DIGMAAN
- DAMAYAN: Are We At War?
Privilege Speech
15 October 2001
Mr.
Speaker, I seek the House' leave to stand on a matter of personal and
collective privilege.
For three years I have sat and listened to the wisdom of this House, never once availing of every Member's right to raise any question of privilege. I have kept my peace, remaining silent for one whole Congressional term, in an attempt to imbibe and learn the ways and knowledge of this House of Representatives. But today I am compelled to rise as you the leadership have taught me, for never have we been threatened, collectively and individually, as seriously as we have been in the past month.
Ang sambayang Pilipino, ayon sa ating mga ninuno, ay tulad raw ng katawan ng isang tao. At gaya ng tao lamang, kapag nagkaroon ng karamdaman: "Ang sakit ng kalingkingan, damdam ng buong katawan.'' Sa ilokano, may kataga ring ganito: "Uray la ti kikit ti magaradgadan, isu amin ti bagi ti masakitan." Kasabihan sa bisaya naman "Ang samad sa kumingking, pagabatiun sa tibuok lawas." Sadyang iisang katawan lamang ang Pilipinas, kabit-kabit at damay-damayan. At kapag binaliwala ang unang kirot ng karamdaman sa katawang politikal, lulubha at kakalat itong sakit, hangga't tuluyang ikamamatay ng buong bansa. Hindi rin maaring paghiwa-hiwalayin ang Pilipino, sapagka't kapag ginutay-gutay ng sinuman, mapapawi na lamang ang buhay nito at ang maiiwan ay isang bangkay na lamang.
Today we know the wisdom of that ancient warning: the Philippines is one nation, a single organic, divergent body politic struggling towards freedom. No longer can we consign the "incidents" of Lamitan, Basilan to the rubbish heap of "Mindanao policy." The first confirmed Filipino casualty of the New York bombing was a working mother from my province, Ilocos Norte, one of the northernmost points of our archipelago, hundreds of miles from the Abu Sayyaf bastions of the southern islands. The body of Benilda Domingo, a utility worker, was among those immediately recovered from the collapsed towers of the World Trade Center.
After the tragedy on September 11, we lost that safe distance between Ilocos Norte and Basilan. Members of the same nation, every Filipino has become a victim of a war not of his own choosing. I come before you today, Mr. Speaker, to ask a question: Are we at war? Or is this to be our peace?
Her Excellency President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, together with the rest of the world, extended our condolences to the American people. The following day she sent a second letter to United States President George W. Bush, " (This)…may the handiwork of Osama bin Laden, whose nefarious network…extends to the Philippines…They say we have human intelligence assets who may be able to penetrate bin-Laden's networks…They have suggested a discreet surveillance effort in partnership with American counterparts…" In a later statement, she promised an unequivocal policy of "all-out support" in America's war against terrorism.
A third letter detailed the promise on September 19, "In the event that operational plans of your government will require the use of transit and staging points in the Philippines, the facilities in Clark and Subic will be made available for use by the United States. I am also contemplating a contribution of Philippine combat troops should an international call for it arise. In this event I will be requesting the concurrence of the Philippine Congress. My government will also be willing to contribute logistical support in the form of food supplies, medicines, and medical personnel…" Even before any official request by the United States, this unqualified offer, ladies and gentlemen of the congressional chamber, entirely unbeknownst to us or to the Filipino people, may have set our country on the path of war.
On the same day, September 19: three (3) F-18 Hornet fighter jets from the US military base in Kadena, Japan refuelled in Mactan, Cebu. Shortly after, a C-17 cargo plane with nine (9) crewmen on board made an "emergency landing" in Mactan en route again to the US naval base Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. An indeterminate number of US combat planes have since landed since:C-5 Galaxy aircraft transport planes, KC 135, C 130's . The first official denials have since been rescinded, yet confirmation of these flights and arrivals, their number and purpose, has been incomplete.
