Link:  VOICES OF DISSENT (2)

A Postscript to the MOA-AD Decision
INTRODUCTION

2009

A year ago on August 5, 2008, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines was to sign an historic document in Kuala Lumpur: the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domains (MOA-AD), an agreement it had negotiated for almost four years with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) with the facilitation of the Malaysian government.

Instead, the Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order on August 4, 2008 in response to the petition opposing the signing of the MOA-AD. Later, the government pulled the plug on the MOA-AD.

The fighting that ensued immediately after the non-signing claimed more than a hundred lives as well as displaced 600,000 people from August 4 to September 4. The agreement that was supposed to have been signed was intended to bring peace. Instead, its non-signing has brought humanitarian crisis to the peoples of Mindanao. The Norwegian Refugee Council report (2009) stated that: “the Philippines was the most neglected displacement situation in 2008″, citing the displacement after August 4.

The debate that surrounded the MOA-AD controversy made two things clear: one, that the general public were generally uninformed of the fundamental issues, not just of the MOA-AD, but also the history of the struggle for self-determination of the Muslims in the Philippines;

and two, because of this ignorance, public opinion easily fell prey to the misinformation coming from opportunistic politicians. It was the Philippine high court, however, that put the final nails on the coffin of the MOA-AD. On October 14, 2008 the Supreme Court issued an 87-page majority decision penned by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales based on an 8-7 vote declaring the MOA-AD “contrary to law and the Constitution.” The decision focused on two key issues: (1) that the GRP Peace Panel and Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (PAPP) violated constitutional and statutory provisions on public consultation and the right to information when they negotiated and later initialed the MOAAD; and (2) that the contents of the MOA-AD violated the Constitution and the laws.