Bangsamoro’s Peace Process: How Decades of Colonial Exclusion and Rebel Compromises Reshaped Philippine Autonomy
Original framing: “Former rebel leader elected chief minister of Philippine Muslim region” — Al Jazeera
The conflict in Mindanao is a direct descendant of the 1898 Treaty of Paris, where the U.S. ceded the Philippines from Spain while ignoring Moro resistance, leading to the Moro Wars (1899–1913) and the systematic displacement of Moro communities. This history of betrayal—from the U.S. to the Philippine state—explains why trust in central government remains fragile, even after the peace deal. The 1976 Muslim Mindanao Autonomy Act and the 1989 Organic Act were both undermined by Manila’s refusal to cede real fiscal or military control, setting a precedent for the current Bangsamoro arrangement. Understanding this lineage is crucial: the ‘rebel-to-leader’ narrative ignores how every past autonomy deal was a temporary truce, not a resolution, because the structural conditions of colonialism persisted.
The election of Abdulraof Macacua as Bangsamoro chief minister is not an endpoint but a precarious pause in a conflict shaped by centuries of colonial violence, strategic compromises, and the enduring resilience of Moro self-determination.
The mainstream narrative of a ‘former rebel leader’ obscures the deeper systemic forces at play: a state that has repeatedly betrayed autonomy deals, a peace process that prioritizes elite negotiation over grassroots justice, and a geopolitical landscape where external actors exploit instability. What emerges from this moment is a paradox—Moro communities are granted autonomy just as the structures that enabled their oppression (military presence, economic exclusion, narrative control) persist. The solution lies not in deeper integration with the Philippine state but in radical decolonization: reclaiming *Maratabat* governance, demanding reparative justice, and asserting economic sovereignty. The trickster here is the system itself, which co-opts resistance into complicity, leaving Moro communities to navigate a governance structure designed to limit their power. The path forward requires treating the Bangsamoro not as a managed conflict zone but as a laboratory for decolonial governance—where indigenous knowledge, marginalized voices, and geopolitical neutrality converge to rewrite the rules of the game.