Fight Quest : Episode 1 - Philippines (PMC)

iNet: On the violence involving the lumad in Eastern Mindanao especially Caraga, and the proposed peace zones

Center for People’s Rights and Participation (CPRP) 30 November 2015

In the past year there has been an escalation of armed and political conflict between the Communist Party of the Philippines – New Peoples Army – National Democratic Front (CPP - NPA – NDF) against the Government of the Philippines (GPH) and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), involving lumad communities in Eastern Mindanao, especially in Caraga and particularly in Surigao del Sur. In this conflict, it is evident that the CPP, NPA and NDF, including their legal mass organizations and support groups, are using disinformation and induced migration and evacuation of its organized masses and influenced groups for at least two main objectives.

The first objective is to stave off AFP effort to wrest control of Andap Valley of Surigao del Sur and 
other areas in Eastern Mindanao from the CPP-NPA-NDF.

The second objective is to increase the thinly veiled NDF representation in the House of Representatives, mainly through party-list groups (such as Bayan Muna, Anakpawis, Gabriela, ACT, and Kabataan), by KATRIBU party-list, ostensibly representing the indigenous peoples, obtaining seats in the House of Representatives in the 2016 elections.

Some politicians are helping the CPP-NPA-NDF achieve their objectives. These politicians include some high profile local government officials who are aspiring to gain high public office at the national level in connection with the 2016 elections. Some very prominent Surigao politicians are big mining operators, in collusion with the CPP-NPA-NDF who share part of ill-gotten gain from mining. These politicians echo and amplify the CPP-NPA-NDF line that the NDF-led lumad evacuees are victims of ―militarization‖ of their habitat, as well as of killings, physical injuries, terror, intimidation, and destruction of communal facilities at the hands of the military or military-led or -tolerated lumad forces, whose alleged aim is to protect big mining and other big business interests intruding into lumad ancestral domain.

These induced migration and evacuation are in fact political mobilizations of the organized mass base of the CPP – NPA – NDF and of some groups influenced by this organized mass base. Some lumad families were induced to join the mobilization, not knowing it was such, on the assurance of the organizers of the mobilization that they would be able to meet President B. S. Aquino and Davao Mayor Rodrigo Duterte, and receive some material help. During their journey to the urban centers where they were supposed to meet these personages and receive the material help, and subsequently in the places where they are made to stay (sports center, church compound, and so forth) they have lost freedom of movement and of communication. Their movement and communication with media and people outside their group are tightly controlled by their handlers, who are leaders of ―support groups‖ identified with the CPP – NPA – NDF. Distraught lumad who wish to leave the places where they have been confined for many weeks already and to return to their homes have been refused permission by their handlers. At least two lumad—husband and wife, according to reliable reports—have committed suicide in the custody of these handlers. Indications are that the lumad staying under miserable and stressful conditions in their sites of confinement will not be allowed to leave until the political and armed objectives of the CPP-NPA-NDF have been accomplished.

Regarding the violence among lumad, the bulk of this has been and is being committed by the CPP-NPA-NDF. They have killed hundreds of lumad, most of them noncombatants, in their effort to secure, consolidate, or recover control over several areas in Eastern Mindanao and Northern Mindanao, especially in Caraga and the Davao region. On 19 October this year 2015 they abducted and killed the lumad Mayor Dario Otaza, effective and much-loved mayor of Loreto, Agusan del Sur. Mayor Otaza, himself formerly with the NPA, was known for his successful peace and development efforts, incuding the liberation of 21 rural barangays from the influence of the NPA and the surrender of about 200 NPA rebels. Killed with Mayor Otaza was his son Daryl.

Former NPA bagani (warriors) who rebelled against dictatorial ways of the CPP NPA NDF are fighting back against NPA Pulahang Bagani (Red Warriors). Unfortunately the bagani who are resisting the NPA have had to employ violence, sometimes of the kind that the NPA Pulahang Bagani and other NPA units employ.

The AFP is disadvantaged in media because it is taking legal route, facilitating court cases against lumad accused of killings, and disarming the lumad that they can reach, but unable to disarm NPA lumads and autonomous anti - NPA bagani who are fighting for survival and refuse to be disarmed. CPP NPA NDF hope that church and local governments harassed by massive lumad ―evacuee" presence in their facilities will be induces to pressure the AFP to withdraw from the contested lumad-inhabited areas, leaving the CPP NPA NDF in undisputed control.

National Transformation Council (NTC) understands and supports the AFP. Their duty is to remain in the contested areas to protect the citizenry who do not agree with the CPP NPA NDF and to assert the control of the government over the whole national territory. The Philippine Republic cannot survive long if it tolerates a CPP – controlled state-within-a-state.

