized the impoverished
remote Visayas and Mindanao Islands. Independence of Visayas and
Mindanao could be the solution to have an even development in these regions
in par with what is in Manila now.

The root of Conflict

Manila government is so bold to intervene the Mindanaoan government in

selective way.
Manila could easily jump in and intervene the governance of any part of
Visayas and Mindanao for publicity but not heartily.

Until now the Maguindanao Massacre is not properly addressed. The victims
are still hungry for justice but the Manila Government is picky to give justice
for the victims.

The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) wants to focus on the Davao Death
Squad (DDS) which victims are drug pushers and drug lords but could not
focus on the Maguindanao Massacre which victims are innocent civilian and
media people.

It is right that we must not put the justice in our hand but the Commission on
Human Rights (CHR) must prioritize the case which victims and innocent
civilians and good people. The move of the Commission on Human Rights
(CHR) is seems to get in favor for giving justice firs for the sore of the society
than the innocent people who are victims of the massacre.

Manila Government jump into how Davao governs its people but it could not
jump into giving justice for the Maguidanao Massacre.

Manila culture and Mindanao Culture is absolutely different and direct

exposure is important for them to understand what Mindanao is.

What is the root of conflict in Mindanao by the way? Conflict begins when a
person is in the state of hunger and could not find any sources of bread to
feed the aching stomach. The root of all conflict in Mindanao is hunger,
hardship in life, joblessness, and injustice.

As long as the Manila government could not address the needed development
in Mindanao, as long as there is not justice, as long as there is no Job; the
Iron hand is needed to guide the people.

Rights group finds reason to probe Davao killings

The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) said it had found a pattern of

selective and systematic extrajudicial killings of 206 individuals accused or
suspected of committing various offenses by a vigilante group in Davao City
from 2005 to 2009.
CHR Chairperson Loretta Ann Rosales presented the commission's findings
on the activities of the so-called Davao Death Squad (DDS) in a statement
issued Wednesday.

The CHR faulted local officials for failing to conduct any meaningful
investigation into the killings, thereby violating the state's obligation to protect
the rights of its citizens.

It said the then city mayor, Rodrigo Duterte, as the local chief executive and
deputized Napolcom representative with general and operational control and
supervision over the city police force, had clearly disregarded information on
alleged human rights violations in Davao City, and did not act on them.

Rosales asked the Office of the Ombudsman to look into Duterte's

administrative and criminal liability for his inaction and for tolerating such
violations in his jurisdiction.

"It is axiomatic in human rights law that where there are human rights
violations, there must be accountability," Rosales said.

The CHR investigation was prompted by the search for accountability for the
many lives taken arbitrarily by the DDS, a group allegedly responsible for
summary executions of delinquents and drug traffickers in Davao.

Rosales said the number of persons killed could even be higher as the 206
figure was only based on what the CHR had in its records.

According to Rosales, dead bodies were piling up in Davao City during that
period, consisting mainly of addicts, drug pushers, thieves and young people
with police records for petty crimes. Many of the victims were minors.

Then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo established the Melo Commission to

look into the killings. Official concern from the United Nations came with the
visit of Philip Alston, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or
arbitrary executions, who visited the country in February 2007.

In his report to the UN Human Rights Council in 2008, Alston observed that "it
is a commonplace that a death squad known as the 'Davao Death Squad'
(DDS) operates in Davao City. One fact points very strongly to the officially
sanctioned character of these killings: No one involved covers his face."
The New York-based Human Rights Watch observed that the DDS "typically
make greater efforts to conceal their weapons than their identity."

The CHR at the time, then headed by now Justice Secretary Leila de Lima,
decided to conduct an investigation into the killings.

The CHR conducted public hearings in Davao City in March, April, May and
September 2009.

According to Rosales, the CHR's investigation was hampered by a climate of

fear gripping witnesses and by official denials from local government and law
enforcement officials that the Davao Death Squad even existed.

Still, enough evidence emerged that there was a pattern in the victims
targeted and in the methods of attack, she said.

