BANGSAMORO ONLY? — I met former DOTC Secretary Bebot Pantaleon (from Davao del Norte) a few days ago and he briefed me about the “One Alliance Advocating Autonomy Movement” that is starting to gain currency and support.

It simply CALLS ON ALL MINDANAOANS TO DEMAND that the whole of Mindanao, and not only the area of the Bangsamoro be granted autonomy.

The Movement argues if the Muslims will be granted the “Bangsamoro” as its homeland and given a big share in the resources (75-25 sharing), allowed their own form of governance, granted wealth sharing concessions, take care of its internal security, including chartering its own destiny as a people, then why not also give the same concessions to the Christians and the Lumads of the whole island region?

The whole of Mindanao, and not only the Muslim land, has lagged behind and has been demanding for affirmative action. If the Muslims are given this opportunity, why not the rest of Mindanao?

It proposes to establish, in addition to the Bangsamoro region, autonomous regions each for Eastern Mindanao, Western Mindanao and the Lumads, the latter being non-contiguous.

Since the Bangsamoro setup, as being finalized, cannot be done without amending the Constitution, then such amendment should not be limited only for the benefit of the Muslims but for the whole of Mindanao.

If you ask me, this resonates well.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, WHY NOT, INDEED?

* * *
 
“MORAL HAZARD” — One common complaint being directed at proponents of some systemic reforms for Mindanao is their tendency to initially shout, holler, demand and then after they have become tired of demanding, they eventually disappear in the shadows. Unlike our Muslim brothers and sisters who have since time immemorial, demanded for their right of determination and even took up the sword and the gun to secure their rightful share under the sun.

When I was doing development work in Mindanao while in government, I came across the phrase “moral hazard,” a buzzword in the international circles especially those involved in development.

When people who fight governments succeed and get what they demand for and get attention, what about those who keep their peace and remain in the mainstream—are they also getting equitable attention like those who had to take up arms to get attention and action? While the “troublemakers” are rewarded, those who have behaved within the normal bounds most of the time do not get duly rewarded. Sadly they are even DEPRIVED AND FORGOTTEN.

So, the next logical question is: Do they have to also take up arms, fight government, to get attention and secure concessions?

Good questions. Needing answers.