The so-called "peace zones" are not answers to the need of the lumad for human security. In other ―peace zones‖ set up in the past, such as that in Sagada, Mountain Province, only the AFP tried to observe it. The CPP-NPA-NDF continued clandestine political and armed activity even in the poblacion, and open political and armed activity in the more remote barangays. Experience shows that the NPA use the exclusion of the AFP from the "peace zones" to intimidate, injure, or kill inhabitants opposed or cold to the CPP-NPA-NDF, and to strengthen and consolidate their organizations, their organs of political control, and their recruitment and training for their ―people's militia‖ and the regular NPA. For example, these barangays are used as drop-off point for youth coming in by public transportation and bound for exposure and indoctrination in CPP or NDF – controlled areas or NPA camps. The CPP, NPA, and NDF then pick up those going on exposure there, and bring them to their areas or camps. After their exposure and indoctrination they are brought back there and fetched by public transportation. The local governments in these ―peace zones‖ have not been concerned about this dangerous situation, or have not been effective in preventing it.

The MANILAKBAYAN NG MINDANAO 2015, held from 19 October to 20 November 2015, was launched by NDF elements. Its call was ―Stop the Attacks on Our Schools, Communities and People! Support the People’s Resistance to Militarization and Plunder in MindaNOW!‖ The call is deceptive because the majority of the people of Mindanao do not share their portrayal of the situation of the lumad and of the origins of the political and armed involving them and the direction that the conflict has taken.

Actually the MANILKABAYAN was a well-packaged major component in the CPP- NPA-NDF effort to nationally project their tendentious version of the situation and problems of the lumad in Mindanao, so that the public who do not know the real situation and problem would end up supporting the two objectives of the CPP-NPA-NDF in the pseudo-evacuation that is really a political mobilization of their lumad organized base and the other groups that they influence.

Again these objectives are:

First, to stave off AFP effort to wrest control of Andap Valley of Surigao del Sur and other areas in Eastern Mindanao from the CPP-NPA-NDF.

Second, to increase the NDF representation in the House of Representatives by KATRIBU party-list, ostensibly representing the indigenous peoples, obtaining seats in the House of Representatives in the 2016 elections.

All citizens who love truth, freedom, justice and peace should share the above information with others, to help the citizenry gain an accurate understanding of the situation and problem of the lumad especially in Eastern Mindanao, and on the basis of this accurate understanding, act accordingly to defend our human security from the political and armed assaults of totalitarian forces.

Manifesto of Retired Officers

Digos Massacre: still crying for justice

Plaza Miranda Bombing

Armadong sangay ng CPP, si Ninoy ang may gawa?

http://n5e.interaksyon.com/videos/25D6B06653974E0

I-Witness: Pagbabalik sa Karagatan

NPA's Kumander Parago killed in Davao City encounter - military

http://www.interaksyon.com/article/113240/npas-kumander-parago-killed-in-davao-city-encounter---military

iNet: KTB Agenda for National Transformation

           We, being a legitimate people's organization of the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Divine Providence, in order to establish a government that shall embody our ideals, promote the general welfare, conserve and develop the patrimony of our Nation, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of democracy under a regime of justice, peace, liberty, and equality, do ordain and promulgate this Agenda for National Transformation.[i]

            We declare as our common, unconditional and irrevocable bond the following principles and policies:

            1. That civilian authority shall at all times be supreme over the military[ii];

            2. That there shall be separation of church and state[iii];

            3. That there shall be freedom of religion[iv].

            We dedicate our capabilities and resources to undertake the following reforms:

            Economic Reforms:

            1. Give highest priority to job creation and consumer price reduction, to attain full employment for the millions of unemployed and underemployed workers, and uplift the welfare of the entire consumer population; promote the massive establishment and expansion of enterprises by utilizing ALL available capital from BOTH local and foreign sources, and lift for this purpose the numerous restrictions on foreign investments that unduly protect the local monopolies and cartels; regulate rather than restrict foreign investments through the institution of a foreign investment council, with due regard to the protection of the basic securities of the state.

