Senate President Franklin Drilon and Senator Bongbong Marcos receive the Citizens’ Peace Council report on the proposed Bangsamoro Basic Law. Representing the Peace Council are former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., former Ambassador Howard Lee, former Education Secretary Edilberto de Jesus, Teach Peace, Build Peace founder Bai Rohaniza Sumndad-Usman, Ateneo de Davao University President Rev. Fr. Joel Tabor and Director Vicky Gatchitorena. (MNS photo)
MANILA (Mabuhay) — The Malacañang-created peace council tasked to review the provisions of the proposed Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) on Tuesday maintained that the measure was overall “constitutional” despite some phrases that need to be inserted or deleted.
“In conclusion, the Cluster declared that the BBL complies with the Constitution’s mandate for the creation of autonomous regions ‘within the framework of the Constitution and the national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines,” former Chief Justice Hilario Davide told the Senate committee on local government during the continuation on the panel’s deliberations on the BBL.
Before the start of the hearing, the peace council submitted to Senate President Franklin Drilon and Senate committee on local government chairman Senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. its 50-page report containing the findings and recommendations on the BBL.
Marcos’ committee is the one deliberating on the proposed law.
At the start of the hearing, peace council member and Ateneo de Davao University president Fr. Joel Tabora, S.J. said their report was a product of almost a month of deliberations that culminated in a peace summit held on April 18, 2015.
He said the council was divided into four clusters to focus on four key issues on the BBL, namely: Constitutionality, form and powers of the government; economy and patrimony; social justice and human development; and peace and order and human security.
On the issue of constitutionality and powers of the proposed Bangsamoro government, Davide said his cluster did not see any provisions in the BBL that run contrary to the 1987 Constitution, through there are some sections that need further clarifications by inserting additional phrases.
“While imperfect, it is significant document that should serve as catalyst for building national consensus towards the realization of the long term aspiration, expressed by the country three decades ago, for justice, solidarity and peace, for Mindanao and for the entire Philippines,” Davide said, reading a portion of the executive summary of the report.
Davide specifically pointed out that the Bangsamoro government, which the BBL seeks to create, does not constitute the creation of another state separate from the Philippine government.
“The BBL does not make the Bangsamoro Government a state. The provisions on ‘people’ ‘territory’ and ‘self determination’ do not imply the creation of a separate state, but are consistent with the constitutionally mandated creation of autonomous region,” Davide said.
Davide, however, said that the sections in the BBL which give option to the Bangsamoro government to increase its territories through periodic votes of 10 percent of the registered voters in the outer territories “must be deleted.”
“The cluster was of the view that, once territorial boundaries are established in the plebiscite for the ratification of the BBL, the core Bangsamoro territories should not be allowed to increase indefinitely,” he said.
Davide stressed that the creation of an autonomous region, including the definition of its territory “is the sole function of Congress.”
“Therefore, such changes of territory that establish the limits of the region in the future should go through Congress,” Davide said.
Both Section 3 Article III and Section 4 Article XV of the proposed BBL state that “the areas which are contiguous and outside the core territory may opt at anytime to be part of the (Bangsamoro) territory upon petition of at least ten percent) of the registered voters and approved by a majority of qualified votes cast in a plebiscite.”
“For purposes of clarity, it is therefore recommended that references to the opt-in provisions in Article III Section 3 and in Article XV Section 4 be deleted. Otherwise, the definition of the ‘Bangsamoro territory’along with ‘Bangsamoro People’ and ‘Self-determination’, in the BBL may stand without need of neither amendment nor clarification,” Davide said.(MNS)