Sunday, June 28, 2020

DECLARATION OF SUPPORT FOR THE ENACTMENT OF THE ANTI-TERROR BILL





DECLARATION OF SUPPORT FOR
THE ENACTMENT OF THE ANTI-TERROR BILL


We, citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, hereby declare our full support for the enactment of the Anti-Terror Bill to safeguard the lives, human rights and democratic freedoms of the law-abiding people, against godless and inhumane non-state actors who use “terror” to promote their false ideologies.

We are tired of the 50-year armed struggle of the CPP-NPA-NDF that openly seeks to grab power from a democratically elected government, impose a godless and foreign ideology on peace loving people, and the killing of Filipinos by Filipinos through a class war, using force, intimidation, deceit and terror.

We are wary of the inroads of another foreign ideology under ISIS, that preaches religious intolerance, and seeks to incite fratricidal conflict between Christians and Lumads on one hand, and Muslims on the other hand, again using “terror” to gain absolute power and promote their false ideologies.

In this light, we reject and call for the immediately repeal of the Human Security Act (R.A. 9732), as a pro-terrorist legislation, that unbelievably imposes a P500k daily penalty on security forces that may otherwise commit even honest mistakes in pursuing terrorists, totally disregarding the difficulties and challenges in criminal prosecution under the rule of law.

Nonetheless, we affirm our full support for the democratic freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution, including the rights to freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, and to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances, and express our readiness to defend these rights against “scalawags” who may abuse or misuse the otherwise legitimate police powers of the State.

Adopted in Metro Manila, Philippines, this 29th day of June A.D. 2020. 


TANGGULANG DEMOKRASYA (TAN DEM), INC.
SEC Reg. No. CN201205942

LUMAD MINDANAW PEOPLES FEDERATION (LMPF)



Friday, June 5, 2020

BACKGROUND OF THE LMPF AND THE LUMAD PEOPLES’ PROBLEM


BACKGROUND OF THE ORGANIZATION AND THE LUMAD PEOPLES’ PROBLEM

The Lumad Mindanaw Peoples Federation (LMPF) started as “Lumad Mindanaw (LM) in 1980.  It was organized by progressive networks and organizations popularly known as “Tribal Filipino Support Groups”. Most of these networks were church-based: Catholic apostolates; different organizations and institutions of the Protestant’s National Council of Churches in the Philippines-NCCP; advocates of human rights, justice and peace; progressive sectoral organizations of farmers, workers, women, youth and the like.

One of main programs of action of LM was the “struggle for the respect of Lumad rights to self-determination (RSD).” The Lumad Peoples, being one of the most oppressed and neglected sectors, naturally identified themselves with these support groups. For a decade or two, the Lumads and their territories became bases for guerrilla fronts. Large numbers of the members of the communities became active participants both in the meta-legal and underground movement as activists, propagandists and guerilla fighters. Even to this day, about 80% of the CNN combatants, controlled territories and “hostage” communities (masa) are Lumads.

After a decade of existence, the Lumad leader of LM sought to put substance to the program of RSD. However, this move contradicted the CPP-NPA-NDF (CNN) ideological perspective of classifying the Lumads as primitive communal, backward and unscientific. In due course, support to LM by the CNN (CPP-NPA-NDF) organs were withdrawn. This led to the weakening and eventual cessation of the former’s existence. The Lumad leaders themselves were hounded with various threats.

In the final moments of LM before it was abolished, the Lumad leaders were able to draft two important documents which articulated their vision as a united people: 1) The 1994 Mul’bulan Document that called for the restructuring of Lumad Mindanaw into a confederacy of genuine self-governing tribes and communities (adopting the concept of a “Peoples Federation”- Lumad Mindanaw Peoples Federation-LMPF; 2) the La Victoria Document which called for State recognition of the Lumad People’s rights and the Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs) in form of a treaty, consistent with the spirit of the 1987 Constitution that mandated the protection of the Lumads.