            (The economic reform measure seeks to benefit the middle class and the masa class, through the liberalization of foreign direct investments and the lifting of the various nationality requirements. The measure aim to create jobs (through the establishment of new business enterprises or expansion of existing business enterprises), reduce consumer prices (through the increase in supply of goods and services), transfer technologies, expand access to foreign markets, promote economic growth, strengthen free competition and enhance efficiency, by eliminating artificial legal barriers against foreign business competitors. Notably, these barriers benefit only the few elite monopolists and oligopolists, at the expense of the majority of the people particularly the workers and consumers who are unfairly deprived of job opportunities and cheaper goods and services. Thus, we have a substantial portion of our population working or seeking to work for foreign employers overseas, obviously because of the lack of job opportunities in the country. The measure also seeks to support the campaign against corruption through systemic change (by facilitating the entry of independent business competitors vis-a-vis the existing cartels of government suppliers). Nonetheless, the measure acknowledges the possible threats that may be posed by foreign investors to the basic securities of the state, and seeks to address these threats by establishing a review mechanism under a Foreign Investment Council that will be vested with authority to prohibit, suspend or impose conditions on covered foreign investment transactions[v].)

            Social Reforms:

            1. End impunity in human rights violations by state and non-state actors through the criminal prosecution of all responsible persons, starting with the most brazen crimes left untouched by the justice system, including those by government and/or para-military forces (i.e. Hacienda Luisita massacre[vi]), by rebel communist forces (i.e. Digos massacre[vii]) and by rebel separatist forces (i.e. Al-Barka massacre[viii]; Mamasapano massacre[ix]).

            2. End institutionalized plunder under the “pork barrel system” through the criminal prosecution of all responsible persons regardless of party affiliation, starting with the most notorious Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) and the Priority Development Acceleration Fund (PDAF) respectively held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Araullo v. Aquino[x] and Belgica v. Executive Secretary[xi].

            3. Correct historical distortions that blinded and misled the people towards unceasing infighting, by creating a Truth Commission to revisit the critical events that changed the fate of the nation, particularly the reported Jabidah massacre[xii] (that sparked the separatist insurgency), the Plaza Miranda bombing[xiii] (that revived the communist insurgency) and the Ninoy Aquino assassination[xiv] (that divided the nation).

            4. Seek genuine and lasting peace by pursuing the peace process with the separatist and communist rebels, based on the applied strategy of disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR), and subject always to the recognized rights of indigenous peoples as provided by the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act.[xv].

            5. Strengthen the social institution and revive the cultural heritage of the Southern Sultanates of Sulu, Maguindanao and Lanao, by amending the constitution to mandate congress to recognize by law the titles of royalty of the southern sultanates, subject to the sovereignty of the people, the powers of the government, the establishment of the State, the patrimony of the nation, and the integrity of the national territory.

            6. Institutionalize the protection of labor by ensuring that only those with appropriate qualifications AND actually come from the ranks of the workers, farmers and fishermen, are selected to head or manage the department of labor, or to serve as party-list representatives of the labor, peasant and fisherfolk sectors in congress.

            7. Manage the population, with due respect to the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception[xvi], as well as to the family as the basic social institution[xvii], by implementing the Reproductive Health Act as modified and approved by the Supreme Court in Imbong v. Ochoa[xviii], and by promoting natural family planning as provided in the Guiding Principles of the CBCP on Population Control[xix].

            Political Reforms:

            1. Secure the sanctity of the vote[xx] by adopting manual voting, automated counting (i.e. Optical Mark Reader system) and automated transmission and canvassing, with ALL the major security features (i.e. source code review, ballot verification, vote verification and digital signatures), PLUS voter’s receipt and FULL manual audit of the counting (i.e. voter’s receipt) and canvassing (i.e. election returns), to protect against massive electronic election fraud in the counting and/or canvassing;

            2. Harness collective wisdom in the leadership of the national government, ensure broad political support for government programs, and check graft and corruption through joint responsibility and accountability; institutionalize “collective rule” over “one-man rule”, through the adoption of a “unicameral parliamentary system” in place of the “bicameral presidential system”; the parliamentary system merges into one the political branches of the executive and the legislature, but leaves separate and independent the non-political branch of the judiciary.

            (The new system seeks to weaken the control or influence of the oligarchs over the national government, by dispersing the ultimate power of control from one individual to a group of representatives. Paradoxically, it also seeks to strengthen the political branch of government vis-à-vis the oligarchs, by merging the executive and legislative branches into one. The system further seeks to diminish the natural advantage of “rich and famous” candidates over competent but unpopular candidates, by replacing one large national constituency with several small local constituencies. Notably, in smaller constituencies, the manipulative mass media is less effective, and the voter has greater chances of knowing the real qualities of the candidate. Finally, it seeks to make the chief executive more accountable by facilitating his removal through a mere vote of “loss of confidence” in the assembly of representatives, instead of through a rigorous impeachment trial.)

