The views of the author do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, the Institute for Autonomy and Governance. This piece originally appeared on the author's Facebook. Follow Fr. Mercado on Twitter @junmeromi. 

Do we have an environment to fully debate and discuss the issues involved in the proposed BBL now in Congress for legislation?

Post Mamasapano tragedy, the real casualty is trust. Or some people say that behind that thin veneer of seeming trust is really a deep-seated fear and suspicion.

The whole nation is now passionately divided between pro and anti proposed BBL. Meanwhile, Congress, seemingly, has reached a consensus to legislate a BBL that is within the framework of the Constitution and consistent to existing national laws.

It is for this reason that when people speak about BBL, you really do not know what they are speaking about. Do they mean the proposed BBL to be enacted as is or with very little modifications or “any BBL will do” as Malacañang is quoted?

The BBL as is will no longer be possible before or after Mamasapano. Then and now, it is a consensus that any BBL should be in accordance with the Constitution and consistent to existing national laws. There are no ifs and buts, except for propaganda or slogan purposes. This is the cold and harsh fact. As former Supreme Court Associate Justice Vicente Mendoza says, if you want this BBL as proposed, there is only one thing that you need to do: change the Constitution.

The government's view, particularly PNoy and OPAPP, is that the proposed BBL can be enacted within the so called flexibility of the present Constitution. But this is far from reality. The leading constitutionalists and PHILCONSA say the contrary, and no leading constitutional lawyers defend the proposed BBL in all public hearings.

It is terribly wrong and also manipulative or even very simplistic reading to simply divide people into pro-peace or anti-peace depending on their positions on the BBL, and not knowing really what they refer to as "BBL", or whether they mean "any BBL would do".

The real issue is not BBL but what type or kind of BBL that Congress shall enact. No doubt that the BBL that Congress would enact is a constitutionally compliant BBL. Will this then be interpreted as diluted or watered down BBL? Would a BBL that is enacted within the framework of the Constitution and consistent with existing national laws be acceptable to MILF? It will be acceptable to the Philippine Government and it may be acceptable to the rest of the people, but would MILF go for it?

From the public discourse, the MILF would not accept any watered down BBL or a BBL that would not be consistent to the 2014 Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB). Unless this is also a slogan, then a BBL that is constitutionally compliant and is consistent with the existing national laws would mean rejection. However, if MILF would, like GPH, accept any BBL that would come out of Congress, then there would be no problem, except that the Bangsamoro struggle continues.

It is for this reason that another roadmap, perhaps, is a better option than the slogan “any BBL would do”. This roadmap consists of the following:

1. Since trust is the real driving force in any peace process, let the present administration in its remaining days and months work on rebuilding trust through open and democratic debates, study and discussion without labeling people as anti or pro.

2. Tie this discussion and study to the call for constitutional amendments through a Constitutional Convention. This administration through the joint resolution of Congress can call for CONCON and elect delegates simultaneously with the national elections in May 2016.

3. Hoping that the CONCON would give us federalism, hence pave the way for a Federal Republic of the Philippines by 2019 and a parliamentary form of government.

4. Then we can have a real BBL that is consistent with the CAB, and likewise a basic law for each component state of the Federal Republic. In this way, all of us together can work to put an end to “Imperial Manila”.

5. It may take a longer time but peace would, definitely, be more than the present slogan with no understanding that “any BBL would do."

6. Moreover, the present environment does not allow an objective debate and the surfacing of all fears and suspicions in order to address them before the actual enactment of a law. Legislation this time under this environment would be counter-productive and would only introduce more divisions not only among stakeholders but also within the MILF.

7. Let us all calm down first, rebuild the trust that was shattered and openly and democratically debate on the issues tied to Charter Change and let us first work on the Charter that would be the basis of our unity as we together work for real decentralization and devolution of powers and wealth sharing.

8. Beware of haste. Haste makes waste as the saying goes, and anything rammed into the throats of stakeholders would not last.

Last counsel: Beware of our own propaganda and cuidate when we believe our own propaganda!