Eventually, these two documents were superseded by RA 8371 (Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997) which recognizes, respects, protects and promotes the individual, as well as the inherent, collective and inalienable rights of the 14 million indigenous peoples in the country.

However, after more than 20 years from the approval of this landmark legislation, the full intent of IPRA remains unrealized, particularly the delineation of ancestral domain. The government, particularly the legislative body, apparently gives lesser importance to IPs as shown by its allocation of a meager budget for the NCIP. In so far as LMPF is concerned, RA 8371 is among the more important statutes of the country that priority funding support, because it seeks to benefit the poverty-stricken and centuries-long neglected beneficiaries of the IPs, and the much needed delineation of their ancestral domain.

This problem has been exacerbated by the fact that successive national administrations placed the RA 8371 implementing arm, the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) under various departments as an attached agency. It seems that the DAR’s Certificate of Land Ownership Agreement-CLOA, and DENR’s mining and other permits, are processed and issued much faster than the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) or Certificate of Ancestral Land Title (CALT).

Out of the more than 30 Katawhang Lumad in Mindanao, only the Matigsalug Manobo of Bukidnon and Cotabato had its entire territory processed and awarded as CADT. The rest are still wondering how and where to secure funds in order to process the legal documents to cover their traditional territories. Meanwhile, mining corporations and other businesses aggressively and continually encroach into the land of the Lumads. This difficult situation has inevitably resulted to tension and conflict among the tri-people of Christians, Muslims and IPs. 

To bridge the deep divide or otherwise transform conflict into cooperation, the recognition, respect and protection of the land rights of the Indigenous People (IP) has been pointed to as the just and peaceful way forward. This will certainly promote and instill peace, development and cooperation among the tri-people. It will also finally address and curb insurgency in all the Lumad territories in Mindanao.

Thus, the LMPF calls on the Government to place high priority for the budgetary allocation of adequate finance resources, coupled with strong implementation, to expedite the delineation of the ancestral domain of the IPs, under the concept of “One People, One Territory, One Governance” and in accordance with tribal governance based on indigenous political structures and customary law.

The LMPF also calls on the Government to rectify the government’s long neglect, exploitation and destruction of the lands, territories and resources of IPs, including the review and revision of wealth sharing arrangements to ensure that the Lumad Peoples are given their fair, just and equitable share in the utilization and development of natural resources found in their ancestral domain.

Finally, as the natural landscape of the Lumad Peoples’ homeland continues to be altered, destroyed and desecrated at an increasing pace, the LMPF strongly calls on the Government to carry out its constitutional mandate and fully protect the rights of the Indigenous Peoples to their ancestral lands, to ensure their economic, social and cultural well-being.


LUMAD MINDANAW PEOPLES FEDERATION
18 May 2020

Realpolitik in the South China Sea

CIA. Cropped and Flags added by Estarapapax. / Public domain


Realpolitik in the South China Sea


Before I discuss a realpolitik[i] solution to the worsening maritime dispute in the South China Sea, let me first dispel the notion that “China never invaded another country,” so that any exchange of views will be grounded on reality.

At the end of the Chinese Civil War (1945-1949)[ii], when the communists gained control of the mainland[iii], and the nationalists retreated to Taiwan[iv], the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) took Uyghur in 1949[v], Eastern Kashmir in 1950[vi], and Tibet also in 1950[vii]. These regions had long histories of self-rule, but the PLA forced their annexation anyway.

The civil war in China resulted in the establishment of two de facto states on opposite sides of the Taiwan Strait[viii]. The mainland adopted command economy[ix], while the island embraced free-market economy[x]. However, instead of accepting co-existence, like in North and South Korea[xi] and East and West Germany[xii], the mainland pursued a One-China policy[xiii], isolating the island from the rest of the world, and reserving its “right to use force” for reunification[xiv].

