Bangsamoro self-rule key to ending conflict in Mindanao

United Nations General Assembly Resolution No. 2625 (Declaration of Principles Concerning Friendly Relations among States) advised that right of self-determination shall not be construed as

“authorising or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples … and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour.”

However, this U.N. Resolution reiterating the territorial integrity of states is made contingent on the government being representative of the whole people and non-discriminatory.

There is substantial debate as to the scope of “a government representing the whole people”. Hannun, for example, is for the “limited requirement of non-discrimination only on the grounds of race, creed or colour.” But Buchheit “sees it simply as a component of a larger theory based on the premise that oppression legitimizes secession.”

Other commentators, like Musgrave (1997: 209), interpreted Resolution No. 2625 as implying that “international law permits secession as a legal remedy in certain circumstances”. He also contends that secession is also permissible “by virtue of the ‘oppression theory’ when part of a population suffers gross oppression: in these circumstances secession is permitted primarily to prevent the abuse of human rights.” In Allen Buchanan’s remedial right theory of secession, separation would be acceptable if there are systematic violations of human rights or unjust annexation of territories.

There are attempts to resolve the conflict between demands for self-determination and the principle of the territorial integrity of states. Hannun puts forward the idea of autonomy as a “less-than-sovereign self-determination.” Musgrave says that “Some jurists contend that autonomy is not a principle of international law but a matter which falls within the domestic jurisdiction of a state.” He opines that “autonomy within an independent state cannot be part of self-determination for the purposes of international law.”

My problem in comprehending many formulations on the right to self-determination is it is being equated to secession. In making decision as to their political status, people may opt for separation from the parent state but it is not always the case. Consequently, the assertions of a people to exercise their right to collectively determine their political status are always clouded by fear of states that their boundaries will be reconfigured once right of self-determination is granted to peoples even if they are entitled to it. The essential issue, which is the right of a people to choose their political status, and decide on their economic, social and cultural development, is placed at the margin.

Holders of the Right of Self-determination

According to the Report of the International Conference of Experts organized by UNESCO on November 21-27, 1998, the holder of the right of self-determination are a people (a group of individual human beings) who have some or all of the following common features: (1) common historical tradition; (2) racial or ethnic identity; (3) cultural homogeneity; (4) linguistic unity; (5) religious or ideological affinity; (6) territorial connection; and (7) common economic life. (Van Walt van Praag and Seroo 1999)

Additionally, the UNESCO experts stated that “the group as a whole must have the will to be identified as a people or the consciousness of being a people.” The people, according to the experts, must be of a certain number, which need not be large but must be more than “a mere association of individuals within a state.” The existence of “institutions or other means of expressing its common characteristics and will for identity” is also important.

Bangsamoro Right to Self-determination

The Bangsamoro people qualify as people who hold the right of self-determination because they have a common historical tradition and religious affinity and share many cultural practices. They occupy contiguous territory (maritime societies are connected by the sea) with rich natural resources.

Before the arrival of the Spanish colonialists, the Bangsamoro were already in the process of state formation, while Luzon and the Visayas were still in the barangay stage of political development. The Bangsamoro had their own government and engaged in trade and diplomatic relations with other countries. They had developed well-organized administrative and political systems; and strong maritime and infantry forces that defended the Bangsamoro territories from Western colonial intrusion, preserving the continuity of their independence.

During the American occupation the Bangsamoro homeland was administered separately from the Philippines. When the U.S. later decided to grant independence to the Philippines, Bangsamoro leaders asked Washington not to include the Bangsamoro territories in the would-be Philippine Republic. Even when their territories were made part of the Philippines in 1946, the Bangsamoro people continued to assert their right to independence