COTABATO CITY (MindaNews/19 August) — This is the first of two reflections on how to assess the MOA-AD between the GRP and the MILF in the light of our quest for lasting peace in Mindanao.

Many people reject the MOA-AD because they say the document is giving away Philippine territory to the Moros. It is a dismembering the Philippine Republic.

Other reasons for absolute rejection are:

• The Filipino people were not consulted.
• Even if there will be plebiscites, these will be rigged to favor the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity;

• The Bangsamoro Juridical Entity is simply another name for an Islamic State independent of the Philippines;
• President Macapagal-Arroyo allegedly wants the MOA-AD because it would mean a change in the Constitution to extend her term;
• The President is allegedly so corrupt that we cannot simply trust her with any agreement;
• The United States reportedly influenced the peace process and the MOA-AD because it wants an American military base in southern Philippines and has economic interests in the area.

One observes that most of the above reasons are external to the contents of the MOA-AD. The MOA-AD is not being judged on its own merits. The document is being rejected because of suspicions regarding possible circumstances surrounding it.  

For this reason may I tell a story.

The master told his disciples this parable. Jane, a jeweler, saw a beautiful diamond in a shop. She admired and desired it. Unfortunately her competitor, Juan, owned the shop. Juan was reputed to be dishonest and always wanted to take advantage of his customers. But the more Jane looked at the diamond, the more she liked it. So she asked Juan, “How much is that diamond?” “750,000 pesos,” said Juan. Jane was shocked. “The price is too high for such a small diamond!” “Take it or leave it,” answered Juan. But Jane really liked the diamond. So she asked, “Is it genuine?” Another gentleman entered the conversation and said, “Oh, yes. I certify it is genuine. By the way my name is William. I shaped the diamond myself.” Really desiring the diamond, Jane said, “I know you, but can I have the diamond examined?” Both Juan and William agreed. So the next day, Jane brought her husband, Jose, who was an expert diamond examiner. Using his examining tools, Jose scrutinized the diamond from every angle for a whole hour, noting every facet of it. Then he took his wife aside and whispered to her, “You know how much I dislike Juan and suspect that fellow William. I must admit that the diamond is 100% genuine. There is no doubt. But I have noticed certain flaws in the shaping. So try to bring the price down, we can correct the flaws.” So Jane bargained. After a while, Juan and Jane agreed on 700,000 pesos. Both were happy and became good friends.

The disciples asked, “Master, why did Jane buy the diamond from people she did not trust?” “Because the diamond, though imperfect, was genuine,” said the Master. (Cotabato Achbishop Orlando B. Quevedo earlier wrote a five-part series on the MOA-AD)            Last of two parts 

COTABATO CITY (MindaNews/20 August) — Violence is breaking out once again in Southern Philippines. Doubly tragic because such violence could be prevented. The popular rejection of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain has separated the positions of Moros and Christians quite clearly.

Many Moros are now saying, “Christians will never recognize our fundamental right to self-determination as a people. We do not want an independent State. We simply want self-determination in our ancestral land.” On the other hand, Christian Filipinos are passionately affirming their stand, “We do not want to be driven away from our lands. We do not want any Philippine territory to be taken away. We do not want to be part of the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity.”

The great tragedy for the country is that the MOA-AD is being rejected for reasons that can be resolved or may not even be in the MOA-AD. It is as though our fears and prejudices have become the measure for judging the Memorandum of Agreement. There is no substitute to actually reading and studying the document – in itself – to know what it says, to know what it does not say, and to realize the implications of all these. By rejecting the Memorandum of Agreement on the basis of misconception, prejudices and misinformation, we may be throwing out a “piece of paper” that could very well be a good working basis for lasting peace in Mindanao.

Many Filipinos reject the MOA-AD mainly on the following bases:

(1)  It is dismembering the Republic of the Philippines;|

(2)  It has certain unacceptable or at least questionable provisions;

(3)  The Filipino people were not consulted;

(4)  The present government cannot be trusted;

(5)  President Arroyo wants the MOA-AD in order to extend her term;

(6)  The United States had a “hidden” hand in the MOA-AD because of its own interests.

The first and second objections concern the content of the MOA-AD. The third objection is about process. The third, fourth, fifth and sixth objections are about circumstances external to the document.

I believe that all of us should let the MOA-AD speak for itself.  To do this may I suggest some points for reflection.

On the concept of Bangsamoro self-determination:

• Do Christian Filipinos recognize that the right to self-determination is a fundamental right?
• Is such a right unconstitutional?
• Are the Bangsamoro people entitled to such a right?

On the Bangsamoro homeland or ancestral domain:

• In their history have the Bangsamoro people ever exercised the right to self-determination and sovereignty?
• Are we, Christian Filipinos, aware that even before the Spaniards came, the Bangsamoro people already had a system of political authority that held sway over a domain that covered most parts of Mindanao and Sulu?
• Despite Spanish and American colonizers, did leaders of the Bangsamoro people continue to claim political authority over their ancestral domain?
• Within the short space of 50 years, from the 1920s to the 1970s, did not Christian Filipinos completely reverse the demographic, territorial, and political situation in Mindanao and Sulu partly through a series of land laws that sent several waves of migrating Christians from the Visayas and Luzon?
• Are we aware that while we Christians call this historical, demographic, and political development quite legal, members of the Bangsamoro believed and continue to believe that this was an injustice to their historic claim to their lands and to the self-determination that they – for a long time – once exercised in their territory?

On Bangsamoro self-determination and exercise of sovereignty in relation to the national sovereignty and territorial integrity:

• Does Bangsamoro self-determination and exercise of sovereignty in their ancestral domain necessarily mean political independence from the Republic of the Philippines?
• Does the MOA-AD say that the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity is a separate and independent State? Does it intend to set up such a State?
• Is there internal evidence in the MOA-AD that in fact it does not intend to do so, and that the agreement is not setting up an independent State?
• Does the MOA-AD say, even if only equivalently, that it is breaking up the territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines? 

If the document has internal merits, surely the problems of lack of consultation can be worked out. Flaws in the concepts and content can be remedied. Suspicions about the hidden hand of the United States or the hidden intentions of the President Macapagal Arroyo behind charter change can be resolved in their own context. But these to my mind are basically extraneous to the internal validity of the MOA-AD. We can surely correct its faults.

But to reject the MOA-AD completely on the basis of what it does not say could be a tragedy of incalculable proportion, possibly a death knell to lasting peace. The two panels have painstakingly worked out the peace documents for 11 long years. I would give them the benefit of the doubt that they have been conscientious in their work, looking out for the interests of their constituencies.  

It is my firm conviction that if only the MOA-AD is allowed to speak for itself or examined on its own merits, it can be a good working document for lasting peace in Mindanao. (Cotabato Achbishop Orlando B. Quevedo earlier wrote a five-part series on the MOA-AD)