"The killings were selective: The victim was usually involved or suspected to
have been involved in some type of illegal activity. The manner of killing was
also distinct: The assailants were usually motorcycle-riding gunmen," she
said.

Freedom and Independence of the Visayas and Mindanao Islands

Visayas - Mindanao Independence Not in Hand of Moros but for the Majority
People.

It has been several decades which the Manila government controlled the
Islands of Visayas and Mindanao Politically but not the economy as it missed
the Development Target for the Region because of Priority Development
which focused in the Capital Manila.

A call for unity and independence in Visayas and Mindanao is over shadowed
with fears and divided the people's vote because of the threat from the
migrants Muslims from the islands of Borneo who are in thein the Island who
want to dominate over the lumad and the majority Christian Populations in
Mindanao.

For several years, Moro group called for the independence of Mindanao but
gain only a very less support as their advocacy is over shadowed with crimes,
land grabbing and killings of the civilians in the island.
Recently a mask group of majority Christians and Lumad advocates starts
drafting for the "Movement for Independence for Visayas and Mindanao from
Manila Government for Peace and Development to attain the dreamed
progress and development without Manila intervention to assert their right to
freedom and independence as an expression of their right to self-
determination..

Right of Self-determination

The right of self-determination is the collective right of peoples to determine

their own future free of any outside interference or coercion. It is the right to
choose the kind of political status the peoples want and to freely pursue their
economic, social, spiritual and cultural development.

The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights expressly
provide that "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that
right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their
economic, social and cultural development".

In the exercise of that right, the peoples have wide latitude of choice. At one
end, they can demand and pursue within the nation state more political power,
active participation in the decision making and administration of government
affairs, equitable redistribution of economic benefits, and appropriate ways of
preserving and protecting their culture and way of life. On the other end, they
have also the right to organize their own sovereign and independent
government, or reclaim their lost freedom and independence.

In pursuing that right to self-determination the Christian and Lumad Advocates

are opting, as manifested both by the liberation movements and the civil
society, for the restoration of their freedom and independence that they
enjoyed for more than six centuries prior to the establishment of then country
the Philippines in honor of the invader king of Spain.

Long History of Independence

The historical experience of the Mindanaoan people in statehood and

governance started as early as 10 century under the Sultanate of Sulu which
Mindanao, Sulu and North Borneo as part of this old Kingdom.
By the time the Spanish colonialists arrived in the Philippines the Muslims of
Mindanao, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi archipelago and the islands of Basilan and
Palawan had already established their own states and governments with
diplomatic and trade relations with other countries including China.
Administrative and political systems based on the realities of the time existed
in those states.

For centuries the Spanish colonial government attempted to conquer the Sulu
states to subjugate their political existence and to add the territory to the
Spanish colonies in the Philippine Islands but history tells us that it never
succeeded. The Mindanao states with their organized maritime forces and
armies succeeded in defending the Sulu territories thus preserving the
continuity of their independence.

That is why it is being argued, base on the logic that you cannot sell
something you do not possess, that the Mindanao and Sulu territories are not
part of what where ceded by Spain to the United States in the Treaty of Paris
of 1898 because Spain had never exercise sovereignty over these areas.

The Mindanao resistance against attempts to subjugate their independence

continued even when US forces occupied some areas in Mindanao and Sulu.
At this time the resistance of the Sulu governments was not as fierce as
during the Moro-Spanish wars but group- organized guerrilla attacks against
American forces and installations reinforced what remained of the sultanates'
military power. Even individual Sulu and Mindanaoan showed defiance
against American occupation of their homeland by attacking American forces
in operations called prang sabil (martyrdom operation).

Opposition to Annexation

When the United States government promised to grant independence to the

Philippine Islands, the Mindanao and Sulu leaders registered their strong
objection to be part of the Philippine republic. In the petition to the president of
the United States dated June 9, 1921, the people of Sulu archipelago said that
they would prefer being part of the United States rather than to be included in
an independent Philippine nation.

