Why the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) is flawed

The peace agreement is flawed ever since it was conducted and completed around but not within the limitations and boundaries provided by law and the Philippine constitution. It was erroneously inspired by the belief that the President’s power is unlimited. The chief of the MILF negotiating panel was perturbed, upon learning the misrepresentation by the executive branch that the latter has total, unbounded and absolute authority to negotiate and consummate the provisions of the agreement and the proposed BBL.

A flaw in the part is a flaw in the whole.

The Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) is a rebel group whose aim is to secede from the Philippine Republic. It has not acquired belligerent status that otherwise would entitle it to certain rights and recognition likened to that of separate state. Not  even, and before the time that this archaic notion had faded from the international law scenery, Belligerency is an obsolete concept and for quite a  time it had ceased to be part of practice, and had been taken over by the International Humanitarian Law- (see pertinent comments of international legal luminaries @ http://pcij.org/blog/2008/08/08/the-phantom-menace-of-belligerency-status).

Hence and apparently there being no other applicable laws that would govern and influence the MILF’s political status that should arbitrate and measure its act, the law of the Philippines which criminalized rebellion necessarily must prevail. Such that, all the appurtenant acts of the MILF would amount to no more but crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, the President being head of the executive branch has the alternative to either pursue and neutralize the MILF in fulfillment of his sworn duties, or grant a conditional clemency to the MILF subject to the modes and conditions prescribed by pertinent law, as a means, to cure the defect in the MILF personality. These should pave the way to a legitimate negotiation. Ideally and essentially, any of these acts should take precedence and exhausted towards its end by the government panel before granting concessions to the armed rebel group like the MILF. That is, if the government wanted to maintain the parameters of its executive limitations, and subsequently legitimizing its action. But, it appears that the government and the state negotiators had overstepped the bounds of its discretionary powers, and had succumbed to coercion from the barrel of the gun, which is a total departure from the state policy of non-negotiation and non-alignment with criminals and terrorist. Even so and rumor has it, that the rush to pass the BBL is likewise motivated by the intense desire to earn the credits, and be worldly recognize as a peace advocate, regardless of the cost to the republic. An exemplication of adherence to the theory of consequentialism.  The premature act of the President and the negotiating team had negated the value of people's initiative, and had legitimized rebellion and secession to be an effective means to policy and political change, even if it was imposed only by a minority in disregard of the unarmed majority and stakeholders. Noteworthy, is that a genuine peace agreement necessarily should be based on total participation, with serious consideration to other relevant perspectives, such as, the fear being raise by the Sultanate of Sulu with regards to its claim over Sabah. The sultanate’s apprehension is valid and real, since the possibility of the Bangsamoro promulgating a law that would fit the interest of Malaysia is never too remote. That is, the total abandonement of the Sabah claim when the Bangsamoro sub-state should come into being. Further, the absence of invitation to encourage total participation by all stakeholders in the negotiation may be construed to have been inspired, not really by the innocent obsession to achieve total and lasting peace, but rather as a means towards sectoral appeasement, and to satisfy the need for temporary convenience, at least for the duration of the elect's term.

The peace agreement and the BBL automatically grant absolution without due process (e.g. - laying down of arms), thereby ignoring the institution’s designated path to legitimacy and propriety. The current consequence (BBL) came before and ahead of promoting the rule of law, leaving behind the guidance of sound constitutional principles and theorems on popular will (e.g. -referendum). Hence, consequently creating the setting for a dangerous precedence.

Instead and contrary to the required fulfillment of certain acts required by law and the Philippine Constitution, the “Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB) was signed in 2014 committing the Philippine Republic to certain obligations and responsibilities that does not conform to the principles sanctioned by the Philippine constitution. Being so, such agreement could end up as unenforceable to even void. Resultant to this is the erosion of whatever trust that has been built between the parties. The CAB and the BBL for that matter had ignored and had intended to defeat the constitutionalized Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), the latter’s predicaments, rational and legal existence, that otherwise would require a constitutional deletion, beforehand. The agreement had assigned territories to the Bangsamoro without legislative approval and constitutional authority thereby mutilating the Republic in the spirit of non-guaranteed peace. The Bangsa Moro basic law in form and substance is a basic law. It is equivalent to and has lend itself to be a constitution of the Bangsamoro, intended not to be a part, but actually is distinct from the Philippine constitution, since it neither expressly provides for subservience, nor bear reference to the 1987 Philippine constitution to prevail in the event of conflict in policy and enabling law formulation. In reality therefore, the Bangsamoro would be a state within a state, with its own constitution, almost with equal rights, power and sovereignty with the Philippine Republic. It does not possess the similar safeguards embodied in the Philippine Charter, e.g. - inalienability of its natural resources; the 60/40 foreign ownership threshold of businesses in favor of Philippine citizens; preservation of national patrimony and territory, etc... The BBL’s consequence would be conferring upon the Bangsamoro government; the capacity and authority to enter into vicious trade agreements that would effectively undermine the sovereignty of the Philippine Republic as a whole, similar with that of the Trans-Pacific Partnership; to have total control and self-audit of funds it had accumulated and expended dismissing any accountability to the Philippine government;. the power to expand its territory beyond those provided under the BBL, thereby enhancing the prospect of extending the Bangsamoro’s power of domain to all of Mindanao and Palawan; self determination may include the possibility of engaging superpowers like China to explore and utilize the Philippine natural resources situated within its territory which supposedly is part of Philippine territory, hence eventually undermining the Philippine stand at the West Philippine Sea. These and many more are effects of the generalized provisions of the BBL and the related peace agreement that grants almost absolute power to the proposed Bangsamoro nation similar to that of an independent state. Such enormous power and funding is evidently non-conciliatory, if not hostile to the Philippine constitution, the applicable policies, and laws.

Given is that among the many obligations and duties of the President is to seek and maintain peace and harmony within its territory and among its people. He must do so with utmost vigor and resilience. But at the same time he must do so with diligence to prevent not only the breach of his covenant with the people but also to prevent the dismemberment and the utter destruction of the republic that he has sought to lead and sworn to protect.

“If it be asked, what are the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, an inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws — the first growing out of the last… A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government”. – (1794-08-28) by Alexander Hamilton

“If the end be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to that end, and is not forbidden by any particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority” .– (1791-02-23) by Alexander Hamilton


(See also; http://www.msn.com/en-ph/news/other/the-moro-struggle-as-myth-and-as-historical-reality/ar-BBi5eAe?ocid=iehp