Rethinking autonomy in Mindanao Opinion by Lalay Ramos-Jimenez

[Lee]

WHEN Mindanaoans grow weary of the national government’s interference — especially in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM) — or when followers of Rodrigo Duterte accuse the administration of Ferdinand Marcos Jr. of kidnapping and sending the former president to the International Criminal Court, talk of secession resurfaces. Even young lawmaker Kiko Barzaga has reignited the debate on it on social media, urging Mindanao to break free from what he called a corrupt government.

Such sentiments, though emotional, reflect frustrations that have simmered for decades: the sense that Manila continues to make decisions for Mindanao without fully understanding its people or aspirations. Yet, behind the anger lies a crucial question: can Mindanao truly stand on its own?

The idea of an independent Mindanao is not new. Centuries before the Spaniards arrived, powerful sultanates like those in Maguindanao, Buayan and Sulu ruled vast territories with their own diplomacy and systems of justice. The American colonial period and the postwar Philippine state gradually integrated these regions under a centralized government in Manila. Yet, the memories of self-rule never disappeared.

The Moro independence movements of the 1970s and 1980s — later tempered by peace agreements and autonomy laws — were not only about religion or ethnicity but also about governance and dignity. When promises of autonomy remain unfulfilled or subject to political interference, calls for secession find new life.

Supporters of secession argue that Mindanao is rich enough to survive. It has fertile lands, minerals, energy and fisheries. Its young and diverse population is resilient and entrepreneurial. Freed from national corruption and bureaucracy, Mindanao could, they believe, chart its own path and invest directly in its people.

They also claim that political self-determination would end decades of marginalization. The BARMM’s self-rule is seen as too limited, its decisions still subject to Manila’s approval. A full-fledged republic, proponents argue, could reflect the island’s diversity — from the Moro and Lumad to Christian settlers — through a federal system that promotes shared leadership and equal representation.

But the dream collides with hard realities. The 1987 Constitution defines the Philippines as “an archipelagic state” whose territory is permanent and indivisible. There is no legal mechanism allowing any region or island to secede unilaterally. Even attempting it would provoke a constitutional crisis and is likely to meet strong resistance from the rest of the country.

Beyond legality, the economic and governance challenges are immense. Mindanao remains tied to national supply chains, trade and fiscal systems. It relies on infrastructure, education and energy investments that flow through national budgets. Internally, the region’s complex ethnic, religious and political divisions — from the Bangsamoro core to Christian-majority provinces — could complicate nation-building. Without strong and inclusive leadership, an independent Mindanao could risk replicating the same inequities it once sought to escape.

Rather than chasing secession, the more pragmatic struggle lies in deepening autonomy: making it meaningful, responsive and locally accountable. The Bangsamoro government, despite its challenges, represents decades of negotiations and sacrifice. Strengthening its institutions, rather than abandoning them, honors the region’s long quest for self-determination.

This tension has been most visible during the extended transition of the Bangsamoro government. The first regular parliamentary elections, initially set for 2022, have been postponed three times: first to May 2025, then to October 2025, and now to March 2026. Each delay has prolonged the transition and the president’s power to appoint members of the Bangsamoro Transition Authority. While the extensions were justified as necessary for stability, they have also blurred the line between autonomy and control. The longer the transition drags on, the more it risks reinforcing perceptions that the region’s fate remains tied to Malacañang’s will.

It is also important to note that autonomy in the Philippines is not uniform. While the BARMM operates under a special organic law born of peace agreements, the rest of Mindanao’s provinces and cities follow the Local Government Code of 1991. Their relationship with the central government is one of decentralization, not political autonomy. This uneven structure partly explains why secessionist sentiments emerge mainly from the Bangsamoro, where the historical narrative of sovereignty runs deepest.

Genuine autonomy means devolving more fiscal power, improving governance and ensuring that Manila respects local decisions. It means making development plans — whether in agriculture, education or energy — locally led and nationally supported. If the rest of Mindanao can secure a stronger voice in governance, the clamor for independence may naturally fade.

What makes the current talk of secession worrying is how easily it can be weaponized. Some politicians use it as leverage in their feuds with the central government, framing it as a protest against national control, even when it serves personal agendas. This risks turning a legitimate regional grievance into a political stunt.

The true Mindanao aspiration is not isolation, but recognition: that the South has its own wisdom, governance traditions and pace of development. Recognition that autonomy must go beyond token budgets and ceremonial titles.

Mindanao’s frustrations are real, but separation is not the best path toward dignity and progress. What the region needs is not a rupture from the republic, but a reimagining of autonomy — one that empowers communities, strengthens governance and ensures that priorities are shaped by those who live them daily. True autonomy means self-determination within solidarity, not isolation. If the central government can learn to trust Mindanao’s capacity to lead itself — and if Mindanao’s leaders can govern with integrity and unity — the long struggle for self-rule might finally fulfill its promise, without drawing new borders on the map.

 

Rethinking autonomy in Mindanao