Archbishop Orlando Quevedo,OMI, DD was interviewed by the Mindanao Cross for his reactions to the recently finalized Framework Agreement between the GPH and the MILF. In general, his reaction was positive and favorable, seeing that the agreement was painstakingly crafted with many of the suggestions (including his in previous interviews) factored in.

Questions:

1. You were insistent before that the new political entity must have a juridical and constitutional basis so that succeeding governments will not alter what was agreed upon in the peace agreement. Is this still your position considering that many experts declared that there is no need for a constitutional change to implement the framework agreement?

Yes that is still my position. While it may be true that the implementation of the framework agreement does not need constitutional amendment, the framework agreement itself says in vii, transition and implementation, that the transition commission shall - number 4, b - "work on proposals to amend the Philippine constitution for the purpose of accommodating and entrenching in the constitution the agreements of the parties whenever necessary without derogating from any prior peace agreements." I understand "entrenching" to mean incorporating some fundamental provisions of the bangsamoro basic law explicitly into the fundamental law of the Philippines to ensure constitutional safeguards for the provisions.

2. The agreement states several “basic rights” which will be respected in the new political entity. Are these enough to protect the Christians and Lumads or these must be expanded to include other measures?

The major concerns of Lumads and Christians during the discussions on the ill-fated moa-ad were related to freedom of religion, the coverage of the Shariah Law, the protection of property rights, and rights regarding ancestral domain of the Lumads. These major concerns are now addressed in vi. Basic rights, nos. 1.b (right to freedom and expression of religion), 1.j (right to establish cultural and religious associations; 1.k (right to freedom from religious, ethnic and sectarian harassment), 1.l (right to redress of grievances and due process of law); no. 2 (vested property rights), no. 3 (indigenous peoples' rights). In interpreting 1.l above, we should take note of iii. Powers, no. 3 - "...the supremacy of Shari'ah and its application shall only be to Muslims." admittedly these are general expressions of rights. By necessity such general statement of rights would surely be elaborated and detailed in the projected bangsamoro basic law.

3. Some politicians took note of the provision on the Bangsamoro territory that says “areas which are contiguous and outside the core territory where there are substantial populations of the Bangsamoro may opt anytime to be part of the territory upon petition of at least ten percent (10%) of the residents and approved by a majority of qualified voters in a plebiscite”. Do you think this fear of predominantly Christian LGUs is justifiable?

Yes, the fear is justifiable, if it remains unexplained and clarified. I would presume then that this provision would receive a lot of comments and suggestions in the projected widespread consultation in the drafting of the bangsamoro basic law. I would also add one more clarification needed on the term "contiguous." contiguous to each other? Or contiguous to ARMM? What if there are two or three muslim barangays that are contiguous to each other but are quite far from ARMM territory? Would they be part of the bangsamoro territory? For such questions and issues the framework agreement serves as a basic direction with general parameters. Further negotiations on unresolved issues will be necessary. It is in this sense that I see the framework agreement as open-ended.

You also suggested in your previous interview that there should be “no surprises” in the agreement. However, Cotabato City which voted against the inclusion during the plebiscite is now included as part of the core territory, without any apparent consultation made by the GPH panel. What is your reaction to this?

The placing of Cotabato City as part of the core territory in v, territory, 1,c, is I think unfortunate. One would think that Cotabato city should be covered by provision v, no.3 regarding areas that are outside the core territory, since as of now Cotabato City is not part of ARMM. Therefore, no. 3 should be applied, a process requiring a plebiscite. Yet i am not surprised for the following reasons: Cotabato City is completely isolated from the region to which it presently belongs, namely, region 12. To use the language of the framework agreement, Cotabato City is completely outside the "core territory" of region 12! Further, all region 12 offices have transferred to Marbel, leaving Cotabato City without much political significance in its own region. Finally due to various circumstances, including the fact that substantial numbers of displaced persons have taken refuge in Cotabato City, a dramatic demographic change has taken place. If a referendum were to take place now, it is most likely that Cotabato City would want to be part of ARMM / Bangsamoro. But even so, declaring Cotabato City as part of the core territory of Bangsamoro, without a clear proviso for consultation and plebiscite, is most unfortunate. Surely the consultations for the comprehensive peace pact will correct this.

4. The relationship between the central government and the new political entity is defined as “asymmetrical”. Since this is not clearly discussed, what is your understanding of this provision?

Asymmetric relationship describes for me the relationship of two parties that are not on the same level, i.e., one is subordinate to the other or one is dependent on the other or one is part of the whole. When, therefore, the term asymmetric is used to describe the relationship between the bangsamoro relationship and the Philippines, it means that the relationship is not between two equally sovereign states. Before the ten consensus points were published, the MILF was asking for a sub-state. It is true that the relationship between a sub-state and the Philippines would also be asymmetric. However, I expressed my objection to the use of the term sub-state because it was a threatening and loaded term. It was easy for some people to conclude that the term sub-state simply refers to a small state, but nonetheless a full blown independent state. Perhaps this is the reason that the ten consensus points and the present framework agreement no longer mention "sub-state" but simply use the term "asymmetric relationship." in the evolution of the peace talks, I would therefore interpret the term asymmetric as referring to the relationship of the part (the Bangsamoro) to the whole (the Philippines).

5. The agreement also provides that the “the Bangsamoro shall have competence over the Shari’ah justice system. The supremacy of Shari’ah and its application shall only be to Muslims”. As the titular head of Christians in this area, what is your reaction to the full implementation of the Shari’ah justice system?