China also claims practically the entire South China Sea, with all the islands and waters covered by its Nine-Dash Line of demarcation[xv], even without any historical evidence showing human settlements in the area. Surely, Chinese junk cargo ships that sailed only 5 knots[xvi], could not exercise jurisdiction over islands, islets, cays and reefs 800 miles away. The Austronesian karakoa outrigger warships from the much nearer Southeast Asian archipelago sailed much faster at 15 knots[xvii].

In 1982, China along with the coastal states of Asean, signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)[xviii]. Among others, UNCLOS established an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) for coastal states[xix]. However, in violation of UNCLOS, the PLA by overwhelming force, constructed artificial islands and military installations right within the EEZ of the Philippines, i.e. Mischief Reef (1995)[xx].

If this general information, based on publicly available sources, is not enough to dispel the notion that “China never invaded any country”, then the reader should just stop reading right here. There can be no fruitful exchange of views, if one proceeds from a false premise.

Long ago, China had Confucius[xxi], a philosopher and politician of 500 B.C. who espoused family values as bases for government, the “golden rule” of reciprocity[xxii], and the rule of law and uniformity[xxiii]. Its people built the Great Wall of China between the 7th BC to the 14th century to defend against foreign aggression.[xxiv]

Nowadays, China has a national hero in Mao Zedong[xxv], a political ideologue of the 20th century who espoused a command economy, and led China to rival the USSR for leadership of world communism[xxvi] that sought global hegemony[xxvii]. The PLA built a Great Wall of Sand, artificial islands with weapons systems installed, to enforce China’s contested claims to the entire South China Sea.[xxviii]

Thus, the future of peace or war in the South China Sea will depend largely on which path China, and its Asean neighbors, will follow: Confucius or Mao.

If Confucius, all coastal states facing the South China Sea can be one big Asian family, governed by the rule of law – UNCLOS.

All claims to sovereignty over islands and sovereign rights over maritime resources, not covered by UNCLOS, will be shelved (though not withdrawn), in favor of joint exploration and development. Claimants can equitably share resources, technology, capital and revenues, based on proximity of the project site or other fair and reasonable basis. This applies not only to China, but to the other claimants as well, i.e. Brunei, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam.

With respect to sovereign rights over maritime resources covered by UNCLOS, this law will have to apply in determining the rightful state. Note that all claimants without exception, are signatories of UNCLOS. For comity, the rightful state should then go beyond UNCLOS, and grant preference to other claimant states, to participate in any joint venture or collaboration that may be formed.

For example, between China and the Philippines, the arrangement may be that China turns over to the Philippines the possession of artificial islands built inside the PH EEZ (i.e. Mischief Reef); the Philippines enters into a service contract with China (i.e. 60/40 sharing of revenues) to explore and develop energy resources inside the PH EEZ (i.e Reed Bank); the Philippines as rightful state assumes full control and security over all construction and operations; and the Philippines guarantees full respect of the revenue sharing with China.


Another example, regarding fishing in the EEZ of a coastal state, the rightful state under UNCLOS assumes full control and regulation over all fishing activities. For comity, the rightful state should again go beyond UNCLOS, and provide preference to claimant states in the grant of fishing rights in its EEZ. If the grant of fishing rights to foreign entities is restricted by local laws, the rightful state should exert best efforts to amend such laws, or resort to other lawful arrangements to make it happen.

If however China decides to follow Mao, or any Asean member state decides to follows his path, then it will be a dark future for the coastal states of South China Sea and beyond, which future I prefer not to write about for now.

Atty. Dindo B. Donato
General Counsel
Tanggulang Demokrasya (Tan Dem), Inc.

19 April 2020. Makati City, Philippines.


Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of TanDem.

Copyright: All intellectual property rights are granted to the public domain.




Voice of America / Public domain


[1] “Realpolitik (from German: real; "realistic", "practical", or "actual"; and Politik; "politics", German pronunciation: [ʁeˈaːlpoliˌtiːk]) is politics or diplomacy based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral and ethical premises.”
[1] Id.
[1] Id.
[1] "Do not do unto others what you do not want done to yourself".
[1] Id.