Philippines breakup as the way to peace and development?

Romeo A. Reyes ,  Manila   |  Tue, 09/02/2008 10:19 AM  |  Opinion

Peace is a paramount objective of governance. And so is human development, which is about reducing and eventually removing deprivation of basic necessities -- food, clothing, shelter and access to basic social services such as health and education. Human development is also about reducing and eventually eliminating poverty and inequities, which are the principal causes of such deprivation.

Conventional wisdom suggests that to reduce poverty and inequities, there must be peace. In an area where there is armed conflict, it is next to impossible to produce the intended results of any development intervention if one can be implemented at all.

Poverty and inequities remain, or worsen, thereby justifying and intensifying armed struggle as the only instrument for change. And so the cycle continues, reinforcing and perpetuating itself in equilibrium.

In the Republic of the Philippines (RP) in 2006, the national poverty incidence was measured at 33 per cent, based on an official government survey. In simple language, one in every three Filipinos was poor.

Given the recent upsurge in fuel and food prices, it is likely that the poverty situation now has remained as it was in 2006, if it has not worsened. It is a serious indicator of underdevelopment and a statistic that many Filipinos, whether resident or not, are probably ashamed of.

RP's record in poverty reduction suffers in comparison with neighboring countries, particularly within ASEAN. Never mind Singapore and Brunei -- they are already in the league of high income countries. And Malaysia and Thailand have had sustained economic growth for two decades and much higher per capita GDP, but still belong to the middle income category like RP.

However, look at Indonesia. It has a lower per capita GDP, yet has successfully brought down its poverty incidence to only 15 percent despite serious economic setback in 1998 when real GDP contracted by 13 percent.

It is bad enough that one out of three people in the entire RP is poor. But three out of four in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) is certainly much worse and becomes appalling. Many questions arise from this unfortunate situation: Is the exceptionally high poverty incidence in ARMM that bad because of years of armed struggle from secessionist groups? Is it the consequence or the cause of years of insurgency in the region? Are they mutually reinforcing? If so, is there no other solution to dissolve the mutuality of causation between armed struggle and underdevelopment other than to give in to the demand for secession, which has been the avowed object of rebellion?

In the broader context of political economy, is peace critically important as an end in itself and as a precondition for development? Should it be pursued by all means and at all costs? Even to the extent of surrendering sovereignty and compromising the territorial integrity of a country and thereby violating its constitution?

In the context of the Mindanao problem, should the current political regime allow disintegration of the country for the sake of peace and development?

If not for a temporary restraining order by the Supreme Court, the deal between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) contained in the draft memorandum of agreement (MOA) on Ancestral Domain would have been signed in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on Aug. 8 this year in the presence of foreign representatives, including the U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines.

The timely action of the Supreme Court was taken in response to the petition against the deal from two affected local governments in Mindanao. The presidential adviser on the peace process was of course "disappointed and embarrassed". But most likely, the majority of Filipinos were not and had a sigh of relief.

Notwithstanding that the case is "sub judice", a Supreme Court Justice, Antonio Carpio (who penned the ponencia that the infamous people's initiative to amend the 1987 Constitution was a grand deception) already came out with a legal opinion that the deal was unconstitutional, which was what many believed.

Even more alarming was the view that the deal "proposes to dismember our territorial integrity and to scuttle our country's sovereignty", confirming what many suspected and feared the deal would eventually lead to. This opinion was rendered by another legal luminary -- the eminent former Supreme Court Justice Artemio Panganiban who is now a leading legal opinion maker in RP.

One does not need to have a degree in law or political science to discern what the draft MOA is aimed at or will eventually lead to: the creation of a new Bangsamoro (Moro nation) state out of the internationally recognized territory of the Philippines. Is this really something that the existing political regime in the country should allow or even actively pursue in the interest of peace?

If the Bangsamoro people should get away with forming its own sovereign state, what would prevent the indigenous people from the Cordillera to be emboldened to follow suit by invoking the same principles in the MOA? And for that matter, what would stop the Ilocanos, Bicolanos and even Batanguenos from doing so as well?

One need not look too far. After Indonesia lost East Timor, it has been hard pressed to prevent further disintegration of the country, with both Aceh in the west and Papua in the east trying to break away from the unitary state of Indonesia.

But there is an interesting political twist in all this. Claims have floated around that the MOA could be implemented without dismemberment of the country by changing the form of government from unitary to federal, which obviously needs an amendment of the constitution.

Even more interesting and worrisome is the counterclaim that the exercise to amend the constitution ostensibly to accommodate the MOA is really meant to pave the way for a change in the form of government from presidential to parliamentary, and thereby allow prolongation of the tenure of the existing political regime beyond 2010.

The stakes are high for the Filipino people in the draft GRP-MILF MOA on Ancestral Domain and JBE. The Supreme Court will soon rule on the pending petition against the draft MOA.

When it does,let us all hope and pray that it dutifully serves the main purpose of its being -- to interpret the law and thereby serve as a check and balance to the two other branches of governance that makes and enforces it.

The writer is technical assistance team leader of the EU-RP Trade Related Technical Assistance Programme (TRTA) based in Manila.

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved.