‘Resurrectionists’ and the BBL

During the Victorian times in England, there was a term used for grave robbers: “resurrectionists.” These people were employed—or engaged in their trade as freelancers—to exhume the bodies of the recently dead to provide cadavers for anatomical research.

A feature in the Travel Channel explains that to protect their deceased from the resurrectionists, wealthy folk began to inter their loved ones in underground crypts, the coffins lined with lead to protect the living from horrible diseases that killed their kin in those days.

Well, we have resurrectionists in our midst today, too. And I refer to those, in their anger or insatiable grief over those killed in Mamasapano (but only the “Fallen 44,” it seems, not the civilians or Moro combatants) refuse to let the dead soldiers rest in peace. These days, their memories and their deaths are “resurrected” constantly, their heroism cited repeatedly, and their cause alluded to frequently, especially by those hoping to profit somehow from keeping the story alive.

Worse, they have not even allowed the relatives and loved ones of the fallen police commandos to grieve in private and in the solace of their families. Those who see in Mamasapano an opportunity to go after the P-Noy administration, seeing it as a “fatal flaw” that could bring it to a premature end even as it nears the 2016 elections, exploit the situation to the hilt. Family members are hounded, tracked even to their homes around the country, interviewed relentlessly about how they’re feeling (of course they’re grieving, of course they have grievances), and forced to retell time and again stories about the men they have lost.

Of course, the families and survivors have the right to feel what they are feeling. And some have not been shy about airing their sentiments or assigning blame.

But isn’t it time we called out the resurrectionists for what they really are? Aren’t they really ghouls out to exploit whatever advantage they could gain by stoking the grief and anger of those left behind? Isn’t it time we asked what they hope to gain by continually scratching at the wounds created by the shooting in Mamasapano?

At the rate the resurrectionists are going, maybe even the official findings of the investigation bodies won’t satisfy them, unless these lead to a lynching or to widespread anger, or to the total collapse of the peace process. We all want the truth. But we can get at the truth only in an atmosphere of sincere and arduous search, not a rush to judgment.

* * *

There have been in social media no lack of posts by scholars and peace advocates based in Mindanao, many of them by people—some of them Christians who have been and are living still among Moro communities—who give us a view of the post-Mamasapano scene from the “other side,” the side of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), and of ordinary Moro folk.

One post I read examined the impact of a failed peace deal on the MILF, especially its leadership. Some legislators have questioned what “right” the MILF has to negotiate with the government when there are other Moro liberation groups around. But these “other” groups, we must emphasize, have either failed or refused to negotiate or cooperate in ending the armed hostilities in Mindanao. Some persist in calling for a “separate” Moro homeland, or continue to engage in terrorism. Only the MILF has staked its credibility among the Moro community to rise above their distrust to sit down with the government for negotiations.

But even within the MILF, there is no homogeneity. For now, many of its members may be keeping quiet and allowing the peace talks to proceed. But they also harbor uneasiness about the situation, haunted as they are by years and decades of “Christian” or at least Manila-originated deception and violence.

If the peace talks fail, heralded by Congress’ failure to pass the Bangsamoro Basic Law, then the warmongers, or rather, the ones insisting on continued distrust of the national government, will gain the upper hand. “The MILF will implode,” as someone privy to the negotiations has said.

Then who do we talk to? And should we wait another decade before starting down this road again? In the meantime, how many more will die (as surely they will if the proponents of “total war” succeed), and will the entrenched resentments and distrust on both sides prevent a breakthrough ever?

* * *

“Who does not want peace?” some critics of the peace process have said. “We all want peace in Mindanao, but not through the BBL,” or not with the MILF, or not so soon after Mamasapano, or not with a group that still bears arms, or any other such variation or reservation.

The BBL, we must stress, is still a work in progress. Its provisions are still subject to oversight by both the House and the Senate, and like any law must still pass scrutiny by legislators, including those who even now vow never to pass the draft legislation.

The MILF, to my mind, has shown great flexibility—and indeed, trust in our political processes—to leave to Congress the crafting of the basic law that will define how the Bangsamoro authority will govern as an autonomous part of a larger republic. Now it’s time for our lawmakers to show that this trust is not misplaced, and that there is a true and sincere desire on their part to create a BBL that will not only ensure the quieting of the guns in Mindanao, but also fair and equitable conditions for everyone in the Bangsamoro: Muslim, Christian and lumad.

Those who say they want peace but not the BBL are being disingenuous, for the BBL is the blueprint of that peace. Without the BBL, the peace they say they favor will nigh be impossible.