In an old post, I have tired to explain that –

The problem today in Mindanao was first spawned by dispossession through Christian settlements encouraged by the government in Manila, and by the central authority’s requirements of land ownership based on priority of claims. Many Muslims and indigenous people have always thought themselves to be “sovereign” in their own realms and never considered the land acquisition procedure applicable to them. (The dispossession was a painful parallel of the forcible removal and uprooting of the “American Indians” pursuant to an official act of the US Congress, and the land usurpation and settlements of the Western frontiers by the American “pioneers” to pave the way for a modern capitalist economy under the ideology of “Manifest Destiny”—America’s mission to extend the “boundaries of freedom” and impart its “high ideals.” Stripped of pomposity, the rhetoric of Manifest Destiny was no more than an arrogation of superiority and ambition for land by white Americans.)

After the new Philippine Republic had taken over from the Americans, the influx of Christian migrants intensified. No sooner, the Christians settlers began to outnumber the Muslims and the Lumads. What followed was a profound economic disparity throughout Mindanao between the Muslims and the Lumads on the one hand, and the Christians on the other as a result of the conversion of ancestral lands into homesteads, plantations and industrial properties for local and foreign investors.

Now, Dean Jorge Bocobo complains about “the absurdity that Tagalogs, Pampangos, Ilocanos, Cebuanos and ALL Christianized groups are considered ‘non-indigenous peoples’ of the Philippines.”

Indigenous peoples are considered indigenous because they descend from the population of the country that inhabited it at the time of conquest, colonization or forcible mapping and preserve some, if not all, of their way of life.

Hence, the “Tagalogs, Pampangos, Ilocanos, Cebuanos and ALL Christianized groups are considered ‘non-indigenous peoples’ of the Philippine” because their way of life has been essentially replaced or supplanted by the social, economic, cultural, and political traditions, customs or institutions of the conquerors or colonizers.

Although I advocate for the adoption of federalism to settle the long-standing Mindanao conflict, I actually don’t have as much sympathy for the Moros’ cause as for the Lumads,’ given that the Moros were themselves conquerors and colonizers.

What I don’t understand is that if one of the goals of the ongoing peace process is self-determination for the indigenous people of Mindanao (whether what’s aspired for is in fact assimilation in the proposed Bangsamoro or in the broader Philippine society or preservation of their non-state status), or at least allowing them to be active participants in the long and great efforts for recognition and implementation of their own human rights, and in the redefinition of their relationship with the “outsiders,” why is the GRP only dealing with the MILF for the “juridical” creation of the Bangsamoro? No wonder, those who sense they are being forcibly “gerrymandered” into a new territory without their consent are up in arms.

And why is there a need at this point for the creation of a centralized Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) separately from what’s supposedly a decentralized Bangsamoro?

On the other hand, I think the Supreme Court has overstepped its constitutional boundary by issuing a TRO against the President’s alter egos on a matter where presidential dominance is constitutionally acknowledged as the norm. The Court owes the President great deference in the exercise of her power to continue waging war or negotiating for peace where undercutting the presidential initiative may also result in national embarrassment before the international community. Interestingly, now that it’s apposite for the Court to protect executive privilege or the independence of the executive (at least at this stage of the peace negotiation), it has unfortunately chosen – and quite precipitously – to be on the other side (i.e., the wrong side) of the fence. When will the SC ever get it right?

Fatal error: Call to undefined function p75HasVideo() in /homepages/39/d169067170/htdocs/voices/wp-content/themes/NewFV/single-default.php on line 57