During the congressional hearing conducted by the Ad Hoc Committee on the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) in Poblacion Nuro, Upi, Maguindanao on October 22, so much goodwill --- and irritations--- have been generated from both supporters and oppositors of the proposed law.
This only shows how important the proposed law on the lives of the inhabitants not only of those in the proposed Bangsamoro territory but even those living outside of it.
The center of discussion was about the move of the oppositors to include the Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA) in the proposed BBL, which to its supporters is not necessary and relevant and will only create more problems rather than solutions.
While we respect both views, it is a fact, however, that the IPRA is for the indigenous peoples (IPs) while the BBL is for the Bangsamoro. It is as simple as that and let us not complicate it.
More importantly, the BBL is not a simple legislation but rightly as a legislated agreement on the basis of the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro (FAB) after 17 years of hard negotiation that the parties resorted to it, instead of continuing the bloody confrontations in the battlefield that claimed the lives of 150,000 combatants and civilians. The IPRA, on the other hand, is the result of a social movement not only of the IPs but including right-minded individuals, civil society groups, and the international community, who cared for the indigenous communities who were and are still the most marginalized sectors in this country. President Fidel Ramos, who was surely behind it and signed the IPRA law in October 1997, should get a big share of the credit.
While there is no direct mention of IPRA in the proposed BBL, but all the essentials elements including the four bundles of rights are in it; in fact, there are “more plus, plus.”
One such outstanding feature of the BBL which is not in the IPRA but only in the mining law is the “equitable share” entitlement of the IPs on the revenues generated from the exploration, development and utilization of natural resources that are found within territories covered by native title. Moreover, while there is no direct mention of IPRA in the proposed BBL, but all the essentials elements including the four bundles of rights are in it; in fact, there are “more plus, plus.”
What is equitable? It is a remedy or solution that is that is ethically or legally just and reasonable under the circumstances.
Why did the MILF oppose any direct reference to the IPRA in the BBL? First, the Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) has already given it the power and jurisdiction over ancestral domain and natural resources; second, the IPRA is tribal and clannish in application; third, it is not sufficient to address the concerns of the Bangsamoro over their ancestral homeland and ancestral domain, being surfaced-oriented legislation and never on the revenues generated; and fourth, drawing a line or delineating at any point especially in Maguindanao would create troubles not only between Moros and IPs but also IPs and IPS. Even the mainly IP municipalities of North Up and South Upi have mixed communities of Tidurays, Maguindanaons, and migrants; and besides, there were already land titles issued which must be respected.
Can we imagine the ill-effects of subdividing the Bangsamoro territory on the basis of tribes and clans (13 Moro tribes and one IP tribe and two or three sub-tribes, and countless clans)? Come, let us ponder on this!
http://www.luwaran.com/index.php/editorial/item/1302-bbl-and-ipra
The center of discussion was about the move of the oppositors to include the Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA) in the proposed BBL, which to its supporters is not necessary and relevant and will only create more problems rather than solutions.
While we respect both views, it is a fact, however, that the IPRA is for the indigenous peoples (IPs) while the BBL is for the Bangsamoro. It is as simple as that and let us not complicate it.
More importantly, the BBL is not a simple legislation but rightly as a legislated agreement on the basis of the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro (FAB) after 17 years of hard negotiation that the parties resorted to it, instead of continuing the bloody confrontations in the battlefield that claimed the lives of 150,000 combatants and civilians. The IPRA, on the other hand, is the result of a social movement not only of the IPs but including right-minded individuals, civil society groups, and the international community, who cared for the indigenous communities who were and are still the most marginalized sectors in this country. President Fidel Ramos, who was surely behind it and signed the IPRA law in October 1997, should get a big share of the credit.
While there is no direct mention of IPRA in the proposed BBL, but all the essentials elements including the four bundles of rights are in it; in fact, there are “more plus, plus.”
One such outstanding feature of the BBL which is not in the IPRA but only in the mining law is the “equitable share” entitlement of the IPs on the revenues generated from the exploration, development and utilization of natural resources that are found within territories covered by native title. Moreover, while there is no direct mention of IPRA in the proposed BBL, but all the essentials elements including the four bundles of rights are in it; in fact, there are “more plus, plus.”
What is equitable? It is a remedy or solution that is that is ethically or legally just and reasonable under the circumstances.
Why did the MILF oppose any direct reference to the IPRA in the BBL? First, the Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) has already given it the power and jurisdiction over ancestral domain and natural resources; second, the IPRA is tribal and clannish in application; third, it is not sufficient to address the concerns of the Bangsamoro over their ancestral homeland and ancestral domain, being surfaced-oriented legislation and never on the revenues generated; and fourth, drawing a line or delineating at any point especially in Maguindanao would create troubles not only between Moros and IPs but also IPs and IPS. Even the mainly IP municipalities of North Up and South Upi have mixed communities of Tidurays, Maguindanaons, and migrants; and besides, there were already land titles issued which must be respected.
Can we imagine the ill-effects of subdividing the Bangsamoro territory on the basis of tribes and clans (13 Moro tribes and one IP tribe and two or three sub-tribes, and countless clans)? Come, let us ponder on this!
http://www.luwaran.com/index.php/editorial/item/1302-bbl-and-ipra
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.