            3. Harness collective wisdom in the leadership of the local government, ensure broad political support for government programs, and check graft and corruption through joint responsibility and accountability; institutionalize “collective rule” over “one-man rule”, through the adoption of a “council type system” in place of the “mayor type system”; the council system merges into one the local legislative council and the office of the local chief executive.

            (The new system seeks to weaken the control or influence of family dynasties over the local government by dispersing the ultimate power of control from one individual to a group of representatives. Paradoxically, it also seeks to strengthen the local government vis-à-vis the local family dynasties, by merging into one the office of the local chief executive and the local legislative council. The system further seeks to diminish the natural advantage of “rich and famous” candidates over competent but unpopular candidates, by replacing one large local constituency with several small local constituencies. Notably, in smaller constituencies, the manipulative mass media is less effective, and the voter has greater chances of knowing the real qualities of the candidate. Finally, it seeks to make the local chief executive more accountable by facilitating his removal through a mere vote of “loss of confidence” in the council, instead of through rigorous administrative proceedings or criminal prosecution.)

            4. Bring the government closer to the people through the gradual adoption of the semi-federal or federal system throughout the Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao archipelago. The semi-federal system involves the creation of a regional authority or an autonomous region, while the federal system involves the establishment of a sub-state. The evolutionary process shall be guided by the following twin principles: that the decision-makers are readily accessible to the people, and that local resources benefit the local people.

            (The regional authority is a national government agency, the autonomous region a local government unit and the sub-state a component state of a federal republic. The gradual process may start with an executive order, progress to a congressional statute, and end with a constitutional amendment. The creation of a regional authority does not require a plebiscite, but the establishment of an autonomous region or a sub-state requires a plebiscite.)

           

KILUSAN NG MGA TAGAPAGTANGGOL NG BAYAN (KTB)

Makati City, Luzon. 21 August 2015.
Cebu City, Visayas. 21 August 2015
Davao City, Mindanao. 21 August 2015

---

[i]See 1973 Constitution, Preamble. See 1987 Constitution, Preamble.

[ii]1973 Constitution, Article II, Section 8. 1987 Constitution, Article II, Section 3.

[iii]1973 Constitution, Article XV, Section 15. 1987 Constitution, Article II, Section 6.

[iv]1973 Constitution, Article IV, Section 8. 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 5.

[v] See US Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended by FINSA, Section 721 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170). Executive Order No. 11858 (as amended by Executive Order No. 13456), re Foreign Investment in the United States.

[vi]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ab1ux2DiHw

[vii]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P1dp95xlC4

[viii]http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/-depth/10/19/11/al-barka-how-villagers-killed-marines-special-forces-troops

[ix]http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/453777/news/nation/pnoy-ultimately-responsible-for-mamasapano-massacre-senate-panel

[x]G.R. No. 209287, 01 July 2014.

[xi]G.R. No. 208566, 19 November 2013.

[xii]18 March 1968.

[xiii]21 August 1971.

[xiv]21 August 1983.

[xv] Rep. Act No. 8371, The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997.

[xvi]1987 Constitution, Article II, Section 12.

[xvii]Id.

[xviii] G.R. No. 204819, 08 April 2014.

[xix] http://cbcponline.net/v2/?p=317

[xx]1973 Constitution, Article VI, Section 1. 1987 Constitution, Article V, Section 2.

Interview of BIFF spokesperson

INet: Questions for Aquino on Mamasapano

1) Did aquino issue the mission order; if not, who issued the order and is this person (purisima or napenas) authorized to issue such order?

2) Did purisima participate in the operation? if yes, did aquino order purisima to do so notwithstanding his suspension?

3) Did aquino and/or purisima monitor the operation from the US drone base in zamboanga?

4) What time was the first call for reinforcement made? 

5) Who made the call, who received the call, and what was  the response to the call for reinforcement? 

6) Did aquino and/or purisima know of the call for reinforcement? If yes, what time did they know of call and what was the response?

7) Why was the back-up 300 SAF 4 km away? Unreasonably too far accdg to the army;

8) Did aquino or purisima order the 300 SAF to reinforce or stand down? If order was to stand down why so?

9) Were the 300 SAF authorized to reinforce w/o need for clearance from aquino or purisima?

10) Did the 300 SAF actually attempt to reinforce or did they stand down? If they tried to reinforce, what time & what happened?

11) Did aquino order the army/paf to reinforce or stand down? If the order was to stand down why so?

12) Was the army/paf authorized to reinforce w/o need for clearance from aquino?

13) Did the army/paf actually attempt to reinforce or did they stand down? If they tried to reinforce, what time and what happened?

14) Were calls made to the milf to stand down? If yes, what time was first call made, who made call, who received call, and what happened after call?

15) Did deles or ferrer advise aquino to stand down? If yes, was the advise absolute regardless of any milf response, or conditional that milf also stand down?

16) Did the milf eventually stand down? If yes, what time? How much time lapsed from first call to the milf to stand down until they eventually did stand down?

17) Were US forces involved in the planning and execution of operation? If yes, whats the legal basis for their involvement?

18) Based on media reports, a US drone located SAF after shooting started; was the drone activated from the beginning or only after the shooting started?

19) Did aquino request assistance from US forces after  the shooting started? Was aquino w/ legal basis to request such assistance? If legal to do so and request was made, what was the US response? If legal to do so but no request was made, why not?

20) Was malaysia involved in the planning and execution of operation? If yes, whats the legal basis of its involvement?

21) Does govt intend to demand the return of arms & belongings of SAF 44 from the milf? If not, why not?

22) Does govt intend to demand retribution from the milf if found liable for killing wounded SAF contrary to agreed rules of engagement? If not, why not?

23) Does govt intend to pass BBL even if the milf will not return arms & belongings, or will not accede to retribution on those found liable for killing wounded SAF?

24) What has govt done or intend to do for non-combatant civilians killed or wounded during the operation?

25) Is the old agreement allowing operation against high value targets w/o need for prior coordination w/ milf still in force?

26) Does the new agreement on disarmament provide only for symbolic turn over of 75 firearms w/o any firm schedule for the bulk of milf firearms? 

27) Based on reports, the milf operates an arms factory and continues to recruit fighters; Does peace process allow milf to operate arms factory and continue recruitment of fighters?

28) Based on intel reports, did the milf know that marwan & usman operated w/n or near their area? If yes, did the milf provide them w/ logistical support and/or armed protection? Did marwan & usman have wives related to milf members?

29) Based on intel reports, did marwan & usman always or mostly operate w/n or near an milf area?

30) Did aquino activate the anti-terrorism council for the operation against high value targets marwan & usman; if yes, when was it activated, and was the council overseeing the operation; if not, why not?

31) Did aquino previously propose the operation to elite afp units (army scout rangers? marine force recon?) but these units rejected the plan saying it was suicide?

Punto por Punto: Nakabawi na ba ang Pangulo?

NTC Calls for Day of Mourning and Prayers

Today, January 28, 2015, the National Transformation Council (NTC) is declaring a nationwide day of mourning and prayers for our fallen Philippine National Police Special Action Force (PNP-SAF) personnel. The death of our compatriots is indeed a national tragedy and we enjoin all Filipinos to honor them in solemn and deep prayers and commiseration to the loved ones they leave behind. May God take them in His bosom in mercy and love.

Do's and Don'ts of “System Change”

“System Change” is the transformation of the fundamental structure of the state, that is usually linked to politics and the economy.ⁱ It involves revolutionary changes in the structure of government and the key economic policies. It usually includes major revisions of the constitution and the laws.

“System Change” becomes imperative when the existing system fails to generate jobs for the poor, protects the monopolies of the rich, enables family dynasties to rule, manufactures election results, institutionalizes graft and corruption, perpetrates selective justice, rewards criminality, distorts history to hide the ugly truth, and closes avenues for genuine reform.

To ensure that “System Change” leads to meaningful social transformation, these guidelines are suggested to assist the people and their delegates in reaching a general agreement, on which structures and policies to change in order to promote the general welfare and ultimately the common good.

The suggested Do's and Don'ts are as follows:

1. DO discuss proposed changes in orderly manner,
2. DO focus discussions on structural and policy issues that matter,
3. DON'T divert discussions to peripheral issues that don't matter,
4. DO use available language when general agreement is reached,
5. DON'T use new language unless necessary,
6. DO consult lawyers and English scholars to review language,
7. DO record discussions for future reference.

While the subject of “System Change” includes both the constitution and the major statutory laws (such as the Local Government Code and the Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao), these guidelines discuss only the constitution for brevity.

1. DO discuss proposed changes in orderly manner.

Meetings of importance always have an agenda. Otherwise, everyone will rise to take the floor and talk about his or her own favorite topic. When the meeting adjourns, no one present will know what it was all about. This is so regardless of whether the meeting is physical in a town hall or board room, or virtual in cyberspace.

Accordingly, it is elementary that serious discussions about “System Change” must begin with an agenda. Anyway, if the majority of the participants do not like the agenda presented, they are free to change it.

My personal preference is to adopt the content outline of the 1973 Constitution as the agenda items for any serious forum on “System Change”. Why? It is because the 1973 Constitution covers the basics with short and simple statements. Moreover, it is the ONLY Philippine Constitution drafted by ELECTED delegates INDEPENDENT of the authority of a foreign power.

