It was certainly unexpected. President Aquino’s decision last Friday to form a “peace council” of civic or sectoral leaders to spearhead an “objective evaluation” of the now-controversial Bangsamoro Basic Law came as a surprise. But the initiative is a bold one, based on the idea that, in the public debate over the proposed law in the emotional aftermath of the Mamasapano incident, reason and logic can still prevail. Who can argue against that?
The President named an initial five leaders to serve as “independent convenors” of a new, short-term process: Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle, the archbishop of Manila; former chief justice Hilario Davide Jr., also once Philippine ambassador to the United Nations; businessman Jaime Augusto Zobel de Ayala; philanthropist Howard Dee, former ambassador to the Vatican; and Muslim princess Bai Rohaniza Sumndad-Usman.
The convenors have three tasks. In the official English version of the President’s speech marking the first anniversary of the signing of the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB), these tasks are defined as follows:
“They will gather other responsible and respected leaders to spearhead a National Peace Summit to deliberate on and discuss the BBL. They will dissect the proposed law in a calm and reasonable manner that will not incite anger and hopelessness. This way, the BBL can be improved. They will write a report that will be made public, so that everyone may be informed, and so that more of our countrymen may understand the matter. In this manner, we will be able to advance a reasonable decision as regards the Bangsamoro Basic Law.”
We realize that President Aquino is invested in the passage of the BBL, not least because it was under his administration that the gruelling peace negotiations reached their most important milestones: the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro, each of the four Annexes, the CAB. Indeed, his speech was meant to focus attention on the BBL, to draw together the pieces of political and popular support scattered in the wake of the Mamasapano incident.
It is telling, then, that he does not task the convenors with the passage of the bill; he is merely asking them to convene a summit of stakeholders, to “dissect the proposed law in a calm and reasonable manner,” and to write a report. This is an important difference: improving the bill, advancing a “reasonable decision” on it, is possible only if all points of view are included. The summit is built on the theme of peace, but the instructions to the convenors allow them to include all perspectives on the proposed law.
This is not to say that the President did not have political objectives when he included the convenors in his plan to reimagine the campaign to pass the BBL. The fact that only one of the convenors is from Mindanao suggests, not that Mr. Aquino is slighting the people of Mindanao, but that he thinks the real goal is to gather support from Luzon and the Visayas. A “calm and reasonable” discussion of the BBL, the growing number of myths mushrooming around it, the provisions that can be improved, even the alternatives to the proposed law itself—all this can be beneficial both to the peace process and to the national discourse about the integration of Muslim culture in Philippine society.
But the convenors have a major difficulty to hurdle: The timetable for the passage of the bill, which is indicated in the peace documents themselves. If their work is to have the impact it should have—bringing (relative) calm to the post-Mamasapano turmoil, as well as reason and resolve to the deliberations on the BBL—the National Peace Summit must be convened soon, perhaps in late April or mid-May.
It won’t be easy. The President’s announcement was in itself already a cautionary tale. It was clear from the Palace preparations for the announcement that
Mr. Aquino was ready to list more names of convenors. Palace insiders had told the Inquirer that the President would name seven leaders to convene a “citizens’ conclave.” That he ended up naming only five indicates the constraints inherent in a speeded-up process.
To be sure, there are success stories to learn from, and to build on. Since the Mamasapano incident, peace negotiators from both parties have honored almost every invitation to speak, appeared in almost every forum on peace. Their candor and straight talk can help lead convenor and stakeholder alike to the summit.