ON THE COMING GRP-MILF PEACE TALK

“If Leonen (Marvic, head of the GRP Peace Panel vis-à-vis MILF Peace Talk) was trying to promote confidence building by saying to (the government panel was open to considering alterations in the Constitution in order to attain peace with the MILF in Mindanao), then he can be considered naïve. His pronouncement can be compared to a poker player showing his cards to his opponents before they start betting. His qualification to negotiate the peace with the MILF comes under serious question.” (William M. Esposo, “As I Wreck This Chair,” The Philippine STAR, September 12, 2010)

-oOo-

Esposo further commented: “Does Leonen understand his mission and objective? He is terribly wrong if he thinks that PEACE AT ALL COSTS is his objective. A ‘peace at all costs’ attitude will render Leonen no different from British Prime Minister Alfred Neville Chamberlain (Prime Minister from May 28, 1937 to May 10, 1940) who was blamed for not having stopped Adolf Hitler in 1938 by signing the 1938 Munich Agreement which historians considered led to World War II.”

What Esposo is saying is that “Peace at all costs’ with the MILF could mean a greater RP war.” This war could perhaps be the involvement of our country in a possible violent conflict between the US and China or perhaps a civil war in the Philippines.

Is Esposo being an alarmist or is he a well-informed and sharp analyst not only of the Mindanao sensitive situation but also of the challenging Asian and global events? What do you think?

Well, if you ask me, I consider Esposo as one of our most current analytic opinion-writer in the country. Most of the time I agree with his thinking although at times I don’t – On this particular Mindanao issue, I’m inclined to agree with his opinion that Leonen and his negotiator team should be extra careful that in seeking peace, a more deadly war will result in the end.

Allow me to reiterate below my previous proposals on this matter which I presented in my former article entitled “In Search for Peace” published in many of our local newspapers:

One of the most welcome news recently about our search for peace in Mindanao was the signing of a Unity accord between the MNLF and MILF brokered by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)” geared toward achieving the aspirations of the Bangsamoro people for genuine self-governance.” According to Philippine Daily INQUIRER, May 25, 2010, “top leaders of the Moro National Liberation Front (MILF) have agreed to unite efforts to advance the longing of Bangsamoro communities in Mindanao.” Per info, a coordinating committee “to consolidate their activities” will soon be formed. The MNLF and MILF, per report, “recognize that unity is indispensable to the success of the Bangsamoro struggle.” How true?

When we talk of Muslim Mindanao, we mean the ARMM area. And when we talk of Bangsamoro people, we are generally referring to Muslim Filipinos particularly those in ARMM. It is very obvious then that we are talking here of one area and one group of people. Thus, to avoid confusion to say the least, it follows that there must only be one Peace Agreement between GRP and Bangsamoro. “Di ba?”

Furthermore, we learned, both the MNLF and MILF, per info, recognize that there are “no basic difference between their two fronts as both are seeking to achieve peace, justice and a fair solution to the problems of the Bangsamoro people” and that both “are now in the right direction.” Very good we would say.

Since there is already a Final Peace Agreement (FPA) signed by the GRP and MNLF in 1996, the future logical move is merely to revisit the FPA and incorporate other needed provisions therein that can be legislated and fully implement the FPA. Other necessary measures that will require Constitutional amendment/revision can be done later for GRP and MILF to hasten the resolution of the Mindanao conflict. Continuous disorder in Mindanao will be at the expense of all Mindanawons.

When this conflict is settled, a Mini-Marshal Plan with OIC’s assistance for the rehabilitation and development of ARMM must be put in place. And those who will implement the Plan must be properly trained, transparent and made accountable.

Lastly, our history likewise must be rewritten and one ray must be added to our Philippine flag in recognition of our Muslim and Lumad Filipinos’ valuable contribution in our fight for freedom.

by Chito R. Gavino III, Lihok Pideral Mindanaw

Read more...

TRANSFORMING PHILIPPINE SOCIETY

“(We are) calling for a cultural revolution. We are calling for a change not in the personalities who govern the paradigms that run our lives (with the latter being most important)”. (Jim Paredes, “HUMMING IN MY UNIVERSE”, The Philippine STAR, September 12, 2010)

-oOo-

More from Paredes regarding his concept of a cultural revolution:

“Changes in our society have come way too slowly and in increments. It’s time to speed things up. Many are still hopeful that P-Noy’s ascendancy will change things. At least, we are assured that he is personally not corrupt. But that alone will not change a lot of things. A whole lot more needs to be done, quickly and decisively, if we are to see drastic changes in our country within our lifetime.”

In other words, in P-Noy’s first three years in Malacañang, his agenda is to clean up the messy messy situation that former President GMA created. But P-Noy’s second and last three years, he should try to introduce long-range changes and institutionalize all these reforms. Will P-Noy do it? That remains to be seen.

Paredes continued:

“A cultural revolution will require a radical change of values and mindset that will result in a realignment of priorities at all levels of society, in government and in the way we live our lives.

“We need to take many big steps to become a fully modern state. To continue with the present inept and inefficient ways of governance is unsustainable. The system is clearly breaking at the seams. Our people need to be served efficiently.”

We fully agree with Paredes on this. The question is “How exactly can we do all these changes?” We will discuss our own idea on this issue at the last portion of this article.

Chairman Mao Tse Tung of China decades ago launched a Chinese version of cultural revolution using their young people then. That costs hundreds of Chinese lives. Whether said revolution contributed or not to the present awesome progress of China, frankly I don’t know.

Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos also launched his own “Revolution from the Center” to establish a “New Society” in our country when he declared Martial Law in the early seventies. His main target was the dismantling of the oligarchy in the Philippines. President Marcos was doing fine in the first two years of the Martial Law era until he got sick. The rest is history.

Our Catholic Church during its 1991 Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (PCP-II) likewise called its Laity (lay people of the Church) to change our society. The term our Church used was Social Transformation instead of Cultural Revolution. PCP-II then clarified:

“A fifth aspect of Church life that explains the life and role of the Laity, especially in today’s situation, is the liberalization and redemptive thrust. Whether rich or poor, whether employed or unemployed, professional or non-professional, whatever their social rank, al the lay faithful are called to heal and transform society, to prepare the temporal order for the final establishment of the Kingdom of God. They have to depend on one another. They must carry one another’s burden.”

Archbishop Oscar V. Cruz in his book “Call of the Laity” (2005) explains this liberational and redemptive thrust:

“To set free and let go of people chained by oppression and poverty, to empower and launch them to find and assume their rightful place in society – this is the meaning and context of the work of liberation and redemption PCP-II calls the Laity in the country to undertake and accomplish. A tall order though it may be, it is rightly addressed. Who else can and may do this with the needed corporate strength and the imperative originating from a common Christian faith? What is wrong in secular society cannot but be the immediate and proper concern of the Laity with their secular status and competence.”

The Citizen’s Movement for a Federal Philippines is another nationwide group pushing for the adoption of a Federal System of Government throughout the country. This is directed to structural reform in our governance which is a component of a truly Social Transformation. The Principles of Subsidiarity and Unity in Diversity while protecting our national sovereignty are two of the guiding principles that govern the movement.

Now here is our opinion on this nagging issue transforming our society. We have expressed in many fora and wrote a number of times in publications our point of view of Genuine Social Transformation (GST). Yes, we prefer to use this term over any other terms denoting long-term and comprehensive reform of our sick society.

The GST we have in mind consists of two major major Reforms namely: 1) Reform in the Filipino people particularly in the way they feel, think and act; and 2) Structural / System Reform starting with a Constitutional Reform through Constitutional Convention (Con-Con). We suggest that PNoy launch the former Reform as early as possible perhaps designating former Chief Justice Renato Puno as the Point Man. The latter Reform could be done by Congress with the urging of PNoy say in the last quarter of 2013.

GST, we think, should be PNoy’s main legacy to the Filipino people. If this happens, PNoy will be known in history as own Real Transformational President. How about it Sir?

by Chito R. Gavino III, Lihok Pideral Mindanaw

Read more...

Terrorism: A Semantic of Real?

by Adrian Tamayo

The origin of International Terrorism
Terrorism is as old as history. It was used in order to justify the aim of a political and economic ends. It implements the most horrendous acts in the minimal number and resonating it in the mind and psychology of the people, making them not safe in their homes – thus terror. The presence can be traced into the long order of historical remnants. Associated with terrorism are the assassins who are feared individuals who carry death orders for a payment. However, the origin of the word is highly associated with a Muslim sect during the 8th to 14th who were feared because of their fierce killing using a dagger which carnage carried even during the day. The members were noticeably chewing hashish that’s why they are called as hashashin .
Another term that is closely related with the terrorism is zealot which is a Jewish sect in the first century which group was opposed to Roman Empire’s presence in Israel.
The most popular in the annals of recorded history is the “Reign of Terror” of the French Revolution where killing was rampant and were carried against the opposition to newly established setup of French democracy. Huntington (1993) described the period as war of people which established the State-led conflict where people participated in the war not due for a king’s or princes’ whims but on the general perception, belief, rights and honor of the people. (Read More...)

Read more...

Situation of the Filipino Youth

The Filipino Youth

The Filipino youth are those ages 15-30 as defined by the “Youth Nation Building Act (RA 8044) which was enacted in 1995 leading to the establishment of the National Youth Commission and the National Comprehensive and Coordinated Program of the Youth. The Act mandates a national study on the youth in the Philippines to identify priority needs, prevailing attitudes and values, existing services and gaps in the delivery of the basic needs of the youth.

The National Statistical Office estimated the number of the youth in the Philippines at 20.7 million equivalently one –third of the total population. This ballooned to 85.2 million in 10 years comprising 40 percent of the total population in 2005. Of this, 21 percent are in-school-youth, 22 percent as farm-workers, 21 percent contractual workers, 36 percent are out-of-school youth and are unemployed, while 4 percent are working students. In 2010, the National Statistical Coordination Board projected the number of women at 3.99 million as opposed to 4.02 million men for ages 15-19 years old; and an estimated 3.55 million women as compared to 3.52 men for ages 20-24 years old, thus approximating a 1-to-1 male to female ratio.

The study of Sandoval, Mangahas and Guerero used a representative survey to evaluate the attitudes, needs and aspirations of the Filipino youth. It revealed that most of the Philippine youth belong to class D (69 percent), followed by class E (20 percent) while a marginal number of the youth belongs to class A (10 percent). Though they considered themselves as being poor yet they are generally happy as observed by the youth’s measure of optimism indicated by expectations of improvement in the quality of life in the coming year. It was revealed that the young members of the society do not involve themselves in organizational activities showing passive attitude of the significant number of the youth. One in eight Filipino youth is an active member of organizations like sports/recreational organization, in the church or religious organization and in a youth organization. They are instead mostly involve in listening to radio and watching TV while only a third of the youth population read books, magazines and newspapers as part of their daily activities. This translates to 15 percent exposure rate to reading. The mass media remained the biggest influencer of the values, beliefs and attitudes of the youth.