The 1973 Constitution consists of a Preamble and 17 Articles, i.e. National Territory, Declaration of Principles and State Policies, Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Duties and Obligations of Citizens, Suffrage, President and Vice-President, National Assembly, Prime Minister and Cabinet, Judiciary, Local Government, Constitutional Commissions, Accountability of Public Officers, National Economy and the Patrimony of the Nation, General Provisions, Amendments, Transitory Provisions.

The Preamble and 17 Articles make a total of 18 subjects outlined for discussion.

If participants want to omit certain subjects from the outline, let them explain.

If participants want to add new subjects to the outline, let them explain.

If participants want a totally different outline with nothing in common with the 18 subjects for discussion, let them explain.

If participants want an “uncodified” or “unwritten” constitution, just like in the United Kingdom, let them explain.

1. DO focus discussions on structural and policy issues that matter.

The ultimate purpose of “System Change” is to improve our lives and change the economy and politics for the better. Accordingly, we should focus our energies on issues that matter. These are the changes that promise to make tectonic shifts in society.

My personal view of the structural and policy issues that matter include the following:

1. Proposed liberalization of restrictions on foreign investments; the proposition seeks to generate jobs for the poor through massive capital infusion; it also seeks to dismantle the monopolies of the rich through open competition; finally, it seeks to dismantle the cartels of government suppliers and contractors through the entry of new independent players;

2. Proposed shift from the “presidential form” of government to a “parliamentary form”; in other words, the shift from individual rule to collective rule; the proposition seeks to loosen the grip of oligarchs over the national government; it also seeks to establish a lean but strong national government;

3. Proposed shift from the “mayor type” of local government to a “council type”; in other words, the shift from individual rule to collective rule; the proposition seeks to loosen the grip of family dynasties over local governments in the provinces, cities and municipalities; it also seeks to establish lean but strong local government units;

4. Proposed shift from a “unitary state” to a “semi-federal” or “federal state”; in other words, regional decentralization through regional authorities, autonomous regions or sub-states; should regional decentralization be applied to all regions or only to certain regions such as the Muslim dominated areas in Mindanao and the Cordilleras? if applied to all regions, should a uniform structure be adopted, or should we allow different structures to be adopted in different regions; the proposition seeks to empower the regions to develop their respective economic strengths;

5. Proposed legal recognition of the Southern Sultanates, without vesting them with government powers, just like in the United Kingdom and Japan; the proposition seeks to reverse the suppression of a cultural heritage and legitimate social institution; it also seeks to strengthen the legal standing of the Sultanate of Sulu to negotiate improved proprietary compensation from Malaysia for the possession of Sabah.

Among these issues, I believe that the proposed liberalization of restrictions on foreign investments is the most urgent. Why? It is because this particular proposition has direct and immediate consequences on job generation and poverty alleviation.

Notably, it takes about Php180,000.00 to employ one rank-and-file employee for one full year in Makati City. This estimate includes the applicable daily minimum wage and the proportionate cost of modest office space and utility charges used for the employee. It may take about half the amount or Php90,000.00 to employ one employee for one full year in Region I which has the lowest daily minimum wage rate.

Out of our estimated population of 101,802,706 for 2015ⁱⁱ, some 64,950,126 (63.8%)ⁱⁱⁱ are in the labor force. Out of the total labor force, some 4,871,259 (7.5%)^iv are unemployed while 12,665,275 (19.5%)^v are underemployed.

If we multiply the number of workers unemployed (4,871,259) by the lowest estimated cost of employing one worker for one year (Php90,000.00), we have the staggering amount of Php438,430,310,000.00 representing the total cost required to employ all the unemployed for just one year.

Where will we get that kind of money? From the government? The oligarchs? The family dynasties? The communists who want government to take-over virtually all major industries?

The controversial restrictions on foreign investments have been in our constitution for the past eighty (80) years since 1935. Are we supposed to wait for another eighty (80) years to see if these restrictions actually benefit the greater majority of our people?

We can learn from the United States on how to deal with foreign investors. They have an inter-agency mechanism that screens foreign investments to protect their national security^vi. In 2006, the Government of the United States used this screening mechanism to block the acquisition of Sequoia Voting Systems of California by the Venezuelan-owned Smartmatic International.^vii Here in the Philippines, the same Smartmatic International has already taken technical control of our automated elections for the years 2010 and 2013. Election reform advocates continue to be helpless in holding this Venezuelan company to account for the disablement of various system safeguards.

