MARTIAL LAW IN MAGUINDANAO: A PASTORAL PERSPECTIVE

“Bishop, what is the Church’s position on Martial Law in Maguindanao?” Muslims and Christians have asked me this question. I have reflected on the question in the light of the situation in Maguindanao and of the social teachings of the Church. It is difficult to provide an indisputable answer. I can only provide some prudential pastoral guidelines for our faithful to consider.

The situation of injustice and unpeace in Maguindanao is very complex. One has to consider the incredible proliferation of firearms, legal and illegal, throughout the province—and these not only in the hands of so-called warlords, CVO’s and police. Liquidations by motorcycle-riding men, kidnapping by armed groups, despite deterrence provided by the army’s Operation Tugis, still occasionally take place. Rido between some MILF commanders and the Ampatuan clan has been going on since Datu Saudi Ampatuan, the young enlightened mayor of Datu Piang, was killed some years ago. This cycle of violence has affected the peace process in that area and its surrounding municipalities. Guns seem to be everywhere. The functioning of courts of justice and of election bodies have been highly suspect for a long time partly due to the political allegiances of court officers. Competence, transparency, and accountability in political governance in many places have to be significantly improved. In Maguindanao, family name and relationships is most important.

The aftermath of November 23, 2009, that day of infamy, shows how slow government reaction can be, given all the above circumstances. Media and politicians from far away Manila do not seem to be familiar with these social, political, and cultural situation in Maguindanao. They seem to think that the police and the military can easily go into an area and just arrest the suspected culprits. Even a “state of emergency” did not seem adequate to cope with the situation.

Thus, a declaration of martial law. What do I think about it? Having reflected on the social, political, and cultural situation I have described above in the light of the social teachings of the Church I offer the following prudential guidelines for our faithful in the Archdiocese of Cotabato:

1. Martial Law is a last resort. I am not a lawyer and a constitutionalist. I shall leave the legal and constitutional debate to them. I do not know if all other recourse to resolve the above situation, particularly the appalling and most dreadful crime of November 23 that cries out to heaven, would be adequate. The complexity and the abnormality of the situation and the need for swift justice for 57 brutally massacred innocent civilians would dictate an extraordinary measure. Since Martial Law has been declared. Let it be. I let the lawyers debate it. I pray that Martial Law resolve the abnormal situation and deal swift justice for the victims.

2. Martial Law is double edged. Military rule is out of the ordinary. The use of weapons to impose that rule is very risky for human rights. We know that even the suspects in the massacre have human rights. Therefore, even as justice for the victims is to be pursued, it should not be by doing injustice to the accused. A wrong cannot be made right by another wrong. Justice is to be pursued in a just way.

3. Martial Law, as a last resort, may be necessary only for the decisive resolution of the problems in Maguindanao I have described. Once it is no longer necessary, it must immediately cease. The shorter the time, the better. This is because of the double-edge nature of Martial Law. The longer it is exercised, the more likely it would be for human rights to be violated and for weapons to be used for evil.

We continue to pray for the victims and their families, some of whom are our own friends. We pray for the quick apprehension and fair trial of all suspects. We pray for the disbanding of all armed groups, the confiscation of all illegal arms, the reform and restructuring of electoral, peace and security agencies. We pray for the arrest and prosecution of kidnapping and liquidating bandits groups. We pray for the return of functioning governing municipal and regional agencies not beholden to any political name. We pray for all the people of Maguindanao, Christian, Muslims, Lumads, Buddhists, Confucianists, etc. that all may live in peace together as brothers and sisters, with leaders that are, in a very true sense, public servants.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato
December 6, 2009

A Crime that Cries out to Heaven

To all People of Good Will:

Last Monday, 23 November 2009, the shocking news of a horrifying massacre began circulating through radio, text messages, and word of mouth. Twenty four hours later, there were still no complete and accurate reports on what really happened along the highway between Shariff Aguak and Kauran, Ampatuan, Maguindanao. The number of people massacred continues to rise even now, family-members, friends, legal advocates, journalists, and civilians who found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.

From the beginning there was no doubt that we were hearing or reading of a tragedy unprecedented in the history of the once empire province of Cotabato, unprecedented in its ferocity, brutality and brazenness.

