Ateneo de Manila University

Loyola Schools

Bangsamoro Basic Law: Acceptance of Plurality or Rejection of

Unity?
A Legal Anthropological Perspective

Agarao, Miguel Alexander

Romero, Manolo Franco

SA 132 A
Law, Culture, and Society: Political and Legal Anthropology

Jose Jowel A. Canuday, PhD. (Oxon)

October 14, 2014

I.

Theory

The fact of the matter, when it comes to the understanding of how a particular set of
individuals come together as cohesive, identifiable, and singularly motivated groups to push
their collective interests, is seeing the relation these groups have within the larger political
and legal context they are found in such as a state. Hence, the serious struggles for a
cultural or political groups recognition can lead to aspirations of a recognition of its own
norms and legal considerations which are often not recognized nor accepted by a states
imposed legal system. Seeing the nuances in norms between unique groups and a larger
states grundnorm then presupposes an unclear and complex legal reality both in theory
and practice that is inconsistent, unsystematic, and mutually incomprehensible when taken
as a singular whole. Such is the case of the Philippines, with its vast number of social, ethnic,
and geographical divides which may lead to struggles for recognition and delineation. The
initiative for the Bangsamoro Basic Law (HB 4994) creates an avenue for analysis in a legal
anthropological standpoint, with some implications in political anthropology as well.
Perhaps a starting point to consider is what legal ideology can be assumed to have
influence to the creation and implementation of this legal framework; specifically whether it
has a Legal Pluralism background, or is a mere reaction to a perceived Legal Centralism.
Legal pluralisms ideological premise contrasts to a mythical centralism that has spread
through both academe and the typical public mindset when it comes to an understanding of
the law: that it is foolproof, fair, civilized, detached from reality, and is a model
representation of the nation state (Griffiths 4). Legal pluralism is thus not an abstraction,
but a practice of practicality and convenience by a recognizing state and its people. The
state acts in recognition of laws and norms within its acceptable level of tolerance (5). The
key word is recognize which can also be expanded to include delineate, define, and
represent.
There a number of tools which the Bangsamoro legal framework seems to reflect in use
when compared to fledgling post-colonial states and polities in Southeast Asia as described
by Benedict Anderson, especially in the realm of the map and census. He quotes Thongchai
Winichakul as stating that instead of maps merely stating what is already objectively
existing, it became a tool to project and ...become a model for, rather than a model of,
what it purported to represent (173). The census on the other hand, when intersected with
the map, creates a political map by placing groups within particular territories and regions;
as such, the map would then symbolize the Bangsamoro people itself, including its political
and sociocultural identity. These are the ephemeral qualities which the BBL seeks to
concretize and formalize hence being a Bangsamoro practice of pluralism through
recognition within a larger state, and politics by formalizing its norms, powers, and extent.
The Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) can be regarded as an expression of this exercise in
legal plurality and political action; it is a pragmatic measure accepted by the central
sovereign Philippine state for a particular group of people while taking into account their
ethnic, religious, and geographic considerations. The weak sense of legal pluralism is used
here to illustrate how the state accepts the BBL as another addition to the set of laws under
its command, which are separate from its central body of laws and legal system. An

approach consistent with the Philippine context is the Juristic Approach; a framework of
pluralism where there are ...marginal pockets of recognized customary law dependent
upon the overarching control of the state legal system (5). Incidentally, this Juristic system
was a product of colonial powers and enacted from their perspective, which may have
implications in its implementation by the dominant state. A question can thus arise that
evaluates whether the Bangsamoro is merely being formalized into another Philippine
colony.
The Juristic approach, being evaluated as not entirely separate from the realm of
Legal Centralism described as a subset of weak Legal Pluralism defined as a particular
arrangement whose basic ideology is centralist. What is still clear from this is how it
remains essentially pluralistic in practice, aside from its centralist tinge ideologically. A point
of analysis now is how to relate this approach to legal pluralism and the BBL, as well as
seeing its political implications and general ramifications.
II.

