Overview of Peace Zones in the Philippines

 View of Sagada in Mt. Province, Philippines (photo credits: Vien Suerte-Cortez)

Introduction

The concept and practice of providing protection and sanctuaries against violence resonates throughout Philippine history.  This can be gleaned from the classic ethnographies done on the interlocking peace pact institutions in the Cordillera in the northern Philippines, and in the documented practices of individual headmen in according protection to people seeking refuge in their scope of authority in Mindanao, southern Philippines (Dozier 1966; 1972, Kiefer 1972, Jenista 1987, Prill-Brett 1987).  The “near universality and continuous practice” of providing sanctuaries was observed by Christopher Mitchell (2007) in his extensive review of the theory and practice of establishing sanctuaries from ancient Israel and classical Greece, and even the outdoor markets (suqs) of Berbers of Morocco which gave an essence of sanctuary to facilitate peaceful trading.  The same study also noted that modalities of security-seeking practices seem to occur at the individual level, wherein certain individuals are accorded a status of personal inviolability against attacks, and at the locational or spatial level, which describe a more geographical aspect of protection that sanctuaries provide (ibid. 2007). 

Interestingly, among certain indigenous peoples in the Philippines, there is an integration of individual personal inviolability and spatial protection as observed in the various peace pact holders (pagta) which bind allied villages and ensure protection among its members in the Cordillera.  Meanwhile, in many parts of southern Philippines where the bonds of kinship are strong, it is the network of kinship ties, alliances, and personal honor of families, which supports a threat of retaliation that in turn provides deterrence that ensures security for individuals seeking sanctuary, which is probably a similar mechanism at work in the Cordilleras.  It must be noted that informal or hybrid mechanisms for conflict resolution and community security seem to be prevalent in areas where governance has been historically contested.  In such areas where the government or central authority is weak, the kinship system becomes the source of authority.[1]

In the Philippines, the present concept of zones of peace (or “peace zones” as more popularly known in the Philippines) evolved from these indigenous practices mentioned, and came to the fore when indigenous communities asserted themselves in response to the intrusion of hostilities into their communities by the communist insurgency and counter-insurgency efforts of the Philippine military.  This is what happened in 1986 when residents of Hungdungan, Ifugao, wanting to protect themselves from violence, succeeded in convincing the communist New People’s Army (NPA) to withdraw from the community and prevented the Philippine military from setting up a detachment in the same area (Avruch and Jose 2007: 54).  Similarly in 1988, when three children/ youths were killed in separate incidents involving some elements of the military and the NPA in Sagada, Mt. Province, the incident triggered locals to mobilize which led the Municipal Peace and Order Council to declare Sagada a Demilitarized Zone[2] that prohibited armed groups and regulated armed hostilities in the area.  Accordingly, the Hungdungan incident inspired a network of peace NGOs called Coalitions for Peace to develop the concept and parameters of peace zones (Avruch and Jose 2007: 54).  This eventually led to a series of formal declaration of peace zones throughout the Philippines, and may have even diffused to other countries such as Columbia (Rojas 2007).

The formation of peace zones in the Philippines should be understood from the context of the abuses during the Martial Law period under the Marcos regime in the 1970s and the EDSA People Power Revolution that brought it down in 1986 (Garcia cited in Avruch and Jose 2007: 53).  The citizen-led revolution, with the help of the military, succeeded in toppling the dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos in 1986 which subsequently opened up the democratic space.  The spirit of the EDSA People Power Revolution created the momentum that inspired the formation of peace zones in the northern and central regions of the Philippines.  The formation of the first wave of peace zones was in response to the continued fighting between the Philippine military and the communist New People’s Army in the provinces which severely affected local communities.  Meanwhile in the southern Philippine region of Mindanao, the impetus for the emergence of peace zones came from the government’s war against the secessionist Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), especially the devastation caused by the Estrada administration’s all-out-war policy in year 2000 against the MILF which resulted to over two million displaced and thousands killed. 

Studies on Philippine Peace Zones

There are already a number of studies done on peace zones in the Philippines and a number of forums that problematize peace formations such as peace zones.  Some of the earliest writings on peace zones include a 1990 briefing paper on people-initiated ceasefires by Coalitions for Peace network;[3] Zosimo Lee and Ma. Cecilia Gastardo-Conaco (1994); Ed Garcia (1997); Madalene Sta. Maria (2000); Rudy Rodil (2003); Pushpa Iyer (2004); Soliman Santos (2005); Miriam Coronel-Ferrer (2005); and Hancock and Mitchell (2007).

The popularity of peace zones and its emergence throughout the country led legal scholar, Soliman Santos, to do a policy study of peace zones to explore the possibility of institutionalizing peace zones to help ensure their integrity as people-initiated and community based assertions (2005).  Santos’ own interest on peace zones stemmed from his involvement as one of the leaders of a local peace coalition Hearts of Peace (HOPE), which was the main advocate of the Naga City “Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality” (ZOPFAN).  His investigation of peace zones was prompted by an NPA attack in September 2003 on a police station which breached the declaration of the peace zone, 15 years after it was established (see the entry on Naga City in Bicol under Luzon region).  It was in a Tabang Mindanaw Conference “Panaw sa Kalinaw” (Journey of Peace) in Davao City in December 2004, that Soliman Santos first presented an initial draft of his policy study and where he first described the 3 stages or “waves” of Peace Zone development in the Philippines, which is now the widely used formulation.   

Soliman Santos’ policy study which was eventually published in 2005, revisited the peace zone literature and described the “wave” formation of peace zones in the Philippines and the peace zone clusters in Mindanao.  The study primarily gave the policy views of some key players such as the peace advocates; the executive and legislative branches of the national government; the military and police; the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the Communist Party of the Philippines.  Santos also touched on the legality and constitutionality of peace zones such as the legal basis for authority and sanctions in cases of violations of local community declarations of peace zones. 