3. DON'T divert discussions to peripheral issues that don't matter.

The real challenge of “System Change” lies in facing head-on the structural and policy issues that matter. Other matters short of the major structural and policy issues are merely peripherals. They serve no purpose except to divert or dilute the focus of the people and their delegates.

For example, Article II of the 1987 Constitution already declares as state policy the promotion of social justice^viii, the respect for human rights^ix, the primacy of education^x, and the protection of the family^xi. Apparently not content with these declarations, the framers proceeded to incorporate entirely new Articles on Social Justice and Human Rights^xii, Education^xiii and Family^xiv.

Did these new Articles add anything not covered or justified by the basic declaration of state policy? Did these new clauses improve our lives? The answer is obviously in the negative.

It is bad enough that the framers failed to address the more important structural and policy issues that would have improved our economy and politics. It is worse that they instead gave us an illusion of a better life, writing lengthy but empty statements that add nothing to what we already have.

3. DO use available language when general agreement is reached.

Crafting new language, even though existing language is available, is like re-inventing the wheel. It is a waste of time.

Moreover, new language brings with it judicial uncertainty. While the meaning of past and present language may have been settled by the courts already, new language is still open to future judicial interpretation.

Notably, we do not exist in a vacuum. We have a wealth of organic acts, both past and present, that may provide suitable templates for the appropriate language. These organic acts are as follows: 1899 Malolos Constitution (establishing a parliamentary government), Philippine Bill of 1902 (establishing a municipal government), 1935 Constitution (establishing a presidential government), 1943 Constitution (establishing a semi-parliamentary government), 1973 Constitution (establishing a parliamentary government), 1973 Constitution as amended in 1976 (establishing a supra presidential government), 1986 Constitution (establishing a revolutionary government), and 1987 Constitution (establishing a presidential government).

For example, if the general agreement were to establish a presidential form of government, we can use as template either the 1935 Constitution or the 1987 Constitution. We can also refer to the 1787 Constitution of the United States as additional material. If the general agreement were to establish a parliamentary form of government, we likewise have ready templates such as the 1899 Constitution, the 1943 Constitution and the 1973 Constitution.

5. DON'T use new language unless necessary.

The exceptions that may justify efforts at crafting of new language are when the existing language is erroneous, vague, or of a policy that needs to be modified or reversed, or when there is no precedent available.

For example, the 1973 Constitution defined national territory to include “other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic or legal title”. The definition was a deliberate modification of the old definition under the 1935 Constitution which included only “all territory over which the present Government of the Philippine Islands exercises jurisdiction”.

The apparent purpose of the modification under the 1973 Constitution was to strengthen the sovereign claim of the Philippines to the territory of Sabah based on historic or legal title.

Notably, former President Marcos laid claim to the Kalayaan Group of Islands in the South China Sea (now West Philippine Sea) based also on history, among other grounds, pursuant to the modified definition of territory under the 1973 Constitution.^xv

Moving forward to the 1987 Constitution, the framers this time reduced the coverage and weakened the basis of the nation's territorial claim, purportedly to improve relations with Malaysia. In return, Malaysia was expected to take favorable action on the proprietary claim of the Sulu Sultanate for adjustment of the yearly compensation due from the former's possession of Sabah.

Twenty-eight (28) years later today, the Sulu Sultanate continues to complain that Malaysia has ignored their proprietary claim.

To remedy this anomaly, we will need to change the present definition of national territory and revert back to the language of the 1973 Constitution. This will give both the Philippines and the Sulu Sultanate a stronger legal position to negotiate for what is due from Malaysia.

A tabular comparison of the different definitions of national territory follows for reference:

1935 Constitution	1973 Constitution	1987 Constitution
Article I, Section 1. The Philippines comprises all the territory ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Paris concluded between the United States and Spain on the tenth day of December, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, the limits which are set forth in Article III of said treaty, together with all the islands embraced in the treaty concluded at Washington between the United States and Spain on the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred, and the treaty concluded between the United States and Great Britain on the second day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty, and all territory over which the present Government of the Philippine Islands exercises jurisdiction. (emphasis supplied)	Article I, Section 1. The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all the other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic or legal title, including the territorial sea, the air space, the subsoil, the sea-bed, the insular shelves, and the submarine areas over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, irrespective of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. (emphasis supplied)	Article I. The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around between, the connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, from part of the internal waters of the Philippines. (emphasis supplied)

Another example, the 1987 Constitution declares the principle that “sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.” (emphasis supplied)^xvi Curiously however, the same Constitution thereafter declares that the goal of the Armed Forces of the Philippines “is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory.” (emphasis supplied)^xvii

So where does sovereignty reside now? in the Filipino people comprised of 100 million natural persons? or in the Republic of the Philippines which is a juridical person that exists solely by legal fiction?

