THE WAS the main course served during our impromptu lunch with Cavite 4th District Representative Kiko Barzaga last Saturday at the Kahayag Foundation community hub in Juna Subdivision, Matina, Davao City.
Present were Davao City’s deputy mayors representing our 11 ethnolinguistic tribes, Kahayag founder Irene “Inday” Santiago, Tayo Community founder Jonathan Traya, former BARMM Minister of Transportation and Communications (MOTC) Dickson Hermoso, and other community leaders.
The gathering was unplanned, and we all got the call just a few hours before lunch. I guess all of us who showed up at short notice were intrigued by why the “congressmeow” is in Davao immediately after the Zaldy Co viral videos came out and just before the planned three-day series of anti-corruption rallies in Metro Manila.
I saw it as an opportunity to interview Rep. Kiko for the Mondays with Patmei podcast, so I went. And a few friends also wanted me to find out if he’s “crazy.”
Well, I do not know if I am the best person to evaluate “crazy,” but I can confidently say, after having lunch with him and interviewing him for 15 minutes, that I am crazier. I think I shocked him when I told him over lunch that we have long seceded psychologically and emotionally, already calling ourselves (half jokingly) the Republic of Davao.
Historical accounts would confirm that Davao was among the last to be formally conquered by Spanish colonizers in the late 19th century due to both its relative isolation (thickly forested) and the strong resistance from indigenous groups, particularly the Bagobo and Moro peoples.
This relative isolation remains even in modern times. Davao has usually experienced neglect from the national government, so it has learned how to be self-reliant. Its development has always been private sector-driven and civil society-led, with the local government playing the role of supporter and enabler of the innovations initiated by its citizens.
In short, we are used to solving our own problems, generating our own funds (not dependent on our share from national allocation), and basically just doing things our own way. It is when external forces try to meddle and impose something that did not go through the process we are used to that conflict happens. When we are left alone, our diverse communities live in harmony.
We are independent, but we know how to cooperate and help other communities. Davao would be the first to respond whenever a calamity strikes other areas. We would always be the first to volunteer and share our resources. We welcome everyone who is willing to embrace our multicultural way of life, providing a safe and livable space for people from all over the world. We are also among the first to resist all forms of oppression and abuse. We are not perfect and not even the best, but we pretty much know how to live and work together as one community.
The “Duterte brand” has been associated with Davao politically because of our first Mindanawon President, but that is not the whole story of Davao. In fact, Duterte is just a chapter in Davao’s long, rich history. So equating Davao with Duterte will not help you figure us out.
I mention this in the context of the discussion on secession to emphasize that Davao’s independent spirit has been alive and well long before any Duterte came to Davao.
Which brings us back to the question: Is Mindanao secession possible? And, more specifically, is it possible to do without violence?
Alternatives to violence do exist. The historical record shows that political divorce does not have to lead to war. Peaceful separation through expanded self-determination and regional autonomy is a viable path.
But the only clear examples of peaceful and legal secession occur with the consent of the central state, as seen in the dissolution of Czechoslovakia or the separation of Singapore from Malaysia. Unilateral secession is almost always met with forceful legal and political resistance.
Even international law is ambiguous. There is no international treaty that explicitly grants or forbids a right to secession outside of the colonial context. The 2010 International Court of Justice opinion on Kosovo concluded that declarations of independence are not illegal under international law, but this is not the same as saying there is a positive right to secede. Each case is judged politically by other states, which decide whether or not to grant recognition based on their own interests and interpretations.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution is explicit in its defense of a unified national territory. There is no provision for any part of the national territory to leave. There is no exit option yet unless the constitution is amended to allow it. So that is the argument used by the national government to assert its “constitutional duty” to prevent secession.
Peaceful secession is a political process, not just a legal one. It requires dialogue, negotiation, and ultimately, an agreement between the seceding entity and the central state.
For a secession movement to have any chance of success, it must demonstrate significant popular support. This principle, rooted in international law, holds that a “people” — often defined by a common language, culture, and history — has the right to govern itself and choose its own political status. People of a territory are the ultimate source of political authority. Thus, political authority must be based on consent.
Secession is a complex and contentious political act. The fundamental tension revolves around this — the right of a people to self-determination versus the right of a state to preserve its territorial integrity.
Aside from constitutional order and territorial integrity, those opposed to secession argue that the seceding region should not be the only constituency that decides. The entire state is also affected by the breakup — economically, strategically, culturally. Therefore, a truly democratic process must require the consent of all citizens of the state, not just those in the seceding region.
Rep. Kiko thinks the current Congress and citizens from Luzon, especially the national capital region (he’s not sure about Visayas yet), will not support Mindanao breaking up with the rest of the Philippines. Because, obviously, they benefit from the status quo.
Perhaps, there can be another solution. But we believe the national government should come up with it because we are sick and tired of this unequal relationship that clearly does not benefit us. If it does not want Mindanao to break up with the Philippines, what can it do now (because we are not waiting another hundred years) to make it worth for us to stay?
