The proposal by Senator Robinhood “Robin” C. Padilla to establish the Basulta Autonomous Region, carving out Basilan, Sulu, and Tawi-Tawi from the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM), has sparked a significant debate. At its core, Senate Bill 2879 aims to address the unique needs of the island provinces while fostering economic development and political stability. However, the proposal raises critical legal, political, and peace-building concerns that cannot be overlooked.
The Case for Basulta
Padilla’s argument is compelling on the surface. The island provinces have distinct geographic, cultural, and economic challenges that are often sidelined in BARMM’s centralized governance. Sulu’s exclusion from BARMM following a Supreme Court decision further underscores the need for a framework tailored to these provinces’ needs.
The proposal’s provisions for local governance, equitable budget allocation, and resource-sharing agreements appear well-intentioned. Establishing a distinct autonomous entity could empower the island provinces to prioritize their developmental needs and cultural preservation. For residents of Basilan, Sulu, and Tawi-Tawi, the promise of better access to basic services and opportunities is understandably appealing.
The Counterargument: Legal and Political Implications
Critics, however, have raised valid concerns. The 1987 Philippine Constitution limits the country to two autonomous regions: one in the Cordilleras and one in Muslim Mindanao. With BARMM already established, Padilla’s proposal enters murky legal territory. Beyond this, fragmenting BARMM risks undermining the hard-won peace agreements with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF).
The BARMM was born out of decades of conflict, with its foundation rooted in extensive negotiations and public plebiscites. Creating a new autonomous region could be perceived as reneging on these agreements, potentially reigniting tensions between groups striving for self-determination and Manila’s centralized authority.
Is Now the Right Time?
Another pressing question is whether the proposal is premature. BARMM is still in its infancy, grappling with governance challenges while building the foundations of self-rule. Calls from leaders like Senator Aquilino Pimentel III to allow BARMM more time to prove its efficacy resonate with the principle of political stability. Reforming BARMM from within, rather than fragmenting it, might be a more sustainable path forward.
For Basilan and Tawi-Tawi, which remain integral parts of BARMM, there is no clear evidence of overwhelming clamor for separation. Addressing their concerns within the existing structure could strengthen the autonomy experiment without introducing new fault lines.
Peace and Development: A Balancing Act
Ultimately, the success of Mindanao’s autonomous governance hinges on maintaining peace and fostering inclusive development. Padilla’s Basulta proposal highlights legitimate grievances, particularly Sulu’s alienation after the Supreme Court ruling. However, it also risks setting a precedent that could destabilize the fragile balance achieved through BARMM.
The national government must tread carefully. Dialogue with all stakeholders, including BARMM leadership, island province representatives, and civil society, is essential to address the underlying issues. Reforming BARMM to better serve the island provinces might achieve the same goals without the political and legal complications of creating a new autonomous region.
Conclusion
Senator Padilla’s proposal opens an important discussion about equitable governance in Mindanao. However, carving out a new autonomous region is a double-edged sword. While it promises localized governance and development, it threatens to unravel the very fabric of peace in the region. For now, strengthening BARMM’s inclusivity and addressing the island provinces’ specific concerns within the existing framework may be the wisest path forward.
