3. What More They Say: I
GENERAL SANTOS CITY, May 11, 2012 – The “Decision” is a “breakthrough”. This is the tone of the popular reaction. Topping the commendation for the Parties in reconciling their positions is the optimism that a peace agreement will soon be reached; an influential leader in the Senate promised to lead in fulfilling the legislative aspects of the agreement.
Opinion makers in the Manila media, critics and keen watchers of Government-MILF peace negotiation are silent. Are they satisfied with the “Decision”? Is the Mindanao issue just drowned by more sensational national and international issues? Or, does the “silence” mean a “wait-and-see” stance?
As earlier posed, the intentions of the “Decision” are clear. But what it intends to happen may not be what the Parties really want to happen. In reality, principles as means are often interpreted to suit the ends of the interpreters. Will the Parties treat the “Decision” differently? What have they said to foster a “wait-and-see” stance?
According to Mandate
In his opening statement, GPH Panel Chair Marvic Leonen addresses “reports quoting various sources from the Moro Islamic Liberation Front voicing some concerns about the GPH and its position in relation to these negotiations” particularly in “decision-making procedures”. The panel receives its mandate from the President and those “we identify as stakeholders” through consultations, he explains. The President makes the policy, not the panel chair or the presidential adviser on the peace process.
Evidently, from Leonen’s explanation, the panel uses the empirical approach to arrive at its position. “Possibilities discussed during the negotiations, be they formal or informal, are simply that: possibilities for the consideration by the other side. They should never be confused for actual positions already. We do state when we are ready to take a position and to discuss the interest and reasons behind such positions. We take care that these positions are always just and legitimate.” [Emphasis supplied]
He continues to relate how the government panel came to agree with MILF to formulate the “Decision”, the principles of autonomy and their relevance to the negotiation. These will be discussed in “Recapitulation”, the concluding article of this series.
The empirical approach characterizes the President’s two-point order when he constituted the panel. The order as Leonen recalls in his post-signing statement: “(1) to consider the Government’s ability to deliver, politically, economically and socially, commitments made and signed at the negotiating table and (2) to continue sincere and open dialogues not only with the MILF, but also with all sectors affected by the negotiating process.”
Regarding the “common points” of the “Decision”, “these … are commitments that can be properly accommodated by our current legal and political realities [according to the first order]”. And more important for Government, “… having these common points in writing and making [the document] public are part of its sincere commitment to maintain transparency in these talks, as far as practicable, and to continue dialogues and consultations with affected sectors [according to the second order]”.
Mutuality, Scope
In his post-signing statement, Leonen, referring to the “Decision” as “the document”, first describes it as mutually acceptable. “For the GPH, this document is a preliminary listing of common points, which the Parties have mutually identified, coming from their respective initial positions: the MILF, from their February 2011 Revised Comprehensive Compact and the GPH, from its 3-for-1 August 2011 proposal.”
Of cynical remarks concerning the failure of Parties to agree “on the substantive issues at the core of the negotiations”, he says, “Today, we dispel this cynicism. We have collated our points of mutual understanding, which have, indeed, significantly inspired both the substance and direction of our discussions.”
Then he refers to the document as “an insight to the breadth and scope of issues encompassed by our discussions” pointing out that (1) “this document is not an exclusive statement of all common points which the Parties may already share, or which the Parties may find consensus on in the future”; and, (2) it is not “intended as a detailed and precise statement of agreements”.
What are among the intentions? It is a guide. The document “is a memorandum for the Parties of the general directions of the substantive negotiations”; it allows them “the necessary space to navigate the details and context in a comprehensive final agreement”.
As such a document, the “Decision”:
- ·articulates “in language mutually acceptable to [the Parties] the current extent of their consensus in the course of their long, difficult and productive discussions on the substantive issues”;
- ·lays “down [the Parties’] ostensible points of agreement or ‘common points’” that put in writing “fix their positions in the current stage of the negotiations” and also “help clarify various outstanding issues and more detailed questions that the Parties still need to explore”.
Mutually evolved, the “Decision” is a mutually acceptable guide of the negotiation.
Meaningful Autonomy
Acknowledging the June 2010 Declaration of Continuity, Leonen affirms Government’s “steadfast commitment to maintain the continuity of negotiations embodied in agreed documents”. This is significant. It can refer only to the past GRP-MILF agreements.
In obvious reference to the ARMM, Leonen states: “The GPH recognizes that the ‘status quo is not acceptable,’ and thus continues to pursue reforms in this respect.” He clarifies this when referring to the “Decision” as “this listing” he said:
“It is clear that what the Parties are discussing are the parameters of meaningful autonomy for the Bangsamoro people, under a new autonomous political entity that can replace the current ARMM created under Republic Act No. 9054. The autonomous political entity envisioned is a secular political unit, existing within the Republic of the Philippines, located within its territory and subject to its sovereignty as a State”.
Report and Invitation
In this opening and post-signing statements, Leonen was telling the MILF negotiators in the presence of the Facilitator and the International Contact Group of the government’s readiness to continue the negotiation and its desire to have an agreement signed early enough for the Aquino administration to implement substantially. They have agreed in the “Decision” the way to do it.
After the 27th exploratory talks, Leonen and OPAPP Secretary Teresita Quintos-Deles, in their press statements, conveyed to the people their optimism that with the signing of the “Decision” a peace agreement with MILF would soon be reached. At the same time, they invited them to participate actively in its achievement.
At the peace briefing in Malacanang on April 26, Deles expressed her confidence for the “Decision” to “pave the way for the eventual signing of the peace agreement” which will center on the “creation of a new autonomous political entity in place of the ARMM”. In that briefing, Leonen gave the assurance “such entity will definitely be with the Republic of the Philippines”. The assurance is a must to win support from the national majority.
As reported in the website of the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process last April 28, Leonen the government was making public the “Decision” due to its policy of transparency – to inform the people of the “direction and substance of the negotiation” and the “status and projection of the peace process”. The government panel will hold “more consultations” so as “to know the viewpoints of the public on the peace process”.
The same website reported last May 3 that Deles, in a speech, urged the “public to read and study the GPH-MILF issues” in order to “see how broad and deep the GPH-MILF peace process is”. She exhorted: “Ordinary citizens should take part in supporting and guarding the peace talks.”
At this point, the question is: Will the much awaited peace agreement come soon –sooner than soon? (“Comment” is Mr. Patricio P. Diaz’ column for MindaViews, the opinion section of MindaNews. The Titus Brandsma Media Awards recently honored Mr. Diaz with a “Lifetime Achievement Award” for his “commitment to education and public information to Mindanawons as Journalist, Educator and Peace Advocate.” You can reach him at patpdiazgsc@yahoo.com.)