A close friend of mine visited my office this week. She is one of the boards of advisers of Al Qalam Institute. She is in Davao for a workshop for a project that she is working on for the past few months. The project is connected to the Bangsamoro peace processes.
While we were having our conversation in one afternoon regarding her work in the island provinces, she shared to me her concerns about the "voices of the voiceless (VoV)". VoV represents those people who were victims of social injustices; massacres during and after the martial law years who up to now are seeking for justice; and those civilians who were plain victims of the conflict in Mindanao as collateral damage. They are mostly the poor and the marginalized. She asked me, "How do we present their cases (meaning the families of the VoV) in the courts when there are no documentary evidences to support their claims? And, when all they have are the painful memories of the deaths of their love ones?" I was stunned while I was listening to her. I asked myself, am I still doing the right thing? Am I still relevant to the whole process of rebuilding our communities when victims of the conflict are still out there seeking for justice? I was silent for several minutes while I was listening to her stories about her experiences in engaging the families and the victims of the Moro conflict.
She further said to me, "there are now ‘new’ narratives being orchestrated by the ‘powerful’ people in the government that denies or counters some of the massacres that happen late 1960s and early 1970s. There are those who try to divide again our people by exploiting our ethnic differences and there are those who try to bring issues that are not present in the hearts and minds of our people. But these issues are relevant for the so called peace builders and people in the government?"
There are many different stories and narratives in our communities. Each story depends upon the perspectives of the person involve. A Christian settler (from Luzon or Visayas) during the early migration in Mindanao in 1920s may have a different story with compared to those who came during the 1960s and 1970s. And they may have a different view of social injustice compared to the Muslims or to the indigenous peoples.
Oscar Wilde (16 October 1854 – 30 November 1900) was an Irish author, playwright and poet. He said, “The truth is rarely pure and never simple. Modern life would be intolerable if it were either.” Following this line of thought about truth, we could say that there are "many truths". Our idea of the reality defines our opinions. Some opinions become the fact and become part of the historical narratives of the people. Usually, opinions of the strong and powerful in our society define what is fact and real. Thus, truth is never simple and may not be pure.
This reminded me of the saying, "history is written by the winning side". Who are the strong and powerful in Mindanao? Who wrote the history of our country? We have to understand that a historical account is only part of the truth doesn’t mean that it is not true, nor we say that it is the only truth.
To address the historical and social injustice within the Bangsamoro people is a complex situation. Who defines what legitimate grievance is? And those who try to define them, what is their authority to define it for us?
Social injustice is pain to the hearts and minds of the victims. To the victims of social injustice, remembering their lost loved ones is painful. It is more humiliating on their part when people try to deny that they were victims of injustice? It is more painful when we do not know how to deal with all these "truths" of injustices.
I do not claim that I have answers in these questions. We simply need to raise the fact that indeed there are many "truths" about social injustice in Mindanao and to the Bangsamoro people. Our task is simply to provide space for the voice of the voiceless is heard.
At one point in humankind's history what was legal was not morally correct. Apartheid was legal; Slavery was legal; and even colonialism was legal. The “Torrens Title” way of owing the land was legal mechanism, and it was used as a mode of land grabbing. Back in law school, we were taught that law and morality are inseparable. This is because morality serves as the basis for any legal/political system. In the beginning law is a moral claim, a moral imperative, a moral prescription. How do we address historical injustice? Do we really need to apply legalist perspective?
Last October 2014, the Transitional Justice and Reconciliation Commission (TJRC), a body created by the Government of the Philippines (GPH) and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) to recommend measures to correct historical injustices and address legitimate grievances of the Bangsamoro people, was launched and was set to conduct public consultations. According to the office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP), "The Commission will approach its work by considering the culture of the people, multiple narratives of history and ensuring inclusivity among the different stakeholders".
My last and final questions for this article, how do we implement a transitional justice mechanism for the Bangsamoro peace process? Are we going to wait for the recommendations of the TJRC?