Family relations and values remained most important to the Filipino youth as nine in ten youth signified love and respect without considering the qualities and faults of the parents. The study of Stella Go on the Filipino families described that the unquestioning obedience is perceived as an expression of gratitude for having been given life by the parents. Generally, the youth are likely to be good family individuals as shown by their perception on the parents’ role to do the best for their children even at personal expense. Also, they perceive the following as important in their lives: good marriage and family life; being able to study to find steady work; having good education; successful in work; finding meaning and purpose in life; and being religious; having strong friendships and making contributions to the society. However, it is alarming to note that the Filipino family configuration will decline in the proportion of intact family households in the future with female – single headed household likely to increase in 20 years as predicted by Cruz, Laguna and Raymundo on their study on the influences on the lifestyle of the youth.

Some studies revealed that the male youth population is a potential risk of violence and conflict as taking arms be the likely mode of expression of resentment. According to studies on conflict made by Rajendran, an estimated male youth population in Mindanao comprised 3.7 million which is 24 percent of the total youth population in 2000 and 5 percent of the country’s total population. Contrary to expectations, most of the male youth stayed out of the cycle of violence and revenge, the youth were found to be courageous and resilient in face of threats, and they yearn for access to education and skills improvement being receptive to new ideas and are very eager and waiting to rebuild their communities.

Prospects for the Youth

Recent developments in the field of economic research showed that the age structure significantly correlates with the growth performance of the country. The opportunity for an increased economic performance of this country can be associated with the demographic transition which is defined as the change from a situation of high fertility and high mortality to one of low fertility and low mortality. This low mortality rate and low fertility rate causes a lump in the age structure that will move over time from young people to prime age for productive work. This demographic transition is composed of three phases: phase one composed of high youth dependency (0-14 years old) which likely impede economic growth; phase two which is 20 years later where the young members of the population enter the labor market which can now contribute to production and economic growth; and, phase three is the elderly cohorts which is not a burden to the economy as the old will spend their savings and pensions for their own benefit. In 2000, Philippines entered the first phase of demographic transition which burdens the economic growth of the country. The benefit of the productive effort will be experienced in the next 20 years when this country enters the second phase of the transition.

Meanwhile, it is necessary for the government to engage in the cultural planning as imperative of the social structure of the country. Cultural planning is a process of inclusive community consultation and decision – making that helps government identify cultural resources and think strategically about how these resources can help a community to achieve its civic goals. This is an approach in understanding the culture of the nations of this country and its cultural activities taken as inputs than products for human resource development for community development resulting into integration of the community into the development framework of the government to achieve a sustainable development. Through this method the economy can strike balance between growth, equity and sustainability as Philippines enters the second phase of the demographic transition where the greater number of youth takes the helm of the economic engine.

###

by Adrian Tamayo

_________

Adrian Tamayo is a 29 – year old economics professor at the University of Mindanao, Davao City and the concurrent head of the Business Economics and Entrepreneurship program. He is a fellow of Philippine Young Leaders in Governance which was sponsored by the United Nations Development Fund (UNDEF). He is a federalism advocate and had worked as an Assistant Program Manager of TACDRUP, an NGO in Mindanao. He is currently taking PhD in Research.

Read more...

Christian Democracy in the Perspective of A Young Mover

Having been introduced in few occasions as a movement of young professionals, as a member I take pride in hearing it along with other ears in a well – attended forum. It frills me with some kind of enthusiasm and even more take pride in uttering the name “CDM”.

But what is CDM? What are its ideologues? What makes it different or similar with other socio, civic or political organizations?

Last summer of this year, a group of young and idealistic individuals coming from different professional fields gather to nimble a philosophical and pragmatic principle that is so relevant with the young generation – the Centrist Principle.


In taking the name, most immediately pointed on its location in the political spectrum that are commonly and eloquently describe in political education activities and consequently spot the various organizations lining up along the particular sphere of the spectrum. But Centrist Democratic Movement (CDM) is not. Centrist doesn’t mean any of it, though in some instances as urgency of identification require, tended to be one or the other – as other political groups with. Centrist democracy does not require of politics as a headlight of concept, it is instead a lens, along with other thought disciplines like humanism, economics, and governance.

Centrism is founded on three broad principles – dignity of man, subsidiarity and social market economy.

With a rusty training in politics and philosophy, I will leave the discussion to the rest of the fellow centrist to elucidate the concept in many fora possible. Let me deal with the remainder of this reflection to discuss social market economy instead.

In 18th century, Adam Smith pronounced the term “laissez faire” which became the leading theory in economics for many centuries. In his book, “An Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations”, he mentioned that it is not the benevolence of the butcher nor the generosity of the baker that a meat or bread is produced. It is not their desirous spirits that lead them to partake in the production of consumable goods that a meat was butchered nor a bread was baked, but was due to the personal motive of the individuals. Thus, a baker will produce a bread because he can earn an amount equivalent to the value of the bread – while the buyer was also motivated to buy as a result of his satisfaction derived from consuming the bread. Note that the buyer and seller transact in order to perfect the activity; the price and quantity of goods were negotiated. The indicator of this done negotiation is the price of the product in the market. Particularly note, that it’s the personal (greedy) motivation of the individual player (buyer and seller) that each enter into an agreement. Therefore, the greater the quantity of bread a seller can produce, the greater is his benefits (profit) as there will be more buyer whose desire for the product are addressed (quantity demanded) - this lead into the formation of the capital market economy. The capital market states that the greater the capital, the greater is the benefit, this in the form of wealth. Thus the motivation is to accumulate more and more capital in a more and more personalistic fashion. Let me point out that the government is assumed to take a very little role because its intervention might result into market distortion and thus shadow away the true market activity. It was believed that the buyers will buy to the amount they are willing and able to buy, while the sellers will produce the product limited by their constraints (cost of production). Therefore, the buyer and the seller will adjust in order to arrive at the agreeable level of goods and price – the invisible handshake.

