Wednesday, June 16, 2021

1972 Martial Law

1972 Martial Law

  Juan Ponce Enrile, 16 June 2021


Much of what had been said against the 1972 Martial Law was fiction. President Marcos became president of the country in 1965. The United States and the Soviet Union were locked in a bitter Cold War. And the communist ideology went on a rampage and set the world ablaze.

 

The Philippines was not spared. Two insurgencies were organized in the country in 1968. The CPP-NPA in Luzon and the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) in Mindanao. These insurgencies were on top of ongoing Datu Maffallen, Datu Mampatilan, Datu Mabbalao, and Ilaga rebellions there. Beyond these were also the heavily armed political warlords in many parts of the country. Such was the status of law and order in the land at that time.

 

The CPP-NPA and the Moro National Liberation Front were organized by three young men: Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino, Nur Misuari, and Jose Maria Sison. These three were former students in the University of the Philippines. They were allegedly supported by a country in East Asia that wanted to keep the Philippines busy.

 

The AFP then - which included the Philippine Constabulary - was a military force of some 48, 000 men and women. Its combat weapons were Cal. 30 M1 Garand and Cal. 30 M1 Carbine rifles that the United States used in World War II.

 

The CPP-NPA was armed with copies of Cal. 7.62mm U.S. M14 rifles, P-40 rocket launchers, mortars, and other lethal explosive devices imported from red China. The MNLF was armed with modern European guns from Belgium.

 

The CPP-NPA and MNLF recruitment was quick and extensive. The CPP-NPA for one penetrated all sectors of society: youth, students, teachers, academe. colleges, universities, churches, professional and intellectual groups, media, labor, farmers, fishermen, transport systems, urban and rural poor. Both also targeted the military for recruitment.

 

The NPA started its violence in Metro Manila and Central Luzon. Initially, its headquarters was in Hacienda Luisita in Tarlac. It built a labyrinth of underground tunnels in the town of Capas. It terrorized the countryside and murdered those that resisted it. During the national election in 1969, about August or September, the NPA massacred twelve laborers in barangay Sta. Lucia outside Clark Air Base.

 

In January, 1970, while President Marcos was delivering his SONA in Congress, the CPP barricaded the old Congress building on P. Burgos Street in Manila. It trapped President Marcos, his family, Senators, congressmen, Cabinet members, Supreme Court Justices, ambassadors, diplomats, other political and religious dignitaries, and leading business leaders inside the Congress building.

 

A day or two after, CPP elements stormed Malacañang, burned a hospital there, threatened the presidential residence. President Marcos had to evacuate his family to his presidential (yacht) in Manila Bay.

 

With the help of barrio self defense units that it organized in Central Luzon, the AFP was able to dislodge the NPA from there. It pushed them north to Isabela in the Cagayan Valley. And from there the NPA spread to Region IV in the south to the Bicol region to the Visayan Islands, and to Mindanao.

 

Meanwhile, in Metro Manila, the communists continued their destructive work. First, they bombed the Joint US Military Advisory Group (JUSMAG) headquarters in Quezon City. They bombed the Liberal Party rally at Plaza Miranda during the political campaign in August, 1971. Several people were killed. Many were injured. Senator Jovito Salonga, among others, suffered severe wounds on different parts of his body. He nearly became blind.

 

From 1970 to 1972, metropolitan Manila suffered weekly bombing. The communist insurgents bombed Oil firms, pipelines of water utilities, Meralco electric power systems, public and private buildings, business structures, public and private markets. Even the US Embassy was not spared. So were the Food Terminal Market, the Arca building, the Filipinas Orient Airways, the Court of Industrial Relations, the Philippine-American Life Insurance Company, to mention some of many.

 

Massive labor and transport strikes were mounted. The communists tried to isolate and paralyze Metro-Manila. SLEX and NLEX were not existing yet then. One of the transport strikes created a traffic jam that stretched from Los Baños in Laguna to Manila.

 

The communists also captured UP Diliman in Quezon City. They established a Communist Commune there under Erickson Baculinao as Chairman. For several weeks UP Diliman was off limits. No one could go in and out of the place. Permission from the Commune was required. UP President Salvador Lopez became a virtual prisoner in his university. One person was shot and killed in that incident.

 

In July, 1972, Defense Minister General Maraden Panggabean of Indonesia was my official guest in Manila. When he observed what was going on in the country, he said in one of our conversations: "You know, Johnny, what I noticed about your country reminds of what happened to us in Indonesia during the communist trouble there. Be careful!"

 

The final straw that broke the camel's back came from Ninoy Aquino himself. In August, 1972, Ninoy asked me for an urgent meeting. I met him in Urdaneta Village in Maketi in the house of Ramon Siy Lay, our common friend. His brother Paul Aquino was with him. He told me that he met leaders of the CPP, and they discussed a coalition between the CPP and the Liberal Party should President Marcos declare Martial Law.

 

I made a written report of that meeting to President Marcos. When President Marcos informed the public about what I reported to him, Ninoy denied that he met me. President Marcos invited the Liberal Party leaders to Malacañang for meeting with him, but the Liberal Party leaders refused to attend. This incident made up the mind of President Marcos. history was made. He proclaimed Martial Law throughout the land.

 

https://www.facebook.com/JuanPonceEnrile

https://www.facebook.com/JuanPonceEnrile/posts/10159802919798783

 

Sunday, May 9, 2021

"COLLEGIAL RULE" FOR "GOOD GOVERNANCE"

 

“COLLEGIAL RULE” FOR

“GOOD GOVERNANCE”

 

 

            Collegial rule promotes “good governance” because it provides for proficiency, integrity and accountability in making and implementing policies and programs of government.

 

            Firstly, collegial rule by its inherent nature harnesses Collegial wisdom. It extrapolates to a higher level the idiom “two heads are better than one.” [PROFICIENCY]

 

            Secondly, collegial rule impedes graft and corruption because its group-based mechanism necessarily requires the disclosure of material information to many individuals. As human experience shows, “corruption thrives in secrecy, and withers in the light.” [INTEGRITY]

 

            Thirdly, collegial rule strengthens accountability because it separates the “exercise of power” from the “ultimate hold on power.” As political reality shows, the individual with delegated authority to exercise executive power, routinely defers to the Collegial will of the assembly of elected representatives, because this body holds the ultimate authority to hire-and-fire him. [ACCOUNTABILITY]

 

Collegial rule also promotes consensus building, because it pre-supposes or necessarily requires the support of a majority to gain and retain political power. On the other hand, one-man rule may promote authoritarianism, because power may be gained by mere plurality of votes (i.e. a minority vote vis-à-vis the total votes), and may be retained despite overwhelming opposition, because the usual remedies for removal are either ineffective or impossible.

 

Collegial rule by majority vote in Collegial decision making, is the standard in a parliamentary system (at the national level) and in a council type system (at the local level). It is the opposite of one-man rule by an individual decision maker, which is the virtual standard in a presidential system (at the national level) and in a mayor type system (at the local level).

 

            Following the American presidential system with separation of powers, the single individual who becomes president and assumes one-man rule, takes full control of the entire executive branch; appoints all the justices and judges of the judicial branch; enjoys immunity or cannot be sued while in office; and cannot be removed from office, except by impeachment (i.e. an ineffective legal remedy) or people’s power (i.e. a practical impossibility). This is the sad and sorry state of politics in the Philippines which undoubtedly needs to be revisited, re-examined and restructured.

 

On the other hand, in the British parliamentary system that adopts collegial rule, the political branches of the executive and the legislature are merged, but leaves separate and independent the non-political branch of the judiciary. Accordingly, an effective mechanism for checks-and-balances is retained, notwithstanding the merger of executive and legislative branches of government. This is a working system of government, where some (not necessarily all) features may be considered and adopted by the Philippines.

 

            Collegial rule weakens the control or influence of the oligarchs and the family dynasties over the government, by dispersing the ultimate power of control from one individual to an assembly of elected representatives. At the same time, it strengthens the government vis-a-vis the powerful vested interests, by consolidating the law-making and law-execution powers in the assembly of representatives.

 

Furthermore, collegial rule diminishes the natural advantage of “rich and famous” candidates over competent but underfunded and unknown candidates, through “voting by district” in multiple small constituencies, instead of “voting at large” in one big constituency. Notably, a manipulative mass media is less effective in small constituencies, because here the voter has greater chances of knowing the real qualities of the candidate.[i] Moreover, the selection process involving multiple small constituencies requires a substantially lower number of votes to win the post of chief executive.[ii]

 

Finally, collegial rule makes the chief executive more readily removable for acts or omissions involving fault or negligence, through a mere vote of “loss of confidence” in the assembly of elected representatives, rather than through an impeachment trial, administrative proceeding or criminal prosecution.

           

Does collegial rule have any known disadvantage or systemic weakness? Yes, it does. The mechanism to easily hire-and-fire the chief executive may cause instability. Can this be avoided? Yes, it can.

 

Since the chief executive is ordinarily removable at any time by majority vote of the members of the elective assembly for mere loss of confidence, there can be frequent changes in political leaders over short durations like every few months or years. Changes in political leaders usually involve changes in policy. This results in the unpredictability of government that eventually hampers business and economic activity.

 

Nonetheless, this systemic weakness may be addressed by modifying the mechanism to hire-and-fire the chief executive. The modified method can make it easy to “hire” the chief executive (such as by simple majority vote), but at the same time, difficult to “fire” him (such as by qualified 2/3 majority vote). Once elected, the chief executive may then hold the position until the expiration or termination of his membership in the elective assembly, or until he is earlier removed from office by higher or qualified majority vote.

 

            Accordingly, by modifying the method to hire-and-fire the chief executive, the people may enjoy the benefits of collegial rule, without the disadvantage of political instability.

 

 

 

This material was written ex-gratia by Demosthenes B. Donato

for Tanggulang Demokrasya (Tan Dem), Inc.

All intellectual property rights are granted to the public domain.

10 May 2021. 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.

 



[i] The electoral process for public officials needs to be designed in a manner that is immune from any deliberate manipulation of public opinion by mass media, considering that many television stations, radio stations, broadsheets, tabloids and online news sites, are by common knowledge owned or influenced by the oligarchs and the family dynasties.

 

[ii] For example, in a state with 10,000,000 voters and only 2 candidates, a candidate needs 5,000,000 + 1 votes to win as president (chief executive), assuming that all voters vote in a “presidential system” with direct voting. On the other hand, in a “parliamentary system” assuming 100 districts with 100,000 voters per district, the party of a candidate for prime minister (chief executive) needs to win only 51 seats in the parliament (national assembly). This would be 2,550,000 + 51 (or 50,000 + 1 per district) or total of 2,550,051 votes only, assuming all voters in all districts vote.

 

Another example, in a town with 10,000 voters and only 2 candidates, a candidate needs 5,000 + 1 votes to win as mayor, assuming that all voters vote in a “mayor type system”. On the other hand, in a “council type system” assuming 10 districts with 1,000 voters per district, the party of a mayoralty candidate needs to win only 6 seats in the council. This would be 3,000 + 6 (or 500 + 1 per district) or total of 3,006 votes only, assuming all voters in all districts vote.

Sunday, January 17, 2021

EMPOWERING THE REGIONS, THE WAY FORWARD

 

EMPOWERING THE REGIONS, THE WAY FORWARD

 

As far as anyone can remember, Metro Manila had always been far ahead compared to any other region in socio-economic development. To correct this imbalance, many have pursued the regional decentralization of government, based on the social theory of “subsidiarity,” saying that regional government systems are in the best position to handle regional affairs.[i]

 

As the late Dr. Gonzalo M. Jurado noted, regional government systems promote the dispersal of development by securing the benefits of “location” (or advantage of proximity to the regional center), by attracting the forces of “agglomeration” (or advantage of concentration in the regional center where there are already large concentrations of people and investments), and by facilitating “friendly competition” (or advantage of competition among regional centers to deliver the best services at the most reasonable prices).[ii] If I may add, they also institutionalize the systematic “integration” of the social and economic service functions of select government agencies, consolidating their operations, administration, control and supervision under a singular authority.[iii]

 

So how exactly should we pursue regional decentralization? Based on what we already know, there are at least three (3) ways to do this - by regional authority (RA), by autonomous region (AR), and by sub-state (SS). RA is like SBMA, but for a much bigger area like Central Luzon, and without the tax incentives usually granted in freeport and economic zones. AR is like the BARMM and its predecessor ARMM. SS is like the component state of Sabah, that by “accession” has joined the federal state of Malaysia.[iv]


Is there a national consensus on how to pursue regional decentralization? Based on my personal obversation, there is none. In  Luzon, the people and their leaders are apparently open to RA (as they already have the SBMA). However, they are indifferent if not opposed to either the AR or the SS. Note that even the Cordillera region did not create its own AR, even if so provided in the 1987 Constitution. In Mindanao on the other hand, I recall the words of our late mentor, Fr. Romeo “Archie” J. Intengan, S.J. He once told me that as far as the Muslim communities are concerned, anything less than “accession” to a federal state would not be acceptable. Knowing that Fr. Archie spent a good part of his life in the South during the martial law years, I take his subtle observations as words of wisdom. In Visayas, it seems their sentiment is closer to Mindanao.


So how do we move forward if there is no consensus? Well, the answer should be obvious. We should take the “bottom-up approach” and let the people of the regions decide for themselves, rather than take the “top-down approach” and impose on the regions uniform structures designed from the top. We need to consider that there are many factors that influence the success or failure of regional decentralization, including culture, demography, geography, natural resources, public funds and even insurgency.


While we have heard about the benefits of regional decentralization, people do ask – are there are pitfalls along the way? Yes, there are pitfalls ahead. Can we avoid them? Yes, of course, we can.

 

So what are these pitfalls? From my engagement with people's organizations and concerned citizens, the major concerns include the“Balkanization” of the nation (or the secession of sub-states from the federal state), the huge cost of funding multiple regional assemblies, double taxation that overburdens the taxpayers, and a complicated legal system (with divergent legal frameworks across the regions) that hamper doing business and job creation.


To prevent “Balkanization,” the federal constitution may categorically prohibit secession, and to this end, vest solely in the federal state the establishment of military (AFP) and police (PNP) forces. Borrowing from the laws establishing freeports and economic zones, the SS may have “internal security forces” which are actually government security guards with the limited task of protecting persons and properties.

 

To avoid the huge cost of funding multiple new regional assemblies, the present mayors and district congressmen may be designated as ex-officio members of these assemblies. Under the 1943 Constitution, local officials were made ex-officio members of the national assembly.

 

To avoid double taxation, we can temporarily retain the present public finance system where only the national government collects the major taxes (on income, value added and import duties), and thereafter allocate to the regions their fair and equitable share in the collections.

 

To avoid a complicated legal system, we can also temporarily prohibit the enactment by the SS of laws on banking, insurance, commerce (on goods and services), insolvency, intellectual property rights, professional practice, immigration, naturalization.

 

Looking at all these limitations on the SS, are we not rendering it inutile? No, we are not. They retain the government powers most important to them, i.e. the power to approve plans, programs and projects, and the power to allocate public funds.

 

So how do we move forward in empowering the regions? Check out the People's Draft (a crowd-sourced constitution), hashtag #PeoplesDraft. It is ready for discussion and deliberation on all points raised, and even more.

 

 

Demosthenes B. Donato

13 September 2019

Makati City, Philippines

 



[i] Principle of Subsidiarity – “theory in sociology, that functions which subordinate or local organizations perform effectively belong more properly to them than to a dominant central organization;” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, (c) 2002, page 2279.

[ii] Gonzalo M. Jurado, Notes on the Federal Structure for the Philippines, pages 2-4, 10 September 2012.

[iii] Demosthenes B. Donato, Advantages and Disadvantages of Regional Decentralization, 27 August 2016.

[iv] Principle of Accession – “the act of becoming joined (as in a confederacy or union);” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary Unabridged, (c) 2002, page 11.

WHY LEFTISTS REJECT FOREIGN INVESTORS

 WHY LEFTISTS REJECT FOREIGN INVESTORS

 

Before I answer the question, let me first define what I mean by “leftists.” I refer to the advocates of nationalist democracy (NatDem) and socialist democracy (SocDem), who knowingly or unknowingly, may have been influenced by teachings of the communist movement, specifically the Communist International (Comintern) of 1919-1943.[i]

 

The Comintern was an international organization that advocated world communism.[ii] It was determined to "struggle by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and the creation of an international Soviet (i.e. council) republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the state."[iii] Comintern “accepted the revolutionary potential of nationalism in the colonial world.”[iv]

 

Notably, the communist ideology was rooted in Marxism and similar schools of thought, that concerned itself only with the poor worker class, the rich capitalist class, the conflict between the social classes, the inevitable social revolution, and the goal of common ownership of the means of production.[v] In other words, it was NOT concerned with nationalities, ethnicity or race.

 

Nonetheless, in order for the ideology to penetrate the colonial world (then ruled by the capitalist powers of Western Europe and North America), the Comintern adopted the strategy of agitating the colonized to rise up against the colonizer under the banner of “nationalism.”

 

Thus, their adherents were indoctrinated about the “evils” of foreign owned businesses (which were mostly from the Western capitalist powers), and thereafter sent on global missions to uproot and destroy them. Once the Western colonizers were weakened if not defeated, the pure communist ideologues can come in to establish a new world order.

 

Looking back at my law school days, where I joined a SocDem group called Sandata, that was affiliated with a larger coalition called Bandila, I guess I was among those indoctrinated with ideas of “nationalism” that was basically anti-foreign. In fact, in our course on constitutional law, we were made to believe that limitations and restrictions on foreign investors under the Filipino First policy, was “nationalist” and therefore patriotic.

 

Today, the communist movement for global hegemony has dissipated, but its anti-foreign doctrine lingers on among “leftists” of different shades. I guess they have forgotten, or maybe they never got to know, that the anti-foreign doctrine was merely a strategy to penetrate the colonial world for the eventual entry communism.

 

I for one no longer believe that foreign investors are almost always predators, who are simply out to exploit the country and its people. Rather, I see them as simply businessmen, like any other, who are willing to invest capital and buckle down to work, in exchange for reasonable profits.

 

If we take a survey of workers or employees in the country now, I guess many if not most of them, will prefer to work for a multinational company (owned by foreign investors), instead of a purely local company (without any international exposure). This is because from what I have seen, multinational companies generally offer higher salaries and benefits.

 

Just to be clear on this point, this is not because these foreign investors are benevolent. It is simply because their foreign owners and management are used to much higher salaries and benefits in their home country. On the other hand, if we look at the local investors who are used to hardship, I guess it follows why they are also hard about salaries and benefits.

 

As I look now at the Filipino First policy, that by law restricts or limits the entry of foreign investors into the country (thereby creating a captive local market), I see that it makes the fundamentally wrong assumption that the profits earned by Filipino businessmen, will “trickle down” to the Filipino workers and consumers.

 

On the contrary, economic experience shows that enterprise owners on one hand, have contradictory interests in relation to enterprise employees and customers on the other hand.  See Theory of the Firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure, by Jensen and Meckling (1976). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304405X7690026X. Law of Supply and Demand, by Chappelow (2019). https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/law-of-supply-demand.asp.

 

The enterprise owners will simply flow as much profits to themselves, unless or until the enterprise employees and customers push back, whenever they can. The same motivation for profit of course applies, regardless of the foreign or local ownership of the enterprise.

 

Today, the biggest dollar earners of the country are the OFWs (overseas Filipino workers) who work for foreign employers overseas, and the BPOs (business process outsourcing) that are generally owned by foreign investors.

 

Ironically, industries dominated by enterprises majority or wholly owned by Filipino businessmen, have the worst performance. We have the highest power cost (i.e. power distribution), slowest internet (i.e. telecommunication), expensive transport costs (i.e. mass transportation), unpredictable water supply (i.e. water distribution), highly politicized mass media, and largely untapped mineral and energy resources.

 

As I see it now, the Filipino First policy is nothing but a Businessmen First policy, where the Filipino workers and consumers are last priority. They will need to get jobs overseas if they want better pay. Otherwise, they will have to swallow the high domestic consumer prices, because there’s no other choice locally.

 

Notably, some associations of big businessmen join hands with the indoctrinated “leftists” to block the entry of foreign investors that they fear will challenge their monopoly or oligopoly of the local market. I guess their motivation is obvious, and there’s no need to write another article about it. They simply seek to perpetuate their stranglehold of the local market, legalized by no less than the constitution and the laws, and maintain their artificially high market prices, without having to worry about new players that will force them to compete like hell.

 

 

Atty. Dindo B. Donato, General Counsel

Tanggulang Demokrasya (Tan Dem), Inc.

16 July 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.

 

 



[i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_International.

[ii] Id.

[iii] Id.

[iv] Id.

[v] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism.

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.