Unknown arrivals have not been limited to aircraft. On September 24, rumors emanated from the Holiday Inn at Clark Field that at least twelve (12) American military personnel arrived in Clark. The US Embassy ignorance: they had already cut short and cancelled all Visiting Forces Agreement-related military exercises with the Philippine Armed Forces. The Presidential Commission on the VFA also insisted they had no knowledge of the supposed entry of the American military in Clark.
On September 26, President Arroyo announced the "Fourteen (14) Pillars of Policy and Action" against terrorism. The statement listed the deployment of Filipino medical personnel and combat troops; it also pledged "to make available Philippine air space and facilities as transit and staging grounds by the US-led International Counter-Terrorist Coalition." On the same day, the US Embassy in Manila issued Advisory 1130 " to advise of the following flights to take place under the blanket diplomatic clearance …" Malacañang then admitted that Admiral Thomas Fargo, commander in Chief of the US Pacific Fleet had inspected the former US bases in Clark and Subic for possible military attacks on Afghanistan.
With the start of the bombing of Afghanistan last week on October 8, and the rapid uptick in American mobilization, our Air Force confirmed the arrivals of US B-2 and B-1B stealth bombers on the way to the US base Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean; "three (3) US F-18 fighter jets that refueled in Mactan." It was claimed that the other craft were C-5's, C 130's and cargo planes carrying grain, tents, blankets, water and rescue material for the Afghanis and the neighboring Pakistanis.
But last week, an article in the New York Times alarmed readers here, as it did many around the world. Facing the United Nations Security Council, US Ambassador John Negroponte announced that the US may take "further actions with respect to other organizations and other states." The extension of the anti-terrorist war theater from the mountains of Afghanistan to "East Asian groups…not only in the Philippines but in Malaysia and Indonesia" was explained thus: "The Philippines have become a major hub, and it's a serious concern. People linked to bin Laden are not only in Manila but elsewhere in the Philippines". "Future covert and overt military actions against terrorist groups in the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia" were ordained.
Opinions are clearly divided in American officialdom. US Secretary of State Colin Powell distanced himself curtly "There are no plans not any time soon..." Attempting reassurance, US President Bush also modified the earlier position: the war on terrorism, would be "confined to Afghanistan… for now …" Meanwhile, everyday our newspapers announce conflicting actions: "US Team to Train RP Troops in Counter-terrorism", "US eyes new weapons, new alliances, new fronts", "US to Bring War Materiel", "US Pacific Chief to Come as adviser". Thirty thousand (30,000) upgraded M16 armalites, fifteen (15) upgraded Huey helicopters, two(2) C130"s, thirty-five(35) Cyclone patrol boats…
Mr. Speaker, and my good colleagues, please forgive my naivete and foolishness, but has a war begun in the Philippines?
To be sure, the unprecedented actions taken by the Philippine government were an historic ally's natural response to equally unprecedented terrorism. But, Mr. Speaker, if we must indeed fight, would that it were with our full knowledge of this war and our own choosing. We do not have today the international legal infrastructure to engage combat against the terrorists. We have yet to build that new system of international laws and regional defense arrangements that will protect our country from terrorist violence.
Announcing
President Arroyo's visit to Washington next month, the US Press Secretary
said, "(We are)… particularly pleased to host President Arroyo
this year, which marks the 50th anniversary of the mutual defense treaty
between the United States and the Philippines . Though born of the Cold
War, the alliance is as important today as ever..."
Evidently, even the US is doubtful of the validity or efficacy of existing
treaty arrangements.
But the Mutual Defense Agreement is archaic, neither is the Visiting Forces Agreement germane to the issue of international terrorism. A Senate primer from 1998 explained : "The VFA… does not envisage providing access arrangements for the United States armed forces, or the right to pre-position in the country armaments and war materials belonging to the United States military. The agreement is about personnel and not equipment or supplies…Any other envisaged arrangements not falling under these two agreements may require the conclusion of other agreements…(It) is not intended to serve as a legal mechanism for any bilateral understanding involving military equipment and supplies."
