THE peace negotiators of the Executive branch, some misguided members of Congress (Senate and House) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) appeared to have conspired to make a mockery of our Constitution, when they filed and pushed for the approval of the Bangsamoro basic law (BBL), or House Bill (HB) 4994, now awaiting deliberation in Congress.
This is so, because Congress under the Constitution does not have any power and authority whatsoever to create the Bangsamoro, an entirely new political entity, that is vastly different from that of the constitutionally ordained Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and in the Cordilleras (Article X of the Constitution).
According to Section 5, Article XIII of the proposed BBL, the ARMM shall be deemed abolished after the ratification of the BBL.
The powers and functions of the ARMM are set forth in seven sections of the Constitution: Sections 1, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 21. These sections are written by the Filipino people on the pages of the Constitution, and cannot simply be erased or obliterated by Congress in favor of BBL.
Former House Deputy Speaker Pablo Garcia said in an article published by BizNews Asia that none can point a single article, section or paragraph for the past 80 years out of three constitutions (the 1935, the 1973 and the present 1987 Constitutions) that had been repealed or abolished by legislation.
The BBL sought to distinguish and differentiate itself from the autonomous regions and other local government units identified and recognized under Article X of the Constitution.
Unless amended or revised by the sovereign will of the people, the Constitution must remain an inviolate, ageless and timeless document, Garcia pointed out.
Section 1 of Article VI of the proposed BBL, provides that: “The relationship between the central government and the Bangsamoro government shall be asymmetric.”
Asymmetric in layman’s language means lacking symmetry, or “having parts or aspects that are not equal or equivalent.”
So, the BBL could be interpreted as more superior than the central or national government of the Republic of the Philippines.
“To establish an asymmetrical political relationship of Bangsamoro with the central government founded on the principles of ‘subsidiarity’ and ‘parity of system’ is an oxymoron,” Philippine Constitution Association said in the position paper recently submitted to the Senate Committee on Local Governments, chaired by Sen. Ferdinand Marcos Jr.
There’s no doubt that the BBL is flawed and cluttered with unconstitutional experimental features to replace the failed ARMM, Philconsa said. Other significant issues raised by Philconsa are the right to self-determination, form of government, territorial domain, foreign affairs, internal and external security, and sources of government funds.
Driving home its point, Philconsa cited the North Cotabato case, where the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that “the people’s right to self-determination should not, however, be understood as extending to a unilateral right of secession.”
“A distinction should be made between the right of internal and external self-determination. A right to self-determination, in this case, takes the form of the assertion of a right to unilateral secession,” Philconsa quoted the SC decision.
According to the Philconsa, the SC ultimately held that the population has no right to secession, since it is not under colonial rule or foreign domination, nor is it deprived of the freedom to make political choices and pursue economic, social and cultural developments.
“Thet preamble of BBL confuses the Bangsamoro as either a subsidiary or equal to the central government,” Philconsa said.
Philconsa described the BBL as a product of “overcooked politics” with a national and international aftermath, “spiced with unreasoned objectives” leading to “a dysfunctional and unsustainable political system.”
“HB 4994 was fashioned as the magical legal instrument, which ironically overlooks or bypasses the constitutional and legal requisites to establish a new and singular political entity not provided in the Constitution,” Philconsa said.
The question is: Who authorized Prof. Mirriam Coronel Ferrer and Secretary Teresita Deles to negotiate with people considered as enemies of the State who produced and filed a highly questionable proposed law in Congress, knowing that the Constitution would be violated?
Another question is: Why are foreign governments allowed to interfere with purely domestic problem in clear violation of the Constitution?
Section 7, Article II of the Constitution mandates that: “The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states, the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest and the right to self-determination.”
To reach the writer, e-mail cecilio.arillo@gmail.com