Editor’s Note:
Santos is a lawyer, peace advocate and legal scholar. He is the author of
two recent books, The Moro Islamic Challenge: Constitutional Rethinking
for the Mindanao Peace Process (University of the Philippines Press,
2001) and Peace Advocate: 50 Selected Writings, 1986-1997 (De La
Salle University Press, 2002).
President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo’s recent orders through Defense Secretary Angelo Reyes
ordering the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to start redeploying its
troops to New People’s Army (NPA)-threatened areas, coupled with her other
statements on the war against terrorism, have translated into a de facto
declaration of “all-out war” against the NPA. Communist Party of the
Philippines (CPP) leader and National Democratic Front (NDF) Chief Political
Consultant Jose Ma. Sison then instantly reciprocated in kind with his
“analysis, not an order to the NPA” of “all-out resistance” against the
“US-directed Macapagal-Arroyo regime.”
This is so serious
a matter where the lives of people are at stake but there appears to be no
clear and proper policy decision to that effect by the concerned leaderships
of both sides (and there is more to say about this below). And yet the
signal has been given to the soldiers of both sides to go “all-out” against
the enemy. In other words, a dynamic of intensified armed conflict may have
been set into motion unnecessarily or prematurely, and may not be easily
reversed. While it takes two to tango, the bigger responsibility for the
current escalation of war rhetoric and war moves lies with the Arroyo
government.
Whatever happened
to President Arroyo’s “all-out peace” policy declared during her first month
in office and backed up by her Executive Order No. 3 defining policy for
government’s comprehensive peace efforts and reiterating the “Six Paths to
Peace”? Her “all-out peace” policy was supposed to be the anti-thesis of
former President Estrada’s “all-out war” policy against the Moro Islamic
Liberation Front (MILF). She is condemning herself and the nation to repeat
the mistakes of recent history by launching an “all-out war” against the NPA.
Notre Dame
University of Cotabato President Fr. Eliseo Mercado, Jr. who chairs the
independent Citizens’ Council for Peace, has recently reminded us: “Central
Mindanao stands as a glaring example of what an ‘all-out war’ does to its
own people. Business was paralyzed, people got killed, livelihood destroyed,
people and communities got displaced and alienation and hostility turned for
the worst. The war consumed hundred millions or billions of pesos in
evicting the MILF. The government spent another billion of pesos for relief
and rehabilitation. Yet the problem remains unsolved.”
At that time, Bukidnon Rep. Juan Miguel Zubiri said the “all-out war”
against the MILF had caused revenues in Mindanao to drop 30 percent, and the
tourism industry to tumble 90 percent. The rest of the country and economy
was hurting too. Then Batangas Rep. Ralph Recto said the “all-out war” would
delay Philippine economic recovery by at least two years. Two years hence,
are we going to shoot ourselves in the foot again at a time when economic
recovery is still our most urgent task?
President Arroyo,
to her credit, has shown political will in her pursuit of the peace
negotiations with the MILF, even bringing in Malaysia as a third-party
facilitator. This in fact shows that there is an alternative and better
course of action: the primacy of peace negotiations over military action.
Unfortunately, the reverse is happening on the NPA front and might happen
again on the MILF front. The peace process has become subsumed under a
national or internal security framework. The peace negotiations in
particular, through the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (PAPP),
have been subject to the Cabinet Oversight Committee (COC) on Internal
Security created by Executive Order No. 12 with a counter-insurgency
“Strategy of Holistic Approach.”
The Arroyo
government’s objective for the peace process is no longer so much addressing
the root causes of rebellion as it is demobilizing the rebel forces. And
even before Arroyo, there has been the persistent militarist mentality of
degrading the military capability of the rebels in order to be able to
impose a peace settlement on them. And now there is the temptation to try to
even finish them off with U.S. anti-terrorist logistics support which also
funds the AFP’s modernization aspirations. More than thirty years of armed
conflict should have shown to both sides now the futility, illusion, and
great cost of aspiring for a military victory over the other side. When will
we ever learn this one lesson of martial law, the 30th
anniversary of which we commemorate this coming September 21?
Most recently
disturbing is the “Nine-Point Guidelines Issued by the President Re: the CPP”
discussed with the Cabinet last August 13. It is clear from these guidelines
that the government has now put military action over peace negotiations in
dealing with the CPP-NPA which it now treats more as “terrorist”
(“welcoming” and taking advantage of the US classification of the NPA) than
as “communist.” It “calls upon the entire citizenry (including ‘other
communist organizations’) to get involved in the fight against the CPP-NPA.”
At most, it “will maintain open lines of communication with the CPP-NPA” but
there is no more even mention of peace negotiations. The aim is to end the
CPP-NPA’s armed struggle and “achieve national unity and reconciliation
under the Constitution.”
(On the other
side, Sison earlier suggested the “all-out resistance of the Filipino
people” and the strengthening of “all types of alliances to isolate and
remove Macapagal-Arroyo ruling clique.”)
President Arroyo
has just changed the rules of the game, as it were. The existing main
“rules” between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and
the NDF pertaining to peace negotiations were set in their Hague Joint
Declaration, the 10th anniversary of which will pass this coming
September 1. It speaks of a substantive agenda (including political and
constitutional reforms) for formal peace negotiations to resolve the armed
conflict and attain a just and lasting peace. It also speaks of “no
precondition shall be made to negate the inherent character and purpose of
the peace negotiations” and of “specific measures of goodwill and
confidence-building to create a favorable climate for peace negotiations.”
Moreover,
President Arroyo has also gone against the letter and spirit of her own
Executive Order No. 3 which provides for “peaceful, negotiated settlement
with the different rebel groups” as the third “Path to Peace.” This shows,
among others, that government’s peace policy, certainly a major national
policy, should be embodied not just in an executive order but in a law.
Existing executive orders lapse with each new president or may be revoked by
any President any time. But all Presidents have the sworn duty to faithfully
execute the country’s laws. Examples of proposed laws on a national peace
policy are Senate Bill No. 660 of Sen. Gregorio Honasan and House Bill No.
11751 of Rep. Jaime Jacob in the past 11th Congress.
Speaking of
Congress, it is the highest regular civilian national policy-making
authority under the Constitution, having the sole power to declare the
existence of a state of war and also, by law, to authorize the President to
exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy
in times of war or other national emergency. It is about time that Congress,
in the best interests of the country and the people, assert its authority to
determine and declare national policy on the critical issues of war and
peace which affect the whole nation, and not leave this to the President
alone.
At the very least,
Congress should look into the President’s de facto declaration of “all-out
war” against the NPA, if only to determine whether this is usurpation of
legislative power, even given the President’s commander-in-chief power to
call out the AFP to suppress rebellion. Congress should be challenged to
show the same zeal as it did in investigating the May 6-7, 2002
peace-related agreements with the MILF. If peace agreements can be
investigated, then with more reason must war declarations be investigated.
(On the other
side, Sison says that “the NPA is bound by a series of collective organs of
leadership based in the Philippines” but he seems to have preempted them
with his “analysis” suggestive of “all-out resistance.”)
The constitutional
issue of power to declare war might be also raised with the Supreme Court in
a proper case. Even more important than the interplay of legislative and
executive powers is the application and interpretation of the constitutional
principle that the Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national
policy and adheres to the policy of peace, among others. Does this principle
apply only to foreign affairs? Can or should it not apply also to domestic
affairs?
The primacy of
peace negotiations over military action is also an extension of the
constitutional principle of supremacy of civilian authority over the
military. The Arroyo administration and the NDF must put a premium on their
peace negotiations. We call for the soonest possible resumption of the peace
panel negotiations which have been suspended by President Arroyo with both
the NDF and the MILF. At the same time, any resumed negotiations won’t get
anywhere without a framework or paradigm shift on both sides, particularly
casting aside government’s counter-insurgency orientation.
The NDF, for its part, must review its own framework for engaging in the
peace negotiations for mere tactical or organizational gains which gives
rise to questions about its sincerity in this process. It must also change
its belligerent style and language which violate the letter and spirit of
the Hague Joint Declaration. Sorely lacking on this peace front are a
certain level of mutual trust and sincerity that have mainly characterized
the Arroyo administration’s peace negotiations with the MILF – which shows
that goodwill and confidence can be achieved.
And then the GRP and NDF peace panels should deliver, better earlier than
later, concrete gains and benefits for the people, which will in turn
sustain public support for the peace negotiations because the people have a
stake in its success. One concrete gain with potential benefit for the
people in the countryside is the hard-earned but unimplemented Comprehensive
Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL)
between the government and the NDF. Implementation, even if only unilateral
by both sides, becomes more imperative in the face of an “all-out war.”
Addressing concerns arising from continuing armed hostilities, like the
protection of non-combatants, is also a Path to Peace.
But what the
people would really like to see are socio-economic reforms and anti-poverty
measures, whether arising from the peace negotiations or from outside of it.
After all, aside from peaceful, negotiated settlement with the different
rebel groups, there are other “Paths to Peace,” including the pursuit of
social, economic and political reforms. For example, whatever happened to
the recommendations along this line arising from the consultations of the
National Unification Commission (NUC) about ten years ago? In fact, such
consultations represent another “Path to Peace,” that of consensus-building
and empowerment for peace, which includes the mobilization and facilitation
of people’s participation in the peace process.
In the final
analysis, it is the peace-loving Filipinos, through peace advocacy and peace
education, who can and must build and nurture a climate conducive to peace.
They should make their voices heard, their faces seen, their names known, in
support of “all-out peace” efforts to reverse the dangerous drift down the
road to perdition of “all-out war” and all-out resistance. The nation
should instead take the various “Paths to Peace,” which is the truly
holistic approach, march together along these paths if necessary, to make
known that there is a constituency for peace. Kapayapaan. Katoninongan.
Paghi-daet. Kalinaw. Wassalam. #