Theoretically good, but the frailty of this concept is evident in the recorded history. The 1930’s Great Depression was a result of the operation of the free-market economy, as there were already bank runs happening, most were still expecting that the economy will go back to the so – called “equilibrium” a state of balance. But it did not and resulted instead to global recession. This was also evident in the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis and in the most recent 2008 Global Financial Crisis. The theory has failed, and it failed severely.

On the other hand, there develop in simultaneity with the free-market economics the welfare economics. It talks about a strong government that maintains the social protection like housing provision, health and education for the citizens. In 1950’s, the State of New York employed the welfare system in its governance by providing housing for its people. The program was designed in order to facilitate equity, in economics being referred to as “equality on outcome” that is everyone should have as much as everyone else. This lead into the formation of “Welfare States”. The trouble with welfare state is that those who benefit from the social program do not as much provide equal value on the program as everyone can get as much as the other. Simply saying, why should one work hard in order to buy basic necessities when the government can easily provide one? Thus, the trouble of “long queues”, and the “shoe cost”. Long queues translates into redistribution of the productive hours of a worker into not productive allocation. Shoe cost on the other hand refers to the “wearing and tearing” and time that were lost to the individual to gain access of the social protection program of the government.

Social Market Economy (SME) found itself in between of the two mentioned system. It allows the market to flourish that is the full interaction of the buyers and the sellers, while the government facilitates a competitive environment by eradicating monopoly or even oligopoly. It protects the market even from its own self. While so doing, it maintains equal protection afforded to its citizens. It is a market system which place in focus in the many economic activities the concern for every worker, the welfare of the worker, and the protection when the worker cannot do the job.

Putting in context, Philippine economy is a paradox. A country laid with abundance of mineral resources, natural resources and human resource but continuously and chronically hounded with poverty and hunger, budget deficit, underdevelopment. The economic structure is portrayed as a pyramid with the tip composed of small number of individuals who controls the great number of economic resources, while the bigger portion controlling a marginal value of the wealth.

Then why Centrist? It will provide the mechanism to pull the greater number of the lower portion of the pyramid up. How? Allowing the market to be flushed with small and micro players and disaggregating the oligarch (Hutchcroft call our economy as booty capitalism with oligarch having both economic and political power) so as to distribute the enjoyment of profit thus affecting the trickle down effect.

By Adrian Tamayo, Member, Centrist Democratic Movement

Read more...

YES TO FEDERALISM; NO TO INDEPENDENCE

“Serving as the only broad mechanism for dialogue and consensus on issues affecting Mindanao, Kusog Mindanaw is in the forefront of promoting effective and good governance through federalism – an alternative political future for Mindanao and the Philippines. With the theme: Federal Philippines or Independent Mindanao?, the roundtable conference engaged Mindanao-wide formations in advancing the call for a shift to a federal…system of government.” (Highlights, “Kusog Mindanaw” Roundtable Conference, September 3, 2004, Davao City)

-oOo-

I recently revisited the “Kusog Mindanaw” Magazine containing the end-result of its September 3, 2004 Conference whose theme mentioned above. Below are some of the interesting statements expressed during said Conference that reflect the true aspirations of many Mindanao leaders:

Davao City Mayor (now Vice Mayor) Rodrigo R. Duterte: “I have already said this and I will say this again, I fully support the establishment of a federal system of government in our country and in particular the setting up of a Bangsamoro (federal) state to be run exclusively by our Muslim brothers and sisters.”

Dr. Jose V. Abueva, Chair, Advisory Committee, Citizens’ Movement for a Federal Philippines (CMFP): “The real cost of not changing our unitary…system into a federal…is the collapse, a total collapse of our constitutional democracy…. We always present territories from north to south. Let’s start it the other way around from South to North. No.1 is Bangsamoro, No.2 is Central and Southern Mindanao, No.3 Western and Northern Mindanao, No.4 Central Eastern Visayas, No.5 is Western Visayas and Palawan, No.6 is Bicol, No. 7 is Southern Luzon, No.8 is Metro Manila, No.9 is Central Luzon, and No. 10 Northern Luzon. Those are the proposed 10 states of the Federal Republic of the Philippines.”

Mayor (then) Omar Solitario Ali, Islamic City of Marawi: “Federalism is herein proposed as possible savior of the peoples of the Philippines. Federalism is the embodiment of unity in diversity, of productive competition, of mutual tolerance and co-existence, of giving way to plurality yet not giving away belongingness, of encouraging the bringing out and optimum utilization of talent skills and resources in every region, of allowing the free advocacy and practice of distinctive culture and religion, of self-determination and autonomy in every region, of making each region responsible for their own future instead of relying and then blaming an overburdened central government.”

Rey MagnoTeves, Secretary General, Kusog Mindanaw and National Chair, Citizens’ Movement for a Federal Philippines (CMFP): No ifs, no buts about it. Centralized means inefficiency down the line. Centralized means high stakes corruption at the center. Centralized means underdeveloped countryside. Centralized also means underdeveloped local leaders who lack the opportunities for growth precisely because they have limited responsibilities and/or power.”

Aleem Elias Macarandas, Bishops-Ulama Conference (BUC): “Until we change the structure of our country, I will not believe that our country will survive as a nation and the more that I cannot believe that the Philippines will be a happy place to live in. Until this political atmosphere, I do not believe that anyone of us should declare that he is happy with the present situation. I hope that all Filipinos will work with us to reconstruct our political structure. The federal system is the only option remaining for us to address our basic problems.”

Mr. Romeo Serra, Vice-Chair, Mindanao Business Council (MinBC): “I think the bottom line of the issue of whether we go federal or not, is more of socio-economic and cultural rather than political. It is more of the socio-economic impact on the people in Mindanao that should move us to really fight for what we should deserve because we are contributing substantially to the general well-being of the country. I think I should also tell you, these are some of the business information that I’d like to relate to you. Almost 80 percent of the mineral deposits in the country is found in Mindanao and about 60 percent of the gold deposits in the country is found in Mindanao. But it is not Mindanao that decides how to handle these great and vast resources rather it is the national leadership that decides how we will handle and utilize sustainably and equitably our natural resources in Mindanao. So to sum it up, I am saying Mindanao is rich and yet from the poverty incidence data – more than half of Muslim Mindanao lives below poverty line. Almost 40 percent of the entire population in Mindanao lives below poverty line. We have the lowest per capita income. To sum it up, we’re saying that Mindanao is so poor and yet it is sleeping on wealth that is more than sufficient to feed the entire population of the country.”

“You ask us where to go from here? The only way to go is for us to have self-determination.”

At the end of the Conference several Resolutions were approved, one of which is presented below:

“We believe that federalism is the best option for achieving just and lasting peace, good governance and sustainable development.”

-oOo-

There you are. Are not the officials of the Mindanao Development Authority aware of this cry for self-determination of Mindanao? The Authority is coming out with a Mindanao 2020 (or is it 2030) that is supposed to serve as our Roadmap to development and peace. Yet it has formulated a Vision not reflecting the true aspirations of Mindanawons. “Ano na ba ito? The Mindanao Development Authority is envisioned to serve the interests of Mindanawons and yet it has not even properly drafted a Shared Vision for Mindanao which really reflect our dream and aspirations for a truly autonomous Mindanao! “Bakit?”

Below is the kind of Shared or Common Vision for Mindanao we want:

“A truly autonomous Mindanao, with God-centered and empowered people, united in diversity, in politically stable, economically viable, socially sound and environmentally balanced communities.”

-Chito R. Gavino III, Lihok Pideral Dabaw

Read more...

PROPOSED SHARED VISION FOR MINDANAO

Attention: Mindanao Development Authority

“A truly autonomous Mindanao with God-centered and empowered people in politically stable, economically viable, socially sound and environmentally balanced communities.” (Proposed Shared Vision presented in my previous article titled “What is the Shared Vision of Mindanao 2020?”, published in many of our local newspapers recently.)

-oOo-

Another friend of mine in the NGO who read my article mentioned above, handed me a photostat copy of the Draft Vision Statement (How people see Mindanao in 2030) for Mindanao and told me: “Brod, the development planners hired by the Mindanao Development Authority (MinDA) who are preparing Mindanao 2030 have already formulated a Vision for Mindanao. I just do not know if they properly processed this to a Shared Vision you wrote.”

Before we go further, may we know what exactly is MinDA formulating – a Mindanao 2020 or 2030? “Mayroon kasing documentong 2020 at yong iba ay 2030 naman. Ano ang tama?”

For the benefit of the readers, we are reprinting below their draft Vision for Mindanao mentioned earlier:

“In 20 years, Mindanawons of all culture and socio-economic backgrounds will equitably enjoy the fruits of a peaceful and progressive economy and society.”

With due respect to these expert development planners, allow me to critique their recommended Vision for Mindanao.

First, A properly drafted Vision SHOULD NOT HAVE TIME FRAME. If you do, so, then it becomes a GOAL NOT A VISION. Second. A real VISION in development planning is a statement of IDEAL. As such, it can only be APPROXIMATED. Ideal or utopia in the strict sense of the word can NEVER BE ACHIEVED on earth – only in Heaven. Third. A true Vision for Mindanao must be unique to Mindanao. Their draft Vision for Mindanao is a Motherland statement. If we remove the word Mindanao and change it with say Visayas or Luzon, “pwede pa rin magamit.” Hence, this vision is not unique for Mindanao alone! Fourth. A real Vision for Mindanao must reflect the true aspirations and deepest values of Mindanawons. Mindanawons are loudly crying for years now for self-determination – the internal kind meaning genuine autonomy or its highest form which is federalism. This should be reflected in the Shared or Common Vision for Mindanao. Fifth. A well-written Vision must be short, clear, encompassing, easy to memorize and inspiring that can move you into action. It must “capture our imagination, and engage our spirit.” Sorry to say this, your draft Vision for Mindanao was poorly conceived and lousy in style to say the least. I hate to say this, but my experience with NEDA and other government planning agencies is that many of their planning experts do not know how to formulate a Vision. Sixth. A true Vision of Mindanao must be shared by its people done through a visioning process. “Visioning is putting into words a preferred future, a desirable and ideal state we wish to create and commit ourselves.”

Going back to my friend who earlier mentioned, he also suggested to me to add the phrase “united in diversity” to my proposed Shared Vision for Mindanao. That’s good thinking. Thus, per his suggestion, it will now read as:

“A TRULY AUTONOMOUS MINDANAO WITH GOD-CENTERED AND EMPOWERED PEOPLE, UNITED IN DIVERSITY, IN POLITICALLY STABLE, ECONOMICALLY VIABLE, SOCIALLY SOUND AND ENVIRONMENTALLY BALANCED COMMUNITIES.”

Not bad isn’t it. As a matter of fact, modesty aside – it is excellent. We humbly and strongly recommended them to MinDA that this draft Vision for Mindanao be the one to be subjected to Mindanao-wide consultations for the good of Mindanawons. And hopefully, a more meaningful real Shared or Common Vision for Mindanao will be arrived at.

If we Mindanawons are to travel together to 2020 or 2030, we must first know exactly where we want to go. Thus it is indeed important that the Roadmap we will use must incorporate a properly processed Shared or Common Vision to serve as our “North Star” so that we will not get lost on the way. “Di ba?”

Before we end this article, may we ask what happened to the result of the Mindanao-wide consultations undertakened by the Bishops-Ulama Conference (BUC) through their project “Konsult Mindanaw” last year? One of the questions asked then was about Vision anent development and peace in Mindanao. Any problem on this Sirs?

-Chito R. Gavino III, Lihok Pideral Dabaw

Read more...

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM IN PNOY’S ADMINISTRATION

“We need to do many things. First, determine the true state of the nation, the extent of the deficit. In short, inventory what problems we inherited. If we err in identifying problems, we will come up with wrong solutions.” (PNoy)

-oOo-

We were very much impressed to hear PNoy’s wise statement above during his Press Conference immediately after his Congressional proclamation. Proper identification and diagnosis of problems first is indeed a must. This scientific approach of problem-solving is a trademark of Organization Development (OD) discipline. It is the systematic way of doing meaningful change especially in an honest-to-goodness reform agenda for our country.

Read more...

WHAT IS THE SHARED VISION OF MINDANAO 2020?

Attention: Mindanao Development Authority

“The process for formulating Mindanao 2020, spearheaded since last year by the Mindanao Development Authority (MinDA), has been deliberately designed to be a bottom-up process…. Once completed and adopted as the official blueprint for Mindanao’s future, Mindanao 2020 should merit being described as democratic in both its formulation processes and its content.” (Cielito F. Habito, “No Free Lunch”, Philippine Daily INQUIRER, July 13, 2010)

-oOo-

Is that so? Many Mindanawons are not aware that there is now an on-going development planning aimed to formulate a long-range development plan for Mindanao up to year 2020. The final output of this planning exercise which will serve as “the official blueprint for Mindanao’s future” will be known as “Mindanao 2020,” according to Habito.

Per info, professional Mindanao planners – from the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA), regional line agencies, local governments, academe, NGOs and business – are taking part in the final reshaping of the plan.” Wow, the planning “pala” is already in its finishing touches.

This writer, setting aside modesty, is a trained development planner way back when NEDA did not exist yet. Development planning is one of my passions. Thus, when I write about this thing, I’m not talking “through my hat.”

In the scientific way of preparing a development plan, after doing a situationer and identifying the issues and problems of the planning area – in this case Mindanao – one of the very crucial steps that should be made is Visioning. It is the process according to Charles F. Kiefer and Peter Senge:

“*Of creative visualization
*Of picturing vividly in the mind of a desired end-result as complete
*Of seeing inwardly the gap between the end-result and current reality
*Involves intuition and imagination”

The product of Visioning is a Shared Vision which, again per Kiefer and Senge, is:

“*A clear picture of a desired end-result
*Specific and tangible in the imagination
*A crystallization of what you want to create
*Describe the complete result: The whole picture
*Lofty definition of a desired future state
*Deals with distant future point
*Does not require knowing how to get there
*Described in qualitative, subjective term
*Noble, worthy of one’s commitment
*Inspiring, exciting, really desired”

John Powell emphasized the importance of vision: “The fact is this: We all need a vision. A vision is necessary because of the restless insistence of the mind to find answers to its questions and to organize reality into understandable patterns. A vision also gives us direction for behavior. It gives life predictability. My vision serves me as a frame of reference, a source of adjustment to reality. Because of my vision I know how to act.”

Powell is saving that our vision can serve as our “North Star” in our travel through life. In development planning, it is imperative that at the very beginning, a vision shared by the people concerned must be formulated first to guide us in our future actions. This is paramount.

Another way of explaining the great value of Shared Vision is like this. When we Mindanawons plan to journey together to 2020, we must first decide where we all want to go. This destination is our Shared Vision. Obviously, without a Shared Vision or Vision not commonly agreed upon, we surely will create confusion. Without properly processed Shared Vision in development planning, the other activities that follow will be exercises in futility. “Klaro ba?”

In examining the Mindanao 2020 loose documents given to me by a friend in the NGO, I found Sectoral Visions without any single integrated and Comprehensive Shared or Common Vision unique for Mindanao – only small sectoral pictures but sadly lacks The BIG PICTURE. Thus, I found it difficult to vividly visualize the future Mindanao in totality that could inspire and excite me into action. Sorry to say, “Walang epek sa akin.” We badly need a grand Mindanao Vision shared by Mindanawons who are prepared to work and sacrifice.

An effective Shared or Common Vision for Mindanao must, in our opinion, be short, clear, encompassing easy to memorize, inspiring, represents true aspirations of Mindanawons and could promote unity. Allow me to present below an example of a possible Shared Vision:

“A truly autonomous Mindanao, with God-centered and empowered people in politically stable, economically viable, socially sound and environmentally balanced communities.”

What do you think? First and foremost, we Mindanawons are loudly crying for genuine autonomy from Imperial Manila.” Okay, improve it if needed until we Mindanawons agree on a Shared or Common Vision. Then from here we can now proceed planning how to approximate our ideal Vision.