Are we, Mr. Speaker, to understand that the numerous if untold American "overflights and refuelling" may already constitute violations of our own mutually agreed safeguards? The Philippine Constitution has its distinct prohibition in Article II, Section 8, the " freedom from nuclear weapons". Do we have any way of knowing what the stealth bombers and other aircraft carry as they fly over our airspace on the way to the Persian Gulf? Is the use of Clark and Subic for what all experts assume will be a long-drawn and extensive war tantamount to the creation of new bases that our Constitution prohibits? Will the continuing arrivals of American advisers and trainers come to violate the injunction against the deployment of foreign troops?
It behooves us, Mr. Speaker, the nation's lawmakers, to write new legislation to meet current demands, while making certain that old and sacred laws remain in place. First, in accordance with the UN Resolution 1373, we must effect the immediate criminalization of terrorism. Because for all the febrile rhetoric that echoes around us, there is as yet no definition of terrorism, whether global or home-grown, in our statute books. The stampede to produce an Anti- Money Laundering Law resulted in a puerile listing of recognized crimes "Section 3 (i) 12. Hijacking, and other violations under Republic Act No.6235; destructive arson and murder as defined under the Revised Penal Code, as amended, including those perpetrated by terrorists against non-combatant persons and similar targets."
This attempt
can hardly be deemed sufficient. As we speak, the Lower House of the US
Congress shall be hearing the USA Act of 2001, "Uniting and Strengthening
America" passed in their Senate last week, a hugely comprehensive
law on punishing terrorism in all its aspects- surveillance, money-laundering,
border protection, investigative modes, immigration revisions, air transport,
and so on. While we may not be likewise encyclopaedic, let us commit urgently
to a similar, vital lawmaking effort.
But above the outrage and the grief, we must be prudent so that these
new laws continue to uphold our Bill of Rights. The inalienable rights
of Filipino men and women must be protected, most especially in a time
of war. Already, Filipino Muslims from Baguio to Mindanao, as well as
Muslims from other countries visiting our shores, allege prejudice and
harassment. We must be watchful so that in this country, men and women
will still be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, secure in
the protection afforded by due process and the rule of law. The proposal
to adopt a national identification system has met with opposition due
to its potential for abuse and unwarranted surveillance of innocent citizens.
We must be circumspect, so that this war against terrorism does not itself
come to terrorize the nation it seeks to defend..
Pray heed, in fact, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, the use of the word "war" itself, for in a modern age of law, this usage may become problematic. Already we know that the campaign against terrorism must be fought all fronts, most of these devoid of any military function: the control of financial flows, the sharing of information and intelligence, political cooperation and a global alliance, debt condonation and foreign aid institutions. These are the new front lines, and they have little to do with the historic battlefields of traditional warfare.
Secondly, it may be essential that in waging the battle against terrorism, we avoid the unhelpful intrusion of the laws of war. Classical warfare endows its combatants with rights well as obligations: the right to attack military installations, the right to be treated as prisoners of war, a full panoply of rights given by the Geneva and other conventions. Despite the ferocity of their own wars, the Europeans are hesitant to use the word: the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland, the Bosnian "conflict". Let us learn from their caution, for we must not confer excessive political legitimacy upon those who would be terrorists.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in Congress, even when we have passed such laws, there remains a vast area beyond legal logic, into the realm of our real, unreasoning world.
For while the MILF has officially decried the call for "an Islamic jihad," and undertakes strenuous negotiation with the national government there are other, more strident voices heard in the "jawi", the traditional correspondence and discourse of Mindanao. For over a decade they have demanded the establishment of nothing less than an independent Islamic emirate, sometimes invoking extremely violent means. Daily in front of the American Embassy, some Muslim protesters have begun to wear the red-and-white checkered scarves or "kefiyeh". While they appear to observe the peace unlike their counterparts in Indonesia or even Malaysia, these scarves are the Muslim mantle of holy war.
