SC chief: Constitution allows autonomy but not secession

(Update) MANILA, Philippines - Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno on Friday rejected the possibility of the creation of a separate state in Mindanao, saying the Constitution does not allow secession. At the same time, four justices expressed the opinion that the petition to junk the agreement between government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) was "premature." These cropped up during the oral arguments on the government's ancestral domain agreement with the MILF where Puno equivocally said that the Constitution only allows for autonomy. "Most that can be done is autonomy. It should be done within the framework of the Constitution, national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines," Puno said. Puno cited Article 10, Section 15 of the Constitution which states the creation of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. For his part, Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio challenged the constitutionality of the government's draft agreement on the issue of ancestral domain with the MILF. Carpio questioned the constitutionality of several provisions in the agreement particularly those that provide for the creation of a Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE). He said this would need an amendment of the Organic Act which requires an act of Congress and ratification of the people. Carpio also noted that the provisions which allows the BJE to maintain its own police and military forces is violative of the Constitution. “The Police is national in scope, civilian in nature and controlled by the National Police Commission…The President is the commander in chief of all armed forces. The President has sole control of training, recruitment and payroll," Carpio said. “The BJE cannot head the AFP," Carpio added. The Associate Justice also said that the provision which allows for the creation of a separate justice system for the BJE is likewise a clear violation of the Constitution. Carpio noted that under the Constitution, the country will have a unitary justice system headed by the Supreme Court. “Under Article 8 (of the Constitution), the judicial power shall be vested on one Supreme Court, a unitary judicial system. SC has the sole disciplinary authority over its courts and its personnel," Carpio said. Carpio also said the provision in the agreement for the conduct of a plebiscite after 25 years to pave the way for the widening of the BJE's coverage encroaches into the power of the legislature to schedule a plebiscite to decide on such issues. Carpio also expressed the observation that there was a seeming lack in consultation in the drafting of the agreement, saying even indigenous peoples in Mindanao have been left out in the draft agreement. He said under the MOA, the lumads or tribal people of Mindanao will be incorporated to the Bangsamoro, believers of Islam. There are 18 lumad groups in Mindanao. He said with the incorporation, the ancestral domain of the lumads will become part of the Bangsamoro ancestral domain. He said it would put the entire Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan, which were the ancestral domains of the lumads, under the Bangsamoro. However, Carpio said that there still a way to save the contents of the MOA – by submitting it to Congress as a proposal. Carpio said the executive department or the peace panel can submit the contents of the MOA to Congress. “It will be up to the Congress if it will submit it to the people for plebiscite," the associate justice said. The MOA Under the MOA, the existing five-province Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) would be expanded by more than 700 additional villages, subject to a plebiscite which would be held within a year. The new entity, to be called the BJE, would have its own police and military force and its own judicial system, among others. Local government officials have opposed the pact, saying among others that they were not consulted. This was one of their arguments in their petition before the Supreme Court which issued a temporary restraining order Aug 4 which stopped the signing of the MOA which was set on Aug 5. The Supreme Court is set to decide the issues regarding the appropriateness to rule on the constitutionality of the agreement. It is also set to decide whether it would commit the government to revising the constitution and recognizing the proposed Muslim homeland as a separate state. The MOA has raised an additional issue with critics believing that amending the constitution to establish a federal system could be used to also change term limits for officials, which would allow President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to extend her term after it lapses in 2010. MOA illegal For his part, Justice Adolf Azcuna said that he believes the MOA is illegal under the present Constitution but no one can contest it if the people agree on it through a plebiscite. “A state within a state is a political will but it is not for the court to rule but the people to say," Azcuna said. Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro said that the problem is not on the contents but the process by which the proposals were made. “The problem was in the process. If there was democratic process with consultation, though radical, the proposals could easily be accepted," Leonardo-De Castro said. “There should be a consultation to get the genuine sentiment of the people," the associate justice added. Premature petition Four justices - Associate Justices Renato Corona, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Dante Tinga, Presbiterio Velasco Jr - expressed the opinion that it was still premature to act on the MOA. Corona said he has the impression that the petition was based on a “fear of the unknown." “The MOA does not exist yet. It is not yet effective until the signing of the same," Corona said. While, Tinga said: “the event we fear is not yet happening. There is no actionable act that can be nullified." Velasco said it is too premature to stop the parties in exercising a legal right to enter a contract as under the law, any person can enter into any agreement unless it is contrary to laws and customs. A television report quoted Associate Justice Eduardo Antonio Nachura saying that the MOA has so many contradictions. He asked how come that the MILF is negotiating with the government when it does even recognize the Constitution. The Supreme Court adjourned the hearing past 5 p.m. Friday and scheduled a second hearing for oral arguments on August 22, 9 a.m. - Amita Legaspi, GMANews.TV