Obviously, Article 1 of the Agreement enumerating five “Basic Undertakings” is most satisfactory. But Article 2, putting civilian protection under the IMT as its third function – its “Civilian Protection Component”’ -- has raised questions. However, these questions should be properly examined.

There is ground to be skeptical about implementation under the IMT – the team already burdened by ceasefire monitoring, its primary function. To erase this doubt, the GRP and the MILF panels have agreed to invite international and national organizations to expand the IMT membership and to do its expanded function. Still the doubt persists.

This question leads to a more basic question: Who implements measures necessary to remedy violations or problems (ceasefire, development, human rights) reported by the IMT? The IMT is only mandated to “monitor, verify and report”. 

From its deployment in 2003 to its phasing out in 2008, the IMT was credited for having reduced the number of military-MILF armed encounters – from hundreds to less than ten yearly. Was it the IMT who stopped or defused encounters? Under the agreement, the military and the MILF forces are obliged to heed the IMT reports. They did so the incidents lessened.

The same is expected to happen in the civilian protection function of the IMT. Article 2 of the Agreement states: “The IMT shall monitor, verify, report non-compliance by the Parties to their basic undertaking to protect civilian and civilian communities.” After the reporting of the “non-compliance” the burden of “implementation” rests on the “Parties”, not on the IMT. So, why burden the IMT with the question of implementation?

What the Mindanao People’s Caucus wants to happen is this: Set up “an International Mission for the Protection of Civilians in Mindanao” which is “very much focused on ensuring that human rights and international humanitarian law are observed and civilians are spared and protected in the conduct of war in Mindanao”.

This leads to still another question: Is it within the mandate of the GRP-MILF peace panels to create such a body? Its name suggests that as a mission for the protection of civilians its functions are much more beyond monitoring – meaning that if its reports are not properly acted, its sphere of action is not limited to the authority of the GRP-MILF peace panels; it can elevate its complaints to higher authorities.

Curiously, unquestioned is this questionable provision of Article 2: “Should the IMT cease to operate, the civilian protection component shall remain in place and continue to perform such functions.”

By this provision, the GRP-MILF peace panels have acknowledged the seriousness of civilian protection. And, logically, it is a strong argument for making civilian protection not just a component function of the IMT but a function belonging to a separate body like the one Mindanao People’s Caucus has suggested.

The inconsistency in the questionable provision is clear: When the main body ceases to operate, its component continues to function. How can that be? From whom or where will the component derive its power, its authority? 

The GRP-MILF peace panels should take notice of this anomalous situation when they meet to revise the Terms of Reference of the IMT to formally incorporate into the IMT civilian protection as its third function. To avoid the untimely demise of the IMT, its must have not just an ad hoc mandate but one co-terminus with the peace negotiation.

In that same meeting, considering the seriousness of civilian protection, the GRP-MILF peace panels should rethink the issue: Should civilian protection be just a component function of the IMT or should it belong to a separate body as proposed by the MPC? (Patricio P. Diaz / MindaNews)

---

Share this story through the following Social Media sites: