BBL: Milestone or millstone?

THE Philippine Congress reached a milestone for peace this week. The House passed HB 6475 and Senate SB 1717 on the legislation of a Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) after President Rodrigo Duterte certified it as urgent.

Although there will still be a bicameral process, the projection is that Congress would legislate the BBL and Pres. Duterte would sign it on July 23.

Many have expressed jubilation. The BBL is key to the political track that institutionalizes the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB). It is important not only for the Bangsamoro and Mindanao but also the entire country. The tagline “BBL natin” is thus appropriate. It is not theirs but ours.

But legislation is not about coming up with just any law. Thus, there are strong concerns about the dilution of the draft originally submitted by the Bangsamoro Transition Commission (BTC).

Those who have been following the deliberations flagged that HB 6475 increased the reserved powers of the National Government (NG) from nine to 20 and that from 14, the concurrent powers to be shared by the NG and the Bangsamoro Government (BG) have increased to 21. At least 12 items were removed from the 58 that were supposed to be under the exclusive powers of the BG. In addition, four powers related to education already exercised by the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and assumed by the BG were no longer in HB 6475, among these are supervision over accredited madaris and the conduct of madaris teachers qualifying examinations.

More than just a numbers game, the apprehensions are about whether the bill is indeed consistent with the CAB and the powers already wielded by ARMM are being diminished.

Advocates of indigenous peoples (IP) rights such as the Mindanao Peoples Peace Movement and LOYUKAN laud SB 171 for ensuring the non-derogation of rights granted under national laws, particularly the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA); free, prior, and informed consent concerning IP ancestral domain inclusion in Bangsamoro territory and in the exploration of natural resources; and respecting freedom of choice of all IPs “to retain their distinct indigenous and ethnic identity.”

The bicameral process will be vital in BBL finalization. Representative Celso Lobregat, who has historically been opposed to the BBL, made known his intensions to maximize the bicameral platform.

There are those who say that what is important is that a BBL is passed. But apprehensions are rife that it would be a repeat of previous problematic legislations linked to peace agreements. Dr. Steven Rood points to the 2001 experience with the Expanded ARMM Law that was adjudged as not in keeping with the 1996 Final Peace Agreement between government and the Moro National Liberation Front and a source of complications.

Whatever the outcome, we who support the Bangsamoro and indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination and their struggles cannot but stand with them and commit to continue to be there. Whatever “be there” might mean in changed circumstances.