In the Declaration of Rights and Purposes, the Sulu and Mindanao leaders
meeting in Zamboanga on February 1, 1924, proposed that the "Islands of
Mindanao and Sulu, and the Island of Palawan to the Spratly Islands be made
an unorganized territory of the United States of America" in anticipation that in
the event the US would decolorize its colonies and other non-self governing
territories the Mindanao and Sulu homeland would be granted separate
independence. Had it happened, the Mindanao and Sulu would have regained
by now their independence under the UN declaration on decolonization.

Their other proposal was that if independence had to be granted including the
Mindanao and Sulu territories, 50 years after Philippine independence a
plebiscite be held in Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan to decide by vote whether
the territory would be incorporated in the government of the Islands of Luzon
and Visayas, remain a territory of the United States, or become independent.
The 50-year period ended in 1996, the same year the MNLF and the
Philippine government signed the Final Agreement on the Implementation of
the Tripoli Agreement.

The leaders warned that if no provision of retention under the United States
would be made, they would declare an independent constitutional sultanate to
be known as Sulu and Mindanao Nation.

y Abhoud Syed M. Lingga

Chairman
Bangsamoro People's Consultative Assembly
Email: moroassembly@yahoo.com

(Paper presented during the Mindanao Tripeoples Caucus at the Royal Hotel Mandaya, Davao City on
September 10-12, 2002)

The Bangsamoro, as people with distinct identity and common culture, and with long history of political
independence in the same territory they presently occupy, continuously assert their right to freedom and
independence as an expression of their right to self-determination. For more than three decades the Moro
National Liberation Front (MNLF) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) wage the armed struggle
against the Philippine government as means to liberate the Bangsamoro people and their homeland from
Philippine colonialism. The repressive reactions of the government resulted to series of wars that cause
the death of thousands and displacement of millions of people, and destruction of properties.

This paper explores the democratic tract to find an alternative to war to address that deep-seated
sentiment for freedom and independence.

Right of Self-determination

The right of self-determination is the collective right of peoples to determine their own future free of any
outside interference or coercion. It is the right to choose the kind of political status the peoples want and
to freely pursue their economic, social, spiritual and cultural development.

The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights expressly provide that "All peoples have the right of self-
determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their
economic, social and cultural development".
In the exercise of that right, the peoples have wide latitude of choice. At one end, they can demand and
pursue within the nation state more political power, active participation in the decision making and
administration of government affairs, equitable redistribution of economic benefits, and appropriate ways
of preserving and protecting their culture and way of life. On the other end, they have also the right to
organize their own sovereign and independent government, or reclaim their lost freedom and
independence.

In pursuing that right to self-determination the Bangsamoro people are opting, as manifested both by the
liberation movements and the civil society, for the restoration of their freedom and independence that they
enjoyed for more than six centuries.

Long History of Independence

The historical experience of the Bangsamoro people in statehood and governance started as early as the
middle of the 15th century when Sultan Sharif ul-Hashim established the Sulu Sultanate. This was
followed by the establishment of the Magindanaw Sultanate in the early part of the 16th century by Sharif
Muhammad Kabungsuwan. The Sultanate of Buayan and the Pat a Pangampong ko Ranao
(Confederation of the Four Lake-based Emirates) and other political subdivisions were organized later.

By the time the Spanish colonialists arrived in the Philippines the Muslims of Mindanao, Sulu and Tawi-
Tawi archipelago and the islands of Basilan and Palawan had already established their own states and
governments with diplomatic and trade relations with other countries including China. Administrative and
political systems based on the realities of the time existed in those states. In fact it was the existence of
the well-organized administrative and political systems that the Bangsamoro people managed to survive
the military campaign against them by Western colonial powers for several centuries and preserve their
identity as a political and social organization.

For centuries the Spanish colonial government attempted to conquer the Muslim states to subjugate their
political existence and to add the territory to the Spanish colonies in the Philippine Islands but history tells
us that it never succeeded. The Bangsamoro states with their organized maritime forces and armies
succeeded in defending the Bangsamoro territories thus preserving the continuity of their independence.

That is why it is being argued, base on the logic that you cannot sell something you do not possess, that
the Bangsamoro territories are not part of what where ceded by Spain to the United States in the Treaty
of Paris of 1898 because Spain had never exercise sovereignty over these areas.

