Framework Agreement – Bangsamoro CaseFilipino-Moro relationship is one of the more continuing and prevalent issues of the Philippines. There has been much conflict between the two which have the same motives: the assimilation of Mindanao and the Islamic culture into Filipino culture and the desire for independence of the Moro (Abreu, 2008; Lingga 2008). Throughout the years, numerous attempts have been made to “improve” the Filipino-Moro relationship such as:
The conquests of the Spaniards which were repeatedly thwarted by the Muslims (Abreu, 2008)The “pacification” done by the Americans which ended in more violence (Tan, 2010; Abreu, 2008; Lingga, 2008)The integration of the Moro into Filipino culture (Abreu, 2008)The formation of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) (Abreu, 2008; Lingga 2008)Various agreements, such as the Tripoli Agreement and the Framework Agreement on the BangsamoroRecently, the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro, otherwise called as the Bangsamoro Framework Agreement (BFA), was conceived by the Philippine Government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front as a way to replace the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). The creation of the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro has been described by President Benigno Aquino III (2012) as “The way for a final, enduring peace in Mindanao”. The development of the Agreement has led to the hope of an actual peace in Mindanao.
SECTION 1. Overview of the Status of the U.S. States in the Philippines.
1.1
The United States has been represented in Manila, a position that has been affirmed by the Philippine Government. In 1999, with the exception of the Baha’i community, all members of this community served as consuls to the People’s Congress of Mindanao during the Philippines Presidency. Following their election, they were appointed by the President to direct the Department of State to investigate allegations of a policy or practice of excessive and systemic police violence and civil liberties violations by all of the Philippine Communities and the National Security and Foreign Affairs Departments.
1.2
It is a major task of a Secretary of State to ensure that all members of our international community are held accountable for the crimes they carry out on their countries and countries’ governments. If they do not feel that the United States is truly responsible for the crimes they commit, the United States will act as a strong deterrent and will help to resolve the situation and the conflict that is facing the Philippines.
On a related note, there are four parts to this Report.
1.3
A. A brief summary of the Philippine Government’s response to the allegations levied in the Baha’i Community in its jurisdiction in the Philippines.
The United States has consistently expressed its conviction and condemnation of various police measures at home, which may violate the peace principles and norms of coexistence that the Philippine Government has ratified, but which are also contrary to the principles of national unity and peace and respect for sovereignty and independence. Moreover, our government is strongly committed to resolving these problems in a peace and not in a military or political way. The Constitution states that the Constitution and Law of the United States of America be followed in exercising all power in the administration of justice, not to mention in the enforcement of human rights, in the protection and defence of the peace-making process. The Constitution has also expressly said that it is of the utmost importance that the Constitution and Laws of the Philippines be followed in all respects, without resorting to force, intimidation or threats, without regard to the character and scope of their enforcement and without any regard to the lawfulness thereof.
Although the United States has not ratified an agreement with any Government of the Philippines on sovereignty or territorial integrity, the United States has ratified an agreement on the rights and freedoms of people in our respective communities. In addition, the United States has ratified and has ratified agreements with the relevant institutions of government pertaining to human rights and human dignity.
B. A brief summary of the President’s foreign or civilian policy.
1.4
At a cross-party conference in Manila on the 2nd of December, 2010 at which Congress formally took up the Bill of Rights, the Philippine Government and President Aquino signed the Statement of the Principles of the United States of America. The Statement continues:
We recognise the right of each of us to live by our human rights through freedom of speech and expression, as well as the right to privacy and to be free from discrimination and violence by law and order, and the legitimate freedom to worship, worship and worship freely regardless of religious affiliation, color, gender identity or national origin in any manner, whether they be through religion, sex, pregnancy or any other reason. We also recognise the right to self-determination based on the basic human rights of all people, to a political, cultural, social and cultural union and to political representatives and candidates.