Practice

The Bangsamoro Basic Law outlines the relationship and power sharing between the
Philippine Central Government (CG) and the Bangsamoro Government (BG). As stipulated
within House Bill 4994 the CG is in charge of the the Bangsamoros defense, foreign policy,
common market and global trade, monetary policy, citizenship and naturalization among
others, as a hallmark of its place within the Philippine states overarching jurisdiction. These
are the CGs reserved powers, in contrast to the BGs exclusive powers which may be unique
to the Bangsamoro. The relationship between governments is described as asymmetric
though the agreements establish that they will at the same time harmonize and coordinate
their relationship, which may seem paradoxical. Perhaps a harmonization can be found
within concurrent powers held by both the CG and BG; concurrent powers predominantly
have jurisdiction upon public welfare matters and government operations such as civil
services, maintenance of infrastructure, public safety and justice. These represent an
overlap in interests and legal capability which reflect the Juristic model, and is a clear
practice of weak-form pluralism.
In a converse point of view, the exclusive powers of the Bangsamoro provides
another glimpse into a recognition of the regions delineated and defined autonomy.
According to the law, the BG has special exclusive jurisdiction for example upon Muslim
affairs such as Hajj, Umrah, and Shariah stipulations and management. Islamic principles
and traditional customs within the region, as well as ancestral domains and laws for
applicable Muslims for example, essentially makes the Bangsamoro exclusive powers and
law a reflection of the exclusivity and recognition of its constituencies aspirations rather
than an imposition of the law to its constituents. In a way, it makes the Bangsamoro people
better off, while a retaining the dominant position of the Philippine state over the
Bangsamoro and its people.
An interesting point of discussion can be found in the inclusion of the use of
customary justice in the exclusive powers of the Bangsamoro government. In particular,
there is a certain ambiguity surrounding the use of the term alternative in referring to

these indigenous judicial practices. Referring to these indigenous practices as alternative

connotes the subservience of these laws to another more dominant form of law and legal
system. If taken as such then a Juristic legal pluralist framework is implied here in the sense
that these customary laws are again still dependent on an overarching central authority
A central authority assigns different sets of laws for different population groups usually
defined by their ethnicity, nationality or geography in this weak legally pluralistic framework
(Griffiths 5). Within the same weak framework, the concerned central authoritys
legitimization of supposed pre-existing laws then result in corresponding legal regimes
(Griffiths 5). In the Bangsamoros context, the BG (the central authority in this case) has
acknowledged and legitimized the already existing customary practices of its indigenous
people. The term alternative would mean that these indigenous customs may or may not be
pursued. The term offers no sense of urgency in the immediate implementation and
application of indigenous processes. By offering a choice or possibility of pursuing the
dominant legal process, the effectiveness and overall impact of the indigenous legal process
is effectively undermined. With this loophole in mind, the inclusion of indigenous processes
in the Bangsamoro agreement may be reduced to a form of lip service.
III.

Conclusion

The validity of Griffiths analyses on Legal Pluralism and its Juristic approach is found
not in theoretical discourse on the matter, but in cases where legal initiatives are pushed
and practiced. The Bangsamoro Basic Law is a model that fits into these criteria, and where
we believe further discourse and analysis should be done in order to streamline or augment
it, especially now while it is still in the ongoing process of becoming a reality. We conclude
that the Bangsamoro framework has an affinity with the Juristic approach to Legal Pluralism
in its current state. As such, there is a very real possibility that the overarching influence and
dominance of the state will eclipse the provisions that were meant to give the Bangsamoros
constituents a certain degree of independence. Although, if implemented properly and if
genuine cooperation is achieved, the Basic Law may work to benefit the people of the
Bangsamoro for generations to come.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Griffiths, John. 1986. What is Legal Pluralism? Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial
Law, Vol. 32 no. 24
Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined Community and the Origin of Nations. London: Verso.