In her 2005 paper detailing civil society formations that address armed conflicts and promote peace, Miriam Coronel-Ferrer defined three broad categories of peace movements during this time.  These include:  people’s organizations (PO); coalitions and networks; and NGOs and programs.  Interestingly, the same paper described peace zones as the most solid manifestation of people’s organizations (2005).  People’s Organizations (PO) as civil society formations, are organized individuals from grassroots communities, sectors, and other groups committed to improving their common welfare and shared rights (Coronel-Ferrer 2005). Coronel considers peace zones as a generic category of community-based initiatives to stop and prevent violence, and gradually restore and enhance peace and well-being. 

Drawing from the initial formulation of Santos, Coronel-Ferrer’s 2005 paper gives a useful and comprehensive categorization of peace zones according to waves in which they were formed.  The tables below come from the 2005 paper of Miriam Coronel-Ferrer:

First Wave of Community Peace Zones (1988 – 1994)

                *-- dormant or moribund

Second Wave of Peace Zones (1998 – 2005)

Current Status, Gaps, and Continuing Evolution of Peace Zones

Peace Zones can be seen as one of the many strategies of civil society groups in conflict prevention, mitigation, and resolution.  However, there have been numerous violations by combatants to the sanctity of the peace zone, similar to what happened in Naga City in September 2003 (mentioned above). For instance, in one of the first peace zones in the northern Philippines, the Philippine Air Force launched airstrikes against the New People’s Army (NPA) in Sagada, Mt. Province on August 30, 2013, in response to NPA offensives which targeted a convoy of policemen on the boundary of Barangay Aguid in Sagada, and Barangay Mainit in Bontoc.[4]  On June 28, NPA rebels allegedly ambushed a group of police trainees, killing one policeman and injuring almost a dozen.  The increasing aggressiveness of the NPA has prompted the military to declare that Sagada may no longer be a peace zone.[5]  On March 2014, firefights again erupted when the military and the police overran an NPA camp during the NPA’s founding anniversary, affecting tourism in the idyllic country side.[6]  Because of the recent fighting, the Philippine Army attempted to establish a military camp in Sagada but residents of two villages protested and drove them out.[7]  Most of the time, it is not clear what measures are undertaken by local citizens when violations do occur. 

Despite instances of violations, peace zones continue to persist.  Two villages of Maguindanao in the southern Philippines for instance, recently declared their areas as zones of peace.  Barangay North Binangga and Katibpuan in Talayan town declared their areas as Darussalam or “Abode of Peace” on December 21, 2013.  Among the important provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding agreed upon by the community is that showing of firearms is restricted; coordination is needed with leaders before armed groups can enter the village; and the selling of illegal drugs, liquor drinking, and use of illegal fishing methods are forbidden.[8]  The peace zone was initiated by the community, with support from the local government of Talayan, and various peace groups such as Tiyakap Kalilintad and Kadtuntaya Foundation. 

In Sulu, a peace zone-like formation was formed through the leadership of a former MNLF commander in Barangay Silangkan, Parang, with the help of an INGO, the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue.  Aptly called “Peace-Centered Community,” the peace village was formed in 2010 when representatives of families in the village signed a Letter of Affirmation pronouncing support for the Peace-Centered Community.[9]  The peace-centered village in Parang is typical of many volatile communities in Sulu and Mindanao where community peace is tenuously held by “peace holders” who are usually strongmen who are both feared and respected.  Unfortunately, not much attention and support has been given to such peace formations in terms of strengthening its structures toward a more durable peace.

This points to the persistent gaps in peace zone development:  that the impact, effectiveness, and sustainability of peace zones are still understudied.[10]  However, from observations in the field, peace zones are currently evolving from being peoples’ organization-driven geographical declaration of peace sanctuaries into more active formal groups such as NGOs that increasingly engage with more sectors and conduct a greater number of peacebuilding efforts.[11]  More recent formations similar to peace zones (but are not being called peace zones) have also emerged which rely more on formal governance structures and institutional mechanisms and employ a combination of approaches that employ greater inter-agency coordination; better local government leadership in peace and security issues; enhanced collaboration with security forces; more community involvement in planning and decision-making in security matters, as well as accommodation of customary/ indigenous conflict resolution mechanisms.[12]

The recent development can be observed in areas where strong-willed leaders have led the reorganization and reactivation of provincial and municipal Peace and Order Councils that have succeeded in isolating insurgent groups and brought in development such as the case in Bohol Province in the Visayas, and in Lantad village in Misamis Oriental, Mindanao.  Bohol Province was known as a hotbed of insurgency until a convergence of actors and programs successfully addressed its internal security concerns and transformed the province to become a world-class tourist attraction.[13]  Lantad in Misamis Oriental was also a battleground between the military and communists rebels in the 1980s and 1990s.  But in 2004, under a dynamic leadership, and with the help of a local NGO, Balay Mindanao Foundation, the provincial peace and order council was reconstituted and the barangay peace and development plans were facilitated, which eventually led to Lantad’s transformation into a model of government-security sector-community-key stakeholder convergence and cooperation.[14]

It is clear in these recent examples that the potential of peace zones and similar peace formations, have not been maximized.  The examples in Bohol and Lantad, provide us with models of how to bring more sustainability to peace zone formations by enhancing its linkages with government and other sectors of society.  Meanwhile, it must be noted that the emergence of peace zones, and areas where it has been declared can be seen as an important indicator for the vibrance of civil society and willingness of communities to work for their upliftment.  Such declarations of peace zones should not be ignored.  There should be an effort to take a second look at peace zones and similar formations as concrete manifestations of people’s genuine aspirations.