Oppression, Self-Determination and Autonomy

I was invited to speak before students of Benguet State University two weeks ago, along with esteemed proponents of autonomy, Nardz Andanan, Peter Dumaguing, and Atty. Nestor Atitiw. Nardz Andanan works in the National Economic Development Authority, a leading agency in the Regional Development Council, that government entity that has been spearheading what Dexter See invariably terms as “the renewed quest for autonomy.”

Peter Dumaguing now works at the Department of Agrararian Reform, but was with the Philippine Information Agency in Ifugao in 1989, and he claims to have figured significantly in campaigning for the Yes vote that Ifugao produced in the first autonomy plebisicite.

Atty. Nestor Atitiw, on the other hand, is a past counsel of several “Cordillera bodies,” such as the Cordillera People’s Liberation Army (CPLA) and the Cordillera Bodong Administration (CBA). Currently, he is “head” of the CBA.

I know not what prompted the Social Sciences Department of BSU to include me in their list of speakers, and I was quite flattered that my thoughts on autonomy warrant the attention of the impressionable young minds of BSU students.

All the other speakers in the forum were invariably for autonomy, though for different reasons, and different rationalizations. I feel rather inadequate to parrot their positions and statements, and so I will not do so, for fear that I may have misunderstood these.

Nevertheless, the forum has drawn me again into the discussions on autonomy, and of late I have been unable to sleep well, troubled with some thoughts, old and new, on that subject.

The call for autonomy, then and now, unless current proponents will disagree, presumes at least one thing – that the Cordillera people need to exercise their right to self-determination. Self –determination is mentioned in the UN International Declaration of Civil and Political Rights, viz: “All peoples have the rights of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

Corollarily, this means that there is denial of that right, that, in reality and under the present dispensation, the Cordillera people are not able to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic and cultural development.” In blunter terms, it means that the Cordillera people are being oppressed, and to liberate themselves from oppression, they need to exercise their right to self-determination.

There are many among the proponents of autonomy now who will not agree with this presupposition. Indeed, few would admit to the denial of the right to self-determination, and fewer would admit to oppression by the present dispensation.

Many of the current proponents of autonomy however would allude to the struggles of the Cordillera people against the world Bank-funded Chico River Dam project, the struggle against the 400,000-hectare Cellophil Resources Corporation logging concession, even the struggle against the Apayao-Abulog River Dam project. The issues surrounding these projects became the fodder for support to the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army (CPP_NPA) in the Cordilleras, with the rebels gaining support in many of our indigenous communities. In their analysis, the Left says that these projects were proof of “National Oppression,” providing the impetus for the call for autonomy.

The Cordillera Left was however rent by the breakaway of Conrado Balweg and Mailed Molina, who formed the CPLA, and who initially demanded the ultimate expression of self-determination – nationhood for the Cordilleras.

Upon the ignonimous exit of Ferdinand Marcos, who was responsible for the failed Chico Dam, Cellophil and the Apayao-Abulog projects, the government of Corazon Aquino wanted to listen to the demands of the Filipino people. The Cordillera people’s aspiration, then loudly represented by the Left in the “parliament of the streets” was for autonomy. The demand was granted in the 1987 Constitution, which mandated the creation of the Cordillera Autonomous Region. Seen in context, the Constitutional provision is a seeming admission to the reality of oppression of the Cordillera people. It was also an admission of the strength of the rebel movement in the Cordillera, and designed to dissipate it.

The call for autonomy was born in turbulent times, when the reality of displacement and annihilation of entire villages was the definitive description of oppression, the very antithesis to self-determination.

There are no such overriding manifestations of oppression at the moment. Correctly or wrongly, the San Roque Dam project in Benguet was completed with few whimpers, and the whimpers were those of the Left. Most of the present proponents of autonomy were silent. And they continue to merely allude to the historical expressions of oppression to support their “renewed quest for autonomy.” They cite no current oppressive policies or laws, no oppressive projects, or any other current reality that would prove that the Cordillera people’s right to self-determination is being denied or violated.

The Left continues to provide arguments asserting the reality of oppression, and the very offices of the current autonomy proponents are the perpetrators, but the Left has long said that the autonomy they seek is not possible under the present dispensation.

The rationale of autonomy is noble, and the concept does provide many avenues for the people of the Cordilleras to develop themselves. I for one believe that some form of self-determination is necessary for our people to realize their potentials. We might even fail miserably in the exercise of this right, but in the end we shall be better off realizing our folly.

