Addressing and redressing injustice
“SOCIAL JUSTICE is the underlying rationale for the Bangsamoro Basic Law,” members of the Peace Council observed during its first plenary meeting last April 7. “Social justice is the underlying theme of the Philippine Constitution,” also asserted three members of the council who had been part of the 1986 Constitutional Commission that crafted that Charter. “The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development,” declares Article II, Section 10 of the Constitution. The Peace Council, particularly members of its Cluster on Constitutionality, Forms and Power of Government led by former chief justice Hilario Davide Jr., thus sees the BBL as a measure that “gives life to the Constitution.”
The Mindanao 2020 Peace and Development Framework Plan, in analyzing the context for planning Mindanao’s future, cites widened appreciation of the centrality of historical injustice in perpetuating decades-old conflict and underdevelopment in Mindanao. This departs from the seeming conventional wisdom that prevailed in the 1990s, when poverty was commonly tagged as the root of “the Mindanao problem.” This, Mindanao 2020 observes, led to an approach overly dominated by economic interventions. True enough, the 1990s saw a remarkable increase in public investments in Mindanao, which saw most of its arterial roads paved, communication facilities upgraded, and the world-class Polloc Port built in Maguindanao, among many other projects. “Give the people jobs, and the problem will go away,” was the common prescription then.
It did not take long for all to see that this was not enough. Violent conflict re-emerged soon after the departure of President Fidel Ramos, whose administration had more than tripled Mindanao’s share in the national infrastructure budget with the end view of upgrading the Mindanao economy. On hindsight, we now know that economic improvement was a necessary, but not sufficient, condition. “While the destructive impact of poverty is not to be underestimated,” Mindanao 2020 observed, “historical injustice is now regarded by all major stakeholders as the underlying root of the Mindanao challenge.” This injustice has come in multiple forms: There are social, political, economic, cultural and environmental injustices that had led to deep-seated tensions, which were to inevitably break out into open violent conflict. Mindanao 2020 concluded that “attainment of lasting peace and development in Mindanao must hinge on addressing and redressing these various forms of injustice.”
A wide and varied literature has emerged in the past 15 years advocating greater levels of social cohesion in Mindanao and seeking to understand barriers to achieving it. It recognized the need to “re-weave Mindanao’s fragmented society” by addressing the requirements of social cohesion, not just in the Bangsamoro areas but in the whole of Mindanao. Scholarly analyses have stressed the importance of trust and strong ties that foster unity across divergent groups and strengthen the social connections and linkages, through which information is communicated and knowledge shared. These are collectively captured in the term “social capital” which, it has been argued, merits as much attention as the other more familiar forms of capital (financial, physical, human and natural) in examining the requisites for Mindanao’s development.
Mindanao 2020, a document that deserves wider and closer attention these days, further avers: “Against the historical backdrop of injustice in Mindanao, a more recent grievance expressed among Muslim circles relates to the perceived failure of government to rehabilitate conflict-affected communities and provide livelihood for the Bangsamoro people in the aftermath of the 1996 Peace Agreement with the Moro National Liberation Front. The challenge, then, is for government to demonstrate greater sincerity and build greater confidence among the peoples of Mindanao in such a way that appropriate emphasis is being given to addressing the traditional challenges that have held back the island group for much too long. In particular, what’s needed is to put in place a machinery for a decisive joint effort for peace and development, including governance—spanning short term activities, long term planning, funding and implementation—between the central government and the (autonomous region) spanning a period of at least 50 years. This will aim specifically to reduce dependence on both the central government and foreign donors, thereby building up self-reliance.”
This is indeed what the BBL is all about.
Davide, speaking for the Peace Council, observes: “The passage of a new organic law for the autonomous region is compelled by the imperative of correcting the injustices of the past, the urgency of the socio-economic-political context at present, and the uncertainty of having a similar opportunity in the future. The BBL must be understood as an extraordinarily special law, not only because of its nature as an organic act, but also, and more importantly, as an embodiment of a peace agreement, the product of prolonged negotiations.” In addressing concerns about the measure’s constitutionality, the council believes that “the Constitution must be interpreted liberally, so as to give life to its provisions, and allow the fulfillment of the decades-old mandate for genuine regional autonomy.”
The BBL, the Peace Council argues, should be understood for what it really is: an instrument to pursue social justice and development, not only for the constituents of Bangsamoro but also for the entire Mindanao and the country as a whole.
* * *
E-mail: [email protected]