"Osama
bin Laden would have found many willing recruits in Basilan…there
is a correspondence between what they think and what bin Laden seeks to
propagate," a distinguished Mindanao scholar has commented. Following
the bombing of Afghanistan, "a fertility of recruitment among the
fundamentalist and conservative groups is most likely to follow,"
predicts another academic. The Abu Sayyaf, born in 1989 of Filipino veterans
of Afghanistan, is only the most notorious among many terroristic bands.
Sometimes only ten (10) or fifteen (15) men strong, they lie in wait for
the opportune moment to strike. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen
of this House, when does a Filipino Muslim cease to become a freedom fighter
and evolve into a terrorist ?
The two Zamboanga City and Maguindanao bombings immediately following
the air raids on Afghanistan, were derided by the military as strictly
diversionary; but their timing demands that we ponder otherwise. Even
as the military laugh off the call for jihad, the National Power Corporation
has tightened security in its seven major power plants, but what absolute
protection is there against these volatile, violent gangs? The Pandacan
depot in Metro Manila has repeatedly been reported by the media as a perfect
open target for terrorists. News of the alleged Abu Sayyaf plan to poison
the water supply of Basilan's capital city of Isabela, and other nearby
towns, persist. How then do we protect ourselves from our own enraged
and alienated Muslim Filipinos?
Perhaps the military will still fend off these mercenary gangs. But what
protection can there be against the rampage of the individual terrorist
willing to die for his faith? Who can fight the holy rage of those the
Tausugs' called the "amoks", the Spanish chillingly remembered
as the "juramentados"? In the epic literature of the "parang
sabil", these chaste and glorious heroes live and then die as "sabilallah",
the classical Arabic title for "one who dies for the faith".
It is tragic that Islam, that beautiful Arabic word for "surrender",
cannot bring peace, justice and harmony to these fierce and murderous
believers. How is our nation to declare war and demand surrender from
our own maddened children, ran amok with pain and desperation?
Mr. Speaker, we are not Americans, and unlike them, this shall not be for us a war against a faceless enemy, this could be a war against those faces we know best, our own Muslim brethren.
Mangyaring makinig tayo muli sa mungkahi ng ating mga sinauna, at alalahanin ang payo nila: "Ang sakit ng kalingkingan, damdam ng buong katawan". Huwag ipaghihiwalay, gutay-gutayin ang katawang pulitikal ng sambayanang Pilipino. Sa kabila ng dantaong kasaysayan, umaalingawngaw pa rin ang babala ng ating mga ninuno, babala na kinilala ng ating unang Pang-ulo, si Emilio Aguinaldo, at ni Emilio Jacinto, utak ng unang himagsikan: "Kung ang pag-ibig ay wala, ang mga Bayan ay mapapawi sa balat ng lupa…Sa pag-ibig nanunukal ang kinakailangang pagdadamayan."
Hindi sakit sa kalingkingan ang Abu Sayyaf sa Lamitan. At kapag di pinansin ang damdaming lumalaganap sa Mindanao, lulubha at kakalat ang sakuna hanggang mapapawi ang buhay ng buong sambayanang Pilipino. Dahil upang magkaroon ng lakas, tapang at kabuuan ng loob ang ating bansa, makipagdamayan tayo sa isa't isa, bago madamay ng tuluyan sa digmaang banyaga't damay-damayan lamang.
Mrs. Benilda Domingo, the first confirmed Filipina casualty of the New York City bombings, went to work as usual in the World Trade Center on September 11. She went early that day, as she did every day, so that at the end of each month she could send those meager US dollars to her family in Ilocos Norte. She did not know that she was going to die that day, as she did not know there was a war that, unbeknownst to her, had already been declared.
Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of this Congress, let us begin to answer the question of war. If we choose to ignore it, if indeed we are unable to know that we too are now at war, we may bring her poor and hapless fate upon this our country, the Philippines.
Thank you and good day.