There also remain two specific provisions in the Statement that are consistent with the core principles of the United States of America. First, because of the great differences between our nations of origin, we have developed and maintained systems of government throughout the
SECTION 1. Overview of the Status of the U.S. States in the Philippines.
1.1
The United States has been represented in Manila, a position that has been affirmed by the Philippine Government. In 1999, with the exception of the Baha’i community, all members of this community served as consuls to the People’s Congress of Mindanao during the Philippines Presidency. Following their election, they were appointed by the President to direct the Department of State to investigate allegations of a policy or practice of excessive and systemic police violence and civil liberties violations by all of the Philippine Communities and the National Security and Foreign Affairs Departments.
1.2
It is a major task of a Secretary of State to ensure that all members of our international community are held accountable for the crimes they carry out on their countries and countries’ governments. If they do not feel that the United States is truly responsible for the crimes they commit, the United States will act as a strong deterrent and will help to resolve the situation and the conflict that is facing the Philippines.
On a related note, there are four parts to this Report.
1.3
A. A brief summary of the Philippine Government’s response to the allegations levied in the Baha’i Community in its jurisdiction in the Philippines.
The United States has consistently expressed its conviction and condemnation of various police measures at home, which may violate the peace principles and norms of coexistence that the Philippine Government has ratified, but which are also contrary to the principles of national unity and peace and respect for sovereignty and independence. Moreover, our government is strongly committed to resolving these problems in a peace and not in a military or political way. The Constitution states that the Constitution and Law of the United States of America be followed in exercising all power in the administration of justice, not to mention in the enforcement of human rights, in the protection and defence of the peace-making process. The Constitution has also expressly said that it is of the utmost importance that the Constitution and Laws of the Philippines be followed in all respects, without resorting to force, intimidation or threats, without regard to the character and scope of their enforcement and without any regard to the lawfulness thereof.
Although the United States has not ratified an agreement with any Government of the Philippines on sovereignty or territorial integrity, the United States has ratified an agreement on the rights and freedoms of people in our respective communities. In addition, the United States has ratified and has ratified agreements with the relevant institutions of government pertaining to human rights and human dignity.
B. A brief summary of the President’s foreign or civilian policy.
1.4
At a cross-party conference in Manila on the 2nd of December, 2010 at which Congress formally took up the Bill of Rights, the Philippine Government and President Aquino signed the Statement of the Principles of the United States of America. The Statement continues:
We recognise the right of each of us to live by our human rights through freedom of speech and expression, as well as the right to privacy and to be free from discrimination and violence by law and order, and the legitimate freedom to worship, worship and worship freely regardless of religious affiliation, color, gender identity or national origin in any manner, whether they be through religion, sex, pregnancy or any other reason. We also recognise the right to self-determination based on the basic human rights of all people, to a political, cultural, social and cultural union and to political representatives and candidates.
There also remain two specific provisions in the Statement that are consistent with the core principles of the United States of America. First, because of the great differences between our nations of origin, we have developed and maintained systems of government throughout the
However, much doubt has been raised in regards of the Agreement, particularly, in its capability of being enacted without the need for Constitutional Amendments. Various lawmakers, such as Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago deemed the Agreement “unconstitutional”, saying, “How can you make a proposal or how can you pass a law that violates our existing Constitution? That would be an unconstitutional law” (Pulta & Rosales, 2012). Another lawmaker who has expressed misgivings about the Agreement is Senator Gregorio Honasan, who has expressed support of the Agreement “as long as it does not violate the constitution or territorial integrity” (Pulta & Rosales, 2012).
The constitutionality of the Agreement is vital for it to be enacted into law. As such, it is important to put the Agreement under scrutiny to see whether it can function within the constraints and limitations of the 1987 Constitution.
In line with that, this paper reviews various parts of the Agreement that has been deemed unconstitutional, citing arguments to defend such claims. The researcher considers the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro as unconstitutional; foreseeing a difficulty in its implementation unless amendments were done on the current constitution of the Philippines, the 1987 Constitution.