‘I really don’t appreciate the action of some people who went against the MOA for motives other than the best interest of Mindanao’
abs-cbnNEWS.com | 09/12/2008 11:35 AM
Printer-friendly version | 
Send to friend | 
Share your views
Gilberto Teodoro, 44, marked his first year as defense secretary in August. abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak’s Marites Danguilan Vitug and freelance journalist Criselda Yabes recently spoke with him on the aborted ancestral homeland agreement and the current turmoil in Mindanao. The interview took place early September, after he had just visited the victims of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front attacks in Lanao del Norte and North Cotabato. Excerpts:
You said that the MILF is becoming irrelevant.
If they continue to deny responsibility and coddle those rogue commanders who create atrocities, they become more irrelevant in the eyes of the public. Their credibility is in question.
Do you think there will be another round of peace talks?
I’m sure. But the paradigm and the parameters will change. I’m very serious about this: that the authority of the government should preserve the balance of what could turn into a religious conflict. I’ve been holding back. But I blame the agitators for this and those trying to encourage civilian groups to arm themselves and those calling for an all-out war. A religious conflict will be very dangerous and hard to stop.
The President said that the new talks should use DDR—disarmament, demobilization and reintegration—as framework. But that usually comes at the end.
It does. But with the atrocities committed, the public demand is for DDR on both sides. Once the MILF threat is contained, we’ll have to hold hands and disarm almost everybody there. But we have to disarm only when we can assure that we can protect the public…That would take time and it will mean massive military presence in the area.
How long will this take?
That’s generational. But we have to be there to keep that balance. The forces are not the same. Radical Islam is in the picture now. Conflicts now are also very local. It’s more complex as communities become more diverse and autonomous. But we must remember: the process is dynamic. We’re not facing a solid wall but changing circumstances. We have to have the flexibility and openness of mind to deal with the situation, not a set framework. But of course, without bargaining away the Republican system we live in.
The facts are: the MOA cannot be pursued anymore. We have to look for a different basis for talking. The policy of government is clear: to protect individuals. The will of the government should be enforced particularly in the face of the atrocities that happened. This goes beyond peace talks but to the essence of what a country could be, enforce a modicum of justice in the face of people massacred.
What’s the way forward?
It’s to calm down, keep the dialogue and consultation processes open, then the way forward will be clear. The imperative that we have to do is to settle the security situation, militarily or police wise. And then we have a level playing field for dialogue. People must feel safe. That’s the most important thing. Right now, people may not feel as safe as they should to have an intelligent judgment of what they want to do to move forward.
For me, it should be a paradigm for government that this should be the last talks, for anybody. Just have a flexible political system to accommodate them.
It will take time.
It’s better than entering into something that is politically unworkable.
Did you object to the MOA in Cabinet meetings?
I will not say what happened in the process leading to the MOA. I’ll be very blunt about what the MOA is, to me. The MOA is merely a series of aspirations of the MILF subject to the legal framework of the government. What the MILF was saying in the MOA is that it’s up to the government to implement, if not, that’s okay with us. They’ll be bound by the legal processes. They cannot say that they do not agree to be bound by the obligations and responsibilities and agree to be bound by the benefits. It’s a two-way street. By saying legal processes, they agree to the political outcomes, whatever they may be.
More importantly, this is what I was made to understand. The negotiators were negotiating on a premise the MILF will tell their people that this is what they’re going to ask. However, they made concessions, they agreed to take away the words freedom, self determination.
Is the trouble with MOA a matter of language then?
They could not word the MOA in a more straightforward way. What were they trying to say in the MOA? The MILF was saying, We’re defeated. We can’t fight. These are just our aspirations. If your political processes don’t agree to these, that’s okay. Don’t put it in the language that we’ve been defeated, it’s like you’re rubbing it in. Give us some dignity. The negotiators, they had to engineer the wording of the MOA so detractors within the MILF can’t take advantage of the situation to tell the people they were supposed to represent, “these people sold us out.” That’s why there was a requirement for secrecy because they knew that had word come out as to what they had conceded to the government, their reliability as negotiators would be very precarious.
The government has not explained it this way.
The government acted in good faith. They wanted to comply with the terms of reference of their talks. They didn’t want the MILF to lose face. I’m not bound by secrecy so I can talk about it.
I’m not scared to talk about the MOA. As one person who has to face the MILF, and has responsibility to maintain peace and order, I have a right to talk about it, to call a spade a spade and I really don’t appreciate the action of some people who went against the MOA for motives other than the best interest of Mindanao.
You’re referring to…
They know who they are. They don’t have responsibility for the situation.
The MOA is not self-executing?
No, it is not. That was one of the major points put across by the term “legal framework,” a euphemism for Constitution. That’s why you have a plebiscite requirement.
The initial agreement on the plebiscite was it would be held six months after the signing of the MOA but this was changed to one year.
But the MILF knew very well that it would be up to Congress. It’s just a suggestion that we would like to have this in 12 months. We were made to understand that that was clear to them.
As I explained to other politicians in Mindanao, a plebiscite is a very cheap alternative to guns and bullets. To me, a plebiscite is very important. Not only is it a referendum on the political structures that are to be built but more on the claims of the Bangsamoro, whether they represent the original communities in the area, whether their historical basis to have this kind of representation is accurate. And the best way to say you’re wrong or you’re right is to have a plebiscite. That will settle the issue.
The MOA, some say, commits Congress to draft laws and amend the Constitution.
It was not intended to commit Congress because of the use of the term “legal framework.” The executive knows it cannot commit Congress. And the MILF accepted it already.
So the executive wasn’t usurping Congress’ power.
Those who are saying that are being overly legalistic and have a political agenda. The executive will just be a facilitator in bringing these claims of the MILF to the legislature.
Let us speculate and surmise that had there been a shooting war because the government did not enter into an agreement. We would be in the same political flak at this time by the same people who are opposing the agreement.
Was the MOA taken out of context, viewed as a single document when it should be part of a process?
There’s still a final peace agreement to be entered into by the parties.
Why did the Supreme Court then stop the signing if the MOA were just that…
You can’t deny that the Supreme Court is also swayed by popular public opinion.
