In its first formal meeting since the drafting of the 1987 Charter, former members of the Constitutional Commission forged a consensus on the issue of Bangsamoro.
Representing the unanimous sentiment of fourteen of the eighteen (18) surviving members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission out of original forty eight (48) issued a statement on the Bangsamoro that deals with the vision, spirit and core principles behind the provisions on autonomous regions which to our mind constitute the essential constitutionality of the proposed Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL).
They said, Our Position on the importance of the Bangsamoro Autonomous region to the future our country is unprecedented both as an unfulfilled promise and as a model of equitable autonomy.
Their position also states: We fully support the creation of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region;
We believe that a new organic law is necessary to fulfill the vision and spirit that
guided the constitutional provisions on autonomous regions since RA 6734 and
RA 9054 have clearly not gone far enough to give life to the concept of autonomy
for Muslim Mindanao as envisioned by the Constitution;
We were aware in 1986 that we were imperfect instruments of the sovereign will of our people But however imperfect our perceptions then or our fading memories today, recurring questions on the “constitutionality” of the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB) and of the proposed Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) lead us to offer our insights.
Bangsamoro is about the development of people, not about the
constitutionality of words.
The core principle of the 1987 Constitution in mandating a special status for the
autonomous regions is the human development of the people of Muslim
Mindanao and the Cordilleras. Hence, the public conversation should not be
about semantics but about people – their needs, their aspirations, their choices and about empowering them with the environment and institutional framework
for social justice.
Social justice that calls for genuine social change is the central theme of the 1987
Constitution; and here, it is broader in scope and intent than in the 1973 and the
1935 Constitutions. An interpretation of any relevant provision of the
Constitution that results in war and abject poverty would be contrary to its
intention.
The people of the Cordilleras and of Muslim Mindanao do not want
war. They want human development and they want to be heard. And the
government needs to listen. This is mandated by a new provision in the 1987
Constitution on the right of the people and their organizations to effective and
reasonable participation at all levels of social, political, and economic decisionmaking.
The larger context of the CAB and BBL
Human development is a noble end in itself. But the larger context of the CAB
and the proposed BBL is our failure to effectively address the longest running
insurgency and the development of our peoples, especially those of Muslim
Mindanao.
The full flowering of the genius of a people is human development.
And it needs a place of its own because it is a basic human right.
Both sovereignty and property are premised on exclusion. That leaves us
with a problem. How do we reconcile our needs and our borders?”
If all human beings are free and equal, then each person is entitled to
belong somewhere and to obtain the things they need to live and to be free.
If people cannot obtain what they need where they are, or if they have no
place where they are entitled to be, then our exclusion of them denies
their humanity”.
The full flowering of Bangsamoro is assured if their leaders from a long line of
heroic resistance to colonization can believe that Bangsamoro, with meaningful
self-determination within the framework of the Republic, has a future and they
can help create that future.
Closing the gap between law and justice
International Law is not an iron law imposed by a supra-body above all nations
that disallows interpretations of words and language to fit the diverse situations
of individual nations.
We are not restricted from defining Bangsamoro as an integral and permanent
part of the Philippines, which is “sui generis” descriptive of the historical fact
that it is the “homeland” of Filipino citizens with institutions of governance that
conform with our Constitution. And our decision, rooted in its own history, can
become part of “international law” upon its approval in a plebiscite of those
affected by the creation of Bangsamoro, and by its acceptance by the community of nations.
Reason tells us that a Bangsamoro Autonomous Region can close the centuries old gap between law and justice and that we are on the cusp of a historic
opportunity to make it happen.
The negotiations on a Bangsamoro peace agreement have dragged on for 17
years. The Aquino government committed itself to bring the peace process to
fruition and has earned the trust of the Bangsamoro people that it will stay the
course. We must bring about that fruition, not because it is the will of one
man, but because it is the shared vision of a nation.
(Excerpts from a speech of Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio during the regional convention of Mindanao lawyers on November 20, 2007)
The efforts and sincerity of both panels are demonstrated by the broad
consultations that were conducted, by the explicit requirement in the BBL that
the new organic law should be in conformance with the Constitution, and the
unequivocal statement that the Bangsamoro territory shall remain part of the
Philippines. A new organic law is the second of a two-stage process mandated by
Article X, Section 18 and is the proper subject of the Supreme Court power of
judicial review. The CAB is equivalent to the first stage of that process
The price of peace
The story of how the Israel-Egypt Peace Agreement of 1978 despite its
acknowledged shortcomings, at least restored peace to their borders that lasts to
this day, exemplifies what ultimately counts in a peace agreement:
After 13 days of negotiations brokered by then President Jimmy Carter of the
United States, Israel Prime Minister Begin refused to sign the Agreement already
signed by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, primarily because it called for the
return of certain annexed territories to Egypt which he had said was nonnegotiable. Finally, the peace accord was signed between PM Begin and President Sadat.
This is peace-making without borders and self-limiting mental models.
But there is always a price to pay for any worthy vision. Sadat was assassinated by
disgruntled elements of the military in 1981 but not before he and Begin were
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
What our people want
The decision on the Bangsamoro will ultimately rest on what the people want of
our country. And what the deliberations and the overwhelming vote in the
plebiscite for the Constitution tell us is that they dream of a free people in a
democratic society where peace and justice reign. It was clearly a vision.
Among the signatories are Fr. Joaquin Bernas, former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., former Comelec Chief Christian Monsod, Bishop Teodoro Bacani, and Rene Sarmiento.
http://www.luwaran.com/index.php/welcome/item/1452-surviving-framers-of-1987-constitution-support-bangsamoro
They said, Our Position on the importance of the Bangsamoro Autonomous region to the future our country is unprecedented both as an unfulfilled promise and as a model of equitable autonomy.
Their position also states: We fully support the creation of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region;
We believe that a new organic law is necessary to fulfill the vision and spirit that
guided the constitutional provisions on autonomous regions since RA 6734 and
RA 9054 have clearly not gone far enough to give life to the concept of autonomy
for Muslim Mindanao as envisioned by the Constitution;
We were aware in 1986 that we were imperfect instruments of the sovereign will of our people But however imperfect our perceptions then or our fading memories today, recurring questions on the “constitutionality” of the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB) and of the proposed Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) lead us to offer our insights.
Bangsamoro is about the development of people, not about the
constitutionality of words.
The core principle of the 1987 Constitution in mandating a special status for the
autonomous regions is the human development of the people of Muslim
Mindanao and the Cordilleras. Hence, the public conversation should not be
about semantics but about people – their needs, their aspirations, their choices and about empowering them with the environment and institutional framework
for social justice.
Social justice that calls for genuine social change is the central theme of the 1987
Constitution; and here, it is broader in scope and intent than in the 1973 and the
1935 Constitutions. An interpretation of any relevant provision of the
Constitution that results in war and abject poverty would be contrary to its
intention.
The people of the Cordilleras and of Muslim Mindanao do not want
war. They want human development and they want to be heard. And the
government needs to listen. This is mandated by a new provision in the 1987
Constitution on the right of the people and their organizations to effective and
reasonable participation at all levels of social, political, and economic decisionmaking.
The larger context of the CAB and BBL
Human development is a noble end in itself. But the larger context of the CAB
and the proposed BBL is our failure to effectively address the longest running
insurgency and the development of our peoples, especially those of Muslim
Mindanao.
The full flowering of the genius of a people is human development.
And it needs a place of its own because it is a basic human right.
Both sovereignty and property are premised on exclusion. That leaves us
with a problem. How do we reconcile our needs and our borders?”
If all human beings are free and equal, then each person is entitled to
belong somewhere and to obtain the things they need to live and to be free.
If people cannot obtain what they need where they are, or if they have no
place where they are entitled to be, then our exclusion of them denies
their humanity”.
The full flowering of Bangsamoro is assured if their leaders from a long line of
heroic resistance to colonization can believe that Bangsamoro, with meaningful
self-determination within the framework of the Republic, has a future and they
can help create that future.
Closing the gap between law and justice
International Law is not an iron law imposed by a supra-body above all nations
that disallows interpretations of words and language to fit the diverse situations
of individual nations.
We are not restricted from defining Bangsamoro as an integral and permanent
part of the Philippines, which is “sui generis” descriptive of the historical fact
that it is the “homeland” of Filipino citizens with institutions of governance that
conform with our Constitution. And our decision, rooted in its own history, can
become part of “international law” upon its approval in a plebiscite of those
affected by the creation of Bangsamoro, and by its acceptance by the community of nations.
Reason tells us that a Bangsamoro Autonomous Region can close the centuries old gap between law and justice and that we are on the cusp of a historic
opportunity to make it happen.
The negotiations on a Bangsamoro peace agreement have dragged on for 17
years. The Aquino government committed itself to bring the peace process to
fruition and has earned the trust of the Bangsamoro people that it will stay the
course. We must bring about that fruition, not because it is the will of one
man, but because it is the shared vision of a nation.
(Excerpts from a speech of Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio during the regional convention of Mindanao lawyers on November 20, 2007)
The efforts and sincerity of both panels are demonstrated by the broad
consultations that were conducted, by the explicit requirement in the BBL that
the new organic law should be in conformance with the Constitution, and the
unequivocal statement that the Bangsamoro territory shall remain part of the
Philippines. A new organic law is the second of a two-stage process mandated by
Article X, Section 18 and is the proper subject of the Supreme Court power of
judicial review. The CAB is equivalent to the first stage of that process
The price of peace
The story of how the Israel-Egypt Peace Agreement of 1978 despite its
acknowledged shortcomings, at least restored peace to their borders that lasts to
this day, exemplifies what ultimately counts in a peace agreement:
After 13 days of negotiations brokered by then President Jimmy Carter of the
United States, Israel Prime Minister Begin refused to sign the Agreement already
signed by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, primarily because it called for the
return of certain annexed territories to Egypt which he had said was nonnegotiable. Finally, the peace accord was signed between PM Begin and President Sadat.
This is peace-making without borders and self-limiting mental models.
But there is always a price to pay for any worthy vision. Sadat was assassinated by
disgruntled elements of the military in 1981 but not before he and Begin were
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
What our people want
The decision on the Bangsamoro will ultimately rest on what the people want of
our country. And what the deliberations and the overwhelming vote in the
plebiscite for the Constitution tell us is that they dream of a free people in a
democratic society where peace and justice reign. It was clearly a vision.
Among the signatories are Fr. Joaquin Bernas, former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., former Comelec Chief Christian Monsod, Bishop Teodoro Bacani, and Rene Sarmiento.
http://www.luwaran.com/index.php/welcome/item/1452-surviving-framers-of-1987-constitution-support-bangsamoro
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.