The Bangsamoro resistance against attempts to subjugate their independence continued even when US
forces occupied some areas in Mindanao and Sulu. At this time the resistance of the Bangsamoro
governments was not as fierce as during the Moro-Spanish wars but group- organized guerrilla attacks
against American forces and installations reinforced what remained of the sultanates' military power.
Even individual Bangsamoro showed defiance against American occupation of their homeland by
attacking American forces in operations called prang sabil (martyrdom operation).

Opposition to Annexation

When the United States government promised to grant independence to the Philippine Islands, the
Bangsamoro leaders registered their strong objection to be part of the Philippine republic. In the petition
to the president of the United States dated June 9, 1921, the people of Sulu archipelago said that they
would prefer being part of the United States rather than to be included in an independent Philippine
nation.

In the Declaration of Rights and Purposes, the Bangsamoro leaders meeting in Zamboanga on February
1, 1924, proposed that the "Islands of Mindanao and Sulu, and the Island of Palawan be made an
unorganized territory of the United States of America" in anticipation that in the event the US would
decolorize its colonies and other non-self governing territories the Bangsamoro homeland would be
granted separate independence. Had it happened, the Bangsamoro would have regained by now their
independence under the UN declaration on decolonization. Their other proposal was that if independence
had to be granted including the Bangsamoro territories, 50 years after Philippine independence a
plebiscite be held in Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan to decide by vote whether the territory would be
incorporated in the government of the Islands of Luzon and Visayas, remain a territory of the United
States, or become independent. The 50-year period ended in 1996, the same year the MNLF and the
Philippine government signed the Final Agreement on the Implementation of the Tripoli Agreement. The
leaders warned that if no provision of retention under the United States would be made, they would
declare an independent constitutional sultanate to be known as Moro Nation.
In Lanao, the leaders who were gathered in Dansalan (now Marawi City) on March 18, 1935 appealed to
the United States government and the American people not to include Mindanao and Sulu in the grant of
independence to the Filipinos.

Continuing Assertion for Independence

Even after their territories were made part of the Philippine republic in 1946, the Bangsamoro people
continue to assert their right to independence. They consider the annexation of their homeland as illegal
and immoral since it was done without their plebiscitary consent. Their assertions manifest in many forms.

The armed resistance of Kamlon, Jikiri and Tawan-Tawan were protests against the usurpation of their
sovereign right as a people. Those who joined the Philippine government used the new political system
they were in to pursue the vision of regaining independence. Congressman Ombra Amilbangsa filed
House Bill No. 5682 during the fourth session of the Fourth Congress that sought the granting and
recognition of the independence of Sulu. As expected, the bill found its way in the archive of Congress
since there were few Muslim members of Congress. Then on May 1, 1968, the provincial governor of
Cotabato, Datu Udtog Matalam, made a dramatic move. He issued the Mindanao Independence
Movement (MIM) manifesto calling for the independence of Mindanao and Sulu to be known and referred
to as the Republic of Mindanao and Sulu.

When it became evident that it would not be possible to regain independence within the framework of the
Philippine nation state system, the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) was organized to wage an
armed struggle to regain independence. When the MNLF accepted autonomy within the framework of
Philippine sovereignty a faction of the MNLF separated and formed the Moro Islamic Liberation Front to
continue the armed struggle for independence. The MILF is still fighting the government forces.

The clamor for independence is not only among the liberation fronts but also among other sectors of the
Bangsamoro society. The 1,070,697 delegates to the First Bangsamoro People's Consultative Assembly
(BPCA) held on December 3-5, 1996 in Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao were unanimous in calling for
reestablishment of the Bangsamoro state and government.

The hundreds of thousands of Bangsamoro who participated in the Rally for Peace and Justice held in
Cotabato City and Davao City on October 23, 1999, in Marawi City on October 24, 1999 and in Isabela,
Basilan on December 7, 1999 issued a manifesto stating, "we believe that the only just, viable and lasting
solution to the problem of our turbulent relationship with the Philippine government is the restoration of
our freedom, liberty and independence which were illegally and immorally usurped from us, and that we
be given a chance to establish a government in accordance with our political culture, religious beliefs and
social norms."