But current proponents must convince the Cordillera people of the reality of oppression, and cite examples of how the current dispensation is instrumental in suppressing the people’s right to self-determination. Only when the people understand the problem shall they appreciate the solution.

However, the RDC and other government offices that are pushing for autonomy are hardly expected to condemn the very government and system that they are part of. They should point to current and actual examples of oppression and exploitation that autonomy will solve.

If they however continue on their current path, then the “renewed quest for autonomy” shall fail, and rightly so.

 

More thoughts on Cordillera autonomy

by Estanislao Albano, Jr.

Seems to me that the pursuit of autonomy in the Cordillera is like a vehicle which only runs when it has fuel and the fuel in this case is government funds. The moment the government allocates money for a drive for autonomy, the vehicle moves. The moment the money runs out, all the talk about autonomy being the ideal setup for the region and its materialization ushering in an era of progress for the locality practically dies down until the next allocation comes along. This gives me grave doubts about the brilliance of the idea and the 100 percent conviction of its adherents about it being the correct system for the region. To my mind, a real brilliant idea would not lack for people who are willing to part with their own money and dedicate their unselfish efforts just to bring it to fruition. Sold to the idea, the availability of outside support to keep the drive going is not a condition for them to keep the campaign going. “If there’s a will, there’s a way” is their motto.

My question now is if Juan Ngalob of the Regional Development Council (RDC)  and Baguio City Congressman Maurice Domogan were private citizens, would they still be as ardent in the campaign for autonomy as now?

I know of a non-government group in the region which has been publicly criticizing the RDC for alleged misuse of the autonomy funds released by Malacanang in 2007 and yet at the next breath expresses the wish that it also be given a share in the said funds so that it could revive its own drive for regional autonomy.

Still on government money, granting that it’s true as alleged that  the Cordillera region is not getting its fair share from national government revenues, had the little money which has been coming in been put to good use all this time? I am asking that because not getting one’s fair share is no excuse to waste precious public resources. Who’s to blame for the misuse of the national government funds finding its way to the Cordillera? Will these leeches go out of fashion in an autonomous setup? If not, of what use will the new sources of funds for the region be? Of what use is changing the system?

This brings us back to the bottomline mentioned by Manong Ben two weeks ago. No matter how you change the system if the people will persist with their old attitudes, it will be for naught.

Just look at the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). The last story I read in the papers about that region is the sentencing by the Sandiganbayan of former regional chief executive Zacaria Candao and some other officials to long jail terms for malversation of millions in public funds. If I am not mistaken, Nur Misuari, the foremost Muslim freedom fighter who also had the chance to be governor of the ARMM, could also not account for hundreds of millions. I have not read of positive stories about the region making substantial strides towards progress giving me grave doubts if the people of the region are now realizing the supposed benefits of the autonomous setup. Autonomy is supposed to change the life of Muslims and Cordillerans for the better and make them catch up with their fellow Filipinos who had come under the Spanish yoke otherwise the framers of the 1987 Constitution would not have thought of it. Basing on the experience of the ARMM so far, it’s about time we evaluate if indeed there’s truth to that belief.

What’s disturbing to note was that was that those who  peopled the bodies which were supposed to usher us to autonomy exhibited tendencies similar to what seems to pervade the bureaucracy of the ARMM . What is the guarantee that when more funds will be at the disposition of the regional leadership courtesy of the dawning of Cordillera autonomy the same will be put to proper use this time? Now if there is no such guarantee could be made, what good will autonomy bring to the people of the region?

As far as I am concerned, for so long as we do not change our reprehensible attitude and ways when it comes to government funds, the  Cordillera could become autonomous or even become an independent country but its lot  will not change as a result. On the other hand, if we give room to moral enlightenment and turn over a new leaf, there is nothing  under the present system which bars us from improving our regional condition.   

 

Are we ready for autonomy?

by Gary Pekas, July 2010

In the celebration by government offices and agencies of the establishment of the Cordillera Administrative Region on July 15, the battlecry that they adopted was to work for autonomy, provided that the national government will continue to support the idea.
What does support mean? It would seem that these Cordillera officials expect commitments of funding for information and education campaigns, as well as promises to provide billions if an autonomy act is ratified by the people in a plebiscite. My take on this is that the promise will be dangled in front of the Cordillera people as a bribe for their support of autonomy.
Executives will not admit it, but the man on the street sees the billions as potential opportunities for massive graft.
The question that begs to be answered is why autonomy is a prerequisite for billions of development funds, if the national government is sincerely supportive of the region.
Autonomy should happen only because the people of the region want it for themselves, and they agree on what form of autonomy is most applicable in their situation. If they do, then that desire for autonomy should not be because of promises, but a true expression of self-determination, even if it shall initially mean a lot of problems for the region.
Following is a reproduction of an earlier piece I wrote on the autonomy issue.

