September is National Peace Consciousness month in the Philippines, or simply, “Peace Month.” The goal is to make Filipinos aware on the importance of the peace process, and to make them commit to it.  This year marks the 20^th year since this tradition started. What have we achieved thus far?

In peacemaking, we have signed a decent number of political settlements with armed rebel groups. The peace pact between the Philippine government and the Cordillera People’s Liberation Army (CPLA), a breakaway group of the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army (CPP-NPA)  was signed on Sept. 13, 1986 under the administration of President Corazon Aquino, and the closure agreement with the group (or the agreement that concludes the process) was signed on July 4, 2011 under the administration of President Benigno Aquino III.  The peace agreement with the Rebolusyonaryong Partido ng Manggagawa-Revolutionary Proletariat Army-Alex Boncayao Brigade (RPM-RPA-ABB), another break-away group of CPP-NPA, was signed on Dec. 6, 2000 under the administration of President Joseph Estrada.

The Tripoli Agreement between the Philippine Government, led by President Ferdinand Marcos, Sr. and the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) was signed in 1976, and the Final Peace Agreement, the closure pact with the same group, in 1996 under President Fidel Ramos. The Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB) between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) was signed in 2014, again under President Benigno Aquino III.

In peacekeeping, we have created several mechanisms, mostly under the umbrella of peace agreements, to manage and control the armed hostilities between state forces and armed rebel groups. The International Monitoring Team (IMT) led by military forces from Malaysia, Brunei, and Libya (joined later by Norway and Indonesia), was operationalized in October 2004. Working parallel with the IMT, the Coordinating Committee on the Cessation of Hostilities (CCCH) was created in 2016, and the Ad-Hoc Joint Action Group (AHJAG) in 2002. Both bodies are peopled by representatives of the Philippine government and the MILF. These three mechanisms were created to monitor the ceasefire between parties, and to manage the security, peace, and order of the communities affected by the armed hostilities between the state and non-state actors.

For both peacemaking and peace keeping, the main actors are state and non-state armed groups. The main agenda is to forge a political settlement and put an end to the armed hostilities, with the long-term goal of permanently removing the use of force and violence in politics. Peacebuilding, the third pillar of the peace process, is focused more on communities and key leaders.

Peacebuilding includes all the efforts of various groups — state and non-state actors — to create the conducive condition for peacemaking to move forward, and for peacekeeping to effectively manage the security situation. Peacebuilding is broader in scope and substance and targets the transformation of norms and values of people. And peacebuilding work requires time to build confidence and trust. Many small victories have been achieved because of the combined peacebuilding work, mostly under the radar efforts of various groups.

Some products of peacebuilding engagements are the following. In 2009, an armed group leader in Sulu decided to lay down his arms and help his community to improve its condition. He was able to convince the heads of families in his community to stop bringing out their firearms in public. A peace manifesto signing ceremony was held to show everyone in the community that they would abide by the agreement. In 2013, a commander in Lanao del Sur decided not to join the Zamboanga siege (fighting between government forces and MNLF forces) despite the prodding of his higher-ups in the organization; his group would voluntary turn-in their weapons two years later, in 2015, as a sign of commitment that they no longer wished to fight the government. The Cordillera People’s Liberation Front transformed itself into a civilian organization called the Cordillera Forum for Peace and Development (CFPD), totally shedding the “liberation army” nature of the group.

Indeed, the Philippines has achieved many milestones in the peace process. Many of the achievements are closely watched and even emulated in other settings with similar contexts. Despite the differences in politics, the thread that binds all the Philippine administrations is their unwavering commitment to the peace process. But there is still much more that needs to be done.

The way ahead is the question. Currently, the peace process is managed by the Office of the Presidential Adviser on Peace, Reconciliation, and Unity (OPAPRU), an office created by an Executive Order and which reports directly to the Office of the President. The office is meant to be a temporary creation and will cease to exist once all peace agreements are forged, all political commitments are delivered, all conflict-affected communities have improved their quality of life, and all ex-combatants have been re-civilianized. All these, obviously, are tall orders.

The peace process, to be deemed concluded, requires deep commitment from political leaders to carry on and sustain the gains of past administrations. It requires more resources to allow conflict-affected communities to catch-up with other communities in terms of development. It requires an effective strategy to secure the safety of ex-combatants against liquidation attempts by their former comrades for betraying the “revolution.” It requires a more nuanced approach to ensure that human rights are protected and promoted, especially in a highly politicized, ideologically fueled environment. It requires a delicate but deliberate approach to manage transitional justice, healing, and reconciliation of families and communities divided by armed conflict. It requires a comprehensive peace education program for the next generations — so that they learn from the past and avoid making the same mistakes again.

Instead of closing the peace process office in the future, the opposite is what is actually needed. We need to make the peace office a permanent fixture in the bureaucracy. We need a Department of Peace — a department that is created by legislation, with broader authority, resources, and mandate.

As we welcome the Peace Month, and as we celebrate the 20^th anniversary of Proclamation 675, s. 2004, we must collectively reflect — how can we strengthen our peace? In my view, creating the Department of Peace is the first step. It is an investment for the future, and it is our contribution and solidarity to international peace.

Jennifer S. Oreta is an associate professor of the Department of Political Science, and the director of the Ricardo Leong Institute for Global and Area Studies of the Ateneo de Manila University.

joreta@ateneo.edu