Taking the Law into their Own Hands

Friday, 07 October 2011 03:50

Written by Aaron Benedict De Leon

The constitution guarantees the fundamental right of individuals and groups to freedom of speech and expression. It also guarantees the right of civil society entities and other groups to publicly assemble. But the constitution is also very clear with acts of terror- “it does not tolerate any form or kind of terrorist act.”

The massive raid launched by the NPA against three mining sites in Surigao Del Norte is a clear and outright manifestation of crime, whatever the cause or the purpose of the act may have been. Any form of armed violence to resolve conflict does not do justice to any cause or movement.

The terror networks in the Philippines have been on a contraction-expansion-substitution cycle, thus, at the end of the day, the government consumes resources to weather temporarily secessionist aggressions in the different parts of Mindanao and other conflict areas. The point is we are consuming, and we are not getting something out of wars or even military attacks. Peace has been wanting in many areas of Mindanao for decades now, yet the strategy continuously been plain and unrealistic.

I do not hold a monopoly of solutions to stop armed aggression in conflict areas, but I can assure you one thing- at this point in time, resorting to war will not get us anywhere in our battle for peace.

You need to have a host of solutions to solve terrorism or secessionist tendencies. But I do believe though that these must be treated as a crime, and the government must not have any kind of tolerance for crime, even as they sit in peace negotiations with those groups they are currently in conflict with.

In order to prevent crime, there has to be a deterrence structure, both from the law enforcement and economic aspect of crime. You have to address the motive. The question is- why do these armed groups tend to perform these lawless acts? I have two good guesses. One- there is really no livelihood infrastructure for them in their areas, and their grievances are not usually heard or tended to by either their local or provincial governments, thus they resort to such, and second- they have advocacies which were listened to, either through formal channels (negotiations, public for a) or even informal dialogues, or even as if they were heard, the opposing parties weren’t loyal to their promise that they will do something about the situation.

I think the economic strategy should come first. If the problem is on a livelihood standpoint, I think local government agencies must focus on capacitating these people to become either entrepreneurial or agricultural in mind. If that means forging partnerships with private entities, then so be it. The most important thing is that these people get engaged in productive activities, to divert their attention from even thinking of launching these lawless movements.

Should there be any attrition from this strategy, the government must not hesitate the exercise and implement the full extent of the law, which means to suppress any form of lawless act or element while it is still in its smallest. The government must not be complacent in terms of addressing the situation. Not only should these lawless agents be put in jail, but they should be tried immediately in our courts of justice. This involves improving the deterrence force of our armed forces or even our local police force in the areas of conflict.

In any kind of negotiation, the government should primarily consider putting in more local representatives to ensure that they have a better capture of the situation. Negotiations must not be a venue for grandstanding for many politicians. Reform minded individuals and stakeholders must be the only participants in any peace negotiation.

At the end of the day, the government and vigilant civil society entities must not express or justify any of these lawless acts of secessionist or armed groups, and must outrightly reject this kind of idealism. People or groups who want to put the law into their hands must be punished severely, within the arm of the law.

Only then, shall justice be served for everyone, including these armed individuals and groups, who may need to be corrected in the four walls of the prison.