There is an obvious error here by the framers that can only be rectified by using new corrective language. If the term is used as a noun, then yes sovereignty resides in the people. If however the term is used as an adjective, then that is when we say that our country is a sovereign state.

Still another example, the 1987 Constitution apparently sought to carry over the past prohibition against foreign ownership of land. Unfortunately for the framers, they crafted new language even when they could have adopted the old language under the 1973 Constitution.

A comparison of the relevant constitutional provisions follows:

1973 Constitution	1987 Constitution
Section 8. All lands of public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, wildlife, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State. With the exception of agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, or resettlement lands of the public domain, natural resources shall not be alienated... (emphasis supplied)	Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated... (emphasis supplied)
Section 9. The disposition, exploration, development, exploitation, or utilization of any of the natural resources of the Philippines shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital which is owned by such citizens... (emphasis supplied)	Section 2... The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. (emphasis supplied)
	Section 3... Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof by purchase, homestead, or grant.
Section 14. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private land shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain. (emphasis supplied)	Section 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain. (emphasis supplied)

Thus, under the 1973 Constitution, it was clear that private land may be transferred only to Filipinos or corporations owned 60% by Filipinos, because they were the only persons qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.
On the other hand, under the 1987 Constitution, it is unclear if private land may be transferred only to corporations owned 60% by Filipinos, because Section 3 does not say so, and Section 2 apparently refers to mining rather than to the acquisition of lands of the public domain.

There is another lapse here by the framers that can only be corrected by using new clarificatory language.

For the record, I no longer believe that the various constitutional prohibitions against foreign investments supposedly promote our national interest. Anyway, my personal belief here is beside the point. This example is made to show that using new language, despite the availability of existing language, may actually result in ambiguity.

6. DO consult lawyers and English scholars to review language.

Whether we like it or not, the constitution is a legal instrument. In fact, it is no ordinary legal instrument. It is the highest or supreme law of the land. All other statutory laws, implementing rules and regulations, administrative orders and local ordinances will be null and void if these instruments contradict the constitution.

Accordingly, since the constitution is a legal instrument, it is only prudent that the people through their delegates seek the assistance of lawyers in writing or reviewing the language intended to express what has been agreed upon.

Apart from the lawyers, it is also useful to seek the assistance of English scholars, assuming that the constitution will be written in English. They can help much in simplifying the otherwise lengthy and winding language of lawyers. English teachers make good English scholars.

7. DO record discussions for future reference.

If the process of constitutional reform is by constitutional convention, constituent assembly or constitutional commission, the deliberation of delegates and hearing of resource persons are documented in due course. If however the process is by people's initiative, there are no fixed rules on documentation. It is here in a people's initiative that extra effort is required to document the process.

If apart from face-to-face interaction, the people's inputs are also sought directly through social media, then the delegates or proponents must also find innovative ways and means to document the exchange views and information.

Remember that the constitution is a legal instrument. In case of conflicting interpretations, the courts will resolve the conflict by reviewing the records of deliberations and hearings, among other ways and means. If there are no such records, then it is possible that the courts will reach a conclusion much different from that intended by the framers.

Atty. Dindo Donato

General Counsel

Tanggulang Demokrasya (TanDem), Inc.

23 January 2015

iSee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime_change. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_change.

ii Worldometers (www.Worldometers.info)

Elaboration of data by United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision. (Medium-fertility variant).

iii Data are as of September 2014. Source: National Statistics Office (NSO).

iv Data are as of September 2014. Source: National Statistics Office (NSO).

v Data are as of September 2014. Source: National Statistics Office (NSO).

viSee US Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended by FINSA, Section 721 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170). Executive Order No. 11858 (as amended by Executive Order No. 13456), re Foreign Investment in the United States.

viihttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/us/politics/31vote.html

viii1987 Constitution, Article II Declaration of Principles and State Policies, Section 10.

ix1987 Constitution, Article II Declaration of Principles and State Policies, Section 11.

x1987 Constitution, Article II Declaration of Principles and State Policies, Section 17.

xi1987 Constitution, Article II Declaration of Principles and State Policies, Section 12.

xii1987 Constitution, Article XIII Social Justice and Human Rights.

xiii1987 Constitution, Article XIV Education.

xiv1987 Constitution, Article XV The Family.

xvPres. Dec. No. 1596, Kalayaan Island Group, 11 June 1978.

xvi1987 Constitution, Article II Declaration of Principles and State Policies, Section 1.

xviiId, Section 3.