The
Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) has its noble vision: it seeks to provide an
“antidote to the decades-long armed rebellion that brought so much economic
hardship and suffering to the southern Philippines.” [1] Those
pushing for the passage of the BBL believe that to have real progress in the
area, there is a need to have more autonomy, i.e., less interference from the
central government since the laws and policies of the
central government have failed to address the real grievances and experiences
of the region.[2]
This
is not the first time the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) has sought independence. In 2005, a Memorandum of
Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) was drafted and was set to be signed
on August 5, 2008. This was the first time the term “Bangsamoro Juridical
Entity” (BJE) was mentioned. The BJE would have had the "power to build, develop and maintain its own institutions inclusive of civil service, electoral, financial and banking, education, legislation, legal, economic, police and internal security force, judicial system and correctional institutions." The Supreme
Court declared the MOA-AD (even before it was signed) to be unconstitutional for having the BJE in "associative
relationship "with the central government. According to then Supreme Court
Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales,[3]
the “associative relationship” is characterized by shared authority and
responsibility between two states wherein one merely delegates responsibilities
to the other in order to maintain a middle ground between integration and
independence (in citing Keitner and Reisman[4]); thus, it was held that this cannot be accommodated under the present constitution.
Meanwhile, In
drafting the BBL, the Transition Commission, noted the previous Supreme Court ruling
and have thus adopted the term “asymmetrical relationship”[5] to
describe the envisioned relationship of the Bangsamoro with the central
government. Supreme Court Justice Marvic Leonen, explains such in his
concurring opinion in the case of League of Provinces of the Philippines v.
DENR[6]
that the “asymmetrical relationship” means that "autonomous regions are granted
more powers and less intervention from the national government; and that the
Constitution grants them legislative powers over some matters, e.g. natural
resources, personal, family and property relations, economic and tourism
development, educational policies, that are usually under the control of the
national government."[7] However, we must remember that even these powers are limited under the present constitution. In one case, the Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional for an
ARMM Regional Assembly to create or reapportion legislative districts since the
power to do so was lodged with the national legislature, and was beyond what
was previously enumerated.[8]
In reading the draft of the BBL, it is interesting to note that the law provides not only for its
concurrent powers (with the central government) but also its exclusive powers.
These include expropriation and eminent domain and the enactment of a Bangsamoro
General Appropriation Act by the Bangsamoro Parliament—examples of powers that
are exercised by the national executive and legislative branches. Given the
cases decided by the Supreme Court and where they stand, it is likely that the
BBL would also be deemed unconstitutional especially when, I believe, it goes
beyond the asymmetric relationship (following the definition aforementioned).
However,
the Transition Commission said in its Primer that it is empowered to propose
changes to the constitution that will accommodate the BBL, if necessary. Inevitably (and unfortunately), this would mean that we would have to wait for more years before its ultimate
attainment and application.
[1] Judy T. Gulane. Policy Brief: Land Governance in the
Bangsamoro. April 2014.
[2] Bangsamoro Transition Commission. A Primer on the
Bangsamoro Transition Commission and the Bangsamoro Basic Law, February 2014.
[3] The Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Peace Panel,
G.R. No. 183591, October 14, 2008
[4] C.I. Keitner and W.M. Reisman, FREE ASSOCIATION: THE UNITED STATES EXPERIENCE, 39 Tex. Int'l L.J. 1 (2003).
[5]
Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) draft, Article 6, Sect. 1.
[6]
League of Provinces of the Philippines v. DENR, G.R. No. 175368, April 11,
2013.
[7]
1987 Constitution, Article X, Sect. 20
[8]
Sema v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 177597, July 16, 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment