Gaping holes in framework agreement on the Bangsamoro

The Philippine Government (GPH) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front ( MILF) made public the “Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro” two days ago, a concrete step to give flesh to President Aquino’s declaration, “We shall restore confidence in a peace process that is transparent and participative.”

Reading through the GPH copy downloaded from the website of the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (www.opapp.gov.ph), I cannot help but ask questions that a student of the peace process will be wont to ask:

The agreement states, “The core territory of the Bangsamoro shall be composed of: (d) all other contiguous areas where there is a resolution of the local government unit or a petition of at least ten percent (10%) of the qualified voters in the area asking for their inclusion…”

What shall be the basis of local government unit for such resolution? Does it mean that if there are a little more that 10% of the voters who happen to be Muslims or Bangsamoro in an area, they can make the petition for inclusion without consulting the majority who are not Muslims or Bangsamoro?

The agreement states, “As a matter of principle, it is essential that policing structure and arrangement are such that the police service is professional and free from partisan political control.” It also states, “In a phased and gradual manner, all law enforcement functions shall be transferred from the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to the police force for the Bangsamoro.”

Why is there no mention of the Philippine National Police in the agreement? Since when did the Armed Forces of the Philippines perform the law enforcement function in ARMM? Who will constitute the Bangsamoro Police force? Will it be independent and not under the central supervision of the PNP? What will happen to PNP officers and personnel currently assigned in the ARMM? Will they be reassigned elsewhere?

I am sure that other peace advocates that are closely observing developments in the peace process have more questions. This is not to question the wisdom of the framers of the agreement but only to point out that there are contentious issues that need to be openly discussed with the active participation of all sectors concerned.

In behalf of the thousands of educators ( Division Superintendents, District Supervisors, Principals and Teachers) who have guided millions of students and pupils as well as their parents in responding to YES FOR PEACE — Bayanihan para sa Kapayapaan and taking their oaths as “Kabayani para sa Kapayapaan,” I would like to reiterate the call for the permanent cessation of hostilities by end of 2012 and the conduct of open and participatory peace talks here in the Philippines. —

Yes For Peace