People cry out to God and to one another, “How could this thing happen?” And as more and more bodies were unearthed from that now infamous “killing field,” the wailing and grieving of hundreds of families related to the victims as brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, cousins, nephews and nieces, in laws or friends are turning into righteous rage and the natural desire for vendetta. For the sake of humanity we must not give in to this desire to seek vengeance that can so easily spiral into a cycle of violence.

From the depths of my soul as a religious leader, I condemn in the strongest possible way this barbaric act of massacre as a conscience-less crime that cries out to heaven.

As a citizen I demand that the government, without fear or favor, use all its powers and decisively act to identify and arrest the perpetrators and apply the full force of the law on them.

As a believer in the God of all, I pray for the souls of the victims and ask the Lord to console, comfort, and give strength to their families. I grieve with them and express my deepest sympathies.

Many politicians and non-politicians have quickly blamed others for this shocking tragedy. This is only partly right and conveniently absolves us from any culpability. My sense of history leads me to believe that somehow we all share the blame to a certain extent. A culture of impunity has, indeed, grown through the years. Political administrations and officials from all parties from the 1960s to the present have cultivated and exploited to their own advantage a social structure of traditional leadership that was meant to be for the good of the people. This was so with powerful political families in other parts of the country. We have not tried to change this culture of political convenience and thus allowed a culture of impunity to endure through successive administrations. Elections have not and will not change this situation. We simply get more of the same.

We need to change from the bottom-up, from individuals to families, from families to communities. We need to change our values that tolerate evil or choose the lesser evil. We need to learn new values that will transform our cultures from within. For Muslims the Koran, faithfully and correctly followed, will be a guide. For Christians, the Holy Bible, also faithfully and correctly interpreted, will provide direction for value transformation.

Beloved People of Good Will, yes, indeed, we must condemn. We must demand decisive action for justice. We must pray. But we also must begin to change. With the grace of God, we can.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.

Archbishop of Cotabato

November 26, 2009

For Cory Aquino: Christmas Reflection, 1989

(This was written after one of the several failed coups that tried to President Aquino. I gave it to Cory Aquino to share with her my own concern for peace after three years of fledgling fragile democracy).

Peace is wisp of wind in the noonday heat
Stirring the regal pines on distant hills
Sweeping down the fields of golden rice
Cooling feverish cheeks.
Momentarily.
Peace can fade away, quickly, evanescent.

Peace is a young chirping bird
Sallying forth from its mother’s nest
Flapping its wings testing the breeze
Exploring the sky and the earth.
Blithely. Briefly.
Peace can be shot down, cruelly, fragile.

Peace is a throbbing healing “yes”
To the wailing of children for food
The outstretched hands of the poor for justice
The hunger of a nation for integrity
The blessed outrage over blood-spewing guns.
A drive. Spirit-force.
Peace is a flame in the heart searing, perduring.

Peace is frail infant on a manger
Who shall announce: To you
On whom my Father’s favour rests
I give my peace
A peace the world cannot give.
Follow me.

How, Lord, shall we follow?
To drink of your peace?
To end our wars and divisions?
Our mad scrambling for power?
How, Lord, shall we become
Sisters and brothers once more?

Pease is a passion to share, to serve
A compassion for the world’s crippled and maimed
An embrace, a crucifixion, yet freedom to be,
A love without retention limits.
Measureless breadth and depth.
Follow me, come!

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Nueva Segovia, December 8, 1989

Cory—My Personal Symbol of Inang Bayan

MILLIONS of Filipinos shouted the battle cry, “Cory! Cory! Cory!,” throughout the campaign period for the Snap Elections of 1986. Finally Filipinos had real hope in ousting President Ferdinand Marcos from an office he had held since 1964.

More than an icon of democracy Cory was and is to me my personal symbol of Inang Bayan, our beloved Motherland.

I first met President Cory Aquino during her campaign sortie to Kidapawan. While many of her fellow campaigners delighted the huge crowd in the town plaza, she came for a quiet visit to the Bishop’s Residence.

She wore her signature yellow dress. Obviously she was the darling of our lay staff and she had picture taking with them. After exchanging pleasantries I asked her to go with me and visit the grave of Fr. Tullio Favali, P.I.M.E., The brutal murder of this gentle Italian missionary priest in 1985 by paramilitary forces had demonstrated for me the darkest side of the Marcos regime. We walked the few meters from the Bishop’s residence to the grave and we prayed for Fr. Tullio.

Her brief visit and presence was a lifting of the spirit for a Church that had known so much suffering from human rights abuses from 1980 to 1985.

From that time on Cory was for me the woman who best symbolized motherland, Inang Bayan. And her gracious, gentle, laid back and kind manner just reinforced that first intuition. From afar I followed her progress during the campaign and prayed for her to win.

We organized NAMFREL in Kidapawan. Thank God, most of our Clergy, Religious, and Lay Leaders were willing. A handful did not think that the elections would help and opted with the Left for boycott.

Cory campaigned with a simple down to earth, womanly and motherly style of talking, like telling a story, devoid of the oratorical and sometimes pompous style of many campaigners. Her enthusiastic reception by millions of people made it increasingly clear that change was imminent, in the air. The agents of change would be the enthusiastic millions, young and old, who listened to her and shouted “Cory! Cory! Cory!”

The Snap Elections were held on February 7, 1986. On February 13-14, 1986, the Bishops gathered in plenary assembly as they had previously agreed, should any emergency take place. This was emergency. The government press was saying that Marcos had already won the elections.

Cardinal Ricardo Vidal, the President of the Bishops’ Conference, called for each Bishop to share the experience of NAMFREL in his diocese regarding the honesty and integrity of the elections.

He asked me to moderate the session, summarize and synthesize the results. Each of the Bishops spoke. There was no doubt – the elections were filled with fraud, fraud that literally changed the results.

We then went to reflect on this situation and pray before the Blessed Sacrament. The Bishops came together again and worked on a statement which they approved by consensus. This was the dramatic post-election statement. The Bishops declared: “According to moral principles, a government that assumes or retains power through fraudulent means has no moral basis.”
Until today I deeply regret that I had no direct hand in drafting the final statement. Cardinal Vidal had asked me to help write the draft. But I had to go to the hospital. I gave Cardinal Vidal my three essential points for a draft: (a) that the elections were substantially fraudulent; (b) that Present Marcos had no moral basis to retain power; (c) that this immoral situation had somehow to be corrected. I gave all my notes to Cardinal Vidal.

Cory called for strikes and boycotts. Then Minister Juan Ponce Enrile and General Fidel Ramos broke away from the Marcos government. With that came the call of Cardinal Jaime Sin for people to go to EDSA and protect the small breakaway band of soldiers.

For me the call to EDSA was genuinely a call to protect Cory, my personal symbol of Inang Bayan.

+ORLANDO B. QUEVEDO, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato

AN OPEN APPEAL FOR PEACE AND FOR OUR EVACUEES

To all Warring Parties:

As a Religious leader I respect your causes, although I may not agree with your methods.

But precisely because I am a Religious leader I strongly condemn every violent act perpetrated that has no concern for the innocent.

I condemn in the strongest terms as serious moral evil such crimes as terrorist bombings that by their very nature target the innocent, punitive raids on villages, bombardments that fall on civilian populations, landmines that can kill any passerby. For me “collateral damage” simply means murder and deliberate unjustifiable destruction of property.

War inflicts more destruction on civilians than on combatants. For every combatant killed, scores of civilians suffer or die. In the past twelve months I have seen thousands of civilians languishing in evacuation camps, first in the Pikit and PALMA areas and now in Datu Piang and various other places of Maguindanao. They give birth to babies under dismal conditions, they beg for food and water, they struggle for life in the most miserable situation. They die as statistics. Such human tragedy, it is said, has spawned brutal retaliatory terrorism elsewhere in our region.

From the depths of my soul I can only cry out to all warring parties, “Enough is enough!” End your so called search and punish operations. End your terrorist bombings. End your bombardments, end your raids, all you warring parties! Enough is enough!

Due punishment for raids has long been meted out in an attrition of casualties and damaged properties. And now what most sadly remains is the senseless logic of war, of action and reaction. And the suffering of thousands of civilian evacuees. Enough is enough!

For the sake of our evacuees and in the name of our one God of Peace, end your war! Go back to the negotiating table. Let the thousands of evacuees return safely to their home. Collaborate with one another towards this objective. Together, rehabilitate their destroyed properties. Give them another chance for a truly human life.

With the grace of the Most Merciful, Most Beneficent, Most Compassionate God, the one unique God we all believe in, there is no human conflict that cannot be solved through a genuine honest dialogue of the heart.