The call for regional autonomy in the Cordilleras became popular in the late 70s and early 80s, just as the Marcos dictatorship was in its fatal decline. Although popular, its proponents in general had a limited, if broad, appreciation of the concept, and there was no common understanding of what it should really mean.
Autonomy itself was seen as an expression self-determination, mentioned in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights:
“All peoples have the rights of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
Although the UN covenant was written decades earlier, the concepts it espoused were by no means popular in the Philippines and in other countries. Perhaps it was a measure of the times that in fact the UN’s more liberal conventions, covenants and declarations (like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) were ahead of their time. The proliferation of less-than-democratic regimes throughout the world actually suppressed the popularization of these concepts.
So it happened that in earlier years, it was the Left that championed these worldwide. The Philippines was no exception, so that it was not uncommon that anybody mouthing the mantras of self-determination, human rights and other liberal concepts were branded as communist.
Later on, self-determination and autonomy being part of UN declarations and conventions gained a measure of authority and authenticity. Because of this, the call for autonomy in particular and the broader national anti-dictatorship movement in general drew moral suasion from these covenants and declarations. For those who drew upon this wellspring of authority, it became natural to support the Cordillera call for autonomy. Among the anti-Marcos forces, it became fashionable to espouse it, no doubt aided by the exotic allure of indigenous peoples and their culture.
More and more people begun to espouse autonomy, (though there were those who wanted to distance themselves from the Left and called it simply Regionalization.), but there was limited progress on uniting on its definition in the context of the Cordillera and its peoples.
Though united in the call for autonomy, the Left itself was not undivided. The failure of the revolutionary forces in the Cordillera to arrive at a common position on autonomy would eventually lead to the breaking away of the Balweg-Molina camp, to form the Cordillera People’s Liberation Army. The CPLA would first espouse full independence from the Philippines, or nationhood for the Cordilleras, but would later capitulate and settle for supporting the lesser autonomy offered by the organic acts passed in Congress. As an organization, it would become fragmented, with some fragments integrated into the Armed Forces and others would continue to survive on the fringe. Even the mainstream left hold to the ideological position that true autonomy, and democracy, could only be realized with their victory and the establishment of a “national democratic government.”
In the days prior to the EDSA people power phenomenon, regional autonomy was being mouthed by people who mattered, caught up in the bandwagon. The reasons for supporting the call ranged from the romantic and whimsical to the ideological and noble; from the mundane to the exotic.
When finally the US pulled the rug from under Marcos, spirited him away and Cory Aquino came into power, it seemed that the idea can finally become reality. The Constitutional Commission in 1986 listened to the call for autonomy and the necessary constitutional provisions were written. Caught in the euphoria of freedom, of self-determining their “political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development,” the Filipino people ratified the Constitution.
What of the Cordillera people? Did they then sit down and agree on what regional autonomy should be? Government created the Cordillera Regional Consultative Commission (CRCC) precisely to consult with the people and build consensus, and assist Congress in drafting an organic act for autonomy reflective of the people’s will. It is a measure of their success that the first Organic Act was rejected in a plebiscite, overwhelmingly.
The second organic act was also rejected in 1998.
Some politicians who pushed for the ratification of autonomy did it in the hope of gaining positions in the new regional government; some people espoused it in the noble belief that it would benefit the Cordillera; and some supported it because it was still fashionable to do so. It would seem that the overwhelming rejection of autonomy points to a consensus among the people, a consensus of rejection. But the reasons for the rejection of the two organic acts are as manifold as the reasons for their espousal. The Left rejected the organic acts because the autonomy they offered was not under their “national democratic government.” Political personalities did not espouse it because they saw little chance of gaining footholds in the new regional government, or they despaired that other politicians might gain stronger footholds. Other people would reject it because they sincerely believe that autonomy simply is not for the Cordillera. The reasons for rejecting autonomy ranged from the romantic and whimsical to the ideological and noble; from the mundane to the exotic.
It was a failure of both the proponents and the detractors to unite their forces.
More than a decade has passed since the last rejection, and more than two decades since the constitutional provision mandating it to happen.
So are we closer to agreeing as to what autonomy should be in the context of the Cordillera? We are not. Are we closer to agreeing to reject it entirely so we could propose another expression of self-determination? We are not.
The spirited discussions on autonomy, whether it be for or against, has lost its luster.
It is no longer fashionable.