The recent controversy surrounding the funding for the decommissioning of Moro Islamic Liberation Front rebels has opened a can of worms. It also brought back the ghost of the past on a similar issue.

Presidential sister Senator Imee Marcos had a telling comment. She revealed reports of anomalies in the process like those who surrendered were not really combatants because they looked too old to fight in battle; there were “kaltas” or deductions from the P100,000 dole-outs to the rebels; and some of the firearms surrendered were antiques or of World War 2 vintage and unserviceable.

For a fleeting moment, I felt I was transported back in time to the regime of her father, Ferdinand Marcos Sr. These were the same issues that were talked about among Muslim professionals then. In fact, we had then what we called fake and “recycled” rebels who were dressed to look like rebels and presented in an elaborate public ceremony with firearms displayed on a table. They were presented as surrenderers many times and given a bonanza of benefits. No one bothered to check or investigate this anomaly. Most of the Centurions in uniform of the regime who were in the field knew this but kept mum because they earned plaudits and medals also for the bogus feat. It was a thriving cottage industry for both rebels and soldiers.

Learning from the experience, the government has adopted stringent measures to prevent a repeat of the past anomaly. Under the terms of the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro, all the stages of the process are closely monitored and defined, including using advanced digital technology.

According to Secretary Carlito Galvez, the rebels undergo at least “four phases by percentage of decommissioning.” To supervise the process, the parties agreed to designate a third-party Independent Decommissioning Body composed of international experts from Japan, Turkeye, Norway and Brunei, including local experts from the academe and other local representatives.

The decommissioning is only the first step which includes the surrender of firearms. The list and the identities of the rebels are secured by the IDB and DSWD which also gives social amelioration support.

The MILF submits its list of combatants and the IDF “conducts a verification, registration, validation and inventory of weapons and forces with the assistance of Verification and Monitoring Assistance Teams.” The VMAT, in which there are also international representatives, “conducts a careful validation process through “interviews and a stringent vetting process.” Each combatant is validated and registered through biometrics by the IDB.

Before that, the parties conduct a pre-screening and pre-registration of rebels in a designated area where the identities of the rebels are determined through “civil registration and provision and processing of certificates of live birth.”

After undergoing these processes, another body, the Task Force for Decommissioned Combatants and their Communities, and the DSWD hand out the P100,000 “transitional cash assistance with a DSWD issued ID (biometric system) to each rebel.” The DSWD monitors the proper use of the funds. Finally, another body, the Third-Party Monitoring, monitors, assesses and evaluates the implementation of the agreement.

Are these mechanics fail-safe? If the protocols agreed on by the parties are followed to the letter, will they guarantee the integrity of the process? From experience, for as long as there is the human factor involved in any undertaking, there will always be doubt about its integrity. The frailties of man always come into play, including affiliations, bias, emotions, greed and, not the least, politics can taint the process.

Has the OPAPRU answered and quashed the concern of Senator Tulfo about corruption in the process? While the protocols and guidelines look good on paper, their actual implementation is another thing.

We are reminded of what the late President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III said about the SAF-49 Mamasapano tragedy. If memory serves us right, he said substantially that before the fiasco he was presented “drawings” in a briefing by the SAF commanders on how the operation was to be conducted. Based on this, he apparently gave the go-signal that ultimately led to the massacre. Theory is different from reality.

amb_mac_lanto@yahoo.com