Lastly, our formulation of Mindanao 2020 must be done by Mindanawons planning experts with perhaps some assistance from non-Mindanawon consultants – NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! Let’s tap planning experts from U.P. Mindanao, University of Mindanao, Mindanao State University, University of Southeastern Philippines, and Ateneo Universities in Mindanao to do mainly the planning task.

“Dapat tunay na plano ng taga Mindanao.” Please don’t tell us Mindanawons cannot do their own development planning. “Malaking isulto naman ito sa atin.” We Mindanawons must be on top of the work in planning our future. “Di ba?”

-Chito R. Gavino III, Lihok Pideral Mindanaw

Read more...

IN SEARCH FOR PEACE

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.
Read more...

WHEN SHOULD CHA-CHA VIA CON-CON BE?

“This Constitution is so flawed that even its provision for amendments has to be amended.” (Rep. Victor Ortega, 14th Congress Chairman, Committee on Constitutional Amendments, House of Representatives)

-oOo-

The Philippine STAR’s July 3, 2010 headline bannered: “Referendum on Cha-Cha proposed.” It reported that Rep. Neptali Gonzales II recommended the holding of a nationwide referendum on Charter Change (Cha-Cha) after former President now Congresswoman GMA filed Resolution No.8 proposing the convening of Constitutional Convention to amend our present Constitution.

With due respect to Rep. Gonzales II, we do not agree to hold anymore referendum on this nagging issue. Many studies and consultations have already been made these past years on Cha-Cha and majority of our people understand the great need to amend/revise our defective Constitution via Constitutional Convention (Con-Con). The only unresolved question in this regard is the timing - when is the most appropriate time to do it? And to be practical, the appropriate time to do the Cha-Cha must seriously take into account the incumbent President’s political agenda.

Okay now, let’s brainstorm this issue of timing.

First. One of the reasons often raised mostly by Congressmen anent Con-Con as the means to amend/revise our flawed Charter is that it is very costly compared to Constituent Assembly (Con-Ass). To resolve this problem once and for all, let’s synchronize the election of Con-Con delegates with a national or barangay election.

Second. The more difficult question is “In which coming elections will PNoy agree to synchronize the Con-Con delegates’ election – with the barangay election this year or the Senatorial and local elections in 2013 or the presidential election in 2016? We think that the barangay election this year or even in 2011 or 2012 (assuming this year’s barangay election is reset) is out of the question. No way that PNoy will agree on this for many practical reasons. Hence, 2013 and 2016 elections are left for considerations.

If PNoy wants Genuine Constitutional Reform to be one of his administration’s legacies, then he should synchronize the election of Con-Con delegates with the 2013 senatorial and local elections. If not, then we think, 2016 would be the most appropriate time for the Con-Con delegates’ election together with the presidential elections that year.

One advantage of electing Con-Con delegates together with the 2016 presidential elections is that we do not know yet who will be our new President. Thus, term extension and need for presidential approval will not be issues. The elected Con-Con delegates then can convene immediately after that election.

Discussing the above to a politically minded friend, he pointed out to me: “Brod, maaring mayroon ding barangay eleksyon sa 2013 or 2014 or 2015, kung matutuloy ang barangay eleksyon, di ba?” “Korek ka riyan Brod,” I immediately responded. We would therefore add barangay election in 2013 or 2014 or 2015 as another option for the PNoy administration’s consideration on the date of the Con-Con delegates’ election in consultation with Congress.

Last Congress, the Liberal Party’s stand was Cha-Cha via Con-Con. We supposed this is still their position depending again on the agreed time. Thus, to simplify the debate on Cha-Cha through Con-Con, it should focus more on the timing. Let’s debate on matters apropos Constitutional Reform when the question of when is resolved. Okay?

The question of amending or revising our Basic Law of the Land is always a controversial issue. But our leaders and the citizenry must resolve this tough-nut question if we really want to move forward to a more sustainable development and lasting peace. Without Constitutional Reform, the Philippines cannot – we repeat – cannot be competitive in a globalizing world. A Genuine Social Transformation in our country calls for Structural/Systems Reform which can only be implemented by an honest-to-goodness Constitutional Reform. PNoy’s administration should understand this very well and pursue this long-range Reform for the common good. That’s what PNoy’s administration is all about in the first place – to introduce true and encompassing Reform in the Philippines.

-Chito R. Gavino III, Lihok Pideral Dabaw

Read more...

IT’S THE SYSTEM NOT THE FORM

“The system of government must be changed: The present form of the Philippine government is inefficient, irrational, and by perpetuating elitist and dynastic rule mocks the fundamental principles of democracy that it purports to uphold. While the details of how it should be changed can be made legitimately debated, no logical case whatsoever can be made for letting the system remain as it is.” (Carmen N. Pedrosa, “From A Distance”, The Philippine STAR, June 27, 2010)

-oOo-

The quotation above, per Pedrosa, came from “a certain Ben K.” Noticeably Ben K. interchanged the word system and form. Many people also do that, including, I observed, columnist Pedrosa. I used to do that myself until I realized the great difference between the system of government from the form of government.

Webster defines system as “a set or arrangement of things so related as to form an organic whole.” Examples he gave are the solar system and the nervous system. On the other hand, he defined form as “the shape or outline of anything.” These definitions represent difficulties in clearly distinguishing a system from form. No wonder, many individuals continue to interchange the two words.

Based on our further studies, we learned that the system of government is about how powers are distributed in a government. Examples. In a Unitary System of government as we have now, powers are centralized in the National Government while Local Government Units have only delegated powers. However, in a Federal System of Government as in US of A powers are divided between the Federal/National Government and the different truly autonomous State/Regional Governments following the Principles of Subsidiarity. Some powers in the federal set-up are shared.

