The news most discussed right now, of course, is of the GRP-MILF
Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain. The essential purpose of the MOA
is the amendment of the Organic Act establishing the Autonomous Region in
Muslim Mindanao. The main problem with this agreement, like the JPEPA, is the
secrecy within which it was negotiated. As with anything unknown or unfamiliar,
it has spawned numerous fears ranging from loss of national territory to
speculations that it may be used to extend certain term limits. This article
will focus on international law principles, particularly those relating to the
proposed expansion of territory for the Bangsamoro entity that hopefully could
be of some use in framing within the proper context the inevitable (but
welcome) public debate on the matter.
In this regard, note must be made of the preambular words of our
constitution (“conserve and develop our national patrimony”), which is then to
be read within the context of the definition of national territory found in
Article I. Article XII, Section 2, is also relevant in that “with the exception
of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated” but
with the exception that “Congress may provide for the applicability of
customary laws governing property rights or relations in determining the
ownership and extent of ancestral domain.”
The thrust of all the foregoing is to maintain stability and unity
of the Filipino way of life, be it Muslim or Christian, and this includes
maintaining the integrity of our national territory. In this context, note that
the presidential oath contains the mandate to preserve and defend the
Constitution and execute our laws. The significance of all this is highlighted
by the fact that a violation of any of the foregoing could be considered an
impeachable offense.
Another thing that must be emphasized, particularly when read in
the context of news that flags of independence have been waived by the MILF, is
that there IS NO JUSTIFICATION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR THE CREATION OF A
SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY. What is really disturbing here is the impression
circulated by some parties that the right to “self-determination” could serve
as the basis for creating (or eventually creating) such a separate entity and
that by doing so we are being a “good international citizen” complying with
“modern interpretations” of international law. This is complete crap. If a
separate Moro republic is created, it is simply because we allowed it and recognized
it for some inexplicable reason. There is simply no international law that
requires or compels the Philippines to agree to a separate entity carved from
its national territory.
Incidentally, due to the nature of international law, I urge
everybody to take care in the use of words and avoid terms like “war”
(admittedly an outmoded concept), “armed conflict”, “rebellion”,
“belligerency”, and “self-determination”, or employ any action (like giving the
appearance of State to State discussions) that even hints at the possibility
that the situation in the South is more than a mere internal or domestic matter
for which only domestic laws are applicable and the constitution is paramount.
In any event, as I wrote previously,
the right to self-determination applies only with regard to colonial peoples.
It is essentially a right against colonialism and foreign military occupation. IT
DOES NOT GIVE LICENSE TO SECESSSION. It is well worth reiterating, again and
again if need be, that the right to self-determination does not allow a
minority group to secede and become an independent State.
This right to self-determination could
be found in the United Nations Charter, the two 1966 Covenants of Human Rights,
several General Assembly Resolutions, such as GAR 2625, as well as GAR 1514 of
1960 (or The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial
Territories and Peoples). It must be emphasized that the latter Resolution
pointedly states: “Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the
national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with
the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.” Indeed, insofar
as cultural, religious or ethnic minorities are concerned, no general rights
under the ambit of self-determination are actually applicable to them.
International law justly recognizes (even if our government doesn’t) that the
demands of political stability and territorial integrity of States are simply
too important.
The maintenance, therefore, of the
Philippine’s territorial integrity takes priority over any right, whether it be
collective or individual, including those claimed under self-determination. As
succinctly put by former UN Secretary General U Thant: “The United Nations has
never accepted and does not accept and I do not believe it will ever accept the
principle of secession of a part of a Member State.”
We have to remember that so many of our forefathers sacrificed
their lives just so that every inch of this land will be ours. Everybody wants
peace but for the Philippines in this instance the price is just too high to
pay.