May the One Almighty Loving God of all have compassion on us.


+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato
July 23, 2009

The Cha Cha Brouhaha

From our “remote” world of Cotabato, “far from the madding crowd” of “imperial” Manila, Manila with its peculiar concerns seems to be in another planet.

The people in the former “empire” province of Cotabato are daily generally concerned about violence, armed skirmishes, the security of the highways, floods, and the miserable plight of “bakwits”, families displaced from their homes because of armed encounters between government troops and various rebel groups, prices of basic commodities—i.e, basic necessities—the very first rung of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

Manila and our honorable legislators, as the media blare out regularly on their first pages or at prime time, are concerned about “nagbabagang balita.” Such as impeachment of the President, charter change, and senate investigations of various so called “scams.”

There is something really sad and tragic about all this. The following are some personal theses, personal thoughts really, that do not claim to reflect the opinion of the CBCP.

Thesis 1: That the House of Representatives continue to push Con Ass is truly incredible. Some would say asinine. I would tend to agree. Our Congressmen are pushing this agendum for the wrong reasons and at the wrong time. They are out of touch with their own constituents. On this important matter, they no longer represent the people but only themselves. Wrong reasons, because their motivations are not clear and transparent and people simply conclude, rightly I think, that our “representatives” only want extension of terms. Wrong time, because today the whole country and particularly the poor are facing far more urgent concerns. Our legislators need to seriously consider, for instance, the impact of economic globalization and the global financial meltdown, the growing divide between the government and the Bangsamoro, and the undeclared but continuing “war” in the Cotabato areas.

Thesis 2: The Cha Cha brouhaha is even more amusing and exasperating than the Senate investigations to “search for the truth” and the House of Representatives’ yearly attempts to impeach the President. Except for the case against former President Estrada where witnesses who were directly involved bravely came out to testify to what they saw with their own eyes in the jueteng anomaly and regarding the Velarde account, Senate investigation of various “scams” generally is a “road to nowhere.” The Senate has not been the right place to search for the truth. The process undertaken reflects an identity crisis. It is neither in “aid of legislation” nor a process of legal investigation where truth is exposed through declaration and refutation. As a result, no change in belief takes place. Anti-Gloria people remain anti-Gloria and pro-Gloria people remain pro-Gloria. But it does make the “scam” even more public without really proving that it is, indeed, a scam. But perhaps that is the agenda? Thus witnesses are said to be lying when their testimonies do not agree with what Senators may already have believed to be the truth. This is why they would want “more witnesses” to come out. The bottom line seems to be that Senate “investigations” do not really bring out the truth. They belong to the entertainment genre. But the Cha Cha brouhaha takes the cake. In this case, amusement turns to exasperation. Why, oh, why should the Lower House continue to push a concern that seems to be so self-serving and so unpopular? It pushes credibility to its lower depths. Sometimes I wonder what “Lower House” really means.

Thesis 3: Reactions in Manila to its “burning concerns” are usually exaggerated overkill or are meant to overkill. Thus the Cha Cha protest rally of yesterday. Trumpeted one newspaper, “Rage vs GMA, Con Ass.” One would think that the whole country was in rage. But only about 7,000 people led by the same names and same faces (Left, Right, and Center) with the same well known anti-Gloria agenda, showed up for the rally. If it were a Church-sponsored prayer rally for cha cha, the headline would have scoffed at the poor showing. Yet the media keeps dancing to the tune of the same crowd, same names, same faces. These keep appearing in different fora. The forum could be interfaith. It could be a political alliance activity masquerading as a prayer rally. Yearly impeachments, investigations, rallies – why, oh why do they continue? The Lozada “truth” tour fizzled out for lack of public acceptance. Rallies that pre-claim to gather 150,000 to 500,000 can only gather 15,000. The peak of protests was when Susan Roces and Cory Aquino withtheir supporters collaborated with the political opposition and the Left. They could muster only about 50,000 people. These activities are meant to dramatize what they have been trying to push forward since 2001? That Gloria stole the presidency? That everything about Gloria, what she is and what she does is “evil”? The rallies are simply overkill, a hyperbolic reaction to what is perceived as truth. Is it possible that as long as the same faces and alliances with their own questionable varying vested agenda are there, there would be no “tipping point”? Are they perhaps the wrong names, the wrong faces and the wrong groups to call people to action? Are their varying vested agenda perhaps the wrong credentials? And so they ask the Bishops of the Philippines to help them. But is the situation really a matter of “searching for the truth” as the Bishops have consistently urged? Or is it for these groups a matter of the truth already incontrovertibly arrived at?

