MANILA, Philippines - The ARMM elections are supposed to take place today, in a climate of uncertainty and even fear (with fighting already taking place; reports of local militias joining in are ominous). The elections take place within the context of the MILF never having wanted them to take place; of the Armed Forces in the lose-lose situation of being expected to maintain the peace but with its every move potentially inviting attacks on its troops and in the process causing the divided Moro groups to unite, temporarily, against it; of an administration increasingly viewed as being in collusion with Malaysia, and a growing suspicion that the United States has decided to play its old game of playing off Muslim versus Christian Filipinos; of Lumads upset that the Christians and Muslims have decreed their permanent subordination in the proposed Bangsamoro Juridical Entity; and of peace advocates so emotionally invested in the RP-MILF agreement that they are reacting in naïve disbelief to the ferocious public response in Christian Mindanao.

For this reason I believe Miriam Ferrer’s argument, as she put it in a recent commentary, can only add fuel to the fire. “As things stand,” she recently wrote, by way of reproach, “I don’t see how the House Representatives from the district of Makati can have any more right than the MILF to claim to know what is good for the affected Mindanaoans.” But she went on to write, “I don’t see how the Senate can speak in behalf of all when there is not even one Moro among them,” which raises a valid and invalid point but dangerous all the same. The valid point is that residents of Mindanao will bear the brunt of whatever it is the government and MILF fail or succeed in doing.

But her assertion that one must belong to an ethnic group to speak with regard to ethnic concerns, and that by extension, not belonging to one makes another incapable of speaking for a particular group or all, is invalid. The Moros in Cebu, in Manila, in Pangasinan are affected by what happens in their traditional homeland in Mindanao; the Christian Filipinos with friends and family in the area—and who does not know, or care for, someone in the affected areas?—can’t help but be affected by what’s going on, and most of all, every person in and from the Philippines will be affected, one way or another, by what is taking place there, now: in terms of our security, our economy, our nationhood. And all, regardless of ethnic origin or location, have had a hand, theoretically at least, in the election of national officials.

One does not have to be either a Moro or a Christian senator to care what happens, or be duty-bound, to speak up at this time. This is what citizenship is about, it is what representative government is about, it is what having national institutions chosen by means of national elections is all about.

The lesson of the past nerve-wracking days is that, on one hand, Filipinos facing the prospect of their neighborhoods being the front lines either of conflict or the political reorganization of the ARMM and proposed BJE, have not been consulted enough or in a productive manner. On the other hand, there is the national concern of an administration-MILF scheme having been hatched in such a manner as to not only deny the deal public legitimacy, but with the increasing possibility it could set back the prospects of a just peace by a generation.

At a time when violence is a serious preoccupation for all of us, it is international humanitarian law that we will all have to cling to, and assert, as neutral parties like the Red Cross are required to deliver medical and humanitarian assistance to the victims of violence. Lawyer Soliman Santos recently published a timely reminder that one political complication from the RP-MILF deal is the perception that it confers something called “belligerency” status on the group. Santos says the concept is obsolete, and regardless of whether other groups, such as the CPP-NPA, are obsessed with obtaining it, the fact is that international humanitarian law has moved on.

Here is part of the entry on “Belligerency Status,” written by Ewan Allison and Robert K. Goldman, in the book, “Crimes of War: What the Public Should Know” (see www.crimesofwar.org).

“Historically,” the entry begins, “rebel groups seeking to overthrow a recognized government and to secede from a State have sought ‘belligerency status’… A rebel group gained ‘belligerency status’ when all of the following had occurred: it controlled territory in the State against which it was rebelling; it declared independence, if its goal was secession; it had well-organized armed forces; it began hostilities against the government; and, importantly, the government recognized it as a belligerent.

“In more recent times, however, governments have simply refused to grant recognition to groups rebelling against them… This refusal has serious legal and humanitarian consequences…

“As a countermeasure, the international community has arranged for certain minimum standards of humanitarian law to be triggered by facts on the ground … A confrontation is deemed to be an internal armed conflict when the fighting is intense, organized and protracted enough to go beyond temporal disturbances and tensions. Additionally, the conflict must be confined within a State’s borders and generally not involve foreign parties. As soon as the situation on the ground meets these criteria, parties are expected to conform to a distinct body of humanitarian law ... These apply regardless of the legal standing of the parties.”

The entry concludes, “In effect, humanitarian law sidesteps entirely the sensitive issue of recognition.” Our government is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions and protocols relevant to the above; and both the NPA and MILF, according to Santos, have committed to observing international humanitarian law.