Transcript of Senator Mar Roxas' interview on ANC's Dateline
On the SC oral arguments on the GRP-MILF MoA:

Q: Is it still important for the SC to rule on the petition?

MAR: First of all, what is the government in fact saying? On one hand, the presidential spokesperson says there's cancellation. A few minutes later, they backtrack from that. Spokesperson Dureza says there'll be a review. Peace panel adviser Esperon says, 'No, the MoA is on.' So what exactly is the government saying? That's the first point? But here's the more important point, and this is why we are insisting that the Supreme Court rule on the constitutionality, on the legality of the MoA itself and of the contents thereof.

In negotiation, anything that is apparently or seemingly agreed upon becomes the baseline for all future talks. So even if this particular MoA is not 'consummated,' according to the government's terms, even if it is not formally signed, in all subsequent negotiations, the MILF will come back and say 'Here's our starting point, because your negotiators already agreed to this. In fact, they initialed it.' So that is the predicament that the Republic, that the government is in right now, and that is why we are insisting that the Supreme Court rule on the illegality, on the unconstitutionality of this, so that all future talks, so that all future negotiations, will already exclude all of these difficult and controversial provisions.

First, I am opposed to this MoA. It proceeds to the chopping up, to the partitioning of our country, and this we must never allow. Second, the effort to change the Constitution must be undertaken in a clear and transparent manner. We should not have backdoor, or behind-the-back efforts to change our Constitution. If the government in fact wants to change the Constitution for whatever reason, then they should be upfront and tell the people, 'this is what we want to do, this is why we think it's good for the country, and we are campaigning for it.' I think that we should not have any backdoor efforts to do this.

Q: Do your co-petitioners share the same stand?

MAR: In the beginning, all the petitions were separate, but we have since had coordination meetings as among the lawyers, and these have now been consolidated into singular answers to everything that the OSG has stood for, so that there will be a coherent and integrated answering to all of the points.

Q: What do you hope the final judgment will give?

MAR: I am particularly concerned in a final judgment by the Supreme Court that says that this MoA and the process by which it was undertaken, is illegal and unconstitutional. What I am concerned about are the political and international ramifications and consequences of having an initialed MoA sitting out there that even if this particular MoA is not continued or consummated, even if these negotiations evolve into a new set of negotiations, what I am concerned with is that the MILF will now have as a starting point an agreement, a MoA, that was initialed by this government that says Mindanao can now be partitioned, that says that they will have international rights to enter into treaties, that they in fact will have their own territory to control and sovereignty over this territory. That is what I am concerned, and that's why I want this nailed and buried so it can never rear its head again.

Q: What of the argument that the MoA is not final?

MAR: That is precisely why, it underscores that the Supreme Court has to rule on this, that it's clearly a situation of disparity, where the government can say 'A, bali wala ito, this is just in effect a consensus or talking points.' The MILF is already saying 'This is already a done deal. The rights or the privileges that are ensconced in this MoA have already accrued to them. Given that, it is imperative that the Supreme Court rule on this. Otherwise, future talks, future negotiations, the future of our people and our country, will now be subservient to an interpretation that is so very wrong, but that nonetheless will affect all future talks.

Q: The parts deemed unconstitutional can now be removed.

MAR: Absolutely. Then all future talks can now exclude all of those unconstitutional matters. In fact, if the government wants to undertake a whole new approach that is outside the Constitution, then it must first go to the people and say, 'We want you to mandate us by changing the Constitution, by changing the law to now engage in these whole new set of talks that are outside of the parameters that are set forth under present law. The government must be transparent.

People are dying. Hundreds of thousands of evacuees have to leave their homes. There is fear, there is stress, there is disquiet in all of Mindanao. This is a time for steadfastness. This is a time for transparency. And this is a time for very, very clear, unequivocal, straight talk from our government. Unfortunately, we're not getting that.

I think that autonomy is alright, it is provided for in our Constitution and our present law, but certainly, it is Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, not Luzon, Visayas and one-half of Mindanao. I will fight to preserve our republic and our country.