HIDDEN AGENDA BEHIND BBL!

It’s getting  more and more obvious that there’s a hidden agenda behind the proposed Bangsamotro Basic Law )(BBL).

First, PNoy’s Government continues to SHAMELESSLY IGNORE the constitutionally provided independence of the Legislature (Senate and the House of Representatives) form the Executive Branch which he heads.  Not just by VIRTUALLY DICTATING to the Legislature with the June 11 deadline they had set outright for the measure’s passage but also by repeated calls to both chambers to do so as soon as possible. Second, they continue to INSIST on having the BBL UNREVISED OR UNTOUCHED as much as possible, even though the Constitution SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES that the Legislature has the SOLE POWER to come out with the FINAL VERSION of any proposed law.

Third: More and more groups are COMING OUT IN THE OPEN to publicly declare that they were NEVER CONSULTED by the PNoy Government n the drafting of the BBL. PNoy’s Government insists that everyone who will be affected or covered by the BBL had conferred with the peace pane. But they CANNOT BELIE the claims of those who had gone public with their rejection of the BBL like 85 Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) commanders, the Sultanate of Sulu, factions of the Moro National Liberation Front, the Zamboanga City Government and the Tausogs.  Some of the anti-BBL groups are armed and battle-hardened like the MNLF factions but the PNoy government STILL TOTALLY IGNORES THEM   Instead, PNoy and his boys move Heaven and Earth to pressure the Legislature to pass the BBL.

Fourth: Acknowledged authorities on the Constitution like Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago and retired Supreme Court justice Vicente Mendoza have come out with the illegalities or constitutional flaws in the BBL. Even the Davide panel formed by PNoy to review the BBL said it needs some revisions. Yet,  Malacanang would not listen to them or  look into their assessment. Instead, PNoy’s Government is practically ramming their version of the BBL down the throats of congressmen and senators.

There are other grounds. But consider this, guys. Think about this very, very seriously: When one INSISTS on having something which is LEGALLY QUESTIONABLE, to the point of TOTALLY DISREGARDING PROFESSIONAL COURTESY AND OPINION,  the motive is NOT NECESSARILY LEGAL, OR MORAL; 30