Likewise, we learned that the form of government is how these powers are exercised. Examples. In a Presidential Form of Government, there are three co-equal and independent branches of government namely: 1) Executive; 2) Legislative; and 3) Judicial. The Executive branch is the implementing arm of the government. The Legislative branch enacts laws. The Judiciary interprets the laws. However, in a Parliamentary form of Government, there are only two co-equal and independent branches of government namely: 1) Parliament; and 2) Judiciary. The Parliament enacts and implements the laws while the Judiciary interprets the laws.

Obviously then there’s a great difference between the system of government and the form of government.

Further, in a Presidential Form of Government, usually the Legislative is made up of two Houses known as Bicameral namely: 1) the Upper House which is the Senate; and 2) the Lower House which is the House of Representatives. On the other hand, in a Parliament Form of Government, the Legislative is usually made up of only one House known as Unicameral. Of course a Presidential Form may have also Unicameral Legislative while a Parliament Form may have also a Bicameral Legislature.

“Klaro na ba tayo rito? Ibang-iba ang Sistemang Panggobierno kaysa Pormang Panggobierno.” We do hope that we will no longer be confused and interchange the word system from form because there are some unscrupulous persons who are trying hard to deceive us on this issue for their own selfish interests. Hence, let’s beware.

We, members of the Citizens’ Movement for a Federal Philippines, have only the interests of our country and people in mind. We respect and promote the sovereignty of our nation. We are very much against secession. We want a highly decentralized government in the Philippine because we think, it will result in a more democratic, responsive, effective, efficient, transparent and accountable governance.

For these laudable reasons, we think, that if ever the PNoy administration would undertake Constitutional Reform within PNoy’s 6-year term, it is the obsolete System of Government not so much with the Form of Government that must be properly revised. We repeat – the System not so much with the Form of Government that our attention should be focused on in an honest-to-goodness Constitutional Reform.

In other words, in case the PNoy administration would launch Constitutional Reform before 2016, we pray that our passé Unitary System which is the mother of political patronage, disorder, social injustices, massive corruption and widespread poverty must be junked and a Federal System be put in place in the long-run. We should address our System of Government first before anything else.

We should watch out for those people who are loudly trumpeting Charter Change mainly to revise the Form of Government from Presidential to Parliamentary many of whom are coming from our House of Representatives for their dubious political interests.

“Sa ikauunlad ng bayan, Sistemang Pideral ang Kailangan!”

Read more...

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM IN PNOY’S ADMINISTRATION

“We need to do many things. First, determine the true state of the nation, the extent of the deficit. In short, inventory what problems we inherited. If we err in identifying problems, we will come up with wrong solutions.” (PNoy)

-oOo-

We were very much impressed to hear PNoy’s wise statement above during his Press Conference immediately after his Congressional proclamation. Proper identification and diagnosis of problems first is indeed a must. This scientific approach of problem-solving is a trademark of Organization Development (OD) discipline. It is the systematic way of doing meaningful change especially in an honest-to-goodness reform agenda for our country.

The Philippines STAR columnist Sara Soliven de Guzman in her June 14, 2010 article correctly pointed out: “Some critics may misunderstand this approach but I think doing an ‘inventory,’ of everything in government (including people and offices that may be overlapping in function) is a good step. Just like a traveler who needs a compass to see if he is headed toward the right direction, our new President must use his compass to be on track and not get ‘lost’. He cannot afford to do a ‘hit and miss’ approach, he must be precise in his thoughts and actions. Every decision and move he makes is crucial to the change he has promised.” Well said ma’am.

One of the nagging issues that will surely confront PNoy is the controversial question of Constitutional Reform or Charter Change (Cha-Cha). PNoy’s concise reply on this issue when asked during the recent campaign was: “I will form a Commission to study if there’s really a need and clamor for this.” Now that he’s elected President, we think that this is still his stand on the matter.

There is now a growing sentiment that PNoy should keep his election promise of forming a Study Commission on Constitutional Reform preferably within his 100 days in office. We, members of “Lihuk Pideral Dabaw” (LPD), strongly support the immediate creation of this Commission.

The “Lihuk Pideral Dabaw” thinks that the Commission must be composed of well-meaning people, knowledgeable of the issue at hand, coming from the different sectors, from various regions (perhaps 2 or 3 representatives per region) of the country. Proper consultations on the membership in the Commission must be done by Malacañang to somehow ensure that vital sectors in our society are well represented by competent people in the Commission.

Below is “Lihuk Pideral Dabaw” Resolution to this effect:

Resolution

Urging President-elect Benigno Simeon “Noynoy” Cojuangco Aquino III

To Call for the Formation of the Study Commission on Constitutional Reform

WHEREAS:

1. President-elect Benigno Simeon “Noynoy” Cojuangco Aquino III announced during his campaign to form, within the first month, a commission to study the need to change the Constitution;

2. Lihok Pideral Dabaw (LPD), a regional federal movement with national affiliation, sees the need of the study group as a solution to lasting peace in Mindanao;

3. Any long range reform agenda necessitates structural changes;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

1. We, officers of the Lihok Pideral Dabaw (LPD), endorse the formation of the study commission on constitutional reform within the first 100-days of President-elect Benigno Simeon “Noynoy” Cojuangco Aquino III;

2. We propose that the formation of the study commission be regionally-represented with at least two representatives per region;

3. We further propose that members of this study group be composed of competent individuals with knowledge of the issues coming from the different sectors of the society;

Done this 17th day of June 2010, Davao City, Philippines.

Click here for copy of Resolution with Signature

by Chito Gavino III, Lihok Pideral Dabaw

Read more...