Bangsamoro leaders headed by Sultan Abdul Aziz Guiwan Mastura Kudarat IV of the Sultanate of
Magindanaw meeting in Cotabato City on January 28, 2001 expressed their strong desire to regain the
Bangsamoro independence. The Declaration of Intent and Manifestation of Direct Political Act they issued
states:

"As sovereign individuals, we believe that the Bangsamoro people's political life, as matters stand, call for
an OIC-sponsored or UN-supervised referendum in the interest of political justice to decide once and for
all:

To remain as an autonomous region

To form a state of federated union
To become an independent state.

The Second Bangsamoro People's Consultative Assembly held on June 1-3, 2001 at the same place, this
time attended by 2,627,345 delegates from all over the Bangsamoro homeland, including representatives
of non-Muslim indigenous communities, unanimously declared that "the only just, meaningful, and
permanent solution to the Mindanao Problem is the complete independence of the Bangsamoro people
and the territories they now actually occupy from the Republic of the Philippines."

Repression

When the Bangsamoro revolutionary leaders went for armed struggle to pursue their right for freedom
and independence the Philippine government responded with repression. The military suppression of the
legitimate struggle of the Bangsamoro people resulted to the off and on war that caused tens of
thousands of death tolls, displacement of millions of people (hundreds of thousands are still in the
neighboring Malaysian state of Sabah), and destruction of properties worth billions of dollars. In addition,
military spending to wage the war have reached billions of dollars a huge amount of spending that would
have been spent for basic infrastructures like farm to market roads, school buildings, hospitals, and other
social services badly needed by the people.

The military solution did not work and will not put an end to the Bangsamoro struggle. The colonial
government may succeed in suppressing one generation of fighters, but a new generation will succeed
them.

Even autonomy, which was a product of the negotiations between the MNLF and the government, fails to
address the genuine desire of the Bangsamoro people for freedom and independence, thus the struggle
continues.

Referendum

To address the political issue of the problem without resorting to war is to give the Bangsamoro people a
chance to choose their political status with respect to their relation to the Philippine government through a
referendum. They shall choose whether they want to remain part of the Philippines or to be free and
independent. To accommodate other proposals, questions whether to retain the existing autonomous
relation or to be changed to a federated relationship with the Philippines can also be included.

Referendum would give the Bangsamoro people the opportunity to make the final decision on their
political status, not just their leaders. It is the democratic and peaceful way of resolving political conflicts.
It has been used in many countries, like in Czechoslovakia, in the Canadian province of Quebec, in East
Timor and many other countries. Countries that refuse to use this internationally accepted democratic
mechanism suffer the consequences of war, like the former Yugoslavia, the Philippines, etc.

The referendum shall be held in areas where the Bangsamoro people presently occupy. This includes the
provinces of Maguindanao, Lanao del Sur, Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi, and the cities of Cotabato,
Marawi and Isabela. There are also towns in the provinces of Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, South Cotabato,
Sarangani, Davao del Sur, Davao Oriental, Lanao del Norte, Zamboanga del Sur, Zamboanga del Norte,
Zamboanga Sibugay and Palawan that should be included, subject for discussion with the people in the
areas. Territories that will vote for independence shall constitute the independent Bangsamoro state.

The referendum has to be supervised by the United Nations in order that the result will be acceptable to
all parties. Common sense dictates that a party to a conflict, like the Philippine government, cannot be
credible to conduct or supervise such political exercise. The UN is the best body to oversee the
referendum to ensure that whatever will be the result will be respected by all parties and implemented. If
there are groups that would not respect the result of the referendum the UN can organize its force to
disarm them.

If we have to avoid war, this is the best political option. The Philippine government and the Bangsamoro
liberation fronts have to agree to a referendum if their leaders are indeed statesmen. Statesmanship of
leaders is not measured on how bloody and how long they can suppress the people's right to self-
determination but how they see through that they enjoy this fundamental human right. History is never
been kind to leaders who do not hesitate to use military might to suppress people's aspiration to be free.