Territorial Conflict in Southern Philippines - a Constitutional Perspective

There are those that think that the ancestral domain issue surrounding the conflict between the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) is an issue that could be solved in a mere decade. In 1996, after more than 20 years of armed conflict which claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands, the Philippines signed a peace agreement with the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) - the largest seccesionist group of its time - through the constitutional provision of creating the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).

It is good to remind those who want to rush the peace agreement between the Philippines and the MILF that the agreement between the Philippines and the MNLF has not yet been fully accomplished, but none the less the two sides had decided to deal with concerns regarding the implementation of the provisions of the agreement peacefully through the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), a global organization of islamic states, in which the MNLF has full observer status.

As a breakaway group of the MNLF, the MILF has been demanding recognition of their ancestral domain rights in southern Philippines and has decided to continue the armed struggle until the issue of the ancestral domain has been agreed upon by the two sides. There is constant fear in Christian villages near the territory under MILF control due to the intrusion of armed MILF combatants, which claims that those villages where once under Moro control. The cycle of violence seems relentless and the cessation of armed conflict impossible until the issue of territorial claim is resolved.

Such escalation may well be the effect of the growing inability of the MILF to control its rogue elements, which after more than a quarter of a century of waiting, I think may resort back to the means of a bloody struggle in pursuit taking lands that they consider as their ancestors and thus, theirs.

Foreign offers of mediation adds to the possibility of peace to a certain extent, but is plainly questionable as to whether it is effective in sorting out the critical issue of ancestral lands. An offer to mediate made by the United Kingdom (UK), through its experience in Northern Ireland and with the Irish Republican Army (IRA), may have been very helpful on the on-going negotiation.

Although I think it is more accurate to state such conflict as mere sectarian, that is, the conflict between Catholics and Protestants within the Christian religion and more appropriate if compared to the conflict between the Shi'ite and Sunni of the Muslim religion, the offer is nonetheless welcome, if it meant additional monitoring teams that would ensure the implementation of agreements and ceasefires.

From a constitutional perspective, on the other hand, one must be reminded that the concept of parliamentary supremacy enables the British government tremendous negotiating capacity (unless opposed by the electorate) while constitutional restraints imposed upon the three branches of government in the Philippines limit the Philippine government's ability to negotiate or agree with the terms of peace.

The Philippine Constitution prohibits the creation of political entities equal to the notion of a state within the national territory of the Philippines, and thus the negotiators of the Philippine government are wary of making agreements infringing upon or inconsistent with constitutional mandates protecting the national territory; ergo, the Philippine government does not want to pursue an agreement that cannot withstand a constitutional veto through a congressional non-concurrence or a judicial review.

If foreign governments and international institutions desire to mediate and establish peace in the Southern Philippines, I pray they consider the constitutional restrictions imposed upon government negotiators and realize the seriousness of seceding a part of the national territory. They ought to remember that the issue here does not only involve transfer of power but the crucial issue of territory, and sovereignty. Section 7, Article II of the Philippine Constitution states that

the State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states, the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self-determination.

The Philippine Constitution does not provide for the Philippine government to give up its territory but only allows it to establish autonomous regions in so far as giving regions greater amount of independence from central government control. Proposals which include the notion of sovereignty or peaceful transfer of territory is inimical to the constitutional mandate of preserving the territorial integrity of the state.

The Constitution simply does not allow a constitutional secession of territory. Either the two sides agree to autonomy or wait for a constitutional change or resume armed conflict.