Thesis 4: My personal position on Cha Cha is the following –

a. No process of charter change should be allowed that intends to extend terms of office;

b. The elections in 2010 must proceed;

c. If charter change is to proceed it must not be by constituent assembly but by constitutional convention;

d. I have a personal conviction about two provisions: a new constitution must not do away with the pro-life and pro-poor provisions of the present Constitution; it must also provide a constitutional basis for Moro self-determination, without violating national sovereignty and territorial integrity;

e. There must be widespread people consultation regarding what needs to be changed in the Constitution;

f. The whole process must be imbued with integrity and transparency;

g. The bottom line is this: this is not the time for a constitutional change; the Bishops of the Philippines have, since the time of President Ramos, repeatedly said that if constitutional change is, indeed, necessary it should be at a time of social serenity, with no polarizing political divisions, with widespread people participation, and through a constitutional convention.

Thesis 5: I base the above position not on any political reason but on the social moral teachings of the Church. I cite particularly the principles of the common good, social justice and truth, freedom and self-determination, participation, integral human development including cultural, and the proper role of political authority. These, I believe, might be the moral bases of any statement that the CBCP could issue on the subject of the cha cha brouhaha.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato
December 14, 2008

Two Fundamental Postulates for Lasting Peace in Mindanao

After the tragic fiasco regarding the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD), I presume as a matter of course that the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front are incontact with its other.

As a contribution to any backdoor channeling, I address myself to both Moros and non-Moros, and those who claim to represent them.

The following, I believe, are the two fundamental bases for the forging of lasting peace in Mindanao. At the very beginning of any peace negotiation, there has to be a clear and explicit recognition, mutually accepted: (1) of the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Philippines as enshrined in the Philippine Constitution; (2) of the Moro aspiration for self determination and its concrete realization in a manner in accord with the Philippine Constitution. It seems to me that these fundamental concepts are at lease implicitly accepted by both groups.

I believe that the lack of clarity in the MOA-AD with regard to the above two-fold fundamental concepts, aggravated by lack of consultation and reinforced by anger, misinformation, misconceptions, biases, prejudices, and resistance to change, led to the present grave uncertainties regarding the peace process.

The first postulate is clear to non-Moros. The second is not. For most of us the recognition of Moro self-determination and the Bangsamoro Juridical entity in which it is exercised are tantamount to giving away parts of Philippine territory and establishing a Moro independent State. It does not matter if there are several examples in the world, where self-determination is recognized and implemented without necessarily establishing an independent State and dismembering a Republic. It does not matter if the rejected MOA-AD does not in any way express such establishment or dismembering. Great anger and violence have resulted from this situation.

The non-Moro should begin with Moro history to understand Moro self-determination. It is undisputed that Islam was brought to the Philippines before the Spaniards came, even before there was such a name as “Philippines.” It is undisputed that Muslim Sultanates exercised sovereignty and wielded political power over most of Mindanao, Tawi-Tawi and Sulu, a territory considerably larger than the present ARMM or the “expanded ARMM” that the MOA-AD envisions. It is undisputed that the demographic composition of the population and the subject of political authority in Mindanao were completely reversed from Moros to non-Moros within only the 50 years between 1920 to 1970, such that Moros became a minority in the large swath of territory over which they, through their Sultanates, once held sway.

We, therefore, need to accept the fact that the Moro aspiration for self-determination is based on indisputable recorded history Our historical consciousness needs to go back to the times of the southern Sultanates and the religion they professed. There we see a people from the Malay race but with a distinct religion and political identity. They had been part of the indigenous peoples who had converted to Islam. We know that the term “Moro” came much later in their history, introduced by Spanish colonizers to refer derogatively to the people who had the same religion as the Moors that had conquered southern Spain. Through the Sultanates this distinct people from various indigenous tribes held political sway, sovereignty, if one may use the term, over a territory covering most of Mindanao and Sulu. Through the Sultans they governed themselves. At documented periods and occasions, Moros expressed their aspiration for self-determination either by peaceful means or by armed interventions. This aspiration has endured through four centuries of relative peace and short periods of war. Restlessness for self-determination lies deep in the collective Moro subconscious. Like Rizal and the Filipino elite of their time, Moro scholars, intellectuals, writers, warriors and leaders kept this aspiration alive.

The desire for self-determination we recognize now as a fundamental right. It does not necessarily mean an independent State. It simply means as a common attribute of all peoples an option for self-government outside or within a national community. It is an option that is enduring, lying deep in the subconscious of the human community, part and parcel of that divine gift we call freedom, or self-determination. It does not die. It maybe dormant, it might be repressed, but sooner or later it will want to surface either in rebellion or in peaceful assertion. War will not defeat this fundamental human option. It cannot be killed. Without recognition and some form of implementation, peaceful co-existence is simply an artificial temporary veneer. That is the human condition, the condition of human communities with distinct cultures and identities, especially with a history of self-determination.

Recognizing that legitimate aspiration, we also need to recognize the realities that came during the American period of our history. Spain ceded the entire islands to the United States. It was the United States that eventually and effectively placed all the islands under its political power. Yet even the United States recognized the aspiration of the Moro people with the creation of a “Moro province.” Historical records tell us that from time to time, Moro leaders would remind the ruling power of their right to self-determination, of not wanting to be under “Filipino” sovereignty.

But we cannot also escape the development of history. The historical reality is that the the United States, followed by the Philippine government, exercised political power over all of the Philippines. And so we have the concepts of national sovereignty and territorial integrity enshrined in successive Constitutions. Even if one might not accept the Constitution, the reality of national sovereignty and territorial integrity predates the Constitution which simply came later to express or articulate the reality.

These then are the two-fold realities that are fundamental to any peace negotiation: the recognition of Moro self-determination and the acceptance of national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

These two concepts are not contradictory. They do not cancel each other out. One can exist with the other. It is the balancing and concrete implementing of these two fundamental postulates that is the central task of peace negotiating.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato
September 4, 2008

A General Roadmap towards Lasting Peace in Mindanao

In the light of the impasse, lack of clarity, and confusion that have resulted from the MOA-AD fiasco, may I respectfully submit the following suggestion for the peace process to move forward.

As essential talking points representing a roadmap towards lasting peace in Mindanao, I believe that the following issues should be agreed upon by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF):

Any peace process in Mindanao must accept two basic principles: the Moro fundamental aspiration for self-determination and the Philippine government’s right to national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The beginning of a solution to balance Moro aspiration for self-determination and Philippine national sovereignty and territorial integrity as enshrined in the Philippine Constitution is already partly expressed in the concept of ARMM. Despite its many inadequacies the ARMM is an exercise of self-determination in the form of autonomy within the framework of the Philippine Constitution. A more developed balancing elaborating constitutes the road to lasting peace.

The road to lasting peace involves a wholistic solution, political, economic, cultural, and religious.

A political solution, much less a military solution, will not suffice nor will a simply economic one, without the political and cultural/religious. The ill-fated Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) is an attempt to provide a wholistic solution.

The road to lasting peace must resolve the following issues:

(a) the issue of representation in the peace agreement – does the GRP panel really represent the Philippine government; does the MILF really represent the Bangsamoro and the Lumad;
(b) the issue of prior and informed consultation with their respective constituencies;
(c) the issue of the territorial coverage of the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE);
(d) the issue of the powers (e.g., judicial, executive, legislative, economic, diplomatic, military, territorial) of the BJE;
(e) the issue of the relationship between the BJE and the Republic of the Philippines (e.g. is the BJE clearly understood as part and parcel of the Republic of the Philippines);
(f) the issue of disarmament, demobilization, and rehabilitation / reintegration (while the actual implementation could wait for the endgame of the peace process, its discussion should be introduced much earlier as in the experience of successful peace processes).

Given the above roadmap, the road ahead consists of the following elements:

(a) continuing the peace process within the parameters presented in number one above;
(b) resolving the questions enumerated in number three above;
(c) forging a unity of opinion – consensus – on the basis of all the above points through widespread consultations by both sides;
(d) building constituencies in order to support the peace process;
(e) stopping all armed conflicts during any peace negotiation.

Any military or violent reaction to respond to the striking down of the MOA-AD would merely reinforce the mindsets of bias, prejudice, anger, and resentment. Even now the volatile situation is threatening to explode through further acts of terrorism and the arming of civilians on both sides of the cultural divide.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato
September 4, 2005

The Moro Islamic Liberation Front – a Terrorist Organization?

In the aftermath of the ruthless attacks by three MILF field commanders on civilian populations in North Cotabato, Lanao del Norte, and Sarangani, the question of the MILF as a terrorist organization has again been raised.

The issue: Is the MILF a terrorist organization and should it be officially declared so?

The usual non-Moro response is, “Yes. The MILF has once again revealed its true colors. It has attacked towns and villages. It has gone on a rampage, killing innocent civilians, murdering, burning, pillaging, looting, using civilians as human shields – these are terrorist acts. Therefore, the MILF is a terrorist organization.”

The Moro general reaction seems to be: “Indeed, these acts are not morally unjustifiable. They are to be condemned. But these do not make the MILF a terrorist organization. These acts were perpetrated by MILF commanders acting on their own against MILF official policy. We deeply regret such acts. They have given a bad name to the MILF. They have seriously set back the peace process.”

Listening to many Moros speak on this issue, I would add the following remarks to this general Moro reaction: “Like us these MILF commanders were angry at the rejection of the MOA-AD by the government. Like us they saw the long peaceful work towards the recognition of our aspirations for self-determination dismissed by the Supreme Court. Anger led them to violence. We do not agree with their reaction but we can understand why.” I might also add this reaction by a few radically inclined Moro thinkers: “We are not asking for independence. But if the government refuses to recognize our fundamental right to self-determination, why don’t we all unite and just go ahead and fight for independence?”

In the light of such context, the real question is: Does the brutal violence of three MILF commanders on civilian populations in Lanao del Norte, North Cotabato, and Sarangani make the whole MILF organization terrorist?

Many Christians all over the Philippines would say yes. Against the opinion of many of my own Christian flock whom I serve as Archbishop, I say no.

May I submit the following points for sober reflection:

Among the scores of MILF commanders in Lanao del Norte, Lanao del Sur, North Cotabato, Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabungsuan, South Cotabato, Sarangani, Davao del Sur, Davao del Norte, Zamboanga del Norte, Zamboanga del Sur, Basilan, Sulu and Taw-Tawi, how many actually supported the action of the three commanders?
How many instead followed the official policy of the MILF about civilian populations?
Did the MILF Central Committee authorize the action of the three commanders?
Did the Central Committee not try to stop the three commanders?
Did our own military and ceasefire mechanisms not try to limit military objectives and the areas of operation so as to target only the forces of the three commanders?
Did the three commanders act like the Abu Sayaff and take 12 or even only two “kidnappable” people for ransom when they could have easily done so?
Does not the MILF Central Committee believe that the actions of its three commanders have seriously set back the peace process?
If the MILF were a terrorist organization like the Abu Sayaff and Al-Qaeda, would it even have ceased fighting to talk peace?
Would it ever have cooperated with our military to go after bandits going to their areas of influence?
Did investigations on atrocities committed against our Marines in Basilan provide evidence that such atrocities were perpetrated by MILF ambushers?

On the other hand:

We do not believe that our own government with our own military is terrorist, even if:

We had military commanders leading so called “lost commands” that operated freely on their own in Mindanao;
Our troops never really pursued them and rooted them out;
We never brought them to the courts of justice;
Fanatical vigilante groups known for their ruthlessness against Moro civilians were tolerated and even worked quietly with our military commanders;
Our military forces attacked Camp Abubakar, reportedly hours after an accord for ceasefire had been agreed upon;
We never investigated and brought to justice our own soldiers who were accused by human rights organizations for abuses against civilians, whether Moros or non-Moros;

Reflecting on the above questions and soberly responding to them would surely bring us to a wiser position on the issue of terrorism. We need to be more logical and wise in judging the MILF organization as terrorist on the ground that some of its commanders have perpetrated terrorist acts. The actions of a few are not necessarily the actions of the whole.

Mutatis mutandis we also apply, I believe, the same principle and the same logic regarding “scalawags” in the Church, media, military, police, executive, judiciary, and legislative branches of government. We do not necessarily judge the whole by the actions of the few.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato
August 29, 2008