I am happy that the Shari'ah justice system applies only to Muslims. Still, all justice systems in this imperfect world are subject to human abuse especially when they remain too general in nature. Therefore, i hope that consultations with regard to the comprehensive peace pact will result into a satisfactory detailing of the Shari'ah justice system. In this way it would not be easily abused but would always respect the rights of Muslims -- as well as the rights of non-muslims to due process in accordance with the national justice system.

As a final note, I would like to emphasize the necessity for all stakeholders to participate in the consultations for the comprehensive peace pact and for the drafting of the Bangsamoro Basic Law. It is in the bbl that the future comprehensive peace pact (developed from the consensus points and the framework agreement) will be finally and legally elaborated. Even now as the implementation of the framework agreement and the discussions for a comprehensive peace pact begin, the opinions of stakeholders are imperative. May we all be guided by the grace of God. May the will of God for peace be done.

--

1. What do you think of the government sports program at present? Is the Philippine Sports Commission doing a good job, considering that it is a government body mandated to look after sports development?

In my own opinion, there is no problem with the government’s sports program. However, the program is only partially implemented especially at the regional level. The implementing body is only focused on specific sports events such as boxing, basketball and football. Other sports events that can foster physical fitness, self-discipline and team work should be taken into consideration as well. The specific national sports associations/ Philippine Sports Commission have satisfactory performance especially in representing the country in athletic competitions.

2. Are students still interested in sports to attain “balance development”? What is their participation in the Palarong Pambansa? What do you think of the Palaro?

Nowadays, students are less interested to actively participate in sports because of multiple factors. One factor is the increasing use of technology, which made the students become less involved in physical activities. Second, the sports program is often neglected because most schools are only focused on the academic excellence of the students. Third, students do not get enough support from their schools in joining interschool sports events. Today, most students do not attain this balance development for either they excel in academics or in sports. Only a few students can really balance both academic and sports. These students are honed by their coaches to develop necessary skills to become a good athlete and at the same time they are motivated and taught how to maintain equilibrium between academics and sports.

Palarong Pambansa is essential for this is a way where government can discover promising and skillful athletes of the Philippines. Also Palarong Pambansa enables grassroots participation and fosters camaraderie among Filipino youth. The students’ participation in Palarong Pambansa gives them the opportunity and chance to be discovered and become a member of the Philippine team.

3. How would you judge our participation in the Olympic Games? In the Asian Games?

More trainings and enough financial support should be provided to our athletes so that they are more prepared in joining the Olympic or Asian games.

4. What suggestions can you give to improve the performance of our athletes who will compete in the Rio Olympics in 2016?

Have a long term plan and implement aggressive training programs in honing our Filipino athletes. Also, give what is due for them as well as provide untiring support for they will be the country’s source of pride and glory in the Rio Olympics 2016.

Tapatan features Archbishop Orlando Quevedo who was interviewed by the Mindanao Think Tank at radio station DXMS last August 2, 2012 on his impressions of the GPH-MILF Peace Dialogue. Excerpts from his interview are shown below:

1. Question: What can you say about the peace panel’s prioritizing the transition issue in its Kuala Lumpur discussions?

The transition issue is Number 5 in the list of ten decision points on principles. This appears to be very important because the 2013 elections are fast approaching. A new set of ARMM officials would impact the way the new political entity of a peace agreement would be put in place. I think that the two panels already have an understanding that with or without the elections, there will be a new political entity and this would be established soonest without any hindrance by ARMM. The other points are delicate issues and are important but they are not major obstacles to the peace process.

2. Question: What opportunities do you see in the peace process, especially in the decision points?

I have identified two key principles in my article on how to resume the peace negotiations as a result of the impasse. I presume that both panels noted my observations.

Aside from the transition issue, the powers given to the new political entity are important decision points. There are 3 kinds of powers: reserved powers of the national government, powers that are exclusive to the new political entity, and concurrent powers.

It is important to know what is reserved for the national government and what the exclusive powers of the new political entity are. Some of the exclusive powers are in the ten decision points. But exclusive powers are largely to be determined. The panels have to discuss that.

In relation to Christians there are opportunities to advance the peace process. They have to be assured that there are no "secret agreements." Secondly the GPH panel has to continually consult the public. There should be no surprises. My impression before is that the consultations were limited only to those who were against the MOA-AD. I am happy to know now that the GPH panel also consulted others.

3. Question: What can you tell the Christians for them to support the peace talks?

I would like to tell the Christians that they have nothing to fear. There is an assurance of religious freedom, the right to freedom of speech, the right to cultural association..etc. They are not going to be sold down the river. They’re not going to be under the Shari’ah court.

The present fear of Christians is on territorial boundaries. That fear has to be erased. The former annexes on disputed territories attached to the MOA-AD should not be inserted into a new peace agreement. In other words the territory should not be significantly larger than ARMM. The peace panels are very privileged at the moment because there’s a great openness to consultation.

Finally they have to be assured that a new political entity will respect private property. This is not explicitly mentioned in the ten decision points.

4. Question: Are there other points that are still missing in the decision points? Gaps?

The issue of a possible Constitutional change. It seems to me that the GPH is hoping that most of the substantial decisions could be covered by an Organic Law of the new political entity. This may not need a change in the Constitution. If there is a need for charter change, I hope that the new political entity can still proceed until such change in the Constitution is necessary. I believe that this is important. The new political entity must have a juridical and constitutional basis so that succeeding governments will not alter what was agreed upon in the peace agreement.